U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov

September 2015 Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator

From the Administrator 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention is committed to 

preventing the victimization of children 

and ensuring the well-being of all youth. 

In suspected abuse or maltreatment 

cases, law enforcement, medical, court, 

and other child protection professionals 

Child Forensic Interviewing: 

Best Practices 

Chris Newlin, Linda Cordisco Steele, Andra Chamberlin, Jennifer Anderson, Julie Kenniston, 

Amy Russell, Heather Stewart, and Viola Vaughan-Eden 

must respond swiftly and effectively and 

in a manner that avoids retraumatizing 

the affected youth. 

To assist those who work in this field, 

the National Children’s Advocacy 

Center convened experts from the major 

national forensic interview training 

programs to identify best practices in 

child forensic interviewing in cases of 

alleged abuse or exposure to violence. 

The resulting discussions led to this 

publication, which provides guidance 

on topics, such as interview timing and 

setting, question type, rapport-building 

between the interviewer and the victim, 

interview aids as well as vicarious trauma 

and self-care. 

This bulletin represents commendable 

collaboration across multiple entities and 

is an effort to build consensus within 

the field. We hope that the information 

contained within it will aid practitioners’ 

efforts to protect children from abuse 

and bring those who prey upon them to 

justice. 

Robert L. Listenbee 

Administrator 

Highlights

This bulletin consolidates the current knowledge of professionals from several 

major forensic interview training programs on best practices for interviewing 

children in cases of alleged abuse. The authors discuss the purpose of 

the child forensic interview, provide historical context, review overall 

considerations, and outline each stage of the interview in more detail. 

Among the topics that the authors discuss are the following: 

•	 No two children will relate their experiences in the same way or 

with the same level of detail and clarity. Individual characteristics, 

interviewer behavior, family relationships, community influences, 

and cultural and societal attitudes determine whether, when, and 

how they disclose abuse. 

•	 The literature clearly explains the dangers of repeated questioning 

and duplicative interviews; however, some children require more 

time to become comfortable with the process and the interviewer. 

•	 Encouraging children to give detailed responses early in the 

interview enhances their responses later on. 

•	 Forensic interviewers should use open-ended questions and should 

allow for silence or hesitation without moving to more focused 

prompts too quickly. Although such questions may encourage 

greater detail, they may also elicit potentially erroneous responses if 

the child feels compelled to reach beyond his or her stored memory. 
 

SEPTEMBER 2015
 

Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practices 

Chris Newlin, Linda Cordisco Steele, Andra Chamberlin, Jennifer Anderson, Julie Kenniston, Amy Russell, Heather Stewart, 

and Viola Vaughan-Eden 

During the last quarter of the 20th century, the United 

States began to fully recognize the incidence of child 

abuse and neglect affecting our country. Increased public 

awareness and empirical literature have improved efforts 

to intervene effectively on behalf of children. One of 

the most significant interventions has centered on how 

to elicit accurate information from children regarding 

abuse and neglect—a process commonly referred to as 

“forensic interviewing” (Saywitz, Lyon, and Goodman, 

2011). Following two decades of research and practice, 

professionals have gained significant insight into how 

to maximize children’s potential to accurately convey 

information about their past experiences. Yet, as this effort 

continues and practice evolves, professionals face new 

challenges in standardizing forensic interviewing practice 

throughout the country. 

A relative lack of both research and practice experience 

challenged pioneers in the field. As such, protocols and 

training efforts underwent significant revisions as more 

research was conducted and people began gaining practicebased experience, which informed further training. 

Additionally, given the dearth of resources at the time, 

geographically diverse training programs began to develop 

naturally throughout the United States, emanating from 

frontline service providers who struggled to provide 

quality services themselves and who also wanted to help 

fellow professionals. Different case experiences, contextual 

perspectives, and community standards influenced these 

training efforts. In addition, these service providers were 

not directly communicating with one another about the 

content of their training or their theoretical approaches. 

This further supported the existence of various approaches 

and the lack of standardized training language regarding 

forensic interviewing. 

It is now widely accepted that professionals should have 

formal initial and ongoing forensic interview training 

(National Children’s Alliance [NCA], 2011). However, 

the field has yet to determine one standardized practice 

to follow throughout the country. Although national 

training programs are generally based on the same body 

of research, some differences exist. Focusing on the 

variations among them often obscures consistencies within 

the various forensic interview models. In some cases, the 

veracity of the child’s statement or the performance of 

the forensic interviewer has been questioned solely on 

the basis of the model being used. However, forensic 

interviewers often receive training in multiple models and 

use a blended approach to best meet the needs of the 

child they are interviewing (Midwest Regional Children’s 

Advocacy Center [MRCAC], 2014). Furthermore, the 

model being used and any subsequent adaptations to it are 

often rooted in jurisdictional expectations. State statutes 

and case law dictate aspects of interview practice, further 

demonstrating that no one method can always be the best 

choice for every forensic interview. 

In 2010, representatives of several major forensic interview 

training programs—the American Professional Society 

on the Abuse of Children, the CornerHouse Interagency 

Child Abuse Evaluation and Training Center, the 

Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center, the 

National Children’s Advocacy Center, and the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development— 

gathered to review their programs’ differences and 

similarities. The resulting discussions led to this bulletin, 

which consolidates current knowledge on the generally 

accepted best practices of those conducting forensic 

interviews of children in cases of alleged abuse or exposure 

to violence. 

2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 

This nation must remain committed to consistently 

putting the needs of children first. It is the authors’ hope 

that this document will become an essential part of every 

forensic interview training program and will be widely 

used as an authoritative treatise on the implementation of 

best practices in forensic interviewing. 

Purpose of the Child Forensic 

Interview 

The forensic interview is one component of a 

comprehensive child abuse investigation, which includes, 

but is not limited to, the following disciplines: law 

enforcement and child protection investigators, prosecutors, 

child protection attorneys, victim advocates, and medical 

and mental health practitioners. Although not all of the 

concerned disciplines may directly participate in or observe 

the forensic interview, each party may benefit from the 

information obtained during the interview (Jones et al., 

2005). 

Most child abuse investigations begin with a forensic 

interview of the child, which then provides direction 

for other aspects of the investigation. Although forensic 

interviewers are trained to conduct quality interviews, it is 

important to note there is no “perfect” interview. 

For the purposes of this bulletin, and in an effort to build 

consensus within the field, the authors offer the following 

definition of a child forensic interview: 

A forensic interview of a child is a developmentally 

sensitive and legally sound method of gathering 

factual information regarding allegations of abuse or 

exposure to violence. This interview is conducted by 

a competently trained, neutral professional utilizing 

research and practice-informed techniques as part of 

a larger investigative process. 

Historical Context 

In the 1980s, several high-profile cases involving 

allegations that daycare providers had sexually abused 

multiple children in their care became the subject of 

considerable analysis because of the interview techniques 

that were used (Ceci and Bruck, 1995). Law enforcement 

depended on mental health practitioners because of their 

ability to establish rapport with children. However, mental 

health practitioners often used therapeutic techniques that 

were later deemed inappropriate for forensic purposes, 

primarily because of concerns regarding suggestibility. 

The courts scrutinized the interview procedures used in 

these early cases and found that techniques that invited 

make-believe or pretending were inappropriate for criminal 

investigations. 

As awareness of child abuse grew, professionals realized 

that it might take special skills to interview children. Sgroi 

(1978) was the first medical/mental health professional 

to address the issue of investigative interviewing in the 

literature. The American Professional Society on the 

Abuse of Children (APSAC) wrote the first practice 

guidelines—Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual 

Abuse in Young Children (APSAC, 1990)—the title of 

which reflects the initial focus of these interviews: mental 

health. Today, the focus has shifted from the mental health 

or clinical perspective to a forensic perspective. Even the 

nomenclature changed to include terms such as “forensic 

interview” and “child forensic interview training.” 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, substantial empirical 

literature discussed children’s developmental capabilities 

and appropriate ways of engaging them in the interview 

process. The Cognitive Interview (Fisher and Geiselman, 

1992) and Narrative Elaboration (Saywitz, Geiselman, 

and Bornstein, 1992) models included specific strategies 

that applied memory-based techniques to elicit detailed 

information from witnesses. Traces of both models 

remain in current approaches to evidence-based forensic 

interviewing (Saywitz and Camparo, 2009; Saywitz, Lyon, 

and Goodman, 2011). 

Considerations Regarding 

the Child 

Many influences have an impact on a child’s experience 

of abuse and on his or her ability to encode and 

communicate information. These influences interact in a 

uniquely individual manner, such that no two children will 

ever engage or relate their experiences in the same way 

or with the same level of detail and clarity. This section 

describes the major influences on children’s memory, 

language abilities, and motivation to converse. 

Development 

All of the forensic interviewing models agree that 

considering the age and development of the child is 

essential. Lamb and colleagues (2015) state that “age is 

the most important determinant of children’s memory 

capacity.” A child’s age and developmental abilities 

influence his or her perception of an experience and the 

amount of information that they can store in long-term 

memory (Pipe and Salmon, 2002). Infants and toddlers 

can recall experiences, as demonstrated through behavioral 

reactions to people, objects, and environments; however, 

these early memories are not associated with verbal 

descriptions. Even as they begin to develop their language 
 

capabilities, young children are less able to make sense of 

unfamiliar experiences, have a more limited vocabulary, 

and are less accustomed to engaging in conversations 

about past experiences than older children. As children 

age, their attention span improves and they are better 

prepared to comprehend, notice unique elements, and 

describe their experiences verbally. This, in turn, allows 

them to store more information and also allows them to 

discuss remembered events with others, which further 

serves to consolidate and strengthen memories. Children 

of all ages are more likely to recall salient and personally 

experienced details rather than peripheral details (Perona, 

Bottoms, and Sorenson, 2006). 

Metacognition—the ability to recognize whether one 

understands a question and has stored and can retrieve 

relevant information—also improves as children mature. 

Very young children find it difficult to focus their attention 

and to search their memory effectively when interviewed. 

They may simply respond to recognized words or simple 

phrases without considering the entire question, and they 

are unable to monitor their comprehension or answers to 

questions (Lamb et al., 2015). As children grow older, 

both natural development and knowledge gained from 

school improve their skills. 

Remembering an experience does not ensure that a child 

will be able to describe it for others. Forensic interviews 

are challenging for children, as they involve very different 

conversational patterns and an unfamiliar demand for 

detail (Lamb and Brown, 2006). Young children may use 

words before they completely understand their meaning 

and may continue to confuse even simple concepts and 

terms such as “tomorrow,” “a lot,” or “a long time.” As 

children mature, they acquire the ability to use words in 

a more culturally normative way, although terminology 

for sexual encounters, internal thoughts and feelings, and 

particularly forensic and legal matters may be beyond 

their grasp (Walker, 2013). Forensic interviewers and 

those who evaluate the statements that children make 

in a legal context would do well to appreciate the many 

extraordinary demands made on child witnesses. 

Although concerns about younger children’s verbal 

and cognitive abilities are well recognized, the 

challenges of effectively interviewing adolescents are 

often overlooked. Because adolescents look much like 

adults, forensic interviewers and multidisciplinary team 

members may fail to appreciate that adolescents vary 

greatly in their verbal and cognitive abilities and thus 

fail to build rapport, provide interview instructions, 

or ensure the comprehension of questions (Walker, 

2013). Ever conscious of wanting to appear competent, 

adolescents may be reluctant to ask for assistance. 

Forensic interviewers and investigators must guard against 

unreasonably high expectations for teenage witnesses 

and should not adopt a less supportive approach or use 

convoluted language, which will complicate matters. 

Culture and Development 

A child’s family, social network, socioeconomic 

environment, and culture influence his or her 

development, linguistic style, perception of experiences, 

and ability to focus attention (Alaggia, 2010). Cultural 

differences may present communication challenges and can 

lead to misunderstandings within the forensic interview. 

Fontes (2008) highlights the importance of having 

clear-cut guidelines and strategies for taking culture into 

account when assessing whether child abuse or neglect 

has occurred. Forensic interviewers and investigators 

must consider the influence of culture on perception of 

experiences, memory formation, language, linguistic style, 

comfort with talking to strangers in a formal setting, and 

values about family loyalty and privacy when questioning 

children and evaluating their statements (Fontes, 2005, 

2008; Perona, Bottoms, and Sorenson, 2006). 

Disabilities 

Children with disabilities are potentially at greater risk 

for abuse and neglect than children without disabilities 

(Hershkowitz, Lamb, and Horowitz, 2007; KendallTackett et al., 2005). Forensic interviewers are unlikely 

4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
“Cultural differences may present communication challenges 

and can lead to misunderstandings within the forensic interview.” 

to have specialized training or experience in the broad 

field of disabilities or regarding developmental or medical 

concerns; thus, collaboration is often necessary to 

successfully interview these children. Interviewers should 

use local resources—including disability specialists or 

other professionals who work with children and their 

primary caregivers—to gain insight into the functioning 

of specific children and any needs they may have for 

special accommodations (Davies and Faller, 2007). The 

interviewer may have to adapt each stage of the interview, 

balancing these adaptations with the demand for forensic 

integrity (Baladerian, 1997; Hershkowitz, Lamb, and 

Horowitz, 2007). More than one interview session may 

be necessary to gain the child’s trust, adapt to the child’s 

communication style and limitations, and allow adequate 

time to gather information (Faller, Cordisco Steele, and 

Nelson-Gardell, 2010). 

Trauma 

Children who have been victims of maltreatment or were 

witnesses to violent crime often react uniquely to their 

experiences. Forensic interviewers must be cognizant of 

factors that mitigate or enhance the impact, as trauma 

symptoms may interfere with a child’s ability or willingness 

to report information about violent incidents (Ziegler, 

2002). The memories of children who have suffered 

extreme forms of trauma may be impaired or distorted 

(Feiring and Tasca, 2005); these children may not recall 

their experiences in a linear fashion but, instead, as 

“flashbulb memories” or snapshots of their victimization 

(Berliner et al., 2003). In addition, their memories of 

traumatic experiences may be limited, with a particular 

emphasis on central rather than peripheral details (Fivush, 

Peterson, and Schwarzmueller, 2002). Interviewers and 

those involved in investigating child abuse may need to 

modify their expectations of what a traumatized child 

is able to report. They should not attempt to force a 

disclosure or continue an interview when a child becomes 

overly distressed, which may revictimize the child. 

Children who are severely traumatized may benefit from 

additional support and multiple, nonduplicative interview 

sessions (Faller, Cordisco Steele, and Nelson-Gardell, 

2010; La Rooy et al., 2010). 

Disclosure 

Understanding the disclosure process is critical for both 

the investigative process and child protection outcomes. 

Research to date on children’s disclosure of sexual abuse— 

based mainly on retrospective surveys of adults and reviews 

of past child abuse investigations—indicates that no single 

pattern of disclosure is predominant (Lyon and Ahern, 

2010). Disclosure happens along a continuum ranging 

from denial to nondisclosure to reluctant disclosure to 

incomplete disclosure to a full accounting of an abusive 

incident (Olafson and Lederman, 2006). Some children 

also disclose less directly, over a period of time, through a 

variety of behaviors and actions, including discussions and 

indirect nonverbal cues (Alaggia, 2004). 

The interaction of individual characteristics, interviewer 

behavior, family relationships, community influences, and 

cultural and societal attitudes determines whether, when, 

and how children disclose abuse (Alaggia, 2010; Bottoms, 

Quas, and Davis, 2007; Hershkowitz et al., 2006; Lyon 

and Ahern, 2010). Factors that help to explain a child’s 

reluctance are age, relationship with the alleged offender, 

lack of parental support, gender, fear of consequences 

for disclosing, and fear of not being believed (Malloy, 

Brubacher, and Lamb, 2011; McElvaney, 2013). A review 

of contemporary literature reveals that when disclosure 

does occur, significant delays are common. In a recent 

analysis of child sexual abuse disclosure patterns, Alaggia 

(2010) found that as many as 60 to 80 percent of children 

and adolescents do not disclose until adulthood. If outside 

corroborative evidence exists (e.g., physical evidence, 

offender confessions, recordings, witness statements), 

there is still a high rate of nondisclosure (Lyon, 2007; 

Sjoberg and Lindblad, 2002). Furthermore, children 

who disclose often do not recount their experiences 

fully and may, over time, provide additional information 

(McElvaney, 2013). 

Current literature on children’s disclosure of sexual 

abuse has implications for practice. According to Malloy, 

Brubacher, and Lamb (2013), precipitating events or 

people frequently motivate children to disclose abuse. 

Some children require a triggering event, such as a school 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 
 

safety presentation, to allow them to discuss abuse without 

being the one to broach the subject (McElvaney, 2013). 

Other children may need to be questioned specifically 

about the possibility of abuse. Child abuse professionals 

should understand the many intersecting dynamics that 

help a child disclose maltreatment and should be open 

to the possibility that disclosure is not an all-or-nothing 

event. 

Considerations Regarding 

the Interview 

Almost universal agreement exists regarding the need to 

interview children about allegations of abuse. Once this is 

accepted, there are a number of important considerations, 

such as timing, documentation, setting, interviewer, questions 

to be asked, and whether to use interview aids/media. 

Timing 

Conduct the forensic interview as soon after the initial 

disclosure of abuse, or after witnessing violence, as 

the child’s mental status will permit and as soon as a 

multidisciplinary team response can be coordinated 

(APSAC, 2012; Saywitz and Camparo, 2009). As time 

passes, the opportunity to collect potential corroborative 

evidence may diminish, children’s fortitude to disclose 

may wane, and opportunities for contamination, whether 

intentional or accidental, increase (Johnson, 2009). 

However, children who are overly fatigued, hungry, 

frightened, suffering from shock, or still processing their 

traumatic experiences may not be effective reporters in a 

forensic interview (APSAC, 2012; Home Office, 2007; 

Myers, 2005). 

Documentation 

Electronic recordings are the most complete and accurate 

way to document forensic interviews (Cauchi and Powell, 

2009; Lamb et al., 2000), capturing the exchange between 

the child and the interviewer and the exact wording of 

questions (Faller, 2007; Warren and Woodall, 1999). 

Video recordings, used in 90 percent of Children’s 

Advocacy Centers (CACs) nationally (MRCAC, 2014), 

allow the trier of fact in legal proceedings to witness all 

forms of the child’s communication. Recordings make 

the interview process transparent, documenting that 

the interviewer and the multidisciplinary team avoided 

inappropriate interactions with the child (Faller, 2007). 

Recorded forensic interviews also allow interviewers and 

others to review their work and facilitate skill development 

and integrity of practice (Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, 

Esplin, and Mitchell, 2002; Price and Roberts, 2011; 

Stewart, Katz, and La Rooy, 2011). 

Neutral and Objective Setting 

The National Children’s Alliance (NCA), as a part of its 

accreditation process, requires CACs to provide childfocused settings that are “comfortable, private, and both 

physically and psychologically safe for diverse populations 

of children and their non-offending family members” 

(NCA, 2011:36). However, there is a dearth of literature 

on what constitutes a child-friendly environment (NCA, 

2013). 

Interview rooms come in all shapes and sizes, are often 

painted in warm colors, may incorporate child-sized 

furniture, and should only use artwork of a non-fantasy 

nature. The room should be equipped for audio- and 

video-recording, and case investigators and other CAC 

staff should be able to observe the forensic interview 

(Myers, 2005; NCA, 2013; Pence and Wilson, 1994). 

Although it is generally recommended that there be 

minimal distractions in the interview room (APSAC, 2012; 

Saywitz, Camparo, and Romanoff, 2010), opinions differ 

about the allowance of simple media, such as paper and 

markers. More recently published literature suggests that 

younger children may benefit from having access to paper 

and markers during the forensic interview (Poole and 

Dickinson, 2014). Materials that encourage play or fantasy 

are uniformly discouraged, as is any interpretation by the 

interviewer of the child’s use of media or other products. 

Role of the Interviewer 

Forensic interviewers should encourage the most accurate, 

complete, and candid information from a child and, to 

this end, the child should be the most communicative 

during the forensic interview (Teoh and Lamb, 2013). 

Interviewers must balance forensic concerns with decisions 

about how much information to introduce (APSAC, 

2012; Orbach and Pipe, 2011). In addition, they should 

be attentive to the possibility that their preconceived ideas 

may bias the information gathered—particularly if the 

interview is conducted in an unduly leading or suggestive 

manner—and should avoid such practices (Ceci and Bruck, 

1995; Faller, 2007). 

Question Type 

Maximizing the amount of information obtained through 

children’s free recall memory is universally accepted 

among forensic interview models as a best practice. 

Forensic interviewers should use open-ended and cued 

questions skillfully and appropriately to support children’s 

ability and willingness to describe remembered experiences 

in their own words (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, 

and Horowitz, 2007; Myers, 2005; Saywitz and Camparo, 

2009; Saywitz, Lyon, and Goodman, 2011). Ask more 

focused questions later in the interview, depending on the 

developmental abilities of the child, the child’s degree of 

6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
candor or reluctance, the immediacy of child protection 

issues, and the existence of reliable information previously 

gathered (e.g., suspect confession, photographs) (Imhoff 

and Baker-Ward, 1999; Lamb et al., 2003; Perona, 

Bottoms, and Sorenson, 2006). This approach reduces the 

risk of the interviewer contaminating the child’s account. 

A common language for labeling the format of questions 

does not exist; however, similarities in currently used 

labels do exist (Anderson, 2013; APSAC, 2012; Lyon, 

2010). Agreement also exists that questions should not 

be judged in isolation. The labels for memory prompts 

may be classified into two main categories—recall and 

recognition—and are based on the type of memory 

accessed. 

Recall prompts are open-ended, inviting the child to 

tell everything he or she remembers in his or her own 

words; such prompts have been shown to increase 

accuracy (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and 

Abbott, 2007; Lamb et al., 2008). Open-ended questions 

encourage children to elaborate and to include salient 

details without significant input from the interviewer, who 

should use them throughout the interview. Recall prompts 

may include directives or questions, such as “Tell me 

everything that happened,” “And then what happened?” 

and “Tell me more about (specific person/action/place 

that the child previously mentioned).” Although the 

accounts retrieved through the use of recall prompts can 

be quite detailed and accurate, they may not be complete. 

Interviewers may ask specific, focused questions to obtain 

additional details about topics the child has already 

mentioned, using a “who, what, where, when, and how” 

format. Although these detailed questions focus the child 

on certain aspects of his or her report that are missing, 

the child may or may not recall such information. These 

questions may promote a narrative response or may elicit 

brief answers (Saywitz and Camparo, 2009; Hershkowitz 

et al., 2012). They do not introduce information or pose 

options to the child: “You said you were in the house. 

What room were you in?” followed by “Tell me about 

that.” 

Once open-ended questions are exhausted, it may be 

necessary to progressively focus the query. Children may 

omit details because they do not know the significance of 

the information sought or because they are reluctant to 

divulge certain information. In contrast to recall prompts, 

recognition prompts provide the child with context or 

offer interviewer-created options. Recognition prompts 

may elicit greater detail once the child has exhausted his 

or her capability for narrative or when a child cannot 

comprehend a more open-ended question. The risk of 

using recognition prompts is that they may elicit responses 

that are less accurate or potentially erroneous if the child 

feels compelled to reach beyond his or her stored memory. 

It is essential to use these questions judiciously, as overuse can significantly affect the integrity and fact-finding 

function of the interview (Faller, 2007; Lamb, Orbach, 

Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Abbott, 2007; Myers, 

2005; Perona, Bottoms, and Sorenson, 2006). Suggestive 

questions are those that “to one degree or another, 

[suggest] that the questioner is looking for a particular 

answer” (Myers, Saywitz, and Goodman, 1996) and 

should be avoided. 

Interview Aids/Media 

The goal of a forensic interview is to have the child 

verbally describe his or her experience. A question 

remains, however, as to whether limiting children to 

verbal responses allows all children to fully recount their 

experiences, or whether media (e.g., paper, markers, 

anatomically detailed drawings or dolls) may be used 

during the interview to aid in descriptions (Brown et al., 

2007; Katz and Hamama, 2013; Macleod, Gross, and 

Hayne, 2013; Patterson and Hayne, 2011; Poole and 

Dickinson, 2011; Russell, 2008). The use of media varies 

greatly by model and professional training. Decisions 

are most often made at the local level, and interviewer 

comfort and multidisciplinary team preferences may 

influence them. Ongoing research is necessary to shed 

further light on the influence of various types of media on 

children’s verbal descriptions of remembered events. 

The Forensic Interview 

Forensic interview models guide the interviewer through 

the various stages of a legally sound interview; they vary 

from highly structured/scripted to semi-structured 

(interviewers cover predetermined topics) to flexible 

(interviewers have greater latitude). All models include the 

following phases: 

• The initial rapport-building phase typically comprises 

introductions with an age- and context-appropriate 

explanation of documentation methods, a review of 

interview instructions, a discussion of the importance of 

telling the truth, and practice providing narratives and 

episodic memory training. 

• The substantive phase most often includes a narrative 

description of events, detail-seeking strategies, 

clarification, and testing of alternative hypotheses, when 

appropriate. 

• The closure phase gives more attention to the 

socioemotional needs of a child, transitioning to 

nonsubstantive topics, allowing for questions, and 

discussing safety or educational messages. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 
 

Divergent research, state statutes, community standards, 

and identified child/case populations contribute to the 

variations among models. Lack of adherence to a particular 

model does not, in and of itself, deem an interview 

forensically unsound. Increasingly, forensic interviewers 

receive training in multiple models and use a blend of 

models individualized to the needs of the child and the 

case (MRCAC, 2014). 

Rapport-Building Phase 

All interview models acknowledge that building rapport is 

important for both the child and the interviewer. During 

this phase, the child can begin to trust the interviewer and 

become oriented to the interview process. The interviewer 

can begin to understand the child’s linguistic patterns, 

gauge the child’s willingness to participate, and start 

to respond appropriately to the child’s developmental, 

emotional, and cultural needs. A narrative approach to 

building rapport sets a pattern of interaction that should 

be maintained throughout the interview (Hershkowitz 

et al., 2015; Collins, Lincoln, and Frank, 2002; 

Hershkowitz, 2011). 

Interview Instructions 

Giving interview instructions during the rapport-building 

phase sets expectations that the child should provide 

accurate and complete information and also mitigates 

suggestibility. The child’s age may influence the number of 

instructions and, perhaps, the type of instructions that may 

be most helpful. Interviewers may want to include some of 

the following instructions: 

• “I was not there and don’t know what happened. When 

I ask you questions, I don’t know the answer to those 

questions.” 

• “It’s okay to say ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t understand 

that question.’” 

• “Only talk about things that really happened.” (This 

emphasizes the importance of the conversation.) 

For younger children, interviewers may want to have 

them “practice” following each guideline to demonstrate 

their understanding (APSAC, 2012; Saywitz and 

Camparo, 2009; Saywitz, Lyon, and Goodman, 2011). 

When children demonstrate these skills spontaneously, 

interviewers should reinforce them. 

“Truth Versus Lies” Discussion 

Recent research indicates that children may be less likely 

to make false statements if they have promised to tell the 

truth before the substantive phase of the interview (Lyon 

and Evans, 2014; Lyon and Dorado, 2008; Talwar et al., 

2002). State statutes and community practices may vary 

about whether to include a “truth versus lies” discussion 

in forensic interviews. Some states require such a 

discussion or mandate that children take a developmentally 

appropriate oath before the substantive phase of the 

interview. In other states, interviewers have more 

autonomy regarding the techniques they use to encourage 

truth telling—to assess whether the child will be a 

competent witness in court and to increase the likelihood 

that the recorded interview will be admitted into evidence 

(Russell, 2006). 

Narrative Practice/Episodic Memory Training 

A substantial body of research indicates that encouraging 

children to give detailed responses early in the interview 

(i.e., during the rapport-building phase) enhances their 

informative responses to open-ended prompts in the 

substantive portion of the interview. When interviewers 

encourage these narrative descriptions early on, children 

typically will begin to provide more details without 

interviewers having to resort to more direct or leading 

prompts (Brubacher, Roberts, and Powell, 2011; Lamb et 

al., 2008; Poole and Lamb, 1998). 

To help a child practice providing narratives, the 

interviewer may select a topic that was raised during a 

response to an earlier question, such as “Tell me some 

things about yourself,” “What do you like to do for fun?” 

or “What did you do this morning?”; ask a question about 

a favorite activity; or ask for a description of the child’s 

morning. The interviewer should then instruct the child 

to describe that topic from “beginning to end and not 

to leave anything out.” The interviewer should continue 

to use cued, open-ended questions that incorporate the 

child’s own words or phrases to prompt the child to 

greater elaboration. The interviewer may cue the child 

to tell more about an object, person, location, details of 

the activity, or a particular segment of time. This allows 

the child to provide a forensically detailed description of 

a nonabuse event and enables the interviewer to begin to 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
understand the child’s linguistic ability and style (APSAC, 

2012; Saywitz and Camparo 2009; Saywitz, Lyon, and 

Goodman, 2011; Walker, 2013). 

Substantive Phase 

The interviewer should be as open-ended and 

nonsuggestive as possible when introducing the topic of 

suspected abuse, using a prompt such as “What are you 

here to talk to me about today?” If the child acknowledges 

the target topic, the interviewer should follow up with 

another open invitation, such as “Tell me everything and 

don’t leave anything out” (APSAC, 2012; Lamb et al., 

2008; Orbach and Pipe, 2011; Saywitz and Camparo, 

2009; Saywitz, Lyon, and Goodman, 2011) and proceed 

to the narrative and detail-gathering phase of the interview. 

However, if a child is anxious or embarrassed, has been 

threatened or cautioned not to talk, or has not made a 

prior outcry of abuse, the interviewer may need a more 

focused approach (Pipe et al., 2007). There is a distinction 

between real and apparent reluctance. Real reluctance 

refers to children who are cautious and significantly 

unwilling to respond to questions, whereas apparent 

reluctance refers to children who are introspective before 

responding to questions. Interviewers should therefore 

allow for silence or hesitation without moving to more 

focused prompts too quickly. In many cases, gently 

reassuring the child that it is important for the interviewer 

to understand everything that happened can effectively 

combat a child’s reluctance. 

Interviewers should plan for this transitional period 

deliberately, taking into account the child’s characteristics, 

information included in the initial report, and any case 

concerns (Smith and Milne, 2011). Variations exist 

among interviewing models as to the most effective and 

defensible way to help a reluctant child transition to the 

substantive portion of the interview. Broadly speaking, 

options range from (1) the use of escalating and focused 

prompts gleaned from information in the allegation 

report (APSAC, 2012; Lamb et al., 2008; Saywitz, Lyon, 

and Goodman, 2011) to (2) the use of an incremental 

approach exploring various topics, such as family members, 

caregiving routines, body safety, and so forth (APSAC, 

2012; Faller, 2007) to (3) the use of human figure 

drawings along with a discussion of body safety and 

appropriate and inappropriate contact (Anderson et al., 

2010). 

Forensic interviewers who have been trained in multiple 

models may use a variety of options, depending on child 

and case characteristics. Use focused or direct prompts 

only if good reason exists to believe the child has been 

abused and the risk of continued abuse is greater than 

the risk of proceeding with an interview if no abuse has 

occurred (Lamb et al., 2008; Orbach and Pipe, 2011). 

Narrative and Detail Gathering 

All forensic interview models direct the interviewer to 

ask the child to provide a narrative account of his or her 

experience to gain a clear and accurate description of 

alleged events in the child’s own words. Do not interrupt 

this narrative, as it is the primary purpose of the forensic 

interview. Open-ended invitations (“Tell me more” or 

“What happened next?”) and cued narrative requests 

(“Tell me more about [fill in with child’s word]”) 

elicit longer, more detailed, and less self-contradictory 

information from children and adolescents (Lamb et 

al., 2008; Orbach and Pipe, 2011; Perona, Bottoms, 

and Sorenson, 2006). Because of their relatively 

underdeveloped memory retrieval processes, very young 

or less cognitively and linguistically skilled children may 

require greater scaffolding and more narrowly focused 

open-ended questions to elicit information regarding 

remembered events (Faller, 2007; Hershkowitz et al., 

2012; Lamb et al., 2003; Orbach and Pipe, 2011). Cued 

and open-ended prompts, attentive listening, silence, and 

facilitators, such as reflection and paraphrasing, may help 

(Evans and Roberts, 2009). Additionally, “wh” questions 

are the least leading way to ask about important but 

missing details and can either be open-ended (“What 

happened?”) or more direct (“What was the man’s 

name?”) (Hershkowitz et al., 2006; Orbach and Pipe, 

2011). Interviewers should delay the use of recognition 

prompts and questions that pose options for as long as 

possible (APSAC, 2012; Lamb et al., 2008; Saywitz and 

Camparo, 2009; Saywitz, Lyon, and Goodman, 2011). 

Because many children experience multiple incidents 

of abuse, interviewers should ask them whether an 

event happened “one time or more than one time.” If a 

child has been abused more than once, the interviewer 

should explore details regarding specific occurrences 

in a developmentally appropriate way (Walker, 2013), 

using the child’s own wording to best cue the child to 

each incident (Brubacher, Roberts, and Powell, 2011; 

Brubacher et al., 2013; Brubacher and La Rooy, 2014; 

Schneider et al., 2011). Using prompts such as “first 

time,” “last time,” and other appropriate labels may 

lead to additional locations, acts, witnesses, or potential 

evidence. 

No one recalls every detail about even well-remembered 

experiences. Questions related to core elements of 

the abuse can maximize the quantity and quality of 

information a child provides. Research suggests that 

children and adults may recall personally experienced 

events better than they recall peripheral details or events 

they witnessed (Perona, Bottoms, and Sorenson, 2006; 

Peterson, 2012). 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
 

 

Once the child’s narrative account of an alleged 

incident(s) has been fully explored, the interviewer can 

then follow with focused questions, asking for sensory 

details, clarification, and other missing elements. If 

a child provides only brief responses, the interviewer 

should follow up by asking for additional information 

or explanation using focused questions that incorporate 

terms the child previously provided. Although particular 

elements may have forensic significance (e.g., temporal 

dating, number of events, sexual intent, penetration), 

the child may not have accurately perceived or stored the 

information in long-term memory (Friedman and Lyon, 

2005; Hershkowitz et al., 2012; Orbach and Lamb, 2007; 

Lamb et al., 2015). Forensic interviewers should proceed 

with caution when encouraging children through the use 

of recognition prompts to provide such information. 

Introducing externally derived information (e.g., 

information gathered outside the interview or that the 

child has not divulged) may be appropriate in some 

interviews. There is broad consensus, however, that 

interviewers should use such information with caution 

and only after attempting other questioning methods. 

It is important to understand the suggestibility of such 

information within the context of the overall interview, 

the other questions asked, the child’s presentation and 

development, and the strength of any external evidence 

obtained. Before or during the interview, multidisciplinary 

teams should discuss how, if, and when to introduce 

externally derived information or evidence. The manner 

and extent to which this information is presented varies 

across jurisdictions and models. 

Alternative Hypotheses 

Contextually appropriate questions that explore other 

viable hypotheses for a child’s behaviors or statements are 

essential to the overall integrity of the interview. Allow 

the child to explain apparently contradictory information, 

particularly as it concerns forensically relevant details 

(e.g., the suspect’s identity or specific acts committed). 

Additionally, the interviewer may need to explore 

the circumstances surrounding the targeted event to 

distinguish abuse from caregiving activities, particularly 

with a young child or one with limited abilities. 

Questions about the child’s source of information or 

prior conversations or instructions may be helpful if there 

are concerns about possible coaching or contamination. 

There is no one set of questions used routinely in every 

interview, as child characteristics, contextual settings, 

allegations, and case specifics vary greatly. 

Consultation With the Multidisciplinary Team 

Forensic interviews are best conducted within a 

multidisciplinary team context, as coordinating an 

investigation has been shown to increase the efficiency of 

the investigation while minimizing system-induced trauma 

in the child (Cronch, Viljoen, and Hansen, 2006; Jones 

et al., 2005). Before the interview, multidisciplinary team 

members should discuss possible barriers, case-specific 

concerns, and interviewing strategies, such as how best to 

introduce externally derived information, should that be 

necessary. Regardless of whether the forensic interview is 

conducted at a CAC or other child-friendly facility, the 

interviewer should communicate with the team members 

observing the interview to determine whether to raise 

additional questions or whether there are any ambiguities 

or apparent contradictions to resolve (Home Office, 2007; 

Jones et al., 2005). The interviewer often has to balance 

the team’s request for further questions with the need to 

maintain legal defensibility and with the child’s ability to 

provide the information requested. 

Closure Phase 

The closure phase helps provide a respectful end to a 

conversation that may have been emotionally challenging 

for the child. The interviewer may use various strategies 

during this phase (Anderson et al., 2010; APSAC, 2012; 

Home Office, 2007; Poole and Lamb, 1998): 

• Ask the child if there is something else the interviewer 

needs to know. 

• Ask the child if there is something he or she wants to 

tell or ask the interviewer. 

• Thank the child for his or her effort rather than for 

specific content. 

“Because many children experience multiple incidents of abuse, interviewers 

should ask them whether an event happened ‘one time or more than one time.’” 

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

• Address the topic of safety plans and educational 

materials and provide a contact number for additional 

help. 

Other Considerations 

Multiple evidence-supported forensic interview models 

are used throughout the United States, and all of these 

require the interviewer to adapt the model to the needs 

of each child based on unique situational variables. Some 

of the more commonly faced situational variables are 

highlighted below. 

Multiple, Nonduplicative Interviews 

One comprehensive forensic interview is sufficient for 

many children, particularly if the child made a previous 

disclosure, possesses adequate language skills, and has 

the support of a family member or other close adult 

(APSAC, 2002; Faller, 2007; London et al., 2007; NCA, 

2011; Olafson and Lederman, 2006). The literature 

clearly demonstrates the dangers of multiple interviewers 

repeatedly questioning a child or conducting duplicative 

interviews (Ceci and Bruck, 1995; Fivush, Peterson, and 

Schwarzmueller, 2002; Malloy and Quas, 2009; Poole 

and Lamb, 1998; Poole and Lindsay, 2002). However, 

some children require more time and familiarity to 

become comfortable and to develop trust in both the 

process and the interviewer. Recent research indicates that 

multiple interview sessions may allow reluctant, young, 

or traumatized children the opportunity to more clearly 

and completely share information (Leander, 2010; Pipe 

et al., 2007). Multiple, nonduplicative interviews are 

most effective when the interviewer uses best practices in 

forensic interviewing; adapts the interview structure to the 

developmental, cultural, and emotional needs of the child; 

and avoids suggestive and coercive approaches (Faller, 

Cordisco Steele, and Nelson-Gardell, 2010; La Rooy et 

al., 2010; La Rooy, Lamb, and Pipe, 2009). 

Supervision and Peer Review 

Although agreement exists that knowledge of forensic 

interviewing significantly increases through training, 

this newly acquired knowledge does not always translate 

into significant changes in interviewer practices (Lamb, 

Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Esplin, 

2002; Lamb et al., 2008; Price and Roberts, 2011; 

Stewart, Katz, and La Rooy, 2011). Supervision, peer 

reviews, and other forms of feedback should help forensic 

interviewers integrate the skills they learned during initial 

training and also improve their practice over time. 

Supervision facilitates one-on-one interaction between a 

more experienced forensic interviewer and a professional 

new to the job and may or may not include assessment of 

the interviewer’s performance (Price and Roberts, 2011; 

Stewart, Katz, and La Rooy, 2011). Larger CACs may 

employ multiple forensic interviewers who can provide 

individual support to newly trained interviewers. Often, 

CACs operating within a regional service area undertake 

similar efforts. 

Peer review is a facilitated discussion with other 

interviewers or team members and is intended to both 

maintain and increase desirable practices in forensic 

interviewing (Stewart, Katz, and La Rooy, 2011). It 

is an opportunity for forensic interviewers to receive 

emotional and professional support and for other 

professionals to critique their work. The peer review 

should be a formalized process in a neutral environment 

with established group norms and a shared understanding 

of goals, processes, and purpose. Power dynamics, a lack 

of cohesion, and differing expectations can easily derail 

peer review efforts, leading to a failure to achieve real 

improvements in practice. Training in the use of tools 

for providing more effective feedback (e.g., guidelines 

for giving and receiving feedback), checklists to assist 

peer reviewers in defining practice aspects for review, and 

strong leadership can assist practitioners in establishing a 

meaningful and productive process. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11 
 

Vicarious Trauma and Self-Care 

Professionals exposed to the reports of abuse and 

victimization of children often suffer from vicarious 

traumatization, an affliction commonly called “the 

cost of caring” that has symptoms similar to those of 

posttraumatic stress disorder (Figley, 1995; Perron and 

Hiltz, 2006; Lipsky and Burk, 2009). Studies suggest 

that forensic interviewers, law enforcement officers, child 

protection workers, victim advocates, therapists, medical 

personnel, attorneys, and judges can all suffer from 

repeatedly hearing reports of child victimization (Conrad 

and Kellar-Guenther, 2006; Perron and Hiltz, 2006; 

Russell, 2010). 

Vicarious trauma can be mitigated at multiple levels. 

Supervisors and organizations should be particularly 

attentive to the mental health of their staff and should be 

aware of factors that can exacerbate the development of 

vicarious trauma, including gender, past personal trauma, 

work dissatisfaction, large caseloads, long hours, and a lack 

of personal and professional support systems (Meyers and 

Cornille, 2002). Individuals should recognize the benefits 

of the work they undertake in their professional lives 

and celebrate their successes, knowing they have made a 

difference in a child’s life. 

Summary 

The CAC movement was born out of the concept that 

the traditional fragmented and duplicative child abuse 

investigative process was not in the best interests of 

children. The multidisciplinary team approach has proven 

to be more child-friendly and better able to meet the 

needs of children and their families (Bonarch, Mabry, 

and Potts-Henry, 2010; Miller and Rubin, 2009). This 

revolutionary approach should continue to guide the 

nation’s response to child abuse investigations. To increase 

the likelihood of successful outcomes for all children, 

it is imperative to continue ongoing discussions among 

professionals in both direct service delivery and program 

planning. 

Although there have been significant efforts over the past 

several decades to improve the nation’s response to child 

maltreatment, these efforts have often emanated from a 

single program or region without leading to a national 

debate on a particular topic, such as the development of 

forensic interviewing with children. This bulletin serves as 

the first collaborative effort, by professionals from many 

nationally recognized forensic interview training programs, 

to summarize the current knowledge and application of 

best practices in the field. 

INTERVIEWER TIPS
 

Overall Considerations 

• Conduct the interview as soon as possible after initial 

disclosure. 

• Record the interview electronically. 

• Hold the interview in a safe, child-friendly environment. 

• Use open-ended questions throughout the interview, 

delaying the use of more focused questions for as long as 

possible. 

• Consider the child’s age, developmental ability, and culture. 

Building Rapport With the Child 

• Engage the child in brief conversation about his or her 

interests or activities. 

• Provide an opportunity for the child to describe a recent 

nonabuse-related experience in detail. 

• Describe the interview ground rules. 

• Discuss the importance of telling the truth. 

Conducting the Interview 

• Transition to the topic of the suspected abuse carefully, 

taking into account the characteristics of the child and the 

case. 

• Ask the child to describe his or her experience in detail, 

and do not interrupt the child during this initial narrative 

account. 

• Once the initial account is fully explored, begin to ask more 

focused questions if needed to gather additional details, get 

clarification, or fill in missing information. 

• Mirror the child’s wording when asking followup questions. 

• Exercise caution at this stage. Use focused queries 

judiciously and avoid suggestive questions that could 

compel the child to respond inaccurately. 

• Explore other viable hypotheses for the child’s behaviors or 

statements. 

• Consult with those observing the interview to determine 

whether to raise additional questions or whether to resolve 

any ambiguities or contradictions. 

Ending the Interview 

• Ask the child if there is anything else he or she would like to 

share or to ask. 

• Discuss safety plans and provide educational materials. 

• Thank the child for participating. 

12 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
References 

Alaggia, R. 2004. Many ways of telling: Expanding 

conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse 

& Neglect 28(11):1213–1227. 

Alaggia, R. 2010. An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse 

disclosure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental 

health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry 19(1):32–39. 

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 

(APSAC). 1990. Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse 

in Young Children. Chicago, IL: APSAC. 

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. 2002. 

Practice Guidelines: Investigative Interviewing in Cases of Alleged 

Child Sexual Abuse. Chicago, IL: APSAC. 

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. 2012. 

Practice Guidelines: Forensic Interviewing in Cases of Suspected 

Child Abuse. Chicago, IL: APSAC. 

Anderson, J., Ellefson, J., Lashley, J., Lukas-Miller, A., Olinger, 

S., Russell, A., Stauffer, J., and Weigman, J. 2010. The 

CornerHouse forensic interview protocol: RATAC®. Thomas M. 

Cooley Journal of Practical & Clinical Law 12(2):193–331. 

Anderson, J.N. 2013. The CornerHouse forensic interview 

protocol: An evolution in practice for almost 25 years. APSAC 

Advisor 25(4):2–7. 

Baladerian, N. 1997. Forensic Interviews Guidebook To Use With 

Suspected Assault Victims With Cognitive and/or Communication 

Impairments. Washington, DC: National Aging Resource Center 

on Elder Abuse. 

Berliner, L., Hyman, I., Thomas, A., and Fitzgerald, M. 2003. 

Children’s memory for trauma and positive experiences. Journal 

of Traumatic Stress 16(3):229–236. 

Bonarch, K., Mabry, J.B., and Potts-Henry, C. 2010. Exploring 

nonoffending caregiver satisfaction with a children’s advocacy 

center. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 19(6):687–708. 

Bottoms, B., Quas, J., and Davis, S. 2007. The influence of 

interviewer-provided social support on children’s suggestibility, 

memory, and disclosures. In Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, 

Delay, and Denial, edited by M.-E. Pipe, M.E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, 

and A. Cederborg. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Brown, D.A., Pipe, M.-E., Lewis, C., Lamb, M.E., and Orbach, 

Y. 2007. Supportive or suggestive: Do human figure drawings 

help 5- to 7-year-old children to report touch? Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75(1):33–42. 

Brubacher, S., and La Rooy, D. 2014. Witness recall across 

repeated interviews in a case of repeated abuse. Child Abuse & 

Neglect 38(2):202–211. 

Brubacher, S., Roberts, K., and Powell, M. 2011. Effects of 

practicing episodic versus scripted recall on children’s subsequent 

narratives of a repeated event. Psychology, Public Policy & Law 

17(2):286–314. 

Brubacher, S.P., Malloy, L.C., Lamb, M.E., and Roberts, K.P. 

2013. How do interviewers and children discuss individual 

occurrences of alleged repeated abuse in forensic interviews? 

Applied Cognitive Psychology 27(4):443–450. 

Cauchi, R., and Powell, M.B. 2009. An examination of police 

officers’ notes of interviews with alleged child abuse victims. 

International Journal of Police Science and Management 

11(4):505–515. 

Ceci, S., and Bruck, M. 1995. Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A 

Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony. Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association. 

Collins, R., Lincoln, R., and Frank, M.G. 2002. The effect of 

rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 

9(1):69–78. 

Conrad, D., and Kellar-Guenther, Y. 2006. Compassion fatigue, 

burnout, and compassion satisfaction among Colorado child 

protection workers. Child Abuse & Neglect 30(10):1071–1080. 

Cronch, L.E., Viljoen, J.L., and Hansen, D.J. 2006. Forensic 

interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques 

and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior 

11(3):195–207. 

Davies, D., and Faller, K. 2007. Interviewing children with 

special needs. In Interviewing Children About Sexual Abuse: 

Controversies and Best Practice, edited by K. Faller. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–163. 

Evans, A., and Roberts, K. 2009. The effects of different 

paraphrasing styles on the quality of reports from young child 

witnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law 15(6):531–546. 

Faller, K.C. (ed.). 2007. Interviewing Children About Sexual 

Abuse: Controversies and Best Practices. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Faller, K.C., Cordisco Steele, L., and Nelson-Gardell, D. 2010. 

Allegations of sexual abuse of a child: What to do when a single 

forensic interview isn’t enough. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 

19(5):572–589. 

Feiring, C., and Taska, L. 2005. The persistence of shame 

following sexual abuse: A longitudinal look at risk and recovery. 

Child Maltreatment 10(4):337–349. 

Figley, C.R. 1995. Compassion Fatigue: Coping With Secondary 

Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized. 

Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel. 

Fisher, R.P., and Geiselman, R.E. 1992. Memory-Enhancing 

Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview. 

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 13 
 

Fivush, R., Peterson, C., and Schwarzmueller, A. 2002. 

Questions and answers: The credibility of child witnesses in 

the context of specific questioning techniques. In Memory and 

Suggestibility in the Forensic Interview, edited by M. Eisen, J. 

Quas, and G. Goodman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates, pp. 331–354. 

Fontes, L.A. 2005. Child Abuse and Culture: Working With 

Diverse Families. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Fontes, L.A. 2008. Interviewing Clients Across Cultures: A 

Practitioner’s Guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Friedman, W.J., and Lyon, T.D. 2005. The development 

of temporal-reconstructive abilities. Child Development 

76(6):1202–1216. 

Hershkowitz, I. 2011. Rapport building in investigative 

interviews of children. In Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of 

Psychological Research and Forensic Practice, 2d ed., edited by 

M.E. Lamb, D.J. La Rooy, L.C. Malloy, and C. Katz. Oxford, 

England: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 109–128. 

Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M., and Horowitz, D. 2007. 

Victimization of children with disabilities. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry 77(4):629–635. 

Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M.E., Katz, C., and Malloy, L.C. 

2015. Does enhanced rapport-building alter the dynamics of 

investigative interviews with suspected victims of intra-familial 

abuse? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 30(1):6–14. 

Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., and 

Horowitz, D. 2012. The development of communicative and 

narrative skills among preschoolers: Lessons from forensic 

interviews about child abuse. Child Development 83(2):611–622. 

Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., 

and Horowitz, D. 2006. Dynamics of forensic interviews with 

suspected abuse victims who do not disclose abuse. Child Abuse 

& Neglect 30(7):753–769. 

Home Office. 2007. Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal 

Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and 

Guidance on Using Special Measures. London, England: Author. 

Available online: www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victimsand-witnesses/vulnerable-witnesses/achieving-best-evidencecriminal-proceedings.pdf. 

Imhoff, M.C., and Baker-Ward, L. 1999. Preschoolers’ 

suggestibility: Effects of developmentally appropriate language 

and interviewer supportiveness. Journal of Applied Developmental 

Psychology 20(3):407–429. 

Johnson, M. 2009. The investigative windows of opportunity: 

The vital link to corroboration in child sexual abuse cases. 

Centerpiece: The Official Newsletter of the National Child 

Protection Training Center 1(9):1–4. 

Jones, L.M., Cross, T.P., Walsh, W.A., and Simone, M. 2005. 

Criminal investigations of child abuse: The research behind “best 

practices.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 6(3):254–268. 

Katz, C., and Hamama, L. 2013. “Draw me everything that 

happened to you”: Exploring children’s drawings of sexual abuse. 

Children and Youth Services Review 35(5):877–882. 

Kendall-Tackett, K., Lyon, T., Taliaferro, G., and Little, L. 2005. 

Why child maltreatment researchers should include children’s 

disability status in their maltreatment studies. Child Abuse & 

Neglect 29(2):147–151. 

La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L., and Lamb, M. 2010. Do we 

need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, 

Public Policy and Law 16(4):373–392. 

La Rooy, D., Lamb, M., and Pipe, M.-E. 2009. Repeated 

interviewing: A critical evaluation of risks and potential benefits. 

In The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations, edited by K. 

Kuehnle and M. Connell. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 327–361. 

Lamb, M.E., and Brown, D.A. 2006. Conversational apprentices: 

Helping children become competent informants about their 

own experiences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 

24(1):215–234. 

Lamb, M.E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., and Esplin, P.W. 

2008. Tell Me What Happened: Structured Investigative 

Interviews of Child Victims and Witnesses. West Sussex, England: 

John Wiley & Sons. 

Lamb, M.E., Malloy, L.C., Hershkowitz, I., and La Rooy, D. 

2015. Children and the law. In Handbook of Child Psychology and 

Developmental Science, 7th ed., vol. 3: Socioemotional Processes, 

edited by R.M. Lerner and M.E. Lamb. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 

464–512. 

Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P.W., and 

Horowitz, D. 2007. Structured forensic interview protocols 

improve the quality and effectiveness of investigative interviews 

with children: A review of research using the NICHD 

Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect 

31(11–12):1201–1231. 

Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., and 

Abbott, C.B. 2007. Does the type of prompt affect the accuracy 

of information provided by alleged victims of abuse in forensic 

interviews? Applied Cognitive Psychology 21(9):1117–1130. 

Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K.J., Hershkowitz, I., and 

Horowitz, D. 2000. Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes 

of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law 

and Human Behavior 24(6):699–708. 

Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P.W., and 

Mitchell, S. 2002. Is ongoing feedback necessary to maintain the 

quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children? 

Applied Developmental Science 6(1):35–41. 

14 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P.W., Stewart, 

H., and Mitchell, S. 2003. Age differences in young children’s 

responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic 

interviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 

7(5):926–934. 

Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., 

Horowitz, D., and Esplin, P.W. 2002. The effects of intensive 

training and ongoing supervision on the quality of investigative 

interviews with alleged sex abuse victims. Applied Developmental 

Science 6(3):114–125. 

Leander, L. 2010. Police interviews with child sexual abuse 

victims: Patterns of reporting, avoidance and denial. Child Abuse 

& Neglect 34(3):192–205. 

Lipsky, L.D., and Burk, C. 2009. Trauma Stewardship: An 

Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others. San 

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 

London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S.J., and Shuman, D.W. 2007. 

Disclosure of child sexual abuse: A review of the contemporary 

empirical literature. In Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, Delay, and 

Denial, edited by M.-E. Pipe, M.E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, and A.-C. 

Cederborg. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 

11–40. 

Lyon, T.D. 2007. False denials: Overcoming methodological 

biases in abuse disclosure research. In Child Sexual Abuse: 

Disclosure, Delay, and Denial, edited by M.-E. Pipe, M.E. Lamb, 

Y. Orbach, and A.-C. Cederborg. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, pp. 41–62. 

Lyon, T.D. 2010. Investigative interviewing of the child.
 

In Child Welfare Law and Practice, 2d ed., edited by D.N.
 

Duquette and A.M. Haralambie. Denver, CO: Bradford, pp.
 

87–109.
 

Lyon, T.D., and Ahern, E.C. 2010. Disclosure of child sexual
 

abuse. In The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, 3d ed.,
 

edited by J.E.B. Myers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 233–252.
 

Lyon, T.D., and Dorado, J.S. 2008. Truth induction in
 

young maltreated children: The effects of oath-taking and
 

reassurance on true and false disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect
 

32(7):738–748.
 

Lyon, T.D., and Evans, A.D. 2014. Young children’s
 

understanding that promising guarantees performance: The
 

effects of age and maltreatment. Law and Human Behavior
 

38(2):162–170.
 

Macleod, E., Gross, J., and Hayne, H. 2013. The clinical and
 

forensic value of information that children report while drawing.
 

Applied Cognitive Psychology 27(5):564–573.
 

Malloy, L.C., Brubacher, S.P., and Lamb, M.E. 2011.
 

Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative
 

interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse. Applied
 

Developmental Science 15(1):8–19.
 

Malloy, L.C., Brubacher, S.P., and Lamb, M.E. 2013. Because
 

she’s one who listens: Children discuss disclosure recipients in
 

forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment 18(4):245–251.
 

Malloy, L.C., and Quas, J.A. 2009. Children’s suggestibility:
 

Areas of consensus and controversy. In The Evaluation of Child
 

Sexual Abuse Allegations: A Comprehensive Guide to Assessment
 

and Testimony, edited by K. Kuehnle and M. Connell. Hoboken,
 

NJ: Wiley, pp. 267–297.
 

McElvaney, R. 2013. Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays,
 

non-disclosure and partial disclosure. What the research tells
 

us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review. DOI:
 

10.1002/car.2280.
 

Meyers, T.W., and Cornille, T. 2002. The trauma of working
 

with traumatized children. In Treating Compassion Fatigue,
 

edited by C. Figley. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge, pp.
 

39–55.
 

Midwest Regional Children’s Advocacy Center (MRCAC). 2014.
 

Key Survey Findings: National Multi-Site Survey of Children’s
 

Advocacy Centers. St. Paul, MN: Author. Available online: www.
 

mrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2013-Key-Survey-


Findings.FINAL_.pdf
 

Miller, A., and Rubin, D. 2009. The contributions of children’s
 

advocacy centers to felony prosecutions of child sexual abuse.
 

Child Abuse & Neglect 33(1):12–18.
 

Myers, J.E.B. 2005. Myers on Evidence in Child, Domestic and
 

Elder Abuse Cases, vol. 1. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
 

Myers, J.E.B., Saywitz, K.J., and Goodman, G.S. 1996.
 

Psychological research on children as witnesses: Practical
 

implications for forensic interviews and courtroom testimony.
 

Pacific Law Journal 28(1):3–91.
 

National Children’s Alliance. 2011. Child-focused setting.
 

In Standards for Accredited Members. Washington, DC:
 

National Children’s Alliance. Available online: www.
 

nationalchildrensalliance.org/sites/default/files/download-files/
 

NCARevisedStandardsforMembers_0.pdf.
 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 15 
 

National Children’s Alliance. 2013. Annotated Bibliography of the 

Empirical and Scholarly Literature Supporting the Ten Standards 

for Accreditation by the National Children’s Alliance, 2d ed. 

Washington, DC: National Children’s Alliance. Available online: 

www.nationalcac.org/images/pdfs/CALiO/Bibliographies/ 

annotated-bibliography-standards-second-ed.pdf. 

Olafson, E., and Lederman, C. 2006. The state of the debate 

about children’s disclosure patterns in child sexual abuse cases. 

Juvenile & Family Court Journal 57(1):27–40. 

Orbach, Y., and Lamb, M.E. 2007. Young children’s 

references to temporal attributes of allegedly experienced 

events in the course of forensic interviews. Child Development 

78(4):1100–1120. 

Orbach, Y., and Pipe, M.-E. 2011. Investigating substantive 

issues. In Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological 

Research and Forensic Practice, 2d ed., edited by M.E. Lamb, 

D.J. La Rooy, L.C. Malloy, and C. Katz. Chichester, England: 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 199–216. 

Patterson, T., and Hayne, H. 2011. Does drawing facilitate older 

children’s reports of emotionally laden events? Applied Cognitive 

Psychology 25(1):119–126. 

Pence, D., and Wilson, C. 1994. Team Investigation of Child 

Sexual Abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Perona, A.R., Bottoms, B.L., and Sorenson, E. 2006. Researchbased guidelines for child forensic interviews. Journal of 

Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 12(3):81–130. 

Perron, B.E., and Hiltz, B.S. 2006. Burnout and secondary 

trauma among forensic interviewers of children. Child & 

Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(2):216–234. 

Peterson, C. 2012. Children’s autobiographical memories 

across the years: Forensic implications of childhood amnesia and 

eyewitness memory for stressful events. Developmental Review 

32(3):287–306. 

Pipe, M.-E., Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y., and Cederborg, A. (eds.). 

2007. Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, Delay, and Denial. 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Pipe, M.-E., and Salmon, K. 2002. What children bring to the 

interview context: Individual differences in children’s event 

reports. In Memory and Suggestibility in the Forensic Interview, 

edited by M.L. Eisen, J.A. Quas, and G.S. Goodman. Mahwah, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 235–261. 

Poole, D.A., and Dickinson, J.J. 2011. Evidence supporting 

restrictions on uses of body diagrams in forensic interviews. 

Child Abuse and Neglect 35(9):659–699. 

Poole, D.A., and Dickinson, J.J. 2014. Comfort drawing during 

investigative interviews: Evidence of the safety of a popular 

practice. Child Abuse & Neglect 38(2):192–201. 

Poole, D.A., and Lamb, M.E. 1998. Investigative Interviews of 

Children: A Guide for Helping Professionals. Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association. 

Poole, D.A., and Lindsay, D.S. 2002. Children’s suggestibility in 

the forensic context. In Memory and Suggestibility in the Forensic 

Interview, edited by M.L. Eisen, J.A. Quas, and G.S. Goodman. 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 355–382. 

Price, H., and Roberts, K. 2011. The effects of an intensive 

training and feedback program on police and social workers’ 

investigative interviews of children. Canadian Journal of 

Behavioral Science 43(3):235–244. 

Russell, A. 2006. Best practices in child forensic interviews: 

Interview instructions and truth-lie discussions. Hamline Journal 

of Public Law and Policy 28:99–130. 

Russell, A. 2008. Out of the woods: A case for using anatomical 

diagrams in forensic interviews. Update 21(1):2–6. 

Russell, A. 2010. Vicarious trauma in child sexual abuse 

prosecutors. Centerpiece 2(6):1–7. Available online: www. 

gundersenhealth.org/upload/docs/NCPTC/CenterPiece/ 

Vol%202%20Issue%206.pdf. 

Saywitz, K.J., and Camparo, L.B. 2009. Contemporary child 

forensic interviewing: Evolving consensus and innovation over 

25 years. In Children as Victims, Witnesses, and Offenders: 

Psychological Science and the Law, edited by B. Bottoms, C. 

Najdowski, and G. Goodwin. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 

102–127. 

Saywitz, K.J., Camparo, L.B., and Romanoff, A. 2010. 

Interviewing children in custody cases: Implications of 

research and policy for practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 

28(4):542–562. 

Saywitz, K.J., Geiselman, R., and Bornstein, G. 1992. Effects 

of cognitive interviewing and practice on children’s recall 

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(5):744–756. 

Saywitz, K.J., Lyon, T.D., and Goodman, G.S. 2011. 

Interviewing children. In The APSAC Handbook on Child 

Maltreatment, 3d ed., edited by J.E.B. Myers. Los Angeles, CA: 

Sage, pp. 337–360. 

Schneider, L., Price, H.L., Roberts, K.P., and Hedrick, A.M. 

2011. Children’s episodic and generic reports of alleged abuse. 

Applied Cognitive Psychology 25(6):862–870. 

Sgroi, S.M. 1978. Child sexual assault: Some guidelines for 

intervention and assessment. In Sexual Assault of Children 

and Adolescents, edited by A.W. Burgess, A.N. Groth, L.L. 

Holmstrom, and S.M. Sgroi. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 

pp. 129–142. 

Sjoberg, R.L., and Lindblad, F. 2002. Delayed disclosure and 

disrupted communication during forensic investigation of child 

sexual abuse: A study of 47 corroborated cases. Acta Paediatrica 

91(12):1391–1396. 

16 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
Smith, K., and Milne, R. 2011. Planning the interview. In 

Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and 

Forensic Practice, 2d ed., edited by M.E. Lamb, D.J. La Rooy, 

L.C. Malloy, and C. Katz. Chichester, England: John Wiley & 

Sons, Ltd., pp. 87–107. 

Stewart, H., Katz, C., and La Rooy, D.J. 2011. Training forensic 

interviewers. In Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological 

Research and Forensic Practice, 2d ed., edited by M.E. Lamb, 

D.J. La Rooy, L.C. Malloy, and C. Katz. Chichester, England: 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 199–216. 

Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., and Lindsay, R.C.L. 2002. 

Children’s conceptual knowledge of lying and its relation 

to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence 

examinations. Law and Human Behavior 26(4):395–415. 

Teoh, Y.S., and Lamb, M. 2013. Interviewer demeanor in 

forensic interviews of children. Psychology, Crime & Law 

19(2):145–159. 

Walker, A.G. 2013. Handbook on Questioning Children: A 

Linguistic Perspective, 3d ed. Washington, DC: ABA Center on 

Children and the Law. 

Warren, A.R., and Woodall, C.E. 1999. The reliability of hearsay 

testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with 

children? Psychology, Public Policy and Law 5(2):355–371. 

Ziegler, D. 2002. Traumatic Experience and the Brain: A 

Handbook for Understanding and Treating Those Traumatized as 

Children. Phoenix, AZ: Acacia Press. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 17 
18 J uvenile Justice Bulletin 

Acknowledgments 

Chris Newlin, M.S., LPC, is Executive Director of the National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC). In addition, he 

participates in national and international training and leadership activities on the protection of children. NCAC was the first 

CAC in the world, and it continues to provide prevention and intervention services for child abuse in Huntsville/Madison 

County, AL. It also houses the NCAC Training Center, the Southern Regional Children’s Advocacy Center, and the Child 

Abuse Library Online (CALiO). Mr. Newlin received his master’s degree from the University of Central Arkansas. 

Linda Cordisco Steele, M.Ed., LPC, is a senior trainer and child forensic interview specialist for NCAC. She has 30 years 

of experience in forensic interviewing, therapy, and advocacy work with victims and has conducted more than 350 trainings 

across the United States and abroad. Her areas of expertise include child forensic interviewing, child development, victim 

advocacy, and working within the multidisciplinary team setting. Ms. Cordisco Steele has served as clinical director and forensic 

interviewer for three CACs. She received her master’s degree in education from the University of Pittsburgh. 

Andra K. Chamberlin, M.A., is a trainer and child forensic interview specialist for NCAC. She has presented at local, regional, 

state, national, and international child abuse conferences and conducted forensic interview trainings across the United States. 

Ms. Chamberlin has 26 years of experience in the child maltreatment field and previously served as program director and 

forensic interviewer for a CAC in Texas. She assisted in the development of the forensic interviewing training program for 

CACs of Texas. Ms. Chamberlin received her master’s degree in applied research psychology from the University of Texas of the 

Permian Basin. 

Jennifer Anderson, MSW, LISW, is a consultant for CornerHouse, where she has worked for more than 12 years. In her tenure 

at CornerHouse, Ms. Anderson has published multiple articles on forensic interviewing, spoken at national conferences, and 

provided extensive training courses to diverse groups of multidisciplinary professionals, notably the investigators from the 

International Criminal Court at the Hague, multidisciplinary professionals in Chennai, Delhi, and Bangalore, India, and in 

Tokyo, Japan. Ms. Anderson has interviewed hundreds of children regarding alleged abuse or neglect, served in multiple 

managerial and leadership roles, and served on numerous task forces, committees, and boards. 

Julie Kenniston, MSW, LISW, is Executive Director of The Center for Family Solutions. She presents for APSAC and the Ohio 

Attorney General’s ChildFirst/Finding Words forensic interview courses. Ms. Kenniston coordinated the Forensic Training 

Institute for The Childhood Trust and trains interviewers nationally and internationally. As an APSAC board member, she cochairs the forensic interviewer certification task force. She has conducted more than 3,000 forensic interviews. Ms. Kenniston 

coauthored Handbook on Questioning Children: A Linguistic Perspective, 3d edition, with Anne Graffam Walker, Ph.D. 

Amy Russell, M.S.Ed., J.D., is Executive Director of the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center, where she 

provides administrative and programmatic oversight and training and technical assistance for child protection professionals. 

Ms. Russell also conducts forensic interviews and provides expert testimony on child sexual abuse in multiple state and federal 

courts. She has worked with victims of violence and trauma in several capacities, including counseling and support work with 

children and adults. Ms. Russell obtained her bachelor’s degree in sociology from Hope College and her master’s degree in 

counseling from Western Illinois University and she graduated magna cum laude from SUNY Buffalo Law School with her juris 

doctor. 

Heather Stewart, M.A., is Assistant Program Manager for the Salt Lake County Children’s Justice Center, where she has 

supervised daily operations and services for nearly 20 years. She has developed forensic interview training and peer review 

curriculums. She has presented at conferences and has provided forensic interview training both nationally and internationally. 

Ms. Stewart has coauthored articles, book chapters, and a report to the U.S. Department of Justice about training interviewers, 

conducting forensic interviews, and peer review. She received her master’s degree in counseling psychology from Towson 

University. 

Viola Vaughan-Eden, Ph.D., M.J., LCSW, is President of APSAC. As a clinical and forensic social worker, she also serves as 

a consultant and expert witness in child maltreatment cases—principally sexual abuse. Dr. Vaughan-Eden is co-editor of the 

Journal of Forensic Social Work and of the APSAC Practice Guidelines: Forensic Interviewing in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse. 

She is recipient of the 2011 NCAC Outstanding Service Award in Mental Health and the 2012 NASW—Virginia Chapter 

Lifetime Achievement Award. 

NCJ 248749

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

8660 Cherry Lane

Laurel, MD 20707-4651

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP/GPO *NCJ~248749* PERMIT NO. G – 26

This bulletin was prepared under grant numbers 2009–

CI–FX–K010, 2010–CI–FX–K005, and 2011–CI–FX–K003 

from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or policies 

of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics; the National Institute 

of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications 

are not copyright protected. We encourage you 

to reproduce this document, share it with your 

colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter 

or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite 

OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are 

also interested in your feedback, such as how 

you received a copy, how you intend to use 

the information, and how OJJDP materials 

meet your individual or agency needs. 

Please direct comments
 

and/or questions to:
 

National Criminal Justice
 

Reference Service
 

P.O. Box 6000
 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000
 

800–851–3420
 

301–240–5830 (fax)
 

E-mail: responsecenter@ncjrs.gov
 

Web: www.ncjrs.gov