U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Portable Guides to

Investigating Child Abuse

Forming a

Multidisciplinary

Team To

Investigate

Child Abuse

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC
Second Printing March 2000

NCJ 170020

Foreword

When a child is the victim of abuse or neglect, it is the

responsibility of each member of the child protective service

and criminal justice communities to provide a timely and

appropriate response.

To promote the coordination and teamwork needed to ensure

such a response—and to minimize additional trauma to

children—a growing number of jurisdictions have established

multidisciplinary teams (MDT’s) comprising professionals

from law enforcement, child protective services, prosecution,

medicine, counseling, and related fields.

Forming a Multidisciplinary Team To Investigate Child Abuse

delineates the benefits that an MDT offers and provides

advice on forming and operating an effective team. Diverse

MDT models are described and keys to making the team a

success—confidentiality policies, conflict resolution practices,

and periodic review—are discussed.

It is my hope that this guide will be a valuable resource to

current and potential MDT members and that it will enhance

coordination among these professionals and improve the

timeliness and effectiveness of their investigations. Only

through such improvements can we fulfill our duty to protect

children and bring those who abuse and neglect them to

justice.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

November 1998
1

T wo months before her seventh birthday in

1995, Elisa Izquierdo was killed. Over a

period of months, she had been physically

and emotionally abused,

repeatedly violated with

a toothbrush and a

hairbrush, and finally

beaten to death by her

mother. Elisa’s mother

told police that before

she smashed Elisa’s head

against a cement wall, she

made Elisa eat her own feces and used her head to mop

the floor. The police told reporters that there was no

part of the 6-year-old’s body that had not been cut or

bruised. Thirty marks initially thought to be cigarette

burns turned out to be the imprints of a stone in

someone’s ring.

An investigation after her death revealed that Elisa had

been the subject of at least eight reports of abuse and

that several government agencies had investigated the

reports. Nonetheless, Elisa Izquierdo was left with her

abuser and eventual killer.
2

Unfortunately, this failure to respond to reports of child abuse

in a timely and appropriate manner has happened many times—

and is continuing to happen—in probably every State in the

country, and almost always for the same reason: As the

investigation into Elisa’s death revealed, there had been an

appalling lack of communication and coordination among the

agencies investigating reports of possible abuse. The first

recommendation of the New York State commission mandated

to find out how to prevent another such tragedy was to adopt

legislation to authorize child protection agencies to provide

complete information to all members of a county’s designated

multidisciplinary team (MDT) or child advocacy center.

An MDT is a group of professionals who work together in a

coordinated and collaborative manner to ensure an effective

response to reports of child abuse and neglect. Members of

the team represent the government agencies and private

practitioners responsible for investigating crimes against

children and protecting and treating children in a particular

community. An MDT may focus on investigations; policy

issues; treatment of victims, their families, and perpetrators;

or a combination of these functions. This Portable Guide deals

with the investigative function of MDT’s.

The MDT approach promotes wellcoordinated child abuse investigations

that benefit from the input and attention

of many different parties—especially

law enforcement, prosecution, and

child protective services—to ensure a

successful conclusion to the investigation

and to minimize additional trauma to the child victim.

Key to the formation of successful investigative MDT’s are:

✹ Committed members who have the support of their agencies for

the multidisciplinary approach.

✹ An initial meeting during which each member’s role and previous

experience in investigating child abuse and neglect are

respectfully heard.

✹ The development of a mission statement that clearly sets forth the

purpose of the team, the scope of its activities, and its guiding

principles.

✔
3

✹ The subsequent creation of a team protocol that specifies the

types of cases that will be investigated, the responsibilities of

the members, and the procedures for conducting investigations.

Key to the successful operation of an MDT are:

✹ Confidentiality policies that accord with legislative mandates,

agency policies, professional practices, and the best interests of

the abused children.

✹ Conflict resolution practices that ensure core issues are aired and

resolved satisfactorily based on mutual respect and recognition

that child abuse investigations are complex, demanding, and

frustrating but that they are also important, meaningful, and

rewarding.

✹ Periodic self-analysis and outside evaluation of how the team is

working so that it continues to achieve the purposes for which it

was formed.

Need for a Team Approach

Over the past two decades, the number of reports of child

abuse and neglect has greatly increased, straining resources

to investigate allegations effectively. A number of cases have

been the subject of intense media coverage. Although helping

to raise public awareness of the problem, this coverage has

also led to a backlash that includes charges of government

witch-hunts on the one hand and accusations of government

inaction on the other. Whatever the perception, there is

significant outside pressure on professionals to act promptly,

yet professionally and correctly, when faced with a report of

child abuse or neglect.

Research related to child abuse has increased dramatically

in the same period. More information than ever before—in

the areas of specialized child development issues, victim and

offender dynamics, diagnostic imaging, traumatic memory,

linguistics, forensic pathology, and others—is available to help

practitioners discover the truth of a report. Moreover, to meet

the competing demands of child protection, due process, and

family preservation, laws have been repeatedly changed and

refined in the areas of evidence, procedure, and definitions

related to abuse and neglect. The existence of such abundant

yet diverse and technical data and legal requirements places

significant demands upon professionals who investigate and

prosecute these increasingly difficult cases.
4

No single profession or State agency has the ability to respond

adequately to any allegation of child maltreatment. Indeed,

several professions and State agencies are mandated to report

or investigate suspicions of child abuse and neglect or to provide

services to abused children or the perpetrators of abuse.

It is now well accepted that the best response to the challenge

of child abuse and neglect investigations is the formation of an

MDT. In fact, formation of such teams is authorized, and often

required, in more than three-quarters of the States and at the

Federal level. Hospitals have been using MDT’s in a variety

of ways for nearly 40 years.

The MDT approach often extends beyond joint investigations

and interagency coordination into team decisionmaking. Team

investigations require the full participation and collaboration

of team members, who share their knowledge, skills, and

abilities. Team members remain responsible for fulfilling their

own professional roles while learning to take others’ roles and

responsibilities into consideration.

An effective response to reports of child abuse and neglect is

an investigation that is timely and objective and that causes

the least possible trauma to children and families. Effective

teamwork can prevent further abuse to children and can bring

those who harm children to justice. Some of the recognized

benefits of a proficient MDT include:

✹ Less “system inflicted” trauma to children and families.

✹ Better agency decisions, including more accurate investigations

and more appropriate interventions.

✹ More efficient use of limited agency resources.

✹ Better trained, more capable professionals.

✹ More respect in the community and less burnout among child

abuse professionals.

These benefits can translate into safer communities.

Types of Multidisciplinary Teams

MDT’s can take several forms and may involve different

locales:

✹ Some are part of a children’s advocacy center (CAC), which

provides a child-friendly facility where forensic interviews, and
5

sometimes medical examinations and treatment, are conducted.

The CAC may serve as the site for team meetings and trainings

and may also house representatives of member agencies. CAC’s

also often do community outreach and public education. There

are more than 400 established and developing centers nationwide.

✹ Other MDT’s may not provide the more comprehensive services

of a CAC but may establish a particular place for conducting

interviews. Such teams may be based in hospitals, prosecutors’

offices, or within child protective services agencies. The San

Diego Children’s Hospital and Health Center has specially

trained interviewers who use an area designed specifically for

interviewing children.

✹ Hundreds of effective teams are not part of a CAC and do not have

special interview facilities. These teams use available resources

to accomplish, in different but effective ways, many of the same

purposes—reducing trauma to victims and families, improving the

accuracy of information obtained during the investigation, and

easing the strain on member agencies and investigators.

No single type of team is best. The model you choose will

depend on the resources available and the way various

agencies function in your community.

Forming a Team

Creating an MDT involves several steps: identifying and

recruiting members, developing a mission statement and

protocol, establishing and maintaining good working

relationships among team members, and evaluating the

team’s performance.

Some agencies have worked together very well in an informal

though systematic manner for a period of time, usually because

the individuals representing them work well together. The

creation of a formal MDT—by institutionalizing the team and

documenting its functions and procedures on paper—ensures

continuity of existing coordination and collaboration beyond

the tenure of specific individuals.

Team Participants

In many States, the membership of MDT’s is defined by statute.

Generally, laws authorizing or requiring the formation of

investigative MDT’s specify that law enforcement, child

protection or family services, and prosecution participate. Even

if your State does not require such membership, these three
6

disciplines and the medical professions should be considered

the core of any investigative MDT. Depending on the resources

available in your community, other potential members include

mental health professionals, victim services coordinators, 

court-appointed special advocates, and educators. In federally

recognized Indian Country and government reservations,

such as a military base, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

has investigative jurisdiction and must be included in any MDT.

Everyone on the team must be committed to the concept

that a coordinated and collaborative process is required for

successful investigation of reported instances of child abuse.

That commitment may not be fully developed when the team

is first formed, but there must be at least an agreement to

implement the team philosophy.

To be viable, an MDT must have support of the leadership of

its members’ organizations and agencies. To gain support

for forming an MDT, seek out professionals working in other

MDT’s in your area or in your profession and communicate

their experience to others in your organization. Share the

current literature on the team approach, which overwhelmingly

supports the MDT concept. For instance, one study has

revealed that in a jurisdiction where an MDT created a close

working relationship between law enforcement and child

protective services, three out of four cases were referred for

criminal prosecution, and nearly 95 percent of those cases

resulted in convictions.1

 Those proportions are much higher

than in jurisdictions without MDT’s. Other research has

suggested that MDT’s, by reducing the number of investigatory

interviews a child must endure, reduce “system intervention

trauma” as well.2

Initial Meeting

An initial meeting of potential team members is critical to

laying the foundation for success. Any interested person

can call, convene, schedule, or coordinate the first meeting.

Participants in the initial meeting should discuss their

reasons for attending the meeting and the advantages

1

Tjaden PG, Anhalt J, The Impact of Joint Law Enforcement—Child Protective

Services Investigations in Child Maltreatment Cases, Denver, CO: Center for

Policy Research, September 1994.

2

Henry J, System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims

following disclosure, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(4), August 1997.
7

and disadvantages of implementing the team method of

investigating suspected harm to children.

The need for investigations will most likely be universally

expressed, sometimes in terms reflecting the frustrations

commonly felt by professionals handling these cases. It is

important for all participants to hear what other people are

saying and to be heard by others. Members will express

opinions reflecting their professional training. Their opinions

may be heated because they feel defensive about criticism of

their agencies or angry about the ways their agencies have

failed to protect children from abuse. Statements like the

following may set a tone of angry or bitter criticism:

✹ “Too many cases, not enough resources.”

✹ “Someone dropped the ball.”

✹ “The facts are too complex.”

✹ “The victim’s behavior is unpredictable and misunderstood.”

✹ “No one understands the restrictions I face.”

✹ “You want to put people in jail; I need to put families back

together.”

It is vital that these comments be understood as the first step

in acknowledging the failings of current investigative practice.

These are the types of obstacles that face every new MDT.

Because participants generally concur about the importance of

the work and need for a team, they should be able to maintain

an overall positive attitude. The use of a seasoned facilitator,

who will not be a team member, can provide the structure

necessary to create a climate of mutual respect and attention.

All potential team members should be consulted in the choice

of a facilitator, to avoid the appearance of too much control

by any one member.

At this initial meeting, participants should also discuss

additional team membership—agencies or individuals vital

to the proper functioning of the team. Finally, participants

should begin to work on a mission statement.

Writing a Mission Statement

A mission statement is a general declaration of purpose—

the scope of your team’s activities, its goals, and the guiding

principles for achieving those goals. It should concisely
8

describe the reason the team was formed and the purpose it

will serve. It should be easily understood by team members

and by the broader community. Your team should consider the

following questions in developing its mission statement:

✹ Why was the team formed?

✹ What are the common values held by each team member?

✹ Who is on the team?

✹ What jurisdiction or community will the team serve?

✹ How does the team want to be perceived?

✹ What types of cases will the team investigate?

✹ What other functions will the team perform?

✹ What challenges does the team face?

✹ How will the team meet those challenges?

Do not attempt to incorporate the answers to all these

questions. The mission statement is supposed to be short

(five or fewer sentences) and specific enough to provide an

adequate measure of success. It should be simple, direct,

and inspirational. The preamble to the Constitution, for

example, sets forth its mission statement in these few words:

“. . . in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,

insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,

promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of

liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . . .” This simple

mission statement has guided a very large and complex

organization for more than 200 years.

To be relevant, the mission statement must also be tied to

the everyday workings of the team’s member agencies.

Buzzwords, jargon, and platitudes will not provide a clear

vision for team members or the community. The mission

statement for your team will be the reference point for its

protocol, which will be the team’s next project.

Writing a Protocol

A properly written protocol is essential if a team is to function

well. For an MDT, it is the written understanding of how

investigations and other functions will be pursued by team

members and the roles and responsibilities of member agencies.
9

The agencies and individuals signing the document signify their

mutual commitment to the team and the team’s mission

statement.

The team’s protocol is a practical, working document. Where

the mission statement is conceptual, the protocol is concrete.

The protocol serves as a reference when questions or disputes

arise within the team. When there is a written agreement

specifying investigative roles and responsibilities, conflict

is reduced because there is a shared understanding of

investigatory practice. Moreover, when investigations are

conducted in a relatively predictable and consistent manner,

the stress associated with uncertainty is minimized, resulting

in less conflict. Diminished interagency conflict means more

energy and attention are spent on the investigation itself,

contributing to swifter and more precise resolutions. That

in turn can alleviate trauma to children and their families.

Because many State statutes now mandate team formation,

it is important that you consult applicable State law when

drafting your team’s protocol. Many teams have also found it

helpful to review protocols developed in similar communities.

(Samples of protocols are available from the National

Network of Children’s Advocacy Centers, the four regional

CAC’s, and the National Center for Prosecution of Child

Abuse. See pages 21–23.) However, every community should

work out an agreement that suits its own resources and needs.

What works in Chicago or San Diego may not work in smaller

or more rural communities.

Regardless of the size or location of your community, a number

of issues must be addressed in every protocol. As you address

these issues, keep in mind the wide range of incidents in child

abuse reports—for example, a dirty house, a 2-year-old

wandering down a highway, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or

suspected child homicide. Balance the need for structure and

certainty with the necessity for creativity and flexibility. If you

agree in writing to follow a specific procedure, there may be

legal or procedural repercussions when that procedure is not

followed, no matter how compelling the reason for departing

from the protocol. Some teams have used a particularly complex

or difficult case as a point of departure when formulating a

protocol.
10

Figure 1 lists questions that will help in creating a protocol.

Note that the questions address the “who, what, when, where,

and how” of investigations and of team function. In addition

to addressing these questions, some teams have found it

useful to specify the criteria for arresting suspects, removing

children from their homes, and filing charges.

The benefits you derive from your team’s protocol will be in

direct proportion to the amount of thought, discussion, and

analysis of existing practice and challenges that you have

invested in developing the protocol.

Dealing With Confidentiality

Confidentiality is often perceived as a barrier to team

formation or effective teamwork. Often, this is due to a

misunderstanding of the requirements of confidentiality

imposed by law. Sometimes, legitimate confidentiality

protections are used as an excuse for not sharing information

when agencies mistrust each other. Misunderstanding

and misuse of confidentiality protections have contributed

to the continued abuse and death of too many children.

As the commission that investigated the death of Elisa

Izquierdo noted, “[The State’s] confidentiality laws mandate

silence and [its] expungement laws mandate ignorance.”

Confidentiality laws must continually be reviewed to ensure

that their legitimate purposes are being met while, at the

same time, allowing information to be appropriately shared.

The first step in determining how your team will handle the

confidentiality issue is to look at the governing law. Do not

assume that past practice has been or is in conformity with

existing law. Federal laws mandating confidentiality have

been substantially changed, and States are now permitted

latitude to enact laws authorizing investigative agencies to

furnish child abuse data to other agencies involved in an

investigation. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act permits dissemination of confidential information to

Federal, State, or local government agencies that need this

information to carry out their legal responsibilities to protect

children from abuse and neglect.

Many States not only permit but require the sharing of

such information. Some laws make exceptions to general

requirements of confidentiality when data are shared in the
11

Figure 1

Questions To Help You Create a Protocol

The following points should be addressed in any MDT

protocol:

✹ What is the purpose of the team? This may be the team’s

mission statement, but it can be more concrete, such as “to

investigate all child abuse reports in Box Butte County.”

✹ Who are the members of the team?

✹ What kinds of cases will the team investigate? All child

abuse? Only child sexual exploitation? Only felony physical

abuse? Neglect and abandonment?

✹ How will investigations be conducted? Who will do what?

Who will interview victims and who will interrogate

suspects? Who will remove children from their home? Who

will collect physical evidence? Who will refer victims for

physical examinations?

✹ When will team members perform certain tasks? Within a

specified time from receipt of report? After consultation

with other team members? In a particular sequence?

✹ Where will particular events occur? Will interviews be

conducted at a certain location? Interrogations at a different

location? Will specific locations be prohibited unless there

are unusual circumstances?

✹ How will team members carry out assignments? Jointly?

Who must be present? How long will others wait? Will

child interviews be recorded? On video? Audio? Other?

Will nonteam personnel be present? Parents or person in

loco parentis?

✹ What information can be shared under what circumstances?

✹ How will decisions be made? By whom and at what stage?

✹ When and where will the team meet?

✹ How will meetings be conducted?

✹ When (or how frequently) will the protocol and team

function be evaluated? How and by whom?
12

context of a team investigation. Teams should remember that

most laws prohibit public disclosure only of material gathered

during an investigation or revealed in a report of harm. Good

professional practice generally requires some disclosure of

confidential reports among professionals so that proper

decisions can be made.

When information is shared between agencies charged with

protecting children and the privacy of individuals, there is

arguably no breach of confidentiality. However, sharing

information within a team and for team purposes does not

justify general or public disclosure of sensitive information.

Your team protocol should specify what data will be shared

and how and when this can be done.

Keeping the Team Going

A team is like a car in that it consists of multiple parts joined

together to accomplish a particular task. In a car, if the steering

fails, there is no direction, and if the brakes fail, collisions are

unavoidable. Each part or group of parts in a car must be

regularly maintained, or the car will cease to operate properly.

Likewise, if a team is to continue to function smoothly, the team

members must pay attention to maintenance.

Dealing With Conflict

Conflict resolution is one form of preventive maintenance.

Conflict that is not properly rectified will cause resentment,

retribution, or retaliation. Any or all of those will eventually

destroy a team. Unresolved conflict in a team is like rust in a

car—it may not be immediately visible, but left unchecked it

will deepen and spread, eventually ruining the team. Effective

conflict resolution, on the other hand, enhances team spirit,

improves team function, and protects the team against failure.

Conflict within a team is inevitable and normal, but team

effectiveness is measured not by the amount of conflict but by

the manner in which conflict is resolved. Not all conflict is

appropriate or necessary. Conflict that thwarts the team’s

ability to accomplish its mission is core conflict and must be

resolved in a constructive fashion and by consensus. This does

not mean that team members must agree on every point, but

they must find ways to support solutions that maintain agency
13

integrity and further the team’s purpose. Resolving core

conflicts should result in “win-win” conclusions.

Other conflicts may involve peripheral problems—issues that

do not significantly hinder the team’s ability to accomplish its

mission. Peripheral issues can be dealt with more quickly,

without necessarily building consensus. Figure 2 (page 14)

lists points to remember for successfully dealing with conflict.

These points can be summarized as follows:

✹ Characterize the problem. Look at it from a systems perspective.

✹ Acknowledge relevant goals and interests by recognizing diverse

agency objectives.

✹ Negotiate (but do not confuse negotiation with compromise).

A complete and helpful discussion of these steps can be found

in the article by Fargason, Barnes, Schneider, and Galloway

(cited in the supplemental reading list), in which the authors

note that people involved in the helping professions often try

to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, this means that the source of

the conflict can undermine long-term cooperation between

organizations that serve abused children. When that happens,

children, families, and communities are ill served. Team

members must recognize the importance of dealing with the

real source of conflict in a constructive manner.

Promoting Teamwork

Many teams have found that joint training fosters good

teamwork (see figure 3, page 15). Team members who train

together may find opportunities to discuss issues of mutual

concern, both in the training itself and during social breaks.

Spending time together away from the immediate and constant

demands of the office provides a break during which the team

can focus on its functioning. Moreover, team members hear

the same information, which improves shared understanding

of the challenges and solutions common during the investigation

of reported child abuse. Joint training can clarify understanding

of mutual roles and responsibilities.

While not essential, social activities can strengthen team

identity and function. Simply combining lunch with a team

meeting can serve this social purpose. Some teams sponsor

picnics, awards banquets, and other activities to reinforce
14

the sense of belonging that is vital to effective teamwork.

When individuals identify with the team in a positive way,

commitment to the team mission is strengthened.

Preventing Burnout

People who work in child protective services, law enforcement,

prosecution, medicine, mental health, and other fields associated

Figure 2

Points To Remember When Faced With Conflict

✹ Do not lose sight of the team purpose (see your mission

statement).

✹ Look forward to opportunity, not backward to blame.

✹ Be respectful. Ensure each contention is considered. Listen

to one another. Be sure each position is understood. Restate

the other position in your own words.

✹ Clarify the opposing point of view until you are sure you

understand. Find something positive in each view. Avoid

defending your point of view until you understand the

other.

✹ Do not withhold an opposing point of view.

✹ State your position clearly, firmly, but without excessive

emotion.

✹ Once you have been heard, do not continue to restate your

position.

✹ Avoid personalizing your position—keep the discussion

focused on the issue.

✹ Offer suggestions rather than mere criticism of other points

of view.

✹ Remember that conflict within a team is natural and work

toward a mutually agreeable resolution.

✹ Base resolutions on consensus, not abdication of

responsibility or integrity.

✹ Keep focused on the team’s agreed-upon purpose and refer

to your protocol for guidance.
15

with children and their families are typically sensitive to the

feelings of others. The difficult cases they deal with require an

inordinate amount of emotional energy, and tragedy becomes

almost the norm of everyday work. They must also face the

often unrealistic expectations of the public, the mechanics of the

system, heavy caseloads, and inadequate resources. The load

can be crushing and can lead to burnout. Burnout is a syndrome

of physical and emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and

reduced sense of personal accomplishment. It is a gradual

process of loss that can lead to cynicism and ineffectiveness.

Recently, burnout has been recognized as a problem not of

the individual worker but of the social environment in which

people work.

A well-functioning team can reduce some of this emotional

loss by providing a much-needed sense of community. When

there is a sense of shared values and commitment, there is

an accompanying sense that the crushing emotional load

associated with child abuse intervention is being shared. Team

members can actively encourage one another, understand the

stress as others cannot, and work together to find ways of

improving working conditions.

Team social activities can also help prevent burnout. While

child abuse cases will always be emotionally challenging and

Figure 3

Rules for Effective Teamwork

✹ Identify a leader.

✹ Meet regularly.

✹ Respect others: agree to disagree.

✹ Listen to one another.

✹ Be open to constructive criticism.

✹ Be honest.

✹ Know respective abilities and limitations.

✹ Understand respective roles and responsibilities.
16

draining, they will be less so for a team than for a practitioner

working alone.

Evaluation

Periodic evaluation is essential if the team is to know whether it

is functioning effectively and being properly maintained. One

method of evaluating team function and maintenance is to get

regular feedback from team members. Members must be

honestly but constructively critical of the team’s performance

if the team is to survive and thrive. This self-analysis can take

place at regular meetings, during specially scheduled meetings,

or even during a team retreat designed expressly for evaluation

and renewal of purpose. A questionnaire can be prepared and

submitted if team members sense a need for anonymity.

Although this self-analysis is important, there is always a danger

that the team will not view itself objectively. Evaluation of the

team by victims, their families, outside agencies, members of

the general community, and agency managers or supervisors is

critical to proper team development and as a matter of attention

to constituents. The team should develop a method of regularly

soliciting, collecting, and analyzing input from these sources.

This process need not be elaborate or expensive. What is

important is that the team see itself as others see it. If others

see a need for change in a particular area, the team should

give serious consideration to the suggestion without, however,

subordinating its mission to public opinion or public pressure.

Conclusion

It is beyond the power of government to prevent this

from being a world in which children suffer and die, but

it is the responsibility of government to protect children

and bring those responsible for mistreating them to

justice.

Secrets That Can Kill: Child Abuse Investigations in New York State

New York State Temporary Commission of

Investigation, 1996

If the thousands of professionals who have had the good fortune

to be part of a successful MDT could contribute to this guide,

they would likely say the team approach has made an immense
17

difference in their communities and in their ability to do their

jobs. They would relate first hand how the team improved the

quality of child abuse and neglect investigations through

enhanced communication and cooperation among its members.

They would say that by pursuing a multidisciplinary team

approach, they also reduced the number of interviews child

victims faced and the length of the investigative process and

intervention, thereby preventing further trauma to these

children.

The MDT method of investigation significantly improves

the response to child abuse. Forming and maintaining an

investigative MDT will not be easy. At times during the

process, people may be discouraged. It will perhaps seem

easier to continue doing things “the old way” than to expend

the effort to create an effective team. However, practice and

experience clearly demonstrate that children and their

families, communities, and the professionals serving them

benefit greatly from the existence of an appropriately

functioning MDT. The best mechanism to ensure that

government fulfills its obligations to protect children and

bring to justice those responsible for mistreating them is

the cooperation, coordination, and collaboration of the

responsible agencies in an investigative MDT.

Author

Mark Ells, J.D.

Research Assistant Professor

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Center on Children, Families and

 the Law

121 South 13th Street, Suite 302

Lincoln, NE 68588–0227

402–472–3479

402–472–8412 (fax)

E-mail: mells@unlinfo.unl.edu

Supplemental Reading

Alexander RC. To team or not to team: Approaches to child

abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 2:95–97, 1993.
18

American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for

Prosecution of Child Abuse. Investigation and Prosecution of Child

Abuse. 3d ed. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Prosecution

of Child Abuse, 1994.

Baglow LJ. A multidimensional model for treatment of child

abuse: A framework for cooperation. Child Abuse & Neglect

14:387–395, 1990.

Besharov DJ. Combating Child Abuse: Guidelines for Cooperation

between Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services.

Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public

Policy Research, 1990.

Bross DC et al. (eds). The New Child Protection Team Handbook.

New York, NY: Garland Publishing Co., 1988.

California State Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney

General. Child Victim Witness Investigative Pilot Project: Research

and Evaluation Final Report. Sacramento, CA: Office of the

Attorney General, June 1994.

Dinsmore J. Joint Investigations of Child Abuse: Report of a

Symposium. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice,

July 1993.

Education Development Center, Inc., Massachusetts Child

Exploitation Network. Child Sexual Exploitation: Improving

Investigations and Protecting Victims. A Blueprint for Action.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, January 1995.

Fargason CA, Barnes D, Schneider D, Galloway BW.

Enhancing multi-agency collaboration in the management of

child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect 18(10):859–869,

October 1994.

Gable M. Save the children. UCLA Magazine 8(1):38–43,

June 1996.

Helfer ME, Kempe RS, Krugman RD (eds). The Battered Child.

5th ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Henry J. System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse

victims following disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence

12:4, August 1997.
19

Jensen JM, Jacobson M, Unrau Y, Robinson RL. Intervention

for victims of child sexual abuse: An evaluation of the children’s

advocacy model. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

13(2):139–156, April 1996.

Joint investigation: A multidisciplinary approach. Virginia

Child Protection Newsletter 44:1, 3–7, 16, Winter 1994.

Lanning KV, Walsh B. Criminal investigation of suspected

child abuse. In Briere JN et al. (eds): The APSAC Handbook on

Child Maltreatment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc., 1996.

Lundy JL. Teams: How to Develop Peak Performance Teams for World

Class Results. Chicago, IL: The Dartnell Corporation, 1992.

MacFarlane K (ed). MDIT Handbook: A Guide to the

Establishment of Multidisciplinary Interview Centers for the

Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse. San Jose, CA: Children’s

Institute International and Giarretto Institute, 1995.

Marx SP. Victim recantation in child sexual abuse cases: The

prosecutor’s role in prevention. Child Welfare 75(3):219–233,

May–June 1996.

Maslach C, Leiter MP. The Truth About Burnout. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997.

McIntosh-Fletcher D. Teaming by Design: Real Teams for Real

People. Chicago, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing, 1996.

Missouri State Department of Social Services. Child Sexual

Abuse Protocols. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State

Department of Social Services, July 8, 1993.

Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 28–730 (1997).

New York State Temporary Commission of Investigation.

Secrets That Can Kill: Child Abuse Investigations in New York State.

(Technical Report.) December 1995–January 1996.

Pence D, Wilson C. Team Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse: The

Uneasy Alliance. (Interpersonal Violence: The Practice Series.)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994.

Phipps CA, Schaefer K, Ventrell MR (eds). Status and trends

in child maltreatment laws: Criminal statutes. In Children’s Law,
20

Policy and Practice. (Children’s Law Manual Series.) Denver,

CO: National Association of Counsel for Children, 1995.

Schaufeli W et al. (eds). Professional Burnout. Washington, DC:

Taylor & Francis, 1993.

Sheppard DI, Zangrillo PA. Coordinating investigations of

child abuse. Public Welfare, Winter 1996.

Smith BE. Prosecuting Child Physical Abuse Cases: A Case Study in

San Diego. (NIJ Research in Brief.) Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice, June 1995.

Tjaden PG, Anhalt J. The Impact of Joint Law Enforcement—

Child Protective Services Investigations in Child Maltreatment Cases.

Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research, September 1994.

U.S. Congress. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of

1974, 42 USC Sec. 5101 et seq., 1997 amendments.

Van Biema D. Abandoned to her fate. Time Magazine 146(24),

December 11, 1995.

Walsh B. The role of law enforcement in fatal child abuse

cases. APSAC Advisor 7(4):25–28, Winter 1994.

Organizations

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

407 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60605

312–554–0166

312–554–0919 (fax)

Internet: www.apsac.org

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC)

is the Nation’s only interdisciplinary society for professionals working in

the field of child abuse and neglect. It supports research, education, and

advocacy that enhance efforts to respond to abused children, those who

abuse them, and the conditions associated with their abuse. APSAC’s

major goal is to promote effective interdisciplinary coordination among

professionals who respond to child maltreatment.
21

Missing and Exploited Children’s Training and

 Technical Assistance Program

Fox Valley Technical College

Criminal Justice Department

P.O. Box 2277

1825 North Bluemound Drive

Appleton, WI 54913–2277

800–648–4966

920–735–4757 (fax)

Internet: www.foxvalley.tec.wi.us/ojjdp

The Missing and Exploited Children’s Training Program, sponsored by the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and Fox

Valley Technical College, offer a variety of courses on investigating child

abuse, including an intensive special training for local investigative teams.

Teams must include representatives from law enforcement, prosecution,

social services, and (optionally) the medical field. Participants take part in

hands-on team activity involving:

✹ Development of interagency processes and protocols for enhanced

enforcement, prevention, and intervention in child abuse cases.

✹ Case preparation and prosecution.

✹ Development of the team’s own interagency implementation plan for

improved investigation of child abuse.

National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse

American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI)

99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510

Alexandria, VA 22314

703–739–0321

703–549–6259 (fax)

Internet: www.ndaa.org

The National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse is a nonprofit and

technical assistance affiliate of APRI. In addition to research and technical

assistance, the Center provides extensive training on the investigation and

prosecution of child abuse and child deaths. The national trainings include

timely information presented by a variety of professionals experienced in

the medical, legal, and investigative aspects of child abuse.
22

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and

 Neglect Information (NCCAN)

330 C Street NW.

Washington, DC 20447

800–FYI–3366

703–385–7565

703–385–3206 (fax)

Internet: www.calib.com/nccanch

NCCAN provides access to the most extensive, up-to-date collection of

information on child abuse and neglect in the world. The Clearinghouse will

provide, on request, annotated bibliographies on specific topics or a copy of

its data base on CD–ROM. NCCAN also publishes the User Manual

Series, which includes several titles related to MDT’s: A Coordinated Response

to Child Abuse and Neglect: A Basic Manual (1992), The Role of Law Enforcement

in the Response to Child Abuse and Neglect (1992), and Joint Investigations of Child

Abuse: Report of a Symposium (1993). These publications are available from

NCCAN.

National Children’s Alliance

1319 F Street NW., Suite 1001

Washington, DC 20004–1106

800–239–9950 or

202–639–0597

202–639–0511 (fax)

Internet: www.nca-online.org

Regional Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC’s):

✹ Midwest Regional Children’s Advocacy Center, St. Paul, MN,

888–422–2955, 651–220–6750, www.nca-online.org/mrcac.

✹ Northeast Regional Children’s Advocacy Center, Philadelphia,

PA, 215–387–9500, www.nca-online.org/nrcac.

✹ Southern Regional Children’s Advocacy Center, Rainbow City, AL,

256–413–3158, www.nca-online.org/srcac.

✹ Western Regional Children’s Advocacy Center, Pueblo, CO,

719–543–0380, www.nca-online.org/wrcac.

OJJDP funds the National Children’s Alliance and the four regional

CAC’s to help communities establish and strengthen CAC and MDT

programs. The Alliance does this by promoting national standards for

CAC’s and providing leadership and advocacy for these programs on a

national level. The Alliance also conducts national training events and

provides grants for CAC program development and support. The four

regional CAC’s provide information, onsite consultation, and intensive

training and technical assistance to help establish and strengthen CAC’s

and facilitate and support coordination among agencies responding to

child abuse. The Alliance publishes a number of manuals and handbooks

of use to MDT’s, including Handbook on Intake and Forensic Interviewing in

the CAC Setting, Guidelines for Hospital-Collaborative Forensic Investigations of
23

Sexually Abused Children, Organizational Development for Children’s Advocacy

Centers, and Best Practices.

National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment (NRCCM)

1349 West Peachtree Street NE., Suite 900

Atlanta, GA 30309

404–876–1934

404–876–7949 (fax)

Internet: www.gocwi.org/nrccm/

NRCCM’s objectives are to identify, develop, and promote the application

of child protective service models that are responsive to State, tribal, and

community needs. Operated jointly by the Child Welfare Institute and

ACTION for Child Protection, NRCCM offers training, technical

assistance, consultation, and information in response to identified needs

relating to the prevention, identification, intervention, and treatment of

child abuse and neglect.

Other Titles in This Series

Currently there are 12 other Portable Guides to Investigating

Child Abuse. To obtain a copy of any of the guides listed below

(in order of publication), contact the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

by telephone at 800–638–8736 or e-mail at puborder@ncjrs.org.

Recognizing When a Child’s Injury or Illness Is Caused by Abuse,

NCJ 160938

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Child Sexual Abuse, NCJ 160940

Photodocumentation in the Investigation of Child Abuse, NCJ 160939

Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse, NCJ 161235

Battered Child Syndrome: Investigating Physical Abuse and Homicide,

NCJ 161406

Interviewing Child Witnesses and Victims of Sexual Abuse,

NCJ 161623

Child Neglect and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, NCJ 161841

Criminal Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse, NCJ 162426

Burn Injuries in Child Abuse, NCJ 162424

Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse, NCJ 162425

Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation,

NCJ 162427

Use of Computers in the Sexual Exploitation of Children, NCJ 170021
Notes
Additional Resources

American Bar Association

(ABA)

Center on Children and the

Law

Washington, DC

202–662–1720

202–662–1755 (fax)

American Humane Association

Englewood, Colorado

800–227–4645

303–792–9900

303–792–5333 (fax)

American Medical Association

(AMA)

Department of Mental Health

Chicago, Illinois

312–464–5066

312–464–5000

(AMA main number)

312–464–4184 (fax)

American Professional Society

on the Abuse of Children

(APSAC)

Chicago, Illinois

312–554–0166

312–554–0919 (fax)

C. Henry Kempe National

Center for the Prevention

and Treatment of Child

Abuse and Neglect

Denver, Colorado

303–864–5250

303–864–5179 (fax)

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)

National Center for the

Analysis of Violent Crime

Quantico, Virginia

703–632–4400

Fox Valley Technical College

Criminal Justice Department

Appleton, Wisconsin

800–648–4966

920–735–4757 (fax)

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

(JJC)

Rockville, Maryland

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

National Association of Medical

Examiners

St. Louis, Missouri

314–577–8298

314–268–5124 (fax)

National Center for Missing

and Exploited Children

(NCMEC)

Alexandria, Virginia

703–235–3900

703–274–2222 (fax)

National Center for

Prosecution of Child Abuse

Alexandria, Virginia

703–739–0321

703–549–6259 (fax)

National Children’s Alliance

Washington, DC

800–239–9950

202–639–0597

202–639–0511 (fax)

National Clearinghouse on

Child Abuse and Neglect

Information

Washington, DC

800–FYI–3366

703–385–7565

703–385–3206 (fax)

National SIDS Resource

Center

Vienna, Virginia

703–821–8955, ext. 249

703–821–2098 (fax)

Prevent Child Abuse America

Chicago, Illinois

800–835–2671

312–663–3520

312–939–8962 (fax)
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionWashington, DC 20531Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91