Exhibit B EFTA00024175

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Check tor wpdetos Review Manuscript TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2019, Vol. 20(2) 260-283 © The Author(s) 2017 Article reuse guidelines: rmissions DOK: 10.1 177/1524838017697312 journals sagepub.comvhomehva @SAGE Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000-2016) Ramona Alaggia', Delphine Collin-Vézina”, and Rusan Lateef’ Abstract Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures has the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and prevent further sexual victimization. Timely access to therapeutic services can mitigate risk to the mental health of survivors of all ages. This review of the research focuses on CSA disclosures with children, youth, and adults across the life course. Using Kiteley and Stogdon's literature review framework, 33 studies since 2000 were identified and analyzed to extrapolate the most convincing findings to be considered for practice and future research. The centering question asked: What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to practice and future research? Using Braun and Clarke's guidelines for thematic analysis, five themes emerged: (1) Disclosure is an iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event best done within a relational context; (2) contemporary disclosure models reflect a social-ecological, person-in-environment orientation for understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; (3) age and gender significantly influence disclosure; (4) there is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Although solid strides have been made in understanding CSA disclosures, the current state of knowledge does not fully capture a cohesive picture of dis- dosure processes and pathways over the life course. More research is needed on environmental, contextual, and cultural factors. Barriers continue to be identified more frequently than facilitators, although dialogical forums are emerging as important facil- itators of CSA disclosure. Implications for practice in facilitating CSA disclosures are discussed with recommendations for future research. Keywords sexual abuse, child abuse, cultural contexts Introduction Timely access to supportive and therapeutic resources for child sexual abuse (CSA) survivors can mitigate risk to the health and mental health well-being of children, youth, and adults. Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit CSA disclosures have the potential to facilitate earlier disclo- sures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and potentially prevent further sexual victimization. Increased knowledge on both the factors and the processes involved in CSA disclosures is timely when research continues to show high rates of delayed disclosures (Collin-Vézina, Sablonni, Palmer, & Milne, 2015; Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004; Easton, 2013; Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Jones, & Gordon, 2003; Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb; 2007; Jonzon & Lindblad, 2004; McElvaney, 2015; Smith et al., 2000). Incidence studies in the United States and Canada report decreasing CSA rates (Fallon et al., 2015; Finkelhor, Shattuck, Tumer, & Hamby, 2014; Trocmé et al., 2005, 2008), while at the same time global trends from systematic reviews and meta- analyses have found concerning rates of CSA, with averages of 18-20% for females and of 8-10% for males (Pereda, Guilera, Foms, & Gémez-Benito, 2009). The highest rates found for girls is in Australia (21.5%) and for boys in Africa (19.3%), with the lowest rates for both girls (11.3%) and boys (4.1%) reported in Asia (Stoltenborgh, van LJzendoorn, Euser, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011). These findings point to the incongruence between the low number of official reports of ‘ Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, 2 Centre for Research on Children and Families, School of Social Work, McGill University, Montreal, Qubec, Canada Corresponding Author: Ramona Alaggia, Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children’s Mental Health, Factor- Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4KIW1. Email: ramonaalaggia@utoronto.ca EFTA00024176

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Alaggia et al. CSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stolten- borgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than 30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000) than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jil- lian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In other words, while | out of 8 people retrospectively report having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate only | per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) fur- ther found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding CSA disclosure. It is our view that incidence statistics are likely an under- estimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures with research showing a large number of survivors only dis- closing in adulthood (Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015; Smith et al., 2000), these issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious negative effects and mental health problems such as depres- sion, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiv- ing necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facil- itate earlier disclosures. Previous literature reviews examining factors influencing CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include Paine and Hansen’s (2002) original review covering the liter- ature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman’s (2005) subsequent review, which may not have captured publications affected by “lag to print” delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews are now dated and therefore do not take into account the plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past 15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinct contribu- tions on the dialogical relational processes of disclosure (Reit- sema & Grietens, 2015), CSA disclosures in adulthood (Tener & Murphy, 2015), and delayed disclosures in childhood (McEI- vaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and into adulthood—over the life course. Method Kiteley and Stogdon’s (2014) systematic review framework was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA 261 disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to high- light the most convincing findings that should be considered for future research, practice, and program planning. This review centered on the question: What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to future research and practice? By way of clarification, the term systematic refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching liter- ature on studies for knowledge construction, in this case the CSA disclosure literature, rather than intervention studies. The years spanned for searching the literature were 2000-2016, building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap. Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching interna- tional electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Edu- cational Resources Information Center, Canadian Research Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Pub- lished International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociologi- cal Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peer- reviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished literature such as internal agency documents, government reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process. Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling. A search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publica- tions, | French study, and | Portuguese review. The search was further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic inves- tigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves, exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied, the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were sub- jected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors; (2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used, sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was generated and was continuously revised as the selection of studies was refined (see Table 1). Key Findings First-level analysis of the studies identified key study charac- teristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure, study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to defini- tions, the term “telling” is most frequently used in place of the term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term more readily understood by study participants. Several EFTA00024177

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuor) “suo TEUaEsexe JO UO TEZW UW —SUO 11035 p 8A 7 usOD 03 Palqns aq pnor syodas-jas y8nosyp erep paresaued sapuayo ssh eure Pur BIEP ay JO sseu PUOMISND Buys qeasa.u 4108450 aaa yey “Apms aip u Bu red 2 qed as0jaq awios 32 Bu asuNod pad ara1 pur paso 2s p pey ued qed wosanss era1Xdw pnod Apmas atp jo wedse 9a aedso.nay “61 Jo a8 a1 B10yaq sua Jadxe SD 4 ap paso 2s p yOu pey squed > Wed ap jo j ey suo 788 3S9AU 4aupuny u pasap suo> 2q P Noys ep ay yO suead Jae 02 2 pp w epu wsD gu purssepun 4Oy sua BD JaJOaY2 & se aa Dadssad asiN02-3j BO asF) ‘sanss e284 Aq pazaye uaaq aAeYy Aew yey Apnis aa wedso.nay “PYEMIO} 348NOIg BBM senss eMxeqUO? pue BIN ND quewoduy ‘Anbu aaje3 enb e 40) 9Z5 Ua 2yNS Inq eUIg “~UaWOM ued Jeu UBD apy UO A BAST DX SN2Oj 03 SB PMS Maj JO BUD sanss e201 Adw pnod Apnas aa wedso.nay °s sd eur Pur BIEP ay JO sseu PUOMIsN.D Buys qeisau soZ4 jo ane yy ‘as muayIO “Aunbu aie enb B 40} 9Z5 Ua DYNS Inq EWS "say? 4PeY> 03 squEd 2 Wed ayp yp M auop aq 20U p nod Zu ypaLp daquiayy ‘Apms aip u Bu red 2 aed 240J9q S92 AIBS PIA a201 pue paso 2sp pey suedsaed yw Agewiwuing 78 Japusyo sip yam gua JOU SEM WIA aYp J ‘J@PUBYO ay 02 paIe a4 SEM UID A YD J ‘pe.4N220 peY UO IeIBUAd y 73D A dip jo ae aip ya M paseas2u aunso3sq pry OYM sa EW INpE EgE “po sed BU 2 JO 94NI ND pur “a gE EAE SBD AsOS jo pe ‘AV enxas yo ogra ‘Zu aqe P4OM B05 Byp 02 UO IR BI U SUB 4ueG DOmM—|U B2I0S a Bey pue ‘Zu a2 jo Wedw ap jo ssauaseme ‘s> weUdp demod ‘A wey aya u uo aUNysép pue a2U9 O A—SJBYIO 0} UO IR BU SUB 4G tasnge jo aw 3 7e Juawdo anep sumeWwU pur 4 aseu0 yaI0Id 0} ss URYDOWW ‘Su we q WDA pez BusaIU-U Ip Mw Woy $42 4JEg :24NSO ISP WSD 03 sua 4ueG SE P9jIUEP 919M Se 4OBaIEI PEO’ aBIYZ SD 2 EWA} pur dew /g Qsuno> ay ayp InoYygsnosp ysuans jo aounos Asewi ud e se Aa enaads peyquep sueddaqed y) ww “asuno> 3 BY] 42AO pay Uap sainso Isp pass ws p pure paj3s jo usaneY ‘paso rsp Aaya y suaquiew A wey Aq uo ang nes jo sea} pure ‘oweu sA wry ayy ys usa 07 8u qUeEM 20U * RAOWAY pur UMOPEIIG A wiry jo seay 2549 4ueg “aso 2s p 03 aZen3ue aaey 2,up p Aaip os ‘xas INOGE WaYp 0} Pay B2 JOA BUO ON "6 PUR § sage aya uvemiaq A ae sem Jasuo WSD S@JNSO 2S P JO 40378] IE} ESE UBDS SEM BPW BIOS ‘PaIOU BJ9M SUID A pue ‘Aa enxas ‘sa ew jo 8u dijoasas @Aze8au Se yoNs sanss eNIKEIU02 quEoduy "81nso 2s p UO B pau jo SULIOJ SNO JEA JO PE ayy YI M Buo e asnso Is p ©} JOIA OW E SE P|I> SEM UO IE OS 8u yea2g 2210; 02 Bu An ya M aiNso 2s p pace ap 03 paing .nuo sadAjoaa1s BA WeZaQ “se.uNsO 2s p pade ap Jay 02 8u ang .nuo> sadAoasa7s aA IeZaU LM “asnge 4 ap as0 2s p Od pooynpe awn par em Apnas ay2 uu ua aya jo Aa sofew ayy s8u pug | uvemaeq page p y> Basu e8e asuayo enxes B JO pa2> AUOD UDvaq ABarens 8u dures aa soding (6% = W) sueak 69 02 6] Woy sazues aBy (2 ew se XH PUR 2 BUND) SE pay Uap %9Z) SOA AuNs 2 Npe Aarens Bu eqmous ‘aa soding "WSD © weyenu parue adxe oym £9 PUE Op UaaMIEq 3) -PwU UaWOM urd JOU UE? yy /] pasn sem Adaaens 8u dures aa soding “Lp o8e adesane L992 6] WO ae u pagues uaw /| adwes JO $4029 paid au wexe 03 pamea AlaaU BuaM Su@PUayO enxas p y> 2 ew a Npy ‘wn Bu sn u3 sap aazea end 3u ma Asaau aA7E ENO *s sk Bue puke U0 232 OD exep 405 (pueogdsors) UO 7 PE BA IRIeU 3u sn up M Us sap Apnas ase? 94329 OD “sash Eur pue uo 22 0D exep pap n3 (Win) Popa, M2 ANI] Buo7 ey “S404 puns WSD 2 BW Ma AJaIU 03 pasn AZo opoypaw ®> 20 OusWOUEYY us sag S@unso Is Pp WSD BIED IEP IEYI S4OIIEy ayp pared isaau sea relqo Apms "SJOA AINS 2 NPE WSD jo adwes & wo. sua 22 80 022 ue Y8nouyd saunso 3s Pp WSD quaaasd Wey? s10IIey jo 8uddew e ap aod of asuno> a aya ssou2e paso 2s p Aaya MOY PUR WSD aM sa2ue Jedxe 2 ewe J dup JO axeW UBWIOM UPD Jay LED VW Bu uraw ayp aso dxa oy WSD JO SULIDA 2 BW 40y sassaz0ud aunso 3s p a0 dxa oy asoding (s10z) Ad HOA, pure 249 397 (s10z) BU PY pure ‘yaw ey “uuo ges ‘UZBA-U OD ($107) 4or azeag (9107) euzaA -U OD pur 4a uzes Apmas "9107-0007 #59 Prag e1nso 25g (SD) ASNqy ENxes P YD "| PIGEL 262 EFTA00024178

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuoa) @4NSO 2s Pp 0} S49 14eq JO vas anb un e& quasesd 34d w y> ym A830 9 Aq sem parioda. asnge jo A solew ayy ‘pauses p 30u auam AV 2 Ula JO a2e4 UO paseq sa2UaJay Pp ainso Is p “(% EG) $9240U W B2e4 JO asEQUAQIed MO OU JO SWZa7U pall SEM a dws ayy asnedag ‘8.nso 2s p WSD 02 sua Jueq yo suo ydadued (SJOA AJNS @ BWI NPR UO sNI04 22 dxe ue yam pazd eue uaaq |ARY O2 JS EIEp BAIED eNb ysaZue aya sem s yp “Apmis aya jo aWIa ay wiaasds A wey aup u ya ™ pue Aadwoud paso 2s p aq oy Aay ssa sasnqe e weyesu Yi M “@unso 2s p jo qua d 2a pue 2u wa yiog uo wedus qued juss B sey sorenediad aip ya Mm d ysuo qe ay BY UO IEIBP SUD? JO} SBWAYD @unso 2s p puemsoy Bu Bu aq yo d AsoqeJ0 dxa quewodw Ue Se SaAJaS pur a4] U Apnas 9253. NwW age & 03 Ing nUOD mang ews s azs a dwes ayy "UO IEIUG JO ENxEs pur ‘asnge enxes se adua 4adxe ayy Zu vas ‘suo 0wa EWJaIU ; eUOsJad (¢) pue tsasuodsa jsed ‘sanss uo 3eI0Id pue Arayes ,'Ae8,, pa aqe Bu aq jo aeay ‘suaypo jo 3sn.ns wi : euosuadsaau (Z) !se2snosa4 paaw ‘Alu nosew :e22 odo 30s (1) :su ewop easy oI pay sse> 218m $49 4ueq JO S29 10Z9I22 Ua] Yasuo WSD jo a8e adesaae sem po surat uy “sueadk ¢ URID BOW HE"pE pue ‘saead ¢ O39 syuOW 9 KETE ‘Sipuow g ueYa ssa AT OE sow UMOP 940g asNge eNxas jo uo IeING -@ ew sayioue Aq pasnge A enxas 24am (%9°p6) Sued 2 Wed yo 43 sOfeW aseA, saved 40 JOYIOW J BYp 02 UBYO Iso ‘Jaye skep Ada} B SIDE} BYI PIAS! SLID A BLD JO YO Aya nb pue A snoauequods asow azed aE} SauNsO Isp e weyeNxe ‘AseUOD auf UO *( COYDs Ie BUOP SeiNsO Is p aYI JO %9°BZ) A wey aLp OP sino s ENP A pu 02 usyO IsOW pure ‘Jaye suead BuBARS S23Bj BYI BAT’ SUID A AYA JO KROQ wovenedied e weyenu Aq pan wwos @SNGE ENXaS paUJa2U0I 7 UBYM x@ dwo? OW 949M sassa20ud asnso 2s G pajuap ose aaMm a2uen ju J9ed pure ‘awe q-) asjaweys “para aq Zu aq jo saways euo2 pp } a5 404 sueay (¢) pue * a2 02 Aa unisoddo (7) “passa.as p 3u aaj (|) :ssa201d ainso 2s p ap Bu Quan ju se pajyauap ayam sawey3 sole aa4y1 3544 (KEE) Sve pur (Ep) su@yIOW 4 ap por uasp yp jo Ar 4OleLy 224A yam squepuodsas jo A soley vasnge pare a4-AZua > pariodas squapuodse.s JO Spa OM “sueak pQ-g] jo edues ady “suo 7ez uezuo (SOA AUNS wo. pai niray *kaaans paseq -yeW9IU ‘snowAUOUE ue paia dwio> sa 401s y VSD PM Ua OOF Jaquiaw A wiry e Aq pasnge BIOM KT Bb PUE *(a8ues a8e qua eAaid sow) g] PUE ] usemaeg pase %8"1h ‘SWIIDA 9 RWIY KT BL Sud A JOU W OZTZ age yo sueak 81-7] 24am passasse sw 32, ‘Apmas ap JO} PAMA AVIA 4S.P YD 4942 BABY 03 JUBSUOD 0} payse QUaM sIUaIEg “yuomaueyy Zu por BuO paseg (so ew Z pure sa ewiay 7g) 59 } 6 UO pare dwo> sem s SA Bue 2UaIUO7 $49 4JEG 91NSO 2s p uo wai papues-uado Ur YM $2 4035 Y WSD periods as ym ueWw papn su yey ‘Aaauns Bu ag- AAA PUE Up ea}y 0107 243 “wep Aavuns au uo jo sskeue Asepuoras & paa2npuod suayrueasay ‘s sA Ue quaquo? aA 7e7 ENb Zusp Pama Aad auam wi dsoy swap yo eu aun @SNgE ENxas p YP = U JUaWISSassE 40} UBES uaap yo jo sodas a 4 pama Aas auam we dsoy s\uaup yo eu aun asnge enxas p ye U JWOWSSaSsE JO} UdAS uaap yp jo sodas a 4 SOA AJNS 2 BW Up M B4NsO 2s p WSD 93 Sua 44eq jo UO IED j Uap uo sem sno} Apmis aunso 2s p SD yedw ‘e weyenxe Joe weyenu aue suo 78 a4 asaya JaYyIByM A edadsa wad a ay pure sovenedied aya uaemieq d ysuo 28 a4 aip Moy a0 dxa (r10z) 5 MA pue “uewiz3 es “UOIseZ (F107) You es-Aoy pur ‘nyog "= A oi pewe dpms sy, “A wypsuassapy UuoWNG SdUNSO 25 p UO EIEp Ba qUEISgns ap Acid sodas asaya y ssasse O] ‘aunso 2s p WSD PUOJU JO saduNOs ERE Se sUaWIssassE P pBusnjoh qseay ap ared asvau OL (s10z) auey nD pue Asura 3214 suo 2UBAJIU 7S9.UE 4 9y2 B10j9q "94 BuO Isanb WsOjU O32 UO FeWO}U aso2sp or A ay ssa auam spunoisy2eq paso duwaun 3 ey aid ap queqoduw aq p nod aunso 2s p o2 BuO 3UNysAp WO4y SUID A pur sow B ‘payeanpoun uo pase sma AsaqU uoweasu swaaAjo 4 qesauna SW2D A 2 EY “@sUayo atp Bu uNp pars say “82 UAA 24am 4 soley peunionas was UO ss@pUaYyO yO saa wedsu9g WDA dp} JO “asnge atp jo aw 2 ay “po surat | pue "B4NSO ISP WIA Agewwins s3u pug a dwes ud seg asoding Apnas (panu quod) "| aqeL 263 EFTA00024179

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuo>) St OS sjuaued 0} 950 Is p O} BIUEIIN ay wo.y Nod 3 N.IDaI 2 ydeugowapo 20s P P OYM ‘paso 2s p 4ayiI0 U pues UOWWOD B punDy paviodas sued 2 ueg ‘wased & o7 asnge 03 pasn auam suady ‘uoweM s Auew MOH “WSD uvaq sey ssaad 03 aunso 2s q Bip paso Is p saAau pey squed > qed pue sjuowesqeape = A_ wey UO pasos u Wipe paoue uadxa pey oym “squased 03 81nso 2s p aseai2U 03 shkem quewodw ysow ay yo BuO aq Aew sd ysuo 78 a4 p y>—auased 3u uaypBua.ng ‘Aeme 248 4 aso 2s p JOU pp a dwes atp jo spay OML PUE BJ] JO TXBIUGD aya U pe dues agues age ayy 03 apew aq Auo ued s8u pus jo Ay qesaysuesy JO Ps yp auo ueIp BuO “suvad 07 249M aNso Is p pade ap pure aze paw yiog jo squa d 3a, ‘sese> ysow uj “Uosued 4ByPOUE 02 WSD paso 2s p A a7e paw squed 3 21d jo p4 ip auO URYa Sse7 Bu pod exe pure uado y8nouip pado aaap asam 2etp s2 408aIe> UaAa a WO.4 P2A Jap sam asayy ‘d ysuo Ie ay paasny & yO Ix9IUOD AYU suNI320 wayO Y> YM jas) Bu pyuor aip (¢) au uC ‘sueak B/S] ra8ues ad ‘shog ¢ pue $43 ¢7 "squadse ope paz waa d enxes 97 jo a dwes a2ua uaauo> SULIOY {nog painpua owe pure ‘ySD & WeyEIKe aWos “YSD 249M SauNseaW pur suo ysanb paz puepueis "sma AJaqU BA Ie} ENb 928j-07-998} Y8noIY SEM U0 229 OF EG uo ye ndod ejaues al) WO. sj}UaIS—a Ope 4am aunso 2s p WSD jo ssavoud ayy a1eZ aseau OL “Pama A1sIU BBM squaseg "sa2ua 1adxo va dws sip u paumdes 20u pure audas ay) davy Oo Ys M ay puE a9 e weyenu 8u anpue sad usury aunso 2s Pp YSD Quam sa npe Zunod pur uasp y> 2 Ys M aY3 UVEMIAG 39 jUOD B BU IDa yas awos jo a dwes WwW 1eqJ9A UO Jaip jo 92 uaup y> BunoX Aus, ‘papo> A quapuedeapu ,J2aYe 499009 aunssaid,, e jo a2ua 4adxe pax W 'g] pue gjo sede paa2npuo? sem 8u po moy jo Asoain do anap SEM Sid J9SUEI] paqde as tp (Z) ‘p yp aup yo wed atp uo qa4Des5 2p useMIeq FIOI U exe pue uado au 07 SEM BA DAIGO A wopues jo 9 dwesqns yw uod4 ay jo Zu p oyy Mm aA IDE aya (|) Jase pama Asaau ZZ ‘saeed ~kq-au 7 “paa2npuo> ai 22 UBIp YD SS9U YUOMISN.D JO BAB Ys EY “Aanbu aie enb Auoqe10 dxa ue 40) 2 dues qua 2 ns Ing isapoy) SN20} aSINOI-ay BUS s seYdwa UE YM @peW |ue SUC JePUBLWOIII Bu > uUeVOdUWy ‘uo ae Ndod uapp y Aqueu wopaid & 07 ssa22e pau e8 Adazens gu dwes ayp “wenamop “sdnow8 euna n> u eLIa> ageu Wa pom yD YM Ys Bug u dua 2 youd pas nbay pue sdnoid SaS 49M0 U UW pazeU Ww 2 aArY P NOM Y> YM J@WIBIU] OF SsBD9e aaey 02 papaau squed 2 UeYy aya Bu u eIUOD JO aUO se BuNsO Is P WSD JO sseroid aip saz emdazu0> yep pado aaap sem apow ep i8J00Kp W SJOA AUNS 9 BW 405 sy#JOMIAU BU pUedxa jo aourodw aya pue sesuodsas nyd ayun jo vedw 8u purssapun ‘paidope aq aAIDadsiad asinoD-a} yO BI0W Paepn du suo puawWWOIe! EU > “sSO.NS Pp EIUAW IsOW pasne? sasuodses nyd ayun ‘yaAaMo} ~ BUO ssajoid YB Fay FIUaW B YM SEM UO SSNs p nyd ay WOW 4 ay JUD paTodas squed 3 wed JO %Tb (%0Z) BuO ssajosd ip Ray FIUaW B 40 (%/7) 4eUasedsesnods & On asnqe eNxas ay) INOGE p O3 assy sqUEd 2 Wed ay jo 5 PY aU A aTeEW xouddy *(saead QZ 42A0) BUI JO spo sad que> juss auam Bu sau skeag pax w sem ueds ay ay ssos2e sasuodsay jo ssau nyd ay atp pure sasuodsas aa aI01d 81-8 :23ues age ‘skog g pure $43 9] !adoad Bunok 77 yo a dwies sueak £01 SEM SD JO 2BSU0 JO} ade uRaLY “sueadk pQ-g| :e8ues aay ‘uew Suowe BYBM SMA AJOIU] “Apms poyaw Asoaup papunoss pepn 2u auam suoddns pur ainso 2s p ySD 07 pare a4 suo IsANH “Sp2aN ENP A pul joqPUWssessy EauaS pure 2 8295 ssazis G YP ea}Yy PUB, BuBUAD :Pasn saunseapy ‘O10T 3u4np Aaains paseq WAI ‘snowAUOUe Op MOH,, uo sanb Ypseases BUA? ayp parse Apmas aA 7e) ENO yp ay Buew s,uew pue 593Nq Je BuNsO Is p uaemieq sd ysuo 2k a4 au0 dxa 03 ‘os y ‘ade UO paseg sa2ualay p “day pea a2, puke paso 2s p 40 av uoddns A euo JOWP aA 8204 WSD JO SSOUBIEME ue pais dwo> 2u u wexe yreoudde Apeai & pey oym saued 2 wed 20U Pp pooyp y>? Su snp auoawios 3u s e402 paioaap pure pauve.os ueds 9) & Zusn ae n> qed paeme evry Aew Po oy sjued 3 2ed ysoLy “aunso Is Pp suo 78Z URZIO BU EU auam squed 3 ed sessa20id aunso 2s p suo 38z UeZIO Bus By ssouaFEME u ske ap 02 pare a4 YI0q avaM Jaquiow aouyp WO UaW /Bp aq 3 ulsap WSD 2 PW aq 4Dsep wo. uaw jo Zu dues aa soding A wey e Aq pasnge 2u aq pur age sap O yo Bu dures aa sodung Agains BuO 29S-SSOID 07 sem asodind Apnas (Z10Z) 3 opuey pue ‘aapAuyrs ‘ony|-412 YOR “42 BLY “@YNquOYrS (107) ueBoH pure ‘auaais ‘AaueA 22>) (€1 07) Yoaseg EFTA00024180 Avewuing sBupuy adwes u3 saq asoding Apmas (panu quo>) "| aqey 3

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuo2) @4NSO IS P SD uO sBu puy Apmas sayio Bu qsoddns s8u pus pe map paonpod s sf eue Pe BVQ “sma AJaIU jo JaquuNU ague © uO paseg aJam IEG “WSD JO S2uNsO 2s p |e) Ej UED SM AIBIU BAIS ISBAU PULO} f ssasse 03 An 03 Apms aA 7EAOUU UW sBupuyjo 4 qesajysuen 4oy ssh Bue pa eap ya mM Apmis pau’ sap- aja “Arnbu aaj) enb B 40} 8Z 5 a dwes Ua > yNs ING ysapop] ees a jo a2uRUOdW aya say2 yz y os e Inq aunso 2s p JO apow ($007) 5,2 Bey qoddns su puy asayy ‘poo npe UN Gunso Is Pp 9A ID9 aS ® ayew JOU pp squed 3 wed qsOLy ‘2 duses aA 3) eNb sip (pua 4 B SEM JO3e.RadIad aya 3ysNOYI pP YP ay *Be) sovenadied ayp ip m d ysuo ye a4 (¢) pue ‘(2 qeadazzeun se so aeyaq 9A snge az usO2a1 02 pa EP yp aip “Ba) 2u pueissapun jo 92e (p) ‘(paauesed 4@AaU as0 3s p 07 AA umuoddo 2yp 295 Pp YD ap “S'a) Aa uMuoddo jo ype (¢) ‘(Pp 02 ay 40 ays 5 Uaddey p nom peq Zu yawos p eye sem p yp? aip “Za) saeay (Z) (p03 ay 40 Ys} BqnownU 323 POM ay JO ays p Or sem Pp YD? aip “Za) sorenadsad ayp Aq apew sieastp (|) sdnoi3 8AjOIU «ay payiuep aunso2sp 02 ssa eq ayy “(passaua Mm sem asnge S.P y? ap “8'a) asnge yo a2uap Aa a4 p 02 anp ainso ds p (¢) pue :(pauo ysanb SEM P YD aIp “B'a) saouan ju ap sano Aq parey 2k) aunso 2s p (2) (seseunyg u pey p y> arp “B'a) Nuys eUJaIU JO 2NSad eB SE aINSO 2s P (}) :su ewop va.p OU paysse> auaMm 3u 92 JO} payaUep Uap YD aI suOsEaY ssaz0id 8u0 ay pure xa dwiod & se pama A pue paz enidazu0> 2q PNoYs aunso Is p WSD IeyD paioddns s sk eue 2 3eWeY] ‘se 4OdaIeD Se aunso2s p nyasodind pue a 03 sidwazze 39a4 pu eso AeYaq Bu Ay BA yuomaueyy (p07) 5,2 88e y Bu sn uodn papuedxe s9ypiny sem a npe ue se puep yresesu ay ‘sawayiqns y8nouyr Pe Pap sayUNy ae ssoIdEy aSOy "94NSO IS P O2 SJOIG YU URW ay] BIOM WE G-j 9S Pur “aUWEYs ‘IEAYy "Uap YD se sazue sedxa enxas A sea 4 aip inoge UR SEINED BBM HIS PUR 9 PLD) QIOM Kp/ ‘Du 2 asnge enxas P yp ee pama Asaqu 2yaM OYM UdIP YD Quem squed > ey "ys 8uq axyods oy asoua pure * a3 o2 Su2eM Jo Bu a2 4Oy suoseas * B14aya4 03 40 1d SD inoge quawiarers & pew OYM Uap Yy> papn ru B 493 49 UO SN IU] ‘Apnas aya 40y pasn auam po jad seak-| & 4BAO B|—£ pave sud A WSD JO SMA AIAIU 16] 'B| Jo a8e aya 4BAO BUODBWOS YIM dapun Jo saevad ¢] 38 pasnge A enxas asam squed 2 Weg “ua 6 pur uawiom g| seek Of SZ page squed > ed ZZ JO pars suod a dues ‘pado dwa s sf Bue jo poupaw Asoawp papuno. 3u sn pazd eure pue ‘pag .2SUen ‘par2enxe sem Bua eM Jo Bu a 4Oj SUOSPaJ 5,UaIP YD 2yp 03 pare as UBIO? Ma AJBIU] -op0i0ud Ma AJaqU 2 suasoy 8u ds xo ue ow .3u a, ynoge suo ysanb ayesodiozu 02 payse BUM SJOM2 AJOIU 2 SUBIOY “SMO AJOIU 2 SUBIOJ JO 3XBIUOD aya u payauep 2q PNod aunso 2s p jo sanss ssaz0id J 30 puy 07 ay3nos Apmig ‘poipaw (p00) 5, EyUasoy Jays 4 pur EIpUasoY Bu sn pazd eue auam weg ‘squed 3 qed iM pemnpugd 249M SMP AJOIU wndap-u aoe -o1-a2e4 “ASo opoipaw @unso 2s p SD Ae ap 03 ways Pasne? Jo 3NOge 9302 wep pe yeya Aj uap Wasp yp aeYa s0IDFy aq 2sap (£) puE: 22.02 way) pe dep ssav0ud ssnosp M UaIp YD J 9u uuarap (7) !@4nsO 25 Pp WSD $.P 4? B yO ssar0id ayy inoge Aanbu 2391 p ppe (1102) seusy (]) :02 powe Apmis syy = puke * etnUaAdT ‘ayaeyDS 59NSO 25 p WSD jo 8u pueisuepun 49 my e do aaap U YOWWO? SEM ainsodsp pedeag esuodueporsjueda2uedzzjyoinogAhuQ = sem Bu dues aa sodung Ainbu aareuenxy o1sem Apms sip jowy (1107) 423uny SQUEP JUOD 2 ge a4 QI0W se a dws pasn 5 up Aq pama A auam Saag “sainso 2s p SEM 34 BUUO ISENOH pede ap 02 pare a4 asam aweYs pur uo WZ WIDA 2 3 parsoday yo s ana says py “sayaTO3 @ uaanf aip jo Bua 249M OYM squased pur “asuo @Npop inessy enxas asnge 3e WI3DA jo a8e ‘WS> a2ua4INI20 "ya Bay BIUAW pUe Bu so 2s p 40} sanzow uo Wu WeXxe a8us‘ysD & Wwreyenxe o7 pare a4 BOM 592 sas 8u asuno> * euaua’ ‘uo 38Z WIDA 4 ay) Quam TeYM JOU Sseaq PUe yDJeASes S9NSO 25 p Ja JEW Way) UapsNg O3 JOU pue AV unwwo> enxas ‘HEP pure ‘o3 aso 2s p Aaya AseWUWng s8u pug a dues us sag asoding Apmis (panu auo>) “| aqey 265 EFTA00024181

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuor) 2u >| & 2OU !suaLPO 03 asNgE aip EUs O3 (26007) "w Oys ey pue ‘Anny * auuop2) ‘wa1ueg ‘seuq, Awe ws pajauap aary 3eIp se pnis 03 oddns pus s8upuy *ssav0id 8u o3uo 9a 2DeaIU UR Ss aanso 2s p zeya sayZ y8 y Apmis s yy UO FULIOJU |INSO Is P WSD jo Base pays sarod UE O03 SPpE BYBAC “sZu puy jo A qesajysuen apn s01d Aew squno23e wOpIaUly ” EB JaTeW eu 242M SBu pus aumesaa jo uo 7eU quod anb up “Bu Ma AJaaU @unso 35 p eNIxXBIU0> A eam n> 03 a%pa moux SPPE IEYI SY4OM MAJ BYA JO BUD sanss e204 Aq parsaye aq p nod ey yseoudde 9A 2Dads0.na4 y ~pooyp YP? Su anp skem 94 pu u auNso 2s p jO WO} aWOs pardwane PeY Jap PwWas BY] ~ Eas iam Andy p pey Aayp pure sueak coypseid U passn220 pey asnge suo Aeyaq 3u wisey-; as Bu sn ssa Zazeas aunso 3s p aay Ao dwa asnge 03 S9SSOLR M JO pasnge uvaq BAY OYM YANO, suo 2Buap suod BAM n> Bu yeWZaqU yOMaUE Ma AJ|IU A suayasdwio? & Quasaig ‘sdnous 4 40U Wi 8 qea> OU WO.y ave Uap YD yp yu saseau A429 Os 20U pur ‘aso 2s p 03 payse 3u aq 40 3u so 2s p Bu sap suod Que Wasp YO Y>YMU sase> EU sony queqoduw ue se spueis ani n> (¢) pue *51039%j J@pues pue a¥e uo Wesap suod 03U 3482 Os E p Noys Bu UO asanb (Z) 9x91U02 BUN] ND s.p YP ap 02 palo B 2q p noys Bu ma asaqu ainso ds p (|) @PN2U apeW suo IePUaWOIay ~ EIEP indap-u u payquap ase asnso 2s p ys Bu yaye ssox3Fy EUNIINs pue eum ND suaso 2s p ae30 A nyasodund 07 adwane Zu dues ayp jo asnezeq sa pnas 4aipo u pazodas uey sayz y s a4nso 2s p nyasoding ‘suo EAL s,juased Zu duen ju sepnaye eum nd pur ‘se ew 40} UO IZ BIOS JapUed ‘sp 4 se paeayuN Bu 9a) ‘sopm ne ea 30s pue sazessow B paw ‘sapnz ae e905 pue en] ND (p) pure tuo aeyaq 8u qno.n 8u nsand JOU Ssay>ea2 pur SuOgYZ au WO.y Ises9IU Jo 9p “Ss IEP IxaqUED Aa UNWUWOD pue pooysoqy? au (¢) !uo 18 os 2205 PUE ‘UO IED UNWWOD eUO IDUNyskp *a2ua OA 2 3SBWOP ‘asnge Pp yD JO SULIOJ JOYIO “UO ssauBBe pue sORYyD ‘ssayrey Su yeu Wop Up M S204 Japuad pexy Ap 84 se yons s2 a5 saasesey> YANOA au|ayM sULIO} uo 7eN RAB 1 Z9"] JO adwes euo yeu & Woy S2.NseJ jo Uo IU WeXy Bua ase> DUDYM pave nZue a sem 3ey3 3.1N] ND PUB 34NSO Is P uo aunqesaa pays qnd uo quaAaud asnge u uo zed 3 qed Bu mo 9} yanod Aq para dwio> asam sui0g 3u uo asanb aunso 2s p WSD 49} HOMIES quaiedwo> A eum n> ® ap Aoud 03 s sd Bue Ue paz2Npuod 22 we Sip ‘aep BuspM uo Bu snz0q yaNod Jo adwes euo jeu eM s@ Bayes aunso 2s p paso dxa Apnas s yp A euo yeusaqu pure saieig pa up) aya u wpog ‘Bu yodas pure aunso 2s p ySD jo sassazoud sqaye aun n> skem ay paso dxe ainso 2s p JO pars suo? BIeQ =auMeIaa pays qnd8us~, sD jo uO TEU WeXA SYyL spunoizy42eq > wWioU0220 205 assaA g "32 YAA-UOU SEM 2 dures aya jo %9F ‘PO sueak £°¢ SEM ASU asnge jo age azeiany “sueak | Op JO ade uraw EB YIM S9-g| JO aduEy “sua #2 80.030 = 205 F YZnosp auOp sem ssh vue > eWay] “sa2ua jadxe asap jo 3u yew-3u ueaw PUR NSO Is P SD jo “saunso 2s P WSD aiowoid 10 apadw saouan ju enyxaqU0D pure * eUaWUOI AUD (0102) JaWUN g PUR saIU04 EFTA00024182 aya so ‘Aiowaw aya passaidas A wey Aq paaq yu aunso 2s p aly "UaWOM % 9 pue squnoore aa Wadso.2 * euosyadsaqu pey Aaya asnedaq paso 2s p (Z) ‘pane aq Bu aq 10u Zu red > que UdW %OE :pama AsaqU ap aoid 03 ‘enp Apu 2OU pey %9Z :pooYp YP Bu unp pure’ 93024 ge 4aip uo gu seaq awos B4BM SD JO SJOA ANS sa2ue adxe aunso 2s p WEYAA :uO ysanb @SNge BY) paso Is p prey YTp pey ose se AQ euosiad ‘Bu uaddey I NPE Op “SIOA AuNS 4 BUI INOGE SOA AUNsS ypurasay Bu YrsEIaAO ‘920U JO ‘seDueN ju paie2R 3 NW Sem WY papuayaidwios Aayp 2 BW BJOW 2 NDI 03 WSD 2 Npe Ma AsaIU OF "SBUNSO IS P WSD aya Zu ayZ YZ y aunso 2s p JayIaYyM 07 se ssoIEy eWUaWIdO BAP pasn ose sem 3u dues Pasn sem ‘Pl] ‘us sap Bu owoud Jo 8u padw WSD 01 ssAeue 22 $0 039— e205 ‘suo22ey EUaWUdO aAaP pue eNpApU eqmous ‘pedo dwa 22 80 ouswouayd suoisey Aj Uap 9a suayasduio> & quaseud Apis ayy ({) su ewop ano) onu ayseweyy sem Bu dwes aa soding ear enby 07 paw e Apms ayy (0107) & ey Ageing s8u puy adwes ua sag asoding Apms (panu wos) *] a1qeL 3

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunues) aA 7eaI2 s yreoudde puke peoig s Apmis ap yo adorg dn payad uaaq aaey 30u Ae sazualay p buo Say ‘paseg Aaains ase BIE BYI JO ISOW SNEIAq JaYO UED 2 suo ad JDsap atp jo ssauy> tp aya U paw IeYyMaWOs ase s} Nses Apmas ay “EIeP BUS IAJaSGO puke ‘sma auaau “sdnoud snz0j yInod yO 95N UsNo4Wp paunsua s sd EUR BIep Alp JO ss|u yJOMASND Ip 408 4 jo aaa YZ py ‘se2ua sadxe a.unso 2s p jo suo adazuad s,a doad Bunod ogu ays su sap oud Apmas s yp jo us sap a 2eAOUUy S4OA AINS WSD 92 paaw IOU—squed 3 qed Quam aunsodxe sua 0A PUE asNge JO SUIuO} JaIaY p pasue sadxe oym wanok jo a dwes pax ws yi (So0z) epaeD 03 a doad jo uo jaw apew %7z AUO “pazd PUE asaM SIUBWAIEIS BNsO Is P Ya M SUO TEN RAB 660'] 2 YAA,,) 02 BsNgE 2ip paso 2s p pey Aaip oym pa 5 2eds s@ PWay puk s@ EW yO UO IIOd e Auo ‘PASO 2s P PRY OYM aSOU JO “eSNE oIp paso 2s p pey Aaya 2ey) pare pu sa ewuay 08] PUE sd eW Fp ‘asOLp jo INO ‘pasnge uvaq pey Aaup 7eyi pared pu sa eWay g// pure sa ew ¢7z ‘syued > ed 660°} &j03NO “spud 4y Bu sooy> JaMay YIM “s1uNOD/a2 Od @up pure “s BuO ssajoud *A wey/squased oO] asnge eNxas asoIsp or Aay IsOW Quam squed > Wey ‘syayI0 pur ‘sqUuaed ‘spud aj PABMOI P9220 P Bam ‘YDeD quarsed %F ISEB YP pur s BUC ssajoud PJEMO? PaI22/ Pp 249M SaiNsO 2s p JO Ps yp BUG "92 Od Alp JO s EUO ssayoud 01 950 25p 03 4a sow Buaq saquiow A wey e Aq pasnge asoip pue ‘asnge B29 sdyd yo sua A ‘S]—p| page ynod ‘shog yam Auea susaned aunso 2s G "asnge 4 ay) 3noge p O7 Aap s eNp Apu 2y2eds payquap susuoy Uo JEN BAD 4 2y2 UO asnge paso 2s p Oym YNod 660°! 249 JO #hZ “B4Nso ds p e Bu iOdas wpnod jo saauenb auo ueya ssa YM ‘asnge uapp Y jo sazes Ys y is@sns sBu pu y paso rsp saew ssa Aquesjuss tpaso 2s p A sno aaud sa eway yo ssazuenb -Bd1Up INOgy *s4aA Based pue ‘sioweINpa ‘suved i M suo WEA s,adoad Bunod Aq padeys aue sa2ua sadxa asnge Su seys A muaWiasdU JO sUaNeY "24NSO 2s p 03 sa2uanbasuo? 8u peas suo Tepadxe tp M 'ssa203d BA IDRIaIU ue S aunso 2s p sans 33 Nsoy *(22 Od pue suaxJ0M 305) sup Aoud 92 Aas payepuew Woy d ay Zu yas pure ‘syuoddns anpe ewuojyu wo. £007 PYF O00Z uaamjaq Pasar ap 8u wwesZoid uo quanaid a2ua OA Gpredsey ssoid pay 3u mo oy para duo SULJOJ UO FEN EAP G60'I yo adwes nyasoding (%Z) uMouyun pur "(%p) 49p o pur gy] “(%S7) LI-91 “(%2E) SI 1 “(%27) 22pun pur S8DINOS BIEP SSO1IE sawp az seupuds 03 s sd eure 40} pado aaap SEM aunqonsas 2u poo yw ‘sfu pu jO uo WIe@sdyaIw ay u syovey 2ey wesZoud pue innok a8e8ua pur sanss enyx8IU0> puryssapun 03 auop os 8 ayam sdnoud SNIO} PUE SMa AJBIU uaaas-AQUaM | ‘asnge enxas pue “eo skyd * euo OWE ‘2199 Bau yo ued 2 qed yanod Aq saunso 2s p asnge snowAuour jo SUHOS “EOOT PUE 000T udaMaag PIaA Vp Bu wwesoid uo WaAaid BDUaOA QazPedsay sso1> pay Bu mo 0} pare dwio> SUIJO} UO IN RAD 660'| jo s sd eue BAI END ‘sa dwes 9A TeWUasesdasuOU Ey) M U8 sap Aso3es0 dxq 2) pM op 03 208 BAO SIEYAA (Z) PUE 2 ney ANA 30u 5,3] (|) rswreadoid uo quaaesd 22U9 0 A OM] WO.y pazd ue 379M SUJO} uo yen eq “sdu puy ay) 8z eMxaIU02 day 03 pasn auaMm sdoysiom aip jO SUO IRAJBSGO pure sdnoiZ snz0} Jo sa ues y sa2ue sedxe asnge JO BUNSO 2S Pp pueMor sapna ne wanod pue asnge jo sa2ue uedxa pajyauap Asno avid 20U ]UBUINZOp O07 SEM Apnas ayi jo s e083 ay jo 2UO “Bu wwesZo1d uo quaaad au 0 AU pared > ued oy yanod ue peues yoadwes euojeu pM sa gaaens @unso 3s p asnqe paso dx Apms sy ia Aaya op oy, (S) pue jsusaned ainso 2s p sa doad Zunod ase EU (F) {22%} YINOA OP S4@ 4ueq B1NSO 2s p WUAA (£) {s92U2 sedxe asnge 4 ayn ssaudxe 02 WANA UO BARY sweszo1d uo quaaaid asnge u wowed > ed svop a3edw eYAA (Z) ZyINEA (96007) Ww OW BY pur ‘Yaqeg * guuopry ‘Anny ‘vesup, -UOS BA) puke 4a BIS pue (pO0z) day 2u yeas ‘sued wo. day Bu yeas £| ‘sede sauapuodsay *(qqmedsey) ue peue> Zuowe asnge 2 88e y Aq pa Bap asoyy se yons tssaypo Aq suo quaasaqu aA snuqU “sa2ua sadxe asnge SSOJD poy ue peUeD JO $922 Jadxe uapp Yy BUNSO IS P JO S APOW 9A IDEVAIU quaaaad 03 asnge aya Inoge FIe paso 2s p A snowAuoue ayp Ag 8u wueiZoud au ase TeYAA (1) Asewiwing s8u pug a dues u3 sag asoding Apnas (panuauos) "| aqeL 267 EFTA00024183

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuo) BJOW 3iNSO 25 p O} S42 IEG Bu Ajquap 03 pasods paid uvagq aaey Aew Aaya ‘pooyp y> U paso 2s p 20u pey a dwes aya u ua jo Ay Jolew sea ay adu S suo ysanb ay © poorssapun aay 30u Aew squed > wed ano pur 'sq0das-4 as uo. paseq sa pmis an 22edso.nad Ip Mm seq 0130 4 qssod ‘paunseaw ou sem (30U 40 pade ap iam Aaip JaypayM) seinso 2s p jo 3u wi atp ‘uo aunso 2s p 8u pueZau suo isanb ay3 aia dwo> 20u pp oy sdog jo unOwe quedjus © apndu suoqe Ww Apmsg “sasse2o.d ainso 2s p jo 3u purisuapun sapeoig B pap Aosd aaey pnom Apmas ayp 07 JUBUOdWO? 2A 7} eENb y ved pasnge A enxas 2 oddns 03 Moy jnoge a2uep n¥ pue uo yWOyU 4aneg a doad 8unod an 3 03 sAeM Puy 02 8g P NOD sip jo suo7e> dw a2 39d ‘saunso 2s p asnge enxas jo squad a4 u EW auf aq 02 paseadde spue 4j a2us “parioda 20U Sem anso 2s p 0] pasde aus 2 ‘YaAaMO}y ‘waasds e8a ap pur s euo ssajoud wo. A e 2adsa *A19 20s anpe wo. uapp y Aazue s asnge enxas 3eyp parys yz y Apnas s yy (Z) (@wreys pur ‘sseu peas euo JOWe ‘@DUEP OAR BUC WUAIU ‘sSaUTIEME 9A2 UZOD jo ype “Za) euosiad (|) 2SU BWOP pare a1uaIU aa4y3 U quRadO 2q 01 Puno} 249M a4NSO Isp 03 Sua eg Paso 2s p pey OY asoy; ueLD 9 EIS Ip Fa} BIUaPY ap uO sworduids as0w periodes suaso 3s puoryy "YSD INOW MW sqUa2sa Ope OF pasedwos Jas00d se ya Fay EU|W 4 aI pas aauad ws paziodas oym squadse opy "BA WaIOIdIBAO ou pur 3u sed ssa se Quased 4 2\p par a2ued prey Jo squased y0q ip M par ‘(weiZoud 2 wapere ue *sa) wreiZoid evo 2e20a & Bu Apms asam Aaya ‘way pasnge saquiaw A wey ey aso2sp 07 Aay ssa asam shog 8A 3907011900 Aus y pure aa waiosdaao ssa pue Zu sed ssa se suased 4042 par arsed pey Aaya y 40 Weaquiew A wey e Aq asnge ‘asnge auenba.y 552 ‘uo WeNaUEd INOY? M JO LBM asNge Enxas 2EIUO? parua Jadxe pey Aaya j 95025porAay% ssa auaMS45 Bu qs BJO YaYI) ‘WaLYOW 4 aya 02 pay EI PEY skog pue $13 yog Ady ssa atp “sem asnge enxas ayy auaaas asow ayy shog 4OJ $9384 4BMO ING ‘Ss 43 404 (UO IeNAUEd INO M JO YI A asNgeE 398IU0>) @SNge BJaAVS BUOW YIM BU ssajoud & 07 84NSO 35 p Jo sazes Jays y a4aM JUDY] "$9.2 JOYINE atp O2 pazsodes prey sama} UBAB Pur ‘Ss BUC ssajoid 07 paso 2s P peYy +94 982 UMO 4 AY JO Pua yj BO] UBYO ys0w paso 2s p skog pur $45 -(shoq) %69 pue (543) %1g Sem axes auNsO Is p BYL “WSD parsoda. (%€7) shoq ZSb pur (%59) $48 sos’) ‘2 dues ain JO @4nso 2s p Su Mo Oy sa2uanbasuo> 2A 2e8au jo yNOA Suowe suo yda2sed MoYs BIEP BY] 'sa BU OF auedWIOD 02 paso 2s p Aaya OYM paj rads sa eWay QOL (,,,Pa4sN230 saunso 3s p WOYM | “UED Joy ued apy Z ‘ue seaneD || !asnge eNxas pooyp y> JO SJOA AUNS 9 EWI] JO pais suod a dwes ayy suo ysanb aunso 2s p Pasamsue OyM pur wSD pewodas oy sjued 3 ed 796'| jo 9 dwesqns e pasn Apnas s yy "sse0k ¢ |B] sem sued > Hed ayy jo a8e uraw ayy “(shog S107 pur $43 pzE'Z) uapams u siuapms ooys YB Y BEE’ JO pais suod a dwes ayy pepn ou sanb uyda2 224 buy “se2ua sadxe @4NsO 3s p 4 aLp aNOge Pama AuaaU a7aMm WSD JO SIOA AuNs 2 ELY Aaaesedas pazd eue am shog pure s 43 405 ep sy] Wwawnssuy Bu puog muaveg ay WoO SWaI STZ JO % pur 0671DS a4 Woy sUsaa pa} Pow 9 papn ru a4 Buu asanb ayy uo 7e Oo dxa enxes pue Aydeusousod ya M saaua sadxe pue ‘sapna ne ENxas “JO ABYIq @ASNge ENxas UMO “WSD JO @nso 2s p ‘(asnge seed 3u pn ou ‘asnge 8u7enaued 40 WEUOD ‘PEWOIUOU) sazua Jadxe asnge eNxes “KOS ENsUasUOD ‘punoi2y2eq anoge suo ysanb papn su 2 94 BuUO Isanb war -¢9 pare dwo2 squed 3 weg ©] (|) ssanss aauya PUrIssapun o2 WSD JO SJOA AJNS @ BU JOY safua eYy> aunso asp uo pasnr0; Apms (g007Z) Uewssoss pue ‘Zu eay-e y * Osu0s asnge BNXaS JO saDUa wedxe parodasy as yam Squa2se Ope 2 PWIAy pure a ew jo a dures BU auNso 2s puou JO $1039 paud ou Wexe pue swiazed @unso 3s p pur sazey @unso 2s p a7e8 asaAu oy pawedpms sys (g00Z) U pars pue aqa ig Agewiwins su pug a dures ua sag asodung Apmis (panuauos) “| a1qeL 3 EFTA00024184

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuos) yy s yp ym sasuodsas aa Moddnsun paiaas fas squased ay) JO spa OM “ySD e weyenu jo susaned aunso 2s p uetp say p Aew Yy> Ym WSD B WEyEIIXa UO S SN204 “UaIP YD Bunod wo.y eep aunso 2s p 4ayped 03 us sap aA IeAOUYY paionpuo> sem su pu j jo uo qeI@sdsaqU aip jo ssa0id aAzesa] pur wep ap jo 4 qepuadap aip u painrexe sem 4034 jo ana YF Hy "9 Wes as9A p & ayes 01 SIIOYD que>}uss apew ssore’ isaAuy "sanss 824 03 Walqns aue squnozze 9A Dadso.nay “A peas Asewiwing 429.5395 49ISO} 07 pasn sa ZaveNs pue ‘saaaquap savadsns ‘suo 39eas paadxe ,Sauaued ‘asnge yo Anuanba.y pue Ay saaas ‘(squared 03 paso 2s p uasp Yy> 4aBunok “3'a) save suasp y> ayy uo 3u puadap pa sea sassaz0id aunso 25 q “Aayeanaze suo eas Ady squased 4s aya paved > ue uaup yp Bu asa¥¥ns suo eI equased emze pue pai peid uvemieq uo 28 84403 Buows & sem aay (%E9) aa yuoddnsun pue (%/¢) aA as0ddns 7su0 }RBs sqUaJeY ‘sasuodses squased Jap JO paweyse so p eye Bu vay pazodas wasp yp aip jo %Og "pardwoid auam Aaya Jaye A uo paso 2s p %Eb ING ‘asnge paso Is p A snoauEquOds Uap Y>? alp jo Kg INpe saipoue 2 paso 2s p 3s} %O] Pur ‘squased 4942 02 Paso Is p 3S4y Ep ‘spua aj 40 su qs 03 paso 2s pissy UBIp Yy> JO %/p 284NSO 3s p yo Ua dau (Z) !ssead 7 pue 489M | UBINIOG 40} BuNSO 2s p pake ap UaIP YP ap JO %Eg Pade ap (|) :sMO OJ Se pajyqUap Bam sa JOZaIE? BNso 25 G asnqe ENxas 4 ay) JO SUO ssNds Pp paaw Auo pey esaaas “spua sy Aquanba.yu pure ‘sas desaip ‘suauned ‘suaquiaw A wey uM asoup Bu pn u ‘sd ysuo 7e a4 jo Aa ueA EU sazue Jedxe qsed J alp paso 2s p prey uaw asaip jo Auews *Apnis ay3 jo aw 2 aya Ag ‘suayio P2 Ba2U09 3Ng ‘asnge 4 a1) jo QUAWA Oo 4o s@aua 4edxa u E1N99 paso 2s p ua Ja\PO BUBAaS “BI@ dwo2u JO 3994 pu asm JEP 93 07 SIdwaNe pariodas awos y8noIp e ‘paso 2s p JOU peYy Aaup yep paziodas ua 4ayp0 ay] "Pp yD B 3S SEM By a YM SadUa Jadxe asnge ENXaS SY JO JUBIXS Ny ayy paso rs Pp adwes sip u uaw 9) ayayo | AuM “(uo 2eZ WADA a3pa MOE JO a2Ua Jadxa oO} UB 40) a2ueidezze jo ye “B-a) eum N20 305 (g) pue :(uo ze os ‘suo ssnaueda4 9A WeB9U Noe sueaj “3'a) BUC I BI s8u pug SMO ABI quased pue p y> uo paznpuod sem s sf cue WUSIUGS ly “SMP ANd quased og jo F207 E40} Pama AsaIU OSE 349M SBE} O] PUE suayiow Auam 4 ‘sueadk U6 JO ade adesoae ue 4p M sp o-4ea-7Z] 02-7 sem a dues p yp sud ZI pue shog g} SSD jO SWIDA pads e AIYL enxas q se 7 pue * enxasowoy SB ¢ ‘ ENxaSOJaIaY SE SOA BSWAYI pa} Uap 6 sua | 9—p7 JO auey aZe ‘ueqgnd ued yw | ‘UED JaLy 9A IeNy qed | ‘ued y Oweng a dwes UO WUAAIBIU BEY aM P y2 JO uo 23 ysaau a2 od Aue asoyaq ‘MD AID BLUIO} ISU J ayi U pau ego sem sassa20id aunso 2s p UO UO TEULIOJYY *suoved S9AU wpanok pazua sadxe Aq 9302014 M2 AJOIU] BA IEF ISBAUT GHDIN 2p Bu sn Pama AuaU |s0Mm uasp YD “pamea Asaqu yam squared 4942 pure asnge BNXaS JO SUDA pada y qede yao e A ayew xoudde aoe d 8u 423 yee 4y € pue Z useMaeg Buse ‘sma Asaqu pasmonas- was ‘yidep -U OM] pala dwio> squed 3 Wey °se2 ew pauaisn > A enadazu0> jo quawido aaap pue 3u po> 40y 5 SA Bue yo poypaw Asoayp papunoss us seg a2ua sedxe asnge @y2 paso 2s p asnqe BNXaS E WE;EIXO JO SWLIDA P Y> MOY 9u wexe 02 sem Apms quasaid aya jo eof ayy = PUR ‘saUT 'Z] MOWYSIa}{ 7842 eq pue saaquaou 3u pn ou ‘aunso 3s p 4 ay2 jo sazedse aa aeZau pue 9A 150d jo suo idaz.0d Jou QUE IEUAA (¢) pue jse2ue sedxe nso 2s p 4 ay INoge Aes 03 aaey Aap op WUAA (Z) 7922 wedxe asayi paso 3s p Aaya aaey syxaqUu02 JEYM U pur WOU asoding (2007) qweT Apmas {panuauos) | aqeL 269 EFTA00024185

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuo>) aasnoxe A enanw pur aA IsneYyxe (pog 8q 03 paroid Yy> YM ysOMaWEY B1NSO Is P SJoLpNe Zu sn sa s08a7e> ainso 2s p Papor suazes OM s SA Bue BIE y8nosy] Oma auNSO 2s P (O07) 5,2 88e y ow 2y sansas asoyy sayonb 2004 p y8nouya Aa qewu juo> pue “A qepuadap “4a q pas> yBnowp PaAe Ye B4aM SUO IRIVIdJaIU PUE EIEP Alp jo sau YQIOMISND JO 9A2 YZ py “sanss e201 9qssod sa dw y> ym Apnas aya jo ud sap aa aadso.ney “suo ye> dw ad a2eud quewodus ano smeup s sé Bue BA WeIEdWO> “s SA Bue Japuad y2NpUcD JO 58 1039729 919495 Pp 4NO} pau jap sUO SUBW P BINSO Is p asaY] “ssa20ud B SNSJBA JUBAD UE :UO INP eOdWIAI (Zz) pue Aued ps yp e Aq uo :arep SNSJBA B4NSO IS Pp PHIeIU-P YD :Anuade (|) @.4nso 2s p jo suo suaw p Peoig OM] payjiuap s sé cue JUaIUOD Pada aq 20U JO/pue pawe q 8u aq pared > qe A Zuos3s asow Aaya (Z) pue asnge atp 40} 3 q suodsay sem OYM INOgE paid juo> asow 3 aj Aaup (|) :Buso2sp $92N2 yp 03 pare as squed > Wed 2 PWay Ip A salwalip jueU Wopaud OM] “BuNSO Is P 40y URI d daud B SE paade yD YM ‘Jasnge ue Bu WoIeq jo aeaj (¢) pue tpez wap A vues aue shog 2ey2 J9 Bq atp JO aSNEIaq UO Ie OS 4O UO 7ezZ WWF as Jo sZu_|ay puNoyoud (Z) : enxasowoy se pama a Bu aq JO 494 (|) :aepua’ 03 pare au suoseay 40} aunso 2s p pazei d 2a4d 40 par gq yu pue 542 $19°| “€007 4aquia2eg 02 1007 Asenuef 3u unp ‘2 apy yanos * eIeN-F NZEMY jo Rave uRguNng YON ay u paqodas WSD JO SOSED JEL" Pooyp YP 2u np paso 2s p iow PEY %BS PUE ‘a2 YMUOU 29M %OE ‘suBBA EG SEM JaSUO aSNge jo age aseuaAy 2 Npe paisn.o B40 saquiow A wey 2 Aq pasnge A enxas auam oym sueak (| Op ura) $9-g| ‘s9 EW || PUE sa PUD} 6] JOUPP OyM aso pUE asnqe aun Zu unp paso 2s p YM asoup Ya 8u0 e ‘uaW pur UaWOM UEGING YON aya 03 pazodas ws> jo S@SED E BJ9YM 4J9IU92 5.42 oIp 78 aes SIDA WSD 410} 52 4 QSe) ED paw pur 10M BIOS BJO SMBARIA 4 Seok BWAYI OIU Bu uyau pue pasde o> a4am sa soZazeIqns pue sa soZa2e> “Zu poo 9AID9 BS PUE EXE ‘uado 4105 Wi IeqUaA pag 49suen 879M SMP AJBIU] “B4NSO Is P uo sapue’ yo aed 2u pue3as quawido snap WALA 410} pasn sem saa Jes4eU qued 3 ed O£ Jo s sh euy "WIT 3u sn sazua sadxa aunso 2s p 4 ay qNoge pama Asaqu PUE MOY aU EX (1) 202 saa algo Apmis OM “SWIDA WSD ED 4Fy YINDS jo a dwes aa aeuasasdas ague Bu aunso sp jo swianed pau wexe Apms aunso 3s p WSD saraye sapuaz SAeM JEYM U Pur Quasay p pur ze wis QUE SO BW PUR Se Bua} JO S@unso 3s p MOY —) weudp e se sapuad Bupn ou suo jo o8ues e Zu u wexa Aq 94Nso 2s p aIOWO.sd 40 apedw: yeup s> weudp aso dxa Aaa2e) enb 03 (soz) o ewiny pure ‘sip yu ‘s8u oD EFTA00024186 7eIp 58 pMas JO WRAP EU BUD 2eYI UaW JO} padsawe saways sesy) jo 3u dws aasoding = aM WSD JO SIOAAINS ~—s sem asodund Apmis ay] (sooz) & 38e y SOA Jap u quod awos soway sayonb 28 WSD 40} JEUNE jo Uo 789 j Uap 2984p y8nouya Al qe juod pue pea acay pey 4 sofew pare 2B ‘kA qepuadap “4a q pas yznowp ay? dwes e2u 2uOU 3u pod aaa as Pare Ye 949M SU IEaIdJAIU S49 LRG BINSO IS P JO 454 pue eu > pax pure e& xy ‘suoIR pure e2ep alp jo ssau WJOMISND 28 59 Wey pue uaup yp Zu purisiapun “sured f-g SEM aSNge jo ana -A wey aumde> 03 JO ada YB}y'senss DAI u queyodw ave sua isu Way e desu jo ae asesaay pa2npuo> sem Zu pod se dw ypeoidde an adsonay y8nosyp suo ye NuO swarsds A Wey" 92 “OPW YOp Pue 9 EUUIay uedo au -Aq-au 7 "BUNSO IS P JO SUOIED Dey 07 ayes uO ou pey Aayp Zu aay swIDA 2am squed 2 qed "WIEQUBA pag J2sUED uo UO WeUO;U BOW JaUses WSD U Hed e paded ‘syaquiaw 24 20ds JO %O9 !szeadk U9M SMP AJBIU] 02 saunso 2s p A 422 uO papasu Jo 9 OUM B se A WEY atp JO UO IE OS 1Op SM squed > qed “SODUEISWIND > aue EWep as0[y “A EUO JWUAIU 2205 (p) pue ‘swiazaed uo 222 UNWWOD jo ae a8euany QUEAD 34 PUR “sua 4ueG "WSD 95035p 03 @unso 35 Pp Pp ayyy M Ps ya BuO A wey 3984 pu ‘paso > (¢) !a2ua 0A aquiew A wey pue suze. ey A ge s.p yp Be sapuy ysow y “Asowew aip uencZioy A wiry yo aauasaud (7) teumonas ® Aq pasnge A enxes tsa2ua sadxe 40 02 IN .nUOD 4o passaiday pey Aaya asneseq A wey paseg-Ayoue uyed & uo paseq sa 04 249M OYM Cg PUe @unso 25 p yeyp so weudp A wey 9s0 9s p 30 pp xs ‘sued > qed sepua’ ‘pax y Ap 34 (|) as xa suo2 puod 8] JO sade aya uaemaaq 22 9.03 pasn Bu pn du ‘sy032B jo 8u so 2s puou atp JO ~pooyp Yy> A wiry u 92 uaym pas wosdwos SJOA AJNS 2 NPE StM—WIT—48 sap a8ues peosg e Ay uap Bu anp asnge aya paso 2s p Ajqued 5 us ag ued aunso 2s p wSD 3eyd 072 N4224 O2 pedo dwa 22 Zo ouswousyd 02 34am Apms quasin> (sooz) you pey squed > Wed aip j ey 42AD Zu rseZ8ns peZiewe sowaryy sofew snoy = sem Bu dures aa soding @a7e3 enby ap jo seAqalqo ay, wNequayss y pue e ey Agewwins s8u puy adwes us sag asodung Apnas ° Led (panuauos) | aqeL

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuo>) uoye> dw a239ed quewiodw ues sd ysuo i as P y-quaved 8u vayZuens qnoge Bu 4&2 ave Aaip aeYM 02 Pays qeisa uaaq sey UO WeUUOD ® pue 3u yeads 40) asodund e 4 oo A unyoddo ue s aay 3p aa aqued Uap yy INIYyP ssa saworeq yeIp sse20ud e230ep A equawepuny & s aunso 2s p JEP 93e2 pu sansa ayy "saunso 3s p pade ap 40) a2uap AZ uo WZ SBAU E> yO yO pu y Aue 8u 1983 9 Jane now M ade d ayRD asnge jo Auew Moy au WIaIeP 02 3nd yp Bu yew ‘se 2uaze e2 yo JO UO IUATIE op 03 BWOD peYy yey) sese> par ocau Auo sash euy "sui A paadedsns ay jo ave aup pure ‘suoqesjadiad paizadsns pue sw A paga & usemiaq dysuo 28 a4 aya ‘sa2uayo pasa e ay jo aumeU at uO Zu puadap A we yeuaisds pa JeA auNsO 2s p jo sa7e4 3eup payer pu s¥upuy BUBAO odas a2 od & yZnoup Paisayas WaWssasse SSID B 8uAaoed slua 2 p Yy? Oo paar wi s Apmis sup yo 4a qez esauas "966 28 quaWaeze da7eisaqu jo a8equasied aya yam Agewwins PP UP YD al UBYAA ‘sa2ua sadxe 4 9up aueys p nod Aayp reip sadwioud pue oe sd y8noua Bu u BIU02 suo IeM s puy or aNd yp seM2 29) Uap YP ayL ~eusayou eu Bua Nsas ‘warp Bu watpOq SEM WEY noge angoep eu Pp yD atp pagezua auoewos aay suo zeM s U @peW a4aM WSD jo UO 2 dsns ay 02 pa yeyp syseWa yo AI oleLy "9.UN 4 atp | pur ‘saIpRy 4 ay) po? | ‘pua aye porIssy ¢ “Isay ssaIPOW 4 ayp por Z| tsueak eyanas 03 dn 40} Ja.Da5 B se 5 ip aday asnge aa 1 29dai 02 pasodxe U24P YD "pasinsz0 2 Jaye Aare poww BSNGE JO POI UBIP YP BYP JO DUONY JO BIOIEYIMSI WR} OT peuoisanb UBYM BSNGE paso Is p sp O-1eaA-p| 02-1 | P43 JO %hL pur ‘sp O-4eaA-Q| 03 =£ 942 JO %L9 “SP O-4k9A-9 02 -€ YM KOS “ap Oo maid udp yD se paseasou saqed aunso 2s q ‘soTenedued paaedsns ay2 Sem quased © UaYyM asnge aa e/eso 2s p oa Aa ss@ sam sade eyo UaIp YD (%19) ange e> sdyd 4ar0 (%1 2) @SNE ENXaS JO} 1938912 249M B4NSO Is P JO SaIey “pama Asaqu UaYyM suo ra & BPEL UIP YP 9pb'9T YA JO HS * EABAC asnge pareedas ipm hay asow sem uae Bu odes sauoYs saquiew A wey & sem JapUayo aya uaym day Sse a4aM ansO 2s p jo suis0j 2> dxq “(pg'¢) saanso 2s p Wes pu jo ase ueaw ayp uey s9Yy3 y sem (£9°0]) Saanso 2s p nyasodind jo a8e uray ‘Aduaae Bu Today pure ‘asnge jo Aduanba.y ‘ae ssapuayo ‘d ysuo 38 a4 Joyenediad—wi 39 A aya jo aunzeu ‘ade s,wa2 a Aq par paad A uapuadapu aunso 2s q ‘(sase> jo YEP) UO DAIEP equap 228 (p) pue ‘(saser jo %BI) uo 3aIap ssaui Mada (¢) ‘(saseD yo %) a4nso 2s p 3384 pu (Z) '(sese> jo KOE) aunso 2s p nyasodund (|) :aanso 2s p s2u pug A wey aya 03 uosad aso>e 40 A wey ap u auoawos Aq pasnge A enxas ‘shog Lpue sad cy s(sseak GZ age aBesane) sueak 9| pur ¢ usaMI0q paguey sae suesp y> “"WSD INoge suaA B-aue>d 40} SUsJB2U02 paze21> qeya se2ue sadxa anoge p 02 pey wap Y> pared > aed uasp Yy? ZZ SMa Asa paanpuor 540788 Is@AU ynod pau 2a parua 49dxe OF] “ZO0T 2 866] Woy po ued seak-¢ aya U aEUS] U paMma AJaIU asnge e> sdyd pue enxes JO SUID A pada & Pp o-uead-p| 03 -¢ J° 9eb'9Z JO pas sdui0> sem a dws ayy asnge aya aye yuow e ueUp aso %@T PUR “yuo | Or AY TL WO BLE ‘@snqe aya 70 44 TZ UM apew auam sisodes %Lb SHBDA 6G SEM wasp YD paz WIA JO age a8esane ‘shog ¢7] adwes dave sead | pay sam sma Asaqu dn-mo 04 “ypeoudde aA3e3 enb e U8no.up pez eur as9M susyow saya Alsow pue uaip YP ap o sa Auaau 2 Inadeuayy ‘pasn sem ssh eue pur uo 1a OD BIE 07 yoeoudde 9A 3e3 ENO pazd eure asa EQEP PA YDuy ~ 0202044 AA@ AJIT] BA IES ISBAUT GHDIN P22 p4epuras Zu sn paaosnpuo> OS B QJ9M SMA AJBIU] “paz Bue sem 7007 pur 866] UPAMIAG BEIS] U pareZasaau asnge enxas pue e> sdyd yO sase> paisedsns jo aseqeiep afue] £007 4equier9g O3 1007 Asenuef jo po sad au Bu anp pasuajas auam ease Zu od us sag sasse2oid aunso 2s p 4 ay) jo suo adazsad sauased 4aup pure ‘ssa2oid Buso dsp ap u way pad ay aeym ‘asnge qoge 4B 07 NIYPI DPRU JEYM 03 SE SMBA 4 aya !seaue uedxa asnge enxes P yp saya viodas 07 9 qe aJaM Uap YD? y> YM U IxXaIUO BY pare asaau Apms sy suO 7S ISBAU BUIO} 3u np aunso 2s puou pure aunso 2s p Wp M pare J0sse Bue JEYI SIDA aSNgE P yp parsadsns jo 533s yaaeueYy> Ay uap oy pewedpms sy] ‘Z Mos0py TZ MOWYSI9}y 34NsO 95 P jo susened quasay p Wp M pare J0sse suoaaey Aj ap] (Z) pur asnge J ap aso 2s p SWIDA WSD Yay asodung (s00z) pur sual, pur 2 ay ay ‘ad ssopy ‘uaspurg NS ‘uasuel (S007) quieq pue Apnag (panuauos) "| aqe 1 271 EFTA00024187

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panunuoa) “uaNIOd so} 949M se JOWeL uaym A e dadsa ‘aun ey Asowew 02 8q3da2sns s pooyp y> U passNI30 IeYI SUDA IUNOI24 02 a doad 8u ysw “seuEaswind4 > JEYM J@puN pury “aso 3s p Ss] npe Pur UaZp Y> MOY PUEIsJapUN A ny as0w 03 sainso 2s p WSD jo sedéa papuedxa Apmis s yp suauo 322d BuO ssayoud JO 2 jauaq ayp 40} aFpa Mouy 4 aUp aueys 02 paseunosue 919M pue S]UE] NSUOD SE partes Os B asNge ENXaS PA AINs pey OYM S4B qUa2s9 Ope puke 3Ua2s— Opraid jo sdnoi8 ewig ~paiind20 asnso 2s p Pure asnge aya uaym au3 u quod Bip 02 4aso > ‘ssa20ud ainso 2s p 9.42U9 BY? JO UO TRU Wexd enyxeIUOD B pap aoud Apnas sup Asewwins asain 23 30U pp a dures Apmis aya Aq Paq 42sap susaned ainso 2s p ayrj BY 42AC -adwes Apms aip u susaned ainso 3s p JO %TZp 40} pazunosze par> aypardwoud pure * nyasodnd * equap 22k :eaep asaya U pauls juo> 24am pajauap Asno avid aeuyy 'sadda Zu as xe 02 ppe o2 P2j2Uap a4aM aiNso Is p jo sa 1OZa3e> Mau Ma AJ|IU aya JO s sA BUR YsNOsYy] 597 UNWWOD Jap sIno pur sap su (p) pue ‘Bu a3 jo aj sae ayy pue sasuodsas euo am asu (¢) ‘sd ysuo ze a4 Bu Bueyd (Z) ‘sj4omaeu smau pue Bud ssod (1) :sx90dse 4noy oau pap Apqns Jeupny sem aseyd sa2uenbasuod ayy ‘suo sap 543 alp pawsoju pue ued 4 uss a4aM s3npe jo suo DEA pue suo ae ayy “Bu a3 yo sa Zaens Bu ouo 4 ay) W4o;U 07 panuauOd yep peq puke poo? :aseyd sasuanbasuod (¢) pue ta asoy 40 aa quoddns SEM UO 2988 S,UOsJad JEU 4BLaYM uaip pue a3 03 uossad pure ‘axe d ‘au 2 Ba as Aaya BuaYym :aseyd Uo DEAL -UO 398 9s JEP yuod (7) ‘A eusaIU UO 7eZ W IDA PUEIsJapUN 7 BWOD Uap Yy> auaym :aseyd-) as (|) :su ewop dofew aasy) u pariodas ase s8u puy dayzary 2 dor aya ansund jou 40 algns ayy aZuey> pnom SJ@yPOW Lp *y EI 07 JURM JOU PP pur $53.95 p JO SUZ s pamoys Uasp Y? 494) jUS8u_ 99 suasp Yd ay2 02 BAI suas OSE asem Aaip p es ssayjow ay) “yapOW DU 40 SI2aya BA IeFaU InogeE paUiazUuOd A sew ad aszam Aayy ‘asnso 2s p Bu Ae ap 03 Bu ang quo? syowEy sofeW st sazuanbasuo? aA 7e8au par arid Uap YP atp JO BsBAVS ‘parssdiazus wi 2g P NOM SaiNso Is p 4 ayp 4BLaYM pure ‘suo EAI SuaINO 02 BAI SUAS auam os e Ady “sayrsny paqosd pure sand S,P YP BY) paz UZ0I01 BUO@WIOS asayM “PaQEA IE JO passauppe WO} BWOS u SEM asnge enxas p y> jo 2 dor aya a4aym suo ems U2 pp Aap asorsp sdu pug 58 PUY REP Pur @ ew 4/6 :Aa S4BA UN auo pure sa Juage wo.y pai nuvas auam (Zp ade afeyanr) gg pure Q| JO sade usanaaq asnge & weyenu JO SJOA AUNS 3 NPE HT 3u dues aa sodind 8usp s sk Bue WUaIUOD JO} pag 42suen 4998 pue padro pne ‘uo UW 06 pur Og UaeMIag auam pazd eue suo ssag ‘sdnouz 4noy wo.y sued > qed #E JO pais suo> a dues a dures sem ap n3 ma Asaqu ay *s SA Bue 2 eWaLD B JO} BIEP paresouess adesaae uo Bu sy Z auam Jey Bu Ma AsaqU BA suaIU] “Us sap 22 80 ouawousyd ew pado dwa Apms ayy ssaupaz29UU02J020 4 aya 8u u wexe pue ‘A enadazuod asayp 8u dnoud uo ssas y>ee jo S@ FEWWINS BA JEIUEU Ua 4M JO pais suod s sk eue Asepuorag “WSD pe2ue sadxe pey oym sad 404 Adesay 8u o8u0 jo 2x0qU09 aIp UID A painpuos sdnod SNIO} INO} JO pars sUOD pealoud eu 319 Hep dnoiZ sno0j aA7=) eNb jo ssXeue Asepuorag = Apmis s tp yo asodind ayy ua sag 950 9 Pp YSD jo SW) A SAQUE}SWINDI D> JEYM Japun pur ‘uayM ‘Moy INOGE ape Mou u sdeZ ssauppe 03 wSD JO 94NSO 25 p S.uaup YD aqowosd 4o2g yu 7eyD saouen ju au WweXa 03 248nos Apnas ayy sazuanbasuod quanbasqns pue Qunso 2s p pasepu y pure para 2e Jey pau Wer "$48 quarse ope pur 3ua2sa opeaid 40} pap oyun sya *sOY PUR BuNSO 2s P WSD jo ssevoid ry ay) pueysuapun 07 SEM asoding (yo0z) & Bey (so0z) epaep -UOS ONY pur 42 BIS Apmas (panu aos) “| a1qeL EFTA00024188

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panupuoa) BUO 399S-SSOID “52 IS WBIDEIEYD @4Nnso 2s p pue asnge UO Pau FIGO UO IWOJU BY3 JO Adeun22e 8Y 9 We sNya puke sanss wes Adw p nod uo zeWwu0;u jo H1odas-j as pue Apms aa pedso.nay ‘UaWOM pasnge Aasaaas yO uo 2eUaSeIda159A0 ue dq paaw JeYMawos ase si nsas Apms ay, “asnge ENXaS P YP JO B4NSO Is Pp pue syJomaeu wioddns e& 20s uaeWmaeq Ae duaau ap uo sn30j 03 se pnas 354} By2 yO QUO sem ‘ApMas squed 2 ued Wp sma Asaqu aya y8nouya pasayred 249M SUO RAL Pur a4nso 2s p uO eIEp pur ‘sai euuo ysanb ay y8nosyp Para was 219M qaoddns & 20s quasuNn> PUE UO 7EZ WD A UO BeQ ‘sa4 euuo ysanb Wp M 4ayre307 sap n3 peumon.ns- was 3u sn pama Asaqu alam $JOIIE4 "UO IBV ISI j BA TEZaU E PVA 9294 prey pue ‘sorenadsad & paquo.yuo aaey 02 49% B1OU J4aM pur ‘92Ua 0 A jo asn pasn *suoyenadied a danw ‘asnge e sdyd sem ABazens Bu dues jO S@2uURISU au0W paziodas pooyp y> 2a sodung ‘sq2alqns U paso 2s p pey OYM UaWOAA “Ae ap YS PAMS 249M %06 sueadk [7 JO adesaae ue ya M (gy Jo ase Quand asnge auo Isea @\p a40;9q) PooYp YP Zuunp pasodsp =: Je INOgE aUOBWIOS pod %TE ‘SBunso 2s Q “s BUC ssajoud Pry pue g] jo aze ayp 02 A e2adsa 1OMIaU B05 a40jaq B50 > BUDBWOS J 2p JO BOW 03 Pay BI Pey UBWOM Aq asnge enxas pasnge A auaaas “sured / JO UO WIN P yp O32 aunsodxa adesaae UE YIM “7 JO ade B1OJaq UBYO Bu qioda (suvad |p jo SEM JASUO jo aBy yoIeNadsad a Buse a8e adeuaae) po sueadk peqoid 24am suo 29884 9A 7eZau pur aA2 sod jo suoqey Bu 2D paid pue woddns B05 “94NSO IS p jo sawozino pue Zu wa “asnge jo Aa Janes uo paseg sazuad9y “pare a4 auam qoddns B05 Pur ‘auNso Is Pp WSD 03 suo 2384 ‘ssauuado ‘s] en 273 EFTA00024189 aup JO BWI AYR Jy ‘Ppooyr npe Aq ueya uowWwo> asow sem suorenediad 09 pur OZ U=aMIEq as0 > auoawos Aq ySD asnge Moy aso dxo (007) qun ainso 2s p pade ap %Bg adanwi Aq asnge :s3 3s saz2eueY? asnqy uaWOMINpE ZZ] Bu today UaWiOM I Npy 07 sem asodind Apnas pe qpu 7 pue uozuof OMAR Bu pod & 03 Bu puoz2e SMa AJBIU BYI paiors A uapuadapu SW33 A 02 SUC UaAIAW are udoudde suayrseasad ayo OU P NO? puk asnge enxes @auy] “Uo ss Wed UO pau B47 JOU Byam s BUO ssajyoud AueW Ya M papsoras 379M se uioddns payw (uaa pan azas suai yp Yn sma AsaqU aya “5 BUO ssajoud 03 aso 2s p pp Aaya UaYyAA, d ysuo 28 a4 painpuod 8u asuno> BD Yydueases aya 03 papuodsas “asnge enxes Zu so 2s p yo sa2uanbasuo> Buiep Bu aDUaOA WSD 8u asuno> S4OA AINS pa js IESS p IsOW! BUp JO 4eay pue ‘s PUO Ssajoud pue Sa NpeE enxas padue sadxe u paoua sadxe $99 AJas |YI JO/puE OYB SE SE q UO 299 aS B UB—G BAEY jo asnuas wi ‘pasnge 8u aq jo ssauaseme a dwes ayy s407e8 ys9AU 24OMIBU BIOS 4 aI Aew auayy “age eres Zuuen JO #PE “Wwudas ay3 daay O37 ys M JO BWIOS “Z| -Z| paze Bauy] "peu ego wo.y d ay Zu yeas pue asuodsay asnge enxas 2eYyM Jka > ‘sao suas age adoudde jo asemeun cam =‘ BW | pur SB eWay CE pure pau e dxe WSD 2uso rsp woy you s 2 pue Aw u paznpuo> $99 Ages Zu yaas 1OU 410y sqUaW pad {a2ua2s9 Ope U asngqe SEM JUASUO? PAUOjU 29259 Ope qUaAeId sem Apmis ay) “92U2a 0 A sauteed uew ayy “A wey ay3 03 8.qno; enxas pa2ue sadxe Jaye paznpucd 7p Nuew pedw |IEWIU PUE asnqe eNxas p Yy> 8u sne> jo 4eay pur ‘aeYs ‘pars aq oy 2 doad BUOM SMa AUBIU purysuapun JO SJOA AJNs jo 9 dures pax wie jo 3u aq 20u jo 4e9y :ayaMm saquiew A wey Bunod g¢ jo pas sdwios (snowAuour) 02 4am Apmis (F007) 92 Woy s8u puy aya paquasaidas Apms s yy 2 0} 95095 p 03 Saw padw u eWay) sem a dures ayy auoyde a2 indap-uy SypjOSeOPueW ay], PUe‘IeY’ |2Seg ‘EWS ID 59 40302e> aya parioddns pap aod S32 Npe se paso 2s p aunso sp saaonb pur para yre sem eIep $9 JOWSW p2s2A0r04 %BS ‘pooYp 4D WSD 2u 2uan ju Bip JO SSBU YZOMASN jo vaiZap Aq paie33 .n sainso 2s p pur ‘p ayy Mm 3u anp asnge syow2e} BUNT ND y2H° e201 u swaqoud equaiod A euo quaqu saunso 2s p ‘sadwene aU) paso 2s p pey pure * euaWUOI AUD OS B BIE SIUDAD JO UO S ADI PQJDA 3294 PU PUE EIO ARYaG :paziawa squed 3 ed ayp jo %Zp * euosvadsaqu Puke UO 1103s G "~pasaAora4 $2 JO3aIe2 BINSO 2s p BUC] ppe tsuead ¢°g Sem 29SUO ‘eNp APU JO} Jave pue passaides so ‘pace ap Ba14) S@40Za7e> pays qeisa Asno Avid asnge jo ade adesaae aqoid 02 pado anap Avewuwins sBu pug adwies uZ sag asoding Apmas (panuauod) *| a1qeL

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

(panupuo>) 8u A a2ued pur ‘asnge ay3 JO} Ay qsuodsas sa3e0s8 3 ay tasnge B WRyENU JO SUID A ‘UBIP YD Jap 0 wep sisaZZns apoyy “SOUNSO IS P 49 4ED JO} JUNODIE ose Aew (%7¢) asngqe & WweyeKe jo ares 4ay8 y yam adwes e8aq “saanso 2s p Aska jo ares ays y uedxa Aew y> ym uo andasoid jo ss0203d U 249M pur sa 3 JOYINe 07 pazsodas ua|q pey sased asoyy “YyUOW E UY M $4950 2s P JO ares says y e squasaidas Apms s yy saoua sadxe WSD 3u e201 sued > ued anpe jo Apnas & uey3 sa2s0ys Aqeuinsaid asam ma asaqu SUA PUE FSM ap YaeMIEq Be ows? ay Os puke ‘s]UaIse Ope auam squed > qed aous Apmis sya U paz wu Ww Usag sary Aew seq e204 ‘aA Dedsoes aq Aew EIep y8nowp y ‘Aaauns BA 4SF 850 25 p 02 3u M4 aye OYM SqUaISe Ope 03 Auo 3 qez euaued si nsas aya axyeW Pp Nom pure seq 2 IeWAIsAs jo e24Nn0s ke quasaudes Aew ASF) ue ssnos p 40 10da.s 07 pasnyas OyM squaose Op “Bu wodasuepun 07 anp pase q aq Aew sa2ua sadxa UO IEZWIDA JO SUOIEZSBAU JO} SABAINS "WSN 242 U pared > ued OYM SIU92SE OPE 2 EUIAy JO a dwes aa qequasaidas A euo yeu BU @2Ua2S— Ope pur pooyp Yy> U_S¥Sf JO saanso 2s p 3u pn au suo pau wexe Apms s yy punoy sd ysuo 3k a4 aya UO 399yJ@ PUR BSNED JO SU sn 2UOD 22 U Jap 40} MO EB I0U SVOpP Us sap Agewwing Ppa.reay OYM UBIp YD :sa2uanbasuo?> 9A WeZaU jo sea (¢) ‘asnqe © WeyeNxe JO SWIDA 02 pauedwos suo 03 sa2uanbasuod 9A 3e8au 1930013 paseay asnge & WRyEIU JO SUID A—aS0 3s p 02 waZuO YOO] sa wey e weyenu JO SUID A casnge yo adAa (Z) ‘uaup Yy> 4eZunod ueyp ssaypo 07 sa2uanbasuo> 9A IeZ9U BJOW pareaj USIP YD Jap Oo Pue aso 2s p 02 48ZuO 4002 sap o aaM OYyM Uap Y>:eZe (|) ‘persaa auaMm apow BY 4OJ SO GE JRA BA 4 “SIpUOW 9 UY M %6T PUE YIUOW E U LP MW PASO IS P KH @unso 3s puou YIM paae 20sse sem squared yiog yam Zu A 4eaau (z) pue Aadwosd asow aso 3s p 02 A3y% a40W SOA AUNS ape YD YM ‘aequiaw p oyasnoy Zu snge 8nup (|) BUaM BINSO Sp 02 paxyU suoIE} A wey "$2 NPE 02 B.INSO Is P IP M parE IOsSE auaMm uo WI@Uad pue Zu Np a s,2U0 Joy 4ea4 “uo IeNAdJad JaduUENs YIM Avy a0W Sem aiNso 2s p aIe paw] "2unso 2s p pade ap ya M pare JOsse sem Jaquiaw A wey & 40 JOIeNedJad ap 02 d ysuo I a4 aso > “UOW 2 UIP M SO 25 p O1 papual ¢|—] | page uaup yD “yuow e puodag ainso 2s p 2u Ae ap 40) 5 4 78 849M ING INpE ue 9307 Aa au0W a4aMm || Japun uaup YD “suead Q]—{ page uaup yo ue suved Auo 92302 A394 as0W alam (| —p|) squazse opy ‘3 npe ue 9303 4ay JSOW 349M E| pue / Jo sade ap UvaMIaG Pa1NI20 FSM esoym squed 2 WEY “sa4nso 2s p pade ap 40y 45 4 JOYE Y B7e Bam / JO a8e ay) JapUN UIP YD aunso 2s p 4aye pasnge A snonu 3u03 auam UBWIOM S| ‘asnge Zu ofu0 YM po sad = 8u4Np pooyp Yy> uU POI OYM UaWIOM 9Z Pp JO :saWOIINO aINsO Is G "B2UIOA JO 95N OU PUE AAD ISJj 2B BFE JaZUNOA auam Ae ap 3ur> pad Aquesy uss s8u pu aya jO BU 7 aya IE sseaA Imp PUR “asNge aip jo pua aip ie sured 9] —¢ tasnge yo 8u uu 8aq ap ye suvak 9] 02 Z Woy age u pagues uasp yD “sBUURL BWOS U asnge 424) paso 2s p pry adwes aya u uaup ip V 'WSD page & 40) $82 yO ssoynresoud 0} paisaya4 Uap UD 81Z JO pars suod a dures pao dxa 249M s@Ing We enaxaquo> A wey pue *s> 1s 4939 eeY> ¥S/ ‘533s 4a22e4eYyD> qued 2 weg “WSN 242 U IDEIUOD PNxes pawuemun jo a2ua sadxe QUO ysea 3e pewodas OyM ‘po sseak 75] jo ade uraw ‘po sseak ZI pue Z| uaemIag 59 EWA} Ua2Sa Ope £97 jO adwesqns y wo. pasaypeF azam meq Apmis s ya yo asodund ayy adwes 2 JOug INessy BNxas 94) pare dwio> |IEIOAPE WII A BUD pue squapmis azenprus pau bay “sma AsaqU P Up jo suo aeAIasqo pure s94eI2Ie> S,uasp YP ay yam SMe ABI paingon.as Woy se aM se ‘sa yuo indasoud wo. pau go BIEP JO SMB ABA yase> Apis sya yo asodund ayy $2 3s sa2DeTeYD sorenadiad pure s> 3s wazeseYyD quae Bu pn du WEIUO?D ENxes paauemun jo apos da ypea anoge suo jsanb JO S2.4as & parse uayy auam Ady] “M2 AJBIU uo 384 SSE > Wap Iu] BUA JO UO SBA pay POW ® Bu sn passasse 219M WSN 2) U pariodas SASK "sma AsaqU auoyd pana2nis yo Pais SUOD YD YM "WSN ay u pared > qed 7eYI sqUa2Ise Ope 9 Bway JO a dwesqns & ud saq asnqe enxas aso 2s p uaup yo 499 nb Moy aouan ju WIP si0IF} 40} apow ke 3s93 PUE YSD JO a4nso 2s p jo Aeap ym pare 20sse sa qe 4EA ered s|AU O02 SEM pared isaau 249M aNSO 2s P au jo que d 39, aip pue aunso 2s p jo Suwa Up YO JO $4039 paid ay "22Ua2se Ope pur pooyp yu ASN JO SOA AJNS 2 ELUDy Aq apew sainso 2s p aya a2uen ju ey suoqsey Aj Uap O02 SEM asodung (e002) UOpsOs pur ‘sauof ‘URWIPOOD ‘U ais ePZ *UMO4g-URWIPOOS (r007) uezoy Apmas (panuauos) "| 219e 1 EFTA00024190

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

UBLUOM *S'f) JO UO Ie Ndod lp jo saang ume > ydesZoweap auyp paysiew A aso > a dwes aup EWP pared pu Neaing snsuaD ‘Sp 2p Woy pau ego suajaWesed uo 32 ndod aip ya M eIep asayp jo uos 4edwo> '] BABA, JOY ‘susaned BUNsO Is P s,uaWOM Sunok (8u 2uan ju aq Aauasin> Aew pur) peouen ju aaey Aew uo yeWojU SY] ‘sanpe aq suodsas 03 paso 2s p aq p noys pure Suoim aue (WSD 8u pn du ) s3 nesse WeYI UBIP YP YIeaI IeLP SORE ayy U uNBaq asa JeYI sWRIZOId Uo 2BINpa uO aUaAaId 3 NEsse P yo @eds-a8se aip oO WOU paians20 2 dws s ya Aq pasodas sedes p yp yo A solew ayy "suo 722 dw enyxeqU02 pry aaey Aew Adains s yp jo awe BW BY Aas p uaup y> ma Asaqu 02 8 ge IOU BAM SudYyrIRASOI ‘UBAIMOH "SUC IZ ISBAU J@yLINy JO} B4NSO ISP yO apow BQEAE parnpoig OSs jo Aa YZ y un a Apmis pou sap- ap, "950 2S p 02 4aZU0 YOO? Zu so 2sp 0} sazuanbasuod a aeZau “snaxas sluenbur ap sa uns aseWOJUL aajeUUONSAND = Sq O ‘Apmis s,uaWOAA EUONEN = SAAN '52U825— Opyy Jo AaAnS BUONEN) = WSN ‘seoualiadxa enxas paauemun = 357) 2uawdo anag URW} pUE tp tay{ P/YD JO BINaAsU eUONENY = GHD N ‘asnqe ENxas p 1y> = SD ‘poyraw MalAsaqu Fuo = LJ 7 “smeIs JWOUDIBONES = S395 ‘06-3517 Y2aYD WordwiAs = O6-1DS ‘BON qu od awios 3 sa sOYyINe 03 paviodas auaMm $3 Nesse 4 ap IYI pavers sw adeu p yr jo %Z] AUD > QUUOSIBd JUBWBIIOJUD ME JO SIBxIOM B30s O} BINSOISp EIU JaUp Zu yew pariodas su 32 A jo %O] UEYI Jamey “suaquiaw A Wey a3e paw 4ay0 pure suaypow Aq pamo oj ‘sa.inso 2s p apews SW A WOYM 03 UOsS4ad UOWWO? IsOW DUI 849M SpUa 4j B50 > MA AIBIU SAAN 4 atp 03 40 4d paso 2s p Oy UaWIOM Suouny “yauow F U Up M paso Is Pp %/TZ vades-asod suead ¢ 03 dn pur sead | 4aA0 40} 850 2s p 20u p p XS “ApMas s YD JO} Jama Asa ap Aq pasanb A 224 >0ds UN I NeSSE ENxas sy INOge auodUeE P 02 Janay pey Aaya aeUp parers %gz ‘ades P yp & pazodas oym UsWOM ggz ay2 JO “suead 69] Sem ades as4j aya jo BUD aup ie age aSesane ayy ‘ades pooyp Yy> jo uo iu yap s.Apms aya 39W IBY? JUBA BU sea 38 Bu dua sadxa parioda. (96) g8z QNsO 35 p 07 BL] YM pare a140> Aque>4 U8 s Jou sem sapuad (s) pure tasnge aya 405 A q suodsaa 940 19} UBJP YD JOP O pur 95025 p 02 4a8uo0 4002 asnge ay 40) 4 q suodsay 4910048 3 3j OY Uaup Y> :A2_ gq suodsa4 PPA 92494q (f) !s4ayI0 03 sa2uanbasuod 9a 2eZau paseay shog ue BIOW 5.48 pur ‘aunso 2s p jo aw3 03 page aun sem Joyenadiad ay) JO yas ay) 03 sa2uanbasuod 9A eau Jo 4e9j ‘as 35 p 03 Jado yO suaipO O2 WUeY Bu 4g POM aNso Is p 4 ay WELD Pars aq YM Uap YD ‘aS025 Pp O02 JaZUO OO? @4NSO 25 p yO saduanbasuod aA IeFau 5935 78}5 snsua> 686] 242 02 WudjU0D 2 parys om aam eIep TZ SAE AA PUE | BARAK yiog "pare as sem HE PUE Bl JO seBe ays UzBMIBg UBLUOM 000'T jo adwes wopues puoras ‘suaquinu suoyde a3 pais un pue pais 404 sp Oyasnoy 22 OS 02 pasn sem 3u ep 8p wopury "suo 29 ps unt pau sap jo sa dwires pa y7ess wos poise as squepuodseas 600°7 Jo 2 dues WOPURL B SEM | BARAK ‘sa dures 47 qeqoid omy asnge & WRyenuU MLy Aavew xouddy "S38 MO OF 2 pp w Aqueu wopaig “UPD JOU UPD yy %1 | pue ‘> ueds YH %L| ‘UE seINeD MOL “ PUIDY BLL suodas a> od e3u suo ysanb uo 3ez WIAD Aedes p YD pue > ydeuZowap arp wouy Rep UO sodas Apmas quasad ayy “Asoas Y UO TEZWIDA pure ‘asn aaueisqns *sworduiAs > uae yodsd “uo FWOyU > ydeuZowap 22 2 07 pous sep SOINSEOW BIBARS JO pars suor Aaains ay, “ue—dIs JaIndwo> ® uo uO asanb yee 4p M parsnpuo? asam sma asaqu auoyde a3 ly “waasks ma Asaqu auoyde a3 pais sse -daandwios e Zu sn wep 22 09 03 pasn asaMm uw ¢¢ Aagew xoudde paase 3eUp sma AsaqU euoyde a3 pesnaonas $9 qe eA Zuowe suo ye as esNeD> paz saipoddy ap 359] 07 sasf eure ined pM pazanpuo? auam sask PUR BUO IE 21407 ‘paqoud 3am seduanbasuo> 9A 2eZaU jo 4eay pue AV q suodsas jo uo adazsed $,UaIp YD “B4nso 2s p 4242 pue asnge ap S235 4aIDEFEYD P Y> 40} a4 EuUO ysanb inuow | UY Mm aunso 2s p paz paid JeYI $2 qe IEA pue “01 paso 2s p Aaip oym @unso 2s p pade ap g] ade auojaq padey am OY UBWIOM BLU? JO ip8ua aya inoge UaWOM jo 2 dues adue B WO. Beep sayree 07 sem sno} Apmis ay) (o00z) sag PUE > USay Sp ned y ‘suapunes “neaUINOI7 “UA WS Agewuwins su pug a dwes ud sag asodung Apmas (panu quod) "| a1qeL 275 EFTA00024191

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

276 examples of this usage were found in the research questions, interview guides, and surveys examined: “How and when do people decide to tell others about their early sexual experiences with adults?” (Hunter, 2011, p. 161); “Some men take many years to tell someone that they were sexually abused. Please describe why it may be difficult for men to tell about/discuss the sexual abuse” (Easton, Saltzman, & Willis, 2014, p. 462). “Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit a narrative regarding their experiences of telling...” (McElvaney, Greene, & Hogan, 2012, p. 1160). “Who was the first person you told?” (Schaeffer, Leventhal, & Anes, 2011, p. 346). There was sound consistency between studies, defining dis- closure in multifaceted ways with uniform use of categories of prompted, purposeful, withheld, accidental, direct, and indi- rect. However, defining the period of time that would delineate a disclosure as delayed varied widely across studies, wherein some studies viewed | week or | month as a delayed disclosure (i.e., Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004; Schénbucher, Maier, Moher-Kuo, Schnyder, & Lamdolt, 2012). Other studies simply reported average years of delay sometimes as long as from 20 to 46 years (Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; Smith et al., 2000). Second, the number of qualitative studies has increased sig- nificantly over the last [5 years. This rise is in response to a previous dearth of qualitative studies. Based on Jones's (2000) observation that disclosure factors and outcomes had been well documented through quantitative methods; in a widely read editorial, he recommended “Qualitative studies which are able to track the individual experiences of children and their percep- tion of the influences upon them which led to their disclosure of information are needed to complement...” (p. 270). Third, although a few studies strived to obtain representative samples in quantitative investigations (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005; Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000), sampling was for the most part convenience based, relying on voluntary par- ticipation in surveys and consent-based participation in file reviews (Collings, Griffiths, & Kumalo, 2005; Priebe & Sve- din, 2008; Schénbucher et al., 2012; Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, & Fairholm, 2009a). Therefore, generalizability of find- ings is understandably limited. The qualitative studies used purposive sampling as is deemed appropriate for transferability of findings to similar populations. Some of those samples con- tained unique characteristics, since they were sought through counseling centers or sexual advocacy groups. These would be considered clinical samples producing results based on disclo- sures that may have been delayed or problematic. This might presumably produce data skewed toward barriers and bring forward less information on disclosure facilitators. Through an in-depth, second-level analysis, this review identified five distinct themes and subthemes beyond the gen- eral trends as noted earlier. Theme 1: Disclosure is viewed as an ongoing process as opposed to a discrete event—iterative and interactive in nature. A subtheme was identified regarding disclosure as TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20/2) being facilitated within a dialogical and relational context is being more clearly delineated. Theme 2: Contemporary disclosure models reflect a social—-ecological, person-in-environment perspective to understand the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure. Subthemes include new categories of disclosure and a grow- ing focus on previously missing cultural and contextual factors. Theme 3: Age and gender are strong predictors for delaying disclosure or withholding disclosure with trends showing fewer disclosures by younger children and boys. One sub- theme emerged that intrafamilial abuse/family-like relation- ship of perpetrator has a bearing on disclosure delays or withholding. Theme 4: There is a lack of a cohesive life-course perspec- tive. One subtheme includes the lack of data within the 18- to 24-year-old emerging adult population. Theme 5: Significantly more information is available on barriers than on facilitators of CSA disclosure. Subthemes of shame, self-blame, and fear are uniformly identified as disclosure deterrents. Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature. Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong process, with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are too often delayed until adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011). Knowledge building about CSA disclosure has moved in the direction of understanding this as an iterative and interactive process rather than a discrete, one- time event. Since the new millennium, disclosure is being viewed as a dynamic, rather than static, process and described “not as a single event but rather a carefully measured process” {Alaggia, 2005, p. 455). The catalyst for this view originates from Summit (1983) who initially conceptualized CSA disclo- sures as process based, although this notion was not fully explored until several years later. Examinations of Summit's (1983) groundbreaking proposition of the CSA accommodation (CSAA) model produced varying results as to whether his five stages of secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommoda- tion, delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosures, and retraction or recantation, hold validity (for a review, see Lon- don, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005). However, the idea of disclosure as a process has been carried over into contemporary thinking. Recently, McElvaney, Greene, and Hogan (2012) detailed a process model of disclosure wherein they describe an interac- tion of internal factors with external motivators which they liken to a “pressure cooker” effect, preceded by a period of containment of the secret. Moreover, this and other studies strongly suggest disclosures are more likely to occur within a dialogical context—activated by discussions of abuse or pre- vention forums providing information about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, & Tjersland, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). The term EFTA00024192

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Alaggia et al. dialogical simply means to participate in dialogue. Key dialo- gical vehicles identified in these studies were providing sexual abuse information through prevention programs, being asked about sexual abuse, and being prompted to tell (McElvaney et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009a). Contemporary models of CSA disclosure reflect a social-ecological perspective. Knowledge on CSA disclosure has been steadily advancing toward a holistic understanding of the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural fac- tors (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Where at one time factors examined and identified were predominantly of intrapersonal factors of child victims, knowledge construction has shifted to fuller social— ecological, person-in-environment explanations (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton et al., 2014; Hunter, 2011; Ungar, Tutty, McConnell, Barter, & Fairholm, 2009b). Social-ecological explanations open up more opportunities to intervene in facilitating earlier disclosures. Alaggia (2010) pro- poses an ecological mapping of what individual, interpersonal, environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote CSA disclosures based on analysis of in-depth interview data of 40 adult survivors. Subsequently, based on a sample of 67 adult survivors, Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, and Milne (2015) identified three broad categories, closely aligned with an eco- logical framework that impede CSA disclosure: (1) barriers from within, (2) barriers in relation to others, and (3) barriers in relation to the social world which can be aligned to intra- personal, interpersonal, and contextual factors. A summary of knowledge building using a social-ecologi- cal framework follows. Knowledge gained in the intrapersonal domain includes expanded conceptualization of disclosure by building on previous categories of accidental, purposeful, and prompted disclosure to also include behavioral and indirect attempts to tell, intentionally withheld disclosure, and triggered and recovered memories (Alaggia, 2004). Categories of indi- rect behavioral disclosure patterns have been further verified in follow-up research by Hunter (2011), and through an extensive file review that used Alaggia’s (2004) disclosure framework to analyze their data (Collings et al., 2005) for verification. Interpersonal factors have also emerged in regard to certain family characteristics as disclosure barriers. Families with rigidly fixed gender roles, patriarchal attitudes, power imbal- ances, other forms of child abuse and domestic violence, chao- tic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In addition, relationship with perpetrator is a factor whereby research indicates that disclosure is made more difficult when the perpetrator is a family member or close to the family (Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila, Bohu, & Rey- Salmon, 2014;Easton, 2013; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schénbucher et al., 2012). This is especially a barrier when the perpetrator lives with the victim (LeClere & Wortley, 2015). 277 In terms of environmental factors, one study revealed that neighborhood/community conditions can hinder disclosure when there is lack of school involvement in providing a sup- portive environment, such as in following up on troubling stu- dent behavior (Alaggia, 2010). Additionally, a child victim's anticipation of a negative response to disclosure, especially that they may not be believed by others outside their family such as neighbors or other community members, has shown to deter disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Cultural factors influencing CSA disclosure have been stud- ied to a much lesser degree. Despite this, a few important studies examining critical sociocultural factors now exist for better understanding CSA disclosure within a cultural context (Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Among these important contributions, Brazelton’s (2015) research has deli- neated CSA disclosure processes as “shaped by relational, racial, socio-cultural, historical, and developmental factors” (p. 182). In a unique study using culturally focused research literature as data triangulated with clinical case material, cul- turally based belief systems in many cultures have been found to foster family climates that can silence children from disclos- ing abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Taboos about sexuality, patriarchal attitudes, and devaluation of women are among some of the cultural barriers that inhibit disclosure (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Clearly, disclosure conceptualizations are being integrated into a social-ecological model of individual and developmental factors, family dynamics, neighborhood, and community con- text as well as cultural and societal attitudes toward better understanding disclosure barriers and facilitators (Alaggia, 2010), although more data are needed on cultural and contex- tual factors. Age and gender as predictors of disclosure Age. Age is consistently found to be an influential factor in CSA disclosure, making the life stage of the victim/survivor a critical consideration. Studies draw distinctions in age-groups falling into either under or over 18 years of age. Eighteen years of age was the common age cutoff point that investigators chose in order to distinguish child/youth populations from adult sam- ples. Sixteen of the studies drew on samples of children and youth, while the other 15 studies sampled adults over the age of 18, and a further two studies used mixed age-groups (refer to Table 1). Among the child and youth samples, the age ranges spanned from preschool to late adolescence (3-17 years of age), with varying methodological approaches implemented across age cohorts. For younger cohorts, file reviews and secondary data analyses of CSA reports were typically undertaken. Ado- lescents were most often given surveys. Sometimes children and youth were interviewed as part of administering a survey or as a follow-up (Crisma et al., 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar et al., 2009b). In the majority of child and adolescent samples, sexual abuse concerns were already flagged to investigative authorities. However, the work of Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, and Fairholm (2009a, 2009b) is one exception, whereby their survey elicited new disclosures. EFTA00024193

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

278 Adult studies typically had a mean age between 40 and 50 years. Interviews were the main data collection method with a few exceptions using survey designs (i.e., Easton, 2013; Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000) and case file reviews (i.e., Collings et al., 2005; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003). Results show a clear trend toward increased likelihood of disclosure in older youth, and findings from adult samples showing a preponderance of disclosures in adulthood, with the large majority of participants of adults reporting never having had a sexual abuse complaint filed with investigative authorities as a child or an adolescent (Le., Hunter, 2011; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Sorsoli, Kia-Keating, & Grossman, 2008; Ungar et al., 2009b). With children and youth under the ages of 18 distinct patterns emerged. First, accidental detection, rather than purposeful disclosure, is more likely to occur with younger children. For example, in one large-scale study of over 1,737 file reviews, over half of the CSA-related cases were identified through accidental and eyewitness detection (61%), while less than one third were purposeful disclosures initiated by the child victim (Collings et al., 2005). A second pattern which emerged is that rates of disclosure increase with age, especially into adulthood, which is supported by persistent findings of high rates of delayed disclosure reported later in the life course by adult survivors (Collings et al., 2005; Collin-Veézina et al., 2015 ; Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Sorsoli et al., 2008). While gender and relationship with the perpetrator are considerable factors in CSA disclosure, age is consistently a stronger predictor of disclosure (or nondisclosure) (Hershko- witz et al., 2005; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). Third, younger children who disclose are more likely to do so in an interview situation or other environment that provides prompts or questions about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005; McElvaney, Greene, & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011), but this trend can also be seen in older youth (Ungar et al., 2009a, 2009b). Gender. A number of studies have recently focused on CSA disclosures with male victims, since males have been an under- studied population (Alaggia, 2005; Easton, 2013; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Veézina, 2016). Most investigations that sampled both sexes show females outweighing male parti- cipants. Although women are at double the risk of being sub- jected to CSA, the ratio of women to men in most disclosure studies has not been representative. This finding may be indi- cative of male victims more likely delaying disclosing their CSA experiences, leaving male disclosure in child and youth samples underrepresented (Hébert, Tourigny, Cyr, McDuff, & Joly, 2009; Ungar et al., 2009b). Easton, Saltzman, and Willis (2014) have been developing gender-specific modeling of disclosure examining male disclo- sures. Their proposed model groups male disclosures into barrier categories as determined by individual factors, interpersonal issues, and factors that are sociopolitical in nature. These authors suggest that predominant gender norms around masculinity rein- force the tendency for male victims of CSA to blame themselves TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20/2) for the abuse, resulting in no disclosure. Male participants in a subsequent study also relayed that gender norms and stereotypes contributed to them concealing the abuse because they were abused by a woman (Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). In the one study that compared male and female disclosures, investigator found that men’s fears of being viewed as homosexual; profound feelings of stigmatization or isolation because of the belief that boys are rarely victimized; and fear of becoming an abuser acted as disclosure barriers. Whereas females felt more conflicted about who was responsible for the abuse and more strongly anticipated being blamed and not believed (Alaggia, 2005). Lack of a life-course perspective. Given that the study of CSA disclosure draws on age-groups ranging from samples of very young children to retrospective studies of adult survivors, with significant developmental considerations, this area of study lacks an intentional cohesive life-course perspective. Most data are derived from either cross-sectional or retrospective designs, with few longitudinal studies. There are a series of sound, yet disconnected, studies focusing on specific age-groups of chil- dren and adolescents, along with adult retrospective studies. Thus, the available knowledge base does not allow for a cohe- sive picture of CSA disclosure processes and pathways over the life course to emerge. The life-course perspective has long been recommended as a critical lens for the study of child abuse (Browning & Lau- mann, 1997; Williams, 2003). For example, a life-course per- spective has been utilized to understand the immediate- and long-term effects of CSA on the developing child victim (Browning & Laumann, 1997). Further, a life-course perspec- tive is important in terms of examining age of onset of CSA to explain the differential effects of sexual victimization and developmental impacts in terms of understanding their ability to disclose—effects that need to be understood within a devel- opmental context, especially for designing appropriate inter- ventions for disclosure at critical transitions from early childhood through to adolescence and into adulthood. In addi- tion, important “turning points” in life may facilitate disclo- sures. For example, entry into adulthood given that delayed disclosure occurs more often in adulthood. Alaggia (2004, 2005) found that being in a committed relationship or the birth of children acted as facilitators for some survivors to disclose, especially to their spouses. These significant life events, as contributing to disclosures, bear further examination. Summary of barriers and facilitators. Research over the past 15 years continues to uncover barriers to CSA disclosure at a higher frequency than that of facilitators. As stated previously, this might be the result of sampling methods whereby partici- pants who volunteer for disclosure research may have had more negative disclosure experiences, especially since many report delays in disclosure. The following section outlines the major trends in both barriers and facilitators (see Table 2). Barriers. Age and gender were found to contribute to barriers as covered in Theme 3. Disclosures generally increase with age EFTA00024194

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Alaggia et al. Table 2. Factors Influencing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures. 279 Barriers Age: The younger the child victim, the less likely they will purposefully disclose. Gender: Males may be less likely to disclose in childhood/adolescence, fear of being seen as homosexual and as a victim, females experience more self blame and anticipation of being blamed and/or not believed Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is a family member or in a family like role, disclosure is less likely to happen Internal: Shame, self blame, and fear are psychological barriers. In addition, fear of negative consequences on the family and for self safety inhibits disclosure Family relations: Families with a patriarchal structure, rigidly fixed gender roles, dysfunctional communication, other forms of abuse (i.e., domestic violence), and isolation inhibit disclosure Environmental and cultural context: Lack of discussion about sexuality; passive acceptance that unwanted sexual experiences are inevitable; not wanting to bring shame to the family by admitting sexual abuse; lack of involvement from neighbors, school personnel; and stigma perpetuated by societal perceptions Facilitators Age: Disclosures increase with age, especially in adulthood. Gender: Slight trend toward females who are older (adolescent) to disclose before adulthood Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is not living with the victim, disclosure rates increase Dialogical context: Opportunities to disclose through discussion, therapeutic relationship, information sessions on sexuality, and sexual abuse prevention programs Family relations: Supportive parent-child relationship. Involvement of others: Eyewitnesses coming forward and reporting: detection through community members, professionals Environmental and cultural context: Promotion of open discussion of sexuality; community member involvement as children gain more developmental capacity, understanding of sexual abuse as victimization, and increased independence. Males are somewhat less likely to disclose, but this is often in interaction with other factors in the environment such as soci- etal attitudes that promote hypermasculinity as desirable, atti- tudes that perpetuate negative views of boys and men who are victims, and homophobic attitudes (Alaggia, 2010; Easton et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vezina, 2016). Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent, caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a family- like role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in childhood/adolescence because of obvious power differentials and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al., 2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclere & Wort- ley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Further, the perpetrator residing with their victim(s) increases the likelihood of no disclosure (Leclerc & Wortley, 2015). Internalized victim-blaming, mechanisms to protect oneself (such as minimizing the impact of the abuse), and developmen- tal immaturity at the onset of abuse constituted internal bar- riers. Further, shame, self-blame, and fear have been identified as significant factors deterring disclosure (Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hun- ter, 2011; Kogan, 2004; McElvaney & Culhane, 2015; McEl- vaney et al., 2014). However, aspects of shame, self-blame and fear, and have not been fully explored in research. Since these are strong predictors of disclosure suppression, they bear fur- ther examination in future research to understand more fully how they operate in disclosure processes. In terms of interpersonal and environmental factors, family dynamics can play a part in deterring disclosure. As previously mentioned, families characterized by rigidly defined gender roles, patriarchal attitudes that perpetuate power imbalances between men and women, parents and children, presence of other forms of child abuse and/or domestic violence, chaotic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social iso- lation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kir- shenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In regard to broader environmental factors, disclosure can be hindered when involved and supportive com- munity members are not available, or not trained in sensitive responses, or when child victims anticipate not being believed by neighbors and other people outside the family (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015). Further, barriers in relation to the social world were identified as stigmatization, the neg- ative labeling of sexual abuse victims, and taboos surrounding sexuality and talking about sex as driven by cultural norms (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Identification of cultural barriers is important recent contri- bution to understanding disclosure processes—and in particular to the obstacles. Findings related to cultural barriers included themes of children’s voices not being heard leading to silen- cing, the normalization of the sexualization and objectification of girls and women, and the perpetuation of hypermasculinity in men—all acting as barriers in terms of stigma to disclosure (Alaggia, 2005, 2010; Easton et al., 2014). Brazelton (2015) similarly found that lack of discussions about sex, young age at the onset of sexual abuse, therefore not having the language to express what was happening to them, and preserving the family good name by not talking about abuse in the family were also barriers to disclosure. Finally, it may be the case that more barriers continue to be identified over facilitators of CSA disclosure perhaps because of the methods employed in studies—particularly those draw- ing on adult populations who delayed disclosure. These sam- ples may not be representative of the overall population of CSA victims, since they may have had more negative disclosure EFTA00024195

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

280 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-Veézina 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; TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20/2) (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 EFTA00024196

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Alaggia et al. the frequency of acquitted cases or rulings in favor of the perpetrator through media outlets, often sensationalized, become a further compounding barrier. Given the review find- ings, we conclude that barriers and facilitators to CSA disclo- sures are nuanced and clearly embedded within intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental, contextual, and cultural domains—often interlocked in complex ways. Limitations Although comprehensive in nature with its life-course cover- age, this review may be limited by its qualitative, thematic focus rather than providing an evaluative, quantitative account- ing of CSA disclosures. However, because of the recent focus on disclosure processes, the authors chose a suitably compati- ble approach—qualitative in nature. As well, a traditional checklist approach in rating the studies was not employed for interrater reliability, since two of the authors hold expertise in CSA disclosure research and are well versed with the literature. This expertise, and through closely following a systematic review framework (Kiteley & Stogdon, 2014), assures that a thorough adjudication of the research literature was completed. Implications for Research and Practice These review findings have implications that can be useful in guiding future research and practice: e Solid strides are being made in the use of a social-eco- logical framework to underpin investigations in the CSA disclosure investigations. Research efforts and practice considerations should continue in this vein. Investigat- ing environmental factors and contextual and cultural forces is understudied, necessitating more research in these areas to more fully fill out understanding of CSA disclosure from a social—ecological perspective. e There is good evidence that CSA disclosures are more likely to occur in a dialogical context—formal helping relationships but as well as other relationships such as peers and trusted adults. Providing information and edu- cation on topics of sexuality in general, and sexual abuse specifically, can help children and youth to disclose. Raising awareness and prevention programs can pro- mote disclosures of sexual violence committed against children and youth. e Goals of therapeutically supported disclosures (i.e., through therapy) may need to take precedence over for- ensic approaches, if well-being of child victims and adult survivors is to be made paramount. Legal pro- cesses may act to facilitate disclosures but can also act as barriers because of the negative outcomes experi- enced in the court process. e Practitioners need to keep in mind that the legal system is lagging far behind in knowledge uptake of recent evidence on CSA disclosures so that victims and 281 survivors continue to be systemically and structurally disadvantaged in legal proceedings. e Health-care practitioners (i.e., child abuse pediatricians, family practice doctors, clinical nurse specialists, and public health nurses) should be made aware of the evi- dence in the CSA disclosure literature to create environ- ments for facilitating therapeutic disclosures. e Given that age is a stable predictor of disclosure of CSA, more studies are needed that make use of a life-course perspective. More longitudinal studies are needed to better identify trends over different life stages. e The emerging young adult as a developmental age group needs specific investigation. Neuroscience research has established that ages 18-24 is a distinct developmental phase. Late adulthood is another life stage that deserves to be researched. e Gender needs to be more fully investigated in relation to impact on disclosure. Awareness that boys and girls have unique challenges and barriers in disclosing CSA should be paramount for practitioners. e Intervention planning should take note that disclosures increase when perpetrators no longer reside with vic- tims, and this finding should be heeded by policy and law makers. e Shame, self-blame, and fear are intrapersonal factors that persistently emerge as barriers to CSA disclosures and warrant more research to understand how to redress these barriers for earlier disclosures. Conclusion There are still a substantial number of children and youth who are subjected to sexual abuse, despite preventative efforts. Just as concerning is the fact that many victims continue to suffer in silence as evidenced by the high num- bers of delayed disclosure. These hidden cases should not be overlooked, and these victims should not be forgotten. Despite significant progress in bringing the issue of CSA to the forefront, improving facilitation of disclosure and increasing positive influences on disclosure processes are still critical in order to protect current and future genera- tions of children and youth from the grave effects of sexual violence. Further, the focus should not be simply on strengthening and shoring up intrapersonal resources of vic- tims to disclose but rather to change environmental condi- tions to create a more supportive and safer context for CSA victims and survivors to disclose. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author ship, and/or publication of this article. EFTA00024197

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

282 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20/2) References Alaggia, R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualiza tions of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1213 1227. Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10,453 470. Alaggia, R. (2010). An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse dis closure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy chiatry Journal De l'Académie Canadienne De Psychiatrie De !'Enfant Et De Adolescent, 19, 32 39. Alaggia, R., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2005). Speaking the unspeakable: Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse disclosures. Families in Society, 86,227 234. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 93. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp0630a Brazelton, J. F. (2015). The secret storm: Exploring the disclosure process of African American women survivors of child sexual abuse across the life course. Traumatology: An International Jour nal, 21,181 187. Browning, C. R., & Laumann, E. O. (1997). Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective. American Socio logical Review, 62, 540 560. Collings, S. J., Griffiths, S., & Kumalo, M. (2005). Patterns of disclo sure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology, 35,270 285. Collin Vézina, D., Sablonni, D. L., Palmer, A. M., & Milne, L. (2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 123 134. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.010 Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1035 1048. Dumont, M., Messerschmitt, P., Vila, G., Bohu, D., & Rey Salmon, C. (2014). Le processus de révélation dans les agressions sexuelles intrafamiliales et extrafamiliales sur mineurs. Annales Medico Psychologiques, 172,426 431. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2012.06.024 Easton, S. D. (2013). Disclosure of child sexual abuse among adult male survivors. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41,344 355. doi:10. 1007/s10615 012 0420 3 Easton, S. D., Saltzman, L. Y., & Willis, D. G. (2014). “Would you tell under circumstances like that?”: Barriers to disclosure of child sexual abuse for men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 460 469. Fallon, B., Van Wert, M., Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Lefebvre, R., ... Goel, S. (2015). Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2013 (OIS 2013). Toronto, ON: Child Welfare Research Portal. Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A.. & Hamby, S. L. (2014). Trends in children’s exposure to violence, 2003 to 2011. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 540 546. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5296 Fontes, L. A., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 491 S18. Gagnier, C., & Collin Vézina, D. (2016). The disclosure experiences of male child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25,221 241. Goodman Brown, T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., Jones, D., & Gordon, D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525 540. Hébert, M., Tourigny, M., Cyr, M., McDuff, P., & Joly, J. (2009). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a representative sample of adults from Quebec. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 631 636. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/2228608 | l?accountid= 14771 Hershkowitz, 1, Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in children’s disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1203 1214. Hershkowitz, L., Lanes, O., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,111 123. Hunter, S. V. (2011). Disclosure of child sexual abuse as a life long process: Implications for health professionals. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 159 172. Jensen, T. K., Gulbrandsen, W., Mossige, S., Reichelt, S., & Tjersland, O. A. (2005). Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children’s perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29,1395 1413. Jillian, B., Cotter, A., & Perreault, S. (2014). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, 2013 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Jones, D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Disclosure of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24,269 271. Jonzon, E., & Lindbald, F. (2004). Disclosure, reactions, and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 9, 190 200. Kiteley, R., & Stogdon, C. (2014). Literature reviews in social work. London, England: Sage. Kogan, S. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 147 165. Leclerc, B., & Wortley, R. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incar cerated adult sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 104 LLL. London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclo sure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, I1, 194 226. McElvaney, R. (2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays, non disclosure and partial Disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24, 159 169. McElvaney, R., & Culhane, M. (2015). A retrospective analysis of children’s assessment reports: What helps children tell? Child Abuse Review. doi:10.1002/ear.2390_ McElvaney, R., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2012). Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 11SS 1175. EFTA00024198

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Alaggia et al. McElvaney, R., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2014). To tell or not to tell? Factors influencing young people’s informal disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29,928 947. Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Landholt, M. A., Schnyder, U., & Jud, A. (2013). The tip of the iceberg. Incidence of disclosed cases of child sexual abuse in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide Agency Survey. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 875 883. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to self disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 271 295. doi:10.1016/S0272 7358(01)00091 S Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., & Gémez Benito, J. (2009). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse: A continuation of Finkelhor (1994). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 331. Retrieved from _http://search.proquest.com/docview/230158315? accountid=14771 Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of ado lescents’ disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095 1108. Reitsema, A. M., & Grietens, H. (2015). Is anybody listening? The literature on the dialogical process of child sexual abuse disclosure reviewed. Trauma Violence Abuse. doi:10.1177/152483801 5584368 Rosenthal, G., & Fisher Rosenthal, W. (2004). The analysis of narra tive biographical interviews in U Flick. In E. von Kardorff & 1. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 259 265). London, UK: Sage. Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J. M., & Asnes, A. G. (2011). Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35,343 352. doi:10.1016/j-chiabu.2011.01.014 Schénbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Land olt, M. A. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3486 3513. doi:10.1177/08862605 12445380 Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of child hood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24,273 287. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doeview/ 70933344?accountid=14771 Sorsoli, L., Kia Keating, M., & Grossman, F. K. (2008). “I keep that hush hush”: Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 333 345. doi: 10.1037/0022 0167.55.3.333 Staller, K. M., & Nelson Gardell, D. (2005). “A burden in your heart”: Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29,1415 1432. Statistics Canada. (2013). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, 2012 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Retrieved from the Statistics Canada website http:/www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85 002 x/2013001/ article/ 11854 eng. htm#n2 283 Stoltenborgh, M., van Jzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans Kranenburg, M. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Mal treatment, 16,79 VOL. doi:10.1177/10775595 11403920 Summit, R. C. (1983). The sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7,177 193. Tener, D., & Murphy, S. (2015). Adult disclosure of child sexual abuse. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16,391 400. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., ... Cloutier, R. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect 2003: Major findings. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast, E., ... Holroyd, J. (2008). Characteristics of substantiated maltreatment. Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect: Major findings (Chapter 4). Retrieved from http:// www.phac aspe.ge.ca/em vee/public eng.php Ungar, M., Barter, K., McConnell, S. M., Tutty, L. M., & Fairholm, J. (2009a). Patterns of abuse disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work, 8, 341 356. Ungar, M., Tutty, L. M., McConnell, S., Barter, K., & Fairholm, J. (2009b). What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33,699 708. Williams, L. M. (2003). Understanding child abuse and violence against women: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,441 451. Author Biographies Ramona Alaggia, MSW, PhD, is an associate professor in social work and the Factor Inwentash Chair in Children’s Mental Health at the University of Toronto. Her teaching and research focuses on gender and violence, sexual abuse disclosures, domestic violence exposure, and resilience processes. Delphine Collin-Vézina, PhD, is an associate professor for School of Social Work, McGill University and director for Centre for Research on Children and Families. She holds the Nicolas Steinmetz and Gilles Julien Chair in Social Pediatrics in Community and the Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Child Welfare. Her work focuses on research and clinical topics related to child maltreatment, child sexual abuse, and trauma. Rusan Lateef, MSW, is a social worker employed in the criminal justice system with adult male offenders in Ontario, Canada. She specializes in the intersection of health and mental health, child sexual abuse disclosures, and she is a researcher on the “Make Resilience Matter” project examining childhood exposure to domestic violence with Dr. Alaggia at the Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. EFTA00024199

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Child Abuse Review Vol. 24: 159-169 (2015) Published online 9 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2280 Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure and Partial Disclosure. What the Research Tells Us and Implications for Practice This paper reviews the research on disclosure of child sexual abuse with specific reference to delays in disclosing, non-disclosure and partial disclosure of experiences of child sexual abuse. Findings from large-scale national probability studies highlight the prevalence of both non-disclosure and delays in disclosure, while findings from small-scale qualitative studies portray the complexity, diversity and individuality of experiences. The possible explanations regarding why children are reluctant to disclose such experiences have significant implications for addressing the issue of child sexual abuse from the perspectives of child protection, legal and therapeutic professionals. The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure, in particular the needs of young people to maintain control over the disclosure process, the important role that peers play in this process, the responses of adults in both informal and formal networks, and the opportunities to tell, is key to helping young people speak more promptly about their experiences of sexual abuse. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practimoner Messaces: * Children typically delay disclosing experiences of abuse. + Asking children questions about their wellbeing gives them the opportunity to tell when they are ready. * The challenge is to find the right questions at the right time. + Peers can be the right people to ask these questions. + Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells. Key Woros: child sex abuse; disclosure; research to practice n issue of increasing concern in recent years is the phenomenon of delayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse and the need to understand the process of how children and adults disclose their experiences of child sexual abuse, given the implications for child protection, social justice and *Correspondence to: Rosaleen McElvaney, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland. E-mail: rosaleen.meelvaney(@ideu.ie Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted: 17 February 2013 Rosaleen McElvaney School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland ‘The importance of understanding the dynamics of disclosure’ ‘Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells’ EFTA00024200

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

160 McElvaney mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns ‘This paper reviews of childhood sexual abuse, specifically delays in disclosure, non-disclosure the research on (as evident through adult retrospective studies) and partial disclosures, and disclosure patterns of discusses implications for practice. Literature searches of the online databases PSYCINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index, in addition to manual searches childhood sexual of texts published since 2000, were conducted using the search terms ‘child abuse’ sexual abuse’, ‘sex abuse’ and ‘disclosure’. The research to date on disclosure patterns is based on two sampling methodologies — studies of adults reporting retrospective experiences and studies of children. The former group of studies has the benefit of drawing on large-scale national probability samples which can be considered to be representative of the general population. The latter group with some small exceptions (predominantly adolescent studies) uses samples of young people who have disclosed sexual abuse but would not be considered as representative of all children who have been abused: ‘children who decide to tell someone about being sexually abused and whose cases therefore come to court are not representative of sexually abused children in general’ (Olafson and Lederman, 2006, p. 29). Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience ‘Most people who sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when experience sexual disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common. Table 1 . P summarises two large-scale studies to highlight the extent of delays in disclosure abuse in childhood do and the percentage of those who did not disclose to anyone prior to the study. not disclose this Kogan (2004) examined the timing of disclosure of unwanted sexual abuse until adulthood’ | experiences in childhood or adolescence in a sub-sample (n = 263 adolescent women, aged 12 to 17) of the National Survey of Adolescents (Kilpatrick and Saunders, 1995) in the USA — a nationally representative study. Kogan’s results can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within | month) 43 per cent, delayed disclosure (less than 1 year) 31 per cent and non-disclosure (disclosed only during the survey) 26 per cent. Smith and colleagues (2000) examined a sub-sample (n = 288) of the National Women’s Study in the USA (Resnick ef al., 1993, cited in Smith ef al., 2000) who had reported a childhood rape prior to the age of 18. Smith ef al.'s findings can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within | month) 27 per cent, delayed disclosure (more than a year) 58 per cent and non-disclosure (survey only) 28 per cent. Those who had never disclosed prior to the survey constitute comparable proportions in these two studies while the rates for immediate Table 1. Patterns of disclosure delay and non-disclosure Kogan (2004) Smith er al. (2000) (n 263 adolescents) (n 288 adults) Told within 24 hours 24% 18% Told within 1 month 19% % Told within 1 year 12% 11% Delayed telling more than | year 1% 47% Never told before survey 26% 28% Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOK: 10.1002/car EFTA00024201

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse disclosure are higher in the adolescent study than in the adult study, a reassuring finding given the increased awareness of sexual abuse in society during the past 20 years. Goodman-Brown and colleagues (2003) examined USA district attorney files of 218 children. Their categories were slightly different from the previous two studies but in summary, immediate disclosers (within | month) constituted 64 per cent of the sample while 29 per cent disclosed within six months. This study is unusual insofar as the sample studied had reported their experience of abuse to the authorities and a prosecution was in progress. Goodman-Brown et al. also pointed out that families who participated in this study were more likely to represent those children who experienced abuse by someone outside the family. Research has found that delays in disclosure are longer for those abused within the family (Sjoberg and Lindblad, 2002; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Kogan, 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005). Therefore, children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples. In Sweden, Priebe and Svedin (2008) conducted a national survey of 4339 adolescents, of whom 1962 reported some form of sexual abuse (65% of girls and 23% of boys). Details of the time lapse in disclosing were not available from this study. However, of those who had disclosed and answered the questions on disclosure (n = 1493), 59.5 per cent had told no-one of their experiences prior to the survey. Of those who did disclose, 80.5 per cent mentioned a ‘friend of my own age’ as the only person who they had told. In this study, 6.8 per cent had reported their experiences to the social authorities or police. A further Swedish study of 122 women who had experienced childhood sexual abuse (Jonson and Lindblad, 2004) found that 32 per cent disclosed during childhood (before the age of 18) while the majority told in adulthood (68%). The delay was up to 49 years, with an average of 21 years (SD = 12.9). Of those who told in childhood, 59 per cent told only one person. In Ireland, the SAVI study (n = 3118, McGee er al., 2002) found that 47 per cent of those respondents who had experienced some form of sexual assault prior to age 17 had told no-one of this experience until the survey. McElvaney (2002) investigated delay in a legal sample of ten adults who had made formal complaints of childhood sexual abuse in Ireland and found delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years. Studies of children in the context of forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused also point to high non-disclosure rates, particularly striking in cases where there is corroborative evidence that abuse has occurred — medical evidence (Lyon, 2007), or confessions from the abuser or videotaped evidence/Wwitness reports (Sjoberg and Lindblad, 2002). Lyon (2007) reported his findings from a review of studies published between 1965 and 1993 of children diagnosed with gonorrhoea where the average disclosure rate among 579 children was 43 per cent (n= 250). Ina study where the evidence for the abuse was available on videotape, children have denied abuse when interviewed by the police (Sjoberg and Lindblad, 2002). In summary, significant numbers of children do not disclose experiences of sexual abuse until adulthood and adult survey results suggest that significant Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 161 ‘The rates for immediate disclosure are lower in the adolescent study than in the adult study’ ‘Children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in legal samples’ ‘Delays ranging from 20 years to 50 years’ Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/car EFTA00024202

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

162 McElvaney proportions of adults have never disclosed such abuse, as evidenced by the ‘High numbers of high numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time. respondents Patterns of Disclosure — Partial Disclosure disclosing to researchers for the Information on how children disclose over time can be obtained from studies first time’ of children who participated in forensic/investigative interviews where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has been sexually abused. The issue of partial disclosures was highlighted by earlier studies such as those by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year olds (ie. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to 15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external evidence that led to more complete disclosures). More recently, investigators have examined the role of the interviewer and questioning styles in the forensic interview and how this impacts on children’s disclosures and the level of detail provided in interview. Hershkowitz et al. (2006) compared tapes of interviews with children who disclosed sexual abuse and those who did not (but about whom there was ‘substantial’ reason to believe that they had been abused). They found that interviewers behaved ‘They found that differently with the two groups, using different types of prompts with children interviewers behaved who presented as somewhat uncooperative, offered fewer details and gave differently with the more uninformative responses at the beginning of the interview. It would appear that interviewers responded to less communicative children by two groups’ increasing the proportion of closed questions which in turn led to children being less forthcoming. Lamb er a/. (2002) have found that the use of a protocol that emphasises the use of prompts that elicit free narrative (e.g. ‘tell me about that’) as compared with closed questions (those requiring a yes/no response) has resulted in more detail and more accuracy in children’s accounts. Although few studies exist that examine the phenomenon of disclosure in informal settings (when disclosure is made to a friend or family member), some qualitative studies have described this process. McElvaney (2008) quoted one teenage girl who described hinting to her mother prior to disclosing the experience: ‘I didn’t tell her what happened but I was saying things that made ‘A parent described her think it made her think that it happened but I didn’t tell her’ (p. 127). A how her teenage son parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days, keeping told her over a period of the most difficult parts of the story until last: days’ “He came out with like it came out over two or three days so you know. . .he’d say well I've something else to tell you... the bad stuff last... what hurt him most and what he’s saying what hurt him most’ (p. 92) And finally, one young person described how she told her social worker: “I couldn’t tell her most things but I just gave things to her to read. . . I told her at first I told her bits of it and em then just the others. I finished writing and then I gave them to her. . . later I told her that it was the father as well.’ (p. 93) This young person had been abused by both a father and son in a family with whom she was staying. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/ear EFTA00024203

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse In reviewing the literature on this subject, London and colleagues (2005) noted, ‘when children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so” (p. 204). Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure There are many influences on disclosure that have been identified in the research literature to help explain why it is that children delay disclosure, are reluctant to disclose, provide details of their experiences over time or do not disclose at all. Age has been identified as a significant predictor of disclosure in that younger children are less likely to disclose than older children. Children who are abused by a family member are less likely to disclose and more likely to delay disclosure than those abused by someone outside the family (Smith et al., 2000; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Kogan, 2004). Children who do disclose during forensic interviews compared to children who do not disclose in such contexts (yet concerns remain that they have been abused) are more likely to have parents (particularly mothers) who are more supportive (Lawson and Chaffin, 1992). In Priebe and Svedin’s (2008) study of young people, parental bonding (positive relationship with parent who was not overprotective) was identified as the most significant predictor of disclosure for both boys and girls. However, close relationships can also act as an inhibitor to disclosure. McElvaney (2008) found that many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents while others were concerned about the consequences for others of their disclosure. One 13-year-old girl described her concern that if she told, her uncle would go to jail and her small cousins would be left without a father: ‘I didn’t want them to grow up with no Dad and just looking at ... their other little friends having their Dad holding their hand I felt like I was taking their Dad away from them’ (p. 130) Gender has been found to influence disclosure in that boys appear to be more reluctant to disclose than girls (Goodman-Brown ef al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar er al., 2009a). Mental health difficulties on the part of the child have also been found to be relevant, particularly when children experience dissociative symptoms or other post-traumatic stress symptomatology (Priebe and Svedin, 2008). Some studies have found that the severity of abuse (e.g. penetrative abuse) predicts earlier disclosure while other studies have found no relationship between different types of abuse and disclosure timing. Similarly, the relationship between the duration of abuse — one-off incidents of abuse compared with abuse that takes place over a significant period of time — and timely disclosure has been investigated with mixed findings. Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure and this in turn is associated with the age of the child (Goodman-Brown ef al., 2003). Older children are more cognitively competent in terms of being able to reflect on and anticipate possible reactions to their disclosure. This can act then as an inhibitor to disclosure, although as noted above, most studies have found that older children are more likely to disclose than younger children. Fears of not being believed have been described by young people as inhibiting their disclosure and these fears are often Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 163 “When children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so” ‘Younger children are less likely to disclose than older children’ ‘Many young people in her study were reluctant to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents’ ‘Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure’ Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/car EFTA00024204

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

164 ‘Investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children’ ‘Significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others’ ‘The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts’ Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. McElvaney justified. Hershkowitz ef al. (2007) interviewed children about their initial disclosures prior to formal interview and 50 per cent of the sample (n = 30) reported feeling afraid or ashamed of their parents’ reaction. The authors reported that parents did show a tendency to blame their children and react angrily to the disclosure. Recent research has highlighted the need for children to be asked direct questions to facilitate their disclosure. Of those children who did disclose, significant proportions disclosed following prompts rather than it being initiated by the child (Kogan, 2004). Qualitative studies drawing on interviews with children that focus on the disclosure process are important in investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children. McElvaney (2008) found that parents’ questioning of children was prompted by their concern about the young person’s emotional distress. On occasion, young people were communicating that something was not right in their world but were not able to articulate this verbally. Signs of psychological distress were, however, evident and questions targeted at the reasons for this distress were identified by McElvaney as a factor that helped young people to tell. Thus, many children may not have told about their experiences of abuse because they were not asked. McGee ef al. (2002) followed up a sample of their respondents who had disclosed childhood abuse for the first time in their survey. When asked why they had not disclosed prior to the survey, many respondents noted that it was because they had not been asked. Increasingly, research studies are finding that significant proportions of disclosure have been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others in the child’s educational and social milieu that in themselves provide an opportunity for the young person to tell (Jensen ef a/., 2005; Hershkowitz et al., 2007; McElvaney ef al., 2012). Finally, some children need time to tell. Mudaly and Goddard (2006) quote a 13-year-old girl: “she (mother) helped by not making me, not rushing me to get it out, which, um, I think it’s a really stupid idea to make kids get it out A.S.A.P.’ (p. 91). Implications for Practice The consensus in the research literature at the present time is that disclosure is multi-determined, influenced by a complex range of factors that may influence each child in a different way. Large-scale national probability studies confirm that non-disclosure and delays in disclosure are significant problems facing society and in particular for those professionals tasked with safeguarding the wellbeing of children. Children’s fears and anxieties in relation to telling need to be understood and contained by those in their environment so that early disclosure can be encouraged and facilitated. The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated contexts: the legal context where action can only be taken if the child is able to give a clear, credible account of his/her experiences; child protection and therapeutic contexts where a comprehensive account is required to enable child protection professionals to intervene and where the psychological sequelae can be addressed to minimise the long-term impact of the experiences; and family and community contexts where early disclosure needs to be encouraged, and Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOK: 10.1002/car EFTA00024205

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse other family issues addressed in the aftermath of disclosure and where peers play an important role. Studies have confirmed the importance of professionals asking children and young people in a sensitive, open manner about possible experiences of abuse using non-leading questioning styles to minimise inaccurate accounts or contaminate children’s narratives. It is clearly important for professionals to remain open to the possibility of abuse and further disclosure. It is equally important for professionals to be able to avoid persisting with questioning those children who are ‘reluctant disclosers’. Similarly, professionals engaged with children in therapeutic work need to be open to the possibility of both initial and further disclosures. Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements and giving additional detail to original formal statements can be interpreted within child protection, therapeutic and legal contexts as a contradiction of an earlier account. Listening to children’s accounts of their experiences of disclosure helps us understand why it is that disclosure can be delayed and that when they do feel ready to tell this is not an ‘all or nothing’ decision. As one young person in Staller and Nelson-Gardell’s (2005) study noted, ‘it’s never finished, never’ p. 1426. This understanding in turn helps us identify those circumstances and reactions that may encourage the child to disclose. The importance of asking children questions, thus giving them an opportunity to tell, has been identified. While parents, teachers and those in daily contact with children are often reluctant to question children, it is clear that many children do not disclose unless given this opportunity. Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner. McElvaney (2008) noted that questions did not need to be about sexual abuse per se, but rather questions prompted by the young person’s psychological distress, asking after the young people’s wellbeing. This questioning in effect acted as an external pressure for the young person to tell his/her secret (McElvaney et al., 2012). In Ungar et al.’s (2009a) study of Canadian youth, they found that young people used a range of disclosure strategies ranging from less direct strategies (such as risk-taking behaviours, not talking about the abuse) to direct strategies (such as seeking support from peers, turning to non-professional adult supports, disclosing to formal service providers), representing a process that relied heavily on others to ‘build the bridges between the youth and formal care providers’ (p. 352). The tendency to delay disclosing and the partial nature of many disclosures are not conducive to successful legal investigations and prosecutions. In addition, the knowledge base that exists within the legal sphere is limited if only a percentage of the children who experience sexual abuse engage with this system. The disproportionately high ‘immediate disclosure’ rate found in Goodman-Brown ef al.'s (2003) legal sample compared to Kogan’s (2004) community sample raises the question of the representation of delayed disclosers in the legal system. Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system? Are delays in disclosing contributing to decisions not to prosecute child sexual abuse crimes? In Ireland, the 1990s saw a significant increase in the numbers of complainants coming before the courts reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Many of these cases were referred to the higher courts for judicial review proceedings to establish whether the cases could proceed without prejudicing the accused given the 165 ‘Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements’ ‘Education and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an appropriate manner’ ‘Are children who delay in disclosing less likely to engage with the legal system?’ Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/car EFTA00024206

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

166 ‘Concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered’ ‘Many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend’ ‘An adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience’ Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. McElvaney delay in the complaint being made and giving due regard to the accused's right to a speedy trial. Psychological expert testimony was sought as part of these proceedings to explain the delay in disclosure in each individual case to enable the courts to adjudicate on whether the delay in reporting was reasonable (see McElvaney, 2002). This legal mechanism provided an opportunity to enhance the knowledge base within the legal profession as to the complexities involved in disclosing and formally reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse for adults. While one might expect that the legal system would be more sympathetic to children’s difficulties in making disclosures, it may also be the case that the belief that ‘if the child was really sexually abused, why would they not tell?’, as articulated by Summit (1983), still prevails. In addition, concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further psychological trauma need to be considered. A prospective longitudinal study conducted by Quas ef al. (2005) indicated that the consequences of legal involvement change over the course of development and as a function of the child’s reactions to and experiences during the legal case. The associations between legal involvement and outcomes varied with age. The authors suggested that although younger children may be at increased risk for some adverse outcomes such as mental health problems, older children may be at increased risk for other undesirable sequelae such as the negative attitudes of others toward them. Quas and Goodman’s (2011) recent review notes that older children are more at risk in developing poor mental health outcomes. Thus, as noted earlier, young people’s fears of the consequences of disclosure may well be justified. Raised awareness of both the prevalence of non-disclosure of sexual abuse and the importance of supporting children to disclose may go some way to addressing children’s fears. One interesting finding in recent studies is that many young people who delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend. McElvaney (2008) and Ungar et al. (2009b) identified peer influence as significant in encouraging disclosure among adolescents. There is some suggestion from the research that regardless of the age at the time of abuse, adolescence may be a ‘critical period’ for disclosure. It may be that targeting adolescents in general (rather than those at risk of abuse) may be a powerful prevention tool in encouraging early disclosure. Evaluations of child abuse prevention programmes have shown significant improvements in the levels of awareness of child abuse in children and young people (Rispers et al., 1997; Zwi et al., 2007). It may be that the increasing trend towards peer disclosure is a by-product of such educational and awareness-raising programmes. There is evidence that public awareness campaigns when implemented as part of a multi-dimensional strategy that involves targeting children, parents and communities (see Lalor and McElvaney, 2010, for a review of child abuse prevention programmes) are an effective tool in the prevention of child abuse. McElvaney ef al. (2012) describe the importance for young people of containing the secret of abuse and their need for confidentiality following disclosure as representing an adaptive strategy on the part of the young person to contain the experience and his/her emotional reaction to it. The conflict between wanting/needing to keep the secret and wanting/needing to tell is mediated by what they term the ‘pressure cooker effect’. Young people in their study described influences from within and without that led to a build up of pressure, ultimately leading to disclosure. They suggest that building up the Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOK: 10.1002/car EFTA00024207

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse pressure for young people by providing opportunities to tell may be needed to help young people tell more promptly. However, the lack of control that young people experience following disclosure remains an issue (Ungar et al., 2009b; Quayle ef al., 2012). This highlights the need for dissemination of information directly to young people about the legal process, the possible consequences of disclosure, as well as ongoing developments in legal proceedings when young people and their families interface with the legal system. The more recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures rather than solely on identifying barriers to disclosure is perhaps more helpful in informing awareness-raising campaigns and professional interventions. The author is involved in a large-scale review of children’s files in an assessment service to ascertain those factors that helped children tell about their experiences of sexual abuse. A pilot study has suggested that this is an appropriate methodology for gathering data on children’s experiences of informal disclosure, acknowledging the limitations of such an approach. Ungar ef al. (2009a) describe the optimal conditions for disclosure as follows: being directly asked about experiences of abuse; having access to someone who will listen, believe and respond appropriately; having knowledge and language about what constitutes abuse and how to access help; having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity (not being identified until they are ready for this) and confidentiality (the right to control who knows); and effective responses by adults both in informal and formal contexts. Ungar et al. (2009b) support recent developments in prevention programmes that target supportive formal and informal caregivers in being better able to detect the possibility of abuse and support disclosures rather than focusing on empowering children themselves in making disclosures. Their findings in relation to the importance of bridge building for young people to access formal supports are supported by Jensen er al.'s (2005) emphasis on the dialogical nature of disclosure, and the important role that trusted adults and peers play in the disclosure process through noticing signs of psychological distress and asking young people about their psychological wellbeing (Collings ef al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2005; McElvaney et al., 2012). More emphasis is therefore needed on providing opportunities for children and young people to disclose. The challenge for professionals and those who care for children is how to do this in a way that protects children and promotes their wellbeing. References Collings SJ, Griffiths S, Kumalo M. 2005. Patterns of disclosure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology 35(2): 270 285. DeVoe ER, Faller KC. 1999.The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment 4: 217 227. Elliott DM, Briere J. 1994. Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 12: 261 277. Goodman Brown TB, Edelstein RS, Goodman GS, Jones DPH, Gordon DS. 2003. Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 27: 525 540. Hershkowitz 1, Horowitz D, Lamb ME. 2005. Trends in children’s disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(11): 1203 1214. Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Horowitz D. 2006. Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose. Child Abuse & Neglect 30: 753 769. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 167 ‘More recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in making disclosures’ ‘Having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their anonymity and confidentiality’ Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/car EFTA00024208

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

168 McElvaney Hershkowitz I, Lanes O, Lamb ME. 2007. Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect 31: 111 123. Jensen TK, Gulbrandsen W, Mossige S, Reichelt S, Tjersland OA. 2005. Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children’s perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(12): 1395 1413. Jonson E, Lindblad F. 2004. Disclosure, reactions and social support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment 9(2): 190 200. Kilpatrick DG, Saunders BE. 1995. The National Survey of Adolescents in the United States [Computer File]. Medical University of South Carolina [producer], 1999. Inter university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000: Ann Arbor, MI. Kogan SM. 2004. Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect 28: 147 165. Lalor K, McElvaney R. 2010. Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk sexual behavior, and prevention/treatment programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 11(4): 159 177, DOL: 10.1177/1524838010378299 Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Hershkowitz L 2002.The effects of forensic interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice, Westcott HL, Davies GM, Bull R (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, England; 131 145. Lawson L, Chaffin, M. 1992. False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews: Incidence and influence of caretaker’s belief in abuse in cases of accidental abuse discovery by diagnosis of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1(4): 532 542. London K, Bruck M, Ceci SJ, Shuman D. 2005. Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(1): 194 226. Lyon TD. 2007. False denials: Overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research. In Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial, M Pipe, M Lamb, Y Orbach, AC Cederborg (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: London; 41 62. McElvaney R. 2002. Delays in reporting childhood sexual abuse and implications for legal proceedings. In Sex and Violence: The Psychology of Crime and Risk Assessment, Farrington DP, Hollin CR, McMurran M (eds). Routledge: London; 138 153. McElvaney R. 2008. How children tell: containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin. McElvaney R, Greene S, Hogan D. 2012. Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(6):1155 1175. DOL 10.1177/088626051 1424503 McGee H, Garavan R, deBarra M, Byrne J, Conroy R. 2002. The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland. The Liffey Press: Dublin. Mudaly N, Goddard C. 2006. The truth is longer than a lie: Children’s experiences of abuse and professional interventions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London. Olafson E, Lederman CS. 2006. The state of the debate about children’s disclosure patterns in child sexual abuse cases. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 57(1): 27 40. Priebe G, Svedin CG. 2008. Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of adolescents’ disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect 32: 1095 1108. Quas JA, Goodman GS. 2011. Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 18, 392 414 10.1037/a0026146 Quas JA, Goodman GS, Ghetti SA, Kristen W, Edelstein RR, Allison D, Cordon IM, Jones, DPH. 2005. Childhood sexual assault victims: Long term outcomes after testifying in criminal court: VII. General discussion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 70(2); 104117. Quayle E, Jonsson L, L66fL. 2012. Online Behaviour related to Child Sexual Abuse: Preliminary Version. ROBERT Project. Available: https//www.innocenceindanger.de/fileadmin/user upload! Downloads/ROBERT/ Interview analysis PRELIMINARY. pdf [18 June 2012]. Resnick HS., Kilpatrick DG., Dansky BS, Saunders BE, & Best CL. 1993. Prevalence of civilian trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in representative national sample of women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 984 991. Rispers J, Aleman A, Goudena PP. 1997. Prevention of child sexual abuse victimization: A meta analysis of school programs. Child Abuse & Neglect 21: 975 987. Sjoberg RL, Lindblad F. 2002-Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. The American Journal of Psychiatry 159: 312 314. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/car EFTA00024209

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse Smith DW, Letourneau EJ, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, Resnick, HS, Best CL. 2000. Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect 24: 273 287. Staller KM, Nelson Gardell D. 2005. “A burden in your heart”: Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 29: 1415 1432. Summit R. 1983. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect 7(2): 177 193 Ungar M, Barter K, McConnell S, Tutty L, Fairholm J. 2009a. Patterns of disclosure among youth. Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 341 356. DOL 10.1177/1473325009337842. Ungar M, Tutty LM, McConnell S, Barter K, Fairholm J. 2009b. What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33: 699 708. Zwi KJ, Woolfenden SR, Wheeler DM, O’Brien TA, Tait P, Williams KW. 2007. School based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 3: CD004380. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 169 Child Abuse Rev. Vol. 24: 159 169 (2015) DOK: 10.1002/car EFTA00024210

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ee EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF 1 PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY tion PUBLISH CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female adolescents and young adults Iva A. E. Bicanic’*, Lieve M. Hehenkamp’, Elise M. van de Putte”, Arjen J. van Wijk? and Ad de Jongh®** ‘National Psychotraumacenter for Children and Youth, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht The Netherlands; “Department of Paediatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; “Department of Behavioral Sciences, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; “School of Health Sciences, Salford University, Manchester, United Kingdom Background: Delayed disclosure of rape has been associated with impaired mental health; it is, therefore, important to understand which factors are associated with disclosure latency. The purpose of this study was to compare various demographics, post rape characteristics, and psychological functioning of early and delayed disclosers (i.e, more than | week post rape) among rape victims, and to determine predictors for delayed disclosure. Methods: Data were collected using a structured interview and validated questionnaires in a sample of 323 help seeking female adolescents and young adults (12 25 years), who were victimized by rape, but had no reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. Results: In 59% of the cases, disclosure occurred within 1 week. Delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. No significant differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek professional help. The combination of age category 12 17 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, confidence intervals (CI) 1.13 3.73], penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25 4.46), and closeness to assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52 4.60) contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure. Conclusion: The results point to the need of targeted interventions that specifically encourage rape victims to disclose early, thereby increasing options for access to health and police services. Keywords: Adolescents; young adults; rape; sexual assault; disclosure; latency to disclosure; posttraumatic stress disorder Responsible Editor: Rita Rosner, KU Eichstactt Ingolstadt, Germany. “Correspondence to: Iva A. E. Bicanic, National Psychotrauma Center for Children and Youth, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85090, NL 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands, Email: i.a.e.bicanic@umcutrecht.nl For the abstract or full text in other languages. please see Supplementary files under ‘Article Tools’ Received: 31 August 2014; Revised: 30 March 2015; Accepted: 13 April 2015; Published: 11 May 2015 to formal agencies, such as police or mental health services, is uncommon (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), especially when the rape has been committed on a date or by an acquaintance and involves the victim’s use of drugs and/or alcohol (Resnick et al., 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). There is evidence to suggest that victims believe that professionals will not be helpful to them because their rape experience does not match stereotypical conceptions of rape, such as involving a stranger, a weapon, and severe injury (Patterson, Greeson, & Campbell, 2009; Resnick et al., 2000). Accordingly, adolescents and young adults, who are more at risk to be victimized by rape than other age | ae studies have shown that disclosure of rape groups (De Haas, Van Berlo, Bakker, & Vanwesenbeeck, 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), may not receive targeted mental health care and may not report the crime to the police (Ruch, Coyne, & Perrone, 2000). For reasons of mental health and public safety, it is important to understand the potential factors that are related to disclosure. Timing of disclosure may be a crucial factor, as early disclosers are more likely to utilize appro- priate medical care and report to the police than delayed disclosers (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). In contrast, adults who wait longer than 1 month to disclose the rape are more likely to suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depres- sion compared to early disclosers (Ruggiero et al., 2004). European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015. © 2015 Iva A E. Bicanic et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Create Commons 1 Attribution 4.0 International License (http: //creativecommons.org/icanses/by/'4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transtorm, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit 6 given, that a link to thelicenee is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.9402/eipt.v6.25883. (Page number net for citation purpese) EFTA00024211

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

tva A. E. Bicanic et al. In addition, adolescents who disclose their rape experience at least | month after the incident took place are found to be at higher risk for major depressive disorder and delinquency (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007) compared to those who disclosed within | month. Victim—assailant relationship is crucial in disclosure latency, with victims being at higher risk for delayed dis- closure if there is a close relation with the assailant (Kogan, 2004; Koss, 1988; Rickert, Wiemann, & Vaughan, 2005). In contrast, delayed disclosure is less common in victims of a stereotypical rape, i.e., rape by a stranger including a weapon and injury (Smith et al., 2000). Victims of prior sexual trauma are more likely to postpone disclosure of a subsequent assault than those without prior victimization (Smith et al., 2000; Ullman, 1996). This is in contrast with the findings of Ahrens et al. (2010), who report no dif- ference in rates of prior sexual trauma between early and delayed disclosers. In addition, the victim’s age appears to be an important variable in predicting disclosure. Evidence suggests that young children are at higher risk for delayed disclosure than adolescents (Kogan, 2004; Schénbucher, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Schnyder, & Landolt, 2012). Thus, various rape and victim-related character- istics have been found to be associated with timing of disclosure. The majority of the aforementioned studies included college and adult female rape victims. It is important to examine rape disclosure latency in an age and sex group that is most at risk for rape victimization. There is only one prior quantitative study in adolescents (those aged 12-17 years) that identified factors that might influence disclosure latency (Kogan, 2004). He found that identity of the assailant, a familial relationship with the assailant, and a history of drug abuse in the household were related to the timing of disclosure. The results suggested that a familial relationship with the assailant will postpone disclosure, whereas a history of drug abuse in the house- hold, albeit this seems counterintuitive, makes prompt disclosure more likely. This study had some limitations, including the fact that the interviews were conducted by telephone and that the description of the relationship with the assailant was limited. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated a sample of female adolescent and young adult victims of rape who were admitted to a specialized mental health centre for victims of sexual assault. The first aim of this study was to compare demographics, post-rape characteristics, and psychological functioning between early and delayed disclosers in this group. The second aim, based on the exploratory findings of Kogan (2004), was to determine the predictors for delayed disclosure in adoles- cents and young adults, including age, prior trauma, and victim—assailant relationship using logistic regression analyses. Insight into the predictors for delayed disclosure for adolescents and young adults may reveal not only potential causal mechanisms but also possible targets for interventions that increase victims’ opportunities to receive timely post-rape services. Methods Subjects and data collection Rape was defined as “an event that occurred without the victim’s consent that involved the use or threat of force in vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). The definition includes both attempted and com- pleted rape; the term “completed” referring to vaginal, oral, anal, or multiple penetrations. Victims who disclosed within | week were defined as “early disclosers,” whereas those who disclosed at least after 1 week were defined as “delayed disclosers.” This dichotomization of the variable “disclosure latency”’ was based on the study of Ahrens et al. (2010) and the national standard criteria for admis- sion to a Rape Centre in the Netherlands, i.e., a maximum of 7 days post-rape. The study was conducted in the Dutch National Psychotrauma Centre, which provides psychological ser- vices for rape victims aged 12-25 years and their parents. Between May 2005 and December 2011, the centre re- ceived 621 phone calls concerning alleged rape victims from police authorities, mental health services, and self- referrals. In 178 cases, the phone call did not result in admission at the centre because of age limitations, or motivational reasons. In 108 cases, referrals were made to other institutions because the index trauma was chronic childhood sexual abuse rather than rape in adolescence/ young adulthood. Of the 335 cases admitted to the centre, 12 were not included in this study because of male gender, resulting in a final sample of 323 females with the index trauma being single rape. Referral sources for this final sample included the police (33.7'), mental health services (40.7%), and self-referrals, i.e. victims or parents (25.6%). Procedure During admission, all patients underwent a psychological assessment, consisting of 1) a structured interview for obtaining demographic and post-rape characteristics and 2) self-report questionnaires to obtain information about mental health functioning. Information from the inter- view was transcribed onto a form designed for this purpose. The following variables were obtained and dichotomized or categorized for the purpose of the study: Demographic and victim characteristics We asked patients about their current age, educational level (lower, middle, or higher), and whether they were of Dutch origin (i-e., in case of having parents born in the Netherlands). Those between 12 and 17 years of age were defined as adolescents and those between 18 and 25 years of age as young adults. We also asked whether the patient was living with their parent(s) (yes/no), and whether the Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 _ http://dx.dol.org’10.3402/eipt.v6.25883 (Page number not for citation purpose} EFTA00024212

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

family structure was complete, i.e., whether the biological parents were living together (yes/no). Patients were then asked to confirm the presence of prior negative sexual experiences (yes/no), and whether they had a current sexual relationship (yes/no). Rape characteristics Information about date and time of the rape was ob- tained to calculate the time since rape at admission. Next, patients were requested to describe the rape. Their re- sponse was categorized into use of penetration (yes/no), group rape (yes/no), use of physical violence (yes/no), and use of threats verbally and/or with a weapon (yes/no). Also, information regarding the victim’s relationship to the assailant was obtained. The assailant was defined as a stranger when the victim had never been in contact with the assailant before the rape. Responses were used to form a closeness category (yes in case of family, (boy) friend, or mentor). Patients were also asked about the (estimated) age of the assailant (categorized into 12-17 years or >18 years), and whether the victim had used alcohol prior to the rape (yes/no). Post-rape characteristics Patients were asked when they first talked about the rape. The response was used to calculate the disclosure time and the help-seeking time. At the end of the interview, patients were asked whether they had reported to the police after the incident (yes/no), and whether they had received any medical care after the incident (yes/no). The study was performed in accordance with the precepts and regulations for research as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Dutch Medical Research involving Humans Subjects Act concerning scientific research. According to the Ethical Medical Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, this act was not applicable to the present study. Written informed consent was obtained from both patients and parents. Measures Posttraumatic stress The Children’s Responses to Trauma Inventory (CRTI; Alisic, Eland, & Kleber, 2006) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This is a 34-item questionnaire asses- sing severity of PTSD symptoms according to DSM-IV. Patients are asked to indicate to what extent a reaction to a traumatic event was present during the past week. Scores range from | to 5, with higher scores indicating more symptomatology. The four subscales: Intrusion, Avoidance, Arousal, and Other Child-Specific Reactions consist of 7, 11, 6, and 10 items, respectively. The reli- ability of this instrument is good to excellent (Cronbach's a 0.92 for total score, 0.79 for Intrusion, 0.77 for Avoidance, 0.71 for Arousal; Alisic & Kleber, 2010). Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape For the purpose of the study, only the total score was analysed. Depression Children Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992; Timbremont & Braet, 2002) was used for participants aged 12-17 years of age. The CDI is a 27-item ques- tionnaire, assessing cognitive, affective. and behavioural symptoms of depression. The Dutch CDI has a satisfac- tory internal consistency, with Cronbach’s « ranging between 0.71 and 0.89 (Timbremont & Braet, 2002). Behavioural problems The Youth Self-Report (YSR: Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This questionnaire evaluates the teenager's perception of be- havioural and emotional problems. YSR has shown to be internally reliable (Cronbach's ’s ranging from 0.71 to 0.95), and convergent and discriminant validity is reported to be satisfactory (Bérubé & Achenbach, 2006). The YSR includes four broadband scales and nine narrow-band scales to assess behaviour problems. For the purpose of the study, only the total score on behaviour problems was included in the analyses. General psychopathology The Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R; Arrindell & Ettema, 1986) was used for participants aged 12-25 years. This is a 90-item self-report inventory to assess psycho- social distress. Patients were instructed to indicate the amount they were bothered by each of the distress symptoms during the preceding week. Patients rated 90 distress symptoms on a five-point Likert scale with 1 being “not at all’ and 5 being “extremely.” The state- ments are assigned to eight dimensions, reflecting various types of psychopathology: anxiety, agoraphobia, depres- sion, somatization, insufficiency, sensitivity, hostility, and insomnia. The Global Severity Index (GSI) can be used as a summary of the test and reflects the severity of all answered statements as a global measure of distress. Cronbach’s « has been found to range from 0.73 to 0.97. For the purpose of the study, only the GSI was analysed. Data analyses To compare demographic and post-rape characteristics between the early and delayed disclosers, chi-square tests were used. To compare multiple continuous psychological scores, MANCOVA was used with “time since trauma” as a covariate to correct for the potential influence of time since trauma. Delayed disclosure was used as a dependent variable. The strength of the univariate associations between each potential risk factor and delayed disclosure was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95'% Cl). To determine the strongest risk factors for delayed disclosure, each potential risk Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 — httpv//dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883 (page number not tor ctation purpose) EFTA00024213

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

tva A. E. Bicanic et al. factor identified in the univariate analyses with a sig- nificant OR (p <0.05) was entered as a predictor variable into the multivariable model, using a stepwise forward logistic regression (LR) analysis with delayed disclosure as the outcome variable. The Hosmer—Lemeshow goodness- of-fit chi-square was used to calculate how well the data fit the model. For all statistical analyses, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results Socio-demographic characteristics Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are pre- sented in Table 1. Victims’ age ranged from 12 to 25 years, with a mean age of 16.7 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 16.1 years. Victims’ mean age at time of rape was 14.3 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 13.9 years. Penetration occurred in 79.6% of the cases. None of the victims reported prior chronic child sexual abuse. Data about victim—assailant relationship are presented in Table 2. Victims first disclosed after a mean 20.8 weeks (SD = 56.8, range 1-624 weeks), although 58.5% of the cases told within | week. First disclosure was to a friend (45.8%), parent(s) (17.1%), (ex) boy-friend (9.4%), family member (6.8%), professional (5.8%), or other adult (15.2%). With regard to post-rape services, 53.8% of all victims consulted a doctor for medical care and 51.4% reported to the police. On average. victims were admitted to the centre 59.8 weeks post-rape (SD =93.7, range 1-676). The mean GSI of the rape victims on the SCL-90- R (M = 209.7, SD = 61.8) was comparable with previously reported data of psychiatric populations [MM =203.55, SD = 61.60; (269) = 1.629, p = 0.104] and was substantially Tuble 1. Demographic characteristics of rape victims (N = 323) in valid percentages N % Dutch origin® 274 84.8 Education level” Low 182 58.0 Medium 76 24.2 High 56 17.8 Parents divorced 102 31.9 Lives at parental home 273 85.3 Current relationship 81 26.5 Prior negative sex 46 14.8 “Dutch origin was defined as being a child from parents born in the Netherlands; “after 6 years of general primary school, at the age of 12 years, students enter low (4 years), medium (5 years), or high (6 years) secondary education level. Table 2. Victim assailant relationship (N= 323) in valid percentages N % Stranger 94 29.5 (Ex-)Boyfriend 32 10.0 Friend 33 10.3 Acquaintance 61 19.1 Person met during nightlife 30 9.4 Second-degree relative 15 47 Person seen only once 15 47 Person from school 14 44 Person met on the internet 12 3.8 Colleague 10 34 Mentor 3 1.0 higher [1(269) = 24.297, p <0.001] compared to the gen- eral population (M=118.28, SD =32.38: Arrindell & Ettema, 1986). For the CDI, mean scores were in the clinical range (Mf =17.2, SD=4.6) and rape victims had significantly higher mean scores (t(230) = 15,923, p <0.001), in comparison to previously reported data of the general population of adolescent girls (Timbremont, Braet. & Roelofs, 2008; M =9.01, SD =6.45). Differences between early and delayed disclosers Fifty-nine percent of the sample consisted of early dis- closers (disclosure within | week). No significant differ- ences in demographic characteristics were found between early and delayed disclosers, except that there were more delayed disclosers in the age category 12-17 years compared to the early disclosers group (y* (1) =6.96; p =0.008). For rape characteristics, significant differences between groups were found for the use of penetration, with more victims of penetration in the delayed disclosers group compared to the early disclosers group (y? (1) = 5.37; p =0.02). Also, the delayed disclosers group pre- sented more victims of verbal and/or weapon threats than the early disclosers group (y* (1) =5.35; p =0.02). Furthermore, among the delayed disclosers more victims identified the assailant as a close person compared to the early disclosers (77 (1) =10.84; p=0.001). Alcohol was used more often in the early disclosers group compared to the delayed disclosers group (7 (1) = 20.24: p <0.001). With respect to post-rape characteristics, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (15.9'%) utilized medical services following the rape compared to the early disclosers (30.3%; 77 (1) =5.32: p=0.02). Similarly, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (14.6%) compared to the early disclosers (34.3%) reported the rape to the police (y* (1) =16.15; p <0.001). The time since trauma at admission was sig- nificantly lower for early disclosers (M=41.1 weeks, SD =79.4) than for delayed disclosers (.f =82.9 weeks, Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 _ http://dx.dol.org’10.3402/e/pt.v6.25883 (page number not for citation purpose) EFTA00024214

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

SD = 103.3; #(314) =4.06, p <0.001). Mean and median time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups (1309) =2.54, p <0.48). Excluding outliers (/+3 SD, N=11) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level of psychological distress when compared to previously reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts, & Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbremont et al., 2008; YSR, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell & Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that when comparing multiple continuous psychological scores, the overall psychological functioning (posttrau- matic stress, depression, behavioural problems, and gen- eral psychopathology) did not differ significantly between early and delayed disclosers (F(6,198) = 0.88, p =0.51). Table 3 shows the ORs with 95'% Cls for the associa- tions between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers, were significantly more likely to be in the age category of 12-17 years (OR =2.10), to have experienced rape by a close person (OR =2.35), to have been threatened verbally and/or with a weapon (OR = 1.75), and to have experienced penetration (OR = 1.99). Delayed disclosers were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to the rape (OR =0.22). None of the other factors were found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure. Predicting delayed disclosure A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict delayed disclosure, using “age category.” “close assailant,” “use of threats,” and “penetration” as predictors. Victims’ alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of missing values for 33.4'% of the cases. The use of threats was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e, age cate- gory 12-17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (77 (3) =23.09, p <0.000). There were no significant interac- tions between the predictors. Nagelkerke’s R* of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predic- tors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer-Lemeshow y7 (4) = 2.77, p <0.60). In total, 62% of the respondents were categorized correctly, when using the three predictors that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years (OR 2.05, CI 1.13- 3.73), penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25—4.46), and closeness to the assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52-4.60). Discussion The results of this study show that, although no dif- ferences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek help, Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that delayed disclosers represented significantly more adoles- cents than young adults, significantly more victims of penetration than assault, significantly more victims who were threatened than not threatened, and significantly more victims who were close with the assailant. The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to utilize medical services and report to the police than early disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not only impede reception of proper medical care, such as treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden, 2011), but also impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013). Three variables were identified that successfully pre- dicted delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years, penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The finding that the victim’s age significantly predicts disclo- sure latency is in line with previous research showing that adolescents are at a greater risk for delayed disclosure when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000). Adolescents may be less able to over- come the barriers to disclose, including factors such as assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood, they may possess more information about their rights and options after victimization, and have more possibilities for whom to disclose. In our study. most adolescents disclosed the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma et al., 2004: Priebe & Svedin, 2008). The use of penetration was found to make victims more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results from Priebe and Svedin (2008), but in line with an older study by Arata (1998), who found that more severe forms of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure. Penetration may influence disclosure latency through a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of tactics to maintain the victim’s silence, with fear of re- prisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed dis- closure (Kogan, 2004). Also, adolescents may think that social reactions in response to disclosure are more nega- tive in case of completed rape compared to assault. Another factor that seems to make immediate dis- closure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant, as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 htto//dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883 [page number not tor ctation purpose) EFTA00024215

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

lva A. E. Bicanic et al. Table 3. Demographic and (post )rape characteristics by disclosure time (early vs. delayed disclosers) and odds ratios for delayed disclosure Demographic and (post-jrape characteristics Age category (years) 18 25 12 17 Dutch origin No Yes Living with parent(s) No Yes Complete family structure No Yes Current sexual relationship No Yes Prior negative sexual experience(s) No Yes Known assailant No Yes Close to assailant No Yes Group rape No Yes Age of assailant (years) 12 17 >18 Use of penetration No Yes Use of threats No Yes Use of physical violence No Yes Victim's alcohol use No Yes *p <0.05. Seven participants were dropped from analyses due to missing disclosure time data. Early disclosure (N =185) N % 55 17.4 130 444 27 8.5 158 50.0 29 9.2 155 49.2 58 18.4 127 40.3 127 41.8 53 17.4 152 49.4 32 10.4 56 V7.7 129 40.8 150 47.6 35 144 160 50.8 24 7.6 63 20.6 17 38.2 46 14.7 136 43.5 90 31.6 76 26.7 130 42.6 51 16.7 72 33.5 61 28.4 member, or mentor. This finding is consistent with pre- vious studies showing that the closer the relationship between the victim and assailant, the less likely the young (page number not for citation purpose) Delayed disclosure {Le., >1-week post-rape), N = 131 N % 22 7.0 109 34.5 22 7.0 109 34.5 16 5.1 115 36.5 42 13.3 88 27.9 97 31.9 27 8.9 110 35.7 14 45 36 11.4 95 30.1 84 26.7 46 14.6 116 36.8 15 48 54 17.6 72 23.5 19 641 112 35.8 48 16.8 71 24.9 82 26.9 42 13.8 69 32.4 13 6.0 OR 2.10 0.85 1.35 0.96 0.67 0.61 1.15 2.35 0.86 0.72 1.99 1.75 1.31 0.22 95% Cl 1.20 3.65" 0.46 1.56 0.70 2.59 0.59 1.55 0.39 1.14 0.31 1.19 0.70 1.88 1.40 3.93" 0.43 1.71 0.45 1.14 1.10 3.60" 1.09 2.82" 0.80 2.14 0.11 0.44" woman was to report this victimization to anyone (Koss, 1988; Rickert et al., 2005; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). The dynamics of intrafamilial abuse is often proposed as Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 _ http://dx.doi.org’10.3402/eipt.v6.25883 EFTA00024216

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the explanation for delayed or non-disclosure (Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000). In the present study, however, only 5% of the assailants were identified as a family member. Most close relationships referred to (boyfriends, suggesting that a significant percentage of the sample experienced peer-to-peer victimization. This type of vic- timization is most likely to occur during adolescence, as compared to childhood or young adulthood, and greatly increases the risk of revictimization (Humphrey & White, 2000). Hence, victims of rape by peers may be a target group for interventions promoting early disclosure. Clearly, there are many variables working in tandem to affect the timing of victim's disclosure. A closer look at the final model, which identified three unique variables that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed dis- closure, can help us to better understand the phenomenon of initial disclosure in adolescents and young adults. Younger adolescent victims who are raped by a close per- son are more likely to delay disclosure than older victims of attempted rape by a stranger or acquaintance. Perhaps, they struggle with the notion that someone close to them performed such a violent act against them, which con- fuses them about what might happen in terms of safety if they would disclose (or not). This finding is especially important in the light of the fact that approximately 80% of victims had some sort of relationship with their per- petrator prior to the assault (Basile, Chen, Black, & Saltzman, 2007). With regard to rape types, it would intuitively seem that less severe forms of sexual assault are associated with delayed disclosure and that completed rape would be easier to identify as clearly inappropriate and wrong. Victims of completed rape, however, may be more likely to experience negative psychological reac- tions, e.g., self-blame and avoidance coping. It is con- ceivable that they delay their disclosure as a result of rape-induced psychological distress (Starzynski, Ullman, Filipas, & Townsend, 2005), not necessarily the severity of the assault. Although the final model showed acceptable goodness of fit, the percentage of explained variance of delayed disclosure was modest. Thus, there must be other variables predictive of delayed disclosure, such as the assailants use of alcohol or weaker support systems, that we did not assess in this study. Besides this limitation, there are other drawbacks of this study that should be mentioned. First, a clinical sample was used with patients reporting high mean levels of psychological distress. This ceiling effect may explain why no differences were found between early and delayed disclosers on psychological function- ing. contrary to prior studies (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007; Ruggiero et al., 2004). Second, posttraumatic stress was only assessed for children up to 18 years, and for young adults additional suitable measures were not used. Third, information could have been lost due to dichotomizing the variable disclosure latency. Fourth, results may not be Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape generalizable to all rape victims, because the percentage of victims that consulted a medical professional and reported to the police was higher in our sample than in most studies (Hanson et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 2000; Zinzow, Resnick, Barr, Danielson, & Kilpatrick, 2012). Perhaps, these differences could, at least partially, be explained by the fact that stranger rape, representing 30'% of our sample, leads to higher likelihood of help-seeking and police reporting because of its association with higher acknowledgment of victim status (Resnick et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000). The fact that this is a help-seeking sample is critical for the reasons cited in the discussion, but also because the generalizability of these data to rape victims who never tell anyone—perhaps the group most at risk—simply cannot be known. Besides these limita- tions, several strengths of the current study need to be noted. One strength is the unique set of adolescents and young adults who presented at a mental health care centre after a single rape event, but who reported no prior chronic sexual abuse in childhood. For 85% of the sample, the index trauma was a first time rape. Moreover, data were collected at a designated referral centre for victims of rape and, therefore, the sample is likely to represent the clinical population of Dutch victims in the age group of 12-25 years. The findings of the current study, suggesting that delayed disclosers are less able to benefit from emergency medical care and evidence collection, have a number of practical implications. One of the strategies to enhance victims’ willingness to disclose within the first week post- rape may be sexval education campaigns in school and media, as being uninformed is one of the reasons for them not to disclose (Crisma et al., 2004). Education may include medical information on rape-related pregnancy and STDs, as well as the need for timely emergency contraception and prophylaxis, given that these concerns appear to be facilitators of seeking medical help (Zinzow et al., 2012). Also, practical information about DNA evi- dence and how to best protect it, e.g., related to shower- ing, clothing, eating, and drinking, may increase the awareness of opportunities in the early-phase post-rape. Moreover, facts about the potential psychological impact of rape, such as PTSD and revictimization, but also in- formation about evidence-based treatments (Elwood et al, 2011; Littleton & Ullman, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2013), may increase help-seeking behaviour in an early stage. Furthermore, efforts to encourage early disclosure must consider peer-to-peer victimization as a primary factor, as most participants in this study experienced this type of victimization, and may initially not have defined or acknowledged the incident as rape because they rationalize such experiences as normal (Hlavka, 2014), leading to the finding of delayed disclosure. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that adolescent victims of rape with penetration by Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 htto//dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883 [page number not for ctation purpose) EFTA00024217

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

va A. E. Bicanic et al. someone close are at increased risk for delayed disclosure, and that delayed disclosers are less likely to use medical services and to report to the police. These findings may assist clinicians and policymakers in understanding rape and help to develop interventions (Unterhitzenberger & Rosner, 2014), specifically targeted to support adoles- cents and young adults to disclose in an early-phase post- rape. Although the vast majority of the participants was living at their parental home, many of the sample did not first disclose to their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that in prevention programs specific attention should be given to the strengthening of the child—parent relationship, to facilitate disclosure to parents (Sch6nbucher et al., 2012). Next, as victims tend to disclose mostly to peers, prevention programmes may need to aim at teach- ing adolescents how they can help a peer victim if they become a recipient of disclosure (Schénbucher et al., 2012). In addition, education may increase victims’ willingness to disclose early, thereby increasing opportu- nities for access to health and police services. It is more likely to reach adolescents with direct, active, and online outreach programs via communication channels that are frequently used by adolescents and young adults parti- cularly social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.), forums, and mobile apps. Such programmes, where- in adolescents and young adults are being treated as agents and decision makers (Hlavka, 2014), should focus on information concerning what rape actually is—not only the stereotypical idea of rape and what (not) to do in the aftermath of rape especially in the first week post- rape. Another way to help improve the support of victims of rape is the implementation of multidisciplinary sexual assault centres (Bicanic, Snetselaar, De Jongh, & Van de Putte, 2014; Bramsen, Elklit, & Nielsen, 2009), as these may be the most suitable places to organize education campaigns and offer integrated post-rape services in one location. Future research should investigate whether the availability of such centres increases the prevalence of police reporting and use of medical care. Moreover, as discussed, previous research concerning the topic of disclosure has focused on the disclosure process, mainly the effect of negative social reactions, and not the latency. In future research, social reactions in relation to disclosure (latency) should be assessed by using the Social Reactions Ques- tionnaire, as well as the victim’s perception of their own experience being defined as rape, as many girls and young women do not report or seek help because they regard sexual violence against them as normal (Hlavka, 2014). Conflict of interest and funding There is no conflict of interest in the present study for any of the authors. References Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Centre for Children, Youth, and Families Ahrens, C. E., Stansell, J, & Jennings, A. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors’ recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 631 648. Alisic, E., Eland, J, Huijbregts, R. A. D., & Kleber, R. J. (2012). Schokverwerkingslijst voor kinderen (Children’s responses to trauma inventory revised version]. Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers. Alisic, E., Eland, J., & Kleber, R. J. (2006). Schokverwerkingslijst voor Kinderen herziene versie (Children's responses to trauma inventory revised version}. Utrecht: Institute for Psychotrauma in collaboration with Clinical Psychology (University of Utrecht) and Psychotrauma Centre for Children and Youth (University Medical Centre Utrecht). Alisic, E.. & Kleber, R. J. (2010). Measuring posttraumatic stress reactions in children: A preliminary validation of the children's responses to trauma inventory. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 3(3), 192 204. Arata, C. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of child sexual abuse survivors who disclosed their victimization. Child Maltreatment, 3(1), 63 71. Armindell, W. A., & Ettema, J. H. M. (1986). SCL 90: Handleiding hij cen multidimensionele psychopathologie indicator [SCL 90: manual for a multidimensional measure of psychopathology). Lisse: Swets Test. Basile, K. C., Chen, J., Black, M. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults Violence & Victims, 22,437 448. Bérubé, R. L.. & Achenbach, T. M. (2006). Bibliography of published studies using ASEBA: 2006 edition, Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Centre for Children, Youth and Families. Bicanic, L., Snetselaar, H.. De Jongh, A., & Van de Putte, E. (2014). Victims’ use of professional services in a Dutch sexual assault centre. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 23645, doi: http://dx.doi_org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.23645 Bramsen, R. H., Elklit, A., & Nielsen, L. H. (2009). A Danish model for treating victims of rape and sexual assault: The multidisciplinary public approach, Journal of Aggression. Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8), 886 905. Broman Fulks, J. J.. Ruggiero, K. J., Hanson, R. F., Smith, D. W.. Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., et al. (2007). Sexual assault disclosure in relation to adolescent mental health: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 260 266. Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(10), 1035 1048. De Haas, S., Van Berlo, W., Bakker, F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence in the Netherlands, the risk of revictimization and pregnancy: Results from a national population survey. Violence and Victims, 27(4), 592 608. Elwood, L. S., Smith, D. W., Resnick, H. S.. Gudmundsdottir, B., Amstadter, A. B., Hanson, R. F., et al. (2011). Predictors of rape: Findings from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(2), 166 173. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Bureau of Justice Statistics. Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 _ http://dx.dol.org’10.3402/eipt.v6.25883 (Page number not for citation purpose) EFTA00024218

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Hanson, R. F., Kievit, L. W., Saunders, B. E., Smith, D. W., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., et al. (2003). Correlates of adolescent reports of sexual assault: Findings from the national survey of adolescents Child Maltreatment, &(4), 261 272. Hlavka, H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, doi: 10.1177/0891243214526468. Humphrey, J. A., & White, J. W. (2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(6), 419 424. Kogan, S. M. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28,147 165. Koss, M. P. (1988). Criminal victimization among women: Impact on health status and medical service usage (Grant No. 85 UJ CX 0038). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Kovacs, M. (1992). Children depression inventory CDI: Manual. New York: Multi Health Systems. Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 649 658. Linden, J. A. (2011). Care of the adult patient after sexual assault. New England Journal of Medicine, 365(9), 834 841. Littleton, H., & Ullman, S. E. (2013). PTSD symptomatology and hazardous drinking as risk factors for sexual assault revicti mization: Examination in European American and African American women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(3), 345 353. McLaughlin, K. A.. Koenen, K. C., Hill, E. D., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A.. Zaslavsky, A. M., et al. (2013). Trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of adolescents. Jowrnal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(8), 815 830. Patterson, D., Greeson, M., & Campbell, R. (2009). Understanding rape survivors’ decisions not to seck help from formal social systems. Health & Social Work, 34(2), 127 136. Pricbe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society. An epidemiological study of adolescents’ disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095 1108. Resnick, H. S., Holmes, M. M.. Kilpatrick, D. G.. Clum, G., Acierno, R., Best, C. L., et al. (2000). Predictors of post rape medical care in a national sample of women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 194), 214 219. Rickert, V. 1, Wiemann, C. M., & Vaughan, R. D. (2005). Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: Who reports and when. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18(1), 17 24. Ruch, L. R., Coyne, B. J., & Perrone, P. A. (2000). Reporting sexual assault to the police in Hawaii (NCJ 188264, National Criminal Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape Justice Reference Service). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ruggiero, K. J, Smith, D. W.. Hanson, R. F, Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., et al. (2004). Is disclosure of childhood rape associated with mental health outcome? Results from the National Women's Study. Child Maltreatment, (1), 62 77. Schonbucher, V.. Maier, T.. Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Landolt, M. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interper sonal Violence, 27, 3486 3513. doi: 10.1177/08862605 12445380. Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(2), 273 287. Starzynski, L. L., Ullman, S. E., Filipas, H. H., & Townsend, S. M. (2005). Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Vietims, 20, 417 432. Timbremont, B., & Braet, C. (2002). Children’s depression inventory: Nederlandstalige versie (Children's Depression Inventory: Dutch version]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Timbremont, B., Bract, C., & Roelofs, J. (2008). Handleiding Children’s Depression Inventory (Children's Depression Inven tory: Dutch version]. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V. Tjaden, PG. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ullman, S. E. (1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 554 571. Ullman, S. E., & Filipas, H. H. (2001). Correlates of formal and informal support secking in sexual assault victims Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(10), 1028 1047. Unterhitzenberger, |, & Rosner, R. (2014). Lessons from writing sessions: A school based randomized trial with adolescent orphans in Rwanda. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 24917, doi: http:/dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.24917 Wolitzky Taylor, K. B., Resnick, H. S.. Amstadter, A. B., McCauley, J. L., Ruggiero, K. J., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2011). Reporting rape in a national sample of college women. Journal of American College Health, 59(7), 582 587. Zinzow, H. M., Resnick, H. S., Barr, S$. C., Danielson, C. K.. & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2012). Receipt of post rape medical care in a national sample of female victims. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(2), 183 187. Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 htto//dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883 {page rember not tor ctation purpose) EFTA00024219