Recent Research Affecting Child Abuse Investigations and Prosecutions

1. Recent Research Affecting Child Abuse Investigations and Prosecutions

2. Welcome to the MDT, now get to work! How do we orient new members of the MDT?

3. Jones, L.M., Cross, T.P., Walsh, W.A., and Simone, M. (2005). Criminal investigations of child abuse – the research behind “best practices”. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6(3), 254-268.

4. Investigation “Best Practices” • Review of research around the seven investigatory practices deemed as most progressive • Excellent overview for all professionals beginning to work in child abuse field • Format for remainder of this presentation

5. Investigation “Best Practices” • Multidisciplinary Team investigations • Trained child forensic interviews • Videotaped interviews • Specialized forensic medical examiners • Victim advocacy and support programs • Access to mental health treatment • Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs)

6. If kids tell, do the professionals tell? What predicts the reporting by mandated reporters?

7. VanBergeijk, E.O. (2007). Mandated reporting among school personnel: Differences between professionals who reported a suspected case and those who did not. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, Vol. 15(2), 21-36.

8. Mandated Reporting?? • There are three primary concerns which influence whether a professional suspects whether abuse has occurred and whether a child abuse report is then made: • Legal concerns – laws within the each state • Situational concerns – type of abuse (sexual abuse is most likely to be reported), age of the involved child (reports more likely for younger children), race of the child (Asian children least likely to be reported), family stability • Reporter characteristics – training, job experience, personal experiences and beliefs

9. Mandated Reporting?? • The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the experiences of New York City public school designated reporters who did not report the last case of maltreatment they suspected versus those who did in order to better understand the reporting process. • Subjects - 500 NYC public schools were randomly selected to participate. At all of these schools, a total of mandated reporters responded to the survey inquiry, and 298 completed the surveys and were included in the analysis.

10. Mandated Reporting?? • An 81 item survey was developed to investigate: • Attitudes (toward reporting, corporal punishment, family privacy) • Characteristics of the last child suspected of child abuse • Characteristics of the last child reported as a suspected child abuse victim • Characteristics of the reporting situation • Characteristics of the school • Perceptions of CPS • Demographic information

11. Mandated Reporting?? • Respondents • Gender: • Female – 75% • Male – 25% • Professional Role • Guidance counselor – 66.0% • Social workers – 11.3% • Principals – 8.6% • Assistant principals – 6.2% • School psychologists – 2.7% • Classroom teachers – 1.0% • School nurses – 0.3% • Other – 3.7%

12. Mandated Reporting?? • Respondents workplace: • Elementary school – 54.9% • Middle/junior high school – 25.9% • High school – 19.2% • As a group, these professionals had: • Suspected child abuse 91.9 times in their careers • Reported child abuse 59.0 times • Most common reason for not reporting – personal barriers and school-related obstacles • 91% of the school personnel had reported the last case when they had suspected child abuse

13. Mandated Reporting?? • Factors significantly different between cases where abuse was suspected and reported, and those where abuse was suspected but not reported: • Reporter’s perception as to the severity of maltreatment • Reporter’s confidence that maltreatment had occurred • As confidence increased, so did rate of reporting • High scores on the Reported Obstacle Index • Each one identified decreased likelihood of reporting by 19% • Professional affiliation • School psychologists were least likely to report • Strongest predictor for reporting – reporter’s level of confidence as to whether abuse had occurred

14. How was I supposed to know? What do parents really know about what might suggest sexual abuse?

15. Pullins, L.G. & Jones, J.D. (2006). Parental knowledge of child sexual abuse symptoms. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 15(4), 1-18.

16. Whatdaya know? • The purpose of this study was to assess parental knowledge of child sexual abuse symptoms in order to identify parents who would most benefit from child sexual abuse education. • 150 parents were recruited from a University-affiliated pediatric clinic waiting room - mostly women (87%).

17. Whatdaya know? • Parents completed: • Hollingshead Index of Social Status • Determine socioeconomic status • Questionnaire asking them to: • List symptoms which would cause you to suspect that a child has been sexually abused in four symptom categories,

18. Whatdaya know? • Not all parents could identify at least one symptom in each of the four categories. • Specific sexual behaviors/knowledge – 74% • Emotional symptoms – 75% • Physical or medical symptoms – 85% • Behavior toward peers or adults – 91%

19. Whatdaya know? • Most commonly expected symptoms of child sexual abuse listed by adults: • Specific sexual behaviors or knowledge • Verbalizations about sex – 29% • Non-interactive sexual behavior – 24% • Emotional symptoms • Depression – 47% • Anger – 25%

20. Whatdaya know? • Most commonly expected symptoms of child sexual abuse listed by adults (cont.): • Physical or medical symptoms • Injuries, not specified with genitals – 42% • Injuries to external genitals – 42% • Behavior toward peers or adults • Fear of/avoidance/withdrawal from others – 86%

21. Whatdaya know? • There was a significant correlation between SES and the number of CSA symptoms identified: • Suggests that more dedicated efforts are needed with individuals from lower SES. • Parents are more likely to identify: • Emotional and Behavioral symptoms than Physical or Sexual symptoms.

22. Mommy is under the microscope. What do we know about mother’s perceptions of child sexual abuse?

23. Plummer, C.A. (2006). The discovery process: What mothers see and do in gaining awareness of the sexual abuse of children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 1227-1237.

24. What do moms see and do? • 125 mothers whose children were sexually abused completed surveys. • The alleged perpetrator in these cases was: • Known non-relative 24.8% • Other relative 23.2% • Spouse/partner 20.0% • Ex-partner/ex-spouse 19.2% • Another child of mother 9.6% • Stranger 3.0%

25. What do moms see and do? • Initial source of mother learning about child’s sexual abuse: • Child disclosed to mother – 41.6% • Child’s behavior – 15.2% • Professional told me – 15.2% • Someone else told me – 12.8% • Witness to abuse – 5.6% • A hunch – 4.0% • Doctor’s examination – 3.2% • Abuser told me – 1.6% • Other – 0.8%

26. What do moms see and do? • Before learning of abuse, 49% of mothers had a feeling that something “wasn’t quite right”. • These mothers responded by: • Talked with child – 66.7% • Watched “things” closely – 46.7% • Sought more information – 37.1% • Confronted suspect – 35.2% • Talked with relatives – 30.1% • Talked with friends – 27.6% • Avoided contact with suspect – 20.0%

27. What do moms see and do? • Leading factors decreasing doubt about whether abuse had occurred: • Disclosure of child – 73.6% • Behavior of child – 66.4% • Child’s emotions – 60.0% • Therapist’s opinion – 36.8% • 37.6% of the mothers never doubted their child’s disclosure.

28. What do moms see and do? • For those who did have doubts, the leading factors increasing doubt about whether abuse had occurred: • I would/should have known – 41% • Abuser denied allegation – 33.3% • What I know of abuser – 32.0% • Child’s story changed – 22.2% • Family didn’t believe – 19.2% • It is our role to educate NOCs about child abuse dynamics

29. Is it all or nothing with non-offending mothers? Is there hope for mothers who are not immediately supportive?

30. Bolen, R.M. & Lamb, J.L. (2007). Can nonoffending mothers of sexually abused children be both ambivalent and supportive? Child Maltreatment, 12, 191-197.

31. Ambivalence and Support? • The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship and interaction between parental support and ambivalence in mothers whose children were sexually abused. • Ambivalence and support – related or not? • Another context for support vs. ambivalence: • Parents of teenagers – may express overwhelming love and support for these creatures, BUT also may feel ambivalent (when is he/she going to leave the house?)

32. Ambivalence and Support? • Subjects - 29 non-offending others whose children were allegedly sexually abused by the mother’s resident partner (husband, stepfathers, boyfriends, etc.) participated in this study. These mothers reported: • 86% stated their pre-disclosure relationship with their child was good or excellent • 24% stated their relationship with the alleged perpetrator was good or excellent • 66% stated their partner at some time in the past had physically abused them

33. Ambivalence and Support? • The following instruments were administered to the mothers: • Ambivalence – self-created instrument evaluating cognitive, affective, and behavioral ambivalence • Parental Support – Needs-Based Assessment of Parental Support (NAPS-C) • Attachment security and type – The Relationship Scale Questionnaire • Distress – SCL-90-R • Pre-disclosure stressors – Parenting Stress Inventory (PSI) • Post-disclosure stressors – self-created survey

34. Ambivalence and Support? • Major Findings: • Most important finding – Maternal support and ambivalence were unrelated • Suggests that nonoffending parents can be both ambivalent and supportive after disclosure of their child’s sexual abuse • Maternal Support was unrelated to ambivalence • Greater security in attachment related to: • More pre-disclosure stressors and greater maternal support • Less ambivalence

35. Ambivalence and Support? • Major Findings: • Pre-disclosure stressors were related to decreased maternal support • Post-disclosure stressors were related to greater maternal support and distress

36. We just need to talk to the kid. Does using the CAC really help?

37. Cross, T.P., Jones, L.M., Walsh, W.A., Simone, M., & Kolko, D.J. (2007). Child forensic interviewing in children’s advocacy centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1031-1052.

38. Forensic Interviews worth it? • Purpose - examine whether: • CAC cases have more MDT collaboration regarding forensic interviews than comparison samples, • CAC cases have fewer forensic interviews and interviewers than comparison samples, • Part of the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers involving the CACs in four communities and comparison communities without CAC services (Dallas, TX; Charleston, SC; Huntsville, AL; and Pittsburgh, PA).

39. Forensic Interviews worth it? • A forensic interview was defined as: • “a professional interview designed to assess or evaluate the truth about a suspicion of child maltreatment”. • “Subjects” - 1,069 sexual abuse cases in which forensic interviews were conducted and seen at the research sites • Both CACs and comparison communities • Cases between December 2001 and 2003

40. Forensic Interviews worth it? • No significant differences between the CAC and comparison communities regarding the number of forensic interviews conducted. • CAC communities demonstrated significantly higher rates of coordinated investigations between law enforcement/CPS • CAC – 81% • Comparison – 52%

41. Forensic Interviews worth it? • Coordinated Interviews/Investigations: • Team forensic interviews: • CAC – 28% • Comparison – 6% • Case Review: • CAC – 56% • Comparison – 7% • Video/Audio tape of forensic interview: • CAC – 52% • Comparison – 17%

42. Forensic Interviews worth it? • 83% of the forensic interviews in the CAC communities were conducted at the CAC – other interview settings: • Medical facility – 6% • School – 5% • Home – 4% • Alternatively, in the comparison communities, the most common location of forensic interviews were: • CPS Offices – 22% • Police Station – 18% • School – 19% • Home – 16%

43. What is the value of those pictures? What type of drawing should we use? How should we introduce them?

44. Willcock, E., Morgan, K., & Hayne, H. (2007). Body maps do not facilitate children’s report of touch. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 607-615.

45. What’s up with these drawings? • Purpose - further assess the effect of human figure drawings on the content and accuracy of children’s reports. • EXPERIMENT ONE • 125 children were visited at school by a research assistant: • Invited them to visit the Fire Station • Helped each child dress in a toy fireman’s hat and yellow top that had the words “Fire Service” at school • Touched each child on various parts of their body, but no touching of private parts occurred. • Children were turned around three times to “turn you into a fire fighter” (Introduced fantasy).

46. What’s up with these drawings? • EXPERIMENT ONE • Children traveled with this research assistant on a double decker bus to the Fire Station where a real fireman: • Talked to them about the work of firemen. • When they returned to school, each child was given a cardboard medal (hung around their neck) by a female researcher for being good. • Children were interviewed one month later by a female researcher

47. What’s up with these drawings? • Interview: • Showed them a medal like the one they received after returning to school from the fire station • Each child was asked to use a human figure drawing (clothed) to show the location of where he or she had been touched during the visit by the person who dressed them in the fireman hat:

48. What’s up with these drawings?

49. What’s up with these drawings? • Children who recalled putting on a costume during the fire station visit to their school were given the following instruction: • “You have already told me that you had to put on a costume when you visited the fire station. I heard that ___ helped you put on the costume. What I want you to do now is to use this picture to show me where _____ touched you when he put the costume on. Point to where he touched you.” • Problems: • Very wordy for young children • Misleading – the touching occurred at school with the male researcher, not at the fire station

50. What’s up with these drawings? • Ten children (8% of the sample) were not included in the analysis because they said they had not been touched during the fire station event. • Amazing – 8% denied a non-traumatic touch which is known to occur. • Child disclosures were only 37.6% complete: • Only 4 out of 115 children reported being touched in all five locations.