Child Investigative Interviewing: Everything You Need To know Laura Merchant, MSW HCSATS lmerchan@u.washington.edu www.hcsats.org

Quick Overview Counties have protocols for Child Abuse investigations Where criminal prosecution is involved, each child will receive an investigative interview Each county determines who gets the investigative interview and who conducts the interview

County Protocols Each county is required to have a protocol on investigations of child abuse cases. Protocols are developed with partners: Prosecutors, LE, DSHS, medical, advocacy, schools (optional) Protocols are maintained by each prosecuting attorney’s office. They are required to be updated every 2 years. Protocols address all aspects of the investigation, emphasizes a coordinated approach and specifies roles of each of the key partners

Who Interviews? Each county follows their County Protocol, identifying expectations for interviewers LE CPS workers Child Interview Specialists hired via CAC’s or Prosecuting Attorney’s Offices Many counties conduct initial interviews with referrals to the official investigative interview as indicated

Differences Between Investigative Interviews and Preliminary Interviews DSHS goal is to assess risk/safety and find enough information to refer for Investigative Interview LE goal is to assess if there is reason to suspect a crime. Both gather enough information about the crime and then refer for the forensic/investigative interview Seen as the “official” interview for children typically between the ages of 4 – 15) CPS or DSHS interview may be considered the “official” interview in places where they clearly function in that capacity More often, Child interview Specialists conduct these interviews

Training Requirements for Interviewers Interviewers are required to receive the statewide multi-disciplinary Investigative Interview training that includes interview skills practice and information on developmental disabilities Statewide training occurs about 5 times per year and is 4 days long for CPS and 5 days long for LE and child interview specialists

Statewide Interview Training Incorporates research on children’s memory and suggestibility and on effective interview practices Emphasis on asking open ended questions that lead to narrative/comprehensive answers from children Information comes primarily from the child, not the interviewer Ground rules are taught to increase reliability of information Skills practice is essential in improving practice Child interviewers in the field are used as “facilitators” to provide expert feedback to participants in skills practice

Statewide Interview Training Training is recommended to be taken every few years as research informs practice and training changes to incorporate best practice Peer Review is offered 10 times per year Booster trainings are available as “Advanced” trainings

Peer Review Meetings Offered approximately every other month 3 hours per meeting 1 ½ hour: lecture/discussion on a related topic 1 ½ hour: DVD/transcript review with feedback Agencies host the meeting Members identify topics and sign up to present a case for review Local communities sometimes also do their own peer review

The Interviews Key Components

WA State Child Interview Guide Based on the NICHD protocol A structured forensic interview protocol that has been shown to improve the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children. Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issues 11-12, November-December 2007, Pages 1201-1231; Michael E. Lamb, Yael Orbach, Irit Hershkowitz, Phillip W. Esplin and Dvora Horowitz NICHD is the most researched in the world with over 40,000 real-life interviews

NICHD Protocol Designed to improve quality & amount of info obtained in investigative interviews Enhances ability of children to report accurately using open-ended prompts to access free recall memory (which is the most accurate) Teaches children to provide narrative accounts (they are not accustomed to doing) Minimizes the risk of contaminating the child’s account

Research Results NICHD guided interviews elicited more info using open-ended prompts and less info using option-posing and suggestive questions than did std. interviews In 89% of the protocol interviews, children made their preliminary allegations in response to open-ended prompts, compared with 36% in the standard interviews

Professor of Law & Psychology at USC: 10 Step Investigative Interview Adaptation of NICHD Protocol Thomas D. Lyon, J.D., Ph.D. tlyon@law.usc.edu © 2005 (version 2) Professor of Law & Psychology at USC: http://works.bepress.com/thomaslyon Tom Lyon in CA has adapted the NICHD protocol and teaches it in locations throughout CA: 3 major sections = Instructions “Ignorant interviewer” instruction: “I d/n/k what happened to you and won’t be able to tell you the answers to my questions.” “I d/n/k” instruction (w/practice saying ““I d/n/k” and question such as “Do you have a dog?’ followed by “OK, you DO know that.”) “I d/n understand” instruction, w/practice: e.g., “What is your gender?’ reinforcing when child says does not know what you mean – “Good, I’ll ask it a different way – are you a girl or a boy?” You’re wrong - Correct the interviewer instruction “Warming up” (includes practice narratives) Disclosure phase

Stages of an Interview Introduction Ground rules/instructions Narrative practice   Transition   Substantive   Closure

Introduction Name Your job Anyone watching or in the room AND Explanation of documentation

“Ground Rules” Instructions Expectations for the Interview “Orienting” Child to Interview

Rationale for Ground Rules Increase accuracy Decrease inclination to guess Increase willingness to ask for clarification Increase resistance to suggestion

Early in the interview to set the expectations Ground Rules One at a time Simple language Explain and practice Early in the interview to set the expectations Reinforce throughout Rationale: Children seek adult approval and may guess, assume adult knows what happened, or think they must give an answer Benefits (proven by research): Increase accuracy Reduce child’s inclination to guess Increase child’s willingness to ask for clarification Increase resistance to suggestion Instructions aren’t a panacea & won’t guarantee that a child will follow them, but they DO help; less effective with younger children, but still worth a try; suggestive interviewing can easily overtake positive effects of instructions Do it correctly though – be slow & methodical or they won’t help Give instructions with feedback/reinforcement for them to be effective - Explain permissible responses, BUT ALSO check child’s understanding and ability to follow

Most important, research-based ground rules ‘Don’t guess’ Don’t understand - ‘Tell me if you don’t know what I mean’ ‘Correct me if I make a mistake’ Un-informed interviewer - ‘I wasn’t there’

Instruction: Don’t Guess Explain and use examples: “If I ask you a question and you don’t know the answer, then just say ‘I don’t know.’ Don’t guess.” Q: “So if I ask you, ‘What’s my cat’s name?’ what do you say?” A: “I don’t know.” Q: “Okay, because you don’t know. Q: “But what if I ask, “Do you have a dog?” “Okay, because you do know.” Supported by the research: Instruction alone doesn't have an effect Must use examples Use an example where answer is “I d/n/k” AND one where they DO know, or they’ll think “I d/n/k” is a great answer all the time after you reinforce them

Truth/Lie Discussions Promise to tell truth Competency assessment

Why include the promise? Reinforces seriousness Increases honesty (decreases lies) Responses can give you valuable info

Promise “It’s very important that you tell me the truth.” “Do you promise that you will tell me the truth?” “Are you going to tell me any lies?” Exact language is important: children under 5 often don’t know what the word “promise” means (Lyon’s research), but adding word “will tell the truth” makes this something they understand Eliciting a promise to tell the truth seems to increase accuracy in children, EVEN WHEN it seems they don’t understand the words “truth” and “lie” (Ensuring that they know the difference doesn’t seem to result in any increased accuracy in their responses, so Lyon now doesn’t include the assessment of their understanding of the terms; he thinks we’re not very good at assessing their understanding)

Competency Assessment Decide if it is necessary to do it during the investigative interview If you do it, can now be done via simpler, revised 1-card version, or through scenario example Prior way: To do 4 T/L examples to show child knows the difference between a truth and a lie and 4 morality examples

http://works. bepress. com/cgi/viewcontent. cgi http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=thomaslyon

Simplified task for asking children about the meaning of "truth" (Lyon, Carrick, & Quas, 2010; under review) Show the child the picture on the next page and point at the truck. Ask: “What is this?” When the child responds “truck,” say: “Okay, that’s a truck. This girl [point to the girl] looks at the truck and says, ‘That’s a plane.’” Ask the child, “Did the girl tell the truth?”   If you are concerned that a very young child has not yet clearly acquired an articulable concept of “truth,” you could simply point at the truck and ask: “Is that a plane?”

Competency Assessment Scenario example to demonstrate child’s understanding of concept “Joe ate all the cookies. Joe’s Mom asked if he ate the cookies and Joe said ‘No, the dog ate the cookies.’ What’s Joe doing?”

Rapport/Narrative Practice Key to reinforcing the expectation of answering questions in a narrative manner rather than in short answer response. Exploring an event from beginning to end Opportunity to practice open ended questions, sensory focused questions, pairing forced choice or closed questions with open ended follow ups; using facilitators Opportunity for child to practice answering in more complete sentences

Narrative Practice More important that more typical “getting acquainted” questions where info is initially generated from the interviewer More important than more traditional “developmental assessment” questions as narrative practice will help an interviewer assess child’s developmental ability, take less time, and gets them used to providing more comprehensive information

Narrative Practice Keep it open-ended! Use facilitators (“uh-huh,” “ok”) Use child’s name frequently 5 minutes is sufficient

Pattern of Questions Separate Separation of incidents Invite Open-ended invitations Elaborate Request to elaborate Open-ended follow-ups Focus Time Time segmentation questions Senses Sensory focus questions Key Facts Focused prompts, paired with open-ended follow-ups Clarify and elaborate

Transition to Substantive Information Use open ended questions Use funnel approach as needed Use pattern of questions as practiced in the neutral narrative section of the interview Do not introduce body drawings or touch continuum to as transitions to the substantive portion of the interview

First Transition Attempt “Tell me why you came to talk to me.” OR “Tell me why I came to talk to you.” If no response to “Tell me why…” then gently say, “It’s really important for me to know why you came to talk to me.” Does this work? Research consistently finds (Lamb & Lyon) that at least half of children who disclose abuse do so by the time you pose the “Tell me why…” request

“It’s really important for me to know why you came to talk to me.” If no response to “Tell me why…” then gently say, “It’s really important for me to know why you came to talk to me.” Does this work? Research consistently finds (Lamb & Lyon) that at least half of children who disclose abuse do so by the time you pose the “Tell me why…” request

Transitions “What did [your mom] tell you about why I want to talk to you today?” “Did anyone tell you anything about why you’re here today?” “What did they tell you? “Why do you think I want to talk to you today?” “I understand something might have happened – tell me what happened.”

When there’s been a prior statement Transitions When there’s been a prior statement “I heard you talked to ________ about something that happened. Tell me what happened.” “I heard you saw _____ last week. Tell me what you talked about.” You’re still saying nothing at all about the alleged abuse, just referring to a prior statement.

Transitions When that doesn’t work ‘Someone’s worried’ “Is [your mom] worried about something that happened? Tell me what she’s worried about.”

Transitions When that doesn’t work ‘Bothered You’ “I heard someone might have bothered you. Tell me everything about that.”

‘Something wasn’t right’ Transitions When that doesn’t work ‘Something wasn’t right’ “I heard someone may have done something that wasn’t right. Tell me everything about that.” Each question gets a bit more specific and gets closer to the abuse allegation but none of these actually suggests abuse or sexual touching, and none names the suspect Many more children will respond & tell abt./ abuse with these non-suggestive prompts If no disclosure up to this point, then you have to consider whether to go further; van be a tricky question b/c more direct Qs raise possibility of a false allegation Stop & think abt. risk to child if you stop w/o an allegation Is it possible that you & child just haven’t hit it off enough for the child to feel comfortable telling you? Can you try another time or with someone else? Helps a lot to write out these questions ahead of time If you know child has been placed in P.C., you can ask, “Where do you live?” and “Tell me about that.” You can try something like: “I heard something about ‘daycare’/’your mom’(when mom murdered for ex.)/’something that happened to you’/etc..”

Pattern of Questions Separate Separation of incidents Invite Open-ended invitations Elaborate Request to elaborate Open-ended follow-ups Focus Time Time segmentation questions Senses Sensory focus questions Key Facts Focused prompts, paired with open-ended follow-ups Clarify and elaborate

Clarify Frequency Clarify multiple events right away “Did [______] happen one time or more than one time?” Ask for description of specific incidents – last time, first time, another time, “the time you remember the most”

Once a Child Reports Abuse Use “facilitators” – “okay” /“Uh-huh” Don’t interrupt a narrative Clarify later (using notes to remind you): “You said _____. Tell me what you mean by _____.” OR “ Tell me who ____ is.”

Use of Tools/Media Use only after verbal reports have been elicited Continue to request verbal clarification & details in the child’s own words Use least suggestive tools

Closure Summarize, clarify Invite questions Explaining what will happen next Discuss “safety plan” Thank the child Switch to a neutral topic Provide interviewer’s contact information Typical components of the closure phase of an interview: Summary & clarification Anything else child wants interviewer to know, or to ask? Safety plan discussion No promises Thank child for effort, not content Address next steps as appropriate Offer business card & invite to call End on neutral note

Safety Plan “Who can you tell if you are worried about something?” “Name 3 people you could tell if something bad happened.” “Who can you get help from if you are hurt, or if something bad or scary happens to you?” “Why do you think ____ can help you?” “What can ____ do to help you?”