A retrospective examination of 500 child sexual abuse reports to prosecutor’s offices analyzed case progress and predictors of attrition, including details about alleged perpetrator(s), victim(s), their families, and other case characteristics. Less than one in five cases proceeded to prosecution. For the full sample, we describe all outcomes and differentiate prosecutors’ decisions to (a) intake/close, (b) investigate/close, or (c) prosecute; these stages comprise a 3-level dependent variable. Because it is important to understand which variables are associated with progress to each stage, we examined unique predictors of the decision to “investigate,” and to “prosecute.” Our multivariate analyses examine 325 cases with a perpetrator aged 16 and older. Caregiver support and perpetrator age were significant predictors across all outcome variables, while other factors were barriers to the “prosecute” decision only. Results highlight the complexities of case characteristics that are important at different stages of prosecutorial decision-making and inform future interventions.
BanyardV. L.RozelleD.EnglundD. W. (2001). Parenting the traumatized child: Attending to the needs of nonoffending caregivers of traumatized children. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.38.1.74
2.
BolenR. M.GergelyK. B. (2015). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between nonoffending caregiver support and postdisclosure functioning in sexually abused children. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014526307
3.
BrewerK. D.RoweD. M.BrewerD. D. (1997). Factors related to prosecution of child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v06n01_07
4.
BuntingL. A. (2014). Exploring the influence of reporting delay on criminal justice outcomes: Comparing child and adult reporters of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 23(5), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2014.920457
5.
CampbellR.GreesonM. R.BybeeD.Fehler-CabralG. (2012). Adolescent sexual assault victims and the legal system: Building community relationships to improve prosecution rates. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9485-3
6.
CashmoreJ.TaylorA.ParkinsonP. (2020). Fourteen-year trends in the criminal justice response to child sexual abuse reports in New South Wales. Child Maltreatment, 25(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519853042
7.
ChristensenL. S.SharmanS. J.PowellM. B. (2016). Identifying the characteristics of child sexual abuse cases associated with the child or child’s parents withdrawing the complaint. Child Abuse & Neglect, 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.101610.1016/j.chiabu.2016.05.004.
8.
CoburnP. I.HarveyM. B.AndersonS. F.PriceH. L.ChongK.ConnollyD. A. (2019). Boys abused in a community setting: An analysis of gender, relationship, and delayed prosecutions in cases of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(5), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1580329
9.
ConnollyD. A.ChongK.CoburnP. I.LutgensD. (2015). Factors associated with delays of days to decades to criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2185
10.
ConnollyD. A.PriceH. L.GordonH. M. (2010). Judicial decision making in timely and delayed prosecutions of child sexual abuse in Canada: A study of honesty and cognitive ability in assessments of credibility. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019050
11.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
12.
CrossT. P.ChuangE.HeltonJ. J.LuxE. A. (2015). Criminal Investigations in child protective services cases: An empirical analysis. Child Maltreatment, 20(2), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559514562605
13.
CrossT. P.De VosE.WhitcombD. (1994). Prosecution of child sexual abuse: Which cases are accepted?Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(8), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90016-7
14.
CrossT.P.JonesL. M.WalshW. A.SimoneM.KolkoD. J.SzczepanskiJ.LippertT.DavisonK.CrynsA.SosnowskiP.ShadoinA.MagnusonS. (2008). Evaluating children’s advocacy centers’ response to child sexual abuse. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Juvenile Justice Bulletin
15.
CrossT. P.WalshW. A.SimoneM.JonesL. M. (2003). Prosecution of child abuse: A meta-analysis of rates of criminal justice decisions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003256561
16.
CrossT. P.WhitcombD. (2017). The practice of prosecuting child maltreatment: Results of an online survey of prosecutors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.007.
17.
CrossT. P.WhitcombD.De VosE. (1995). Criminal justice outcomes of prosecution of child sexual abuse: A case flow analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(12), 1431–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00106-2
18.
DuronJ. F. (2018). Legal decision–making in child sexual abuse investigations: A mixed–methods study of factors that influence prosecution. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.022.
19.
EdelsonM. G. (2012). Why have all the boys gone? Gender differences in prosecution acceptance of child sexual abuse cases. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(5), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212465900
20.
ErnbergE.TideforsI.LandströmS. (2016). Prosecutors’ reflections on sexually abused preschoolers and their ability to stand trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 57, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.001.
FinkelhorD.TurnerH. A.ShattuckA.HambyS. L. (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(7), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.42
23.
GrayE. (1993). Unequal justice: The prosecution of child sexual abuse: Based on a comprehensive examination of criminal courts conducted under the auspices of the NCJW Center for the Child. Free Press
24.
HershkowitzI.HorowitzD.LambM. E. (2005). Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(11), 1203–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.04.008
25.
JonesL. M.AtoroK.E.WalshW. A.CrossT. P.ShadoinA. L.MagnusonS. (2010). Nonoffending caregiver and youth experiences with child sexual abuse investigations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334394
26.
LambM. E.OrbachY.HershkowitzI.EsplinP. W.HorowitzD. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12), 1201–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021
27.
MénardK. S.RubackR. B. (2003). Prevalence and processing of child sexual abuse: A multi-data-set analysis of urban and rural counties. Law Human Behavior, 27(4), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024084916626
28.
ParkinsonP. N.ShrimptonS.SwanstonH. Y.O'TooleB. I.OatesR. K. (2002). The process of attrition in child sexual assault cases: A case flow analysis of criminal investigations and prosecutions. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.35.3.347
29.
PintelloD.ZuravinS. (2001). Intrafamilial child sexual abuse: Predictors of postdisclosure maternal belief and protective action. Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559501006004007
30.
PipeM. E.OrbachY.LambM. E.AbbottC. B.StewartH. (2013). Do case outcomes change when investigative interviewing practices change?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030312
31.
SedlakA.J.MettenburgJ.BasenaM.PettaI.McPhersonK.GreeneA.LiS. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): Report to congress, executive summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. cap.law.harvard.edu.
32.
StoltenborghM.IjzendoornM. H. VanEuserE. M.Bakermans-kranenburgM. J. (2011). A Global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Maltreatment, 16(2), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511403920
33.
StroudD.MartensS.BarkerJ. (2000). Criminal investigation of child sexual abuse: A comparison of cases referred to the prosecutor to those not referred. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00131-9
34.
TheimerK.MiiA.SonnenE.McCoyK.MeidlingerK.BilesB.HansenD. J. (2020). Identifying and addressing barriers to treatment for child sexual abuse survivors and their non-offending caregivers. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 52, 101418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101418.
35.
WalshW.A.JonesL. M.CrossT. P.LippertT. (2010). Prosecuting child sexual abuse: The importance of evidence type. Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 436–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708320484
36.
WoodB.OrsakC.MurphyM.CrossH. J. (1996). Semistructured child sexual abuse interviews: Interview and child characteristics related to credibility of disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00118-2
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
