Back to Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, and Families main page
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
Executive Summary
The National Picture
Child Fatality Review Committee A White Paper: Crimes Against Children in the District of Columbia
|
| 1997 & Prior Years | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | Total by Category | Grand Total |
| 101 sexual | 150 sexual | 147 sexual | 51 sexual | 449 sexual | 700 |
| 64 physical | 126 physical | 33 physical | 28 physical | 251 physical |
(Source: U.S. Attorney's Office)
*There are an additional 141 cases that the U.S.. Attorney's Office is unable to classify
as either sexual or physical abuse bringing the total number to 841.
The U.S. Attorney's Office also reports that on average it takes 70.5 days from the date of the incident for cases to be referred to them from the Metropolitan Police Department. Table II presents data compiled by the U.S. Attorney's Office illustrating the rate of prosecution for adult perpetrators in physical and sexual abuse against children:
| Total Number of Cases | Number of Cases Reaching Prosecution | Number of Prosecuted Sex Offenses | Number of Prosecuted Physical Abuse Offenses | Cases Declined for Prosecution |
| 846 | 706 | 461 | 245 | 140 |
(Source: U.S. Attorney's Office and the Metropolitan Police Department)
While Table II suggests that the District has an 83% prosecutorial rate, this figure masks critical information regarding the total number of reported cases of child abuse and neglect that are still pending investigation, thereby awaiting a determination as to whether the report is supported or unsupported. Data provided by the Metropolitan Police Department indicate that between January 1999 and April 2000, 415 reported cases of child physical abuse were deemed supported, however, the above table illustrates that only 245 of these cases, covering the same period, were prosecuted. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not provide data on the number of cases declined for prosecution categorically as either sexual of physical abuse.
While the data were gathered from two separate sources, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Metropolitan Police Department, it seems evident that gaps exist in the level of information sharing and reporting that exists between the two agencies contributing to the difficulty in ascertaining a reliable prosecution rate for child abuse cases in the District.
One source that provides a glimpse into the status of child abuse and neglect prosecutions is data reported in the 1998 Child Fatality Review Committee report. The report reveals that of the 23 homicides involving children reviewed by the committee in 1998, only seven, or 30 percent, had reached the prosecution phase. Based on plea bargains or trial of the perpetrators, six of these cases have resulted in a guilty verdict and sentencing based on one or more of the charges. The seventh case was referred for prosecution, however the arrest warrant was declined. Four of these seven cases prosecuted involved incidents of fatal child abuse/neglect.
Efforts were made to gather research of prosecution rates for adults charged with crimes against children in jurisdictions across the country on a county-by-county basis. While no national organization collects this data nationally, a 1995 case study, Prosecuting Child Physical Abuse Cases: Lessons Learned from the San Diego Experience, yields important data about one city's experience in prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases.
The case study of San Diego's multiagency response to child physical abuse cases contains suggestions to help other communities successfully prosecute these types of cases. The San Diego prosecutor's office is known to aggressively pursue child physical abuse and neglect cases by coordinating with other agencies and using specialized staff. The most critical fording of the San Diego study indicates that the San Diego prosecutor's office multi-agency approach has resulted in high felony conviction rates for child physical abuse cases. They ranged from a low of 77 percent in 1986 to a high of 94% in 1992, and averaged 85% in the 7 year period from 1986 to 1992.
Characteristics of the San Diego approach provide some useful lessons for structuring a multiagency response to child abuse investigations:
The study drew upon case files, interviews and other study data, and identified important implications for prosecutors, law enforcement, child protective workers, and the medical community:
In San Diego, specialization within the police department and the prosecutor's office was important in several respects. The San Diego police department's specialized unit of 14 investigators handles all physical abuse, severe neglect, and sexual abuse cases. Specialization also leads to the:
The study suggests that public education, training of criminal justice and medical authorities, and a willingness to take on the challenge of cases that are difficult to prove are strategies that hold promise for increasing the frequency with which prosecutors accept physical child abuse cases for prosecution. Also, public education in the area of physical abuse needs to reach the level that public education has on sexual abuse. Unless that happens, it is likely that prosecutors will continue to confront jurors who are reluctant to convict.
The District of Columbia has a child abuse hotline, 671-SAFE (7233), designed to facilitate the reporting of child abuse and neglect cases to the proper authorities. Through the hotline, the Child Protective Services Division of the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) is the first point of contact for most reported cases. Based on information received through the hotline, CPS determines if the report involves abuse, in which case it is referred to MPD for immediate investigation, or if the report alleges neglect, in which case CFSA assumes the lead investigatory role. DC law allows CFSA 24-hours to commence an investigation of a reported case of neglect.
Child abuse investigations for MPD are coordinated through the department's Youth and Family Services Division. In cases of sexual assault, for which MPD is the lead agency, involvement from the Child and Family Services Agency is currently limited to placement options. MPD officials state that effective July 1, 2000, joint investigations between MPD and CFSA will commence on all sexual assault reports, when MPD's new Family Violence and Child Protection Unit begins operations.
Other entities involved in the sexual abuse investigation include the Children's Advocacy Center, which coordinates the joint forensic interviews of children, provides sexual abuse and trauma assessments, assists in trial preparation with child victims, conducts biweekly team case reviews, provides victim services and offers onsite supervision for child victims. In most cases of sexual assault, the Children's National Medical Center conducts the medical examination of the child. The Office of Corporation Counsel, Juvenile Section represents the District in criminal child sexual abuse cases involving juvenile offenders, the Abuse & Neglect Section of the Office of the Corporation Counsel represents the District and CFSA in Civil Protection Proceedings of Sexual Abuse investigations (including failure to protect allegations and unexplained injury allegations) and the U.S. Attorney's Office, represents the District in criminal child sexual abuse cases involving alleged adult offenders. Data on MPD's outcomes related to child abuse and neglect investigations are provided in Attachment B. The following table outlines 2000 data for child physical abuse cases:
| Supported (Taken to Court) | Unsupported (Investigated, but not taken to Court) | Unfounded | Pending | Otherwise/Imminent Danger (Neglect Cases/Sibling of Supported Cases) | Total Cases |
| 158 | 223 | 63 | 107 | 267 | 818 |
In cases of child neglect reported to the Hotline, CFSA is responsible for an initial screening investigation and for making a determination on the appropriate actions to be taken. Once the CFSA has determined that abuse is not a factor, and that the child/children are not in immediate danger or otherwise endangered, all of which could trigger MPD action to remove the child from the home, the agency must then provide appropriate resources and services to either protect the child/children at the location and open a case for ongoing work and services that may or may not necessitate court action, depending upon the circumstances. In some instances, the CFSA may determine that appropriate community services, e.g. shelters, and/or TANF, referrals for parenting classes, exist and can effectively address the child/children's needs.
Under the current statutory design, all cases involving reports of suspected child abuse fall within the responsibility of MPD to commence the initial investigation. MPD is jointly responsible with CFSA for initiating an investigation in cases involving suspected neglect of a child in immediate danger and reports alleging a child is or has been left alone without adequate supervision. In all other cases of alleged child neglect, CFSA is responsible for commencing the initial investigation. The purpose of the initial investigation is to determine:
Given the purpose of the initial investigation, a critical issue rests in the determination of whether a report is deemed supported or unsupported, based on information obtained largely during the initial investigation. In neglect cases absent of imminent danger or a child being left alone, MPD must inform CFSA of its efforts related to the case. In physical or sexual abuse cases, the law states that MPD may inform CFSA of its actions. The determination of whether a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is `supported' or `unsupported' necessitates a joint investigatory protocol where MPD investigates criminal elements of the report, and CFSA investigates social elements of the report. The perspective of both agencies is vital to ensuring that both the criminal and the social implications of the report are observed by child welfare and law enforcement personnel with the training and experience to effectively make the appropriate determination regarding a report of alleged child abuse or neglect.
In 1999, CFSA and the Youth and Preventive Services Division of MPD developed a Joint Investigation/Assessment Protocol. While these protocols have been adopted for nearly one year, the extent to which joint investigations occur is difficult to quantify. The protocols were developed and implemented on an informal basis, through collaborative agreements between the two agencies; however, more formal guidelines are necessary if the effort is to achieve the desired results. District policy needs to be revised to support MPD and CFSA recent practice changes by making joint investigatory protocols between the agencies the standard for all abuse and neglect initial investigations. The Crimes Against Children Task Force is working to develop legislation to support the codification of joint investigatory protocols involving child protection workers and law enforcement officials.
Court Social Services (CSS) is a division of the Court that provides services in juvenile, family and child abuse cases. CSS is also responsible for child neglect cases when an active and pre-existing abuse case exists. CFSA is responsible for conducting the social investigation in all cases of suspected child neglect and in all recently reported cases of child abuse involving the same child and/or family.
The stated purpose of the social investigation is to determine what services are required by the family to remedy the conditions of abuse or neglect. The agency responsible for the social investigation must prepare a plan for the child and family to protect the safety and well-being of the child, and preserve, rehabilitate and reunify the family, where appropriate.
While both CSS, in supported cases of child abuse, and CFSA, in supported cases of child neglect, have responsibility for providing services and case management to remedy the conditions of child abuse and neglect prior to the child being committed to the District's custody, after a child has been committed only CFSA maintains case responsibility. The District of Columbia appears to be the only jurisdiction with a child welfare system where the statutory responsibility for conducting social investigations and case management in cases involving suspected child abuse and neglect is split between an entity of the executive branch and an entity of the judicial branch.
In cases where court action to remove a child from a home or to impose court-ordered services to protect the child in the home is required, the complaint is presented to the Abuse and Neglect Section of the Family Services Division of the Office of the Corporation Counsel and assigned to an Assistant Corporation Counsel to commence the `papering' process. The `papering' conference determines if there is factual and legal sufficiency for filing a petition with the Family Division of the D.C. Superior Court in order to schedule an Initial Hearing. There are several stages of hearings involved in the child abuse and neglect case flow:
Initial Hearing: Hearing to determine if there is probable cause for further legal action. If legal evidence is found lacking, the child cannot be removed from the home pending trial. The initial hearing will order the temporary placement of the child with parents or third parties with special conditions or place the child in a foster home. The court will also review reasonable efforts findings, order examinations for the child and/or parent, order drug testing, and regulate visitation.
Status Hearing: Toe court will revisit placement and visitation orders governing the case and will also hear motions for discovery, alternative services, waivers for Doctor-Patient privilege, drug testing results, etc. If the parties are ready, the court may receive a Stipulation from the parent to avoid a trial and move directly to dispositional phase.
Trial: Where no stipulation is possible, the trial involves testimony by all witnesses and reports from MPD, CFSA and, if appropriate, Court Social Services. The judge will either adjudicate the child a 'neglected' child based on a preponderance of the evidence, or dismiss the case where the court finds no abuse or neglect.
Dispositional: After an adjudication, the court will either permit the child to remain with their parent or guardian under the protective supervision of the court; or place the child in the custody of a third party or a relative; or commit the child to the care of the Child and Family Services Agency for placement in a foster home, group home or institution. The Court will also give orders regulating visitation, drug testing and any further examinations.
The court proceedings also allow for several types of reviews throughout the life of an abuse or neglect case:
Emergency: Child requires change of placement or immediate medical attention, particularly where there is need for an immediate mental health evaluation or where there has been a change of circumstances requiring resolution of issues critical to a child's well-being.
Revocation of Protective Supervision: Hearing to remove the child based upon parental relapse.
Regular Reviews: Typically scheduled twice a year or more and will continue until the closure of the case, death or the child involved reaches age 21, or if the family has met their goal of reunification, permanent placement and independence for older children.
Ancillary Proceedings During Review Phase: Termination of Parental Rights (TPR's), Adoption, 3rd Party Legal Custody Action; motions for services, referrals for special education or residential placement.
Additionally, the Office of the Corporation Counsel - Juvenile Section is responsible for prosecuting juvenile accused of committing child physical of sexual abuse. The agency department currently does not have an effective means of monitoring case outcomes, which serves to further impede the District's abilities monitor, and thereby improve, its prosecutorial rates against adults charged with offenses against children.
The same facts that constitute a child physical or sexual abuse may also constitute a criminal act. The MPD in such cases may bring a complaint that advises that it has had to remove a child from a family for 'papering' to the Office of the Corporation Counsel for petitioning in the Family Division of the Superior Court, and at the same time arrest a suspected perpetrator, whose case will be 'papered' at the United States Attorney's Office for presentation as a misdemeanor or felony in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Witnesses necessary to make the case for the United States Attorney's Office may in many cases have been initially contacted by the Metropolitan Police Department, in some cases interviewed as well by Court Social Services and placed by the Child and Family Services Agency pending confidential Superior Court Family Division proceedings.
While intra-familial child physical and sexual abuse cases are heard within the Family Division of the Superior Court on a confidential basis, before a judge, with a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence), the same facts when used to support a criminal case may be heard in public, before a jury, with a high burden of proof of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Coordination under these inter-twined circumstances is critical for the well-being of the victims - the children of the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia revamped the operations of its Child Fatality Review Committee (CFRC) in 1998 via Mayor's Order 98-67. The Committee's mission, similar to others around the country, is to reduce the number of preventable child fatalities through identifying, evaluating and improving programs and systems that are responsible for protecting and serving children and their families. Committee members include agency directors (or their designees) from various District government agencies, local hospitals, law enforcement, academia, and community representatives.
Each year the committee selects child fatality cases to review as part of a multidisciplinary, in-depth examination of factors contributing to, or leading to, the cause of the fatality, and efforts governmental agencies can take to improve service delivery and attempt to avoid such fatalities in the future. The Committee gives special attention to child deaths that may have been caused by child abuse or neglect or other forms of maltreatment.
The Committee examines the death of any child who:
The proposed Child and Youth Health and Safety Omnibus Act of 2000 contains the Child Fatality Review Committee Act of 2000, legislation designed to significantly enhance the role and visibility of the Committee. The legislation seeks to create three fatality review teams under the auspices of the overall CFRC:
The legislation also provides that all information and records generated by the Committee, including statistical compilations and reports, and all information and records otherwise acquired by, and in the possession of the Committee are confidential.
The Committee currently operates with limited staff and financial resources. Furthermore, its proceedings are marked by a lack of meaningful input and participation from key governmental agencies. These factors have inhibited the Committee's ability to gain governmental wide attention and consensus around its recommendations for preventing child deaths in the District. Without interagency input, the Committee's recommendations, contained within its annual reports, may not adequately reflect overall government policies regarding children and lack the support necessary to affect significant change.
With the successful passage of the new legislation, anticipated during the Fall 2000 Council legislative session, the Committee will be housed in the Department of Health and will benefit from the authority and resources vested within the city's Chief Medical Officer and Director of the Department of Health. The increased legislative authority, and the resources of the Health Department, should also enable the committee to increase its ability to take advantage of training and professional development opportunities that will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Committee's operations and improve its impact on child protection efforts.
In the paper's introduction, reference was made to some promising models around the country that have been successful in prosecuting child offenders and in devising a public/private approach to child abuse and neglect investigation that focuses the resources of various agencies and professional disciplines in order to achieve the best outcomes for the affected children and families. States like Alabama, Texas and New York have developed Children's Advocacy Centers (CAC) that provide child-focused, facility-based programs that use multidisciplinary teams to coordinate the investigative, prosecutorial, medical, mental health, and social service response to victims of child abuse.
CACs operate under a mission of reducing trauma/stress of child victims and increasing assessment and treatment of child victims through a multi-disciplinary team approach. CACs enhance protection efforts of children by assisting in the coordination of efforts by those agencies principally mandated to respond to child victims. Specifically, CACs create a centralized child friendly environment that provides co-housing of multidisciplinary team agencies, specialized child/adolescent forensic interviewing services, regular team case reviews, mental health assessments and referrals for treatment, victim services (clothing, meals, transportation assistance, emergency relief), supervision of children while they awaiting court hearings, forensic interviews, and/or placement decisions and training for multidisciplinary team members. Some CACs provide on-site medical exams.
Nationally, CACs provide a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach to address child abuse and neglect cases by expanding, coordinating and collaborating with partner agencies that represent existing community-based services. Typical partner agencies include (See Attachment C - Harris County, Texas Model):
The District child welfare system is a bifurcated process with responsibilities shared between CFSA and the Court Social Services Agency. The CAC model would require the following agency operational changes:
The Mayor's Unified Task Force On The Safety of Children in the District of Columbia is proposing the implementation of the CAC approach to child abuse and neglect proceedings. The current Children's Advocacy Center, Safe Shores, located in the One Judiciary Square Building, currently conducts all child sexual abuse medical examinations for the District. The leadership of the Advocacy Center strongly supports the development of the larger citywide co-housed National Children's Alliance Children's Advocacy Center model and has garnered support from key congressional leaders, including Congressman Tom Delay. At the suggestion of The Advocacy Center, along with Congressman Delay, the DC Children's Advocacy Center recently organized a site visit to Texas to examine first-hand the operations of their local and regional Children's Advocacy Centers. Center's visited, included Houston, Dallas, and Plano. (Note: the Children's Advocacy Center in Houston, Texas is named "The Children's Assessment Center," however the model is correctly known as the National Children's Alliance (NCA) Children's Advocacy Center Model, founded in 1985 by U.S. Congressman Robert "Bud" Cramer).
The Metropolitan Police Department, however, recently announced the establishment of its Family Violence and Child Protection Unit. This new division would provide additional resources, training and coordination in the investigation and prevention of crimes against children in the District of Columbia. The new unit would be responsible for investigating all child abuse, child sexual abuse and related crimes involving young people age 17 and younger. Child homicides will continue to be investigated by the violent crimes unit in each of the seven police districts.
The new unit would remain a part of the MPD's Youth and Preventive Services Division and will operate from three regional commands, each with a team of youth investigators that will oversee investigations on a regional basis. The former MPD model relied on each police district to conduct its own child abuse investigations. The new MPD approach to child abuse and neglect investigations does not currently include plans to fully co-locate with other agencies involved in the development Children's Assessment Center model, however the department has said that it will assign some officers to the CAC. MPD officials state that while some police officers will be placed at the Center, the agency will also "[leave] sufficient resources for partnership work for supporting and sustaining crime prevention, public awareness, and the mobilization of community resources." MPD believes that the establishment of its Family Violence and Child Protection Unit, described earlier in the paper, should not be viewed as an obstacle to the progress of the Children's Advocacy Center.
These divergent approaches to child abuse investigations point to the necessity for a clearer directive, either legislatively or via another administrative mechanism, mandating more collaborative or joint investigations between MPD and CFSA, and other critical partners involved in child abuse and neglect investigations.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation's 1999 Kids Count Report ranks the District of Columbia 51st in child deaths with 58 deaths per every 100,000 children between the ages of 1 and 14. This abysmal reality is a mandate for the District to rethink its efforts and child abuse and neglect prevention, and to assuring that the government's response to these occurrences are immediate, sensitive, effective and focused on minimizing the trauma abused and neglected children experience and imposing harsh penalties on adults who harm children.
The following recommendations provide steps the District can take to improve its abuse and neglect efforts and affect a more effective and child-focused approach for agencies involved in these processes:
All of these elements can be achieved through utilization of the Children's Advocacy Center Model and administrative and policy changes to allow CFSA to assume responsibility for post-initial investigation activities for all children who are victims of child abuse and neglect. These actions steps will help set the District of Columbia on a course to fulfilling its vision of becoming a safe and desirable place to raise children.
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
