Why Have All the Boys Gone? Gender Differences in Prosecution Acceptance of Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Abstract

Cases of child sexual abuse (CSA) referred to the District Attorney (DA) are not necessarily accepted for prosecution. Two pilot studies sought to investigate whether there were gender differences in whether cases of CSA referred to the DA’s office were accepted by the DA and, if they existed, what might account for gender differences in decisions to accept cases and file charges. The results of the first study indicated that cases involving male victims were significantly less likely to be accepted for prosecution than cases involving female victims. Comparisons of acceptance rates were based on expected frequencies given CSA prevalence rates by gender in the literature and on the proportion of males and females seen at a Child Abuse Assessment Center (CAAC) from where the DA referrals were obtained. The second study assessed both disclosure-related variables (assessed by content analyses of disclosures made at a CAAC) and abuse-related variables (that occurred at or near the time of the abuse) that might explain these differences. Few variables were found to significantly differentiate males’ and females’ cases; these were the relationship of the child to the perpetrator, whether the child was offended by a juvenile, whether the child told someone of the abuse, pornography exposure, whether the child displayed concerning behaviors, and whether the child was questioned about possible abuse. Implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords

child sexual abuse prosecution gender differences

The prevalence rates of child sexual abuse (CSA) have varied over time as have the specific estimates of the frequency with which males and females are victims of CSA. Finkelhor (1994) reported that at least 7% of females and 3% of males were victims of CSA. Walker, Carey, Mohr, Stein, and Seedat (2004) reviewed large sample studies of the prevalence of sexual abuse and reported that between 1% and 33% of females were sexually abused compared with 2% to 15% of males. In a more recent investigation of international prevalence rates of sexual abuse, Pereda, Guilera, Forns, and Gomez-Benito (2009) found the modal prevalence rates of sexual abuse in males is less than 10%, whereas the modal prevalence rates of sexual abuse in females is 10% to 20%. They reported that one third of the 38 studies they reviewed reported prevalence rates of CSA in general above 30%. Although recent research is conflicting with regard to whether rates of CSA are rising (Pereda et al., 2009) or declining (Jones, Finkelhor, & Kopiec, 2001), nearly all studies of CSA report prevalence rates of females to be approximately twice as high as those of males.

There is also research to suggest that males and females differ in the likelihood that they will disclose abuse (Terry, Giotakos, Tsiliakou, & Ackerman, 2010). Using data from a national survey of adolescents, Hanson et al. (2003) reported that nearly three fourths of adolescent girls who were sexually abused stated that they disclosed the abuse, whereas less than one half of adolescent boys who were sexually abused stated that they told someone about the abuse. Tang, Freyd, and Wang (2007) reviewed both retrospective and prospective studies of disclosure rates and reported that both types of studies provide evidence that males are significantly less likely to disclose CSA than are females.

Alaggia (2004) noted that boys may be more concerned about the stigma associated with being sexually abused than are girls. If offended by males, males may be concerned that others will view them as homosexual (Alaggia, 2005). The vast majority of abusers of both males and females are males (Terry et al., 2010); therefore, this latter concern may be frequently salient for boys who are sexually abused and may partially account for why males may not disclose sexual abuse.

There are also gender differences with regard to the likelihood that CSA cases will lead to prosecution as well as differences in legal outcomes once cases are prosecuted. Tjaden and Thoennes (1992) noted that cases involving female victims were significantly more likely to be filed than cases involving male victims. Similarly, Stroud, Martens, and Barker (2000) found that cases that were dismissed by the prosecutor were more likely to have male rather than female victims.

Moreover, Edelson and Joa (2010) found that males’ cases have less favorable legal outcomes than do females’ cases. Edelson and Joa reported that cases involving male victims were less likely to be accepted for prosecution and, once accepted, had fewer criminal counts charged and resulted in shorter sentences for defendants who pled or were found guilty. Furthermore, although Joa and Edelson (2004) found that children assessed at a Child Abuse Assessment Center (CAAC) had more favorable legal outcomes than children who were not, Edelson and Joa found that only females who were assessed at a CAAC were more likely to have their cases accepted for prosecution; this CAAC advantage did not hold for males.

An interesting question is why CSA cases involving males are less likely than cases involving females to be accepted for prosecution and charged when they are referred to the DA’s office. To answer this question, it is important to understand when prosecutors are likely to charge a case or fail to take action on a referral. Prosecutors accept cases that are provable and that they believe they can win. Thus, the greater the evidence, the greater the likelihood a case will be accepted for prosecution. Walsh, Jones, Cross, and Lippert (2010) note that cases involving CSA are particularly complex and difficult to prosecute given the dynamics of CSA in which there is often a prior relationship between the child and the perpetrator, and the abusive acts often occur in secrecy and absent physical evidence of the abuse. Not surprisingly, Walsh et al. found that CSA cases with more evidence (such as a confession, physical evidence, or an eyewitness in addition to a child’s disclosure) were significantly more likely to be filed by prosecutors than cases with less evidence. If such evidence is lacking, the strength of the case and the likelihood it will be accepted for prosecution rest solely on the credibility of the child’s disclosure of abuse.

Wood, Orsak, Murphy, and Cross (1996) examined variables that relate to the credibility of a CSA disclosure for children interviewed at a multidisciplinary assessment center. Despite the fact that interviewers’ behavior did not differ between interviews of males and females, it was found that the disclosures of girls were perceived to be more credible than the disclosures of boys. It is important to note that the differences found by Wood et al. were with regard to the perception of the credibility of the children’s disclosures, not whether there were actual gender differences in the children’s disclosures that might affect a DA’s willingness to accept a case for prosecution.

Previous research has found that a number of factors contribute to the perceived credibility of a child in CSA cases, including age of the child, the relationship of the child to the perpetrator, the perceived accuracy of the child’s statements, and the child’s perceived competence (Davies & Rogers, 2009). Furthermore, the presence of fantastical or improbable elements can affect the determination of the child’s credibility (Everson, 1997) as can the child’s developmental level (Hubel, Flood, & Hansen, 2010).

Another variable that can affect perceived credibility of the child is the process by which a CSA disclosure is made. Previous research on the disclosures of sexual abuse victims has demonstrated that it is common for children to disclose CSA over time (Alaggia, 2004) or to delay disclosure if they anticipate negative consequences to themselves or others because of their disclosure (Malloy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2011). It is reasonable to expect that some children at least may “test the waters” by providing some information initially and waiting to see the consequences of the disclosure before disclosing additional information. However, a disclosure over time or that is delayed might be interpreted as a less credible disclosure; this could occur if others are not aware of the process of disclosure and assume a credible disclosure of CSA would be immediate and complete.

Purpose of the Present Research

Although research has supported lower prosecution rates of males’ than females’ cases of CSA, research has not yet explained why this may be. Therefore, two important questions must be addressed to understand gender differences in the acceptance of CSA cases for prosecution. First, it is important to determine empirically whether gender differences in rates of acceptance for prosecution can be explained by differences in base rates of CSA of males and females. If not, then it is important to examine why gender differences exist in prosecutors’ decisions to accept CSA cases. One plausible explanation for any noted gender differences would be the credibility of the child. However, despite all of the data regarding the perceived credibility of children, to date, there has not been a systematic analysis of actual CSA disclosures to determine whether or not males and females differ in variables that affect credibility in the legal system. Given these two important questions, two studies were conducted; the first examined whether or not prosecutors’ acceptance rates for CSA cases involving males and females differed from base rates of CSA for males and females in the literature and from the proportions of males and females assessed at a CAAC from where the sample was drawn; the second examined actual disclosures of males and females who were victims of CSA to determine whether there were differences on variables that DAs have identified as important in their decision to accept a case for prosecution.

Study 1

Method

Participants

The sample for the present study was obtained from a combined sample from two prior studies. Joa and Edelson (2004) examined legal outcomes in 101 children who were either seen at a CAAC and then referred to the DA’s office or referred directly to the DA’s office by law enforcement. Edelson and Joa (2010) examined sex differences in legal outcomes for cases involving male versus female victims of CSA and included 71 additional children (in both the CAAC and non-CAAC groups) plus the original sample from Joa and Edelson. Given the focus on legal outcomes in the two studies, all children had to have cases accepted for prosecution by the DA’s office to be included, yet not all cases had charges filed by the DA once they were accepted. In addition, as the two studies compared children seen at a CAAC to those who were not, the two groups were matched on variables that could affect prosecution: age of the child and relationship of the child to the perpetrator. All children in the two studies were abused by a single, male perpetrator. The cases included in Joa and Edelson’s study were sampled from April 1999 to December 2001, and the cases in Edelson and Joa’s study were obtained from January 2002 to December 2004.

The final combined sample included 172 children, with 86 children in the CAAC group and 86 in the non-CAAC group. There were 137 females and 34 males in the combined sample. Of these, 74 females and 12 males were seen at a CAAC prior to referral to the DA. It should be noted that the low number of males in the sample was due to the fact that few cases involving males were accepted for prosecution by the DA’s study during the time periods of the sample collection. In fact, every CSA case involving a male that could be matched between the CAAC and non-CAAC groups on the inclusion criteria was included in the sample.

The average age of the children in the CAAC group was 9.55 years and was not significantly different from the average age of those in the non-CAAC group (9.45 years), t(170) = .154, ns. Except where indicated, only the data from the CAAC sample (n = 86) are examined in the present study. Because of the size of the sample and the matching criteria noted above, it is believed that both the CAAC and non-CAAC groups were representative of the types of cases accepted for prosecution by the county DA from which cases were obtained.

Materials

CAAC database

This database included all children seen at the CAAC and was used to obtain a list of possible participants in the study. The list of potential participants included each child’s name, date of birth, evaluation date, and suspected offender age.

CAAC files

Information on each child who met criteria for inclusion in the study was obtained from the files on each child kept at the CAAC. The information that was utilized in the present study was taken from the Social History Questionnaire, completed by the parent or guardian of the child; the intake form, which included referral information; and the final report following the child’s evaluation at the CAAC.

DA’s office database

The DA’s database was used to locate case information on each child referred to the DA’s office. Information obtained from the database used in the present study included: (a) offender’s age, (b) the filing decision (whether the case was accepted and filed or no-actioned), (c) the number and type of abuse counts charged, (d) case outcome, (e) type of sentence and sentence length, and (f) victim information, if available.

DA’s office files

Information from the files that was reviewed included police reports, filing sheets, and case notes. Information obtained from these reviewed included: (a) victim’s name, age, and sex; (b) the relationship of the offender to the victim; and (c) filing information.

Procedure

Refer to Joa and Edelson (2004) for a description of the procedure in the original study. The same procedure was incorporated for the study by Edelson and Joa (2010) from which the present sample was drawn.

Results

For the three research questions below, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted. The results of these analyses can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Numbers of observed males and females in the CAAC sample compared with expected rates in the reported literature and given the numbers of males and females seen at the CAAC.

Was the proportion of males’ and females’ cases accepted by the DA congruent with CSA base rates in the literature?

The number of males’ and females’ CSA cases from the CAAC sample accepted by the DA’s office was compared with expected frequencies of 33% males and 67% females based on the 2:1 ratio of female-to-male victims of CSA in the published literature (e.g., Pereda et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2004). Again, every case involving a male victim was sampled if it met the inclusion criteria for the study. Therefore, the low percentages of males included reflect the fact that very low numbers of CSA cases involving males were accepted for prosecution. It was found that there was a significant difference between the number of males’ and females’ cases accepted for prosecution and what would be expected in this sample given the base rates in the literature, χ²(1) = 13.56, p < .001. There were significantly more females (86%) and fewer males (14%) than would be anticipated given base rates.

Was the proportion of males’ and females’ cases accepted by the DA congruent with the proportion of males and females seen at the CAAC?

Males’ and females’ cases were initially selected in the CAAC sample to match children’s cases that were accepted for prosecution but who were not seen at the CAAC. The number of males’ and females’ cases accepted for prosecution from the CAAC sample was compared with expected frequencies determined by the numbers of males and females seen at the CAAC for concerns of sexual abuse during the time periods in which the sample was obtained. The CAAC had evaluated 870 (71%) females and 355 (29%) males for concerns of possible sexual abuse during the sample periods. It was found that the obtained distribution of males and females in the CAAC sample differed significantly from the expected distribution given the numbers of males and females evaluated for sexual abuse concerns at the CAAC, χ²(1) = 9.53, p < .01. Again, there were more females and fewer males than would be predicted given the distribution of males to females seen at the CAAC.

Was the proportion of males and females seen at the CAAC consistent with base rates of CSA in the literature?

Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether or not the proportion of CSA cases seen at the CAAC was consistent with what would be expected given base rates by gender. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the reason that fewer numbers of males’ cases were accepted for prosecution was that fewer males were evaluated for CSA concerns than would be expected given base rates. The analysis revealed that the percentages of males and females assessed at the CAAC over the time periods of the study did not differ significantly from what would be expected given the rates of male and female victims of CSA reported in the literature, χ²(1) = .723, ns. Thus, the analyses showed that males’ cases of CSA were less likely than females cases to be accepted for prosecution given base rates in the literature and that this finding could not be accounted for by the distribution of males and females evaluated for concerns of sexual abuse at the CAAC.

The initial results of Study 1 led to a second research question: What variables might account for why males’ cases of CSA did not get accepted for prosecution as often as females’ cases? The data collected allowed for an examination of some variables that the literature has shown affect the likelihood that CSA cases will be prosecuted.

Were there significant age differences between males and females?

The literature suggests that age is an important predictor of referral for prosecution in CSA cases. The younger the child, the less information typically obtained from forensic interviews (Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 2000), the greater the concern about the quality of the child’s testimony (Walsh et al., 2010), and the less likely the case is referred for prosecution (Stroud et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1992). Although females were slightly older than males in the sample (an average age of 9.79 years compared with 8.56 years), this difference was not statistically significant, t(169) = 1.644, ns. There were also no significant differences between the average age of females and males across the CAAC and non-CAAC groups or between females and males within groups.

Were there significant differences in rates of diagnosis of sexual abuse between males and females?

Another possible reason for the lower proportion of males’ cases accepted for prosecution could be attributed to the possibility that fewer males had been diagnosed as having been sexually abused compared with females. Not all cases referred to the CAAC result in a diagnosis of abuse. This diagnosis is only made when the evaluating team is convinced of this diagnosis by the evidence obtained during the evaluation. Three possible diagnoses can be made: The child was sexually abused, the medical provider is unable to determine whether abuse has occurred, and the child has not been sexually abused. The results indicated that 81.69% of females and 66.67% of males in the CAAC group were diagnosed as having been sexually abused; this was not a significant difference, χ²(2) = 2.707, ns.

Were there significant differences in the type of assessment between males and females seen at the CAAC?

A diagnosis at the CAAC is made in the context of either a full assessment (consisting of a forensic interview and a medical examination) or a medical examination only. Males and females did not differ significantly in the type of assessment they received at the CAAC; females had a full assessment 77% of the time and a medical examination only 23% of the time compared with males who had a full assessment 75% of the time and a medical examination only 25% of the time,χ²(1) = .024, ns.

Were there significant differences in the nature of victimization of males and females?

Four variables were considered with regard to whether the nature of victimization accounted for the gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates: (a) the relationship of the suspected perpetrator to the child, (b) the age of the suspected perpetrator, (c) whether the alleged perpetrator was an adult or juvenile, and (d) the nature of the abusive act. Whether these variables differentiated males’ and females’ cases could be examined across both the CAAC and non-CAAC groups; therefore, with the exception of the examination of adult versus juvenile offenders (explained below), these analyses included the entire sample (n = 172).

Table 1 lists the numbers and percentages of male and female children who were allegedly abused by different individuals. A chi-square analysis indicated a significant difference in the numbers of females and males allegedly abused by different perpetrators, χ²(6) = 13.321, p < .05. Specifically, significant differences between male and female victims of sexual abuse were found for biological fathers and mothers’ boyfriends. Twenty-three percent of females were allegedly abused by their biological fathers compared with 9% of males, χ²(1) = 5.79, p < .05, and 20.5% of males were allegedly abused by their mothers’ boyfriends compared with 6.5% of females, χ²(1) = 7.26, p < .01. In all other perpetrator categories, the percentages of males and females offended were not significantly different, and these other categories combined accounted for 71.5% of the suspected perpetrators of both males and females.

Table 1.

Numbers and Percentages of Cases Involving Male and Female Victims Of Sexual Abuse for Whom At Least One Charge Was Filed for Type of Crime.

	Female	Male
	(n = 137)	(n = 34)	p Value
Relationship of perpetrator to child
Biological father	n = 31 (22.5%)	n = 3 (9%)	< .05
Stepfather	n = 14 (10%)	n = 3 (9%)	ns
Mother’s boyfriend	n = 9 (6.5%)	n = 7 (20.5%)	< .01
Brother	n = 17 (12%)	n = 3 (9%)	ns
Other male relative	n = 26 (19%)	n = 5 (14.5%)	ns
Known male nonrelative	n = 40 (29%)	n = 12 (35%)	ns
Male stranger	n = 0 (0%)	n = 1 (3%)	—
Total	n = 137 (100%)	n = 34 (100%)

χ²(6) = 13.321, p < .05.

An ANOVA (analysis of variance) was conducted to determine whether or not offender age differed significantly for males and females. Perpetrators who offended females were slightly older than those who offended males. The average age of the alleged perpetrators for females was 35.26 years (SD = 14.05 years), whereas the average age of the alleged perpetrators for males was 30.19 years (SD = 14.65 years); however, this was not a significant difference, F(1, 151) = 3.247, ns. The age range for perpetrators for both males and females was similar (15-76 years for females; 15-75 years for males).

It should be noted that the cases of all perpetrators in the present sample were referred to the adult division of the DA’s office. For the non-CAAC sample, all suspected perpetrators were adults. However, for the CAAC sample, some of the cases referred to the DA’s office did include juvenile offenders (who could have subsequently been charged as an adult). Therefore, to examine whether or not males and females were offended by juveniles versus adults, only the CAAC sample was used (n = 86). The results indicated that 62% of males were offended by an adult offender and 38% were offended by a juvenile offender whereas 72% of females were offended by an adult offender and 28% were offended by a juvenile offender, χ²(1) = 18.46, p < .001. Thus, males were significantly more likely than females to have been abused by a juvenile.

In order to assess whether the nature of the abusive act differed between males and females, the types of criminal counts charged for cases involving male and female victims were examined for the entire sample (n = 172). A comparison of crimes charged for cases involving male versus female victims of CSA can be found in Table 2. The percentages of males and females for whom at least one count was charged for a particular crime did not differ significantly for any of the crimes charged except for Rape I where cases involving females were significantly more likely to have at least one count charged than were cases involving males, χ²(1) = 5.67, p < .01. However, only 24 females’ cases and 1 male’s case from the total sample had at least one Rape I count, thus representing a small percentage of the total number of counts charged.

Table 2.

Numbers and Percentages of Cases Involving Male and Female Victims of Sexual Abuse for Whom At Least One Charge Was Filed for Type of Crime.^a

	Females	Males
Crime	(n = 137)	(n = 34)
Class A felonies
Sodomy I	n = 23 (16.79%)	n = 8 (23.53%)
Unlawful sexual
Penetration I	n = 13 (9.49%)	n = 0 (0%)
Rape I^b	n = 24 (17.52%)	n = 1 (2.94%)
Class B felonies
Sexual abuse I	n = 105 (76.65%)	n = 25 (73.53%)
Unlawful sexual
Penetration II	n = 4 (2.92%)	n = 0 (0%)
Rape II	n = 7 (5.11%)	n = 0 (0%)
Sodomy II	n = 5 (3.65%)	n = 2 (5.88%)
Class C felonies
Rape III	n = 4 (2.92%)	n = 0 (0%)
Sexual abuse II	n = 1 (0.73%)	n = 0 (0%)
Class A misdemeanors
Private indecency	n = 1 (0.73%)	n = 0 (0%)
Sexual abuse III	n = 5 (3.65%)	n = 2 (5.88%)

Column numbers and percentages indicate females’ or males’ cases for whom particular crimes were charged. The column numbers and percentages exceed 100% for each sex because more than one crime could be charged for each case.

χ²(1) = 5.67, p < .01.

Logistic Regression Analysis

One final, exploratory, analysis was conducted to examine whether or not gender of the child or any of the variables examined to explain possible gender differences could predict prosecution case acceptance. A logistic regression analysis was conducted on the entire sample using case acceptance (case accepted and charges filed vs. no-actioned) as the dependent measure and using child gender, child age, offender age, diagnosis, and type of assessment as predictor variables. The resulting model revealed that only one variable predicted case acceptance and that was diagnosis (z = 2.417, p < .05); cases were more likely to be accepted for prosecution when a diagnosis of sexual abuse was made. Although a greater percentage of females than males were diagnosed as having been abused (see chi-square analysis above), this was not a significant difference and, thus, could not account for gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates. Moreover, although there were sufficient numbers of participants to conduct a logistic regression, there were relatively few males compared with females, thus restricting the likelihood that child gender, alone or in combination with other variables, would predict case acceptance.

Overall, the results of Study 1 indicate that CSA cases involving males were significantly less likely to be accepted for prosecution than were cases involving females given expected base rates of CSA of males and females. Moreover, this finding could not be accounted for by the proportion of males versus females assessed for CSA concerns at the CAAC from where the sample was drawn. Subsequent analyses yielded two possibilities for why males’ cases were less likely to be accepted for prosecution than were females’ cases: (a) differences in the relationship of the perpetrator to the child, and (b) being offended by a juvenile. The implications of these findings will be addressed in the General Discussion section below.

Study 2

It is possible that gender may serve as a proxy for variables that influence the decision to accept a CSA case for prosecution. Therefore, it is important to analyze variables that prosecutors believe affect their decision to accept a case and then to determine whether or not these variables vary by gender. A vital factor in determining the acceptance of cases for prosecution relates to the provability of the case in a court of law. Given the nature of the evidence used in CSA cases, there are two types of variables that might affect provability: (a) abuse-related variables such as the events and occurrences prior to, at the time of, and immediately after the abuse that could affect the strength of a prosecutor’s case, and (b) disclosure-related variables that would directly affect the credibility of the child. The purpose of Study 2 was to examine actual CSA disclosures and the events surrounding the CSA to determine whether there were gender differences that might account for gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates. Because of the small sample, this study should be considered a pilot study and can also be considered to provide more qualitative, rather than quantitative, data.

Method

Participants

Disclosures from 10 male children and 10 female children seen at a CAAC in the Pacific Northwest were selected for inclusion in the study. The cases selected were matched by age of child and the child’s relationship to his or her perpetrator. A two-sample t test was run comparing the ages of the males and females in the sample, and the results indicated that the male and female children whose cases were examined did not differ significantly in age. The mean age of the male children was 10.2 years (SD = 3.07), and the mean age of the female children was 10.1 years (SD = 2.73), t(18) = .077, ns. To be selected, the children had to have made disclosures of CSA at the CAAC, and all had to have been diagnosed as having been sexually abused by the CAAC clinical examiner who examined the child. The reason for these criteria was to examine the types of cases most likely to be accepted for prosecution. To further ensure a comparable match between males and females, all children were suspected of having been sexually abused by a male perpetrator where only a single perpetrator and single victim were involved.

Materials

CAAC evaluation reports

After each child was evaluated at the CAAC, an evaluation report was dictated by the clinical examiner and child interviewer. The report includes information from the CAAC files (see Study 1).

Procedure

Evaluation reports were obtained from 10 female children and 10 male children who were seen at a CAAC located in the Pacific Northwest for concerns of possible sexual abuse. Since the CAAC opened between mid-2008 and 1999 when the data were collected, 2,419 children had been seen for a primary referral for concerns of possible sexual abuse. Of these, 1,755 were females (837 of whom were subsequently diagnosed as having been sexually abused) and 664 were males (216 of whom were subsequently diagnosed as having been sexually abused). Cases were matched by gender and were sampled from across the time period during which the CAAC was open. Portions of the CAAC evaluation reports were compiled into narratives by the author. The information in the narrative included: (a) information from the initial referral to the CAAC, including the circumstances under which the concerns of sexual abuse came to light, (b) social history information provided by the legal guardian of the child, (c) the disclosure the child gave during the interview at the CAAC, and (d) the interviewer and examiner impressions of the child at the time of the CAAC evaluation. The demographic information was recorded by the author and taken from the entire CAAC evaluation report; this information was not included in the narratives.

All identifiable information was removed from the narratives. In addition, any information that would indicate the sex of the child was removed, such as gendered pronouns, names of body parts unique to males or females, highly gendered activities, and clothing specific to each gender. These were either omitted entirely or replaced with gender-neutral terms (e.g., “underwear” instead of “boxers”). Finally, as all of the alleged perpetrators were male, pronouns referring to the perpetrator as well as words depicting the perpetrator’s body parts, clothing, or activities were not eliminated from the narrative.

The narratives were coded with regard to abuse-related and disclosure-related variables that might affect the likelihood of successful prosecution of the cases. A unique strength of the study was that coding categories were determined in consultation with the Deputy District Attorney (DDA) of the county in which the CAAC was located who advised the author of the criteria that his office uses in determining whether or not a CSA case is winnable. In all, 50 variables were coded for each child’s case. Abuse-related variables were related to the abuse itself, the context in which the abuse took place, or variables related to how others first learned of the abuse. Variables that were coded included: age of first disclosure of abuse; age at which sexual abuse first began; the frequency of the abuse, how the abuse was discovered, and who the child talked to about the abuse; whether or not there were family variables that might affect provability of the case such as a custody dispute, history of domestic violence, drug use in the family, exposure to pornography and sexual activity; whether the alleged perpetrator had been accused of sexual abuse in the past; whether there was medical evidence of sexual abuse; and whether there were prior concerns of sexual abuse of the child. Disclosure-related variables were variables that reflected the credibility of the child’s disclosure at the CAAC. Variables that were coded included: the consistency and clarity of the child’s disclosure; variables related to the possibility for corroboration of the child’s statements; the child’s mood, attention, and developmental level; and whether fantasy elements were present in the disclosures.

Two advanced undergraduate students in psychology, one male and one female, served as coders. The coders were blind to whether the narratives they read were about a male or female child. In order to check whether or not the coders were truly blind to the sex of the children in the narratives, the coders were asked to guess the child’s sex after coding each narrative. The coders correctly guessed the sex of the child in 12 of the cases (6 males and 6 females) and incorrectly guessed the sex of the child in 8 cases (4 males and 4 females); the number of correct or incorrect guesses was not significantly different from what would be expected by chance, χ²(1) = .80, ns.

The coders were trained on the categories by the author and were given four training narratives to code. After each of the first three narratives was coded, the author reviewed the coding with both coders together, and the three individuals discussed disagreements in coding to clarify the coding criteria. The next training narrative was then coded by each coder. All training narratives were coded independently by the raters, and the fourth training narrative was used as a reliability check for the training narratives before the coders were able to code the actual narratives included in the study.

For the 50 coding decisions, there were different types of options depending on the variable coded: dichotomous codes (e.g., yes or no; one option or another), codes on 10-point rating scales, and frequency estimates. Initially, overall agreement was determined by the number of times the coders agreed exactly on all 50 coding decisions. By the fourth training narrative, the coders agreed on 40 of 50 coding decisions (an 80% agreement rate). Because exact agreement on 10-point rating scales appeared to be an overly stringent criterion for agreement, this criterion was relaxed, and agreement was considered if the coders were no more than 1 point apart on the 10-point scales. When using this criterion for agreement, the coders agreed on 44 of 50 coding decisions (an 88% agreement rate). This latter criterion was used for all remaining coding decisions involving 10-point scales.

To correct for chance agreement, Cohen’s Kappa coefficients were computed. Given the codes used, the probability of chance agreement was assumed to be 50% for all dichotomous variables, frequency estimates, and option-selection coding (yes, the option applies, or no, it does not) and 20% for the 10-point rating scales when the coders were considered in agreement if they were within 1 point of each other in their ratings. Given these assumptions, an overall Kappa was computed for all 50 coding decisions and was found to be κ = .78 for the training narratives.

To test for reliability of coding in the final sample, the coders were both asked to code 3 of the 20 narratives independent of one another, and their coding of these three narratives was compared. An overall Kappa was computed for all 150 coding decisions across the three narratives and was found to be κ = .83. For the three narratives coded by both raters, their averages on the rating scales were used in the data analysis. For all other codes, one of the coder’s ratings was randomly selected if they did not agree. The remaining 17 narratives that were analyzed were only coded by one of the two raters.

Results

For dichotomously coded variables, chi squares were computed to determine whether there were differences in frequencies between males’ and females’ narratives. For continuous data such as frequency of abuse and age at which the abuse was first disclosed, two-sample t tests were used. For the rating scale data, the Mann–Whitney U test was used, which is the nonparametric equivalent of a two-sample t test when ordinal data are analyzed. Only significant statistics are presented except when nonsignificant differences confirm comparability of the males’ and females’ cases.

Abuse-related variables

Three abuse-related variables were used to check for comparability of the male and female samples: age of disclosure, age of first abuse, and frequency of abuse. None of these three variables differed significantly for males and females. The mean age for males at disclosure was 9.85 years (SD = 3.37), and the mean age for females at disclosure was 9.80 years (SD = 2.46), t(18) = .04, ns. The mean age at which males reported that they were first abused was 9.56 years (SD = 3.03), and the mean age at which females reported that they were first abused was 9.19 years (SD = 2.39), t(14) = 2.75, ns.

With regard to frequency of abuse, if the child gave a specific number of incidents of abuse involving the alleged perpetrator in his or her disclosure, that number was recorded. If the child said that there were “more than” a specific number of incidents, the number one greater than the number given was used to be conservative in the estimate of how often the child had been abused. If the child gave a range of the number of incidents, the midpoint of that range was used. There were no significant differences between males and females in the frequency of abuse incidents, although there was a large amount of variability in frequency of abuse reported for children of both sexes. Males reported that they were abused, on average, 7.3 times by the perpetrator (SD = 7.63), whereas females reported that they had been abused an average of 5.55 times by the perpetrator (SD = 9.41), t(18) = .457, ns. The fact that males and females did not differ on these three abuse-related variables further supports the comparability of the males’ and females’ cases selected.

There were no differences between males and females regarding whether there was a custody dispute at the time of the abuse disclosure, exposure to domestic violence in the family, familial drug use (including use by the child), whether the alleged perpetrator had been accused of CSA in the past, whether there was medical evidence of sexual abuse (only two of the 20 children, both female, had physical evidence consistent with CSA) and whether there were any prior concerns of the child having been sexually abused. However, males were more likely than females to have been exposed to pornography or sexual activity, χ²(1) = 5, p < .05; none of the information from the females’ narratives indicated they had been exposed to pornography or sexual activity whereas 4 of the 10 males’ narratives indicated this exposure.

Males and females were not significantly different with regard to the likelihood that they had been subjected to repeated interviews. However, males were significantly more likely than females to have displayed concerning behaviors witnessed by others, χ²(1) = 8.57, p < .01, and were also significantly more likely than females to be questioned by someone about the possibility of CSA, χ²(1) = 5, p < .05. Analysis of the narratives indicated that 6 of the 10 males had displayed concerning behaviors witnessed by someone else and that 4 males had been questioned about the possibility of abuse. In contrast, none of the females displayed concerning behaviors or were questioned about possible abuse as CSA concerns surfaced.

Narratives were coded with regard to how the disclosure of sexual abuse was made by the child prior to the CAAC evaluation. There were five types of possible disclosures coded: (a) spontaneous disclosures, (b) disclosures triggered by an event, (c) disclosures made after the child was interrogated or questioned by someone about the possibility of sexual abuse, (d) disclosures made after someone witnessed concerning behavior in the child, and (e) no disclosure. The first four of these five categories were not mutually exclusive. The results indicated that males and females did not differ in how the abuse was first disclosed; the majority of both males and females made spontaneous initial disclosures that were not triggered by an event. In addition, all 20 children had disclosed their abuse prior to their CAAC evaluation in at least one of the four ways noted above.

Disclosure-related variables

In the present study, credibility of the disclosure was assessed by examining whether there were details that could be corroborated (such as disclosure to someone else, descriptions about the perpetrator, location of the CSA incidents, etc.), by examining the amount of detail provided in the disclosure, by determining whether the disclosure was consistent with previous information, by evaluating child factors that could affect the quality of the disclosure (such as mood, attention, and developmental level), and by assessing whether there were fantasy elements in the disclosure.

During the CAAC evaluation, females were significantly more likely to state that they told someone about their abuse than were males, χ²(1) = 5.05, p < .05. Seven of the 10 females stated they had told someone about being sexually abused, whereas only 2 of the 10 males stated they had told someone about being abused. During the CAAC evaluation, more children stated they had told someone about the abuse than had been indicated in the original referral information.

There were no significant differences between males and females with regard to most variables related to the possibility of corroborating details of the child’s disclosure. Males and females were not significantly different in their likelihood of providing corroborating details about the location of the abuse, the time frame in which the abuse occurred, or about the perpetrator or themselves. At least half of both males and females provided corroborative details about the abuse incidents, and all children provided corroborating details about the perpetrator.

There were no differences in the amount of both peripheral and central details included by males and females in their disclosures. Although not significantly different, females were somewhat more likely than males to include a balance of central and peripheral details of the abuse whereas males were somewhat more likely to disclose more central details rather than peripheral details of the abuse. Both males’ and females’ CAAC disclosures were highly consistent with information obtained from the referral source. When inconsistency with previous information occurred, children of both sexes were more likely to make additions to information previously disclosed. In fact, 60% of both males and females included more details in their disclosures at the CAAC than had been noted in the referral information whereas few children (three females and one male) omitted details previously stated; this was not a significant sex difference. Only 3 of the 20 children provided details that appeared to conflict with previous information.

There were no differences found between males and females in their use of language consistent with their developmental level or in their overall developmental level. In addition, there were no differences in the mood or attention level of males and females during their CAAC evaluation that would have affected the quality of their disclosures. Finally, an examination of whether fantasy elements were present was conducted. In the current analysis, a fantasy element was operationalized as any implausible statements made by the child in his or her CAAC disclosure that would jeopardize how credible the child’s statements would appear. It was found that none of the 20 children included any fantasy elements in their disclosures.

General Discussion

The results of Study 1 indicated that CSA cases involving males were not as likely to be accepted for prosecution than cases involving females given both on the base rates of female and male victims of CSA suggested in the literature and based on the expected gender distribution given the rates of males and females seen for concerns of sexual abuse at the CAAC from which the sample was drawn. There were many variables examined to attempt to explain why males’ CSA cases are less likely to be accepted for prosecution than females’ cases. Despite the number of analyses and the sufficient numbers of participants to examine possible explanations, only two variables were significantly different for males and females that might account for this finding. The first variable was the relationship of the child to the perpetrator. Females were more likely than males to be abused by biological fathers, and males were more likely than females to be abused by mothers’ boyfriends. Although it is possible that differences in the relationship of the alleged perpetrator to the child may have accounted for the gender difference in acceptance rates for prosecution, more than 70% of both males and females were similarly represented in all but these two perpetrator categories. Moreover, research has suggested that cases involving biological fathers and mothers’ boyfriends have the lowest rates of acceptance for prosecution (Cross, De Vos, & Whitcomb, 1994). That males and females were each represented substantially more in one of these categories seems to negate the likelihood that perpetrator relationship accounted for the finding that males’ cases were less likely accepted for prosecution than were females’ cases. However, even if perpetrator relationship does explain gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates, the question still remains as to why this is so.

The second variable that differentiated males’ and females’ cases in Study 1 was whether or not the child was offended by a juvenile. Perhaps some of the explanation for why males’ cases were not accepted for prosecution as often as females’ cases was that their perpetrators were referred to the juvenile justice system rather than the adult division of the DA’s office from where the sample was obtained. This possibility warrants further exploration in future studies. In addition, it could be argued that CSA by juveniles may be perceived to be less serious than CSA by adults; therefore, prosecutors may be less willing to accept and charge cases involving juvenile versus adult offenders. However, the average age of the offenders of males and females did not significantly differ, and the age range of the offenders of males and females was virtually identical. Therefore, it is unlikely that this variable, too, accounted wholly for fewer numbers of males’ cases being accepted for prosecution. Given that Study 1 included a large sample, the small number of significant differences between males’ and females’ CSA cases in variables that might explain gender differences in prosecution acceptance is an interesting result in itself. The lack of findings may indicate a more subtle reason, perhaps bias, for the reduced likelihood that cases involving males were accepted for prosecution. This possibility will be discussed in more detail below.

Study 2 attempted to determine whether there were variables specifically related to the provability of cases in a courtroom that differed by gender. Demographically, the samples of males and females were comparable, including the age of the child, the relationship between the perpetrator and the child, the age at which the abuse first began, the age at which the child disclosed the abuse, and the number of incidents of abuse. Overall, the results indicated that there were no significant differences between males in females in disclosure-related variables affecting the credibility of their CAAC disclosures as determined by an analysis of 50 variables related to prosecutors’ determination of how provable (and hence, winnable) a case is; these 50 variables were determined in consultation with a DA who prosecutes CSA cases.

However, there were four abuse-related variables that differed between males and females. First, males were more likely to have been exposed to pornography or sexual activity than were females. It is possible that this exposure might make it more difficult to determine whether the presence of sexual knowledge was due to CSA or to pornography exposure. Moreover, there is a possibility that exposure to sexual activity and pornography could contribute to males’ display of concerning behaviors. Thus, prosecutors may see CSA cases in which there is pornography exposure to the child as less winnable because of alternative explanations to CSA for the presence of concerning behaviors.

Second, males were less likely than females to tell someone about the abuse, eliminating a potential witness who is able to corroborate and contextualize the initial disclosure. Although hearsay testimony has limits, in the context of an “excited utterance,” a third party is able to testify about an individual’s reporting of an event (Andrus, 2011). As males are less likely to disclose abuse than are females, they not only lose a corroborative witness to the disclosure, but they may be perceived as less credible due to a delayed disclosure, despite the fact this is common (Alaggia, 2004; Malloy et al., 2011).

Third, males’ initial disclosures of sexual abuse were more likely than females’ disclosures to occur following concerning behaviors that were witnessed by others. Some might argue that a display of concerning behaviors could be seen as evidence of CSA and provides corroboration of abuse, strengthening the provability of the legal case. However, evidence suggests a great deal of variability in behavioral presentation following CSA (Yancey, Hansen, & Naufel, 2011). Therefore, there is not a particular display of concerning behaviors that signifies CSA has occurred. Moreover, a child who has behavioral issues may be seen as a less credible or sympathetic witness by a prosecutor, and this could affect the decision to accept a case.

Finally, males’ initial disclosures were also more likely than females’ disclosures to occur in response to questions about the possibility of abuse (perhaps following the witnessing of concerning behavior). Thus, there could be concern by prosecutors that jurors might consider the possibility that males’ disclosures were suggested or coached rather than reflecting true instances of CSA. Concerns about suggestibility in children and the effect of suggestibility on memory accuracy and witness credibility have been studied by many researchers (e.g., Saywitz & Lyon, 2002); if these concerns are present, they can jeopardize prosecution of a CSA case (Ceci & Bruck, 1995).

The results of the present studies must be considered preliminary given the small number of males in Study 1 and the fact that Study 2 had a small sample due to the lengthy process of coding the disclosures and the importance of matching males and females on important variables that could affect the likelihood of prosecution. Despite this, the fact that some significant results were obtained suggests that the significant findings are robust. However, it is vital to replicate the findings with increased sample sizes to determine whether the lack of significant findings is a true finding or is related to decreased power. The goal of the two studies was not to compare cases that were and were not accepted for prosecution. However, future studies should examine differences in males’ and females’ CSA cases that are not accepted for prosecution; these cases may differ significantly from the cases examined in the current studies.

What is perhaps equally as interesting as the significant results that were obtained is the absence of many results that could have accounted for gender differences in prosecution acceptance. Because few findings were obtained in Study 1 to account for possible gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates despite the large sample, there is the possibility that there might be gender bias in the process of reporting or investigating CSA that ultimately affects the decision by the DA not to accept a case. Findings from previous research support a possible gender bias. As previously noted, Joa and Edelson (2004) found that children who were seen at a CAAC were more likely to have cases filed by the DA than children who were not; however, Edelson and Joa (2010) found that when gender was considered, significantly more cases were filed than no-actioned for females who were evaluated at a CAAC but not for males who were seen at a CAAC. Thus, there appears to be some perception about the quality of cases involving female victims compared with male victims that may affect the decision to accept a case for prosecution. It is unknown what might influence this perception, and the data in the present studies do not allow for an examination of possible sources of bias. However, the data from Study 2 suggest that it is not the quality of the child’s disclosure that should influence this perception. However, the possibility for bias leading up to and including the decision regarding whether or not to prosecute a CSA case clearly warrants further research.

Finally, it is important to examine whether or not there are differences in the expected distributions of males’ versus females’ cases accepted for prosecution by the juvenile justice division of the DA’s office. Oates (2007) notes that approximately 30% to 40% of CSA incidents are committed by offenders younger than 21 years. This statistic is consistent with the present findings that 38% of males and 28% of females in the CAAC sample were offended by juveniles (in this case, aged below 18 years). Because of these significant percentages and the current finding that more males were offended by juveniles than were females, it is important to assess whether a gender difference exists in the prosecution rates of cases involving juvenile offenders as well as adult offenders and, if so, why it exists.

Taken together, the data confirm prior research reporting that CSA cases involving males are less likely to be accepted for prosecution than cases involving females (Stroud et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1992). However, the results extend prior findings by showing that this gender difference is not due to different base rates of CSA for males or females or to differences in the proportions of males and females assessed for CSA concerns. The present data also suggest that it is not the actual quality of the disclosures of abuse that account for this difference. Therefore, even though there is a perception that girls’ disclosures are more credible than boys (Wood et al., 1996), the present data do not support that females actually have more credible disclosures than males. It is important to replicate the findings of the two studies with larger samples more equally divided by gender to continue the exploration of reasons for gender differences in prosecution acceptance rates. Given the DA’s reluctance to accept cases for prosecution that are not winnable, it is vital that research determines what can be done to ensure that CSA cases involving both males or females have an equal likelihood of being accepted for prosecution.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express sincere thanks and appreciation to Molly Engle and Byron Hadley who helped enter data for both studies and were invaluable in coding data for Study 2. The author would also like to thank Jim Friedrich for his statistical consultation. Finally, the author would like to thank Courtland Geyer, Deputy District Attorney of Marion County, Oregon at the time of the study and the staff at Liberty House, Salem, Oregon. A portion of these results was presented at the Western Psychological Association Conference, Portland, OR, April, 2009.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alaggia

(2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1213-1227. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.03.016

Alaggia

(2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 453-470. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.03.016

Andrus

(2011). Beyond texts in context: Reconceptualization and the co-production of texts and contexts in the legal discourse, excited utterance exception to hearsay. Discourse & Society, 22, 115-136. doi:10.1177/0957926510392119

Ceci

S. J.

Bruck

(1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10180-000

Cross

T. P.

De Vos

Whitcomb

(1994). Prosecution of child sexual abuse: Which cases are accepted? Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 663-677. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(94)90016-7

Davies

Rogers

(2009). Perceptions of blame and credibility in victims of childhood sexual abuse: Differences across victim age, victim-perpetrator relationship, and respondent gender in a depicted case. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 78-92. doi:10.1080/10538710802584668

Edelson

M. G.

Joa

(2010). Differences in legal outcomes for male and female children who have been sexually abused. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 427-442. doi:10.1177/1079063210375973

Everson

M. D.

(1997). Understanding bizarre, improbable, and fantastic elements in children’s accounts of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 2, 134-149. doi:10.1177/1077559597002002007

Finkelhor

(1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409-417. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(94)90026-4

10.

Hanson

R. F.

Kievit

L. W.

Saunders

B. E.

Smith

D. W.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Ruggiero

K. J.

(2003). Correlates of adolescent reports of sexual assault: Findings from the national survey of adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 8, 261-272. doi:10.1177/1077559503257087

11.

Hubel

G. S.

Flood

M. F.

Hansen

D. J.

(2010). Sexually and physically abused children. In Segal

D. L.

Hersen

(Eds.), Diagnostic interviewing (pp. 443-466). New York, NY: Springer.

12.

Joa

Edelson

M. G.

(2004). Legal outcomes for children who have been sexually abused: The impact of Child Abuse Assessment Center evaluations. Child Maltreatment, 9, 263-276. doi:10.1177/1077559504267004

13.

Jones

L. M.

Finkelhor

Kopiec

(2001). Why is sexual abuse declining? A survey of state child protection administrators. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1139-1158. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00263-0

14.

Lamb

M. E.

Sternberg

K. J.

Esplin

P. W.

(2000). Effects of age and delay on the amount of information provided by alleged sex abuse victims in investigative interviews. Child Development, 71, 1586-1596. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00250

15.

Malloy

L. C.

Brubacher

S. P.

Lamb

M. E.

(2011). Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 8-19. doi:10.1080/10888691.2011.538616

16.

Oates

(2007). Juvenile sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 681-682. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.05.003

17.

Pereda

Guilera

Forns

Gomez-Benito

(2009). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse: A continuation of Finkelhor (1994). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 331-342. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.007

18.

Saywitz

K. J.

Lyon

T. D.

(2002). Coming to grips with children’s suggestibility. In Eisen

M. L.

Quas

J. A.

Goodman

G. S.

(Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 85-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Stroud

D. D.

Martens

S. L.

Barker

(2000). Criminal investigation of CSA: A comparison of cases referred to the prosecutor to those not referred. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 689-700. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00131-9

20.

Tang

S. S. S.

Freyd

J. J.

Wang

(2007). What do we know about gender in the disclosure of child sexual abuse? Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6, 1-26. doi:10.1080/19322880802096442

21.

Terry

K. J.

Giotakos

Tsiliakou

Ackerman

A. R.

(2010). Sex offenders: Rape and child sexual abuse. In Ferguson

C. J.

(Ed.), Violent crime: Clinical and social implications (pp. 229-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(1992). Predictors of legal intervention in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 807-821. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(92)90083-4

23.

Walker

J. L.

Carey

P. D.

Mohr

Stein

D. J.

Seedat

(2004). Gender differences in the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and the development of pediatric PTSD. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 7, 111-121. doi:10.1007/s00737-003-0039-z

24.

Walsh

W. A.

Jones

L. M.

Cross

T. P.

Lippert

(2010). Prosecuting child sexual abuse: The importance of evidence type. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 436-454. doi:10.1177/0011128708320484

25.

Wood

Orsak

Murphy

Cross

H. J.

(1996). Semistructured child sexual abuse interviews: Interview and child characteristics related to credibility of disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 81-92. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00118-2

26.

Yancey

C. T.

Hansen

D. J.

Naufel

K. Z.

(2011). Heterogeneity of individuals with a history of child sexual abuse: An examination of children presenting to treatment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 20, 111-127. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.554341