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

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

3. Social awareness  Stage of denial  Stage of admittance  Stage of recognition

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

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

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

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

9. Victims by age

10. Age of the offender

11. Did child know offender? Child knew offender21676,3% Child did not know offender186,4% Not known4917,3%

12. Duration of abuse One incident56,0% Few months16,7% A year or more17,9% Data missing9,5%

13. Tracing of cases Total number 369100% CPS 28177% Police 17046% Prosecution 14640% Court cases 5114% Convictions 4913%

14. Tracing of cases cont.’d Total number of cases369 CPS28177% Referred to police by CPS 8430%

15. Case assessment by CPS  Substantiated cases51%  Unsubstantiated cases32%  Data missing/unknown18%

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

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

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

19. The preparation of the Children´s House – primary guidelines  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 3.1  “In all action concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration”

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

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

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

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

24. Children’s House (Barnahus) Joint Investigative Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34. Almost four year experience : ServicesNumber of Children Average per year Investigative interviews 505127 Assessment/ Therapy 27569 Medical examination 12431 A. Statistical data November 1998 – October 2002

35. Investigative interviews: implementation Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4 Joint invest. interview 80434757 CPS investigation 42677099 Total 122110117156

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

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

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