U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2005 

• 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator 

Of fice of Justice Pr ograms Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

How the Justice 

System Responds 

to Juvenile Victims: 

A Comprehensive Model 

David Finkelhor, Theodore P. Cross, and Elise N. Cantor 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to 

improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes 

that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes, 

like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes 

on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children 

can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of 

OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the nation’s efforts 

to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization, 

including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. 

This Bulletin introduces the concept that The juvenile victim justice system is not 

a justice system exists that responds to as widely recognized in part because it 

juvenile victims. This juvenile victim jus- is a fragmented system. It has not been 

tice system is a complex set of agencies conceptualized as a whole or put into 

and institutions that include police, prose- place by a common set of statutes in 

cutors, criminal and civil courts, child the way the juvenile offender system 

protection agencies, children’s advocacy has. Many of the agencies that handle 

centers, and victim services and mental juvenile victims are part of other syshealth agencies. The system has a struc- tems, not designed primarily with juveture and sequence, but its operation, nile victims in mind. 

despite the thousands of cases it handles 

every year, is not as widely recognized 

and understood as the operation of the 1 This Bulletin was adapted by the authors, with permore familiar juvenile offender justice mission, from “The Justice System for Juvenile Victims: A Comprehensive Model of Case Flow” in system.1 

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 6(2):83–102 (2005). 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

The justice system handles thousystem model presented in this BulThis Bulletin identifies the major eleaction of the agencies and individuals 

A Message From OJJDP 

sands of cases involving juvenile 

victims each year. These victims are 

served by a complex set of agencies 

and institutions, including police, 

prosecutors, courts, and child protection agencies. Despite the many 

cases involving juvenile victims and 

the structure in place for responding 

to them, the juvenile victim justice 

letin is a new concept. 

Although the juvenile victim justice 

system has a distinct structure and 

sequence, its operation is not very 

well understood. Unlike the more 

familiar juvenile offender justice system, the juvenile victim justice system 

has not been conceptualized as a 

whole or implemented by a common 

set of statutes. 

ments of the juvenile victim justice 

system by delineating how cases 

move through the system. It reviews 

each step in the case flow process for 

the child protection and criminal justice systems and describes the interinvolved. 

Recognizing how the juvenile victim 

justice system works can inform policy decisions and improve outcomes 

for juvenile victims. Acknowledging 

the existence of the system has 

important implications for system 

integration, information sharing, and 

data collection—all of which play a 

key role in ensuring the safety and 

well-being of juvenile victims. 
This Bulletin describes the major elements of the justice system for juvenile 

victims and what is known about how 

cases move through it. Like the system 

that handles juvenile offenders, the juvenile victim justice system is governed at 

the state level and implemented differently in each community, resulting in 

dissimilar practices and procedures from 

state to state. However, commonalities 

among these procedures can be described 

in a schematic way. 

Recognizing how the juvenile victim justice system works is especially critical as 

policies about juvenile victims evolve and 

more professionals specialize in this area. 

Acknowledging the existence of a juvenile 

victim justice system can inform policy 

decisions and improve outcomes for 

juvenile victims. Other practical benefits, 

including victim assistance, information 

management, and system design, are discussed below. 

The figure on page 3 shows how cases 

involving juvenile victims move through 

the juvenile victim justice system. Using 

the figure as a guide, this Bulletin reviews 

each step, from left to right, in the case 

flow process for the child protection and 

criminal justice systems. When possible, 

research evidence is reviewed at each 

step and implications for understanding 

and improving the response to child 

victims are discussed. For the sake of 

simplicity, atypical events that can occur 

within the system are omitted from the 

figure. 

Reported and 

Unreported 

Victimization 

Entry into the juvenile victim justice system begins with a report to an authority— 

usually either the criminal justice or 

child protection system. Estimates extrapolated from the National Incident-Based 

Reporting System suggest that in 1999 

about 900,000 violent crimes against 

children were reported to the police 

nationwide. These crimes were predominantly assaults (77 percent) and sex 

offenses (20 percent). About 400,000 property crimes against juveniles (age 17 and 

younger) were also reported, mostly larceny and theft (77 percent) (Finkelhor and 

Ormrod, 2000b). 

Each year, the National Child Abuse and 

Neglect Data System records about 2.6 

million referrals to child protection 

increasing. 

and emotional maltreatment. 

Juvenile Victimization: Crime and Child Maltreatment 

One of the central complexities of the juvenile victim justice system is that it 

encompasses two distinct subsystems: the criminal justice system and the child 

protection system. These systems are typically thought of as separate, but the 

interaction between them in cases involving juvenile victims is considerable and 

Officially, the two systems address different problems—crime and child 

maltreatment—but these domains overlap considerably. The crime domain, in 

terms of juvenile victims, includes all the offenses customarily seen as violent, 

such as homicides and physical and sexual assaults. But it also includes sex 

offenses such as incest and statutory rape, property crimes like theft, and criminal 

neglect. Across these crime categories, the justice system places no restriction on 

whom the perpetrator might be—family members, strangers, adults, or juveniles. 

In contrast, statutes usually limit the domain of the child protection system (i.e., 

child maltreatment) to perpetrators who occupy a caretaking relationship to the 

child victim and thus tend to be adult family members or other caretakers. Child 

maltreatment is divided into the categories of physical and sexual abuse, neglect, 

Direct overlap between the two systems primarily concerns sexual abuse and 

serious physical abuse, which are considered both child maltreatment and crimes 

because they involve assaults. Episodes of neglect and emotional maltreatment 

may or may not be crimes, depending on the acts and state statutes. 

The concept of child maltreatment rarely includes property crimes, even when 

caretakers and family members commit them. Those professionals concerned with 

crimes against children also generally ignore property crimes, in part because 

they seem much less serious than violent crimes and sex offenses. Nonetheless, 

law enforcement agencies receive reports every year of hundreds of thousands of 

property crimes against juveniles (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000b), which research 

suggests have a significant and negative psychological impact on their victims 

(Norris and Kaniasty, 1994). These crimes need to be considered to better understand how the justice system responds to juvenile victims. 

That the child protection system’s mission can only be accomplished effectively 

through coordination with the criminal justice system has become increasingly 

clear. It has also become evident that the criminal justice system cannot provide 

true justice without ensuring the current and future protection of the child victims 

whose cases it processes. So, concerns about justice for and protection of juvenile 

victims have increasingly led professionals from each of the separate systems to 

look at how to better coordinate the investigative efforts of their systems. 

authorities. Most of the referrals (59 percent) are for cases involving neglectful 

caretakers. An additional 19 percent are for 

physical abuse, and 10 percent are for sexual abuse (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2001a). It is not clear how 

much overlap exists in these figures; that 

is, how many children were reported to 

both police and child protection services. 

In most police reports involving youth, the 

victims of violent crime are age 12 or older 

(71 percent), whereas cases reported to 

child protection services comprise predominantly younger children (74 percent 

younger than age 12). This difference suggests that the victim populations overlap 

only partially. 

More than half (55 percent) of the reports 

made to the child protection system come 

from professionals who are legally mandated under state law to report suspicions 

of child maltreatment (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2004). Of 

these, most come from teachers and educational professionals, followed by criminal 

justice and human services professionals. 

Direct reports from victims and families 

make up only 10 percent of the total. 

In contrast, reports to police about juvenile victimization most often come from 

victims and families. Twenty-nine percent 

of reports involving the violent victimization of children come from the victims 

themselves, and 30 percent come from 

2 
Police inv tig tion

Service Reunification

Medical Exam

Victim

Compen ation

Victim ervice Juvenile Offender

Victim Involvement

Child Protection System

Criminal Justice System

CPS inv tig tion Emergency remov

Medic l e m

Perpetr tor rre

Victim ervice

Pro ec tor interview

Co rt he ing

Pl cement Tri l te timon

Sentence he ing

Re nific tion

Sentencing Termin tion of 

 p rent right

INVESTIGATION INTERVENTION DISPOSITION

Multidi ciplinary

Team

Report creenin Inve ation ub tantiation Court Placement Termination of

 Hearin Parental Ri ht

Trial

Report Inve ation Arre Deci ion to Guilty Plea entence entence Pro ecute Hearin

Interview/te timony ervice mily Di mily Di ption

rge dot for high probability; m ll dot for low probability.

Figure: The Juvenile Victim Justice System 

a member of the victim’s household 

(Ormrod, 2002). For property crimes, 

the percentage of reports that victims 

or their family members submit is even 

higher. Reports to the criminal justice 

system from professionals such as school 

authorities are relatively infrequent (21 

percent for violent crimes and 14 percent 

for property crimes), much less than the 

percentage of reports made from professionals to the child protection system. 

As might be expected, compared with 

adult victimizations, juvenile victimizations are more often reported by family 

members and other officials than by the 

victims themselves. 

Reported offenses, however, do not reflect 

the actual incidence of child maltreatment 

or crime victimization. As is widely recognized, a significant percentage of juvenile 

victims never come to the attention of 

police or child welfare authorities. According to the National Crime Victimization 

Survey, only 28 percent of violent crimes 

against youth ages 12–17 are reported to 

the police. This reporting rate for offenses 

against juveniles is substantially lower 

than for offenses against adults. Moreover, 

because the youngest children in the 

survey (the 12 year olds) have the lowest 

reporting rates, police are even less 

likely to receive reports involving victims 

younger than age 12 (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 1999). Crimes are more likely to be 

reported to the police when they involve 

injuries, adult or multiple offenders, or 

families with prior or existing contact 

with police (Finkelhor and Wolak, 2003). 

3 
Because many schools are inclined to 

handle episodes involving juvenile victims 

on their own, the number of such crimes 

reported to the police is further limited. 

Like the types of crimes mentioned above, 

child maltreatment is also widely underreported to authorities. The National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect 

(Sedlak and Broadhurst, 1996) found that 

only 28 percent of cases known to professionals in the community could be traced 

to any investigation that the local child 

protection system conducted. The percentage was higher for physical and 

sexual abuse (48 percent and 42 percent, 

respectively) than for neglect (18 percent). 

Although these statistics indicate underreporting by professionals, the data do 

not distinguish between professionals 

not reporting maltreatment and child 

protection officials screening out reports 

that were made (Sedlak and Broadhurst, 

1996). Estimating the incidence of child 

maltreatment is further complicated by 

the fact that a considerable amount occurs 

that is not known even to professionals. 

In summary, thousands of children enter 

the juvenile victim justice system each 

year as a result of reports to police 

(mostly by victims and their families) and 

child protective services (mostly by professionals). However, the victimization of 

thousands of other children goes unreported. 

The Child Protection 

System 

How the juvenile victim justice system 

operates depends on whether the initial 

report is made to police or child protection authorities. This Bulletin describes 

the processes separately, starting with 

the child protection system. The path for 

the child protection system is shown at 

the top of the figure on page 3, and the 

chronological steps, from left to right, 

are described below. 

Screening 

Because state laws require professionals 

to report “suspicions” of child abuse, the 

child protection system may receive reports on children who have not actually 

been victimized. Statistics including such 

reports can be misleading (e.g., “2.6 million abused children reported each year”) 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2001a). Child protection agencies 

screen out many of these reports, which 

are based on unfounded suspicions, contain too little or unreliable information, or 

do not fall within the agency’s jurisdiction. 

Nationwide, about 67 percent of reports 

that the child protection system receives 

are accepted for investigation or assessment (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2004). State agencies 

vary considerably in terms of what they 

are willing and able to investigate; some 

accept only very serious and specific allegations, whereas others conduct at least a 

minimal inquiry into a much broader 

range of reports (Wells, 1998). One study 

found that cases involving sexual abuse, 

allegations of drug use, families on welfare, and direct evidence of maltreatment 

were more likely to be investigated than 

cases involving custody disputes (Karski, 

1999). 

Child Maltreatment 

Investigation 

At the start of any investigation into child 

maltreatment, the first objectives are to 

assess the situation and ensure the child’s 

safety. Because children may be in danger, 

investigations conducted within the child 

protection system need to be timely. State 

laws require a response within a fixed 

period of time. Among states that report 

investigation response times, the average 

response takes about 3 days and varies 

from 5 hours to more than 2 weeks (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). During the investigation 

stage, officials may authorize medical, 

mental health, or other experts to conduct an examination and an evaluation. 

Investigations are not always part of the 

child protection process. As of 2001, 20 

states had implemented an innovative, 

two-track system (Walter R. McDonald 

& Associates, Inc., 2001). In this system, 

only serious allegations are investigated 

formally. When cases involve less serious 

allegations and lower levels of risk, child 

protection workers just assess the family 

for the possibility that it needs services. 

In states with such a two-track system, a 

majority of the reports (e.g., 71 percent 

in Missouri and 73 percent in Virginia) 

are handled on the “assessment only” 

track (Schene, 2001). 

When necessary, investigators have the 

authority to take the child into custody 

on an emergency basis. In Connecticut, 

for example, child protection workers 

may remove children immediately for 

up to 4 days, typically with the help of 

the police, if the children have a serious 

physical illness or injury or are in immediate danger from their surroundings 

or from being unsupervised (State of 

Connecticut, Department of Children 

and Families, 2004). 

Referral to police and prosecutors. Cases 

reported to the child protection system 

are referred to police and prosecutors 

primarily at the investigation stage. Some 

state laws require that certain types of 

maltreatment allegations be automatically 

referred to police or prosecutors. Other 

states allow more discretion when it 

comes to referring cases. The child 

protection system involves police when 

investigative help is required or as soon 

as evidence confirms that a criminal law 

has been violated. Referrals to the police 

are most consistent and immediate in 

cases involving allegations of sexual 

abuse, the death of a child, physical abuse 

(particularly serious injury), or brutality. 

In some communities, police and child 

protection workers investigate independently (Cross, Finkelhor, and Ormrod, 2005). 

In others, police and child protection 

workers conduct coordinated investigations as part of a multiagency team. Some 

jurisdictions have experimented with 

turning investigation activities over to the 

police entirely (Cohen et al., 2002). Nationally, police are involved in more sexual 

abuse investigations (45 percent) than 

investigations involving physical abuse 

(28 percent) or neglect (20 percent) 

(Cross, Finkelhor, and Ormrod, 2005). 

Because of the differences in state laws 

and levels of interagency cooperation, 

investigative practices vary greatly among 

jurisdictions. 

Medical examination. Medical examinations provide crucial evidence needed 

to substantiate a crime or child maltreatment. The examiners also assess children’s 

overall medical needs and help young victims recover from a traumatic event by 

easing their worries and providing them 

with an opportunity to talk with a trusted 

authority. Many jurisdictions have specialized diagnostic units to perform these 

exams. Although the percentage varies, 

children receive medical exams in 10 to 25 

percent of all reported sexual abuse cases 

(Berliner and Conte, 1995; Faller and 

Henry, 2000; Hibbard, 1998; Whitcomb 

et al., 1994). 

Medical exams can disclose previous 

similar or related injuries, can determine 

whether injuries are consistent with the 

history given by caretakers or reporters, 

and can often distinguish injuries resulting 

from accidents or diseases from injuries 

4 
that have been inflicted (Jenny, 2002). 

Examining injuries, genital physiology, 

semen, and hair can help confirm sexual 

abuse and identify perpetrators. Often, 

however, a medical examination can neither confirm nor disconfirm abuse. Definitive physical findings are established in 

only about one-quarter of examinations 

prompted by allegations of sexual abuse 

(Britton, 1998; Kerns, 1998). 

Substantiation of Child 

Maltreatment 

Investigations into child maltreatment 

result in a determination by the investigator as to whether maltreatment occurred, 

and this determination generally requires 

a preponderance of evidence as its standard of proof. The most common term 

for this is “substantiation”; however, other 

terms, such as “confirmation” or “support,” are also used. Some states use 

the term “indicated,” which means that 

evidence is consistent with child maltreatment but is not strong enough to substantiate (Depanfilis and Salus, 2003). 

Nationwide, about 30 percent of all reports are substantiated—this percentage 

includes both substantiated and indicated 

reports (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2004). This rate varies 

somewhat by type of maltreatment and 

varies dramatically by state. For example, 

in Massachusetts, allegations were confirmed in 55 percent of investigations in 

2002, whereas in New Hampshire, only 9 

percent were substantiated (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2004). Historically, as the number of 

reports has risen, substantiation rates 

have declined. This phenomenon could 

reflect increasingly rigorous substantiation standards, a rise in the reporting of 

less serious situations, or proportionately 

fewer investigative resources within the 

child protection system. 

Reports of child maltreatment may not 

be substantiated for a variety of reasons, 

including failure of the family or other 

informants to cooperate with the investigation, lack of sufficient evidence, allegations made outside the jurisdiction or 

authority of the agency, or an agency’s 

inability to adequately investigate because of time or manpower constraints. 

The number of willfully false or malicious 

allegations is generally quite small (Everson and Boat, 1989; Jones and McGraw, 

1987; Oates et al., 2000). The few states 

that count intentionally false allegations 

report that they occur in less than 1 

percent of all cases (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2004). In 

some cases, the substantiation process 

includes a form of plea bargaining, whereby reports are unsubstantiated or made 

for a less serious form of maltreatment 

(e.g., neglect rather than sexual abuse) 

in exchange for a commitment to accept 

services or other interventions (Eckenrode et al., 1988). 

Provision of Services 

An important goal of the child protection 

system is to prevent future maltreatment 

of the children it serves. To meet this 

goal, the child protection system offers 

preventive and remedial services such as 

counseling, parent education, and family 

support. According to state data, services 

are provided, on average, 7 to 8 weeks 

after an investigation begins (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2004). About 59 percent of maltreated 

children receive services from the child 

protection system, but that percentage 

varies considerably among states, from 15 

to 100 percent. Widespread concern exists 

that the child protection system does not 

adequately provide services. However, the 

fact that a large group of maltreated children do not appear to receive services 

from the child protection system does not 

necessarily indicate a failure in the provision of care (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2004). For example, 

informal and familial solutions to child 

maltreatment situations (e.g., a parent 

moving in with grandparents) may be 

deemed adequate. Children and families 

may also receive services from other 

sources, such as family services or mental 

health agencies. In fact, referral to services may occur at almost every juncture 

in the juvenile victim justice system, including the criminal justice system (see 

the figure on p. 3; arrows omitted for the 

sake of simplicity). 

Court Hearing 

When child maltreatment is substantiated, 

the case proceeds to a formal court hearing only when just cause exists to remove 

the child on more than an emergency 

basis or to take custody of the child. In 

2002, court actions were initiated for 18 

percent of the substantiated reports of 

child maltreatment (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2004). 

Child victims involved in such court proceedings require an advocate who will 

represent their needs and point of view 

and who is independent from the state 

agency bringing the action. Examples 

include court-appointed special advocates 

or guardians ad litem. According to reports from a limited number of states, 

about 18 percent of child victims received 

such representation (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2004). 

Out-of-Home Placement 

Removing a child from his or her home 

is the child protection system’s most serious intervention. In 2002, approximately 

134,000 child victims—about 19 percent of 

those with a substantiated finding of child 

maltreatment—were removed from their 

homes (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2004). Rates for individual states varied considerably. Most of 

the 42 states providing data reported 

rates between 9 percent and 34 percent; 

2 states reported rates below that range, 

and 8 reported rates above it. Out of 

cases investigated for suspected child 

maltreatment, the rate of child removal is 

roughly 6 percent. An additional 67,000 

child nonvictims (typically, siblings of the 

victims) were also removed. Some children were allowed to remain in their 

home, but only with supervision. 

When removed from the home, children 

are placed in a variety of settings. According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting system, three-fourths 

of children in foster care live with foster 

families: one-fourth with their relatives, 

and one-half with nonrelatives (Children’s 

Bureau, 2001; U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2001b). About 10 

percent of removed children are placed in 

institutions, and 8 percent are placed in 

group homes (these percentages include 

children placed in foster care for reasons 

other than child maltreatment). Some children are removed from their homes on an 

emergency basis during the investigation; 

however, most home removals are for a 

longer period of time and involve court 

action. The median length of stay for 

children in foster care, including victims 

of child maltreatment, is 16.5 months 

(Child Welfare Outcomes, 2001; U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2001b). Children removed to 

5 
live with their relatives tend to stay for 

longer periods of time because the placement is generally viewed as a permanent 

one (Child Welfare Outcomes, 2001). 

Reunification 

Most children placed in foster care return 

to their families. In 1999, 66 percent of 

children exiting foster care returned to 

their families—ranging from 31 percent in 

Illinois to 85 percent in Idaho. A majority 

of the reunifications occurred within 12 

months (Child Welfare Outcomes, 2001; 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2001b). Some children, however, 

need to re-enter foster care after reunification because of recurring maltreatment or 

a renewed risk of maltreatment. 

Termination of 

Parental Rights 

In the most serious cases of child maltreatment, the state moves to terminate 

parental rights and place a child for adoption. In 2000, parents of 64,000 children, 

or about 11 percent of those in foster 

care, had their parental rights terminated 

(Children’s Bureau, 2001; U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2001b). 

Not all terminations resulted from child 

maltreatment. Based on a rough annual 

estimate of 800,000 substantiated victims 

of child abuse and neglect, the rate of termination of parental rights for substantiated child maltreatment cases is about 8 

percent. 

Summary 

The child protection system’s primary 

goal is to ensure children’s safety, but it 

also seeks to facilitate the delivery of 

needed services. On average, about 67 

percent of the reports submitted to child 

protection services are investigated. 

Nationally, about 30 percent of investigations lead to substantiation, though this 

rate varies greatly by state. The child 

protection system can initiate various 

interventions during, or as a result of, an 

investigation, including medical examinations, referral to the criminal justice system, and the delivery of services from 

child protection and other agencies. 

Removing children from their homes 

on an emergency basis or as a result of 

a court hearing is fairly rare, and most 

removed children are later reunified 

with their families. 

The Criminal 

Justice System 

In addition to the referrals it gets from 

the child protection system, the criminal 

justice system receives many reports on 

child victimization from victims, families, 

and schools and other institutions. Because the criminal justice system deals 

with all types of crime, including child 

maltreatment, criminal justice system 

cases involving child victims are very 

different from cases reported to the child 

protection system. Most cases involving 

child victims reported to the criminal justice system (about 70 percent) involve a 

nonfamily perpetrator, and more than 

half are youth-on-youth offenses (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000a). Very few criminal 

justice cases involve simple neglect or 

emotional abuse. As mentioned earlier, 

the majority of the victims are teenagers 

(Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000a). The criminal justice system also receives approximately 400,000 reports per year involving 

juveniles who are victims of property 

crimes (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000b). 

The path that cases entering the criminal 

justice system take is illustrated in the 

figure on page 3. Again, the steps in the 

process are depicted in chronological 

order, from left to right. Because most 

victim-specific research on case processing within the criminal justice system is 

limited to cases of sexual assault, sexual 

abuse, and other serious offenses, little is 

known about juveniles in the justice system who are victims of simple assault, 

crimes by other youth, and property 

crimes. 

Criminal Justice 

Investigation 

Although police usually investigate reports 

of juvenile victimization, little research 

exists on the numbers, percentages, or circumstances related to such investigations. 

For this Bulletin, data from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey, a national 

study that interviewed crime victims, were 

analyzed. After a case was reported, police 

made contact with juvenile victims (ages 

12 to 17) in 92 percent of violent crimes 

and 79 percent of property crimes. For 

these same cases, police took a report 

(that is, collected information about the 

crime) in 63 percent of violent crimes and 

72 percent of property crimes. 

If reports to and investigations made 

by police lead to a suspicion of child 

maltreatment, police are required to 

report this suspicion to child protection 

services. Unfortunately, no data exist 

regarding how often referrals are made 

from the criminal justice system to the 

child protection system. 

Arrest 

An arrest is made when police, after finding probable cause that a person has 

committed a crime, locate and apprehend 

that person. However, police make an 

arrest in only a minority of juvenile victim 

crimes that come to their attention. An 

analysis of data from the National Crime 

Victimization Survey shows that offenders 

are arrested in 28 percent of violent 

crimes and only 4 percent of property 

crimes involving juvenile victims. (According to data from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Incident-Based 

Reporting System, the arrest rate for violent crimes involving juvenile victims is 

32 percent.) Physical assaults on juvenile 

victims have somewhat lower arrest rates 

than assaults on adult victims, but sexual 

assault crimes against juveniles have 

higher arrest rates than sexual assaults 

on adults (Rezac and Finkelhor, 2002). 

The low arrest rates reflect the limited 

resources that police have, the absence 

of information about offenders in many 

cases (particularly in property crimes), 

and the fact that many crimes with juvenile victims are judged to be relatively 

minor in nature. 

Arrests are more common in juvenile victimizations involving a weapon and other 

serious offenses, such as sexual assaults 

and aggravated assaults (Rezac and 

Finkelhor, 2002). Arrests are less likely 

when the perpetrator is a stranger because locating the offender to make an 

arrest is more difficult. A relatively large 

number of offenders who victimize juveniles (more than 50 percent) are other 

juveniles, which is an important feature 

of juvenile victimization that affects 

arrests and other aspects of criminal 

justice activity (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 

2000a). Offenses committed by juveniles 

are handled by the institutions and procedures of the juvenile justice system. 

Though somewhat less formal and less 

public than those of the criminal justice 

system, juvenile justice procedures 

include analogs to trials (adjudicatory 

hearings) and sentencing (disposition 

hearings), at which victims may testify, 

and unique features, such as victimoffender mediation. (To keep the figure 

6 
on page 3 relatively simple, specific 

components of the juvenile offender justice system are excluded; however, a diagram of that system is available in Snyder 

and Sickmund, 1999.) Although a large 

amount of research literature exists on the 

workings of the juvenile justice system, 

the experiences of juvenile victims whose 

offenders are processed in this system 

have not been extensively examined. 

Victim Compensation 

All states have systems that compensate 

victims of crime for medical and mental 

health care. To obtain compensation, victims must file applications, which victim 

compensation boards review. Although 

victims may file claims at any point in the 

criminal justice process, police referrals 

prompt many claims. An offender does 

not need to be convicted for compensation to be awarded to a victim (National 

Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, 2003a). 

Nationwide, of those victims receiving 

compensation, 22 percent were child 

abuse victims (National Association of 

Crime Victim Compensation Boards, 

2003b), and more than $37 million were 

provided for services for these victims. 

Interestingly, more than half of this allocation was spent in California, which has an 

active record of using victim compensation to support psychotherapy for child 

victims. No data exist, however, on what 

percentage of eligible children apply. 

Nationally, more than 45,000 claims were 

approved for victims age 17 and younger, 

but more may be eligible. A perception 

exists that many victims are unaware of 

the availability of victim compensation 

funds. 

Decision To Prosecute 

Cases are referred to a prosecutor in conjunction with an investigation or after an 

arrest has been made. Although decisions 

about prosecution vary considerably from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, prosecutors 

almost always evaluate the strengths and 

weaknesses of the case and the likelihood 

of success before deciding to proceed, 

sometimes after talking with victims and 

other witnesses. Prosecutors also consider the potential negative effects of 

trials on child victims. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors bring a case before a 

judge, in a preliminary hearing, and a 

grand jury to determine if probable cause 

exists. (Children may testify in both 

situations.) If probable cause is not established, the case is dismissed. 

Offenders may be arrested before or after 

the decision to prosecute. If police have 

made an arrest, cases are almost always 

forwarded to prosecutors (Davis and 

Wells, 1996). Once referred for prosecution, the proportion of child victim cases 

that proceed to prosecution varies widely. 

In 13 studies that Cross et al. (2002) 

reviewed, the proportion of child abuse 

cases in which charges were brought 

against the perpetrator ranged from 28 to 

94 percent, with a median of 66 percent. 

Rates differ considerably across prosecutors’ offices, not only because of the 

resources they have and the priority 

they give to child victim cases, but also 

because of differences in which cases are 

referred to prosecutors and which cases 

are not. Prosecution is less likely when 

child victims are younger than age 7, 

when children are related to the perpetrator, and when they suffer less severe 

offenses (Mennerich et al., 2002). Most 

likely, these variables correspond to the 

availability of evidence and children’s 

capacity to talk about the abuse and testify in court. The grand jury, the judge, or 

prosecutors themselves can later dismiss 

cases that the prosecutor has accepted. 

However, in the Cross et al. (2002) sample, 

an average of 79 percent of cases proceeded without dismissal. 

Pleading Guilty Versus 

Going to Trial 

If a case is accepted by a prosecutor and 

not dismissed, a disposition is reached 

either by a guilty plea or by a trial. When 

cases involving child victims are sent forward without dismissal, the likelihood 

that the offender will plead guilty is high. 

According to a review of 19 studies examining the prosecution of child abuse cases, 

an average of 82 percent of offenders 

against children pled guilty to at least 

some charge (Cross et al., 2002), which 

is about the same as the percentage of 

general violent offenders and very close 

to the 76 percent of general sexual assault 

offenders who plead guilty. This consistency reflects the fact that prosecutors go 

forward only with fairly strong cases in 

which they can exert considerable leverage negotiating charges and sentences. 

Still, in about 19 percent of the examined 

cases, prosecutors failed to obtain a plea 

and the cases went to trial. 

Sentencing 

Data from 14 studies of cases in which 

offenders were prosecuted for child abuse 

reveal that 54 percent (the median rate) 

of convicted offenders were incarcerated, 

although the rates varied from 24 to 96 

percent (Cross et al., 2002). In the past, 

considerable media attention has focused 

on whether offenders against juveniles 

receive unusually lenient sentences. An 

analysis of sentences from a national 

sample of adult offenders incarcerated in 

state correctional facilities found that 

some of the sentencing disparities were 

explained by the fact that adult offenders 

against juveniles are less likely to be 

recidivists, less likely to use weapons, and 

less likely to be strangers to their victims—factors associated with shorter sentences (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2001). 

Even after controlling for such variables, 

some sentencing disparities related to victim age did exist, but they involved adult 

offenders against adolescents (age 12 and 

older), who tended to receive shorter 

sentences. Evidence does not indicate a 

leniency toward offenders simply because 

their victims are young children (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2001). 

Summary 

Police investigate most reported crimes 

involving juvenile victims, but arrests are 

made in only a minority of such cases. 

When an arrest is made, most cases are 

referred to prosecutors, but the proportion that prosecutors accept varies from 

about 50 to 75 percent. Generalizing from 

sexual assault crimes, cases tend to be 

dropped on the basis of concerns about 

evidence and children’s ability to testify. 

Of the cases carried forward, however, 80 

percent end with guilty pleas. Offenders 

against young juvenile victims do not 

receive systematically lighter sentences 

than offenders against adult victims, but 

sentences may be lighter for offenders 

against adolescents. Juvenile victims comprise a sizable proportion of those who 

receive victim compensation awards; 

however, many victims may not be aware 

of those funds. 

Impact of the Juvenile 

Victim Justice System 

on Victims 

As described above, cases with juvenile 

victims may involve a number of institutions that are part of the juvenile victim 

7 
justice system, but not all of the institutions have an immediate or direct impact 

on juvenile victims. For example, an 

offender may be charged, plead guilty, 

be sentenced, and enter prison without a 

victim ever having to see anyone, appear 

anywhere, or even necessarily know about 

the events. This situation is not typical, 

but it is theoretically possible in cases 

with considerable physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and perpetrators who cooperate with authorities. 

Identifying the components of the child 

protection system and the criminal justice 

system that have the most frequent and 

consequential effect on victims is an 

important part of conceptualizing the 

juvenile victim justice system. Three 

specific impacts are important to consider: (1) interviews and appearances 

that child victims must make before officials, (2) direct therapeutic or reparative 

services that child victims receive, and 

(3) family disruptions or other disruptions 

resulting from institutional decisions 

within the system. These impacts, which 

can be charted in terms of their sequencing and likelihood of occurrence, are an 

important adjunct to understanding how 

the juvenile victim justice system works. 

These impacts are represented throughout the figure (page 3); the type of victim 

involvement and its probability correspond to the ovals in the key. 

The impact of the victim justice system is 

not confined to these three types of 

events. Some of the most consequential 

impacts may involve information that a 

victim receives indirectly. For example, 

a victim may be told or find out that the 

prosecutor refused to press charges 

against the offender or that a perpetrator’s attorney called the victim a liar, 

events that may be extremely distressing. 

However, those impacts are more difficult 

to classify. 

Interviews, Medical Exams, 

and Testimony 

Of all the events that affect victims, the 

one that occurs most often is an investigative interview. If the victimization is 

reported to police, an officer will likely 

interview the juvenile. When a victimization is reported to child protection 

services, someone from that system will 

almost always talk to the child unless the 

child is very young. An interview with a 

police officer occurs in 92 percent of violent crimes with juvenile victims reported 

to the police (according to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey). An investigation, which typically involves a child 

interview, occurs in 60 percent of child 

maltreatment reports recorded by the 

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data 

System (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2004). Some cases 

require more than one investigative 

interview, which can occur as investigators try to gather additional evidence or 

when another agency becomes involved 

(e.g., a case referred from child protection 

services to the police or vice versa). 

Analyzing prosecutor case data from 

1988–91, Smith and Elstein (1993) found 

that children were interviewed by law 

enforcement in 96 percent of cases and 

by child protection services in 46 percent. 

These interviews were conducted separately 64 percent of the time, so children 

often had to tell their stories more than 

once. 

Reducing the number of duplicative investigative interviews and thus their possible 

negative impact on victims has been a 

driving force behind the development of 

multidisciplinary teams and Children’s 

Advocacy Centers. It also has been an 

important motive behind the effort to 

videotape investigative interviews more 

routinely. The development nationwide 

of several hundred Children’s Advocacy 

Centers and other multidisciplinary programs during the 1990s may have reduced 

the amount of duplicative interviewing, 

although confirmation of this trend is 

needed (Simone et al., 2005). 

As part of an investigation, approximately 

22 percent of victimized children will 

receive a medical exam (National Association of Crime Victim Compensation 

Boards, 2003b). Victims of sexual abuse 

and physical abuse involving injury are 

more likely to receive such exams. These 

exams can be stressful, but one study 

found it equivalent to providing testimony 

in juvenile court—twice as stressful as 

talking to a social worker, but not nearly 

as stressful as testimony in criminal court 

(Runyan, 1998). 

Child victims may be interviewed at a 

number of subsequent junctures in the 

juvenile victim justice system. Prosecutors 

may decide to interview children again 

after the police investigation, while making the decision about whether to prosecute and trying to assess the strength of 

the testimony. As part of the process, a 

child may be asked to testify at a preliminary hearing or grand jury. Studies report 

that 12 percent to 31 percent of children 

in prosecuted cases testify at pretrial 

proceedings (Cashmore and Horsky, 1988; 

Cross, Whitcomb, and De Vos, 1995; Goodman et al., 1992; Smith and Elstein, 1993). 

If the case goes to trial, the child may testify again, often in conjunction with prior 

meetings with the prosecutor. However, 

because so many cases end with guilty 

pleas, relatively few children have to testify in trial court. Only between 5 and 15 

percent of cases involve a child victim’s 

testimony at a trial or a court hearing 

(Berliner and Conte, 1995; Cashmore and 

Horsky, 1988; Cross, Whitcomb, and De 

Vos, 1995; Goodman et al., 1992; Martone, 

Jaudes, and Cavins, 1996; Rogers, 1982). 

Voluntary opportunities for a victim to 

testify at a sentencing hearing may also 

occur (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999). 

Services 

A specific goal of investigations that child 

protection services conduct is to promote 

the well-being of victimized children 

through needed services. As indicated 

earlier, about 59 percent of maltreated 

children are referred for services. Police 

or prosecutors also may refer children as 

part of criminal justice system processing; 

however, little systematic documentation 

about this referral pathway exists, and 

such referrals are probably not as frequent as those from child protection services. Some services are clearly beneficial. 

For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy 

that teaches sexually abused children and 

their families how to cope with the effects 

of abuse has been proven to be more 

beneficial than standard care (Cohen, 

Berliner, and Mannarino, 2000; Cohen and 

Mannarino, 1997; Deblinger, Stauffer, and 

Steer, 2001). 

Family Disruption 

The juvenile victim justice system can 

have a major impact on child victims 

when it causes family disruption—that is, 

a major change in living circumstances or 

the household configuration. One form of 

disruption may occur early in the process 

if a child protection worker uses emergency power to remove an endangered 

child from his or her home. A disruption 

may also occur if the police arrest and 

hold a parent suspected of a crime against 

a child. At later stages in the child protection process, the court may remove a 

child from the home, either temporarily 

for foster care placement or later as part 

of the termination of parental rights. 

8 
Reunifications are frequently part of the 

system process, and they can create other 

disruptions. The sentencing of an intrafamilial abuser to prison may also disrupt 

the family. Although all these events may 

have major impacts on children, they 

occur in only a minority of child victimization cases. 

Implications 

This Bulletin describes in general terms 

the operation of the juvenile victim justice 

system and what is known about how 

cases move through it. Recognizing that 

such a system exists and often contributes to, but sometimes detracts from, the 

justice, safety, and physical and psychological well-being of juvenile victims has 

important implications, which are 

described below. 

Policy and practice. More people need 

to understand the operation of the juvenile victim justice system in its entirety. 

Agency administrators and line workers 

need to know more about the other agencies in the system, and policymakers and 

researchers need to be more familiar with 

the system as a whole. Such knowledge is 

important for planning policy and managing individual cases so that decisions 

made in one part of the system can fully 

take into account actions that may occur 

in other parts. 

Policymakers need to focus on identifying 

and prioritizing the most important stages 

and transitions of the juvenile victim 

justice system. For a long time, concern 

about child victims in criminal court 

concentrated policy attention on ways 

to mitigate the stress on children having 

to testify in criminal cases. However, a 

systems-level analysis demonstrated that 

only a small percentage of juvenile victims 

face the prospect of testifying in criminal 

court. In contrast, issues related to the 

stress and efficacy of child protection 

interviews or medical examinations may 

affect a greater percentage of children. 

Policy that helps answer questions about 

why arrests are not made in so many child 

victim cases or what techniques lead to 

guilty pleas may result in better outcomes 

for child victims. 

Victim assistance. Juvenile victims need 

the assistance of professionals who can 

orient, guide, and support them and their 

families during their involvement with 

the juvenile victim justice system. Professionals working for Children’s Advocacy 

Centers or serving as court-appointed 

special advocates and guardians ad litem 

play such roles, but often only for a part 

of the system process. Such support 

should be much more comprehensive 

and continuous. 

System integration. More consideration 

needs to be given to integrating and 

rationalizing the system as a whole. In 

recent years, considerable effort has been 

devoted to trying to coordinate certain 

aspects of the juvenile victim justice 

system—for example, by conducting joint 

investigations or developing multidisciplinary teams for sharing information and 

decisionmaking. However, more dramatic 

forms of integration might be possible. 

For example, the responsibilities associated with applying criminal sanctions, 

making decisions related to child custody 

and services provision, and awarding victim compensation funds might be centralized into a single judicial institution. Such 

an integration would seek to expedite 

processes, coordinate decisions, and 

minimize the negative impacts on victims. 

Where separation between components 

of the system is necessary (e.g., between 

criminal justice and support for families), 

better methods are required for assessing 

where cases belong and for moving cases 

between parts of the system as needs 

change. 

Information sharing. The juvenile victim 

justice system requires more efficient 

information exchange among its components. A child can be involved with up 

to six or seven agencies and a dozen or 

more professionals over a course of 

interventions that can last several years. 

Information from one part of the system 

can affect decisions made in other parts. 

The criminal investigation of an alleged 

perpetrator living in a victim’s home, for 

instance, may influence the child protection system’s decision to place the child 

outside the home. The need for confidentiality sets limits, yet information sharing among agencies often falls short 

because it is a secondary priority for busy 

professionals. Whitcomb and Hardin 

(1996), for example, found that communication between criminal and civil court 

staff on simultaneous proceedings regarding the same child was often minimal or 

nonexistent—a situation that increases 

the risk that the two courts may make 

contradictory decisions. When communication is present, it tends to occur in the 

early phases and is often not maintained 

throughout the child’s contact with the 

system. Case review and case-tracking 

systems are steps in the right direction, 

but no central repository of information 

exists. New methods and technologies for 

ensuring the adequate flow of information 

need to be developed. 

Service delivery. Greater attention needs 

to be given to the fact that the juvenile 

victim justice system can be the entry 

point for needed services for thousands 

of victimized children. Agencies that provide services to children and families 

tend to think about their referral sources 

as simply other individuals and agencies. 

Often, the identification of a need for 

service is viewed as occurring on a caseby-case basis. However, when referral patterns are considered as part of a system 

involving large numbers of children with 

service needs, new realities come into 

focus. For example, the demand made on 

some children to talk about their victimization at many points in the system over 

an extended period of time suggests the 

need for human services professionals to 

provide children with systemwide support 

throughout the process. The fact that 

many child victims with service needs 

related to trauma or inadequate care 

come through the system at predictable 

junctures suggests new places, times, and 

programming possibilities for addressing 

children’s needs. 

Data collection. Systematic and comprehensive information needs to be collected 

about the operation of the juvenile victim 

justice system and the interrelationships 

among its components. Tremendous gaps 

in information exist, and virtually no data 

collection effort covers the entire system. 

Several steps are needed: Pilot studies 

should be undertaken to track juvenile 

victims through all the steps and stages 

in the system. Data elements need to be 

added to current information systems 

that track interrelationships. For example, 

police data that the National IncidentBased Reporting System gathers could 

record whether a crime was referred to 

police from child protection services. Data 

from the child protection system could 

record whether an arrest was made. In 

addition, although serious privacy concerns may be raised, having the different 

systems record victims using a common 

identifier might make tracking victims 

through various databases possible, 

thereby uncovering the pathways through 

the interrelated systems. 

System assessment. Efforts need to be 

made to characterize and summarize in 

a comprehensive way how the juvenile 

victim justice system operates in different 

9 
Neglect Data System (NCANDS), the 

System (NIBRS), and the National 

lishes data that the child protection 

agencies in individual states collect. 

not all states use identical definitions or 

population age 12 and older that the 

Bureau of the Census conducts on 

Data Sources 

Many of the statistics on case flow 

in this Bulletin come from three 

sources: the National Child Abuse and 

National Incident-Based Reporting 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 

NCANDS annually gathers and pubAlthough NCANDS provides guidelines 

for states to use in their data collection, 

categories, which results in some problems when data are aggregated. More 

information about NCANDS is available 

at www.ndacan.cornell.edu. 

NIBRS is an emerging effort by the 

U.S. Department of Justice to collect 

more detailed information about crime 

from local law enforcement. It allows, 

for the first time, crimes against juveniles to be disaggregated from crimes 

against adults. However, the data came 

from jurisdictions in only 17 states in 

1999, providing coverage for 11 percent of the nation’s population and 9 

percent of its crime. Only three states 

(Idaho, Iowa, and South Carolina) had 

full participation by all local jurisdictions, and only one city with a population greater than 500,000 (Austin, TX) 

reported. As a result, the crime experiences of large urban areas are 

particularly underrepresented in this 

data system. More information about 

NIBRS can be found at www.ojp. 

usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm. 

NCVS is a national survey of the U.S. 

behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. The active sample consists of 

approximately 55,000 households 

and approximately 100,000 individual 

respondents. It gathers a wide range 

of information from citizens regarding 

crime victimizations, including experiences with law enforcement. However, 

the survey is limited to specific types 

of victimizations (i.e., the violent crimes 

of physical assault, rape, sexual assault, and robbery, and the property 

crimes of larceny and motor vehicle 

theft). It provides no information about 

victims younger than age 12. More 

information about NCVS is available 

at www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS. 

communities. Key dimensions need to be 

delineated so systems can be compared 

and contrasted. For example, a comparative study might help establish criteria 

for integrating systems or making them 

victim-oriented. 

Considering implications such as these 

can help create a justice system more 

responsive to the needs of the thousands 

of juvenile victims who encounter it 

every year. 

References 

Berliner, L., and Conte, J. 1995. The effects


of disclosure and intervention on sexually


abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect


19(3):371–384.


Britton, H. 1998. Emotional impact of


the medical examination for child sexual


abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 22(6):


573–579.


Cashmore, J., and Horsky, M. 1988.


The prosecution of child sexual assault.


Australian and New Zealand Journal of 

Criminology 21:241–252. 

Child Welfare Outcomes. 2001. Technical 

Report, 1999. Arlington, VA: James Bell 

Associates. 

Children’s Bureau. 2001. The Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis Reporting System Preliminary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth 

and Families. 

Cohen, B., Kinnevy, S., Huang, V., Gelles, 

R., Bae, H.O., and Fusco, R. 2002. Evaluation of the Transfer of Response for Child 

Protective Investigations to the Broward 

County Sheriff’s Office. Philadelphia, PA: 

University of Pennsylvania, Center for the 

Study of Youth Policy. 

Cohen, J.A., Berliner, L., and Mannarino, 

A.P. 2000. Treating traumatized children: 

A research review and synthesis. Trauma, 

Violence, & Abuse 1(1):29–46. 

Cohen, J.A., and Mannarino, A.P. 1997. A 

treatment study for sexually abused preschool children: Outcome during a oneyear follow-up. Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36(9):1228–1235. 

Cross, T.P., Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 

2005. Police involvement in child protective services investigations. Child 

Maltreatment 10(3):224–244. 

Cross, T.P., Walsh, W., Jones, L.M., and 

Simone, M. 2002. Prosecution of child 

abuse: A meta-analysis of rates of criminal 

justice decisions. Trauma, Violence, & 

Abuse 4:323–340. 

Cross, T.P., Whitcomb, D., and De Vos, E.D. 

1995. Criminal justice outcomes of prosecution of child sexual abuse: A case flow 

analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect 19(12): 

1431–1442. 

Davis, N.S., and Wells, S.J. 1996. Justice System Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect 

Cases. Final Report. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children 

and the Law. 

Deblinger, E., Stauffer, L.B., and Steer, R.A. 

2001. Comparative efficacies of supportive 

and cognitive behavioral group therapies 

for young children who have been sexually abused and their non-offending mothers. Child Maltreatment 6:332–343. 

Depanfilis, D., and Salus, M.K. 2003. Child 

Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers: Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual 

Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Children’s 

Bureau, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect. 

Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J., 

Munsch, J., and Bolger, N. 1988. Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56(1):9–16. 

Everson, M., and Boat, B. 1989. False allegations of sexual abuse by children and 

adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

28(2):230–235. 

Faller, K.C., and Henry, J. 2000. Child sexual abuse: A case study in community 

collaboration. Child Abuse & Neglect 

24(9):1215–1225. 

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 1999. 

Reporting Crimes Against Juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 2000a. 

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles. 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

10 
Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 2000b. 

Juvenile Victims of Property Crimes. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 2001. 

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against 

Juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Finkelhor, D., and Wolak, J. 2003. Reporting assaults against juveniles to the 

police: Barriers and catalysts. Journal 

of Interpersonal Violence 18(2):103–128. 

Goodman, G.S., Taub, E.P., Jones, D.P., England, P., Port, L.K., Rudy, L., and Prado, L. 

1992. Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault 

victims. Monographs of the Society for 

Research in Child Development 57(5): 

142–229. 

Hibbard, R.A. 1998. Triage and referrals for 

child sexual abuse medical examinations 

from the sociolegal system. Child Abuse & 

Neglect 22(6):503–513. 

Jenny, C. 2002. Medical issues in child sexual abuse. In The APSAC Handbook of 

Child Maltreatment, 2d ed., edited by J.E.B. 

Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C.T. Hendrix, 

C. Jenny, and T.A. Reid. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications, pp. 235–247. 

Jones, D.P., and McGraw, J.M. 1987. Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual 

abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 2:27–45. 

Karski, R.L. 1999. Key decisions in child 

protective services: Report investigation 

and court referral. Children and Youth Services Review 21(8):643–656. 

Kerns, D.L. 1998. Triage and referrals for 

child sexual abuse medical examinations: 

Which children are likely to have positive 

medical findings. Child Abuse & Neglect 

22(6):515–518. 

Martone, M., Jaudes, P.K., and Cavins, M. 

1996. Criminal prosecution of child sexual 

abuse cases. Child Abuse & Neglect 

20(5):457–464. 

Mennerich, A.L., Martell, D., Cross, T.P., 

and White, A. 2002. Case and system predictors of prosecution of child abuse. 

Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: 

American University. 

National Association of Crime Victim 

Compensation Boards. 2003a. Compensation for Crime Victims. Brochure. Retrieved 

February 23, 2003, from the Web: www. 

nacvcb.org/documents/BrochureCVC.pdf. 

National Association of Crime Victim 

Compensation Boards. 2003b. Home page. 

Retrieved February 23, 2003, from the 

Web: www.nacvcb.org/index.html. 

Norris, F.H., and Kaniasty, K. 1994. Psychological distress following criminal victimization in the general population: Crosssectional, longitudinal, and prospective 

analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 62(1):111–123. 

Oates, R.K., Jones, D.P., Denson, D., Sirotnak, A., Gary, N., and Krugman, R.D. 2000. 

Erroneous concerns about child sexual 

abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 24(1): 

1049–157. 

Ormrod, R.K. 2002. Reports to police by 

source: NCVS–2000. Unpublished raw 

data. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire. 

Rezac, S., and Finkelhor, D. 2002. Arrest 

patterns for offenders against juveniles. 

Unpublished manuscript. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire. 

Rogers, C.M. 1982. Child sexual abuse and 

the courts: Preliminary findings. Social 

Work and Human Sexuality 1(1):145–153. 

Runyan, D. 1998. Discussion: Emotional 

impact of the child sexual abuse medical 

examination. Child Abuse & Neglect 

22(6):585. 

Schene, P. 2001. Meeting each family’s 

needs: Differential response in reports 

of child abuse and neglect. In Best 

Practice/Next Practice: Family-Centered 

Child Welfare, vol. 2, edited by National 

Child Welfare Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice. Washington, DC: 

National Child Welfare Resource Center 

for Family-Centered Practice, pp. 1–14. 

Sedlak, A.J., and Broadhurst, D.D. 1996. 

Third National Incidence Study of Child 

Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Simone, M., Cross, T.P., Jones, L.M., and 

Walsh, W. 2005. Children’s advocacy centers: Understanding the impact of a phenomenon. In Child Victimization, edited 

by K. Kendall-Tackett and S. Giacomoni. 

New York, NY: Civic Research Institute, 

pp. 22.21–22.24. 

Smith, B.E., and Elstein, S.G. 1993. The 

Prosecution of Child Sexual and Physical 

Abuse Cases: Final Report. Washington, DC: 

The National Center on Child Abuse and 

Neglect. 

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National 

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families. 2004. Department of 

children and families policy manual. 

Retrieved June 5, 2004, from the Web: 

www.state.ct.us/dcf/Policy/Invest34/ 

34-10-4.htm. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth 

and Families. 2001a. Child Maltreatment 

1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth 

and Families. 2001b. Safety, Permanency, 

Well-Being. Child Welfare Outcomes 1999: 

Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration on Children, 

Youth and Families. 2004. Child Maltreatment 2002: Reports From the States to the 

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Justice. 1999. Attorney 

General Guidelines for Victim and Witness 

Assistance, 2000. Rockville, MD: Office of 

Victims of Crime Resource Center. 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. 

2001. National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

Wells, S.J. 1998. Responding to reports of 

child abuse and neglect. Paper presented 

at the American Association for Protecting 

Children 112th Annual Conference, Washington, DC. 

Whitcomb, D., Goodman, G.S., Runyan, 

D.K., and Hoak, S. 1994. The Emotional 

Effects of Testifying on Sexually Abused 

Children. Research in Brief. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

11 
U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD 

Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~210951* DOJ/OJJDP 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Bulletin NCJ 210951

Whitcomb, D., and Hardin, M. 1996. Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Court Proceedings in Child Maltreatment Cases. Research 

Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

This Bulletin was prepared under grant numbers 1999–JP–FX–1101 and 01–JN–FX–0009 from 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, 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. 

Acknowledgments 

with this Bulletin. 

David Finkelhor, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Director, Crimes against 

Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. Theodore P. Cross, 

Ph.D., is Senior Scientist, RTI International. Elise N. Cantor, Ph.D., is an assistant 

professor at Utica College. 

The authors would like to thank Kelly Foster, Julie Pardus-Oakes, and members of 

the University of New Hampshire Family Violence Research Seminar for their help 

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, and the Office for Victims of Crime.