Jim,
You should certainly
find some research and statistics from Department of Community Services
(DoCS) in NSW in Australia. Some years ago we established a system
across the state which coordinates Police and DoCS. In Metropolitan
areas they are called Joint Investigation Teams (JIT) and have Child Protection
Officers based in the same unit as Police and detectives. This forges
a very tight and specific response. In rural and remote areas it
is called Joint Investigation Response (JIR) where the respective agencies
nominate a number of officers to be specially trained together for the
most serious cases involving criminality. Only these officers will
attend such matters, and so again a highly trained and specific response
is made available.
Since this program
was first piloted quite a number of years ago there should be an abundance
of research available.
Jim Spencer wrote:
Several years ago a workgroup developed a model agreement
for our
Department of Children and Families and local law enforcement
agencies. This agreement was intended to promote cooperation and
coordination between these two agencies in child abuse
investigations. A recent review shows that this or a similar
agreement is now in use by some, but not all, of Florida counties.
I am developing a study that will attempt to assess whether having
such an agreement in place results in any real differences in case
management and/or outcome. I have not been able so far to find any
similar studies. Are any of you aware of any? Thanks.
James G. Spencer, M.S.W.
Children's Justice Act Manager
Department of Children and Families
Tallahassee, Florida
(850)921-4388
From ???@??? Mon Aug 20 10:34:34 2001
Status: U
Return-Path:
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (elist01.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.28])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25387;
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21283;
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from elist01.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA21047;
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from router2.mail.cornell.edu (router2.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.16])
by elist01.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14273
for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19632
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist01.mail.cornell.edu; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp3.ihug.com.au (smtp3.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.76])
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19569
for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:39:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from community.nsw.gov.au (p65-tnt5.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.136.65])
by smtp3.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA13120
for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 16:39:10 +1000
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp3.ihug.com.au: Host p65-tnt5.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.136.65] claimed to be community.nsw.gov.au
Message-ID: <3B7E0CF7.4D5AC47C@community.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 16:36:39 +1000
X-PH: V4.1@router2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-PH: V4.1@elist01.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: Ian Randall
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: Re: PRETEXT conversations as an investigative tool
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108171247390.28830-100000@web1.calweb.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Tag: 2950
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu01/000107/15:22 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Mr Price,
"Note, the original poster was from Australia,
with considerably fewer
rights than the US."
While not necessarily wanting to wade into
the discussion, what knowledge do you have of the state of rights in Australia.
Why do you assume that Australia has "considerably fewer rights than the
US"? As far as I am aware the recording of a telephone conversation
without the knowlege and permission of both (or all) parties is illegal
in all states of Australia.
That is of course with the exception of
Telephone Intercepts (or line tapping) which is conducted by Police under
it's own legislation as it is in the US.
While I have never heard of this technique
being used in investigation of child abuse in Australia or at least by
my State Department, I do think that it may warrant some consideration.
** I would have liked to think that the
professionals on this list would not suffer that unfortunate American tendency
to believe that the US is the centre of the world and the pinacle of all
that is righteous.
Please remember: Central America
is not Kansas.......
Ian Randall
Child Protection Caseworker
Sydney, Australia.
John M Price PhD wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Jschiff139@aol.com wrote:
> <<Some states include the tag, "one party knowledge", but I
am not sure how
> that
> works.>>
>
> My guess is the one party rule is probably the case in most states.
The way
I'd not go any where near that far. Recall the old federal law
of beeps
every 15 seconds?
Note, the original poster was from Australia, with considerably fewer
rights than the US.
> it works is that any party to a conversation may record the conversation
> without disclosing that fact. It's the third party interception
of
> communications that is objectionable.
That is an entirely different animal, let alone a different colored
horse.
> However, this doesn't necessarily make it ethical for professionals
(lawyers
> for instance) to secretly record their conversations. But that's
a horse of
> a different flavor.
Indeed. I'd think this 'PRETEXT' stuff tainted evidence, myself,
but I am
not a lawyer.
--
John M. Price, PhD
jmprice@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! |
PGP Key on request or FTP!
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated
Atheist# 683
From ???@??? Tue Feb 23 14:50:31 1999
Status: U
Return-Path:
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15885;
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:17:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03443;
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:17:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03173;
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:15:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from router2.mail.cornell.edu (ROUTER2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.16])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA28386
for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA04231
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:22:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns.cow-net.com ([207.107.185.7])
by router2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04203
for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cow-net.com ([207.107.185.48]) by ns.cow-net.com
with ESMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 2207200 ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:24:15 -0800
Message-Id: <36D2F1FF.F47A08AE@cow-net.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:22:55 -0800
Reply-To: welin@cow-net.com
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-PH: V4.1@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: Ian Welin
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: Re: Administrative/Disciplinary Investigations
References: <36C2B716.984357F9@magna.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PH: V4.1@router2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; U)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
Hi Stephen,
The Office of the Ombudsman in British Columbia has investigated a number of
situations in which allegations of abuse were made against employees and
owners of care facilities for children. Her office can be reached by
accessing http://www.gov.bc.ca
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Leslie Welin
Stephen Murray wrote:
> I would be interested to know whether there has been any
> research/literature on the subject of administrative investigations of
> staff in children's services, where the employee has been accused of
> child abuse or neglect, whether or not that abuse is alleged to have
> occurred in the course of the person's employment.
>
> The New South Wales Legislature (Australia) has now required the agency
> that I work for (the NSW Ombudsman) to oversee investigations into child
> abuse allegations, to investigate the allegations where required, and
> ensure appropriate action is taken (If you're interested in the detail,
> see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/oapacsa1998582/
> ).
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Stephen Murray
> Project Officer
> NSW Ombudsman
> Level 3
> 580 George Street
> SYDNEY NSW 2000
> AUSTRALIA
|