DOJ-OGR-00006857.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-2 280 Filed 11/12/21 Page 22 of 45 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20(2) experiences, consequently more readily identifying barriers. On the other hand, these findings may speak to the actual imbalance between facilitating factors and barriers for disclo- sure, the latter carrying more weight in the victims/survivors’ experiences, thus, explaining the high rates of disclosures delayed until adulthood. Facilitators. Although fewer disclosure facilitators are identi- fied in this review, very important facilitators were nonetheless uncovered—ones that should be noted for professionals in this field of practice. Internal factors that facilitate disclosures include symptoms that become unbearable, getting older with increased developmental efficacy, and realizing that an offence was committed (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Easton, 2013; Hershkowitz et al. 2007; McElavaney, Greene, & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Circumstantial facil- itators are those where the child discloses because there has been evidence provided, eye-witnessing has occurred, and a report has been made. Environmental factors include settings that provide opportunities such as counseling, interviews, information sessions and educational forums/workshops, and prevention programs for children and youth to disclose. To elaborate, dialogical contexts about CSA for children and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may facilitate disclosures (Jensen et al., 2005). The research shows creating open dialogue in relationship contexts, to offset the power and influence of the perpetrator, can facilitate earlier disclosure. Among disclosure facilitators is being asked about abuse and given the opportunity to “tell” (McElavaney et al., 2014); workshops on abuse and sexual abuse, in particular, can facilitate disclosures (Ungar et al., 2009b); and using culturally sensitive probes and questions (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In Gagnier and Collin-Vézina’s (2016) study, positive disclosure experiences were described by participants as those where they felt that they had been listened to, were safe, were believed, and were not judged by the person they disclosed to. Further, family members and friends (peers) of the child victim can act as key supports to creating an open relational context and fostering positive responses (Jensen et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schénbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). In particular, as children grow older, they are more likely to disclose to a peer, as shown in a number of studies, and this is an important reality for counselors and educators to be aware of (Dumont et al., 2014; Kogan, 2004; Schénbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). Discussion Through examination of 33 studies published since the year 2000, this review identified five distinct themes regarding CSA disclosure: (1) Disclosure is best viewed as an iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event done within a relational context; (2) contemporary models reflect a social—ecological, person-in-environment framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; (3) age and gender are significant disclosure factors; (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclo- sure continue to outweigh facilitators. Based on these themes, a number of conclusions are drawn from this review. First, dis- closure as a process is emphasized throughout contemporary research. Advances have been made in understanding these complex processes. However, the disclosure process over time—for example, how the first detection of CSA or attempts to disclose in childhood impact later disclosures—are not well understood. This is the result of the absence of a cohesive life- course perspective in investigations, although age consistently surfaces as significantly influencing CSA disclosure. Using a life-course perspective through the use of longitudinal studies is recommended. The use of varied methodological designs, depending on the developmental stage of the victims/survivors, influences the data generated and subsequent findings. For example, most studies on children and youth are based on file reviews of cases that have been brought to the attention of authorities, or sur- veys, with only a few studies using interviewing of younger children. Therefore, there is less information available on pro- cess issues with children and youth. In contrast, research on adult populations largely favors the use of qualitative interview methods for retrospective inquiry producing important process findings. In addition, investigations have not yet captured the disclosure experiences of adults in the “emerging adult” stage given that adult studies have failed to recognized that the age range of 18-24, which is now considered a developmental phase defined by neurobiological developmental uniqueness. As well, late adulthood has not been given attention as shown by the absence of participants representing this age-group in current research (70+). With a swelling geriatric population in North America, issues of historic CSA can be expected to surface and, with that, new disclosures. This trend is also antici- pated due to attitudinal shifts that have presumably occurred over the last two generations about revealing such traumas and changing views about discussing sexual victimization. Interview guides used in a number of studies intentionally probed for facilitators, producing notable findings. For exam- ple, one such finding focuses on the importance of creating a contextually supportive environment to promote disclosure across the life course. These include developing therapeutic relational contexts for disclosure by providing information about sexuality, sexual abuse, prevention programming, and by asking directly. Disclosures to professionals are positive outcomes of how therapeutic contexts work; however, for for- ensic purposes prompting such disclosures would be viewed as problematic in legal settings, seriously compromising testimo- nies for trial proceedings. This is one example that speaks to the structural barriers victims and survivors run up against time and time again. Facilitators that show evidence to promote disclo- sure in one domain (therapeutic) are seen to work against CSA survivors in another domain—such as legal settings when per- petrators face prosecution. Defense attorneys will use this as evidence that the disclosure was prompted, and therefore the disclosure is potentially seen as not credible. Broadcasting of DOJ-OGR-00006857