Forming a Team

Creating an MDT involves several steps: identifying and recruiting members, developing a mission statement and protocol, establishing and maintaining good working relationships among team members, and evaluating the team's performance.

Some agencies have worked together very well in an informal though systematic manner for a period of time, usually because the individuals representing them work well together. The creation of a formal MDT — by institutionalizing the team and documenting its functions and procedures on paper — ensures continuity of existing coordination and collaboration beyond the tenure of specific individuals.

Team Participants

In many States, the membership of MDT's is defined by statute. Generally, laws authorizing or requiring the formation of investigative MDT's specify that law enforcement, child protection or family services, and prosecution participate. Even if your State does not require such membership, these three disciplines and the medical professions should be considered the core of any investigative MDT. Depending on the resources available in your community, other potential members include mental health professionals, victim services coordinators, court-appointed special advocates, and educators. In federally recognized Indian Country and government reservations, such as a military base, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has investigative jurisdiction and must be included in any MDT.

Everyone on the team must be committed to the concept that a coordinated and collaborative process is required for successful investigation of reported instances of child abuse. That commitment may not be fully developed when the team is first formed, but there must be at least an agreement to implement the team philosophy.

To be viable, an MDT must have support of the leadership of its members' organizations and agencies. To gain support for forming an MDT, seek out professionals working in other MDT's in your area or in your profession and communicate their experience to others in your organization. Share the current literature on the team approach, which overwhelmingly supports the MDT concept. For instance, one study has revealed that in a jurisdiction where an MDT created a close working relationship between law enforcement and child protective services, three out of four cases were referred for criminal prosecution, and nearly 95 percent of those cases resulted in convictions. ¹ Those proportions are much higher than in jurisdictions without MDT's. Other research has suggested that MDT's, by reducing the number of investigatory interviews a child must endure, reduce "system intervention trauma" as well. ²

Initial Meeting

An initial meeting of potential team members is critical to laying the foundation for success. Any interested person can call, convene, schedule, or coordinate the first meeting. Participants in the initial meeting should discuss their reasons for attending the meeting and the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the team method of investigating suspected harm to children.

The need for investigations will most likely be universally expressed, sometimes in terms reflecting the frustrations commonly felt by professionals handling these cases. It is important for all participants to hear what other people are saying and to be heard by others. Members will express opinions reflecting their professional training. Their opinions may be heated because they feel defensive about criticism of their agencies or angry about the ways their agencies have failed to protect children from abuse. Statements like the following may set a tone of angry or bitter criticism:

• "Too many cases, not enough resources."
  
  
• "Someone dropped the ball."
  
  
• "The facts are too complex."
  
  
• "The victim's behavior is unpredictable and misunderstood."
  
  
• "No one understands the restrictions I face."
  
  
• "You want to put people in jail; I need to put families back together."

It is vital that these comments be understood as the first step in acknowledging the failings of current investigative practice. These are the types of obstacles that face every new MDT.

Because participants generally concur about the importance of the work and need for a team, they should be able to maintain an overall positive attitude. The use of a seasoned facilitator, who will not be a team member, can provide the structure necessary to create a climate of mutual respect and attention. All potential team members should be consulted in the choice of a facilitator, to avoid the appearance of too much control by any one member.

At this initial meeting, participants should also discuss additional team membership — agencies or individuals vital to the proper functioning of the team. Finally, participants should begin to work on a mission statement.

Writing a Mission Statement

A mission statement is a general declaration of purpose — the scope of your team's activities, its goals, and the guiding principles for achieving those goals. It should concisely describe the reason the team was formed and the purpose it will serve. It should be easily understood by team members and by the broader community. Your team should consider the following questions in developing its mission statement:

• Why was the team formed?
  
  
• What are the common values held by each team member?
  
  
• Who is on the team?
  
  
• What jurisdiction or community will the team serve?
  
  
• How does the team want to be perceived?
  
  
• What types of cases will the team investigate?
  
  
• What other functions will the team perform?
  
  
• What challenges does the team face?
  
  
• How will the team meet those challenges?

Do not attempt to incorporate the answers to all these questions. The mission statement is supposed to be short (five or fewer sentences) and specific enough to provide an adequate measure of success. It should be simple, direct, and inspirational. The preamble to the Constitution, for example, sets forth its mission statement in these few words: ". . . in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. . . ." This simple mission statement has guided a very large and complex organization for more than 200 years.

To be relevant, the mission statement must also be tied to the everyday workings of the team's member agencies. Buzzwords, jargon, and platitudes will not provide a clear vision for team members or the community. The mission statement for your team will be the reference point for its protocol, which will be the team's next project.

Writing a Protocol

A properly written protocol is essential if a team is to function well. For an MDT, it is the written understanding of how investigations and other functions will be pursued by team members and the roles and responsibilities of member agencies. The agencies and individuals signing the document signify their mutual commitment to the team and the team's mission statement.

The team's protocol is a practical, working document. Where the mission statement is conceptual, the protocol is concrete. The protocol serves as a reference when questions or disputes arise within the team. When there is a written agreement specifying investigative roles and responsibilities, conflict is reduced because there is a shared understanding of investigatory practice. Moreover, when investigations are conducted in a relatively predictable and consistent manner, the stress associated with uncertainty is minimized, resulting in less conflict. Diminished interagency conflict means more energy and attention are spent on the investigation itself, contributing to swifter and more precise resolutions. That in turn can alleviate trauma to children and their families.

Because many State statutes now mandate team formation, it is important that you consult applicable State law when drafting your team's protocol. Many teams have also found it helpful to review protocols developed in similar communities. (Samples of protocols are available from the National Network of Children's Advocacy Centers, the four regional CAC's, and the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. See pages 21–23.) However, every community should work out an agreement that suits its own resources and needs. What works in Chicago or San Diego may not work in smaller or more rural communities.

Regardless of the size or location of your community, a number of issues must be addressed in every protocol. As you address these issues, keep in mind the wide range of incidents in child abuse reports — for example, a dirty house, a 2-year-old wandering down a highway, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or suspected child homicide. Balance the need for structure and certainty with the necessity for creativity and flexibility. If you agree in writing to follow a specific procedure, there may be legal or procedural repercussions when that procedure is not followed, no matter how compelling the reason for departing from the protocol. Some teams have used a particularly complex or difficult case as a point of departure when formulating a protocol.

Figure 1 lists questions that will help in creating a protocol. Note that the questions address the "who, what, when, where, and how" of investigations and of team function. In addition to addressing these questions, some teams have found it useful to specify the criteria for arresting suspects, removing children from their homes, and filing charges.

The benefits you derive from your team's protocol will be in direct proportion to the amount of thought, discussion, and analysis of existing practice and challenges that you have invested in developing the protocol.

Dealing With Confidentiality

Confidentiality is often perceived as a barrier to team formation or effective teamwork. Often, this is due to a misunderstanding of the requirements of confidentiality imposed by law. Sometimes, legitimate confidentiality protections are used as an excuse for not sharing information when agencies mistrust each other. Misunderstanding and misuse of confidentiality protections have contributed to the continued abuse and death of too many children. As the commission that investigated the death of Elisa Izquierdo noted, "[The State's] confidentiality laws mandate silence and [its] expungement laws mandate ignorance." Confidentiality laws must continually be reviewed to ensure that their legitimate purposes are being met while, at the same time, allowing information to be appropriately shared.

The first step in determining how your team will handle the confidentiality issue is to look at the governing law. Do not assume that past practice has been or is in conformity with existing law. Federal laws mandating confidentiality have been substantially changed, and States are now permitted latitude to enact laws authorizing investigative agencies to furnish child abuse data to other agencies involved in an investigation. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act permits dissemination of confidential information to Federal, State, or local government agencies that need this information to carry out their legal responsibilities to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Many States not only permit but require the sharing of such information. Some laws make exceptions to general requirements of confidentiality when data are shared in the context of a team investigation. Teams should remember that most laws prohibit public disclosure only of material gathered during an investigation or revealed in a report of harm. Good professional practice generally requires some disclosure of confidential reports among professionals so that proper decisions can be made.

When information is shared between agencies charged with protecting children and the privacy of individuals, there is arguably no breach of confidentiality. However, sharing information within a team and for team purposes does not justify general or public disclosure of sensitive information. Your team protocol should specify what data will be shared and how and when this can be done.

2 Henry J, System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims following disclosure, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(4), August 1997.