skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 221232 Find in a Library
Title: Child Forensic Interviewing in Children's Advocacy Centers: Empirical Data on a Practice Model
Journal: Child Abuse & Neglect  Volume:31  Issue:10  Dated:October 2007  Pages:1031-1052
Author(s): Theodore P. Cross; Lisa M. Jones; Wendy A. Walsh; Monique Simone; David Kolko
Date Published: October 2007
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 1999-JP-FX-1101;01-JN-FX-0009;2002-J W-BX-0002
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The study presents an evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers’ (CACs) implementation of improved child forensic interviewing methods.
Abstract: The results suggest that CACs had a noticeable impact on investigations and forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases. No one CAC model of forensic interviewing exists. Communities adapt to their particular structure, history, context, and goals. Some comparison communities used joint investigations and case review at levels that rivaled or exceeded that of the CACs with which they were paired; child abuse professionals and the public should consider this system in each community. Team interview, videotaping of interviews, joint Child Protective Services (CPS)-police investigations, and police involvement in CPS sexual abuse cases were all more common in CAC cases. CACs appeared to offer a more thorough and child-orientated response to child sexual abuse reports, with families reporting a more positive experience on average. The specific method of coordination varied by CAC, and some comparison communities used coordination methods as often as, or more frequently than their corresponding CACs. The advantages pertained to coordination, and not number of interviews. Individual CACs should examine their program and alter their strengths to emphasize the coordination and deemphasize the number of interviews. The fact that a large majority of CAC interviews were conducted at a CAC facility, whereas larger portions of comparison interviews took place in CPS offices, police agencies, schools, and homes suggests that CACs are more likely to provide child-friendly locations. Duplicative interviewing was rare in both CAC and comparison communities, and there were significant differences between CAC and comparison communities in only two sites (one favoring the comparison community). Research must expand knowledge about best practice, make it available to all victims, and deal with system and resource issues that impede progress. Case file data were collected on a sample of 1,452 cases, primarily involving allegations of sexual and physical abuse. Tables, references
Main Term(s): Child abuse investigations; Child protection services
Index Term(s): Child Sexual Abuse; Child victim interviews; Child victims; Medical evaluation; OJJDP grant-related documents; Police role in criminal investigations
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=243094

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.