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-relative24.8% –Other relative23.2% –Spouse/partner20.0% –Ex-partner/ex-spouse19.2% –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. 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.

51. What’s up with these drawings? Only 47.8% of the touches disclosed were accurate. 11.3% of children indicated they had received at least one genital touch. 25.5% of the children indicated they had received at least one touch to the breast –Is this an issue of children’s memory or how they were interviewed? There were no effects of socioeconomic status on the recall of touches.

52. What’s up with these drawings? EXPERIMENT TWO –46 children were invited to the Early Learning Project laboratory to participate The child and caregiver were greeted by a confederate: –established rapport with the child –asked them if he/she wanted to dress up in a fire service costume. While helping the child get dressed in this costume, each child was touched in the same manner as in Experiment 1. Each child was interviewed following one of three delays: –Immediately after interaction –24 hours after the event, –1 month after the event.

53. What’s up with these drawings? EXPERIMENT TWO –During this interview, an individual who was not present during the event asked the child to use a body map to show where he or she had been touched when he or she dressed in the fire service costume. –Again, lengthy instructions were provided: “I heard that last time you were here (a minute ago) ____ helped you put on a fire service costume. What I want you to do now is I want you to use this picture to show me where _____ touched you when she put the costume on. Point to where she touched you.”

54. What’s up with these drawings? Children indicated more correct touches when interviewed immediately after putting on the fire costume than when interviewed after a 24 hour or one month delay. –No significant difference in the amount of correct information recalled between the 24 hour & one month delay conditions.

55. What’s up with these drawings? Only 1 in 46 children reported being touched in all five locations. Again, a significant percentage of children reported touches of a sexual nature which did not occur. –7.1% indicated they received at least one genital touch –23.8% indicated they had received at least one touch to the breast.

56. How should we pursue this forensic interview? What is the difference seen between interviews where kids disclose or don’t disclose?

57. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 753-769.

58. Dynamics of interviews Purpose – what are the differences between forensic interviews where children do, or do not, disclose abuse? 50 forensic interviews of 4-13 year old suspected child abuse victims who did not disclose compared to 50 matched forensic interviews where children did make allegations of child abuse (sexual or physical abuse) but there was “compelling evidence”.

59. Dynamics of interviews Children who did not disclose gave more uninformative responses during rapport. During Developmental Assessment (Episodic Memory Training), the non-disclosers provided: –more uninformative responses (mainly omissions) –fewer informative responses During Abuse Scenario (Substantive Phase), interviewers: –asked more questions to non-disclosers than disclosers –used fewer supportive comments.

60. Dynamics of interviews Children in both groups provided more details in response to invitations rather than directive, multiple choice, or yes-no questions. Overall, children who received more support provided: –More information –Less uninformative responses Bottom line - children who are non-responsive and/or less informative during rapport building are less likely to disclose during the forensic interview –Reinforces the potential benefit for an extended Forensic Evaluation with this being the first session.

61. I hope they like our new CAC! Is this really better in the minds of our clients?

62. Jones, L.M., Cross, T.E., Walsh, W.A., & Simone, M. (2007). Do children’s advocacy centers improve families’ experiences of child sexual abuse investigations? Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1069-1085.

63. Is this working for you? Purpose - examine whether cases seen at the participating CACs were more likely to result in higher ratings of caregivers’ and children’s satisfaction with services than cases seen in the comparison communities which were not served by CACs. 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).

64. Is this working for you? 284 sexual abuse cases (229 from the CAC cases and 55 comparison cases): –Child’s mother being the respondent in a majority of the cases - 79% –Alleged victim was at least 8 years old 120 of these children also participated in a follow-up interview regarding their satisfaction with the case processes (90 from the CAC cases and 30 from the comparison cases).

65. Is this working for you? Caregivers whose children were seen at the CAC reported higher rates of satisfaction than caregivers whose children were seen at the comparison sites The largest percentage of caregivers felt the investigation did not change how troubled their child was (43%): –Remainder split between feeling the investigation decreased or increased how troubled their child was Overall, caregivers of Caucasian children expressed significantly lower satisfaction scores than others.

66. Is this working for you? There was increased Investigator Response satisfaction scores when the following occurred: –Substantiated finding by CPS –Criminal charges being filed –Investigator believing that the abuse occurred Caregiver satisfaction ratings on the Investigator Response subscale were significantly lower when children exhibited higher rates of depression and anxiety. Caregivers from the CAC samples were significantly more satisfied with the interview experience than caregivers from the comparison samples

67. Is this working for you? Most children expressed moderate to high satisfaction with the investigation, but: –20% felt “very scared” during the forensic interview –11% did not think the investigators understood children very well –19% did not think the investigators explained what was happening very well –33% thought they had to explain things to the investigator too many times –Significantly more children from the CAC sample described themselves as being “not at all” or “not very” scared versus kids from the comparison communities

68. What’s going to happen now? Can we predict when recantation may occur?

69. Malloy, L.C. Lyon, T.D. & Quas, J.A. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(2), 162-170.

70. Recantation in Families Purpose - to develop an increased understanding of dynamics associated with recantation in child sexual abuse allegations. 257 non-offending caregivers who were involved in substantiated child sexual abuse cases resulting in a dependency court filing. –90.9% of the NOC’s were the biological mother –89.9% of the involved children were female

71. Recantation in Families Non-offending caregivers were identified as non-supportive if they met at least one of the following criteria: –Initially expressed disbelief/skepticism about allegations –Exerted direct verbal pressure on the child to recant –Blamed the child for the abuse –Remained in close relationship with perpetrator after CSA discovery (e.g. the perpetrator continued to live with the NOC) –Otherwise behaved in a non-supportive manner (e.g. forced the child to leave home)

72. Recantation in Families Perpetrator relationship to child: –Parent figures (e.g. biological parent, step-parent, legal guardian, or NOC’s paramour) - 70.9% –Non-parental figures (including relatives) – 16.4% –Neighbors/friends – 6.8% –Others – 6.0% Perpetrator living arrangements at the time of the abuse: –In home – 77% –Out of home – 23%

73. Recantation in Families 58% of the Non-offending caregivers were identified as non-supportive Children were placed in foster care after the substantiation of abuse - 58.4% Children’s recantation rate: –All recantations – 23.1% of cases –Recantations to authorities – 19.5% of cases –Children re-affirmed at least part of allegation in 48.3% of the cases where recantation had occurred

74. Recantation in Families Factors predicting recantation were: –Non-offending caregiver non-supportiveness –Younger child victims –Abuse by a parent-figure There was a negative correlation between removal from the home and recantation: –Children who remained in the home were slightly (but not-significantly) more likely to recant.

75. Recantation in Families There were other types of substantiated maltreatment in 65.8% of the cases –Physical Abuse – 46.5% –Exposure to domestic violence – 32.4% –Caregiver substance abuse – 28.9% –Suggests that parents with multiple traumas/problems and/or substance abuse issues are less amenable to interventions to help them be supportive

76. Medical Exam – Here we come… What are the results between findings in urgent medical exams vs. non-urgent medical exams?

77. Palusci, V.J., Cox, E.O., Shatz, E.M., & Schultze, J.M. (2006). Urgent medical assessment after child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 367- 380.

78. Medical exams The purpose of this study was to determine whether young children (under 13) seen for urgent medical exams differ from those seen non-urgently regarding: –Disclosure rates –Positive physical findings –Sexually Transmitted Infections –Forensic medical evidence 776 children under age 18 were referred to a CAC for medical exams for suspected sexual abuse during a 5 year period –190 children seen for urgent medical exams –586 children for non-urgent exams.

79. Medical exams Rate of Abuse Disclosure: –Urgent Exam – 86.3% –Non-urgent Exam – 65.6% Gender of Perpetrator was male: –Urgent Exam – 98.3% –Non-urgent Exam – 95.0% Perpetrator older than 15 years old: –Urgent Exam – 55.3% –Non-urgent Exam – 40.8%

80. Urgent medical exams Familial perpetrator: –Urgent Exam – 41.3% –Non-urgent Exam – 37.4% Positive medical examination findings: –Urgent Exam – 13.2% –Non-urgent Exam – 3.8% In urgent cases, the following rates were seen: –STD identified – 4.8% –Positive body swabs – 6.5% –Positive clothing forensics – 12.5% –Positive forensic medical evidence – 9.0%

81. We might find some evidence. Who really gets an exam? Does having a CAC help?

82. Walsh, W.A., Cross, T.P., Jones, L.M., Simone, M., & Kolko, D.J. (2007). Which sexual abuse victims receive a forensic medical examination? The impact of Children’s Advocacy Centers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1053-1068.

83. Medical Exam, or not? Purpose - assess whether CACs influence the delivery and timing of forensic medical exams, who receives these exams, and the satisfaction of caregivers with these exams. Subjects - 1,220 sexual abuse cases –Additionally, a subset of 143 caregivers were interviewed regarding their satisfaction with forensic medical services. 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).

84. Medical Exam, or not? Children who were most likely to receive a medical exam: –Younger children –Those with suspected penetration –Those who were physically hurt or injured while being abused –Those with supportive non-offending caregivers Received forensic medical exam: –CAC cases – 48% –Non-CAC cases – 21%

85. Medical Exam, or not? No penetration in abuse disclosure: –These children seen at CACs were 4 times more likely to receive forensic medical exam versus children in the comparison sample. Penetration in abuse disclosure: –These children seen at CACs were 1.5 times more likely to receive forensic medical exam versus children in the comparison sample.

86. Should we have a CAC/MDT? Does it really help process these cases?

87. Walsh, W.A., Lippert, T., Cross, T.E., Maurice, D.M., & Davison, K.S. (2008). How long to prosecute child sexual abuse for a community using a children’s advocacy center and two comparison communities? Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 3-13.

88. Prosecution timelines Purpose – –Examine the length of time between key events in the criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse –Compare the processing time for child sexual abuse cases to standards suggested for felony cases –Explore what case characteristics are associated with timely case resolution in child sexual abuse cases –Compare prosecution rates and outcomes in communities with a CAC vs. without a CAC Subjects: –160 child sexual abuse cases which were referred for prosecution and whose case was resolved during the study period were included.

89. Prosecution timelines Recommendations – In 1992, the American Bar Association proposed that: – 90% of felony cases be completed within 120 days of arrest, –99% of felony cases be completed within 180 days of arrest, –100% of felony cases be completed within 1 year of arrest. –90% of misdemeanor cases be completed within 30 days of arrest, –100% of misdemeanors be completed within 90 days of arrest. These case processing standards have been adopted by 39 states.

90. Prosecution timelines Charging decision in child sexual abuse cases: –Cases seen at the CAC had a significantly faster charging decision: CAC – 80% within 1-60 days Comparison A – 49% within 1-60 days Comparison B – 58% within 1-60 days Case Resolution Time –20% were resolved within 180 days –30% took more than two years after indictment or were still pending

91. Prosecution timelines There were no significant differences in cases pending versus cases resolved except for the charges filed –Pending cases were less likely to have an aggravated sexual assault charge –Pending cases were more likely to have a Indecency with a Child charge This suggests that more serious cases appear to be resolved more quickly

92. Prosecution timelines Total Case Processing Time: –Less than one year - 36% –Between 1-2 years – 29% –More than 2 years (or still pending) – 36% Only 36% of all cases were resolved within the ABA guidelines described earlier

93. Miller, A. & Rubin, D. (2009). The contribution of children’s advocacy centers to felony prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 12-18.

94. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution rates The purpose of this study was to describe trends in felony CSA prosecutions across two neighboring districts in a large urban city when one district experienced significant increase in CAC participation in CSA cases compared to the neighboring district whose use of the CAC did not change substantially. Data was obtained from the CACs, DA’s offices, and CPS in two adjoining districts of a large urban city (1992-2002)

95. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution rates Child Protective Services Findings: –Children with substantiated sexual abuse cases between 1994-2002: District 1 – 2,617 District 2 – 2,320 –Decrease in the number of CPS substantiated cases of sexual abuse during this time: District 1 – 59% District 2 – 49%

96. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution rates Child Advocacy Center Findings: –Number of children evaluated by CACs for possible sexual abuse (1992 vs. 2002): District 1 – 295% increase District 2 – 125% increase

97. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution rates District Attorney’s Offices Findings: –Total number of felony prosecutions of child sexual abuse (1992 vs. 2002): District 1 – 194 to 382 (196% increase) District 2 – 112 to 111 (1% decrease) –When controlled for rates per 100,000 children: District 1 – 56.6 to 93.0 (164% increase) District 2 – 58.0 to 54.9 (5% decrease)

98. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution rates District Attorney’s Offices Findings: –The prosecution rate was similar in both districts in 1992, but 69% higher in District 1 by 2002. –Despite increased prosecutions, the conviction rate did not change significantly between the districts over this time period.

99. NCAC Child Abuse Online Library (CALiO) What? –600+ online journals –Searchable databases –Child abuse and demographic statistics –Professional bibliographies –Grant writing resources Who? –ANYONE! –All accredited and associate CACs of the National Children’s Alliance (NCA) have restricted access How much? –FREE!

100. JOURNALS : CORE COLLECTION Aggressive Behavior Annual Review of Sex Research Child Abuse & Neglect Child Abuse Review Child Development Child Maltreatment Child Welfare Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review The Future of Children Issues in Child Abuse Accusations Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology

101. JOURNALS : CORE COLLECTION (cont.) Journal of Family Violence Journal of Interpersonal Violence Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling Journal of Sexual Aggression Journal of Social Work Practice Journal of Traumatic Stress Legal & Criminological Psychology Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research & Treatment Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity Social Work Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

102. Chris Newlin, MS LPC National Children’s Advocacy Center (256)-327-3785 cnewlin@nationalcac.org cnewlin@nationalcac.org