Save the Children Copenhagen October 2002 Toward the

Save the Children, Copenhagen, October 2002 Toward the Best Interest of the Child – the Children´s House: Multiagency and Interdisciplinary Approach to Child Sexual Abuse Bragi Guðbrandsson, Gen. Director, The Gov. Agency for Child Protection, Iceland

Outline Ø The value of international cooperation Ø The situation in Iceland prior to the “Children´s House” Ø Research findings on child sexual abuse and intervention by the authorities Ø Defaults in work procedures, lack of competence and violation of children´s rights Ø Towards solutions: the missions of the Children´s House Ø How does the Children´s House work? Ø Positive experiences and issues of concern

Social awareness Ø Stage of denial ØStage of admittance ØStage of recognition

International cooperation Ø World Congress 1996 Ø European Union Ø Council of Europe Ø Regional cooperation Ø “Children at risk” in the Baltic states Ø Childcentre. baltinfo. org

A study on the prevalance/intervention of child sexual abuse in Iceland Ø intervention in CSA by public agencies. Ø data collected from the CPS, the Police, the Prosecution and the Courts. Ø individual cases were studied and traced on different levels Ø lessons learned

Number of cases 1995 -1997 ® Total number of cases 369 which involved 368 children ® Average of 123 cases a year.

Victims by sex ® During the three year period girls were 80, 4% and boys 19, 6% of alleged victims

Victims by age

Age of the offender

Did child know offender? Child knew offender 216 76, 3% Child did not know offender 18 6, 4% Not known 49 17, 3%

Duration of abuse One incident 56, 0% Few months 16, 7% A year or more 17, 9% Data missing 9, 5%

Tracing of cases Total number 369 100% CPS 281 170 146 51 49 77% 46% 40% 14% 13% Police Prosecution Court cases Convictions

Tracing of cases cont. ’d Total number of cases 369 CPS 281 Referred to police by CPS 84 77% 30%

Case assessment by CPS Ø Substantiated cases 51% Ø Unsubstantiated cases 32% Ø Data missing/unknown 18%

An Overview of the Findings: Procedural defaults Ø Lack of coordination/cooperation between the different agencies involved; CPS, Police, Prosecution, Medical profession Ø Lack of an interdisciplinary approach. Ø Absence of appropriate guidelines in work practices Ø Lack of personell with special training and specialization, especially in conducting investigative interviews

The Findings cont´d : Violation of the child’s interests Ø Investigation often generated painful experiences for the child victim

The Findings cont´d The child was subjected to: Ø repeated interviews Ø by many interviewers Ø in different locations: dep. of social services, the police station, the hospital, private practice, the court etc. Ø revictimisation –retraumatization Ø discrepancies in disclosure Ø lack of appropriate assessment, support and treatment for the child victim Ø lack of counselling and support to the victims family

The preparation of the Children´s House – primary guidelines Ø UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 3. 1 Ø “In all action concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration”

Multiagency Collaboration Ø Ø Ø Ø The Gov. Agency for Child Protection The State Police The State Prosecution The Police Dep. in Reykjavik The University Hospital – Dep. of Pediatrics and Dep. of child Psychiatry Association of the Directors of Local Social Services The Child Protection Services in Reykjavik

Missions of the Children’s House to facilitate collaboration and coordination of the CPS, Police, Prosecution and the Medical profession in the investigation of child sexual abuse Ø to provide a child friendly setting for joint investigative interviews and medical examination Ø to ensure professional implementation of investigative interviews Ø

Missions of the Children’s House cont. ’d to ensure that the child victim and his/her family receives appropriate assessment, treatment and support Ø to establish professional work practices and guidelines by interdisciplinary cooperation Ø to enhance specialized knowledge on child sexual abuse and to mediate that knowledge as appropriate to professionals and the public alike Ø

The creation of the Childrens’ House Ø Ø Ø The Children’s Advocacy Model: Multiagency and interdisciplinary collaboration under one roof The preparation phase: awareness raising, training etc. The operation started 1 st of November 1998 Serves the whole country: instructions by the State Police Changes in the legal framework after eight months operation

Children’s House (Barnahus) Joint Investigative Interviews

Basic functions A: Investigative interviews The Joint Investigative Interview Ø Ø Ø Ø The Court Judge is in charge of the procedure The Prosecution The Police The CPS representative The Child’s Legal Advocate The Defence The Alleged Offender(exceptional in reality)

Basic function A: The CPS preliminary interview At the request of the CPS Ø Disclosure is absent or very weak/ambigous Ø Offender has not been identified Ø Offender is below the age of criminal responsibility(15 years) Ø

Basic function A: Investigative Interviews Ø Ø Ø The importance of a “child friendly” setting The specialised interviewer: a psychologist, a social worker, a criminologist The interview protocol (to avoid suggestibility and increase reliability) Specially designed interview room (closed circuit television) The video tape: used for different purposes: medical exams, assessment and therapy IT-link to the courthouse

Children’s House (Barnahus) Medical Exams Joint and Evaluation Investigative Interviews

Basic function B: The Medical Examination Ø At the request of the Police, the CPS, the Child or the Parents Ø Implemented by experienced paediatrician and a gynaecologist Ø A child friendly examination room Ø The use of “video-colposcope” and it´s therapeutic value Ø Anaesthetization exceptional

Children’s House (Barnahus) Medical Exams Joint and Evaluation Investigative Interviews Family Counselling/ Support Victim Therapy

Basic function C: Victim therapy and family counselling Ø Ø Ø The child and the non-offending parent(s) receive (legal) counselling immediately after the investigative interview Victim therapy can start soon after The videotaped child´s disclosure is used for initial assessment and treatment plan Cognitive-behavioural therapy – group therapy not yet established The therapist is most often important witness in court proceedings

Children’s House (Barnahus) Medical Exams Joint and Evaluation Investigative Interviews Victim Therapy Family Counselling/ Support Networking Local/ National Education, Training and Research

Almost four year experience : A. Statistical data November 1998 – October 2002 Services Number of Children Average per year Investigative interviews 505 127 Assessment/ Therapy 275 69 Medical examination 124 31

Investigative interviews: implementation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Joint invest. interview 80 43 47 57 CPS investigation 42 67 70 99 122 110 117 156 Total

Epidemiology and intervention According to a new research in Iceland the prevalance of child sexual abuse is 17% (8% boys and 26% girls) 2. The total number of investigative interviews amounts to approx. 200 per year, a prevalence of 5% 3. This indicates a high “rate of discovery” of almost 1/3 – (normally considered 1/10) 1.

Almost four year experience: Signs of progress Efficient, professional and child – friendly work procedures and case management 2. Re-victimization of the child victim minimised 3. Appropriate therapeutic services secured 4. Mutual professional trust among the different agencies 5. Assimilation of knowledge and experience 6. Increased public awareness and confidence in the authorities 7. Increased “rate of discovery” 1.

Almost four year experience: Problems in implementation Ø Controversial changes in the legislation Ø The Court Judges´ discretion: where and how to take the child witness statement Ø if a specialised interviewer is made use of or not Ø Ø The principle of “evidential immediacy” Ø The principle of “adversarial procedure”