Dear benfranklin-ga;
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting
question.
For starters, Cowling Investigations, Inc has published online a
tremendously interesting series of articles on this topic and other
related issues called: “FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE”. I highly
recommend you read this informative article and series of subsequent
articles linked here:
“FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE”
http://www.allencowling.com/falseacc.htm
By and large, forensic interviewers are charged with interviewing
children who have suffered sexual abuse. Because they are usually not
in uniform, are non-threatening, and (hopefully) have some type of
specialized training, they are often called upon work their craft as
opposed to having the child interviewed by a uniformed police officer
or a district attorney in a business suit by whom they might be
intimidated and to whom they cannot adequately and openly relate their
secrets and/or fears. Because sexual abuse is not always as visibly
apparent as other forms of abuse these interviewers are often called
upon to conduct this type of work, but obviously they also interview
children who have suffered physical, mental and emotional abuse when
necessary. Throughout my research you will see frequent references to
sexual abuse. This is the common nature of a forensic interviewer’s
job, but where applicable in the information I have compiled for you
below, the term “sexual abuse” can be equally interchangeable with
other forms of abuse as well.
Qualifications for interviewers of children in suspected abuse cases
vary from one interviewer to another. In my line of work (a police
officer) we are exposed to a number of experts of varying degrees. At
the investigator level, the officer is trained to identify behavior
during an interview that merely raises suspicion. This includes among,
other things, emotional status, verbal response, body language,
attentiveness, consistency and credibility. Obviously, a more advanced
interviewer who possesses a far more superior education in child
psychology, sociology and/or human behavior would be able to recognize
more subtle indicators and would likely be more capable of determining
whether or not these behaviors were indicative of truthfulness or
false accusation. Your question however remains, “what qualifications
does such a person possess to make an accurate determination of what
really happened?”. The truth is, no amount of education can insure
with absolute certainty that an interviewer will discover the truth
100% of the time in all cases. Education, after all, does not give any
psychologist an infallible crystal ball into the mind of a child. It
is the indicators, and ultimately the techniques used to bring them
out, that tell the tale. In the bigger picture, then, by the same
token, it is eventually (and finally) the interpretation of the key
indicators and how they are presented which will determine, with a
measurable degree of “probability”, the most likely scenario of what
did or did not occur. Keep in mind that forensic interviews are not
designed to confirm a hypothesis; they are merely designed to test the
hypothesis. This report will give you much greater insight into my
last statement (which was a conclusion reached by eminent child
psychology researchers Ceci & Bruk):
STATE OF MICHIGAN GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON CHILDRENS’ JUSTICE AND
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY
(Note: beginning on page 8; “INTRODUCTION”)
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FIA-Pub779_13054_7.pdf
In Allen Cowling’s article, “The Experts”, he examines the techniques
of a number of successful, professional interviewers with whom he has
worked and outlines their educational backgrounds. Among them is Ralph
Underwager, Ph.D., a profoundly accomplished psychologist whose
educational background and achievements runs the gamut of behavioral
sciences.
INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/staff/underwager.htm
Obviously Underwager is an example of someone who could easily be
considered a person who has achieved a spot at the greater end of the
educational spectrum for an interviewer. At a minimum would be these
examples I found, which, from my own 22 years of experience, seem more
in tune with what we normally see in most communities:
“Applicants must have sufficient knowledge of child protection/law
enforcement protocol in regards to child abuse investigations with
special emphasis on child sexual abuse. Qualifications would include a
Bachelor's Degree or five years of law enforcement experience that
includes crimes against persons.”
LATIMER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER
http://www.larimercac.org/jobs.htm
“Qualifications: Bachelor's degree in social work, criminal justice,
or related field. Professional experience may be accepted in lieu of
degree. Knowledge of and experience in child abuse, victimization,
child development, family dynamics, criminal justice, and judicial
systems. Computer knowledge and experience in Word, Office, Excel, and
Web- based programs. Excellent communication skills and ability to
work with professionals and children.”
AUSTIN JOBS
http://www.austinwide.com/j/j7103461117.html
At the lesser end of the spectrum, attendance and successful
completion of a formal training seminar, or perhaps a series of
seminars, might be all that a jurisdiction requires. Here are some
examples:
SPECIALIZED CHILD ABUSE TRAINING
http://www.micats.org/schedules/description.asp?classID=27
FINDING WORDS
http://www.comtrea.org/fwm1.html
Certainly an ideal interviewer should at least have some advanced
education in psychology, child psychology, sociology, or other related
behavioral science or human services or criminal justice field (as in
this example “CHICAGO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER”
http://www.chicagocac.org/forms/fifactsheet.pdf ) but in many
jurisdictions this is not always required. The interviewer’s
credentials should also include an education in conducting the
interviews themselves, specifically with regard to child abuse cases –
most jurisdictions do require this. It is not necessary in most areas
for the interviewer to be a medical doctor, social worker, pastor, or
what have you, but he/she must know what to say, when to say it and
under what circumstances. Moreover, the interviewer should be educated
in measured response and be able to interpret answers appropriately
without crossing the line of biased emotions.
With regard to part two of your question: “research, procedures or
guidelines that address how to conduct forensic interviews with young
children in determining the validity of their claims of physical or
emotional abuse”, let me say this: human beings are ever evolving
creatures and it is difficult, if not entirely impossible to say,
“this works with all people” when talking about any specific human
interaction. What we DO know, however, is what DOES NOT work, and it
is these things that interviewers of children strive to avoid. Because
all people react differently to given situations, it is logically
assumed when we interview children that if we avoid those techniques
that have been proven unsuccessful or detrimental, we are likely to
follow the course of action that is productive. Interviewers are
trained to carefully and passively question children using caution to
avoid inadvertently feeding the child information that might become
the child’s testimony or opinion later on. Here are some examples of
what interviewers are taught NOT to do when interviewing a child. In
an article published in the “Psychological Bulletin” (“The
suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and
synthesis”. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403-439, 1993) child
experts S. Ceci and M. Bruck came to the following conclusions:
“Even young children are capable of recalling much that is
forensically relevant.
There are significant age differences in suggestibility, with
preschool-age children being more vulnerable to suggestion than either
school-aged children or adults.
Children can be led to make false or inaccurate reports about very
crucial, personally experienced events.
Contrary to the claims of some, children sometimes lie when the
motivational structure is tilted towards lying.”
CHILD WITNESS SUGGESTIBILITY IN FALSE ALLEGATION CASES
http://www.allencowling.com/false09.htm
Of interviewers who make these types of errors, many are also guilty
of other mistakes that inadvertently, subconsciously or intentionally
steer a child in a particular direction, or, through their own lack of
interviewing experience, offer fuel to the fire of a child’s
imagination or comprehension about what did or did not take place.
Look at what Cowling says in this same article:
“Unfortunately, in many cases where a false allegation is made, more
overall damage is actually caused by those individuals whose
responsibility it was to obtain the truth, be they law enforcement,
social services or psychologists. Usually, these "professionals" have
limited or no training in the correct procedure for interviewing a
child. They conduct interviews using dolls or pictures. They conduct
interviews during play time. Their questions are leading and
suggestive. They accept at face value a child's allegation as fact.
They immediately and automatically treat the child as the "victim."
From that point on, both that "professional" and that child are
"hooked." The "professional" because the child is telling them what
they want to hear. The child, because they can "read" in the
interviewer (their voice, tone, their expression) what they are saying
that pleases them. This is far from a search for the truth, yet it
happens again and again and is responsible for the conviction of many
innocent people.”
As mentioned previously in the comments section, an audio or video
tape can reveal certain emotions that a mere transcript cannot, but at
any rate, a transcript is minimally necessary in order to prove (or
disprove) what the child might have said during the course of the
conversation and whether or not the interview was conducted
appropriately. This of course is opinionated, but at the very least,
the fact that no recording exists (as you mentioned) leads me to
believe that the interviewer in your case probably doesn’t conduct
many child victim interviews as his/her primary occupation. Clearly
this failure to record the evidence appears be a serious legal and
strategic omission on the part of the prosecution should evidence be
disputed, and at best, a sophomoric mistake on the part of the
interviewer in the event of a potential civil suit.
Basically (and unfortunately, in some cases), a professional forensic
interviewer can be anyone who is qualified in the eyes of the
jurisdiction in which they work. I found an exceptionally well done
protocol similar to the one used in my own jurisdiction that outlines
the requirements as well as the guidelines for many cases, among them
forensic interviewing of children.
PRESCOTT, YAVAPAI COUNTY ARIZONA PROTOCOL
http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/acainfo/protocol/yavapai.pdf
(Note: beginning on page 23, “GUIDELINES FOR FORENSIC INTERVIEW
PROTOCOL”)
Again, different situations require different approaches, so when you
ask “what qualifications” and interviewer should have (not “must”
have), it really depends on the circumstances. Interviewers trained to
recognize certain suspected syndromes, for example, are usually
preferable to those who are not. This added knowledge is a bonus in
favor of the interviewer, but again, it isn’t often required. Consider
the case of S.A.I.D Syndrome (Sexual Allegations in Divorce) wherein
some children tend to align themselves with the reporting parent's
agenda and the allegations that they make. Without knowing of this
syndrome in advance, an interviewer would be completely unarmed should
it suddenly manifest itself. (Do read this article; it provides a
great set of example guidelines in how best to interview a child
without bias):
THE S.A.I.D. SYNDROME - SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS IN DIVORCE
http://www.allencowling.com/false14.htm
Summary
REQUIREMENTS: Unfortunately, there are no federally mandated standards
of training or certifications for all forensic interviewers. While a
few states do have formal courses of training available through public
and private institutions, as a general rule most interviewers meet the
minimum requirements by having at least a partial or continuing
education in criminal justice, public welfare or behavior sciences or
are so employed by virtual of their years of experience in other
related fields such as law enforcement, medicine or social work..
“Just as there is no one “right” method of conducting a forensic
interview, there is no one training or credentialing program for
forensic interviewers”
NORTH CAROLINA’S CHILD WELFARE WORKERS
http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol8_no1/cspn_v8no1.pdf
GUIDELINES: As shown in several instances above and in the links
below, each jurisdiction usually prescribes it’s own protocol for
interviewing child victims/witnesses and are responsible to the
issuing authority in their own area, usually a county but occasionally
a municipal government authority.
Do take the time to read the articles I have located for you here,
especially the series of articles published by Allen Cowling. I read
each of the articles in their entirety and found them all to be quite
fascinating but the Cowling articles seemed especially relevant to
your situation. I hope you find that that my research exceeds your
expectations. If you have any questions about my research please post
a clarification request prior to rating the answer. I welcome your
rating and your final comments and I look forward to working with you
again in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga
INFORMATION SOURCES
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE
http://www.allencowling.com/falseacc.htm
INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/staff/underwager.htm
CHILD WITNESS SUGGESTIBILITY IN FALSE ALLEGATION CASES
http://www.allencowling.com/false09.htm
THE S.A.I.D. SYNDROME - SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS IN DIVORCE
http://www.allencowling.com/false14.htm
ANATOMICALLY CORRECT DOLLS IN FALSE ALLEGATIONS CASES
http://www.allencowling.com/false15.htm
SPECIALIZED CHILD ABUSE TRAINING
http://www.micats.org/schedules/description.asp?classID=27
FINDING WORDS
http://www.comtrea.org/fwm1.html
DISCLOSING RITUAL ABUSE
(RESEARCH STUDY INTO INTERVIEW METHODS)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/child3.htm
DO CHILDREN TELL THE TRUTH? IMPLANTED MEMORIES.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/child2.htm
HOW YOUNG CHILDREN DISCLOSE SEXUAL ABUSE
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chil_int.htm
SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS
LATIMER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER
http://www.larimercac.org/jobs.htm
AUSTIN JOBS
http://www.austinwide.com/j/j7103461117.html
“CHICAGO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER”
http://www.chicagocac.org/forms/fifactsheet.pdf
STATE OF MICHIGAN GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON CHILDRENS’ JUSTICE AND
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FIA-Pub779_13054_7.pdf
NORTH CAROLINA’S CHILD WELFARE WORKERS
http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol8_no1/cspn_v8no1.pdf
(Note: beginning on page 5; TRAINING ON FORENSIC INTERVIEWING)
SAMPLE PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES
PRESCOTT, YAVAPAI COUNTY ARIZONA PROTOCOL
http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/acainfo/protocol/yavapai.pdf
BASIC GUIDELINES FOR FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES
IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND NATIVE ALASKAN COMMUNITIES
http://www.tribal-institute.org/download/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Forensic%20Interview%20with%20Logos%2011-26.pdf
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
CHILD ABUSE INTERVIEWERS
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE INTERVIEWERS
“FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS” TRAINING
“FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS” STANDARDS
“FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS” SEMINARS
“FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS” REQUIREMENTS
“FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS” QUALIFICATIONS
"FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS" PROTOCOL
"FORENSIC INTERVIEWERS" GUIDELINES |
,
1 Comment
)