Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Browse or Search All Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (10,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - June 11, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8972
Date: 2011-10-23

Author:Aron Shlonsky

Subject:Re: best practices for CSA interviewing in United States

Hi all, I think it's important to distinguish between interview protocols for sexual abuse and SDM, which is a more general structure for making child welfare decisions that are informed by at least one tool that has predictive validity. That said, sexual abuse isn't the strong suit of the actuarial tool contained in the SDM suite of tools. The actuarial tool focuses on physical abuse and neglect. Sexual abuse is dealt with, on average, a LOT less often in terms of formal child protection investigation than these other forms of maltreatment. Our work in Ontario leads me to believe that there is also some predictive validity for sexual abuse recurrence on the risk assessment tool, but this is not its main focus. Best, Aron -- Aron Shlonsky Associate Professor and Director, PhD Program Factor-Inwentash Chair in Child Welfare University of Toronto Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work 246 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 Canada Phone: (416) 978-5718 Fax: (416) 978-7072 email: aron.shlonsky@utoronto.ca Keep up with the latest child welfare news: sign up for Research Watch at the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/researchwatch From: Trudy Kilian > Reply-To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:03:09 -0400 To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > Subject: Re: best practices for CSA interviewing in United States In El Dorado County California, we use the SDM as well. As a former social worker with the child protective services emergency response unit, I did not particularly think it was useful. The "forced choices" in some of the items did not lend one to be specific about individual cases. However, in lieu of nothing that is somewhat standardized, it is OK. Several counties used another instrument as well. Here is a link to a description of the SDM from our state's child welfare website. http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/PG1332.htm Here is a summary report on some assessment instruments (2005). "Risk and Safety Assessment in Child Welfare: Instrument Comparisons". http://cssr.berkeley.edu/bassc/public/risk_summ.pdf Here is a 200+ page study of the SDM and child welfare. It depicts the decision trees for specific allegations - neglect, sexual abuse, etc. "Structured Decision MakingĀ® and Child Welfare Service Delivery Project" (2008) http://www.csulb.edu/projects/ccwrl/Brooks.pdf Regards, Trudy Trudy C. Kilian, M.S. Human Services and Community Planning Consultant Home Office: 530-622-6400 (Preferred phone #) Cell: 530-919-0244 On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Lisa Fontes > wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am looking for information about the extent to which what we consider "best practices" for interviewing and following cases of suspected child sexual abuse in the U.S.--the multidisciplinary teams and the structured forensic interviews--is also used in Western Europe. I would be interested in country-specific as well as general information, directed to the list or to me personally. Thank you! Lisa Fontes, Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Lfontes@uww.umass.edu

Hi all, I think it's important to distinguish between interview protocols for sexual abuse and SDM, which is a more general structure for making child welfare decisions that are informed by at least one tool that has predictive validity. That said, sexual abuse isn't the strong suit of the actuarial tool contained in the SDM suite of tools. The actuarial tool focuses on physical abuse and neglect. Sexual abuse is dealt with, on average, a LOT less often in terms of formal child protection investigation than these other forms of maltreatment. Our work in Ontario leads me to believe that there is also some predictive validity for sexual abuse recurrence on the risk assessment tool, but this is not its main focus. Best, Aron -- Aron Shlonsky Associate Professor and Director, PhD Program Factor-Inwentash Chair in Child Welfare University of Toronto Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work 246 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 Canada Phone: (416) 978-5718 Fax: (416) 978-7072 email: aron.shlonskyutoronto.ca Keep up with the latest child welfare news: sign up for Research Watch at the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/researchwatch From: Trudy Kilian > Reply-To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:03:09 -0400 To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > Subject: Re: best practices for CSA interviewing in United States In El Dorado County California, we use the SDM as well. As a former social worker with the child protective services emergency response unit, I did not particularly think it was useful. The "forced choices" in some of the items did not lend one to be specific about individual cases. However, in lieu of nothing that is somewhat standardized, it is OK. Several counties used another instrument as well. Here is a link to a description of the SDM from our state's child welfare website. http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/PG1332.htm Here is a summary report on some assessment instruments (2005). "Risk and Safety Assessment in Child Welfare: Instrument Comparisons". http://cssr.berkeley.edu/bassc/public/risk_summ.pdf Here is a 200+ page study of the SDM and child welfare. It depicts the decision trees for specific allegations - neglect, sexual abuse, etc. "Structured Decision MakingĀ® and Child Welfare Service Delivery Project" (2008) http://www.csulb.edu/projects/ccwrl/Brooks.pdf Regards, Trudy Trudy C. Kilian, M.S. Human Services and Community Planning Consultant Home Office: 530-622-6400 (Preferred phone #) Cell: 530-919-0244 On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Lisa Fontes > wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am looking for information about the extent to which what we consider "best practices" for interviewing and following cases of suspected child sexual abuse in the U.S.--the multidisciplinary teams and the structured forensic interviews--is also used in Western Europe. I would be interested in country-specific as well as general information, directed to the list or to me personally. Thank you! Lisa Fontes, Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Lfontesuww.umass.edu