Two victims were blackmailed with threats of showing parents if they did not send more sexual photos, and this emphasized their lack of control to these victims. Blackmail might be considered atypical of normal peer interactions online and thus could be a warning sign for grooming. However, young people need to be provided with information about where to seek help if they have reached the point where they are being blackmailed.

"Because you know you'd done it once or twice they just expect it all the time and then if you try and say like oh I don't want to talk about that or whatever, he'd like threaten or black(mail), like I'll send your Dad all the chat logs if you don't." [Chloe, 12].

#### *3.8. Grooming Others*

On several occasions, victims' friends were also in contact with the abusers, either when with the victim or as a means of the offender getting in contact with the victim if they were not responding. At points, the victims were warned to be careful by a friend, but more typically, the friend found the relationship exciting, as they too had been groomed. In the one case where the parents did know their daughter was talking to the abuser, they too were regularly speaking on the phone with him and were manipulated by him. This contact with family and friends led the victim to feel increasing familiarity with the abuser and misplaced trust. The two male victims knew their abuser offline, and the families knew and liked this man offline. In the case of Jonathan, his mother trusted the offender to the extent that he regularly babysat for Jonathan and his brother, including an overnight stay on one occasion.

"They knew that we were talking to each other and like he was sending me messages saying like I love you and stuff like that.  [Joanne, 14].

"I knew he was a [person in authoritative role] and I knew him as like well kind of a friend I suppose, cos I know he looked after me a few times when my Mum was working." [Jonathan, 13].

All of these grooming techniques and subsequent effects on the victims (see Figure 1) increased the chances of the victims becoming enmeshed in the relationship. All female victims in this study implied they were "hooked" on their offenders, for some this even transferred to after the arrest when they still believed it had been a relationship. Such victim beliefs gave the abusers increased control over the relationship and the young person. In contrast, the male victims were subject to fewer grooming techniques or often to a lesser extent, thus neither felt enmeshed; in particular one of the males appeared relatively uninterested in the relationship.

"We were like puppets, once we were under his control, anything he said would make me, would make me do it." [Shelley, 13].

"Once they've got you in that certain position they want ya, they can do anything with you because you didn't know that you loved them and you'd do anything for them." [Jenna, 12].

**Figure 1.** Summary of non-linear grooming techniques and effect on victim.

#### **4. Discussion**

The results of this study illustrate the range of experiences of victims of online grooming and highlight that grooming within this sample was not a linear or homogeneous process; offenders did not move through the phases of grooming in any particular order. Instead, it may be cyclical by nature and groomers may adopt, relapse and re-adopt various manipulation strategies as necessary. Despite the heterogeneity of victim experiences, the themes above highlight commonalities in the way that the adolescent victims in this study were groomed and these techniques often had similar effects on the victims. Given the age group of victims within this sample and the potential for offenders to tailor their grooming style to fit what they know of the victims; the results are discussed in the context of grooming adolescents (rather than children).

This study cannot make inferences about the prevalence of online grooming, but while recent US research suggests that online sexual solicitations are in fact decreasing [26] and most forms of harassment online actually come from peers [27], the current study highlights that online grooming by adults remains an issue requiring greater understanding. Existing literature recognizes grooming others can be a phase within the grooming process [7,20,28], and this is apparent through many of the victims' experiences within this study. This study suggests that any phase within grooming (e.g., sexualisation) can occur extremely quickly and is likely to vary. This finding is consistent with existing literature which recognizes variation in grooming periods [29]. Furthermore, the fact less than half of the victims in this study met with their offenders offline, is supportive of the notion that not all offenders are contact driven [1].

The most commonly utilized online grooming strategies experienced by the victims in this sample were manipulation through conversation, deception, regular/intense contact, secrecy, sexualisation, kindness and flattery, erratic temperament and nastiness, and grooming others. These grooming techniques are similar to those identified by previous research from both an offender perspective [17,18] and a victim perspective [16], although the use of deception was more prevalent within this study than previous [30]. Interestingly, this grooming process and techniques within it are similar to those identified as being used by offenders' offline [7,15]. This study therefore provides support for the notion that grooming behaviour remains constant, irrespective of the environment and that child sexual offenders utilize technology both to facilitate access to victims and facilitate the abuse.

However, one key element of the current research is that different manipulation techniques are utilized by different offenders (sometimes differing by victim) and that, although regularly sharing similar themes, the process of grooming is a unique experience to each victim. Notably, however, the experiences described by the victims in this study appear to be consistent with (but also go beyond) the themes of rapport building and sexual content, as outlined by Williams and colleagues [20]. Furthermore, the findings correlate with the theme of "caught in a web", as identified by Quayle *et al*. [23], which includes: seeming like a normal relationship, telling lies, being groomed, losing control and betrayal. The current research found that victims experienced these phases in different ways and at different points within the grooming process.

The grooming techniques endorsed by the abusers in this study generated a range of immediate positive and negative effects on the adolescent victims. The victims commonly felt immediate positive effects of the grooming such as trust, love, attention, support, excitement and confidence boosting; these tended to enmesh the victim and establish the abusers hold over them. In some cases, the grooming techniques gradually evoked more overtly negative effects on the victim such as fear, confusion, lack of control, and distancing from family. The victims who were already enmeshed with the abusers endured this and continued contact, despite experiencing more overtly nasty grooming strategies. These victims were focusing on maintaining the relationship and seeking to regain the positive effects of it. Notably, the two males in this study did not report any nastiness or erratic temperament by the abuser. It is likely that the abuser was aware the boys were not yet enmeshed in the relationship and therefore such grooming techniques would not have been tolerated at this stage. Using grooming techniques which evoked overtly negative effects on victims who were not enmeshed in the relationship could result in the loss of the relationship entirely. This finding contributes to knowledge of grooming as it indicates there is likely to be a 'tipping point' at which the offender knows the victim is enmeshed.

#### *4.1. Implications of This Research*

The heterogeneous nature of grooming as reported by this study is a challenge for preventative strategy; however this study generates important implications for prevention. Sexualisation was a key theme within this study, evoking a range of complicated and often contradictory feelings for the victims. The internet gives young people new ways to explore their sexuality and adolescents are known to behave sexually online [31]; thus the findings from this study must be viewed within the context of sexual behaviour between peers. For some young people, however, even relationships with adults who clearly state their sexual intentions can be perceived as a romantic relationship. Some of the young people in this sample believed they were in a relationship with the offender, therefore education messages which distinguish age appropriate relationships from inappropriate sexual relationships could contribute to prevention.

Consistent educational awareness-raising is required to highlight the uncertainty about with whom you are speaking online, as well as the permanent nature and digital footprint of everything posted online (whether via text, apps, photos or images). This will help young people to make more informed decisions about how they interact online and consider the potential consequences more fully. Empowering young people to risk-assess relationships and recognize potentially abusive elements, will enable them to seek help at an earlier stage.

However, it cannot be overlooked that many of the grooming techniques identified and subsequent effects on the victims are typical of adolescent friendship/relationship development. Parallels between grooming behaviour and typical adolescent relationship forming online are problematic for preventative education, as warning signs of grooming may be discreet or in some cases, virtually non-existent. Despite this, some of the themes identified by the analysis in this study are likely to be indicative of the subtle signs of grooming. In particular, intense contact, nastiness and erratic temperament, encouraged secrecy, disproportionate focus on the young person's life during conversation and sexual elements (especially when instigated, persisted and controlled by another) should be considered warning signs, most notably when a combination of these factors are experienced. Educating young people about these indicators will contribute to protection. Furthermore, extending sex education to incorporate sexuality online and the inherent risks could further equip young people with the knowledge to assist them in protecting themselves.

A small number of victims discussed that, with hindsight, some of the offenders' lies did not make sense; therefore teaching young people to objectively evaluate online friendships and relationships, regardless of emotional attachment may help them to identify risks which would be otherwise overlooked. If the victims had had a better understanding of the intricacies of online grooming techniques, how quickly it can progress and the consequences, there is a greater possibility they would have been suspicious and better equipped to resist the abusers. Young people learning directly from the experiences of young victims could assist them in understanding these subtleties and being able to recognize the warning signs among their peers. On the occasions when the victims in this sample did feel worried about the relationship (e.g., when Chloe was being blackmailed to send more photos), they were not equipped with the knowledge of how to stop the cycle. Educating young people about how to report concerns about online relationships, at any stage, is imperative.

Within this sample, other than a few concerns regarding specific issues, most victims felt largely unconcerned by their relationship with the offenders, and on occasion this lack of concern extended beyond the point of sexual abuse. Despite current research suggesting that disclosure rates are increasing [27], all cases of grooming in this study only ended due to someone reporting on behalf of the victims or the offender getting caught as part of a wider police investigation. This lack of victim suspicion is likely to be associated with the parallels between the offenders' grooming techniques and typical adolescent peer relationships, but also demonstrates the extent to which victims had been groomed. Similarly, two out of eight victims experiencing blackmail is a relatively small proportion, which further indicates the offenders' confidence and ability to incite sexual acts without the need for blackmail. The emotional hold some offenders had over their victims mirrors aspects of interpersonal violence within relationships. Therefore, it is imperative that young people are educated to also look out for signs of grooming among their peers, who may be too enmeshed within the process to identify the warning signs.

Aftercare of victims of sexual abuse can be enhanced by better understanding the effects of sexualisation on the victims; in particular the confusion victims may feel. All the victims in this study felt an element of attraction to their offenders or who the offenders were purporting to be, and all the girls considered the offenders to be boyfriends at some stage. The emotional connection and sexual relationship (online or offline) that the victims may have with the offenders needs to be recognized and sensitively addressed by professionals who provide after-care and support.

For parents and carers, there are also important lessons to be learnt. The speed with which grooming can occur needs to be emphasized and that, for all of the young people in this sample, the grooming progressed to experiencing sexual abuse online, sometimes also offline. The additional difficulty for protection is that parents may believe their child is safe upstairs in their own home and, in many cases, may remain naïve to the potential dangers in the online world. This has become more complicated by the rise in smartphones and other technologies allowing young people easy and on-going access to the internet outside of the home (including in friends' homes) and when they are to some degree beyond parental control. Despite being a difficult issue, potential risk could also be identified by encouraging young people to communicate with their parents and carers (or other trusted adults in their lives) about their online activities. If adults can facilitate these open discussions (without insinuating blame), then it is more likely a young person will discuss online relationships, thus giving adults the opportunity assist with risk assessment and intervene if necessary. As was the case for one victim in this study, parents are also at risk of being groomed by offenders and thus awareness raising and education for parents and carers is also imperative.

For child protection professionals, teachers, parents and adolescents themselves, there is a need to balance the huge advantages to be gained through the medium of the internet with the need to keep young people safe and this can only be achieved, in part, through greater awareness of the process of online grooming and abuse.

In light of the fact that this research found that offenders were required to use different strategies with different victims to keep them engaged, additional analysis has considered why some young people are more vulnerable to online victimization. In particular, analysis has considered whether vulnerabilities are the same as or different to those for offline victimization and whether these different vulnerabilities are related to the impact of the grooming and abuse on victims (see Whittle, Hamilton-Giachritsis, & Beech [32]).

#### *4.2. Limitations of This Research*

There are several limitations of this study that must be considered when interpreting results. Only one interview session was scheduled with each victim and while all possible attempts to achieve and maintain rapport were made, it is possible that the victims may have held back information on the basis of not knowing the interviewer. This is likely to be particularly relevant with the two male participants, who generally provided less information. It is possible that the male victims felt less comfortable discussing the offense generally or that it was specifically due to having a female interviewer. As a result of this, the finding that they were less enmeshed in the relationship is tentative; as it is possible they did not wish to share the extent of their feelings in interview.

Another limitation is that the length of time between the offense and the interview varied between participants, thus victims are likely to have been in different stages of recovery. Consequentially, the memories and reflections of each participant are likely to vary in quality. In addition, the participants within this sample were selected by professionals who felt their involvement would have, "no detrimental effects for the young person." Therefore, this sample is unlikely to be representative of all victims of online grooming and sexual abuse, given that those who were displaying current psychological difficulties would not have been included. Similarly, the victims were aged between 13 and 18 at the time of interview and at different developmental stages. This is likely to impact on the way in which they recall and interpret their experiences.

Finally, perhaps the main limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size. Due to the qualitative nature of the research, the sample size of eight victims is small and therefore applicability of findings to wider populations is tentative. The authors sought additional participants but encountered difficulties in recruiting further. The diversity in the experiences of the victims may be a reflection of their individual differences (e.g., gender, perception of the relationship, age of the offender, *etc*.); consequentially research which explores victims who are more similar to one another may offer a more robust contribution for that specific group. Further studies could also incorporate a larger sample of victims and compare the themes with those identified in this research. Additionally, studies comparing victim experiences to a wider sample of non-abused counterparts would help explore the links between grooming behaviours and typical adolescent relationship development online.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This research supports the notion that online grooming of adolescents is varied and cyclical, involving the abuser adopting and re-adopting a variety of manipulation techniques throughout the process. These techniques may include manipulation through conversation, deception, sexualisation, regular/intense contact, kindness and flattery, erratic temperament/nastiness, grooming others and secrecy which are notably similar to offline offender grooming strategies. Effects these tactics are likely to have on the victims include feelings of familiarity, love trust, confidence boosting, emotional support, excitement, but also, lack of control, confusion, reliance on the offender and distancing from family. Victims who considered themselves enmeshed in the relationship were more likely to tolerate immediately negative effects of the grooming, in the hope of maintaining the relationship and regaining the positive effects. Further research is required, from the perspective of the victims, to gain a deeper knowledge of grooming, what the impact is on the young person and how professionals can better respond to and prevent this form of abuse in the future.

#### **Acknowledgments**

The first author of this paper is funded by The University of Birmingham and The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) as part of a collaborative studentship. CEOP have approved submission of this paper. Thank you to Elly Farmer and Tom Simmons for reading early drafts of this paper. Thank you also to Joe Sullivan for contributions during the analysis.

#### **Author Contributions**

Helen Whittle wrote, conducted and transcribed the research interviews as part of her Ph.D. thesis. Helen was the principal analyst and generated the first draft and subsequent revisions of this paper. Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis is first supervisor of the Ph.D. Catherine assisted in writing the semi-structured interviews and at various stages during analysis, including providing inter-rater reliability. Catherine also significantly contributed to the writing and re-drafting of this paper. Anthony Beech is second supervisor of the Ph.D. Tony provided feedback during the analysis of the interviews and contributed to re-drafting and editing of this paper.

#### **Conflicts of Interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

## **The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Dreaming of Child Safe Organisations?**

#### **William Budiselik, Frances Crawford and Donna Chung**

**Abstract:** On 12 November 2012 the then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced she was recommending to the Governor General the establishment of a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Following inquiries in Australia and elsewhere much is already known about institutional and inter-institutional child protection failures and what is required to address them. That Australia's national government has pursued another abuse inquiry with terms of reference limited to institution-based (excluding the family) sexual abuse is of interest given the lack of political will to enact previous findings and recommendations. This article examines the background to the Government's announcement, the Commission's terms of reference and some of its settings, and literature on the nature of royal commissions across time and place. After the lack of success in implementing the recommendations of previous inquiries into how to better protect Australia's children, the question is: how will this Royal Commission contribute to Australian child protection and safety? Will the overwhelming public support generated by "truth speaking to power" in calling for this inquiry translate into action?

Reprinted from *Soc. Sci.* Cite as: Budiselik, W.; Crawford, F.; Chung, D. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Dreaming of Child Safe Organisations? *Soc. Sci.* **2014**, *3*, 565–583.

#### **1. Introduction**

The sexual abuse of children is widely regarded as one of the most morally unacceptable forms of (mainly male) adult human behaviour. The public "outings" of abusers over the past 20 or so years of those once regarded as pillars of the community—clergymen, police and judicial officers, entertainers, teachers, sporting coaches, youth workers and the like—took the public by surprise for two reasons: it contradicted community expectations about who it thought sexually abused children and the extent of the abuse. Due to victims and their supporters speaking out, increased research and professional interventions, and greater numbers of investigative journalists' media reports, the prevalence and nature of sexual abuse of children is now better understood but still shocking to the community [1].  Acknowledging the importance of "truth speaking to power" in the activities leading to the government's decision to hold this royal commission, our examination is underpinned by a concern about the importance of implementing recommendations to bring about change along with redress for the past. The evidence is that knowledge generated through previous inquiries has failed to be translated into practice, often through a lack of political and populist commitment to the resourcing protecting children requires. In an era of user pays who are the users of protected children?

#### **2. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse**

On 19 November 2012, a week after the Australian Prime Minister's announced intention to establish a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (the Commission), the Commission's secretariat released a consultation paper seeking input from interested individuals and organisations concerning "the arrangements for the establishment of the Royal Commission, including the scope … the form … the number and qualifications of Royal Commissioner/s and the reporting timetable" [2]. The response deadline of 26 November 2012 betrayed the pressure on those designing the Commission and preparing its budget. The Commission's terms of reference were presented on 15 January 2013 and Justice Peter McClellan from the New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal was appointed the Commission's Chair.

The Commission's terms of reference require the royal commissioners to inquire into and report on: what institutions and governments should do to better protect children against child sexual abuse and related matters in *institutional contexts* in the future;

In our opinion, the time pressure on those designing the Commission was driven more by ephemeral political forces and less associated with the Australian Government's desire to establish a considered response to past abuse and to prevent it in the future. An appropriation of \$434,000,000 (US\$403,000,000) was granted for the Commission's operation. Other costs associated with agency effort (government and non-government) and securing professional advice and legal representation are not known, in part because non-government entities, such as the Catholic Church, are not obligated to advise its members or the public of such expenditure.

This considerable expenditure of money and human resources raises the question of whether these could have been better used to further a broad Australian child protection and abuse response agenda and services, rather than the re-examination of issues associated with past institution-based child sexual abuse. It remains to be seen whether the Commission is an opportunity lost or whether it delivers reforms commensurate with Australia's investment in it.

#### **3. What Led to the Establishment of the Commission?**

Events leading to the Australian Government's decision to establish the Commission are numerous and complex. There was both community organising and media campaigning to raise public consciousness of the issue. These were driven by continuing grass roots outrage at the sexual abuse of children and the treatment of the abused who complained as adults. In this complexity two champions stand out: Hetty Johnston and Joanne McCarthy. Johnston established Bravehearts in 1997 in Queensland as a community-based initiative to "educate, empower and protect Australian kids from sexual assault" and "move this once taboo subject into the light" [4]. In 2005 and 2012 Johnston was an author of papers, with Carol Ronken, about the need for a royal commission, refuting all arguments that had circulated against the idea [5,6]. McCarthy was recognized in 2013 with the top Australian journalism award for stories that helped spark the Commission [7]. Amplifying this groundwork was one specific catalyst for the Government's announcement: Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox's open letter in the *Newcastle Herald* on 8 November 2012 to New South Wales' Premier Barry O'Farrell calling for a royal commission into the Catholic Church's cover-up of sexual abuse. Part of Fox's letter read:

I have seen the worst society can dredge up, particularly the evil of paedophilia within the Catholic Church… Many police are frustrated by this sinister behaviour… The whole system needs to be exposed; the clergy covering up these crimes must to be brought to justice and the network protecting paedophile priests dismantled. There should be no place for evil or its guardians to hide… Many priests don't want a royal commission nor does the hierarchy of the church, but God knows we need one [8].

It seems Fox's status as a serving New South Wales' police officer warranted a response from the New South Wales Premier: "One cannot hear allegations from someone with the stature of Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox and do nothing". ([9], pp. 16, 684) On 9 November 2012 the then Premier O'Farrell announced his intention to establish the "Special Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to the Police investigation of certain child sexual abuse allegations in the Catholic Diocese of Maitland Newcastle" (the Special Commission). The Special Commission established on 21 November 2012 and headed by Margaret Cunneen SC had two terms of reference: to establish whether in relation to child sexual abuse the Catholic Church hindered or obstructed, failed to report or discouraged witnesses and the circumstances in which Fox was asked to cease investigating church-based sexual abuse in the Newcastle–Maitland region of New South Wales [10].

When Tony Jones, the Australian Broadcasting Commission's *Lateline* host, tested Fox about various claims, including that "the church covers up, silences victims, hinders police investigations, alerts offenders, destroys evidence and moves priests to protect the good name of the church", Fox replied:

Oh, not only do I have evidence, it's irrefutable… The greatest frustration is that there is so much power and organisation *behind the scenes* (emphasis added) that police don't have the powers to be able to go in and seize documents and have them disclose things to us [11].

Fox's letter to Premier O'Farrell is straightforward: The target the Catholic Church, not only child sex offenders in the Catholic Church who are abusing children, but the "organisation" that operates "behind the scenes" to protect them.

While Fox's letter was addressed to a state premier, and despite the national government's decision not to accede to earlier calls for a royal commission from victims and victims' advocacy groups [6], this call for a royal commission was taken up nationally. In the days following the release of his letter, a Fairfax Nielsen poll suggested that 95% of Australians supported a royal commission (cited in [12], p. 8).

On 26 November 2012 at the conclusion of the consultation period Australia's then Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, advised:

The commission needs to focus on systemic issues of child sexual abuse to make sure that recommendations can be implemented in a timely manner. It is very clear that the community wants the commission and all governments across Australia to do everything we can to make sure what happened in the past is never allowed to happen again ([13], pp. 13, 146).

Relevantly, the consultation paper had noted:

While it is important that the Royal Commission form its own opinions and recommendations, there is a large body of work already on hand from recent inquiries. The Terms of Reference for the Commission can request that this work be taken into account, both to ensure that the relevant findings, recommendations and responses are considered as well as to ensure that survivors who have already shared their stories in these inquiries do not need to do so again if they do not want to [2].

The Commission's terms of reference accommodated this concern by including in its Letters Patent a direction for the Commission to take (or not take) action or consider.

the need to establish appropriate arrangements in relation to current and previous inquiries, in Australia and elsewhere, for evidence and information to be shared with you in ways consistent with relevant obligations so that the work of those inquiries, including, with any necessary consents, the testimony of witnesses, can be taken into account by you in a way that avoids unnecessary duplication, improves efficiency and avoids unnecessary trauma to witnesses [3].

#### **4. The Sexual Abuse of Children and Moral Panic**

A number of authors and media analysts have argued that moral panics about childhood sexual abuse in their most recent iteration during the past 20 or so years have been largely due to media reporting [14,15]. In contrast, professionals in this area of work suggest that it is not so much a moral panic but that the abuse is now spoken about and better understood even if still taboo. The moral panic which is induced around the sexual violation of children's bodies evokes a strong reaction by the public to which politicians need to be seen to be doing something—either stopping its occurrence in the future and/or supporting the seeking of justice for those abused and the punishment of its perpetrators. Responses have been largely in the areas of legal and policy changes including changes to processes for giving evidence and stricter gatekeeping of people working with children.  Governments operate to stop and redress childhood sexual abuse within a highly sensitive political environment of hyper moral judgment about those committing the crimes and their representatives, alongside an equally worried public concerned with having legal systems so robust that nobody is ever accused of such abuse "unfairly" due to the highly stigmatized identity it represents. The nature of these criminal acts is such that they often occur without witnesses or other evidence and victims are intimidated into silence; therefore the capacity of legal system to deal with such crimes is particularly challenged. It is within this socio-political context that the current Australian inquiry is taking place.

#### **5. On the Nature of Royal Commissions**

The Australian Government's decision to initiate a royal commission symbolically signals the seriousness of the problem of children being sexually abused within institutions. Royal commissions are traditional in British Commonwealth countries as a well-endowed institution at arms-length from government, authorised to draft a plan to address for the long-term a publically problematic issue [16]. Australia has conducted 132 royal commissions since federation with more held at state level [17]. The literature from the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and New Zealand as well as Australia suggests royal commissions can serve many purposes and these are not always under the control of those commissioning them. Thomas and Field ([18], p. 14) analysed the 1991 UK Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The authors describe this Royal Commission as an institution for crisis management in that "the terms of reference may be so written as to mute the debate by changing the focus of attention". They argue the UK government was able to prioritise the recommendations to suit their ideological agenda, ignoring the generating concern and ensuring "the parade of pluralist reasoned debate (was) replaced by the parade of ideological populism" ([18], p. 160).

In contrast, Inwood [16] argues that a royal commission can be a vehicle for a transformative moment in a nation. The focus of the Royal Commission analysed by Inwood was concerned with deciding the agenda for the Canadian political economy. This Royal Commission operated as a site for the rigorous and regulated interplay of ideas, institutions and interests. Research was open and transparent and included the active canvassing of submissions from the public. Inwood ([16], pp. 10–11) identifies three factors in the possibility of transformative moments arising out of royal commissions. The first lies in "political viability, economic viability and political and bureaucratic leadership". In the end decision makers need to be swayed to a course of action. The second revolves around the concept of credibility and leverage to action. "Who says something is sometimes more important than how many say it". The final factor shared by transformative royal commissions is that ensuing "policies must mobilise support from coalitions of actors upon whose support, electoral and financial, elected politicians depend".

A process of collective learning through argument and persuasion is the description that Owens and Rayner [19] arrive at in analysing the UK continuing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Started in the 1960s it operates as a knowledge broker in leveraging emerging research on environmental matters and removing difficult decisions for the state from the public arena. Such brokerage is always about the negotiation and performance of power in situ and in regard to the environment the credibility of scientific knowledge was an instrument to be wielded for change. The authors conclude:

"Knowledge always matters but has most effect when it is skilfully framed to resonate in the climate of the day, originates from or is mediated by a trusted source, and is deployed in a timely manner or persistently over time, until conditions converge into a situation ripe for change" ([19], p. 18).

In contrast, an analysis of the 2001 New Zealand Royal Commission into the Genetic Modification of Crops concludes that the language of science in an era of neoliberalism and marketisation can be used to silence active participation in democracy by citizens concerned as to the limits of scientific certainty ([20], p. 585). Goven [20] queries this Royal Commission's suggestion that citizens interested in science should not express doubts unless they have evidence from appropriately funded and conducted research projects. The author argues that the Commission accepts "an idealised science innocent of power relations (and) the current role of commercial interests in research and development in the biosciences. In this way (idealised) science acts as a vector through which economic liberalism (or neoliberalism) trumps democracy".

All of these analyses have potential relevance for the current Commission. Also relevant is a much earlier piece of work. Biskup [21] in his classic look at "The Royal Commission that never was" unveils some further dynamics as to the workings of royal commissions. The topic under consideration to be referred to a royal commission in 1938 was the relationship between the State of Western Australia and church missions. This focus emerged from considerable public and media concern in response to evidence of abuse on missions including the sexual abuse of children. In bringing the abuse to light a Minister in Western Australia's government stated at the time:

the natives [Aboriginal Australians] are first and foremost a charge upon the State, whoever may subsequently be delegated more directly to handle them, and our duty is to ensure that the job is efficiently undertaken by those best qualified to do so ([21], pp. 89–90).

This language captures a significant difference to current discourse in a marketised, privatised and commodified society where services are outsourced and a provider is responsible for meeting specified pre-determined quality standards. In 1938, alongside the discourse of state responsibility there was also a taken-for-granted acceptance of the vulnerability of Aboriginal people including their children. While the public expressed great concern at the stories of abuse in church-run missions, power was negotiated behind the scenes between the government and its departments, churches and pastoralist power holders. Despite many meetings and much media talk of calling a royal commission it never evolved. An editorial in *The West Australian* newspaper of 17 February 1939 commented after a large public conference on the issue: "It is good to see a number of people getting excited about the matter. The doubt is whether they got excited about the conditions of the (vulnerable) or about their own personal feelings" (cited in [21], p. 108).

This historical event can be viewed from this distance as necessarily steeped in colonialism, racism, religion and political ideology.  They proved not able to organise to move to action against those with investment in the status quo.

 This time there was a swift and organised response at the national level. Then Prime Minister John Howard used his federal powers to intervene in the governance of the Territory. As Fawcett and Hanlon [23] describe, the emotion of outrage at child sexual abuse was used to justify widespread intervention, much of which had neither direct link to established knowledge in child protection nor impact on the incidence of these crimes. Certainly the timing and nature of this intervention met few of the factors necessary for a transformative moment in addressing this problem. The lack of open collaboration in planning a response meant an ongoing lack of coordinated child protection in the Northern Territory.

Prasser identifies a changing pattern in the use and nature of Australian royal commissions since the 1970s [24]. This change has particularly been in the balance between inquisitorial forms investigating publically unacceptable incidents and issues, and advisory forms investigating major policy areas like health. There has been an increasing use of royal commissions to address what are perceived to be political and ideological issues but overall "Commonwealth Coalition governments have a lower rate of appointing royal commissions in relation to their length of time in office" ([24], p. 29). Certainly John Howard, a former Coalition Prime Minister, was clear in his rejection of a royal commission into child abuse in 2003 when he stated: "I would rather spend the \$60 million to \$100 million involved in a royal commission on further intervention (in child care) than I would on lining the pockets of lawyers" (cited in [24], p. 43). It is arguable that Howard acted on these beliefs when he commissioned the Northern Territory National Emergency Response in 2007 [23].

Independence is a valued characteristic of royal commissions but there is no certainty that the knowledge on an issue so generated will guide the actions of government. As Prasser notes, governments establish royal commissions for "politically expedient reasons such as to show concern about an issue, give an illusion of action, show responsiveness to a problem, co-opt critics, reduce opposition, delay decision-making and reassert control of the policy agenda" ([24], p. 34).

Royal commissions, as a means of identifying the extent, dynamics and effects of a problem, typically offer robust insights and recommendations, which are necessarily comprehensive, in order to address complex problems. The difficulty or often disappointment lies post-commission when recommendations are not acted on, not implemented as envisaged or a small number of recommendations are acted on which do not comprehensively remedy the problem into the future. The present Commission will report to an administration different from the one which appointed it. That there is a possible "disconnect" between the administration in power and the Commission is a further confounding factor in attempting to discern the Commission's likely efficacy. It makes for uncertainty both in terms of achieving redress for those bearing witness as to their abuse and for the major implementation of any changes designed to make children safer from child sexual abuse in the future.

#### **6. Current and Previous Inquiries**

It is beyond the scope of this article to comprehensively present the large number of relevant previous and current inquiries, and their recommendations germane to the current Commission. Consideration of all relevant inquiries is difficult because not all are reported publicly, and a national register of relevant inquiries into matters related to child protection and child abuse does not exist. Indeed, it is likely some are held as confidential documents in various organisations.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies provided to the Commission a list of 23 inquiries conducted in the last decade in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand excluding reviews and reports into individual deaths or government annual reports into child deaths [25]. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's (AIHW) 2011/2012 report into child protection provides a list of 16 Australian state and territory child protection inquiries conducted in the "past few years" ([26], p. 136).

Since the AIHW report provided its list of inquiries from the "past few years", Victoria's "Betrayal of Trust: Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organizations" (Victorian Betrayal of Trust Inquiry) [27] has been completed and the New South Wales Special Commission [5] reported on 31 May 2014. In Western Australia in September 2012 a relevant inquiry report entitled "St Andrew's Hostel Katanning: How the system and society failed our children" [28] was provided to the Western Australian Parliament by a former president of the Western Australian Children's Court, Peter Blaxell.

In addition to these inquiries there are inquiries conducted by organisations themselves, for example, Olsson and Chung's "Report of the board of inquiry: Into the handling of claims of sexual abuse and misconduct within the Anglican diocese of Adelaide" [29] established by the Synod of the Diocese of Adelaide in 2003, and Parkinson, Oates and Jayakody's "Study of reported child sexual abuse in the Anglican Church" [30]. Commissioned by the Church's Professional Standards Commission, this latter study aimed to examine abuse reports in the Australian Anglican church. The authors reported that while all 23 diocese were invited to participate in the research, three declined ([30], p. 13).

Last, given the focus of the current Commission is on past sexual abuse, earlier inquiries conducted at the time are relevant, as are Government and organisational responses to recommendations.

#### **7. Recommendations of Earlier Inquiries**

In 2009, a Senate Committee (the Committee) report entitled "Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians Revisited" [31] examined the responses of Australia's governments (federal, state and territory) to two earlier federal government inquiries, one about child migrants [32] and the second about children who had experienced institutional or out-of-home care [33]. The Committee's conclusion on revisiting the impact of these inquiries was "the responses to the recommendations of earlier inquiries by the Commonwealth and State governments, the churches and agencies has been variable...in other areas progress is slow or no action has been taken" ([31], p. 6).

In reviewing these earlier inquiries the Committee reconsidered the Forgotten Australians inquiry recommendation that the government consider initiating a "narrowly conceived" royal commission of "short duration" into state, charitable and church-run institutions and out-of-home care if within a period charitable and church-run institutions had failed to open their files and premises and provide full cooperation to authorities to investigate the nature and extent of *criminal assault*, *sexual assault* and report on *past criminal practice* and *persons suspected of having committed crimes against children in care* (emphases added) ([31], p. 65). Australia's federal and state governments did not favour this recommendation at that time ([31], p. 69).

In short, past inquiries have commonly found that there have been various forms of assault and abuse committed against children by those in positions of power over others. These forms of abuse involved organised groups of perpetrators in some organisations and in other areas there were instances of individuals using their position to assault and silence victims without the systematic involvement of others. Some key common issues stand out: those victims disclosing to authorities during or closely following the abuse were often not believed and their characters were often maligned leaving them in a worse position and the perpetrator without scrutiny. The reputation of the organisations and individuals involved often drove the apparent lack of response and disparagement of whistleblowers. Consequently, where allegations were made, organisational representatives did not consistently—or in some cases ever—refer the allegations to the police for investigation. Therefore many recommendations of past inquiries focused on the organisational cultures, values and lack of transparency that enabled these abusive situations to continue. Another aspect noted is the adversarial role of lawyers and their recommendations for organizational risk avoidance that served to dissuade organisational representatives speaking out about abusive or suspected abusive individuals and the organisation. Recommendations generally include changes to organisational practices to become more accountable and transparent within the organisation and in working with the relevant authorities when abuse is disclosed and to prevent future abuse.

In 2009 the Committee canvassed arguments for and against a royal commission and concluded against establishing one:

The Committee's conclusion was ultimately based on an assessment of the likely success of a Royal Commission in achieving successful exposure and prosecution of perpetrators of criminal acts. The Committee senses that there may be unrealistic expectations held by many as to the outcome of a Royal Commission. Despite the wider powers of royal commissions, the Committee considers that any such inquiry would face the same barriers to success as outlined above in relation to judicial inquiries, and accordingly would be unlikely to produce outcomes that would justify the significant expenditure of both time and finances ([31], p. 225).

The Committee then sensed there might be unrealistic expectations about the outcomes of such a royal commission. The current Commissioners are struggling to respond to the large number of people wishing to come forward and individually meet with them. By April 2014, Justice McClellan advised the community "the Commissioners have held 1426 private sessions… received 1328 written accounts from survivors or their family and friends…1065 people in the queue awaiting a session… receive about 40 requests for a private session each week". He estimated by the end of 2015 there may be 2000 people who will have requested a private session which could not be accommodated [34].

The Committee's consideration may have also been influenced by the reduction of the number of children in traditional forms of institutional/residential care: a social issue on a trajectory to fade with time.

The number of children in institutional/residential care has decreased markedly from approximately 27,000 in 1954 to less than 2000 currently. Most states and territories have phased out large institutions, with the majority of residential care now provided in small facilities caring for three to eight children. ([31], p. 62).

Today, in Australia, children in out-of-home care and other forms of care (e.g., day care) are cared for in ways not resembling the institutions that existed through to the last quarter of the twentieth century: "The majority of children (93%) in out-of-home care at 30 June 2012 were in home-based care—44% in foster care, 47% in relative/kinship care and 2% in other types of home-based care" ([25], p. 38). This raises the critical question of whether the resources could have been better used trying to implement past recommendations that have been consistently identified and partially implemented. The lack of thorough implementation can be attributed to a few factors including the obvious issue of financial cost, trying to engage and coordinate multiple jurisdictions and authorities, and a less tangible cultural aspect that child sexual abuse is still thought of by some as a rare occurrence not requiring this level of attention and investment.

#### **8. Systemic Failures and the Protection of Church Located Abusers**

The systemic problems in addressing church located child abuse have long been raised and reported in Australia. In the 1990s the New South Wales' Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (the Wood Royal Commission) [35] in part addressed the issue of child sexual abuse and Australian churches. Commissioner Justice James Wood identified the problem as the substantial incidence of sexual abuse involving those associated with churches. He wrote that the failure to properly investigate allegations or pursue allegations through the courts was "suggestive of either protection or failure on the part of the official agencies involved to exercise their powers impartially" ([35], p. 991). Fox's assertion in November 2012, that "power and organisation behind the (Church) scenes" blocks effective action, is consistent with Wood's earlier assessment.

#### **9. Working with Children Checks**

In light of the Wood Royal Commission, Australia's (state and territory) community services ministers agreed to implement safety screening of persons employed in a paid or voluntary capacity in services for children. Characteristic of Australian federalism, each state and territory has, since Wood's report, developed different legislation, procedures and requirements to screen its working with children workforce ([36], p. 350).

Australia's peak intergovernmental forum, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), promotes reforms of national significance and those requiring inter-jurisdictional coordination. In April 2009 COAG released its "National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009–2020" (the national framework) [37]. The national framework announced that all Australian governments had endorsed a long-term approach to child protection. The national framework report emphasised a shift towards a "public health" model of child protection ([37], p. 6). Stated aims of the national framework included developing a "nationally consistent approach to working with children checks and child safe organisations across jurisdictions" ([37], p. 14).

In 2011, an update was provided by the state and territory officers responsible for achieving "a nationally consistent approach" to working with children checks:

Harmonisation of state and territory legislation would require substantial investment of resources to bring the data and related information management mechanisms into line. *Current fiscal constraints make additional financial commitments untenable as part of an agile response* (emphasis added). There is insufficient evidence to inform a best practice screening model [38].

Australian states and territories do not have a common child workforce checking process. State and territory child protection authorities do not have mechanisms in place to systematically exchange information about persons believed responsible for child abuse. That Australia does not have a national approach to screening its working with children workforce seems in part to be the result of "fiscal constraints". At the present time there is no indication of any future commitment to such national efforts.

#### **10. The Australian Catholic Church, Cardinal Pell and the Ellis Defence**

In response to demands for inquiries and commissions into the Catholic Church, its most senior Australian representative, Cardinal George Pell, positioned the Catholic Church in the following way:

If there was need for another general inquiry it should be wide ranging, covering not only the Catholic Church but all religions and charities, and not only non-government organisations but government organisations also. I cannot see the need for a state-wide Royal Commission at this time but if there was one the Catholic Church authorities would cooperate fully [39].

Pell's testimony to the Commission has been widely reported in the Australian press. Part of Pell's testimony and that which is most widely reported related to a 2007 case, *Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis & Anor* (2007) NSWCA 117 (the Ellis case) and the Church's use of the so called "Ellis defence", which the authors understand to mean the Catholic Church is not liable for the criminal activity of its clergy. This is largely a legalistic argument by the Catholic Church not to take responsibility for abuse by its clergy. It was viewed publicly as yet another example of an abuse victim seeking justice and being denied it by the Church.

Victoria's Betrayal of Trust inquiry report dealt with the issues raised in the Ellis case in the following terms:

The Committee recommends that the Victorian Government consider requiring organisations it funds or provides with tax exemptions and other entitlements to be incorporated and adequately insured. It also suggests that the Victorian Government work with the Australian Government to require religious and other non-government organisations that engage with children to adopt incorporated legal structures. ([27], p. xxxix).

#### **11. Child Safe Institutions: A Worthy Aspiration for ever Vigilant Organisations**

The current Commission's activities are broadly delimited by the meanings of the word *institution* and the phrase *institutional context*. In the child welfare literature "institutional abuse", a phrase used since the early 1980s, is much broader than sexual abuse and those behaviours related to it. For example, Gil defines institutional child abuse as when a system is "detrimental to a child's health, safety, or emotional and physical well-being or in any way exploits or violates a child's basic rights" [40].

"Institution" and "institutional context" are defined in the Commission's Letters Patent [3]:

(institution) means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described, and:

*institutional context*: child sexual abuse happens in an *institutional context* if, for example:

The Commission's issue paper "Child Safe Institutions" uses interchangeably the phrase "child safe institutions" and "child safe organizations", while emphasising it is concerned about child sexual abuse in an institutional context.

In this paper, the first question posed by the Commission assumes the possibility of creating a "child safe organisation":

Of particular interest to the Royal Commission is:

The essential elements of establishing a "child safe organization" that protects children from sexual abuse in an institutional context. In particular, are there core strategies that should be present and others that are less critical?

The question is premised on a (comforting) belief that a child safe organisation is achievable rather than aspirational. To reinforce the Commission's presumption and to assist those making submissions, a number of resources are provided that set out various child safe frameworks and checklists. Unfortunately, this certainty of child safe organisations cannot be guaranteed to be attained and maintained. Organisations can be more or less safe and unsafe. Organisations that are safer have mechanisms to demonstrate how they are not "unsafe" and provide avenues to facilitate the reporting and addressing of anything that is unsafe. At its most cynical, working towards a child safe organisation can be a risk management strategy to protect the organisation and its workers by denying children the opportunity for development associated with manageable risk.

That a child safe organisation is an aspiration that is not achievable might seem to some a trite distinction. Arguably, it is an important distinction to those shaping the Australian community's response to these issues. To offer solace to parents and others interested in child welfare by encouraging a belief that an organisation is capable of being made safe is to suggest certainty is possible. Rather, this territory requires their constant vigilance and their acceptance of limits to certainty as to what is happening to children. The private nature of much abuse perpetrated and the silencing tactics of abusers means there will not be "full information" available. Use of the term "best practice" in the Commission's terms of reference works to silence concerns about uncertainty by suggesting that knowledge to control the incidence of child sexual abuse in institutional care exists and is both identifiable and applicable. It promotes the perception that continuing risks to children are measurable and manageable through instruments such as insurance.

Consider the National Disability Service's response to the issues raised by the Commission in respect of services to children with disability:

(In some cases) providers have unique access to people's home environments… Out-of-home care (including respite) is a high-risk category. Children in these services may have heightened vulnerability due to factors such as childhood trauma, estrangement from family and instability associated with multiple placements. They are also exposed to situational risk factors associated with extensive periods of unsupervised one-on-one contact with a staff member, or they may be living with other children with the potential to cause harm to them [41].

#### **12. Breaking the Cycle: Well-Funded Inquiries Alongside Poorly Resourced Services**

The federal government's assertion that systemic institutionally located abuse is able to be eliminated given sufficient funding is tantalising. In February 2013, the then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus assured the Australian community that: "our government is going to do everything it can to make sure that what has happened to children in the past is never allowed to happen again…since its very inception we have made clear to the royal commission and we make it clear to the Australian community that this government is determined to ensure the royal commission is adequately resourced" [42]. The Commission's funding enables it to provide appropriately trained staff and support to victims coming forward. For example, Justice McLellan's description of the sensitive way in which people coming forward to the Commission are received describes a level of resourcing not available to services which have attempted to provide responses to past abuse victims: "We have been careful to employ appropriately trained people to answer the telephone when the initial contact is made and we have in place professional counsellors to assist people who come to a session. Recognising that many people will experience a decline in mood following their session we are careful to follow people up to ensure they have adequate support available" [34].

The promise that the Commission can wrestle with sexual abuse and create environments which are safe might be viewed in the context of a statement made in the Victorian Parliament in March 2014 (noting the Victorian Betrayal of Trust inquiry report [27] was delivered in November 2013 and the Commission commenced in January 2013):

Victoria needs an open, properly resourced inquiry into the allegations that vulnerable children in the care of the state have been groomed and exploited for criminal sexual abuse. The Napthine government will fail its duty of care if it refuses to immediately launch an inquiry into such systemic failures. The inquiry should run in tandem with police investigations into specific offences. This model of coordinated investigations into child sexual abuse was efficient and effective in revealing systemic failures by religious and other non-government organisations.

The government should stop resisting such an inquiry following today's admission by the principal commissioner of the Commission for Children and Young People, Bernie Geary, that the system is "shabby". He also disclosed he was unsurprised by reports that up to 40 children as young as 12 were being exploited while in the care of the state. This is an indictment of the system which must be exposed and fixed as a matter of the utmost urgency ([43], p. 623)

The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria released a statement welcoming the announcement of an inquiry by the Victorian Commissioner for Children and Young People, which advised that the inquiry would look at the sexual exploitation and assaults of children in care by outsiders, and sexual violence committed by other children in care. The statement read: "it (the inquiry) also responds to concerns about vulnerable and traumatized young people being *housed in settings which are understaffed and underfunded* (emphasis added)" [44].

#### **13. Conclusions**

On 23 July 2014 the South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, made a statement to that State's parliament advising it that if allegations under police investigation about child abuse of children in the state's residential care facilities by a *Families SA* employee were proven true, he would initiate a royal commission into them. The details of the allegations are apparently so appalling that the premier is not ruling out barring males from caring positions within the department. Ironically, in South Australia *Families SA* administers paragraph 8A(h)(i) of the *Child Protection Act 1993* (SA), which requires it "to monitor progress towards child safe environments in the government and non-government sectors and to report regularly to the Minister on that subject".

With respect to the Commission, Weatherill said: "I think it is also probably worth mentioning at this juncture that there is an existing royal commission into child sexual abuse which is currently on foot at the federal level. It is more likely than not that this matter could be the subject of interest by that royal commission, but it may well also be the case that there would be a separate need for South Australia to have its own inquiry, having regard to the needs of its own system." [45].

As discussed there are various reasons contributing to the implementation gap concerning the take-up of child protection recommendations by governments. Additionally, in Australia a structural impediment exists: its federal system of government. While there are national policy and decision making forums such as the Coalition of Australian Governments and various ministerial councils, representing national and state and territory interests, and these have considered issues and developed plans for children's safety, on a constitutional and operational level, state and territory governments are responsible for child protection. So, in the case of the Commission, we have a national government that will receive recommendations with state and territory governments not having an obligation (or in the absence of the national government's support, possibly the financial resources) to implement them. Therefore at this time there is no obvious "fit" between the national government's recommendations, and responsibility and funding for their implementation. Without such a fit, the main incentive for states and territories may be the moral imperative of their desire to improve the safety of children in out-of-home forms of care (and associated programs). Because of its terms of reference the Commission will not address how to better prevent child sexual abuse occurring within family, which is a major area of state and territory child protection responsibility.

It seems inevitable, in keeping with a culture of forgetting about previous inquiries, that even before the Commission has concluded its hearings and prepared its recommendations, Australia's Governments will have commissioned further inquiries and more recommendations will be generated. How will the findings of the present Commission impact the future in keeping children safe from child abuse?

There is plenty of existing evidence as to what factors need to be addressed in providing for children's wellbeing and what impact child abuse has on individual development. At the same time there is also longstanding evidence that the resources required to adequately implement this knowledge are beyond what is considered politically feasible to governments of all political persuasions.  Will a focus on the language of legal redress cover all that is required in the everyday practices of making organisations safer for children?

 In an era of economic rationalism there could be a case made for the economic benefit of organisations investing in child protective practices so as not to have to pay redress to those abused and to prevent the impairment of trauma on future workers. In leveraging the political capital to bring about the Commission it would seem values rather than the market forces shaped the outcome of calling a royal commission. Hetty Johnston and Joanne McCarthy were among many Australians embodying the age-old principle of "truth speaking to power". The past history of royal commissions suggests that success in calling a royal commission does not guarantee any control over the outcome. To this end in the case of this Commission, is it possible to "mobilise support from coalitions of actors upon whose support, electoral and financial, elected politicians depend?" ([16], p. 9).

Julia Gillard, at her final press conference as Prime Minister, after being initially reluctant to call the Commission, took the opportunity to predict the outcome: "This royal commission is now working its way around the country. I believe it will have many years of work in front of it. But it will change the nation." (cited in [12], p. 8). Only the future will determine her prescience on this matter.

This article concludes by posing a question directed toward Australia's decision makers (be they citizens, politicians, professionals and/or policy makers): How can better outcomes be achieved from the effort put into inquiries? The Commissioner has been authorized to draft a plan to address for the long-term the publically problematic issue of sexual abuse of children in institutional contexts. Knowing what has happened to the recommendations of previous inquiries into child abuse, how can such a plan address the issue of implementation of recommendations from this inquiry?

#### **Acknowledgments**

Thanks to three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft.

#### **Author Contributions**

Budiselik initiated the writing process, produced early drafts and synthesized authors' contributions; Crawford reviewed and revised the article, contributed to its structure and reviewed the literature on royal commissions; Chung reviewed and revised the article, contributed to the theoretical approaches used, and its structure and argument.

#### **Conflicts of Interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

## **Forty Years of Forensic Interviewing of Children Suspected of Sexual Abuse, 1974–2014: Historical Benchmarks**

#### **Kathleen Coulborn Faller**

**Abstract:** This article describes the evolution of forensic interviewing as a method to determine whether or not a child has been sexually abused, focusing primarily on the United States.  It describes models for child sexual abuse investigation, early writings and practices related to child interviews, and the development of forensic interview structures from scripted, to semi-structured, to flexible. The article discusses the controversies related appropriate questions and the use of media (e.g., anatomical dolls and drawings). It summarizes the characteristics of four important interview structures and describes their impact of the field of forensic interviewing. The article describes forensic interview training and the challenge of implementing training in forensic practice. The article concludes with a summary of progress and remaining controversies and with future challenges for the field of forensic interviewing.

Reprinted from *Soc. Sci.* Cite as: Faller, K.C. Forty Years of Forensic Interviewing of Children Suspected of Sexual Abuse, 1974–2014: Historical Benchmarks. *Soc. Sci.* **2015**, *4*, 34–65.

#### **1.  In the United States, this awareness was related to concern about child maltreatment in general [1], to the pioneering research of David Finkelhor on the prevalence of child sexual abuse among college students in six New England colleges and universities [2], and to social justice movements, for example the women's movement and the civil rights movement [3]. This article will describe the unique and important response to child sexual abuse, the forensic interviewing of children as a method to determine if they have been sexually abused. The article will focus primarily on forensic interviewing in the U.S., but with reference to parallel developments and collaborations involving other developed countries.

Who are the forensic interviewers? In the U.S., the first forensic interviewers were professionals with mental health backgrounds [4], but they are not the professionals who are mandated investigators of child sexual abuse; child protection workers and law enforcement officers are. In addition, the Children's Advocacy Center movement in the U.S. led to a new group of professionals, specially trained forensic interviewers, whose role initially was to interview children alleged to have been sexually abused, but over time, they have come to be responsible for interviewing children alleged to have been maltreated in other ways [5].

In this article, I will first address the impact of professional and public perceptions about the credibility of sexual abuse allegations on forensic interviewing practices and its effect on forensic interviewing. Second, I will describe the policy initiative in the United States that led to the need to evaluate children's allegations of sexual abuse.  Fourth, I will discuss early writing that defined interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims. Fifth, I will describe the development of forensic interviewing structures. Sixth, I will discuss select influential interview structures. Seventh, current endeavors to train child forensic interviewers will be documented; included in this discussion will be challenges related to the implementation of training in actual interview practice. Finally, in the conclusions, progress to date and remaining controversies will be summarized. Then modest proposals for future practice and research will be covered.

#### **2. Belief and Disbelief about Child Sexual Abuse: Impact on Forensic Interviewing**

Professional and public belief and disbelief about allegations of child sexual abuse have varied over the course of history [6]. The source of the ebb and flow in belief is complex.  In the domain of forensic interviewing these complex reactions have resulted in a tension between using interview practices that enable disclosure and interview practices that avoid false allegations [8].

 The means included interviewing the child multiple times, asking leading questions, and using other suggestive techniques [9].

In the mid-1980s, however, concerns about false allegations began to drive interview practices. Events that led to this "backlash" were are series of multi-victim cases [10,11]. In the United States, most of these cases involved day care centers. The cases received a great deal of media attention, initially focused on the enormity of harm to children [12] and later highlighting questionable interview practices and doubting children's disclosures [13]. There were comparable cases in England, for example one in Cleveland [14] and in Scotland, a case on the Orkney Islands [15].

Professional views about the veracity of the sexual and other abuse described in these multi-victim cases remains mixed [16]. Nevertheless, these high profile cases have played a major role in shaping forensic interview practice. They have driven interview strategies that avoid false positives (children determined to have been sexually abused, but who were not) as opposed to false negatives (children who were sexually abused, but were not identified in the investigative process) [8].

#### **3. The Challenge of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act**

In the United States, the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 (CAPTA) [17] had implications for child welfare policy and practice beyond what the U.S. Congress could have anticipated. Among other provisions in CAPTA that transformed the child welfare system was mandated reporting of child maltreatment. This provision in federal law both expanded the professions who were mandated to report and the types of maltreatment to be reported. Subsequent to the passage of CAPTA, virtually every state amended or promulgated a state law to comply with CAPTA. States did this because there were federal discretionary funds tied to a state statute in compliance with CAPTA provisions [17].

Mandated reporting resulted in an exponential increase in reports of suspected child maltreatment to local child protection agencies. In 1978, the first year of data collection under CAPTA, fewer than 700,000 cases, or 10.1 per 1000 children, were reported [18]. In 2012, the most recent year for which there are aggregated data, there were 3.4 million cases reported involving approximately 6.3 million children, 46.1 per 1000 children [19].

Although initially sexual abuse was not among the required types of child maltreatment to be reported, it was added in 1981 [20]. This addition resulted in states amending their statutes to include sexual abuse as a reportable type of child maltreatment [21]. Unlike physical abuse, which is usually determined by the pattern of a child's injuries, and physical neglect, which is usually determined by a child's physical condition or living conditions, as a rule, child sexual abuse rarely leaves physical signs. Physical indicators are found in about 10% of girls and rarely in boys [22]. Sexual abuse is generally determined by the child's statements and sometimes by the child's behavior [23]. Child welfare professionals were therefore tasked with gathering information from children to determine whether they had been sexually abused.

#### **4. Models for Investigation**

In this this section, models that have evolved in the United States for investigating allegations of sexual abuse and their rationale will be discussed. This article focuses on the forensic interview, but the result of this interview are only one piece of information gathered during the investigation and should be regarded as a means to the end of understanding what sexual abuse, if any, the child has experienced. That said, although the forensic interview is once piece, it is the centerpiece of the investigation.

#### *4.1.  For example, the model for investigating physical abuse or neglect involved child protection investigators going to the home and "confronting" the parents with the allegations. Applying this model to sexual abuse cases, child welfare professionals were interviewing children in the presence of their parents, when the alleged abuser was in the family [25]. Soon, however, professionals came to understand that children were unlikely to disclose sexual abuse in the presence of the perpetrator.

#### *4.2. School-Based Interviews by First Responders*

Because in-home investigations were ineffective, communities and states developed policies for interviewing school-aged children in school and informing their caretakers after the child interview [26]. Interviewing children in their school setting remains an important approach for first responders, who may be child protection workers or law enforcement. Depending upon the resources in the community, an interview by the first responder may be followed by a joint investigation or a forensic interview at a Children's Advocacy Center, both described below.

This model, however, does not address investigation of cases of pre-school children who may have been sexually abused. This child population remains a serious challenge for both mandated investigators and forensic interviewers. Children ages four and older have been successfully interviewed [27], but younger children may also be victims of sexual abuse and lack the verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate their experiences in a forensic interview [28–30]. They remain a population in need of protection.

#### *4.3.  Cases in which the offender is in the family and those that involve caretakers who are negligent and fail to protect children in their care from sexual abuse fall within the purview of child protective services. Cases where caretakers are not culpable are the responsibility of law enforcement. Sexual abuse prevalence studies indicate that about 70% of offenses are extra familial [31]. In the mid-1980s, virtually every state in the U.S. amended its child protection laws to foster collaboration between law enforcement and child protection investigators on sexual abuse cases, and often on other serious maltreatment cases [32,33]. Joint investigation models involving child protection, law enforcement, and the local prosecutor for intra-familial sexual abuse cases were developed. These models vary by locality. Child protection workers and law enforcement might jointly interview the child, often one or the other taking the lead [32]. The case might be divided so that the child protection worker interviews the child and law enforcement the alleged offender along with other witnesses. Information might be shared through exchange of notes, sharing of interview recordings, or conferring [32]. If there is a Children's Advocacy Center in the community, the model described in the next section usually will be followed.

#### *4.4. The Development of the Children's Advocacy Center Model*

Because investigation of child sexual abuse may involve a range of professionals—for example, child protection workers, medical professionals, law enforcement, and prosecutors, children were often interviewed multiple times in multiple contexts [34]. The process of having to repeatedly disclose what was, for many children, a shameful and frightening experience, to multiple adult strangers was felt to be traumatic.

As a response to the above troubling scenario, in 1985, Huntsville, Alabama, District Attorney Bud Cramer announced a new concept, a Children's Advocacy Center (CAC), a child friendly place, where alleged victims of sexual abuse would receive a single interview by a trained professional. The interview could be observed, either through a one-way mirror or on a remotely located TV monitor, by all the professionals who needed to hear the child's account [34]. Moreover, other services the child required were intended to be located at the Children's Advocacy Center, so the child experienced "one stop shopping." These services might include a medical exam, victim advocacy, and treatment. The National Children's Advocacy Center (NCAC) was thus founded in Huntsville,

Alabama, and continues to be located in Huntsville. NCAC plays a leadership role in knowledge development and dissemination related to forensic interview models and structures, through its annual International Symposium, its on-site and remote training endeavors, and its internet webinars. NCAC conducts about 600 child interviews per year [35] and houses an electronic library, Child Abuse Library Online (CALiO) on child maltreatment that serves the professional community [36].

 One of his first acts as a Congressman was to foster a bill to fund CACs [36]. To date, there are over 800 CACs in all 50 states and in 10 countries. Two-thirds of the communities in the United States now have access to a Children's Advocacy Center [37]. So far, this funding has been sustained.

The National Children's Alliance (NCA) administers the funding for CACs and has established a set criteria that Children's Advocacy Centers must meet to obtain funding. Today, for a CAC to be an accredited member of the National Children's Alliance and receive federal funding, organizations must have: (1) Child-Appropriate/Child-Friendly Facility; (2) Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), which includes representation from law enforcement, child protective services, prosecution, mental health, medical, victim advocacy, and the Children's Advocacy Center; (3) Organizational Capacity, both fiscal and programmatic to sustain the CAC; (4) Cultural Competency and Diversity, acknowledged and hopefully integrated into its investigative and interviewing endeavors; (5) Forensic Interviews; (6) Medical Evaluations; (7) Therapeutic Intervention; (8) Victim Support/Advocacy; (9) Case Review; and (10) Case Tracking [38]. Not all of these services need be provided at the CAC. For example, medical exams are frequently undertaken off-site.

In terms of forensic interviews, the National Children's Alliance requires that interviews be "conducted in a manner that is legally sound, of a neutral, fact-finding nature, and are coordinated to avoid duplicative interviewing" [38]. NCA does not endorse a particular forensic interview model or structure.

Subsequent to the emergence of NCAC, one of the earliest and most influential CACs was the CornerHouse Interagency Child Abuse Evaluation Center. Like NCAC, leadership for the development of CornerHouse came from the county attorney's office, which, in 1986, sent representatives to visit the NCAC in Huntsville [39].

#### **5. Early Writings about Forensic Interviewing**

In this section, the pioneering role of the Kempe Center, early research on forensic interviewer practices, the leadership role of the U.S. Government, and the International Interdisciplinary Consensus Statement will be described.

#### *5.1. Kempe Center Advice*

One of the earliest written guides for professionals interviewing children about sexual abuse came from the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect [4]. In 1985, David Jones, who was Associate Director, and Mary McQuiston, who

directed the therapeutic pre-school at the Kempe Center, wrote a 44 page pamphlet published by the Kempe Center entitled *Interviewing the Sexually Abused Child.* Despite its brevity, it was prescient in identifying and offering guidance about key interview and investigative issues. The pamphlet documented the extent and effects of sexual abuse, provided a summary of relevant research, laid out a framework for gathering information about the sexual abuse allegation, provided advice about the interview process, and suggested criteria to be used to "validate" the allegation. This pamphlet was revised twice, the last time in 1989 and is no longer in print [40].

The authors advised review of background information before the interview, a practice that has led to debate because of concerns that prior knowledge could bias the interviewer [41], but now is considered best practice and is incorporated into most interview protocols [23,27]. Jones and McQuiston advised against having a parent present in the interview room, but rather assuring the child knew where the caretaker was and allowing the child to check in with the parent, if needed, during the interview process. The authors favored audio and video recording but acknowledged that prosecutors might oppose taping because of potential inconsistencies in the child's disclosures and potential challenges to interview techniques.

In terms of interview structure, they advise a simple (beginning, middle, end), flexible one that could be tailored to the allegations and the child. The interviewer should begin by explaining his/her role and building rapport by asking the child about salient issues in the child's life. The middle was the abuse-related part of the interview, and the end was closure. Consistent with current guidelines related to abuse inquiry, Jones and McQuiston recommended beginning with general, open-ended questions and only using more specific questions if the general ones did not assist in resolving the allegation. Moreover, they instructed the interviewer to follow an affirmative response to a specific question with an open-ended probe. Interviewers were to endeavor to gain details about the "who", "what", "when" and "where", but avoid asking the child "why", advice that is still good today.

Areas where Jones and McQuiston's advice differed from subsequent practice were recommending more than a single interview, advising the use of media, such as anatomical dolls, drawings, free drawings, and books about good and bad touch, and allowing time in the assessment for observation of the child in free play. Finally the authors suggested many more toys in the interview room than is current practice [4].

#### *5.2. Initial Research on Interview Practice*

A pioneering study to document practices for interviewing children about possible sexual abuse was undertaken by Conte, Sorensen, Fogarty, and Dalla Rosa [42].  Of the 212 respondents to their survey, 40% were child protection workers, 46% mental health professionals, and 14% other professionals, including police officers and states attorneys. Seventy-nine percent were female, and on average they had 8.8 years of experience working with sexually abused children. Most documented their interviews with written notes, but approximately a third endorsed the use of both audio and videotaping.

Just under half of respondents interviewed the "non-offending" parent before interviewing the child, and about half sometimes interviewed the child in the presence of the non-offending parent. Interview media played a prominent role in child interviews of these experts. Ninety-two percent employed anatomical dolls; half used other dolls; two-thirds used anatomical drawings; 87% used free drawings, and about half used puppets [42].

Having a parent in the room and the extensive use of media, especially anatomical dolls, during interviews are not currently considered optimal practice [27]. Nonetheless, this research documented contemporary practice among a national sample of child sexual abuse experts and is important in understanding the evolution of forensic interviewing.

#### *5.3. Federal Leadership*

Another important provision of CAPTA was the establishment of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Children's Bureau [17]. NCCAN played a leadership role in both child welfare policy and practice. Among its endeavors was the development of the *Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series*, intended to provide guidance to child welfare professionals in all domains of child maltreatment [43].  This User Manual addresses a spectrum of issues, including: (1) The emotional impact of working in the field of sexual abuse; (2) The scope, effects, and definitions of sexual abuse; (3) A general structure for investigations; (4) Child interviews; and (5) Treatment of the victim and family. Because the manual was developed for professionals in the child welfare field, which primarily addresses intra familial maltreatment, the manual offers guidance about psycho-social interviews with the non-offending parent and the alleged offender, as well as the child.

The chapter on the child interview suggests that interviews not be limited to a single interview, provides advice about appropriate questions, suggests guidelines about the use of media or props during interviews, and outlines a strategy for deciding about the likelihood of sexual abuse. This chapter provides a continuum of 5 types of questions from open-ended to close-ended for the interviewer to employ during inquiry about possible sexual abuse: (1) General questions (about the child's well-being); (2) Focused questions (on people, body parts, and circumstance of sexual abuse); (3) Multiple-choice questions; (4) Yes/no questions; and (5) Leading questions. Further, the manual admonishes the interviewer to use the most open-ended questions first and place more confidence in information elicited from more open-ended questions and correspondingly less confidence in information from more close-ended questions [7]. It, nevertheless, advises the interviewer, if faced with the prospect of not being able to resolve the allegation or asking a close-ended question, to ask a close-ended question.

Media or props are also discussed in the child interview chapter, as are instructions for their use. Media include: (1) Anatomical dolls, citing both their disadvantages and advantages; (2) Anatomical drawings; (3) Picture drawing; and (4) The dollhouse [7].

This is the first interview publication to articulate a continuum of questions, an issue that has been addressed more extensively in subsequent guides. Extensive use of media was soon to be dropped from advice to interviewers.

#### *5.4.  The meeting resulted in a document entitled "The investigation of child sexual abuse: An international, interdisciplinary consensus statement", which was drafted by Michael Lamb, revised based upon the meeting participants' feedback, and subsequently published in three scholarly journals: *Family Law Quarterly*, *Child Abuse & Neglect: the International Journal* and *Journal of Child Sexual Abuse.* The document was co-signed by 20 of the participants in the meeting.

Recommendations regarding interviewing included interviewing the child as soon as possible after the alleged abuse, using open-ended questions designed to elicit a narrative, but with an acknowledgement that direct and focused questions may also be needed, especially with young children, and recording of interviews, preferably video recording. With regard to the use of dolls and other props, the consensus statement notes that they can be useful with children under 5, with reluctant children, and with uncommunicative children. The consensus statement supports a wide range of props, including anatomical dolls and anatomical drawings. The statement cites the importance of training and skill for interviewers using props and warns that anatomical dolls may elicit sexualized play from non-abused children. Such play is regarded as a red flag but not conclusive of sexual abuse in most cases [44].

#### **6. The Development of Interview Structures**

In the 1990s, professionals began to appreciate that interview guidance needed to involve more than mere advice about questions and the use of media; child welfare professionals needed advice about the structure of the interview, itself. This necessity derived from the characteristics of the interviewers and the interviewees.

Most professionals charged with the responsibility of interviewing children about sexual abuse did not have extensive mental health backgrounds or knowledge about child development. This was especially true of law enforcement, but might also have been true of child protection workers because the usual requirement for the position was a bachelor's degree, which could be in criminal justice [45]. Moreover, forensic interviewers at CACs did not necessarily have mental health or child development training.

Interviewees needed guidance because they were children. For most of them, an interview about sexual abuse is an anomalous and possibly frightening experience. Children needed to know what the expectations for the interview were. Moreover, bewildering for most children was the request to provide a narrative about their abuse experience instead of responding to short answer questions.

Below I will describe the development of interview structures, variations in their flexibility, and three notable components of these structures, providing children with ground rules, truth/lie strategies, and categorizing interview questions.

#### *6.1. The Proliferation of Forensic Interview Structures*

Beginning in the 1990s, dozens of interview structures were developed [46], most with a focus on the mandated investigators—child protection and law enforcement, and on forensic interviewers at Children's Advocacy Centers. Some interview structures were developed in academic institutions, for example, the Stepwise Interview [47], the Cognitive Interview [48], and the Ten Step Investigative Interview [49]. Others were developed by agencies charged with interviewing children, for example, the National Children's Advocacy Center [50] and CornerHouse [51]. Eventually, states began developing interview protocols to be used by first responders and CAC forensic interviewers in their state. Examples are Oregon [52], Michigan [53] and Washington State Child Interview Guide [54].

#### *6.2. Degree of Flexibility of the Interview Structure*

Interview structures vary from scripted (e.g., Ten Step Investigative Interview [49], NICHD [27]), to semi-structured (e.g., RATAC [51], ChildFirst [55], Poole and Lamb's Investigative Interview [56]), to flexible (e.g., Faller's Child-Focused Flexible Interview [21], National Children's Advocacy Center Forensic Interview Protocol [50]). RADAR (Recognizing Abuse Disclosure types and Responding), which builds upon the NICHD protocol and research, is unique in that it has a scripted version for inexperienced interviewers and a semi-structured version for more experienced interviewers [57]. Moreover, RADAR provides the interviewer with a decision tree that takes into account possible barriers to disclosure, whether there has been a prior disclosure, and any prior allusion to abuse [57].

Scripted interview structures provide verbatim what the interviewer should say. During the abuse-related phase of the interview, however, when the interviewer is gathering information about the specifics of abusive experiences, the guidance is less prescriptive. Most scripted structures are linear; that is, they assume the interviewer will be able to move through the phases or stages in the order they are designated in the interview structure.

Semi-structured interview guides provide the interviewer with advice about various tasks, for example, the use of anatomical or other drawings, but indicate that the interviewer should decide whether to incorporate such components based upon the individual child, for example, the child's developmental stage, his/her comfort level, or specifics of the allegations [51].

Flexible interview structures take into consideration local community practices and state legal requirements (NCAC) [50], which may specify aspects of the interview structure. Faller points out that an interview structure is a two-edged sword [46]. It offers needed guidance to the interviewer, but the structure can also be used to challenge the interviewer who fails to follow the structure. The more prescriptive the structure, the greater the risk that the interviewer will deviate. This is because interviewers also try to follow the child's lead, and the child does not know the structure. Because of concern that the structure may be used against the interviewer, she argues for simpler structure. For example, an interview structure with a beginning, middle, and end allows for greater flexibility than one with many phases (e.g., the Step-wise Interview [47], Ten Step Investigative Interview [49]).

#### *6.3. Interview Ground Rules*

Two issues influenced the development of interview ground rules. First, research has documented that children perform better in a forensic interview if they know what the expectations are [58]. Second, professionals thought rules would assure that children provided accurate information during forensic interviews. The number of ground rules varies by interview structure (4–9 rules). Some structures have fewer rules, in part because the interview structure developers were concerned that the child would not be able to remember and apply a lot of rules. One way some protocols have addressed this problem is by having children practice the rule as it is given. For example, the NICHD Protocol [27], which only has four rules, has the child practice each one of them. The order in which the ground rules are provided to the child varies. Below are ground rules found in interview structures.

Some interview structures give the child permission not to answer a question if it makes him/her uncomfortable. For example, the Step-wise Interview Protocol includes the rule: "If you feel uncomfortable at any time, please tell me or show me with the stop sign" [47]. Similarly, some structures include the rule, "If I ask the same question more than once, that doesn't mean your first answer was wrong. Sometimes I forget" (Cognitive Interview [48]).

#### *6.4. Truth/Lie Competency*

One of the strategies intended to assure children tell the truth is to have a discussion of the truth and lie during the ground rules part of the interview. Informative research on children's capacity to differentiate truth-telling from lying was undertaken by Thomas Lyon and Karen Saywitz [60]. They tested 96 children, ages 4–7, under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Dependency Court, on three tasks: (1) Children were asked to define the truth and a lie; (2) Children were asked to tell the difference between a truth and a lie; and (3) Children were given 4 examples and asked to tell the researcher whether each was the truth or a lie. The children did quite poorly at tasks 1 and 2, but older children did better. All children performed much better on the identification of examples of the truth and lie, especially the 6 and 7 year olds [60,61].

This research has led interview structure developers to include examples of true and false statements in the rules phase of the interview. For example, the NICHD Protocol instructs the interviewer to ask the child if the interviewer's shoes are red and whether he/she is standing up [27]. Lyon and Saywitz [62,63] have developed a series of pictured examples with accompanying text to use in truth/lie competency assessment. These are available through the University of Southern California Law School website under Thomas Lyon and can be downloaded free of charge [62]. That said, Lyon, who is the developer of the Ten Step Investigative Interview Protocol, does not include the truth/lie exercise in the Ten Step [49].

Nevertheless, analogue research has found that getting children to promise to tell the truth increases their likelihood of doing so [58] <sup>1</sup> . Thus, the Ten Step Protocol includes "Do you promise that you will tell the truth? Will you tell me any lies?" [49] Some protocols, for example ChildFirst [55], give the interviewer the option of including the truth or lie exercise.

#### *6.5. Interview Questions*

All interview structures provide guidance about appropriate questions/probes/prompts, and there is general agreement that open-ended questions are superior to close-ended ones [27,58]. The specific terms used to label a given type of question/probe are not consistent across interview structures, and there is not complete consensus about where on the question/probe continuum different types of interviewer utterances fall. Moreover, some interviewer structures prefer probes (e.g., tell me) rather than questions (e.g., can you tell me? do you remember?). Those preferring the probe strategy are concerned that the question strategy will give the child an out to say "no" [64]. Those that prefer a question strategy are concerned that the "tell me" approach will be experienced by the child as coercive and/or may compel the child to respond even though the child does not know the answer [64]. Below is a table (Table 1) which attempts to take into account dominant interview structure <sup>2</sup> terms <sup>3</sup> and definitions and provides a continuum, generally from most preferred to least preferred questions/probes. The continuum is structured from most open-ended to most close-ended and suggests forensic interviewers place more confidence in responses to open-ended questions/probes and correspondingly less confidence in responses to more close-ended questions/probes.

<sup>1</sup> Although some analogue studies involve children with a history of maltreatment [60], there are no field studies using the promise to tell the truth. This is because it is very difficult to develop a research sample that consists of abuse allegations that the researcher knows what happened.

<sup>2</sup> These terms derive from the NICHD protocol, the Ten Step Investigative Interview Guide, the NCAC Interview, RADAR, RATAC, APSAC Practice Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse, the Memorandum of Good Practice and its revision, Achieving the Best Evidence, and ChildFirst.

<sup>3</sup> When more than one term is used for a question/probe, the Continuum will include all terms.

**Table 1.** Question/Probe Continuum.

This Question/Probe Continuum is an attempt to capture the state of empirical knowledge and practice, but it does not include all the definitions and advice found in interview structures. Moreover, there remains disagreement about how egregious it is to employ more close-ended questions in a forensic interview. The reality is that protocols, such as the NICHD Protocol [27] to be described below, which strongly advises against close-ended questions, are able to reduce the number of close-ended questions, but not eliminate them. This dilemma derives not only from the predisposition of adults to ask close-ended questions when gathering information from children, something interview structures are intended to counter, but also from the children. Children may not have the capacity to report events to interviewers who are using open-ended probes, such as "tell me everything that happened from the beginning to the end." Moreover, they are likely to be reluctant to talk about their sexual abuse and, as a consequence, require more close-ended inquiry.

#### **7. Influential Interview Structures**

There is such a multiplicity of interview structures that they cannot all be described in this article. Interview structures that have had a marked impact on interview practice will be described. In addition, I have attempted to select interview structures that represent different approaches and are intended for different types of interviewers. Interview structures to be covered are the APSAC Practice Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse, the Memorandum of Good Practice and its revision, Achieving the Best Evidence [59], RATAC [51], and the NICHD Protocol [27]. In a description of each protocol, I will note why it was selected.

#### *7.1. The APSAC Guidelines*

The APSAC Guidelines, Practice Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse, were developed in 1990 by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [65], were selected for inclusion because they were the first set of guidelines covering interview structure, captured best practice at the time, and are an example of flexible interviewing. Moreover, they influenced subsequent forensic interview structures. These guidelines were aimed at mental health professionals, as opposed to child protection and law enforcement professionals, and encompassed both forensic and non-forensic evaluations [65]. As already noted, the guidelines allow for a lot of flexibility. They do, however, state the evaluator must have a graduate level mental health degree and indicate a preference for the evaluator having three to five years of professional experience with sexually abused children. The APSAC guidelines are intended for professionals evaluating a spectrum of aspects of an allegation, not for professionals who are only conducting forensic interviews, and hence address issues beyond the child interview. These include advising that the evaluator gather information from collateral contacts, advising against using parent-child sessions to determine the likelihood of sexual abuse, stating that the evaluator need not interview the alleged offender to determine the likelihood of sexual abuse, and indicating that the evaluator may form an opinion about the likelihood of sexual abuse [65].

In terms of the child interview, the APSAC guidelines state that it is not necessary for the evaluator to have a written protocol, but advise providing the child with ground rules for the interview, exploring positive and neutral topics before asking about abuse, and using open-ended questions first in an attempt to elicit a narrative from the child. Further, these guidelines state that the evaluation should not be limited to a single child interview, support the use of media in the interview, including anatomical dolls, and recommend the evaluator consider multiple hypotheses that might explain the sexual abuse allegation [65]. These guidelines were revised in 1997 [66] and are currently under revision.

APSAC also has forensic guidelines for first responders and CAC interviewers, Forensic Interviewing in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse [67]. These practice guidelines are in their fourth edition.

#### *7.2. Memorandum of Good Practice & Achieving the Best Evidence*

The Memorandum of Good Practice and its most recent version, Achieving the Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, will be described in this section. Although these interview structures were developed for law enforcement in England and Wales [59,68], they have been quite influential for the development of protocols in the United States. For example, the Memorandum of Good Practice was the first protocol to advise interviewers not to interrupt the child's narrative, as interviewers were prone to, to seek clarification. This instruction was incorporated into the NICHD Protocol, which is the model for many other protocols in both the United States and other countries. Another important instruction in the Memorandum and Achieving the Best Evidence is repeating the child's disclosures, using the child's own words. Although this instruction has not been as widely incorporated into other protocols, it is excellent advice. Using the child's own words avoids subtle distortions in the child's information.

#### 7.2.1. Memorandum of Good Practice

The Memorandum of Good Practice was originally published in 1992, making it an early and therefore influential interview structure4 . It is also probably the most widely known example of a flexible interview structure. Moreover, it is unique in that the Memorandum was developed to serve as a guide for law enforcement in England and Wales who were conducting interviews that were to be videotaped [68]. Policy in England and Wales differs substantially from that in the United States in that a videotaped statement from the child about his/her abuse can be entered into evidence in a criminal case in lieu of the child's *in vivo* testimony. Law enforcement also have the option of having the child produce a written statement to be used instead of live testimony. The Memorandum of Good Practice consists of four phases: (1) Rapport building; (2) Free narrative; (3) Gathering details; and (4) Closure, with additional specification about how to conduct each of these phases [68]. For example, as noted above, the Memorandum admonishes the interviewer not to interrupt the child and to allow for pauses, advice that law enforcement might especially need [68].

<sup>4</sup> Thus, the Memorandum of Good Practice preceded the International Interdisciplinary Consensus Statement, which was first published in 1994.

#### 7.2.2. Achieving the Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

The Memorandum has been revised several times, and the current guide is entitled Achieving the Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and encompasses more than the child forensic interview [59]. It is a policy document developed to address all aspects of investigations involving sexually abused children and other vulnerable witnesses in England and Wales, and is 257 pages in length. Unlike interview structures in the U.S., which are not universal and vary depending upon the developer and by locality, *Achieving the Best Evidence* is intended to be applied in all law enforcement investigations of sexual abuse cases in England and Wales <sup>5</sup> . The child forensic interview retains its flexible, four phased structure: (1) Establishing Rapport; (2) Free Narrative Account; (3) Questioning; and (4) Closing the Interview, but with greater emphasis on eliciting narrative accounts than found in the original Memorandum of Good Practice.

During Rapport, after identification of the parties present, time, and date for the video, the advice is to get the child to provide a narrative about neutral events (not positive ones), but not to allow this endeavor to go on too long out of concern the child will tire or will become confused about the purpose of the interview. Following this portion of the Rapport section, ground rules are provided. This interview structure does not include the permission to say "I don't know" rule. It does include the two "misunderstand" rules, "if you don't understand my question, tell me" and "if I misunderstand, tell me". Achieving the Best Evidence also includes the "ignorant interviewer" rule. Children are told that the interviewer wasn't there, does not know what happened, and needs details. Despite the fact that the video (or written statement) may be used at trial in place of the child's live testimony, interviewers are not to ask children to take an oath. The interviewer does, however, advise the child that it is important to tell the truth and may ask the child to give examples of truths and lies or provide examples for the child to identify as true or false. Witnesses are informed they can take a break anytime, and interviewers are advised that multiple breaks may be needed.

For the Free Narrative Account phase, this interview structure does not provide probes for transitioning to discussion of the abuse, but rather appears to assume the child will know why he/she is being interviewed. As in the Memorandum, interviewers are admonished not to interrupt the child. In terms of free narrative prompts, this interview structure specifies that they be open-ended and gives examples such as "anything else you remember". It also encourages active listening, that is, narrative cues as described in the Question/Probe Continuum.

The Questioning phase assumes the child has provided some narrative about abuse and is intended to gather additional information about the abusive incident and case-specific information, such as family composition and how the child knows the abuser. With questions about both the abuse and case, the interviewer is instructed to divide the topic and systematically explore, for example, everything about a specific abusive act. Appropriate questions include Open-ended, for example, "tell me more about…" and Specific-closed, which are questions about who, when, where, and what. Interviewers are instructed not to ask why questions and are advised to avoid Forced-choice questions (multiple choice and yes/no), asking Multiple questions in one query, and Leading questions.

<sup>5</sup> Similarly, the NICHD Protocol applies to all interviews involving physical and sexual abuse allegations conducted by Israeli Youth Investigators.

During Closure, the interviewer summarizes the child's disclosure, using the child's own words, and invites correction and any additional information the child recalls. The interviewer then moves to a neutral topic, calms the child, if needed, and thanks the child [59,68].

The Achieving the Best Evidence document provides flexibility and gives the interviewer autonomy to determine the most appropriate method for gathering information about abuse. It emphasizes that there is no single best interview structure. The document also makes specific reference to the Cognitive Interview [48] and the NICHD Protocol [27] as alternative interview structures for gathering information from the child. Achieving the Best Evidence also supports the use of dolls, including anatomical dolls, drawings, and other props, and provides appropriate guidance on their use and cautionary advice [69].

#### *7.3. The CornerHouse Forensic Interview Protocol: RATAC*

RATAC stands for: (1) Rapport; (2) Anatomy Identification; (3) Touch Inquiry; (4) Abuse Scenario; and (5) Closure. The RATAC interview structure has been very influential because, in 2002, it was incorporated into the Finding Words training curriculum, sponsored by the American Prosecutors Research Institute and provided by the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse [70,71]. In addition, in 2007, the National Child Protection Training Center, founded by Victor Vieth, entered into a contract with CornerHouse to continue to develop and sustain state courses using the RATAC protocol [71]. As will be discussed below, RATAC and its various iterations are among the most widely trained interview structures in the United States. Although there have been recent changes in the RATAC protocol in response to CornerHouse and other research, because so many professionals were trained on the original RATAC protocol and continue to follow its guidance, it is important to describe the original protocol. Revisions of RATAC will be described in subsequent sections.

The RATAC protocol is semi-structured, meaning that the interviewer makes choices about the use of components in the structure. It shares commonalities with other interview structures, but also is distinct [72]. The distinctions will be described in the next sub-sections.

#### 7.3.1. Interview Ground Rules

Unlike other interview structures, RATAC, in its original form, did not give the child the ground rules at the beginning of the interview, but rather incorporated them as the need arose during the interview. The designers of RATAC decided that giving the children a list of rules at the beginning was too authoritarian and created a negative tone [51]. They acknowledged, however, that teaching interviewers the skill of knowing when to provide a rule was more challenging than providing all the rules at the beginning of the interview [73].

#### 7.3.2. Use of Media

RATAC also makes considerable use of media [51,74]. There is an easel with newsprint, which is shared drawing and writing space for both the interviewer and the child. The interviewer may use a number of drawing tasks.  When the interviewer engages the child in Anatomy Identification, the interviewer employs anatomical drawings, selecting both male and female drawings that reflect the child's ethnicity. Anatomical drawings are also used during the Touch Inquiry phase to first identify positive touches (e.g., kisses, hugs) and then negative touches (e.g., places no one is supposed to touch) [74]. During the Abuse Scenario phase, the interviewer may use anatomical dolls to gather information about sexual abuse after the child has indicated something of an abusive nature happened [73,74].

#### 7.3.3. Questioning Strategies

The original RATAC questioning strategy also differed from strategies in many other interview structures [74,75]. It did not rely on a strict hierarchy of most preferred (open-ended) to least preferred (close-ended) questions. Other interview structures rely heavily on invitational probes (e.g., "Tell me the reason you are here" "Tell me all about that") to elicit narrative accounts from children. The RATAC designers viewed invitational questions as not developmentally appropriate for younger children and preferred focused questions (e.g., "Where on your body were you touched?").

RATAC traditionally relied on the use of a yes/no question to introduce a topic of concern (e.g., "Are there places on your body no one should touch?"). This is known as scaffolding [75] and alerts the child to the topic to be discussed. If the child responds positively, then the interviewer would follow with "wh" questions. These would be followed by a close-ended question. For example, if the child answered yes to the yes/no question about inappropriate body touch, the interviewer would ask, "where?" The interviewer could then ask, "Has someone touched you in one of those places?"

The RATAC protocol also included invitational probes, but they were not the first abuse-related questions. The Touch Inquiry, which relies for the most part on yes/no and focused questions, was the transition to the abuse-related part of the interview. That said, one of the alternative strategies for the Touch Inquiry is the invitational question, "What do you know about coming to talk to me today?" [74].

#### 7.3.4. The Revision of the CornerHouse Protocol

In 2013, subsequent to research conducted at CornerHouse [76] and likely some challenges to their use of media and questioning strategies, CornerHouse substantially revised their interview structure [76,77]. Added components are "orienting messages", that is interview ground rules, the use of a narrative approach, and privileging an invitation to children of all ages to tell what they know about the interview and its purpose [78]. The CornerHouse current structure is: (1) Build Rapport; (2) Seek Information; (3) Explore Statements; and (4) End Respectfully. It employs narrative practice during the Build Rapport stage and includes invitation and encouraging a narrative during the Explore Statements phase [77,78]. It does not abandon its use of media, but their use is not so prominently featured in the interview structure. Despite the revisions, the protocol remains faithful to CornerHouse's "Child First Philosophy", which is its hallmark [78]. See also the First Witness

Protocol, developed by the CAC in Duluth, Minnesota. First Witness is a modified RATAC interview structure based upon the CornerHouse research on narrative practice [79].

#### 7.3.5. The ChildFirst Protocol

Just as CornerHouse revised its protocol, so did the National Child Protection Training Center, now called the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center, with whom CornerHouse partnered in training. This new protocol takes into account the changes in CornerHouse Protocol, but also is based upon a review of existing protocols and training in forensic interviewing. The ChildFirst Protocol is a four phase structure: (1) Rapport; (2) Transition to the Topic of Concern; (3) Explore Details; and (4) Closure [80]. Narrative practice is an important technique during Rapport. Narratives are also encouraged during later phases of the interview structure.

The Rapport stage differentiates strategies by the child's age, under 5, 6–10, 11 and up. The five and under children are not informed of the fact they are being video-taped and that people are watching the interview, but older children are. With the five and under group, the interviewer uses the face drawing of the child and the family drawing, as found in RATAC. With older children these activities are optional, and the face drawing is not used with the oldest group. For all age groups, interviewers can choose whether or not to engage in a discussion of the truth/lie and request that the child promise to tell the truth [80].

The ChildFirst Protocol also takes into account relatively new knowledge about polyvictimization [81]. Children who experience sexual abuse are at greater risk for other types of victimization [81]. Interviewers inquire about a spectrum of types of maltreatment. [80]. In summary, despite the fact that National Child Protection Training Center has given their protocol a new name, ChildFirst, and has considered other forensic interview protocols, it retains many commonalities with the RATAC and revised CornerHouse Protocols.

#### *7.4. The NICHD Protocol*

Arguably, the most important development in forensic interviewing during the last 40 years has been the development of the NICHD Forensic Interview Protocol [27]. Michael Lamb and Kathleen Sternberg, two eminent developmental psychologists who worked for the U.S. National Institute of Health and Human Development, spear-headed the development of the NICHD Protocol. Their goals were to enhance the competence of interviewers and to enhance the ability of children to provide accurate and coherent accounts of their experiences. Reasons for the marked impact of the NICHD Protocol will be described in the next subsection. This will be followed by a description of the protocol, a discussion of distinguishing features of the NICHD Protocol, its revision, and its impact on other protocols.

7.4.1. Reasons the NICHD Protocol Has Had Such a Marked Impact

There are at least three reasons that the NICHD Protocol is the most important development in forensic interviewing. First, the NICHD team developed collaborations in other developed countries, notably Israel, Great Britain, Scotland, Canada (Quebec), and Sweden [82,83]. As a consequence the NICHD team has access to interview data on over 40,000 forensic interviews using the NICHD Protocol and can conduct research on these cases [84]. Perhaps most significant is their collaboration in Israel. Israeli Youth Investigators, who conduct forensic interviews on all cases involving physical and sexual abuse, use the NICHD Protocol. Moreover, the Israeli Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs supports data collection. The NICHD Protocol has been translated into the following languages: Chinese, Finish (adapted version), French (Canada), Georgian, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish [83]. All language versions are available on the website [83].

Second, these partnerships enabled field research, as opposed to laboratory research on interview practices. Although laboratory or analogue studies <sup>6</sup> play a role in understanding how children report their experiences, these studies cannot replicate in their research designs the trauma, secrecy, and stigma associated with sexual abuse. The studies also do not reflect the challenges experienced in the field by actual forensic interviewers.

Third, the NICHD team had access to the infrastructure to study the effects of interview practices. Although administrative data are useful in evaluating interview outcomes (e.g., percent of disclosures, court outcomes), determining the utility of specific interview practices is very labor intensive. It requires recording and transcribing interviews, developing coding systems for interviewer utterances and child responses, and having the staff resources to code and analyze interview data. It also requires professionals who are motivated to write articles and books for professional consumption. To date, there are approximately 100 articles and five books describing research on the NICHD Protocol [84]. Thus, the research on the NICHD Protocol is very impressive and cannot be rivaled by research on other interview structures. Indeed, many other protocols have relied on the NICHD research and incorporated components of the NICHD Protocol into their interview structures (e.g., Ten Step Investigative Interview Protocol [49], RADAR [57], Michigan Forensic Interview Protocol [53]).

#### 7.4.2. Description of the NICHD Protocol

The NICHD Protocol took as its starting point knowledge of child development; thus, it is built upon research conducted on normal children. The NICHD Protocol is an 11 or 12 phase protocol (the researchers are involved in ongoing efforts to improve the Protocol, based upon input from those using it and upon research findings). The phases are: (1) Introduction, during which the interviewer describes his/her role and provides ground rules for the forensic interview; (2) Rapport Building, which includes asking the child about things he/she likes to do; (3) Training in Episodic Memory, which involves asking about a recent event salient to the child and/or about everything that happened yesterday or today; (4) Transition to Substantive Issues (e.g., sexual abuse concerns); the Protocol provides nine different probes, from open-ended to more close-ended to assist the interviewer and the child in this transition; (5) Investigating the Incidents, using repeated invitational probes (e.g., "tell me everything about that", "tell me more", "and then what happened"); (6) Break, during which