Shut Down and Closed Off - A Routine Activity Approach To Invest

Georgia Southern University
Digital Commons@Georgia Southern
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies
Spring 2024
"Shut Down and Closed Off": A Routine Activity

Approach to Investigating the Relationship Between
COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse
Report Characteristics in Georgia
Spencer E. Riner
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd
Part of the Criminology Commons, Education Commons, Epidemiology Commons,

Inequality and Stratification Commons, and the Public Health Education and Promotion
Commons
Recommended Citation
Riner, Spencer E., ""Shut Down and Closed Off": A Routine Activity Approach to
Investigating the Relationship Between COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse
Report Characteristics in Georgia" (2024). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2708.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/2708
This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Jack N. Averitt College
of Graduate Studies at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia
Southern. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@georgiasouthern.edu.
“SHUT DOWN AND CLOSED OFF”: A ROUTINE ACTIVITY APPROACH TO
INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVID-19 SCHOOL CLOSURES
AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE REPORT CHARACTERISTICS IN GEORGIA
by
SPENCER RINER
(Under the Direction of Akiv Dawson)
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 created a public health crisis that led to an unprecedented
number of school closures. A major concern raised by child advocates, law enforcement, and
social service providers was the possible increase in undetected child abuse and maltreatment.
Undergirding this concern was the belief that this mitigation effort might place child abuse
victims and offenders within proximity for extended periods of time. While this was a significant
concern, it has rarely been analyzed empirically. To address this gap in the literature, this thesis
investigates how school closures impacted the characteristics of child sexual abuse (CSA) reports
in Georgia. Guided by the tenets of Routine Activity Theory (RAT), this study draws on data
from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) Child File 2019-2021 and
uses cross-tabulation and ANOVA models to address three research questions about school
closures and CSA reporting. Each question relates to an element of RAT. Results from this study
support the tenets of RAT and indicate that COVID-19 school closures impacted the
characteristics of CSA reports. Specifically, I observed that school closures were associated with
changes in the characteristics of CSA victims, perpetrators, and reporters. The insights gained
about the applicability of RAT in studying CSA reporting and the implications for future
research, policy, and practice are discussed.
INDEX WORDS: COVID-19, School closures, Child sexual abuse, Routine activity theory
by
SPENCER RINER
B.A., Georgia Southern University, 2004
M.S., Columbus State University, 2016
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY
COLLEGE OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

© 2024
SPENCER RINER
All Rights Reserved

1

by
SPENCER RINER
Major Professor: Akiv Dawson
Committee: Amanda Graham
Chad Posick
Jessica Schwind
Electronic Version Approved:
May 2024
2
DEDICATION
To my loving and supportive wife, Carla, and my smart and beautiful daughters, Emily, Lauren,
and London.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am incredibly grateful to Dr. Akiv Dawson for her unwavering patience and guidance. Her
mentorship taught me how to conduct research and effectively articulate my findings in a way
that stressed the extreme importance of this research topic. I am also grateful to my thesis
committee members, Dr. Chad Posick, Department Chair of Criminal Justice and Criminology;
Dr. Amanda Graham, Director of the Graduate Program for Criminal Justice and Criminology,
and Dr. Jessica Schwind, Associate Professor and Director of the Institute for Health Logistics
and Analytics. Their expertise in their respective academic fields provided valuable insights and
guidance that contributed to my educational journey. My thesis committee members share a
dedication and passion for preventing childhood victimization. Finally, I thank Charlie Bowen,
Ph.D. Candidate and friend for proofreading my work and providing helpful, constructive
criticism.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..............................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..9
1.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic and School Closures……...…….……..………...9
1.2 COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse…………….…….….10
1.3 Study’s Purpose and Contributions………………………………………....11
2 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………….…….……...…13
2.1 What is known about Child Sexual Abuse?...................................................13
2.2 What is known about the Family and Child Sexual Abuse?..........................14
2.3 What is known about Educators and Child Sexual Abuse?...........................24
2.4 What is known about COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual
Abuse Reporting?................................................................................................26
2.5 Current Study and Contribution to the Research Literature……...………...29
3 THEORY & RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………...…...…………...31
3.1 Closed off from Educators Perspective and Routine Activity Theory ..........31
3.2 Routine Activity Theory, Crime, and the COVID-19 Pandemic...................33
3.3 Routine Activity Theory and Child Sexual Abuse.........................................34
3.4 Routine Activity Theory and the Current Study…………………………….34

5
3.4.1 Child Victim as Suitable Target…………………………….34
3.4.2 Parents and Other Family Members as Motivated
Offenders..........................................................................................36
3.4.3 Educators and Other Reporters as Capable Guardians………37
3.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………………………...39
4 DATA AND METHODS……………………………………………………...............42
4.1 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) …………........42
4.2 Selecting Cases…………………………………............................................42
4.3 Why Georgia?……….……………………………………………………….43
4.4 Variables under Study…………………..……………………………………45
4.4.1 Dependent Variables…………………………………………45
4.4.2 Independent Variable…………………………………..…….53
4.5 Analytic Plan…………………………………………………………………54
5 RESULTS……………..…………………………………………………….................56
5.1 Suitable Target: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA Victims..56
5.2 Motivated Offender: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA

Perpetrators …………..………………………………...……………………….60
5.3 Capable Guardians: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA….....64
6 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………...................67
6.1 Study’s Key Findings………………………………………………………..67
6.1.1 Suitable Targets? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Victim
Characteristics……………………………………………………..68
6.1.2 Motivated Offenders? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA
Perpetrator Characteristics………………………………………...72
6
6.1.3 Capable Guardians? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA
Reporter Characteristics.…………………………………………...73
6.2 Study’s Contributions………………………………………………………..74
6.3 Study’s Limitations…………………………………………………………..74
6.4 Directions for Future Research………………………………………………76
6.5 Implications for Policy……………………………………………………….77
6.6 Study’s Conclusion…………………………………………………………..78
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................80
7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 5.1 CSA Victim Descriptive Statistics…...................................................................56

Table 5.2 Cross-Tabulations COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Victim
Characteristics…………………………..…………………………………………...…….57
Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Perpetrator Characteristics.…............................. 61
Table 5.4 Cross Tabulations of COVID-19 School Closures on Perpetrator Demographic

Changes……………………………………………………………………………………62
Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Reporters…..…………………..………………..65

Table 5.6 Cross Tabulations of COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Reporter
Characteristics……………………………………………………………………………..65
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Model of Routine Activity Theory………….......................................................33
Figure 2. Routine Activity Theory and the Current Study ……..........................................39

9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic and School Closures
In 2020, COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, created a
global public health crisis. In February 2020, the first death from COVID-19 was reported in the
United States (CDC, 2023). Governments worldwide implemented mitigation strategies and
measures to protect the public and prevent the spread of the virus. Some measures included
masking requirements, banning large gatherings, restricting travel, limiting indoor activities, and
enforcing strict social distancing guidelines (Haug et al., 2020; Zajenkowski et al., 2020; Chung
et al., 2021; Geprags et al., 2023). On March 13, 2020, COVID-19 was declared a national
emergency (Doeden, 2022). Many businesses, churches, schools, and recreational facilities
closed for an extended period (Haug et al., 2020; Brauner et al., 2021). While these mitigation
and prevention efforts were implemented to address the immediate risks associated with the
outbreak, they also drastically impacted the economy and led to profound changes in people's
daily lives (Doeden, 2022; Geprags et al., 2023).
Some policies enacted to slow the spread of COVID-19 at the height of the pandemic had
unforeseen collateral consequences for criminal justice. According to Miller and Blumstein
(2020), the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent policy responses "both restrict and expand
opportunities for various types of crime while presenting unprecedented challenges for the
criminal justice system" (p.515). The behaviors of victims and offenders were impacted by the
mitigation measures taken at the height of the pandemic (Interpol, 2020). Victim and offender
routines were interrupted, causing a change in crime patterns. For example, empirical evidence
collected amid the pandemic indicated crime rates dropped for certain types of crimes, such as
10
petty thefts, drug offenses, and robberies, suggesting stay-at-home orders reduced contact
between victims and offenders outside of the home (Abrams, 2021; Boman & Gallupe, 2020).
However, some scholars predicted an increase in crimes that occurred within the home, such as
domestic violence and child abuse (Boman & Gallupe, 2020). Furthermore, law enforcement,
courts, and corrections institutions across the United States struggled to respond to crime and
victimization amid the changes created by the pandemic (Baldwin et al., 2020; White & Fradella,
2020; Smith & Gartner, 2023).
1.2 COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse

One policy response to the pandemic was canceling in-person instruction in public
primary and secondary educational institutions.1 Coryton (2020) states school closures impacted
almost half of the world's student population. In the United States, most schools began closing in
February 2020 (Baker, 2022), with schools staying closed in some states as late as June 2021
(Baker, 2022). School closures were implemented in all fifty states during the 2019-2020 school
year (Auger et al., 2020). The logic behind mandated school closures was twofold. First, little
was known about COVID-19 transmission rates early in the pandemic, and it was surmised that
closing crowded schools would protect children from falling ill from the virus (Klimek-Tulwin
& Tulwin, 2020; She et al., 2020). Second, it was discovered that people could be non-
symptomatic carriers of the virus (Aguilar et al., 2020; Wu & McGoogan, 2020). Closing schools
was thought to be necessary to reduce the chance of a non-symptomatic child infecting others
within their households (Krishnamachari et al.,2021). Immediately, education transformed from
a physical classroom to a virtual environment (Almeida et al., 2021). School districts, employers,
1
In this thesis, the cancellation of in-person instruction will be referred to as school closures.
11
and parents were unprepared for the sudden change in modality (Phelps & Sperry, 2020). The
transition from physical to virtual education was particularly difficult for struggling families.
Many lower-income families could not afford internet service and lacked access to technology
(Almeida et al., 2021). Parents struggled to balance work life and their new or changing roles
(Liu, 2022). Research indicated the pandemic significantly reduced parents' labor market activity
(NBER, 2022).
Regarding criminal justice, the COVID-19 school closures produced significant child
abuse and reporting concerns. One important argument emerged in the research literature about
COVID-19 school closures and child abuse reporting, referred to in this master's thesis as the
“closed off from educators” thesis. Scholarship within the “closed off from educators” thesis
maintained that reporting child abuse cases would decrease because students were removed from
teachers, counselors, and other mandatory reporters who might bring the abuse to the attention of
criminal justice authorities (Tener et al., 2021). In 2021, the Administration for Children and
Families (2021) reported fewer reports of child maltreatment during the pandemic. It speculated
that the decrease was due to children having less contact with mandatory reporters during the
COVID-19 school closures (Administration for Children and Families, 2021).
1.3 Study's Purpose & Contributions

Researchers, policymakers, and children’s rights advocates raised concerns the global
COVID-19 pandemic may have exposed children to a "hidden crisis" by forcing children to stay
home with abusers (Bradbury‐Jones & Isham, 2020; Posick et al., 2020; Bullinger et al., 2021).
According to Barron et al. (2020), school closures may affect child abuse and maltreatment by
creating “a broken link between reporters and victims of child maltreatment” (p.1). Although
there were few empirical investigations supporting the closed off from educators thesis, for the
12
most part, the arguments were largely theoretical (e.g., Fore, 2021; Katz et al., 2021; Katz &
Fallon, 2021). Furthermore, few studies investigated the relationship between COVID-19 school
closures and child abuse in the national and international contexts, and most have focused on
single cities (e.g., Barboza et al., 2020; Baron et al., 2020; Rapoport et al., 2020; Sharma et al.,
2021) and used initial case reporting as the outcome (Auger et al., 2020; Baron et al., 2020; Salt
et al., 2021). Lastly, among the studies that investigated child abuse and school closures within
the context of the COVID-19 school closures, none focused on child sexual abuse specifically.
Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between COVID-
19 school closures and the reporting of child sexual abuse in the state of Georgia. In addition to
testing the emergent theoretical perspective about COVID-19 school closures and child sexual
abuse reporting, this master's thesis contributes to the growing literature about the collateral
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on violence against children. In doing so, it brings
together several important areas of research, such as public health, criminal justice, education,
and victimology, and has important implications for policy and practice.
13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines academic literature about various aspects of child sexual abuse
(CSA). It discusses the impact of family dynamics on CSA, the role of educators in reporting
CSA, and the connection between CSA and the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically during school
closures.
2.1 What is known about Child Sexual Abuse?

Scholars have no consensus on a definition of CSA. For example, many scholars
commonly define CSA as any situation where an adult or significantly older child engages in
sexual behavior with a child to fulfill the sexual gratification of the perpetrator (CDC, 2022.;
Davies & Jones, 2012; Hornor, 2010; Monteleone,1998). Even though there are some
discrepancies in the definition of CSA, scholars tend to agree that CSA can be both physical and
non-physical and includes touching the child's breasts, genitals, or buttocks, whether under or
over their clothing. It also can involve exposing a child to pornographic material and engaging in
acts of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration (Davies & Jones, 2012; Hornor, 2010). According to the
World Health Organization (2004), CSA is a global problem defined as "the involvement of a
child in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed
consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or
that violates the laws or social taboos of society" ( p.1)2. Within the United States, CSA is an
2
Scholars have no consensus on a definition of CSA. For example, many scholars commonly define CSA as any
situation where an adult or significantly older child engages in sexual behavior with a child to fulfill the sexual
gratification of the perpetrator (CDC, 2022.; Davies & Jones, 2012; Hornor, 2010; Monteleone,1998). Even though
there are some discrepancies in the definition of CSA, scholars tend to agree that CSA can be both physical and non-
physical and includes touching the child's breasts, genitals, or buttocks, whether under or over their clothing. It also
can involve exposing a child to pornographic material and engaging in acts of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration
(Davies et al., 2013; Horner, 2010).
14
increasingly concerning problem affecting the criminal justice, public health, and educational
systems (Finkelhor, 1984; Hornor, 2010; Pereda et al., 2009; Reitsema & Grietens, 2015).
According to David Finkelhor (1984), a leading expert in the field, CSA involves a considerable
age or maturational difference between the partners, abuse from an offender in a position of
authority over or in a caretaking relationship with the child, and often involves sexual acts
carried out against the child by using violence or trickery.
2.2 What is known about the family and CSA?

Several factors influence CSA occurrence within the family unit. Scholars termed CSA
involving incestuous relationships as intrafamilial child sexual abuse (IFCSA) (Katz et al., 2020;
Fischer & McDonald, 1996; Finkelhor, 2009; Gekoski et al., 2016; Jensen et al., 2005; Scott,
2023; Trepper, 1997). IFCSA is the most frequently occurring form of CSA (Finkelhor, 2012;
Gekoski et al., 2016; Hornor, 2010; Leclerc & Felson, 2016). Offender characteristics, victim
characteristics, socioeconomic status, family structure, and living arrangements were identified
as primary contributors to child abuse, including CSA (Sedlak et al., 2010). Much of the
academic literature on the family and CSA focused on the sexual relationship between family
members and a child. Some studies compared the characteristics of CSA that occurred outside of
the family unit with the characteristics of IFCSA. The research found many cases of IFCSA
involved victims who were younger when the abuse started, and often, the abuse was
significantly more severe over a more extended period (Scott, 2023; Ventus et al., 2017; Allnock
& Miller, 2013).
Several studies examined the characteristics of close family members who committed
CSA (Finkelhor, 1994a; Finkelhor, 1994b; Finkelhor, 2009; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Katz et
al., 2020; Fischer & McDonald, 1996; Kocturk & Yuksel, 2019; deChesnay, 1985; Pusch et al.,
15
2021; Rice & Harris, 2002; Gekoski et al., 2016; Jensen et al., 2005; Trepper, 1997), and
reported that IFCSA is commonly committed by male family members who resided within the
same home as the victim (Finkelhor, 1994a; Finkelhor, 2009; Gekoski et al., 2016; Jensen et al.,
2005; Seldack et al., 2010; Trepper, 1997) and were predominantly the biological father or
stepfather (deChesnay, 1985; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019; Pusch et al.,
2021; Rice & Harris, 2002). It was noted in much of the literature that biological parents were
more likely to be perpetrators of physical child abuse and maltreatment (deChesnay, 1985;
Koçtürk & Yüksel, 2019; Rice & Harris, 2002). However, in cases of sexual abuse, many
scholars found non-biological parents, such as stepparents or a parent’s partner, were
predominantly identified as the abusers (Daly & Wilson, 2005; Faust et al., 1995; Scott, 2023;
Ventus et al., 2017; Allnock & Miller, 2013; Seldack et al., 2010).
Many scholars attribute the presence of a stepparent in the home to the most significant
risk of physical abuse and maltreatment when compared to children living with natural parents
(Daly & Wilson, 2005; Nobes et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2007). In fact, family abuse researchers
refer to the disproportionate abuse of children by their stepparents as the Cinderella Effect (Daly
& Wilson, 2005; Debowska et al., 2021). Daly and Wilson (2005) described the Cinderella
Effect as a phenomenon in which children are more likely to be abused by a stepparent than by a
biological parent. Likewise, when analyzing child maltreatment data provided by CPS from
Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Daly and Wilson (1998; 2005) noted that
stepfathers committed large percentages of child abuse, including sexual abuse, compared to
biological fathers. Similarly, a comprehensive literature review by Faust et al. (1995) revealed
stepfathers were more likely to be involved in IFCSA than biological fathers. Yet, when
biological fathers were the perpetrators, the abuse tended to be more severe, often involving
16
penetration (Faust et al., 1995; Gordon & Creighton, 1988). Block and Kaplan (2022) recently
tested the Cinderella Effect using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS) from 1991 to 2019. The findings indicated unmarried partners of biological parents
were more likely to abuse children than stepparents, noting their study partially supported the
Cinderella effect (Block & Kaplan, 2022).
Furthermore, not only do offender characteristics affect the dynamics of IFCSA, but
victim characteristics such as age, gender, and race influence the occurrence of IFCSA (Devries,
2018). For example, Finkelhor (1994a) reported the age of vulnerability to sexual abuse was
between 7 and 13. Multiple scholars pointed out girls in early adolescence face a higher
vulnerability to victimization compared to boys (Barth et al., 2013; Davies & Jones, 2012; de
Paúl et al., 1995; Finkelhor, 1994a; Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Finkelhor et al.,
1990; Karmen, 2016; Loinaz et al., 2019; Murray, 2000). For example, in a comprehensive
study, Snyder (2000) analyzed the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to report
on the factors contributing to the sexual assaults of young children. The researcher observed that
of the sexual assaults reported between 1991 and 1996, 34% of reported victims were under the
age of twelve years (Snyder, 2000).
Regarding gender, research suggested girls report being the victims of IFCSA,
specifically and CSA generally, more than boys (Finkelhor, 1984; Finkelhor,1994a; Finkelhor,
2009; Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Holmes & Slap,1998). The CDC (2022) recently underscored
the high rate at which young girls were sexually abused, reporting approximately one in four
girls experienced sexual abuse annually compared to one in thirteen boys. However, some
scholars pointed out the gender-based victimization gap might be less significant than the data
suggests. Multiple studies explored the underreporting of CSA by boys (Dhaliwal et al., 1996;
17
Finkelhor, 1984; Finkelhor, 1994a; Finkelhor, 2009; Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Goodman-Brown
et al., 2003; Holmes & Slap,1998). These studies attributed the low reporting among boys to
concerns about the potential consequences, fear of backlash, certain cultural stigmas surrounding
homosexuality, shame, fear of being perceived as less masculine, and the fear of being seen as a
potential offender (Dhaliwal et al., 1996; Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Goodman-Brown et al.,
2003; Holmes & Slap,1998; Ullman & Filipas, 2005).
While scholars agree that CSA is a problem that affects all groups, research yielded
mixed results regarding the effects of race and ethnicity on child sexual abuse (Dakil et al., 2011;
Derezotes & Snowden, 1990; Luken et al., 2021; Sawrikar & Katz, 2017; Seldack et al., 2010;
Wyatt, 1990). Previous research reported differences between CSA victimization of minority
children and white children. For example, Wyatt (1985) reported African American children
were more likely to be victimized later in childhood than white children and were at a lower risk
of CSA than children from other ethnic groups. Also, Tzeng and Schwarzin (1990) conducted a
study of data comprising 15,758 reported cases of CSA in Indiana to investigate the main
contributing factors in the sexual abuse of minority children. Their findings indicated
socioeconomic status and family structure were key factors that contributed to CSA in minority
communities. They also observed CSA within the African American community was less
prevalent than in other minority groups (Tzeng & Schwarzin, 1990). Similarly, Derozotes and
Snowden (1990) noted minority children were more likely to live in a single-parent household
and were less likely to be sexually abused by a biological father. Other researchers observed
most perpetrators of CSA within minority communities were extended family members (Pierce
& Pierce, 1984).

18
Some prior research compared CSA rates of minority children to that of white children
(Sedlak et al., 2010). The findings of this research indicate that African American and Hispanic
children face a significantly elevated risk of sexual abuse than white children (The Children’s
Assessment Center, 2023; Sedlak et al., 2010). Similarly, Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor (1995)
noted in a meta-analysis of CSA research African American children were at an increased risk of
CSA than white children. However, Finkelhor (1994), in a previous meta-analysis of CSA
research articles, found none of the studies observed definitive evidence suggesting higher
prevalence rates of sexual abuse among minority populations. It is important to recognize the
sensitive nature and cultural taboos associated with CSA may result in underreporting within
minority communities (Derezotes & Snowden,1990; Ahrens et al., 2010a; Gomez & Gobin,
2019; Kenny & McEachern, 2000; Tillman et al., 2010). For example, because of the nation's
racial history, African Americans have a mistrust of the police, social services, and medical
institutions, which might impact their reporting behaviors (Best et al., 2021).
Apart from victim and offender characteristics, environmental qualities make CSA more
likely. These include family dysfunction, familial stress, socioeconomic status, social isolation,
and living in a foster/group home. Dysfunctional households are often characterized by
substance abuse, marital problems, economic stress, larger family sizes, and a higher prevalence
of other forms of domestic violence (Salazar et al., 2005; Thompson & Wyatt, 1999; Trepper,
1989). Salazar et al. (2005) noted a correlation between IFCSA and dysfunctional households,
specifically those with negative and hostile family environments, parental rejection of children,
and marital conflicts. Down this same vein, Gordon (1989) used data from the 1983 National
Study on Child Neglect and Reporting to investigate the characteristics of families where a
daughter experienced sexual abuse by a biological father or a stepfather. Gordon (1989)

19
hypothesized that biological fathers would be more likely to be abusers in families experiencing
higher levels of personal, social, and economic stress. The results of the study supported the
hypothesis. Families in which the biological father was the abuser reported significantly higher
levels of dysfunction (i.e., substance abuse, marital problems, and economic stress).
Family socioeconomic status was identified as a significant contributing risk factor for
CSA and IFCSA (Ménard & Ruback, 2003; Sedlak et al., 2010). Children from lower
socioeconomic families were at an increased risk for CSA victimization (Sedlak et al., 2010).
According to Sedlak et al. (2010), “Children in low socioeconomic status households had
significantly higher rates of maltreatment in all categories and across both definitional standards.
They experienced some maltreatment at more than five times the rate of other children; they
were more than three times as likely to be abused and about seven times as likely to be
neglected” (p. 14). On the other hand, Finkelhor (1994b) conducted an extensive analysis to
identify the characteristics of IFCSA by utilizing multiple datasets, including the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). The study explored the relationship between lower
social class and the risk of sexual abuse, finding a weak correlation (Finkelhor, 1994b).
Although the research findings regarding the relationship between socioeconomic class
and CSA have been mixed, many scholars agree economic instability contributes to family
dysfunction, which is a risk factor for child abuse (Brown & De Cao, 2018; Danaeifar et al.,
2022; deChesnay, 1985; Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Worling, 1995; Salazar et al.,
2005). Several studies identified financial stress as a key predictor of an elevated risk of child
abuse (Brown & De Cao, 2018; Drake & Pandey, 1996; Judd et al., 2023; Gillham et al., 1998;
Pereda & Diaz-Faes, 2020; Steinberg et al., 1981; Lindo et al., 2018; Conrad-Hiebner & Byram,
2018). Similarly, Pereda and Diaz-Faes (2020) conducted a comprehensive study involving a 30-
20
month cross-correlation analysis, finding a correlation between declining workforce participation
and a rise in reports of child abuse. Likewise, Lindo et al. (2018) analyzed county-level
administrative maltreatment data from California and aggregate labor market variables to study
the relationship between economic stressors and child abuse. They observed gender and the
nature of employment loss were connected to increased child maltreatment cases (Lindo et al.,
2018). Specifically, the study found layoffs affecting males were associated with a higher
incidence of child maltreatment (Lindo et al., 2018). The findings from these studies support the
notion that prolonged periods of high job loss are associated with increased incidents of child
abuse cases. However, it is worth noting that while unemployment was associated with child
abuse, it was not a direct cause (Krugman et al., 1986). Unemployment provides abusers with
increased time and potential access to their victims (Krugman et al., 1986). Furthermore, the
relationship between economic stressors and CSA remains less clear because many studies do
not differentiate between specific types of abuse when examining the effects of economic stress.
Previous research also identified social isolation as a significant risk factor for
understanding CSA (Fleming et al., 1997; Jeglic et al., 2023; Rosenthal & Thompson, 2020;
Thompson & Wyatt, 1999). Studies often emphasized how economic instability and household
dysfunction created environments characterized by extreme social isolation that facilitated CSA
(Fleming et al., 1997; Jeglic et al., 2023; Thompson & Wyatt, 1999). Social isolation at the
individual level can result from manipulating the victim through grooming tactics used to gain
access to a child for sexual abuse (Craven et al., 2006). Winters et al. (2022) noted 30 - 45% of
CSA offenders utilized grooming tactics to gain access to victims. Because of the nature of the
parent/child relationship, grooming tactics such as manipulation to create social isolation of the
victim are more easily accomplished. Through this manipulation, the abuser persuades the child
21
to comply with abusive activities while preventing the disclosure of the abuse (Craven et al.,
2006; Jeglic et al., 2023; Lawson, 2003; Winters et al., 2020). Studies that examine grooming
tactics found perpetrators often employ strategies such as granting privileges or showing the
child more attention, as well as depriving the child of privileges and attention to gain victim
compliance (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Conte et al., 1989). Research on the grooming tactics used
by child sexual abusers revealed offenders deliberately sought to establish proximity to a child
and create situations that isolate the child from others (Lawson, 2003; Winters et al., 2020). In a
comprehensive analysis, Lawson (2003) investigated 13 prior research studies involving 453
convicted sex offenders, including child molesters, to understand their motives and justifications.
One prominent theme that emerged from the study was social isolation. Lawson (2003) noted
incestuous fathers purposefully used gift-giving to cultivate their daughters' trust while actively
working toward isolating them from their friends and other family members for the purpose of
CSA victimization. Additionally, Hamilton and Browne (1998) argued social isolation was an
important part of repeat victimization.
A search of academic literature indicated that children living in foster or group homes
faced an increased risk of CSA victimization. This body of work emphasizes “frequent
transitions (and) the nonbiological relationship between child and caregiver” as major factors
that heighten the risk of CSA for children living in this type of arrangement (Euser et al., 2013,
p. 221). Additionally, the sizable child-to-caregiver ratio in foster or group home environments
can also limit capable guardianship, further exacerbating the risk of CSA. For example, in a
study by Hobbs et al. (1999) in Leeds, England, the researchers examined 158 foster or
residential care children. They found that this group was involved in 191 episodes of alleged
physical and sexual abuse reported by pediatricians between 1990 and 1995. The largest group
22
of children experienced sexual abuse, followed by those who experienced physical abuse and
then those who had experienced both sexual and physical abuse (Hobbs et al., 1999). According
to Hobbs et al. (1999), children living in foster or group homes were approximately 6 to 8 times
more likely to report physical and sexual abuse when compared to children within the general
population (Hobbs et al., 1999). Similarly, in a study investigating reports of child maltreatment
in foster or group homes in Baltimore, Maryland, over four years, Benedict et al. (1994) found
foster families experienced a three-fold increase in the frequency of maltreatment reports as
compared to non-foster families. Finally, the research has identified prior victimization as an
important risk factor in explaining CSA among children living in foster or group homes. Earlier
maltreatment experiences or prior victimization is a common characteristic of children living
within foster/group homes (Euser et al., 2013).
Within academic literature, prior victimization emerged as a significant risk factor for
recurring victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2009; Lacelle et al., 2012; Reese-Weber & Smith, 2011;
Krahe & Berger, 2017). Specifically, Finkelhor (2014) noted a significant increase in the
likelihood of victimization among children who experienced prior victimization. Several studies
examined CSA victims and their susceptibility to future types of victimization, particularly
during adulthood (Lacelle et al., 2012; Reese-Weber & Smith, 2011; Krahe & Berger, 2017).
However, a few studies examined the impact of prior victimization on children specifically. For
example, in 2005, the US Department of Health and Human Services reported nearly one-third of
the 1,396,998 children initially reported to CPS were the subject of a second report within the
next five years. Similarly, in a study investigating how prior victimization impacted future
victimization during childhood, Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor (1995) surveyed 2000 children aged
10 - 16 and found prior victimization increased the likelihood of future victimization based on
23
factors such as constant exposure to the offender, decreased guardianship, or increased target
attractiveness. Additionally, Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor (1995) identified several risk factors
associated with CSA, including prior incidents of CSA, previous physical abuse within the
family, and a history of victimization involving family members. The researchers noted that prior
CSA victimization might result in alienation from those who act as capable guardians because
often the perpetrator is a family member (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1995). Furthermore,
Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor (1995) found victims who were girls, children aged 12 and older,
and children who experienced a poor relationship with their parents were more prone to having
experienced prior CSA victimization. Lastly, they found the factors most associated with prior
victimization were identified as instances of previous sexual abuse and assaults perpetrated by a
family member, with an odds ratio of 3.2 (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1995).
Along with prior victimization, polyvictimization was a substantial risk factor for
ongoing CSA victimization (Finkelhor, 2014). Polyvictimization occurs when a victim
experiences multiple different types of victimization and not the same type of victimization
multiple times (Finkelhor, 2014). For example, a child who is exposed to domestic violence and
physical abuse due to a chaotic family environment increases the risk of CSA victimization
(Finkelhor, 2014). Finkelhor (2009) stated, “Children in these circumstances (chaotic family
environments) have opportunities to experience multiple kinds of victimization within the
family- violence, sexual assault, psychological maltreatment at the hands of parents and siblings”
(p. 55). The ongoing cycle of poly victimization may result in recurring incidents of CSA, thus
predicting future CSA victimization.

24
2.3 What is known about Educators and Reporting Child Sexual Abuse?
Educators play a vital role in reporting child maltreatment (Baron et al., 2020; Fitzpatrick
et al., 2020; Falkiner et al., 2017; Puls et al., 2021; Shipley, 2022). Mandated reporting laws
require educators to report facts and circumstances leading to their suspicions of child abuse and
neglect (DHH, 2019). To date, forty-eight states have mandated reporting laws that require
professionals, such as doctors, social workers, childcare providers, and educators, who work with
or encounter children to report suspected abuse or neglect (Kesner & Robinson, 2002; Hupe &
Stevenson, 2019). Educators are well positioned to identify and report child abuse because they
have more contact with children than any other mandated reporters (Ainsworth, 2002; Cerezo &
Pons-Salvador, 2004; Hupe & Stevenson, 2019; Kesner & Robinson, 2002; Thompson & Wyatt,
1999). According to the Department of Health and Human Services (2023), education
professionals ranked second in reporting child maltreatment, following law enforcement or legal
personnel. However, the research regarding the impact of educators as mandated reporters of
child abuse concluded with mixed results (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Smith, 2010; Deisz et
al.,1996).
The findings of some studies indicated mandatory reporting laws significantly increased
the number of child abuse and maltreatment cases reported to child protective services and law
enforcement by educators (Mathews & Bross, 2008). At the same time, other studies identified
critical issues confronting educators as mandatory reporters of child abuse (Crenshaw et al.,
1995; Smith, 2010). Notably, as it pertains to CSA, schools may be the largest source of under-
reporting (Crenshaw et al., 1995). Educators may underreport cases because (a) they might not
recognize the signs of CSA because they are less identifiable than signs of physical abuse
(Kesner & Robinson, 2002; Hupe & Stevenson, 2019) and (b) they may not know the correct
procedures for reporting (Kesner & Robinson, 2002; Hupe & Stevenson, 2019; Smith, 2010).
25
The training received by some educators focused on reporting procedures rather than identifying
signs of sexual abuse (Falkiner et al., 2017; Kesner & Robinson, 2002).
Additionally, scholars identified compassion fatigue, defined as secondary traumatic
stress and job burnout, as well as a lack of knowledge regarding child abuse reporting, as
contributing factors in educators’ failure to report child abuse (Hupe & Stevenson, 2019). Hupe
and Stevenson (2019) found a correlation between compassion fatigue and negative attitudes
toward child abuse reporting. Similarly, Webster et al. (2005) surveyed 480 teachers to examine
factors contributing to underreporting and overreporting of child abuse. They found
overreporting resulting in unfounded cases was uncommon. Webster et al. (2005) identified
specific personal and professional attributes that were associated with teachers who were prone
to over- or under-reporting child abuse incidents (Webster et al., 2005). For example, traits such
as a personal history of being sexually abused, opinion of CPS, the child's age, if the child had a
positive attitude, or if the abuse was sexual impacted the teacher’s decision to report.
Although the effectiveness of mandatory reporting laws is the subject of debate, there is a
consensus that educators play a vital role in the reporting of child abuse (Kesner & Robinson,
2002; Puls et al., 2021; Shipley, 2022; Smith, 2010; Thompson & Wyatt, 1999). As such,
scholars and policymakers expressed concerns regarding the potential adverse effects of COVID-
19 school closures (Coryton, 2020; Hecht et al., 2022; Gazmararian et al., 2021; Watts &
Pattnaik, 2022; Almeida et al., 2021; Silverman et al., 2020) including the impact on identifying
and reporting CSA due to the loss of contact between educators and children (Barron et al., 2020;
Bullinger et al., 2021; Coryton, 2020; Fore, 2021).

26
2.4 What is known about COVID-19, School Closures, and Child Sexual Abuse?
The closing of schools at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic was a controversial
policy choice (Almeida et al., 2021; Barron et al., 2020; Bullinger et al., 2021; Silverman et al.,
2020). Advocates for school closures emphasized the importance of reducing transmission rates
and safeguarding vulnerable populations (Alfano, 2021; Pavone et al., 2020). The decision to
close schools was guided by the evolving understanding of the transmissibility of the COVID-19
virus and the importance of social isolation in controlling its spread (Alfano, 2021; Coryton,
2020; Pavone et al., 2020). Opponents of school closures emphasized the potential detrimental
impacts on children's mental health, education, nutrition, and socialization skills (Coryton, 2020;
Hecht et al., 2022; Gazmararian et al., 2021; Watts & Pattnaik, 2022; Almeida et al., 2021;
Silverman et al., 2020). Furthermore, there was a concern school closures would lead to
increased physical, psychological, and sexual abuse experienced by children (Barboza et al.,
2021; Rosenthal & Thompson, 2020; UN, 2021).
A small but growing body of work indicated the COVID-19 pandemic heightened the
vulnerability of children and adolescents, thereby increasing the risk of victimization within the
family unit (Pereda & Diaz-Faes, 2020; Rosenthal & Thompson, 2020). Although there were
some empirical investigations into the effects of the COVID-19 school closures, many were
conducted during the early months of the pandemic and did not address CSA specifically.
Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic noted pandemic-related school closures
could potentially impact opportunities for identifying child abuse (Rosenthal & Thompson, 2020;
Sinko et al., 2021).
Some recent studies extrapolated pre-pandemic school closure data to predict the impact
of the COVID-19 school closures on the victimization of children. For example, Puls et al.
(2021) analyzed NCANDS child files from 2010 through 2017 to conduct a retrospective cross-
27
sectional study involving reported child maltreatment cases, including CSA. Their analysis
compared intervals of routine school closures with periods when schools were in session
between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. The researchers examined how routine school
closures, such as summer and winter breaks, impacted the identification of child maltreatment,
including CSA. They hypothesized school closures would lead to a decrease in detecting child
maltreatment (Puls et al., 2021). They found a decrease in child abuse reporting by educators
during routine school closures. They also noted fewer verified cases of child abuse during these
periods. This decline in reporting suggested reduced interaction between mandated reporters and
children could negatively impact the identification of child maltreatment (Puls et al., 2021).
However, after observing no significant increases immediately after routine closures, Puls et al.
(2021) noted there could be a decrease in actual maltreatment incidents when children are out of
school. A major limitation of the study was the researchers did not analyze any data collected
during the pandemic. However, in alignment with the “closed-off from educators” perspective,
Puls et al. (2021) predicted the COVID-19 school closures would significantly negatively impact
detecting and reporting child maltreatment. Other studies also analyzed the impact of routine
school closures on child abuse and maltreatment reports (Barboza et al., 2021; Sharma et al.,
2021), noting a significant decline in reports, including CSA (Boserup et al., 2020; Sharma et al.,
2021; Sidpra et al., 2021; Tener et al., 2021). Shusterman et al. (2022) analyzed child
maltreatment reporting nationwide using NCANDS data. The researchers found a 39% decrease
in child maltreatment reports received by CPS across the United States in 2020 when compared
with 2019 (Shusterman et al., 2022). Specific to CSA, Tener and colleagues (2021) conducted a
qualitative comparative cross-cultural study analyzing the trends of CSA reporting in both Israel
and the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers’ findings
28
indicated the pandemic has been “detrimental to the disclosure of IFCSA, with plummeting child
abuse reports” (Tener et al., 2021, p. 1).
Previous studies focused on child abuse and neglect rates during the initial months of the
pandemic, particularly in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York (Barboza et al., 2021;
Rapoport et al., 2020). For example, Rapoport et al. (2020) examined data containing child
maltreatment allegations in New York City during March, April, and May 2020. As predicted,
the researchers found a significant drop in the reports of child abuse during the initial months of
COVID-19 mitigation measures (Rapoport et al., 2020). Rapoport et al. (2020) suggested their
findings were reflective across the United States. They speculated the pandemic may have led to
over a quarter million cases of child abuse being unreported nationally during the same period.
Fewer studies provided an analysis of state-level data. For example, Baron et al. (2020)
investigated child abuse reporting during the first few months of mandated school closures in
Florida. They observed a significant decline in child abuse and maltreatment reporting. Other
studies conducted during the early part of the pandemic relied on hospital data to investigate the
impact of COVID-19 school closures on child abuse and maltreatment (Swedo et al., 2020; Salt
et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2021; Sidpra et al., 2020). This small body of work found COVID-19
school closures were associated with increased emergency department visits of patients
presenting injuries consistent with child abuse and maltreatment (Swedo et al., 2020; Salt et al.,
2021; Sharma et al., 2021; Sidpra et al., 2020). For example, Swedo et al. (2020) conducted a
study using U.S. emergency department data for children under 18 to investigate the impact of
COVID-19 mitigation measures on child abuse trends. They wanted to determine if the pandemic
increased the risk of child abuse and neglect due to added stressors on families. They found that
while the overall number of emergency department visits for child abuse and neglect decreased
29
after the COVID-19 school closures, the proportion of these visits leading to hospitalization
increased compared to the same period in 2019 (Swedo et al., 2020). These findings suggested
the severity of injuries caused by child abuse worsened during the pandemic school closures.
Likewise, Salt et al. (2021) used pediatric healthcare data from three regions in Kentucky
to investigate the relationship between COVID-19 school closures and CSA. The study
compared child maltreatment reports six months before and after the school closures. The school
closures were associated with an 85% increase in CSA in the post-closure period. The study was
the first to identify an elevated rate of child sexual abuse reporting after the COVID-19 school
closures. The findings suggested the impact of COVID-19-related school closures on child
maltreatment, including CSA reporting, could be substantial.
2.5 Current Study and Contribution to the Research Literature
Although research concerning the effects of COVID-19 school closures on CSA was
limited, the existing studies on child abuse and maltreatment during school closures provided
some insight into the relationship between COVID-19 school closures on CSA. At the same
time, several important gaps exist in the prior literature. First, broad definitions of child abuse
and maltreatment make it challenging to generalize about school closures and CSA specifically.
Second, the previous research has several data limitations. Many prior studies have relied on data
from single jurisdictions (i.e., cities or counties), short time periods (i.e., six months), or reports
from special settings (e.g., medical settings). Third, the existing research does not focus on case
characteristics; therefore, their findings cannot help us to understand shifts in case
characteristics, such as victims’ and perpetrators' race, gender, age, etc. This thesis makes several
significant theoretical and methodological contributions to the existing literature. In the

30
following chapter, I explain how Routine Activity Theory guides the current investigation into
COVID-19 school closures and CSA reporting.

31
CHAPTER 3
THEORY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This chapter outlines the theoretical framework and research questions that guide this
thesis. The project's overarching goal is to understand how COVID-19 school closures impacted
child sexual abuse reporting. I use Routine Activities Theory to formulate research questions and
hypotheses about patterns in CSA reporting. These questions and hypotheses focus on victim,
perpetrator, and reporter characteristics before, during, and after the COVID-19 school closures.
3.1 Closed Off from Educators & Routine Activity Theory

As mentioned in the previous chapter, educators play a vital role in identifying and
reporting child abuse, including child sexual abuse (CSA). This thesis explores how school
closures can lead to a lack of capable guardians in educators, impacting the relationship between
school closures and child abuse reporting. The "closed off from educators" thesis suggests the
reporting of child abuse cases may decrease because students are no longer in regular contact
with teachers, counselors, and other school personnel who are mandatory reporters. Routine
Activities Theory provides the best theoretical foundation for understanding why being “closed
off” by educators may prove criminogenic as it pertains to CSA because it addresses the factors
that must converge for crime to occur (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
First introduced in 1979 by Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson, Routine Activity
Theory (RAT) emerged as an explanation for the continued increase in urban violent crime rates
despite improvements in economic and social conditions within metropolitan areas (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). Unlike traditional approaches focused on offender characteristics, RAT sought to
analyze the circumstances necessary for a crime to occur (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The original
32
theory was intended to explain offending and opportunity. However, since its initial publication,
RAT has been widely applied to explain victimization in many crimes.
The fundamental argument of RAT is for a crime to occur, three essential elements must
coincide regarding time and place (Cohen & Felson, 1979). These elements include (1) the
presence of a motivated offender, (2) the availability of a suitable target, and (3) the absence of a
capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cohen and Felson (1979) initially proposed that
altering these three factors can impact the likelihood of a crime occurring. While RAT was
initially developed to explain street crime at a macro level (Cohen & Felson, 1979), over time, its
application has been adapted to explain individual victimization (Cohen et al., 1981; Finkelhor &
Asdigian, 1996; Hindelang et al., 1978; Kennedy & Forde, 1990).
Conducting a study analyzing how social class relates to the risk of victimization, Cohen
et al. (1981) tested a theory they coined "an opportunity theory of criminal victimization."
Building upon the original foundation of Cohen and Felson (1979), Cohen and colleagues (1981)
modified the theory's assumptions to describe individual victimization. In this modified version,
the scholars redefined the factors of a motivated offender, a suitable target, the absence of a
capable guardian as exposure and proximity to potential offenders, the attractiveness of potential
targets, and the defining characteristics of specific crimes themselves (Cohen et al., 1981).
Cohen et al. (1981) defined exposure as "the physical visibility and accessibility of persons or
objects to potential offenders at any given time or place" (p. 507), and proximity was defined as
"the physical distance between areas where potential targets of crime reside and areas where
relatively large populations of potential offenders are found" (p. 507). The concepts of exposure
and proximity were further developed in RAT to explain interactions between victims and
offenders with greater clarity. Although the study applied RAT to crimes outside of the home, it
33
created an opportunity for future explanations of individual victimization. Eventually, it evolved
to explain interpersonal crimes within the family unit (Cohen et al., 1981).
suitable
target
crime
motivated capable
offender guardians
Figure 1. Model of Routine Activity Theory
3.2 Routine Activity Theory, Crime, and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Routine Activity Theory was also used to examine crime during the COVID-19
pandemic. Previous studies applied the theory to burglaries during the pandemic (Felson et al.,
2022; Hill et al., 2022; Frith et al., 2022); cybercrime (Johnson & Nikolovska, 2022; Hawdon et
al., 2020; Leukfeldt, 2014; Plachkinova, 2021; Buil-Gil et al., 2021); crime rates (Abrams, 2021;
Hodgkinson & Andresen, 2020; Lee & D'Agusto, 2022; Esposito & King, 2021; Meyer et al.,
2022) and victimization (Kennedy et al., 2021; Gasso et al., 2021). This thesis will apply RAT to
the crime of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) during the COVID-19 school closures.
34
3.3 Routine Activity Theory & Child Sexual Abuse
Leclerc and Felson (2016) indicated further modification of the original theory was
needed to make it applicable to CSA. Leclerc and Felson (2016) stated, “Even though not
originally developed with child sexual abuse in mind, routine activity thinking suggests asking
how legal routines set the stage for sexual abuse and how offenders fit such routine activities into
their strategy” (p. 118). Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) proposed specific categories in RAT
required additional refinement to account for the risks associated with youth victimization. Their
analysis emphasized for RAT to explain victimization by intimates (family members) effectively,
factors such as guardianship, exposure, and proximity should be viewed as environmental
elements that expose or protect potential victims from victimization.
3.4 Routine Activity Theory and The Current Study

The three elements of RAT can be used to explain CSA. For example, an abusive parent
can be categorized as a motivated offender, the school-aged child can fit the suitable target, and
the lack of access to educators as mandated reporters can be considered the lack of a capable
guardian. The assumptions must be adjusted and clarified to analyze CSA through the lens of
RAT. In the subsequent sections, the original factors conceived by Cohen and Felson (1979) will
be used to explain how RAT explains CSA during COVID-19 pandemic school closures.
3.4.1 Child Victim as a Suitable Target

According to Cohen and Felson (1979), a suitable target refers to victims or objects that
offenders perceive as vulnerable. Cohen and Felson's (1979) concept of a suitable target was
considered a valuable and portable property. The preference for the term "target" over "victim"
arose from the recognition that the potential victim may not be present at the time of the crime,
considering that someone can be the victim of a property crime and not personally attacked
35
(Felson & Clarke, 1998). Scholars have modified some key assumptions, namely the role the
suitable target’s environment played in victimization.
Most incidents of CSA occur within the home between a parent and the child; therefore,
it is difficult to conceive that a child's victimization is due to their routine activities (Sasse,
2005). For example, Brantingham and Brantingham (1993) explained that the target's physical
characteristics and environment can significantly impact their risks of being victimized.
Considering crimes involving child victimization, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) developed the
concept of "target congruence," replacing "suitable target" and eliminating the term
"attractiveness" within RAT. "Target congruence" encompasses three components: "target
vulnerability," "target gratifiability," and "target antagonism." The scholars emphasized the need
to consider individual characteristics and attributes that increase the risk of victimization
(Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996). They argued personal traits were essential in explaining why
specific individuals were more susceptible to victimization, highlighting the fact that offenders
often were drawn to victims possessing specific characteristics, such as a victim's ability to resist
an assailant or a victim's dependency on the offender to survive.
Among these factors, target vulnerability was the most significant in explaining why
children are victimized. Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) posited that children were vulnerable to
parental assault due to their smaller size, dependence, and relative weakness. Finkelhor and
Dziuba-Leatherman (1994) stated children's vulnerability to victimization was attributed to their
reliance on adults. For example, parents determine environmental factors influencing a child's
life (Sasse, 2005). The child's routine activities are dictated and closely monitored by the parents.
Since most instances of child abuse involve the child's parents or close family members, this
36
dependency puts them at a higher risk of experiencing abuse as they have limited options for
escaping the abusive environment.
3.4.2 Parents or Close Family Members as Motivated Offenders

As discussed in the previous section, parents are the primary offenders in child abuse and
neglect cases. Specifically, when it comes to intrafamilial child sexual abuse (IFCSA), most
reported cases are perpetrated by a family member who resides in the same household as the
victim. Numerous reported cases of IFCSA indicate the abuser is often the biological father
(Kocturk & Yuksel, 2019; deChesnay, 1985) or the stepfather (Faust et al., 1995).
RAT assumes the presence of a motivated offender is constant (Mustain & Tewksbury,
2000; Wellman et al., 2020). Most of the literature on CSA offenders indicated that offenders
isolate their victims. Anechiarico (1998) studied the motivation of sex offenders and used case
studies to illustrate the factors that caused them to re-offend. Anechiarico (1998) noted
individual social isolation was a common tactic used by sex offenders to gain access to the
victim. In the context of a sexual abuser within the household, the parent strategically selected
the optimal time to victimize, exerting control over the child's movements to eliminate any
capable guardians (Sasse, 2005). According to Leclerc and Felson (2016), "a sexual offender
needs to find and gain access to the victim, work out time alone and unsupervised, and find
settings suitable for sexual contact without discovery" (p. 117). Because of the mandated
COVID-19 mitigation measures, a parent or close family member with a preexisting inclination
to sexually abuse children may take advantage of the increased proximity as an opportunity to
offend.
37
3.4.3 Educators and Other Reporters as Capable Guardians

In Cohen and Felson's (1979) original theory, capable guardians were defined as entities
responsible for safeguarding property and individuals providing physical protection. The capable
guardian took the form of people or devices that actively deterred crime. Originally developed to
explain the increase in crime rates following World War II, Cohen and Felson (1979) conceived
capable guardians as police, physical locks, and streetlights as preventive measures against
criminal activity. However, when considering the well-being of children, it is reasonable to
assume parents serve as capable guardians who will protect them from becoming victimized.
However, because CSA takes place within the confines of the home and parents are the primary
perpetrators (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Kocturk & Yuksel, 2019; deChesnay, 1985; Sasse,
2005), having additional actors who can intervene on the child’s behalf is critical.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, mandated reporting laws have emerged as a critical
safeguard to protect children; among the professionals identified in these laws as mandated
reporters are educators. While there are several types of mandated reporters, educators hold a
distinct advantage in identifying and reporting cases of child abuse (Kesner & Robinson, 2002),
assuming a pivotal role in protecting children by reporting incidents of maltreatment such as
CSA (Puls et al., 2021; Shipley, 2022). While educators can be considered capable guardians,
their role differs from the traditional assumptions of RAT. They are more “reactive guardians”
because educators identify and report crimes that have already occurred. However, by reporting
cases of child sexual abuse, they may prevent future instances of abuse.
Based on the tenets of Routine Activity Theory (RAT), this thesis uses a conceptual
framework to understand the link between school closures and child sexual abuse. Due to the
closure of schools and stay-at-home orders, CSA victims and offenders likely found themselves
in closer proximity to each other. As stated in previous literature, CSA offenders often target
38
children because of their vulnerability and their dependency. This can explain why school-aged
children are likely to be viewed as "suitable targets." Also, teachers and school officials are
typically the first to report signs of child maltreatment due to their frequent interactions with
children (Baron et al., 2020). However, the school closures during the pandemic possibly
eliminated the capable guardianship of educators, leading to a decline in reporting CSA.
The limited existing literature suggests pandemic-induced stressors may have intensified
physical violence against children, potentially leading to increased CSA incidents (Bullinger et
al., 2021; Gekoski et al., 2016; Harris et al., 2021). The stress experienced by families during the
pandemic could cause individuals already involved in sexually abusing their children to further
victimize them as a means of managing overwhelming stress (Anechiarico, 1998). Factors such
as unemployment, stay-at-home orders, and school closures exacerbated the prevalence of CSA.
The increased proximity and exposure between offenders and victims created an environment
conducive to increased child sexual abuse. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic brought about
school closures and disrupted parental schedules, leading to increased contact between abusers
and victims (proximity and exposure). It may have created an environment for increased abuse
due to the convergence of those factors (proximity and exposure). Additionally, the pandemic
caused uncertainties such as childcare challenges, the risk of contracting COVID-19,
unemployment, and the loss of family members, placing unprecedented stress on households
(strain). Considering all the above factors, RAT provides the most comprehensive explanation
for why COVID-19 school closures may influence CSA reporting patterns as it pertains to
victims, perpetrators, and reporter characteristics.

39
Suitable
Target:
CSA
Victims
Crime:
Child
Sexual
Abuse
Motivated Capable
Offender: Guardians:
CSA CSA
Perpetrators Reporters
Figure 2. Routine Activity Theory and the Current Study
3.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1: What are the demographic characteristics of CSA victims between 2019 and 2021?
RQ1a: Are COVID-19 school closures associated with changes in CSA victim characteristics?
H1: COVID-19 school closures will be associated with a decrease in the proportion of
CSA reports that involve minority children.
H2: COVID-19 school closures will be associated with an increase in the proportion of
CSA reports that involve girl victims.
CSA reports that involve prior victims.

40
CSA reports that involve victims from two-parent households.
CSA reports involving victims whose parents have a live-in partner.
reports involving victims from single-parent households.
H7: COVID-19 school closures will be associated with increase in the proportion of CSA
reports that involve victims who live in a Foster/Group home.
CSA reports involving younger victims.
RQ2: What are the demographic characteristics of CSA perpetrators?
RQ2a: Are COVID-19 school closures associated with changes in perpetrator characteristics?
CSA reports involving older perpetrators.
CSA reports that involve minority perpetrators.
CSA reports that involve male perpetrators.
CSA reports that involve a perpetrator who has a prior child abuse/maltreatment case.
41
CSA reports that involve a family member as the perpetrator.
CSA reports that involve a non-biological parent as the perpetrator.
RQ3: What are the characteristics of the reporters of CSA?
RQ3a: Are COVID-19 school closures associated with changes in CSA reporter characteristics?
CSA reports from educators.

42
CHAPTER 4
DATA AND METHODS
4.1 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

Data was derived from The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
It used the Child File dataset, consisting of child-specific data of all investigated maltreatment
reports to state child protective service agencies. The Children’s Bureau (2023) describes
NCANDS as “a federally sponsored national data collection effort created to track the volume
and nature of child maltreatment reporting each year within the United States.” The Child File
dataset contains case-level information. These data were voluntarily submitted by participating
states. The NCANDS data used in this thesis included all investigations or assessments of
alleged child maltreatment that received a disposition in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Each record was
provided at the individual child's level on a report, also known as the report-child pair. The
current study's data included the demographics of children and their perpetrators, types of
maltreatment, investigation or assessment dispositions, risk factors, and services provided
because of the investigation or assessment (Children’s Bureau, 2023). This project was approved
by the Georgia Southern Institutional Review Board (H24016).
4.2 Selecting Cases
First, I used the State/Territory variable provided in NCANDS to identify all reported
cases from the state of Georgia between 2019 and 2021. Second, I selected cases for which
sexual abuse (CSA) was among the forms of maltreatment using the “maltreatment variables”
provided in NCANDS. Maltreatment is defined as “a form of child maltreatment (alleged or
having occurred) such as physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional
maltreatment, or others as defined by policy and state law” (NCANDS Child File Codebook,
2019, p. 27). NCANDS allows entry for up to four types of maltreatment using four different
43
variables. These include Maltreatment-1 Type, Maltreatment-2 Type, Maltreatment-3 Type, and
Maltreatment-4 Type. Each maltreatment type is coded as physical abuse (=1), neglect or
deprivation of necessities (=2), medical neglect (=3), sexual abuse (=4), psychological or
emotional maltreatment (=5), no alleged maltreatment (=6), sex trafficking (=7), other (=8), and
unknown or missing (=9). I selected all cases that had sexual abuse (=4) for any of the
maltreatment variables as a part of the study sample. Third, I selected only cases that include
victims who are between the ages of 5 and 16. This is done for two important reasons. First, this
age group is considered school age in the state of Georgia, which requires children between the
ages of 5 to 16 attend a public, private, or home school (GEORGIA COMPULSORY
ATTENDANCE LAW O.C.G.A. 20-2-690.1). Therefore, the likelihood that the COVID-19
school closures impacted the lives of these children and their families is high. Second, previous
research indicated this age group was at a higher risk for CSA than other groups. Most victims of
CSA were younger than age 17 years old (Finkelhor, 1994a; Fischer & McDonald, 1998; Snyder,
2000). The final sample included 7,816 cases of CSA.
4.3 Why focus on Georgia?

Georgia has characteristics that make it an interesting area for researching the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Georgia was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and was among the top
10 states for total COVID-19 infections (Wolf & Haines, 2024). Georgia had the sixth-highest
number of COVID-19-related deaths (CDC, 2023). To mitigate the spread of COVID-19,
Governor Brian Kemp announced the closures of all public elementary, secondary, and post-
secondary schools in the state from March 18, 2020, through the end of that month (Exec. Order
No. 03.18.2020.01, 2020). Subsequently, on March 26, 2020, he extended the statewide school
closure until April 24, 2020 (Exec. Order No. 03.26.2020.02, 2020). On April 1, 2020, Governor
44
Kemp decided to keep schools closed for the remainder of the academic year (Ballotpedia,
2022). This mandated school closure impacted approximately 1,764,346 students within the state
(Ballotpedia, 2022).
A key concern for Georgia’s law enforcement community during this time was the
potential negative impact that COVID-19 school closures may have on child abuse, particularly
child sexual abuse. In fact, in 2020, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) raised concerns at
the beginning of the pandemic that school closures might be related to an uptick in child sexual
exploitation (GBI, 2020). Considering Georgia generally has some of the lowest child abuse and
child sexual abuse rates in the nation (Children’s Defense Fund, 2020; NYrequirements, 2023),
an uptick in rates or a drop in reporting during the school closure period would suggest the
school closings are an important factor for predicting and reporting child abuse. At the same
time, Georgia was the first state to reopen schools and businesses (Jarvie, 2020). Most schools in
the state were reopened by August 9, 2021 (McCray, 2021). The analysis provided in this thesis
will help to determine what association, if any, the quick reopening of schools had on the
reporting of child abuse, specifically child sexual abuse.
Furthermore, like many other states, Georgia has mandatory reporting laws concerning
child abuse. Georgia's mandatory reporting laws require many medical personnel, counselors,
social workers, therapists, school personnel, child welfare agency personnel, counselors, and law
enforcement to report any suspected child abuse. They are required to report any suspected child
abuse to the Department of Human Services within 24 hours of suspicion. Reports can be made
through numerous methods, including the Georgia Abuse hotline, fax, and electronic submission.
A mandated reporter who violates the reporting statute can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor
crime. Any identifiable shifts in reporting by educators during the school closure period might
45
indicate that policies regarding mandated reporting should also prioritize periods where potential
victims may experience high degrees of isolation, such as routine school closures and extended
closures, like what occurred at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.4 Variables Under Study
4.4.1 Dependent Variables

The study involves 13 dependent variables organized around the central elements of the
Routine Activity Theory. For each variable, I focus on the percent change in the proportion of
reports by school closure period using the formula: [ (𝑉2−𝑉1) ÷ |𝑉1| ]×100.
Target Suitability: CSA Victim Variables
The study has five dependent variables related to target suitability. The first variable was
the victim's age. It is the “age, calculated in years, as of the date of the referral” (NCANDS Child
File Codebook, 2019, p. 13). Victim’s age is measured continuously and ranged from five to
sixteen years old.
The second variable was the victim's gender. NCANDS reports four categories on the
child sex variable.3 These included blank (=not collected/not applicable), male (=1), female (=2),
or unknown (=9). To construct the gender variable, only cases where the child’s sex was known
were included in the analysis. I coded cases with male (=1) as the reported sex as ‘boy’ (=0) and
cases with female (=2) as the reported sex as ‘girl’ (=1).
The third variable was the victim’s race-ethnicity. It referred to the racial and ethnic
group to which the child belongs. To construct this variable, I used the NCANDS variables that
3
In NCANDS sex refers to the “biological sex” of the child (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 15).
46
address race and ethnicity to create four categories: Other (=0), Hispanic (=1), Black(=2), and
White (=3). NCANDS reports five variables for child race and ethnicity that correspond to five
groups: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native, (2)Asian, (3)Black or African American, (4)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and (5) White.4
NCANDS reported each racial or ethnic group as follows: blank (=not collected/ not
applicable), yes (=1), no (=2). NCANDS codes the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity variable as yes,
Hispanic or Latino (=1), not Hispanic or Latino (=2), unable to determine (=3), and unknown or
missing (n=9). To create the race-ethnicity variable for the current study, I coded cases with
American Indian or Alaska Native coded as yes (=1), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity is coded
as not Hispanic or Latino (=2); cases with Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander coded as
yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (=2); and cases with Asian as
yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (=2), as ‘Other’ (=0). I coded
cases with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity reported as Hispanic or Latino (=1), as ‘Hispanic or
Latino’ (=1). I coded cases Black or African American reported as yes (=1) and not Hispanic or
4
American Indian or Alaska Native refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original peoples of North
and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 16). Asian refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam” (NCANDS Child File Codebook,
2019, p. 17). Black or African American refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the black racial groups
of Africa” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 18). Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander refers to racial
groups that have “origins in any of the original(=3). peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 19). White refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 20). NCANDS
includes one variable that addresses child Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. It defines Hispanic or Latino as “a person
[having origins in] Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South or Central America, or other Spanish language culture,
regardless of race” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 22).
47
Latino (=2), as ‘Black’ (=2). I coded cases White as yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as
not Hispanic or Latino (=2), as ‘White’ (=3).
The fourth variable is the victim's family structure. It refers to the type of household
where the child resides. The family structure variable has five categories arranged by risk: two-
parent households (=1), single-parent households (=2), single-parent households with other
adults (=3), foster or group homes (=4), and unmarried households with cohabitating partners
(=5). To construct this variable, The information for the family structure variable is derived from
the NCANDS variable “living arrangement.” NCANDS defines living arrangement as “the
environment in which a child was residing at the time of the alleged incident of maltreatment”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 24).5 I coded cases the living arrangement reported as
Married two-parent household or with two biological/adoptive parents (=1); Married two-parent
household with one biological/adoptive and one stepparent (=2); or Unmarried two-parent
household with two biological/adoptive parents (=3), as ‘two-parent households’ (=1). I coded
all cases with the living arrangement reported as Single parent household, mother only (=6) or
Single parent household, father only (=7), as ‘single parent household’ (=2). I coded cases with
the living arrangement reported as Single parent household mother with another adult
5
NCANDS reports 15 categories for living arrangement. These include: Blank (=Not collected/Not applicable);
Married two parent household or with two biological/adoptive parents (=1); Married two parent household with one
biological/adoptive and one stepparent (=2); Unmarried two parent household with two biological/adoptive parents
(=3); Unmarried two parent household with one biological/adoptive parent and one cohabitating partner (=4); Two
parent household, marital status unknown (=5); Single parent household, mother only (=6); Single parent household,
father only (=7); Single parent household mother with other adult (grandparent, uncle, aunt, unrelated adult, etc.)
(=8); Single parent household, father with other adult (grandparent, uncle, aunt, unrelated adult, etc.) (=9);
Nonparent relative caregiver household (includes relative foster care) (=10); Nonrelative caregiver household
(includes non-relative foster care) (=11); Group home or residential treatment setting (=12); Other setting (hospital,
secure facilities, etc.) (=88); and Unknown (=99).
48
(grandparent, uncle, aunt, unrelated adult, etc.) (=8) or Single parent household, father with other
adult (grandparent, uncle, aunt, unrelated adult, etc.) (=9), as ‘single parent household with other
adult’ (=3). I coded cases with the living arrangement as Nonparent relative caregiver household
(includes relative foster care) (=10); Nonrelative caregiver household (includes non-relative
foster care) (=11); or Group home or residential treatment setting (=12), as ‘foster or group
home’ (=4). I coded cases with the living arrangement as Unmarried, two-parent households with
one biological/adoptive parent and one cohabitating partner (=4), as ‘unmarried household with
cohabitating partner’ (=5).
The fifth variable is victim’s prior victimization refers to “a child with a previous
substantiated or indicated maltreatment disposition” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p.
26). According to NCANDS, the prior victimization variable “indicates if there are previous
substantiated or indicated maltreatment(s) for the child in the state's information system”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 26). NCANDS reports four categories on the prior
victimization variable. These are blank (=not collected/not applicable), yes (=1), no (=2), or
unknown or missing (=9). I coded the cases with prior victimization reported as yes (=1) as yes
(=1) and cases reported as no (=2) as ‘no’ (=0).
Motivated Offender: CSA Perpetrator Variables
The study has six motivated offender variables. To construct these variables, I used the
perpetrator demographic variables reported in NCANDS. NCANDS reports data on up to three
perpetrators per child and are categorized as Perpetrator 1, Perpetrator 2, and Perpetrator 3
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 94). This analysis for the current study only focuses
49
on Perpetrator 1, which NCANDS defines as “the first person who caused or knowingly allowed
child maltreatment to occur.” It should be noted that the perpetrator information is left blank if
“All three perpetrator sections in this record are left blank if the child does not have at least one
Maltreatment Disposition Level equal to “Substantiated” or “Indicated or Reason to Suspect.” As
a result, perpetrator data is available for less than a quarter of the cases (NCANDS Child File
Codebook, 2019, p. 107).
The first variable was the Perpetrator race-ethnicity refers to the racial and ethnic group
to which the perpetrator belongs. The variable has four categories: other (=0), Hispanic (=1),
Black (=2), and White (=3). I constructed this variable using six NCANDS variables that address
race and ethnicity. NCANDS reported six variables for the perpetrator's race that align with five
racial groups: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native, (2) Asian, (3) Black or African American,
(4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and (5) White.6 NCANDS codes each racial or
ethnic group is as follows: blank (=not collected/ not applicable), yes (=1), no (=2). NCANDS
codes the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity variable as yes, Hispanic or Latino (=1), not Hispanic or
Latino (=2), unable to determine (=3), and unknown or missing (n=9). I coded cases with
6
American Indian or Alaska Native refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original peoples of North
and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 16). Asian refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam” (NCANDS Child File Codebook,
2019, p. 17). Black or African American refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the black racial groups
of Africa” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 18). Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander refers to racial
groups that have “origins in any of the original(=3). peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 19). White refers to racial groups that have “origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 20). NCANDS
includes one variable that addresses child Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. It defines Hispanic or Latino as “a person
[having origins in] Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South or Central America, or other Spanish language culture,
regardless of race” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 22).
50
American Indian or Alaska Native reported as yes (=1), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity is coded
as not Hispanic or Latino (=2) as ‘Other’ (=0). I coded cases with Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander reported as yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino
(=2), race-ethnicity as ‘Other’ (=0). I coded cases with Asian reported as yes (=1) and Hispanic
or Latino ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (=2), as ‘Other’ (=0). I coded cases with NCANDS
reported as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as yes, Hispanic or Latino (=1), as ‘Hispanic or Latino’
(=1). I coded cases with Black or African American reported as yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (=2), as ‘Black’ (=2). I coded cases with White reported as
yes (=1) and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as not Hispanic or Latino (=2), as ‘White’ (=3).
The second variable was the perpetrator’s gender. To construct this variable, I used
NCANDS perpetrator sex variable.7 NCANDS reported four categories on the perpetrator sex
variable. These included blank (=not collected/not applicable), male (=1), female (=2), or
unknown (=9). I coded cases with perpetrator sex reported as male (=1) as man (=1) and those
with perpetrator sex reported as female as woman (=0).
The third variable was the perpetrator’s age refers to the “age in years at the time of the
report of the first person who caused or knowingly allowed child maltreatment to occur”
(NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 94). Perpetrator age is measured continuously, and the
range contained in NCANDS for perpetrators was 6 to 75.
7
In NCANDS perpetrator’s sex refers to the “biological sex” of the perpetrator (NCANDS Child File Codebook,
2019, p. 95).
51
The fourth variable was the perpetrator’s prior child victimization history. It referred to
whether the perpetrator, the person “who caused or knowingly allowed child maltreatment to
occur with a previous determination in the state’s information system of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment” (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 104). NCANDS reports four
categories on the prior victimization variable. These were blank (=not collected/not applicable),
yes (=1), no (=2), or unknown or missing (=9). All cases where NCANDS reports yes (=1) are
re-coded as yes (=1) and all cases where NCANDS reports no (=2) are re-coded as ‘no’ (=0). All
categories are removed from the analysis.
The fifth and sixth variables focused on the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim. These
referred to the familial relationship between the perpetrator and victim (NCANDS Child File
Codebook, 2019, p. 91). The fifth variable, perpetrator was a family member has two categories:
'Yes’ (=1), the perpetrator is a family member and ‘No’ (=0), the perpetrator is not a family
member. The data for the variable was derived from the NCANDS variables PerpRel 1, PerpRel
2, and PerpRel 3. NCANDS reports 14 categories for perpetrator relationship to victim.8 The
variable was coded as ‘Involves Family Member’ (Yes = 1). I coded all cases with the
perpetrator relationship reported as Nonrelative foster parent (=4); Group home or residential
facility staff (=5); Child daycare provider (=6); Unmarried partner or parent (=7); Legal guardian
(=8); Other professionals (=9); Friends or neighbors (=10); Foster Parent, relationship unknown
8
These include: Blank (=Not collected/Not applicable); Parent (=1); Other Relative (non-foster parent) (=2);
Relative foster parent (=3); Nonrelative foster parent (=4); Group home or residential facility staff (=5); Child
daycare provider (=6); Unmarried partner or parent (=7); Legal guardian (=8); Other professionals (=9); Friends or
neighbors (=10); Foster Parent, relationship unknown or unspecified (=33); Other (=88); and Unknown or missing
(=99). For all cases where NCANDS reported the perpetrator relationship as Parent (=1); Other Relative (non-foster
parent) (=2); or Relative foster parent (=3).
52
or unspecified (=33); Other (=88); and Unknown or missing (=99) as ‘Does not involve family’
(No= 0).
The sixth variable, perpetrator was a parent refers to “the parental role” of the perpetrator
to the victim. It derives from the NCANDS variable, “Per1Prnt” (NCANDS Child File
Codebook, 2019, p. 109). To construct this variable, I used data from the NCANDS PerpPrnt
variable. NCANDS reports five categories on this variable.9 I coded cases with the perpetrator
reported as a biological parent as ‘biological parent’ (=0). I coded cases with the perpetrator
reported as a stepparent as ‘non-biological parents’ (=1) and cases with the perpetrator reported
as an adoptive parent as ‘non-biological parents’ (=1).
Capable Guardianship: CSA Reporter Variables
The study has two dependent variables related to capable guardianship. The first variable
is cases reported by educators. This variable reflects the “closed off from educators” thesis and
focuses on if a CSA case was reported by an educator. Per the Georgia Department of Health and
Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, the term “educator” includes
school administrator, school counselor, school personnel, principal, social worker, schoolteacher,
visiting teacher, and coach. The information for this variable was gathered from the reporter
variable provided by NCANDS. NCANDS includes 16 different codes for reporter information.
These include: blank (= not collected/not applicable); social services personnel (= 1); medical
personnel (=2); mental health personnel (=3); legal/law enforcement and criminal justice
9
NCANDS categories on PerpPnt include biological parent (=1); stepparent (=2); adoptive parent (=3); another
parent (=8); and unknown or missing (=9) (NCANDS Child File Codebook, 2019, p. 92).
53
personnel (=4); education personnel (=5); child daycare provider (=6); substitute care provider
(=7); alleged victim (=8); parent (=9); other relative (=10); friends/neighbors (=11); alleged
perpetrator (=12); anonymous reporter (=13); other (=88); and unknown/missing (=99). To
construct the variable, I coded all cases with education personnel (=5) as the reporter source as
‘yes’ (=1) and all cases without education personnel as the reporter source as ‘no’ (=0).
The second variable is “reported by another guardian”. The information for this variable
was gathered from the reporter variable provided by NCANDS. NCANDS includes 16 different
codes for reporter information. These include: blank (= not collected/not applicable); social
services personnel (= 1); medical personnel (=2); mental health personnel (=3); legal/law
enforcement and criminal justice personnel (=4); education personnel (=5); child daycare
provider (=6); substitute care provider (=7); alleged victim (=8); parent (=9); other relative
(=10); friends/neighbors (=11); alleged perpetrator (=12); anonymous reporter (=13); other
(=88); and unknown/missing (=99). To construct the variable, I coded all cases without
education personnel (=5) as the reporter source as ‘yes’ (=1) and all cases with education
personnel as the reporter source as ‘no’ (=0).
4.4.2 Independent Variable

The key independent variable was the “school closure period.” In this thesis, the term
“school closure” refers to the mitigation measures recommended by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) during the COVID-19 pandemic (Zviedrite et al., 2021). Because schools are
densely populated, the closures would ensure that the social distancing guidelines were observed
and possibly prevent non-symptomatic children from infecting others within their households
(Klimek-Tulwin & Tulwin, 2020). Most schools closed to in-person instruction sometime during
the 2019-2020 academic year. Many schools remained closed as late as June of 2021. The
54
current study focuses on three time periods, which are listed as pre-school closures (=0), during
school closures (= 1), and post-school closures (= 2). This variable was constructed from the
NCANDS variable report date. It includes: "The month, day, and year that the responsible
agency was notified of the suspected child maltreatment referral." (NCANDS Child File
Codebook, 2019, p 7). For all cases with report dates on or before Governor Kemp’s March 18,
2020, announcement, the school closure period was coded as ‘before school closures’ (=0). For
all cases with report dates after Governor Kemp’s March 18, 2020 announcement but on or
before the announcement of schools reopening, the school closure period is coded as ‘during
school closures’ (=1). For all cases with report dates after August 9, 2021, the school closure
period is coded as ‘after school closures’ (=2).
4.5 Analytic Plan

The analyses are organized around the central tenets of Routine Activity Theory. In each
section, the analysis begins with a descriptive examination of the dependent and independent
variables, followed by cross-tabulations with chi-square tests of significance, one-way ANOVA
with special attention given to the relationship between the key independent variable, the school
closure period, on the dependent variables. All analyses are based on a 95% confidence interval,
with significance defined as a p-values less than .05.
I conducted all analyses for this thesis using IBM SPSS 29. Before performing the one-
way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), I completed checks to ensure that the data for victim’s age
and perpetrator age did not violate the assumptions of ANOVA. The first assumption is that the
dependent variable must be measured at the interval or ratio level (Laerd Statistics, 2018). This
assumption was met because the data on child age and perpetrator age were continuous. The second
assumption is that the independent variable should consist of two or more categorical independent
55
groups (Laerd Statistics, 2018). All analyses in this thesis involved an examination of three distinct
and independent periods of time. The third assumption is there should be independence of
observations (Laerd Statistics, 2018). This assumption was met because there was no relationship
between the observations in each group or between the groups themselves (Laerd Statistics, 2018).
I removed any duplicates on Child ID to ensure that child cases only appear in the sample once
and, therefore, cannot be in more than one period. For example, a report in the pre-school closure
period could not be in the during or after school closure period. Next, I checked to see if normality,
the fourth assumption, was met using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The results showed that
the normality assumption was met for both victim’s age and perpetrator’s age. I checked the fifth
assumption, and no extreme outliers were met for the victim’s age and perpetrator’s age using box
plots. These showed that there were no extreme outliers for either variable. Lastly, I checked to
ensure that the data met the homogeneity of variances assumptions using the Levene test statistic,
which showed that neither variable violated the assumption.

56
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
To investigate the impact of COVID-19 school closures on child sexual abuse (CSA)
reporting, I analyze the data in three phases. I provide descriptive statistics, followed by cross-
tabulations and one-way ANOVA. The results are organized around each element of Routine
Activities Theory: suitable target, motivated offender, and absence of capable guardians.
5.1 Suitable Target: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA Victims
Research question 1 asked, what are the characteristics of CSA Victims? The results
showed that the largest group of CSA victims were racial/ethnic minorities (49.9%), girls
(83.0%); with an average age of 11 years old (± 3). Nearly a fifth of the victims had a prior
victimization (17.2%). Almost half of the victims lived in single-parent households (45.0%).
(See Table 5.1)
Table 5.1. CSA Victim Descriptive Statistics

Variable N %
Victim Race 7816 100
Minority 3899 49.9
White 3492 44.7
Missing 425 5.4
Victim Gender 7816 100
Male 1312 16.8
Female 6489 83.0
Missing 15 0.2
Prior Victimization 7816 100
No 6473 82.8
Yes 1343 17.2
Family Structure 7816 100
Two-parent household 3112 39.8
Single-parent household 3512 44.9
Foster or Group home 145 1.9
Parent w/ Live-in Partner 967 12.4
Missing 80 1.0
Variable M SD
Victim Age 11.1 3.3
57
Research question 1a asked if COVID-19 school closures were associated with CSA
victim characteristics. Five hypotheses were formed about the association between COVID-19
school closures and the demographic characteristics of victims. Some of the hypotheses were
supported, while others were not. To begin, I considered how school closures may be associated
with CSA victim demographic patterns using bivariate analysis. The results showed statistically
significant associations between several victim characteristics and COVID-19 school closures,
such as victim’s race/ethnicity, gender, prior victimization experience, and family structure. (See
Table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Cross-Tabulations COVID-19 School Closures and Victim Characteristics

Pre During Post Total
Variable X2 N % N % N % N %
Victim Race 13.1 *** 4082 100 821 100 2710 100 7391 100
Minority 2219 54.4 393 47.9 2234 51.7 3899 52.9
White 1863 45.6 428 52.1 1201 48.3 3492 47.1
Victim Gender 7.0* 4308 100 920 100 2866 100 7801 100
Male 757 17.6 153 17.9 433 15.3 1312 16.8
Female 3551 82.4 704 82.1 2433 84.7 6489 83.2
Prior Victim 15.6*** 4486 100 858 100 2644 100 7816 100
Yes 791 18.3 160 18.6 392 14.8 1343 18.2
No 3523 81.7 698 81.4 2401 85.2 6473 82.8
Family Structure 24.3*** 4434 100 849 100 2622 100 7736 100
Two-parent 1695 39.7 331 39.0 1086 41.4 3112 40.2
Single parent 2006 47.0 384 45.1 1122 43.3 3512 45.4
Foster/Group home 80 1.9 24 2.8 41 1.5 145 1.9
Live-in Partner 484 11.3 110 13.0 373 14.3 967 12.5
Note: *p<.05; ** p<.01; and ***p<.001
I hypothesized that COVID-19 school closures would be associated with a decrease in the
proportion of CSA reports involving minority victims. This hypothesis was supported. The share
of CSA reports involving minority victims declined from 54.4% in the pre-school closure period
to 47.9% during school closures, a 12.8% change. The share of reports involving minority
victims then increased to 52.3% when schools reopened, a 9.2% change. On the other hand, the
58
proportion of CSA reports involving White victims increased by 14.3% from 45.6% in the pre-
school closure period to 52.1% during school closures. It then declined by 9% from 52.1% to
47.4% when schools reopened.
It is also important to note that the minority category includes Native Americans, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Hispanic, and Black. Stark differences exist when this
category is disaggregated. I considered the impact of school closures on specific minority
groups. The share of reports involving victims from who were Native Americans, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, and Asians were considered together in one category. The share of
reports involving a victim from this group declined by 36.4% when schools closed, from 1.1%
before closures to .7% during closures. In fact, reports of this type declined the most of any
group when schools closed. Notably, there was a 28.6% increase in the share of reports involving
victims from these groups when schools reopened.
Similarly, the proportion of reports that involved a Hispanic victim also shrank when
schools closed. The share of reports involving a Hispanic victim decreased from 15.2% before
schools closed to 12.3% when schools closed, a 21.7% change. In the post-closure period, the
share of reports involving a Hispanic victim rose to 15.1%. This represented a 22% increase
from when schools were closed and was the largest uptick of reports in the post-closure period of
any group.
The share of CSA reports involving Black victims followed a similar pattern. It declined
from 38.1% in the pre-school closure period to 34.8% when schools closed, an 8.7% change.
Likewise, the share of CSA reports involving a Black victim grew when schools reopened rising
to 35.9% when schools reopened. Overall, the findings indicate not all groups (victims)were
impacted by the school closures in the same way.

59
I hypothesized that COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an increase in
the proportion of CSA reports involving girl victims compared to boy victims. The hypothesis
was supported. The share of CSA reports involving girls was far larger than the share involving
boys, and this was consistent across the three periods. Additionally, the share of reports
involving a girl victim increased when schools closed and again when they reopened. On the
other hand, the proportion of CSA reports involving boys as victims declined when schools
reopened.
I also hypothesized that COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an increase
in the share of reports involving prior victims. The hypothesis was supported. The crosstabs
showed a significant association between school closures and prior victimization. There was a
slight increase in the share of CSA reports that involved a ‘prior victim’ during the school
closure period. At the same time, the share of ‘non-prior victims’ decreased during the school
closure period. Furthermore, the percentage of reports involving prior victims declined in the
post-school closure period from 18.6% to 14.8%. The share of cases involving victims without
prior victimization increased during this same period.
I hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant association between school
closures and the victim's family structure. Specifically, I hypothesized that school closures would
be associated with a decline in the proportion of reports involving victims from two-parent
homes. The hypothesis was supported. The share of CSA reports involving victims from two-
parent households declined from 39.7% before school closures to 39.0% during school closures,
before rising to 41.4% in the post-school closure period. The proportion of reports involving a
victim from a single-parent home declined from 47.0% to 45.2% during school closures, a 3%
60
change. The share of reports involving victims from single-parent homes decreased again in the
post-closure period to 43.3%.
I further hypothesized that there would be an increase in the proportion of reports
involving victims from foster or group homes during school closures. The hypothesis was
supported. The percentage of CSA reports involving a victim living in a foster or group home
grew from 1.9% before school closures to 2.8% during school closures, a 47.3% increase.
However, this share declined during the post-school closure period to 1.6%, a 42.9% decrease.
I hypothesized that there would be an increase in the proportion of reports that involve
victims from single-parent homes with live-in partners during school closures. The hypothesis
was supported. The proportion of CSA reports involving victims from homes where a parent has
a live-in partner increased from 11.5% before schools closed to 13.5% when schools closed, a
13.9% change. The share of reports involving victims from home where a parent has a live-in
partner increased again during the post-school closure period to 14.3%, indicating a 9.1% uptick.
Lastly, I hypothesized that the COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an
increase in the proportion of CSA reports involving younger children. This hypothesis was not
supported. The average CSA victim age did not change much in each of the periods. The mean
ages were 11.09 in the pre-closure period, 11.13 during the school closure period, and 11.22 in
the post-closure period. I performed a one-way ANOVA to compare the effect of school closures
on CSA victim age. The ANOVA showed that there was not a statistically significant difference
in victim age by school closure period. [F(2, 7813)=1.36, p=.217)].
5.2 Motivated Offender: Examining Patterns in CSA Perpetrators

Research question 2 asked, what are the characteristics of CSA perpetrators? Among the
cases with perpetrator information, the descriptive statistics showed the largest group of CSA
61
perpetrators were males (93.6%); the average age of the perpetrator was 37.5 years old (±13);
and white (63.8%). Moreover, most cases involved a family member as the perpetrator (66.2%),
with most involving a biological parent (61.1%). Most perpetrators did not have a prior
accusation of child abuse or maltreatment (95.7%). (See Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Perpetrator Characteristics

Variable N %
Perpetrator Race 7816 100
White 1102 14.1
Minority 625 8.0
Missing 6089 77.9
Perpetrator Gender 1951 100

Male 1755 22.5
Female 132 6.8
Missing 5491 76
Family Member 7816 100
Yes 1243 15.9
No 634 8.1
Missing 5939 76.0
Relationship to Victim 7816 100
Biological Parent 491 6.3
Non-biological Parent 313 4.0
Missing 7012 89.7
Prior Victimization Case 7816 100
Yes 80 1.0
No 1797 23.0
Missing 5939 76.0
Variable M SD
Perpetrator Age 37.4 13.0
Research question 2a asked, were the COVID-19 school closures associated with changes
in perpetrator characteristics? Six hypotheses were formed regarding the association between
COVID-19 school closures and perpetrator characteristics. To begin with, I hypothesized that
COVID-19 school closures would not be associated with an increase in the proportion of CSA
reports involving older perpetrators. This hypothesis was not supported. I performed a one-way
62
ANOVA to compare CSA perpetrator age by school closure period. The ANOVA showed no
statistically significant difference in CSA perpetrator age by school closure period [F (2, 1873) =
1.40, p=.247]. The perpetrator’s average age remained similar in each school closure period. The
average perpetrator age before school closures was 37.17, 38.67 during school closures, and
37.51 post-school closures. Next, I hypothesized that the COVID-19 school closures would be
associated with an increase in the proportion of CSA reports that involve minority perpetrators.
This hypothesis was not supported. The cross tabulation with a chi-square test of significance
showed that the association was not significant. (See Table 5.4)
Table 5.4 Cross Tabulations of COVID-19 School Closures and Perpetrator Demographic
Changes
Pre- During Post- Total

Perpetrator Race 2.1 861 100 244 100 622 100 1727 100
White 535 62.1 159 65.2 408 65.6 1102 63.8
Minority 326 37.9 85 34.8 214 34.4 625 36.2
Perpetrator Gender 1.6 935 100 265 100 675 100 1875 100
Male 869 92.9 248 93.6 638 94.5 1755 93.6
Female 66 7.1 17 6.4 37 5.5 120 6.4
Prior Victimization 3.6 935 100 265 100 677 100 1877 100
Yes 47 5.0 16 4.5 21 3.1 80 4.3
No 888 95.0 253 95.5 656 96.9 1797 95.7
Involves Family 3.2 935 100 265 100 677 100 1877 100
Yes 630 67.4 163 61.5 450 66.5 1243 66.2
No 305 32.6 102 38.5 227 33.5 634 33.8
Perpetrator a Parent 6.3* 418 100 108 100 278 100 804 100
Biological parent 262 62.7 74 68.5 123 44.2 491 61.1
Not a biological parent 156 37.3 34 31.5 155 55.8 313 38.9
Note: *p<.05; ** p<.01; and ***p<.001
I also hypothesized that the COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an
increase in the proportion of CSA reports that involve male perpetrators. The hypothesis was not
supported. The crosstabulation with a chi-square test of significance showed that the association
63
was not significant. I hypothesized that COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an
increase in the proportion of CSA reports that involved a perpetrator who has a prior child
abuse/maltreatment case. The hypothesis was not supported. The crosstabulation with a chi-
square test of significance showed that the association was not significant. I hypothesized that
COVID-19 school closures would be associated with an increase in the proportion of CSA
reports that involved a family member as the perpetrator. The crosstabulation with a chi-square
test of significance showed that the association was not significant.
Lastly, I hypothesized that the school closures would be associated with a decrease in
CSA reports involving a non-biological parent as the perpetrator. This hypothesis was supported.
The share of CSA reports involving biological parents as perpetrators increased from 62.7% of
reports before school closures to 68.5% of CSA reports when schools closed, representing a
9.3% increase. However, in the post-closure period, the share of this type of CSA report dropped
to 55.8%, representing an 18.5% decline in the proportion of reports involving biological parents
compared to when schools were closed.
The category, non-biological parents, includes two groups of perpetrators: 1.) adoptive
parents and 2.) stepparents. The share of CSA reports involving non-biological parents declined
from 37.3% in the pre-school closure period to 31.5% when schools were closed. This
represented a 15.5% decrease in the share of this type of CSA report when schools closed. On
the other hand, the share of CSA reports involving non-biological parents increased to 44.2%
when schools reopened, representing a 40.3% change from when schools were closed.
I also considered differences that may exist when the non-biological parent category is
disaggregated and important patterns emerge. Adoptive parents represented the smallest share of
CSA reports in each period. However, the proportion of reports involving adoptive parents as
64
perpetrators changed more than the other two categories. It increased from .2% before school
closures to .9% during school closures, a 350% increase. The share then declined when schools
reopened to .7%, indicating a 22.2% drop in the share of CSA reports involving adoptive parents
when schools reopened compared to when they were closed. The share of reports involving
stepparents as perpetrators dropped from 37.1% before school closures to 30.6% during school
closures, representing a 17.5% decrease. However, the share rose to 43.5% when schools
reopened, representing a 42.2% increase in the share of CSA reports involving stepparents in the
post-closure period.
Overall, the uptick in the share of CSA reports involving non-biological parents in the
post-closure period supports the idea of the Cinderella Effect and the “closed off from educators
perspective” and suggests that more CSA incidents occurred when schools were closed and then
were being reported when schools reopened.
5.3 Capable Guardians: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA Reporters
Research question 3 asked, what are the characteristics of CSA reporters? The descriptive
statistics showed that there were seven categories of reporters: (1) other, (2) social services
personnel, (3) medical or mental health personnel, (4) legal or law enforcement, (5) education
personnel/ care provider (6) parent or other relative, and (7) friends or neighbor. Overall, the
largest share of CSA reports was from law enforcement (24.8%) and education personnel
(24.0%). (See Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Reporting Sources).

65
Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Reporting Sources
Variable N %
Reporting Source 7816 100
Other 839 10.7
Social Service Provider 1209 15.5
Health Provider 1057 13.5
Legal/Law Enforcement 1936 24.8
Educator 1879 24.0
Parent/Other Relative 657 8.4
Friends or Neighbors 255 3.1
However, there were important differences in reporter type when school closure period is
considered. Research question 3a asked, were the COVID-19 school closures associated with
changes in reporter characteristics? I hypothesized that the school closures would be associated
with a decrease in the proportion of cases that have an educator as a reporter. The hypothesis
was supported. The results showed a statistically significant association between COVID-19
school closures and CSA reporters. (See Table 5.6)
Table 5.6 Cross Tabulations of COVID-19 School Closures and Reporter Characteristics
Pre- During Post- Total

Reporting Source 314.3*** 4314 100 858 100 26444 100 7816 100
Other 412 9.6 99 11.5 328 12.4 839 10.7
Social Service 663 15.4 142 16.6 404 15.3 1209 15.5
Health 555 12.9 150 17.5 352 13.3 1057 13.5
Legal/Law 989 22.9 295 34.4 652 24.7 1936 24.8
Enforcement
Education Provider 1273 29.5 27 3.1 579 21.9 1879 24.0
Parent/Other Relative 313 7.3 110 12.8 234 8.9 657 8.4
Friends or Neighbors 109 2.5 35 4.1 95 3.6 239 3.1
Note: *p<.05; ** p<.01; and ***p<.001
66
The share of CSA reports coming from educators declined dramatically from the pre-
school closure period to when schools closed. The proportion of reports coming from educators
went from 29.5% before schools closed to 3.1% when schools closed, an 89% decrease. The
share of reports from educators rose to 21.9% when schools reopened, 607% increase from when
schools were closed. This indicates that the COVID-19 school closures had a negative impact on
the overall share of reports coming from educators. Furthermore, the dramatic uptick in the
reports coming from educators when schools reopened highlights the important role that
educators play as a source of CSA reports.
It is also important to note that the school closures were associated with changes in the
share of reports from other sources such as social service providers, health providers, legal/law
enforcement, parents/other relatives, and friends. The share of reports coming from these sources
grew during school closures. The share of reports originating from parents/other relatives, law
enforcement, friends/neighbors increased the most during school closures. The proportion of
CSA reports from parents/other relatives increased from 7.3% before school closures to 12.8%
during school closures, a 75% change. The share of reports from this group dropped to 8.9%
when schools reopened, representing a 30% decrease in the post-school closure period compared
to when schools were closed. The proportion of reports from friends, although being the smallest
share of reports overall, shifted dramatically from 2.5% before school closures to 4.1% during
school closure, a 64% increase. The share of CSA reports from law enforcement grew from
22.9% before schools closed to 34.4% when schools were closed, a 50% change. However, when
school reopened, the share of reports from law enforcement declined to 24.7%, representing a
28% decrease from the share they accounted for during school closures.
67
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I interpret the study’s key findings and discuss how the findings relate to
the existing literature. Next, I review the study’s limitations and make recommendations for
future research. Finally, I conclude with implications for policy and a summary of the thesis.
6.1 Key Findings

As explained throughout this thesis, school closures were a controversial policy response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. A major issue regarding school closures was that children may
become more vulnerable to child abuse, including sexual violence, as a result. Proponents of this
position, which I refer to as the “closed off from educators” perspective, maintain school
closures may reduce child abuse reporting by removing or limiting children’s exposure to
educators. Education is the institution children have the most consistent access to outside of the
family; as such, educators play a vital role in identifying and reporting child abuse. While the
“closed off from educators” perspective was central to the concerns raised by law enforcement,
child advocacy organizations, and some policymakers, it has rarely been addressed in the
research literature.
Few studies have examined the relationship between COVID-19 school closures and
child abuse reporting. While these studies have yielded some important results, they also have
some important limitations that must be considered (See Chapter 2). Some major limitations of
the existing study include focusing on a short window of time at the beginning of the
pandemic, using broad definitions of child abuse and maltreatment that do not specify the type,
and focusing on smaller levels of analysis, such as specific cities or counties. More research is
needed to address these limitations. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis was to investigate the
68
relationship between COVID-19 school closures and child sexual abuse reporting in the state of
Georgia. I explored this relationship using Routine Activity Theory.
Routine Activity Theory argues that crime occurs when three factors converge in a
specific type of place and time: (1) the motivated offender, (2) the suitable target, and (3) the
absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). While the theory was first proposed as an
explanation for other types of crime, Finkelhor and Asgidian (1996) later modified the theory to
explain child sexual abuse. (See Chapter 3). Their modified version of the theory undergirds this
thesis using data from the NCANDS 2019-2021 Child File. I asked three research questions
regarding the characteristics of the CSA victims (suitable targets), CSA perpetrators (motivated
offenders), and CSA reporters (guardians). The results supported the tenets of Routine Activity
Theory. I found the qualities of the victim or target and the reporters or guardians to be the
factors impacted the most by the COVID-19 school closures.
6.1.1. Suitable Targets? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Victim Characteristics
Based on the results of the study, CSA victim or target characteristics shifted the most by
school closures (See Chapter 5). Four victim characteristics emerged as important: (1) victim’s
race, (2) gender, (3) victim’s prior victimization, and (4) victim’s family structure. To begin
with, there was a significant relationship between school closures and victims’ race. CSA reports
involving minority victims were significantly more likely to happen in the pre- and post-school
closure periods than during school closures. This finding suggests that white children may be
less dependent on school-related resources for the identification and reporting of CSA. While
this has not been the subject of an empirical investigation, the claim is supported by the findings
of similar work that has focused on the unintended consequences of the COVID-19 school
closures. This small but growing body of research has reported that the changes in schooling that
69
were brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted children of color.
This research has focused on issues related to nutrition and mental health, finding that children of
color may be more dependent on schools to provide services in these areas (Kinsey et al., 2020;
Eugene et al., 2022; Quirk, 2020). Additionally, the trend indicates that minority children may
have differential access to other reporters outside the education system (e.g., law enforcement,
healthcare, and social services) who might fill in the gap created by school closures. Due to
historical and contemporary inequality, minority communities report more institutional distrust
than their White counterparts (Boulware, 2003; Bagasra et al., 2021). This distrust can seriously
impede the help-seeking behaviors of this group (Best et al., 2021).
The findings regarding gender are supported by similar research indicating that girls are
predominantly identified as victims in CSA reports. The findings also support Routine Activity
Theory’s idea of a suitable target, particularly the notion of target congruence proposed by
Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996). Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) argued that personal
characteristics significantly influence susceptibility to victimization, focusing on traits such as
the inability to resist an attacker or rely on the offender for survival. Motivated offenders often
find individuals possessing these characteristics as suitable targets. Girls may be perceived as
suitable targets for various reasons, including the societal norms that promote their
submissiveness and the historical perception of their physical weakness compared to boys, which
may lead motivated offenders to believe they are easier to control and less capable of resisting
CSA (Karmen, 2016; von Hentig, 1948). It is important to note that during the school closure
period, there was a slight decrease in CSA reports involving boys as victims. This suggests that
boys may be more dependent on educators’ capable guardianship to recognize and report the
abuse. This is consistent with the literature in that boys may be less likely to report abuse due to
70
various reasons, such as fear of consequences, cultural views on masculinity and homosexuality,
and feelings of embarrassment. (Dhaliwal et al., 1996; Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Goodman-
Brown et al., 2003; Holmes & Slap,1998; Ullman & Filipas, 2005).
Victim’s prior victimization also emerged as an important characteristic of CSA reports
that was impacted by the COVID-19 school closures. Although prior victims were a smaller
portion of the sample, the results showed reports involving victims with prior victimization rose
slightly during school closures, from 19% to 20%, and dropped to 17% when schools reopened.
As outlined in Chapter 3, Routine Activity Theory posits that for a crime to occur, a motivated
offender must be present at the same place and time as a suitable target. COVID-19 school
closures created an environment in which victims and offenders were placed in proximity for
longer periods of time. The increased proximity and exposure between offenders and victims
created an environment conducive to increased child sexual abuse. Furthermore, the COVID-19
school closures disrupted parental schedules, potentially leading to increased contact between
abusers and victims (proximity and exposure). This may have created an environment for
increased abuse due to the convergence of those factors (proximity and exposure). Also, one
aspect to consider is that many victims of CSA are victimized by the same offender over time
(Craven et al., 2006; Jeglic et al., 2023; Lawson, 2003; Winters et al., 2020). The situation is
exacerbated when the offenders have nearly unrestricted access to their victims, coupled with a
decrease in capable guardianship. When schools reopened, the increase in reported cases can be
attributed to instances of repeated sexual abuse that transpired during the COVID-19 school
closure period. This was consistent with Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor’s study (1995), which
identified several risk factors associated with CSA, including prior incidents of CSA, previous
physical abuse within the family, and a history of victimization involving family members.
71
Furthermore, the research literature suggested family structure is a key risk factor
contributing to elevated levels of child sexual abuse among minority children. For example,
Black children are more likely to live in a single-parent home than their White and Hispanic
counterparts. A recent report by the Office of Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
reported: “In 2022, the majority of white children and Hispanic children lived in two-parent
homes (75.6% and 67.5% respectively), compared with four in ten (43.0%) Black children”
(OJJDP, 2023). Furthermore, the report found Black children were more likely to be in homes
with mothers only (OJJDP, 2023), another factor that is associated with heightened risk for CSA.
Single-parent family structure combined with an institutional distrust of law enforcement and
other governmental agencies compounds the risk of child abuse, specifically sexual abuse, not
being reported (Best, Fletcher, Kadon, & Warren, 2021). These institutional barriers can
contribute to an inability to access services that may allow for the identification and reporting of
child sexual abuse (Franklin & James, 1997).
Regarding CSA victims who reside in foster care or group homes, there was an increase
in the percentage of reports during the school closure period. This suggests that children living
within foster care or group homes rely less on educators as capable guardians. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, these children had increased access to social service resources, which
could detect and report CSA. While visits might have declined (Musser et al., 2021; Whitt-
Woosley et al., 2022) they still had more access to social services because of legal requirements
requiring at- home visits and welfare checks than other groups impacted by COVID-19 (Langley
et al., 2021). Children in foster or group homes were already under more surveillance and had
more reports during school closures than the other groups of children in this study.
72
6.1.2. Motivated Offenders? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Perpetrator Characteristics
Several previous scholars highlighted that “regardless of a target’s suitability, the
presence of a motivated offender is required before a crime can occur” (Drawve et al., 2013, p. 5;
Mustain & Tewksbury, 2000; Wellman et al., 2020). To understand the qualities of the motivated
offender during the COVID-19 school closures, I focused on the characteristics of CSA
perpetrators. Research question 2 asked, “What are the demographic characteristics of CSA
perpetrators?” and research question 2a asked, “Are COVID-19 school closures associated with
changes in perpetrator characteristics?” The results were consistent with the notion of the
motivated offender as the most stable or consistent element in criminal activity. Compared to
target characteristics and guardian characteristics, the characteristics related to the motivated
offender were impacted the least by the school closures.
The investigation into perpetrator characteristics showed only one characteristic was
important and that was whether the perpetrator was a non-biological parent. Previous studies
have articulated a so-called Cinderella effect as it pertains to child abuse generally but also
within CSA (Daly & Wilson, 2005; Tooley et al., 2006). It has been reported that non-biological
parents, particularly stepfathers, are likely offenders (Daly & Wilson, 2005; Gordon, 1989;
Russell, 1984; Tooley et al., 2006). I observed an interesting pattern regarding CSA reports
involving a stepparent and school closures. CSA reports involving a stepparent declined by
roughly six percent during the school closure period compared to before schools closed and rose
by nearly eleven percent when schools reopened. This finding indicated that parental relationship
to the child is an important indicator of CSA and should be considered a risk factor when schools
are closed for extended periods. Additionally, the uptick in CSA reports involving non-biological
parents when schools reopened suggested that children living with stepparents or adoptive
parents may rely more on educators as capable guardians for detecting CSA than children in
73
other living situations. It might also denote more CSA incidents involving non-biological parents
occurred during the school closure period than were reported.
6.1.3. Capable Guardians? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Reporter Characteristics
Lastly, Routine Activity Theory assumes that guardianship adds a level of protection for
“potential victims from potential offenders when the actors converge in time and space” (Drawve
et al., 2013, p.6). Furthermore, capable guardianship may be formal, such as law enforcement or
security agencies, or informal through the watchfulness of neighbors, friends, or bystanders
(Drawve et al., 2013). Research question 3 asked, “What are the characteristics of the reporters
of CSA?” and research question 3a asked, “Are COVID-19 school closures associated with
changes in CSA reporter characteristics?” I observed that capable guardianship, measured as
reporter characteristics, was impacted by the COVID-19 school closures, with significant
differences in reporter type by school closure period. The COVID-19 school closures had a
negative effect on CSA reports from educators. The reports from educators declined
tremendously during the closure period. The results showed that before the school closures
educators accounted for the highest share of CSA reporters in Georgia, representing nearly thirty
percent of the reporters. On the other hand, educators only accounted for approximately four
percent of reporters during the school closure period. Their share ballooned to roughly twenty-
two percent when schools reopened. Although many jurisdictions transitioned to virtual school
during school closures, the results of my study indicated virtual school does not provide the same
level of protection or “guardianship” from educators as going to school in person.
I also considered patterns in CSA reporting from other sources, including social service
providers, health providers, law enforcement, parents, friends, and neighbors. These analyses
showed that reports from these sources increased during the school closure period. There were
74
notable increases in reports from parents or other relatives, law enforcement, and friends or
neighbors. These changes indicate that in the absence of educators as capable guardians, many
other sources can provide a level of guardianship to CSA victims. Together, the findings about
capable guardians can lend much needed context to the policy debates surrounding the “closed
off from educators” perspective. The findings indicate that while it is a legitimate concern that
children may not have access to educators during periods of school closures, other guardians,
both formal and informal, appear to be capable of identifying and reporting CSA during these
times.
6.2 Study’s Contributions

The study makes important contributions to several bodies of work. Specifically, this
study empirically tests the “closed off from educators” thesis, providing a detailed analysis of the
importance of educators as capable guardians. Furthermore, this research differed from the
current academic literature surrounding COVID-19 school closures and its impact on child
wellbeing by specifically focusing on child sexual abuse rather than encompassing all forms of
child maltreatment. The study’s findings indicated other reporting sources existed during the
absence of the capable guardianship of educators, allowing for a greater appreciation of the
impact of schools on the well-being of children. To my knowledge, this was the first study to use
Routine Activity Theory to examine the impact of COVID-19 school closures on CSA reporting.
6.3 Study’s Limitations

While the findings of this thesis are important, they are not without limitations and
should be interpreted with caution. The study’s limitations included those related to data, the
overall scope of the project, and some issues related to research design. As stated above, the data
for this thesis was derived from the NCANDS Child File Dataset (2019-2021). Although
75
NCANDS is considered a comprehensive set of cases of child abuse and maltreatment across the
United States, the data had noteworthy limitations. There is a high degree of variability in the
specificity of reporting at the state level, which impacts the amount of information that
NCANDS has available for cases in each state. For the purposes of this thesis, I focused on the
state of Georgia. While I was able to identify nearly 8,000 CSA cases from Georgia, a significant
number of cases were missing data on some key categories, such as perpetrator information,
child risk factors, and caregiver risk factors that could result in a fuller conceptual picture of the
problem of CSA in Georgia. Furthermore, the dataset only provided information about CSA in
general and did not differentiate between the different types of CSA, such as fondling,
penetration, child exploitation, or sex trafficking. Data restrictions also limited the theoretical
framework that could be used. For example, much research literature indicated that pressure
created from finances or other socioeconomic factors contributes greatly to child abuse and
maltreatment. As such, many previous investigations into child abuse and maltreatment have
been guided by General Strain Theory and include measures of strain. However, because of
missing data on child risk factors and caregiver risk factors, I was unable to construct a
measurement of strain for this thesis. I believe General Strain Theory would have complemented
Routine Activity Theory and provided more insight about the interrelationships between
COVID-19 school closures, CSA perpetrators, and victims.
Another important limitation was the scope of the study. In this thesis, I focused
explicitly on CSA to the exclusion of other forms of child abuse and maltreatment. Although this
is important, it is worth noting that CSA is the least reported form of child abuse and
maltreatment. The findings regarding reports on other forms of child abuse and maltreatment
76
may have yielded different patterns concerning school closures. Furthermore, the study only
considers school-aged children.
Lastly, there are two limitations concerning the research design. First, this study focused
on a single state. Georgia approached its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in different ways
than other states. It was among the earliest states to reopen and left the choice for reopening
schools up to the school districts. The outcomes of this study may look different using data from
another state, particularly those outside of the South. Second, the designation of cases as pre-,
during, and post-COVID-19 school closures was an imperfect measure. The categorization was
based on the date of Governor Kemp’s announcement of school closures on March 16, 2020, and
his subsequent announcement of school’s reopening in August 2020. However, there was much
variation in how schools in Georgia went about reopening. For example, some schools opened
and then closed again shortly after, some districts offered parents the option to continue virtual
school, and some districts reopened later than others. The research design for this study does not
account for this variability, and reporting may have been affected by it.
6.4 Directions for Future Research

The limitations of this study present important opportunities for future research
concerning school closures and child abuse reporting. This study focused on the state of Georgia.
Future research could consider regional differences instead of focusing on a single state. Scholars
should also expand the scope of future studies to include children under the age of five. While
this group constitutes a smaller percentage of CSA reports, to appreciate the full impact of school
closures on CSA reporting, younger children, such as those that are daycare age, should be
considered. Future investigations should also test the interactive effects of variables associated
with changes in CSA reporting. These include testing effects of the interaction between race and
77
family structure, race and place, and prior victimization and place on CSA reporting. I also
recommend future researchers focus on actual incidents as opposed to only CSA reports,
possibly using data other than NCANDS or aggregating the data to create a dependent variable
that is a count of CSA incidents or reports within a specific time frame. While the NCANDS data
is incredibly useful, data provided by victimization surveys or more qualitative data may reveal
details that can add important information about CSA. Lastly, future investigations about the
relationship between school closures and CSA, should consider more characteristics of place
such as the violent crime rate, the poverty rate, the education budget, the number of off-premises
alcohol establishments, and the availability of resources that promote capable guardianship.
6.5 Implications for Policy

The study’s findings also have important implications for policy. First, children living in
households with stepparents may require additional services and monitoring when schools are
closed. There should be more coordination between social services and educational providers to
ensure this is happening. Additionally, a policy should be developed that equips social services
with methods of monitoring child wellbeing during periods of school closure. Furthermore, this
study revealed that educators are important guardians. However, it also found that other
guardians are important. Noting the changes in reporting sources during the school closure
period, an important policy prescription may be to ensure the other guardians have the resources
and support they need to be effective.
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent school closures exposed shortcomings within
districts in their ability to ensure the safety of students when children are “closed off from”
educators. While this study focused on a unique period and public health crisis, the findings may
also be applicable to the risks posed by routine school closures such as summer and winter
78
breaks. This supports the findings of the Puls et al. (2021) study. Puls et al. (2021) found the
reporting of child abuse by educators during routine school closures decreased, resulting in fewer
verified cases, indicating children are at great risk for undetected child sexual abuse during
routine school closures. There should be a standard operating procedure among all school
systems regarding best practices for school closure. The establishment of a “best practice”
working group at the state level could develop a continuity of education plan that incorporates
measures to monitor the well-being of children learning within a virtual setting.
6.6 Study’s Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic created a global public health crisis, leading to school closures
across the United States. The closing of schools raised significant concerns among researchers,
policymakers, and children’s rights advocates that the closures might exacerbate the "hidden
crisis" of child abuse by locking children in an environment with their abusers and removing
them from the watchful eyes of educators who could detect and report the abuse to authorities.
While this was a well-documented concern, very little was known empirically about the link
between these school closures and child abuse reporting. Additionally, the existing literature is
wrought with limitations, including a lack of inquiries that focus on specific forms of child abuse
and maltreatment. To address this important gap in the literature, this thesis provided an
investigation into COVID-19 school closures and CSA reporting in Georgia guided by Routine
Activity Theory. By applying this theoretical perspective to COVID-19 school closures and child
sexual abuse reporting, this master's thesis contributed to the growing body of research about the
collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on violence against children. The study’s
findings can inform several important areas of research, such as public health, criminal justice,
education, and victimology, and have important implications for policy and practice. Research
79
indicates child sexual abuse is an adverse child experience that impacts one in nine girls and one
in twenty boys. Furthermore, experiencing child sexual abuse can have long-term consequences
that impact victims’ physical, mental, and behavioral health over their lifetime. However, many
of these situations may be preventable if stakeholders take the necessary steps to reduce the risk.
While this thesis contributes to knowledge about school closures and CSA, more research, policy
reforms, and practical efforts are needed to fully address the problem of CSA.
80
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. S. (2021). Covid and crime: An early empirical look. Journal of Public Economics,
194, 104344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104344
Administration for Children and Families, 2021. Child maltreatment 2021. Available at:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2021
Aguilar, J. B., Faust, J. S., Westafer, L. M., & Gutierrez, J. B. (2020). A Model Describing
COVID-19 Community Transmission Taking into Account Asymptomatic Carriers and
Risk Mitigation. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.18.20037994
Ainsworth, F. (2002). Mandatory reporting of Child abuse and neglect: Does it really make a
difference? Child & Family Social Work, 7(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2206.2002.00228.x
Alfano V. The Effects of School Closures on COVID-19: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis. Appl
Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Mar;20(2):223-233. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00702-z.
Epub 2021 Dec 10. PMID: 34890025; PMCID: PMC8660653.
Allnock, D. and Miller, P. (2013). No One Noticed, No One Heard: A Study of Disclosures of
Childhood Abuse. London: NSPCC.
Almeida, M., Challa, M., Ribeiro, M., Harrison, A. M., & Castro, M. C. (2021). Editorial
perspective: The mental health impact of school closures during the Covid‐19 pandemic.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(5), 608–612.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13535
Anechiarico, B. (1998). A closer look at sex offender character pathology and relapse
prevention: An integrative approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 42(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x98421003
Ahrens, C. E., Rios-Mandel, L. C., Isas, L., & del Carmen Lopez, M. (2010). Talking about
interpersonal violence: cultural influences on Latinas’ identification and disclosure of
sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma, 2, 284–295.
https://doi. org/10.1037/a0018605.
Auger, K. A., Shah, S. S., Richardson, T., Hartley, D., Hall, M., Warniment, A., Timmons, K.,
Bosse, D., Ferris, S. A., Brady, P. W., Schondelmeyer, A. C., & Thomson, J. E. (2020).
Association between statewide school closure and covid-19 incidence and mortality in
the US. JAMA, 324(9), 859. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14348
Bagasra, A. B., Doan, S., & Allen, C. T. (2021). Racial differences in institutional trust and
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal. BMC Public Health, 21(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12195-5
81
Baker, L., & Staff, E. W. (2022, April 7). Forever changed: A timeline of how Covid upended
schools. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/forever-changed-a-
timeline-of-how-covid-upended-schools/2022/04#:~:text=of%20COVID%2D19.-
,Feb.,caused%20by%20the%20novel%20coronavirus.
Baldwin, J. M., Eassey, J. M., & Brooke, E. J. (2020). Court operations during the COVID-19
pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 743–758.
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., & Pachl, L. (2021). A spatiotemporal analysis of the impact
of covid-19 on child abuse and neglect in the City of Los Angeles, California. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104740
Baron, E. J., Goldstein, E. G., & Wallace, C. T. (2020). Suffering in silence: How covid-19
school closures inhibit the reporting of child maltreatment. Journal of Public Economics,
190, 104258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104258
Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2012). The current prevalence of Child
sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of
Public Health, 58(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1
Benedict, M. I., Zuravin, S., Brandt, D., & Abbey, H. (1994). Types and frequency of child
maltreatment by family foster care providers in an urban population. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 18(7), 577–585.
Best, A. L., Fletcher, F. E., Kadono, M., & Warren, R. C. (2021). Institutional distrust among
African Americans and building trustworthiness in the COVID-19 response: Implications
for ethical public health practice. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,
32(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2021.0010
Block, K., & Kaplan, J. (2022). Testing the Cinderella effect: Measuring victim injury in child
abuse cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101987
Bradbury‐Jones, C., & Isham, L. (2020). The pandemic paradox: The consequences of covid‐19
on domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(13–14), 2047–2049.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15296
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine and situation: toward a
pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational
Choice. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction.
Brauner, J. M., Mindermann, S., Sharma, M., Johnston, D., Salvatier, J., Gavenčiak, T.,
Stephenson, A. B., Leech, G., Altman, G., Mikulik, V., Norman, A. J., Monrad, J. T.,
Besiroglu, T., Ge, H., Hartwick, M. A., Teh, Y. W., Chindelevitch, L., Gal, Y., &
Kulveit, J. (2021). Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against
COVID-19. Science, 371(6531). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9338
82
Brown, D., & De Cao, E. (2018). The impact of unemployment on child maltreatment in the
United States (No. 2018-04). ISER Working Paper Series.
Boman, J. H., & Gallupe, O. (2020). Has covid-19 changed crime? crime rates in the United
States during the pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 537–545.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09551-3
Boney-McCoy, S., & Finkelhor, D. (1995). Prior victimization: A risk factor for child sexual
abuse and for PTSD-related symptomatology among sexually abused youth. Child Abuse
Neglect 19, 1401±1421.
Boserup, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Alarming trends in US domestic violence
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American journal of emergency medicine, 38(12),
2753–2755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.077
Boulware, L. E. (2003). Race and trust in the Health Care System. Public Health Reports,
118(4), 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/phr/118.4.358
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (n.d.).

Compstat.https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/PERF-
Compstat.pdf
Bullinger, L. R., Boy, A., Feely, M., Messner, S., Raissian, K., Schneider, W., & Self-Brown, S.
(2021). Home, but left alone: Time at home and child abuse and neglect during COVID-
19. Journal of Family Issues, 44(2), 338–362.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x211048474
Buil-Gil, D., Zeng, Y., & Kemp, S. (2021). Offline crime bounces back to pre-covid levels,
cyber stays high: Interrupted time-series analysis in Northern Ireland. Crime Science,
10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-021-00162-9
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, April 6). Fast facts: Preventing child sexual
abuse |violence prevention|injury Center|CDC. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childsexualabuse/fastfact.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC Covid Data tracker. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Cerezo, M. A., & Pons-Salvador, G. (2004). Improving child maltreatment detection systems: A
large-scale case study involving health, Social Services, and School Professionals. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 28(11), 1153–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.007
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2021). Child Maltreatment 2019: Summary of key
findings. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Children's Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/ pubs/factsheets/canstats/
83
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau. https://www.
childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/lawspolicies/statutes/manda/
Children’s Defense Fund. (2020, February 19). The State of America’s Children 2020 -
childwelfare tables https://www.children's defense.org/policy/resources/soac-2020-child-
welfare-tables/
Chung, H. W., Apio, C., Goo, T., Heo, G., Han, K., Kim, T., Kim, H., Ko, Y., Lee, D., Lim, J.,
Lee, S., & Park, T. (2021). Effects of government policies on the spread of covid-19
worldwide. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99368-9
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal
victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review,
46(5), 505. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935
COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE LAW. Ga. Stat.§ 20-2-690.1 (2010).
Conrad-Hiebner, A., & Byram, E. (2018). The temporal impact of economic insecurity on child
maltreatment: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 157–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018756122
Coryton, D. (2020). What did the research evidence tell us about the effect of closing and
reopening schools during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic? Education
Journal Review. 26(2).
Craven, S., Brown, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature
and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287–299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600601069414
Crenshaw, W. B., Crenshaw, L. M., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1995). When educators confront child
abuse: An analysis of the decision to report. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(9), 1095–1113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00071-f
Dakil, S. R., Cox, M., Lin, H., & Flores, G. (2011). Racial and ethnic disparities in physical
abuse reporting and Child Protective Services Interventions in the United States. Journal
of the National Medical Association, 103(9–10), 926–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-
9684(15)30449-1
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1998). The truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love.
Yale University Press.
84
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2005). The “cinderella effect”: Elevated mistreatment of stepchildren in
comparison to those living with genetic parents. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://www. Psych. ucsb. edu/research/cep/buller/cinderella% 20effect% 20facts. pdf.
Danaeifar, M., Arshi, M., Boghanibashi-Mansourieh, A. (2022). Child sexual abuse in Iran: a
systematic review of the prevalence, risk factors, consequences, interventions and laws.
Journal of Injury & Violence Research. 14(3). 225-236. Doi:10.5249/jivr.v14i3.1754
Davies, E. A. & Jones, A. C. (2012). Risk factors in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic and
Legal Medicine. 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.06.005
Debowska, A., Hales, G., & Boduszek, D. (2021). Violence against children by Stepparents. The
SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence, 553–569.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529742343.n33
deChesnay, M. (1985). Father-daughter incest: An overview. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
3(4), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370030406
Deisz, R., Doueck, H. J., George, N., & Levine, M. (1996). Reasonable cause: A qualitative
study of mandated reporting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(4), 275–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(96)00009-9
de Paúl, J., Milner, J. S., & Múgica, P. (1995). Childhood maltreatment, childhood social
support, and child abuse potential in a Basque sample. Child Abuse & Neglect,
19(8), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00053-b
Derezotes, D., & Snowden, L. (1990). Cultural factors in the intervention of child maltreatment.
Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 161–175.
Devries, K., Knight, L., Petzold, M., Merrill, K. G., Maxwell, L., Williams, A., . . . Abrahams,
N. (2018). Who perpetrates violence against children? A systematic analysis of age-
specific and sex-specific data. BMJ Pediatrics Open, 2(1)
doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000180
Division of Family & Children Services | Georgia Department of Human Services. (n.d.).
https://dfcs.georgia.gov/about-
us#:~:text=The%20Georgia%20Division%20of%20Family,and%20innovative%20progra
ms%20to%20help
Dhaliwal, G. K., Gauzas, L., Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R. R. (1996). Adult male survivors of
childhood sexual abuse: Prevalence, sexual abuse characteristics, and long-term effects.
Clinical Psychology Review, 16(7), 619–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-
7358(96)00018-9
Doeden, M. (2022). Covid-19 pandemic: A coronavirus timeline. LERNER PUB GROUP.

85
Drake, B., & Pandey, S. (1996). Understanding the relationship between neighborhood poverty
and specific types of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(11), 1003–
1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(96)00091-9
Drawve, G., Thomas, S. A., & Walker, J. T. (2013). The likelihood of arrest: A routine activity
theory approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(3), 450–470.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9226-2
Economic Innovation Group. (2023, June 20). https://eig.org/
Eugene, D. R., Blalock, C., Robinson, E. D., & Crutchfield, J. (2022). The moderating effect of
covid-19 stress on school racial climate and parent and child mental well-being. Children
and Youth Services Review, 139, 106572.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106572
Euser, S., Alink, L. R., Tharner, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.
(2013). The prevalence of child sexual abuse in out-of-home care. Child Maltreatment,
18(4), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559513489848
Exec. Order No. 03.26.2020.02.(2020). https://gov.georgia.gov/executive-action/executive-

orders/2020-executive-orders
Exec. Order No. 03.18.2020.01.(2020). https://gov.georgia.gov/executive-action/executive-

orders/2020-executive-orders
Falkiner, M., Thomson, D., & Day, A. (2017). Teachers’ understanding and practice of
mandatory reporting of child maltreatment. Children Australia, 42(1), 38–48.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2016.53
Faust, J., Runyon, M. K., & Kenny, M. C. (1995). Family variables associated with the onset and
impact of intrafamilial childhood sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(5), 443–
456. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(95)00025-k
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Police research series,
paper, 98(1-36), 10
Felson, M., Xu, Y., & Jiang, S. (2022). Property Crime Specialization in Detroit, Michigan.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101953
Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse. New York, 186f.
Finkelhor, D. (1994a). Current information on the scope and nature of Child sexual abuse. The
Future of Children, 4(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602522
Finkelhor, D. (1994b). The International Epidemiology of Child Sexual abuse. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 18(5), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90026-4
86
Finkelhor, D. (2014). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young
people. Oxford University Press.
Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a
lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.11.1.3
Finkelhor, D. (2009). The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Future of Children, 19(2),
169–194. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0035
Finkelhor, D. (2012). Characteristics of crimes against juveniles. Durham, NH: Crimes against
Children Research Center.
Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A national

survey. Pediatrics, 94(4), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.94.4.413
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey
of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 14(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., Hamby S. & Kracke, K. (2009). Children’s Exposure to
Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs.
Frith, M. J., Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2022). Household occupancy and burglary: A case
study using covid-19 restrictions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101996.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101996
Fischer, D. G., & McDonald, W. L. (1998). Characteristics of intrafamilial and extrafamilial

child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(9), 915–929.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(98)00063-5
Fitzpatrick, M.D., Benson, C., Bondurant, S. R. (2020). Beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic:
the role of teachers and schools in reporting child maltreatment. NBER Working Paper
No. 27033.
Fleming, J., Mullen, P. E., & Bammer, G. (1997). A study of potential risk factors for sexual
abuse in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-
2134(96)00126-3
Fontes, L., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 491–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2010.512520
Fore, H. H. (2021). Violence against children in the time of covid-19: What we have learned,
what remains unknown and the opportunities that lie ahead. Child Abuse & Neglect, 116,
104776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104776
87
Franklin, D. L. & James, A. D. (1997). Ensuring inequality: The structural transformation of the
African American family. Oxford University Press.
Gassó, A. M., Mueller-Johnson, K., Agustina, J. R., & Gómez-Durán, E. L. (2021). Exploring
sexting and online sexual victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6662.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126662
Gazmararian, J., Weingart, R., Campbell, K., Cronin, T., & Ashta, J. (2021). Impact of covid‐19
pandemic on the mental health of students from 2 semi‐rural high schools in Georgia*.
Journal of School Health, 91(5), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13007
Gekoski, A., Davidson, J. C., & Horvath, M. A. H. (2016). The prevalence, nature, and impact of
intrafamilial child sexual abuse: Findings from a rapid evidence assessment. Journal of
Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 2(4), 231–243.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jcrpp-05-2016-0008
Geprägs, A., Bürgin, D., Fegert, J. M., Brähler, E., & Clemens, V. (2023). Parental stress and
physical violence against children during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic:
Results of a population-based survey in Germany. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and
Mental Health, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-023-00571-5
Gomez, J., & Gobin, R. (2019). Black women and girls & #MeToo: rape, cultural betrayal, and
healing. Sex Roles. Online first publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01040-0.
Goodman-Brown, T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., Jones, D. P., & Gordon, D. (2003).
Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 27, 525–540.
Gordon, M. (1989). The family environment of sexual abuse: A comparison of natal and
stepfather abuse. Child Abuse W Ncgfcct, 13,121-130.
Gordon, M., & Creighton, S. J. (1988). Natal and non-natal fathers as sexual abusers in the
United Kingdom: A comparative analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 99.
https://doi.org/10.2307/352431
Harris, M., Allardyce, S., & Findlater, D. (2021). Child sexual abuse and Covid‐19: Side effects
of changed societies and Positive Lessons for Prevention. Criminal Behaviour and Mental
Health, 31(5), 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2214
Haug, N., Geyrhofer, L., Londei, A., Dervic, E., Desvars-Larrive, A., Loreto, V., Pinior, B.,
Thurner, S., & Klimek, P. (2020). Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19
government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1303–1312.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0
Hawdon, J., Parti, K., & Dearden, T. E. (2020). Cybercrime in America amid covid-19: The
initial results from a natural experiment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4),
546–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09534-4
88
Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Kinsey, E. W., Read, M. A., Levi, R., Richardson, A. S., Hager, E.
R., & Seligman, H. K. (2022). Estimates of the nutritional impact of non-participation in
the National School Lunch Program during COVID-19 school closures. Nutrients, 14(7),
1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071387
Hentig, H. V. (1948). The criminal & his victim; studies in the sociobiology of crime. Yale Univ.
Press.
Hill, J., Raber, G., & Gulledge, L. (2022). Down with the sickness? Los Angeles burglary and
covid-19 restrictions. Journal of Experimental Criminology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09522-0
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An
empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger Pub. Co.
Hobbs, G. F., Hobbs, C. J., & Wynne, J. M. (1999). Abuse of children in foster and residential
care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-
2134(99)00096-4
Hodgkinson, T., & Andresen, M. A. (2020). Show me a man or a woman alone and I’ll show you
a saint: Changes in the frequency of criminal incidents during the covid-19 pandemic.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 69, 101706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101706
Holmes, W. C., & Slap, G. B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys. JAMA, 280(21), 1855.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.21.1855
Hornor, G. (2010). Child sexual abuse: Consequences and implications. Journal of pediatric
health care, 24(6), 358–364.
Hupe, T. M., & Stevenson, M. C. (2019). Teachers’ intentions to report suspected child abuse:
The Influence of Compassion Fatigue. Journal of Child Custody, 16(4), 364–386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1663334
INTERPOL. (2020). The International Criminal Police Organization. https://www.interpol.int/
Jarvie, J. (2020, May 23). Georgia reopened first. What the data show is a matter of fierce
debate. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-05-
23/georgia-reopened-first-the-data-say-whatever-you-want-them-to
Jeglic, E., Winters, G., & Johnson, B. (2023). Identification of Red Flag child sexual grooming
behaviors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 136, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105998.
Jensen, T.K., Gulbrandson, W., Mossige, S., Reichelt, S. and Tjersland, O.A. (2005). “Reporting
possible sexual abuse: a qualitative study on children’s perspectives and the context for
disclosure”, Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1395-413.
89
Johnson, S. D., & Nikolovska, M. (2022). The effect of covid-19 restrictions on routine activities
and online crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-
022-09564-7
Judd, N., Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K., & Amos, R. (2023). Is parental
unemployment associated with increased risk of adverse childhood experiences? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Public Health.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdad069
Karmen, A. (2019). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Katz, C., & Fallon, B. (2021). Protecting children from maltreatment during COVID-19:
Struggling to see children and their families through the Lockdowns. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 116, 105084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105084
Katz, C., Priolo Filho, S. R., Korbin, J., Bérubé, A., Fouché, A., Haffejee, S., Kaawa-Mafigiri,
D., Maguire-Jack, K., Muñoz, P., Spilsbury, J., Tarabulsy, G., Tiwari, A., Thembekile
Levine, D., Truter, E., & Varela, N. (2021). Child maltreatment in the time of the
COVID-19 pandemic: A proposed global framework on research, policy and Practice.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104824
Katz, C., Tsur, N., Nicolet, R., Klebanov, B., & Carmel, N. (2020). No way to run or hide:
Children’s perceptions of their responses during intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Child
Kesner, J. E., & Robinson, M. (2002). Teachers as mandated reporters of child maltreatment:
Comparison with legal, medical, and social services reporters. Children & Schools, 24(4),
222-231.
Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of
victimization in Canada *. Criminology, 28(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
9125.1990.tb01321.x
Kennedy, J. P., Rorie, M., & Benson, M. L. (2021). Covid‐19 Frauds: An exploratory study of
victimization during a global crisis. Criminology & Public Policy, 20(3), 493–543.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12554
Kenny, M. C., & McEachern, A. G. (2000). Racial, ethnic, and cultural factors of childhood
sexual abuse: A selected review of the literature. Clinical psychology review, 20(7), 905-
922.
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M. A., Smith, C., Niesen, P.,
Seligman, H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020). School closures during COVID-19:
Opportunities for innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health,
110(11), 1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305875
90
Klimek-Tulwin, M., & Tulwin, T. (2020). Early school closures can reduce the first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic development. Journal of Public Health, 30(5), 1155–1161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01391-z
Koçtürk, N., & Yüksel, F. (2019). Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of intrafamilial
sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104122
Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2017). Gendered pathways from child sexual abuse to sexual
aggression victimization and perpetration in adolescence and young adulthood. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 63, 261-272.
Krishnamachari, B., Morris, A., Zastrow, D., Dsida, A., Harper, B., & Santella, A. J. (2021). The
role of Mask Mandates, stay at home orders and school closure in curbing the COVID-19
pandemic prior to vaccination. American Journal of Infection Control, 49(8), 1036–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.02.002
Krugman, R. D., Lenherr, M., Betz, L., & Fryer, G. E. (1986). The relationship between
unemployment and physical abuse of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10(3), 415–
418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(86)90018-9
Lacelle, C., Hébert, M., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2012). Child sexual abuse and
women's sexual health: The contribution of CSA severity and exposure to multiple forms
of childhood victimization. Journal of child sexual abuse, 21(5), 571-592.
Langley, A. K., Ruderman, M. A., Waterman, J., & Franke, T. (2021). Impact of covid-19 on
resource families: Unique challenges and strengths. Developmental Child Welfare, 3(3),
185–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/25161032211020756
Lawson, L. (2003). Isolation, gratification, justification: offenders' explanations of child

molesting. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24(6-7), 695-705.
Leclerc, B., & Felson, M. (2016). Routine activities preceding adolescent sexual abuse of
younger children. Sexual Abuse, 28(2), 116-131.
Lee, S. J., & Augusto, D. (2022). Crime in the new U.S. epicenter of COVID-19. Crime
Prevention and Community Safety, 24(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-021-
00136-8
Leukfeldt, E. R. (2014). Phishing for suitable targets in the Netherlands: Routine activity theory
and phishing victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(8),
551-555.
Lindo, J. M., Schaller, J., & Hansen, B. (2018). Caution! men not at work: Gender-specific labor
market conditions and child maltreatment. Journal of Public Economics, 163, 77–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.04.007
91
Liu, J. (2022, January). ‘People are feeling the pain’: parents struggle with school reopenings,
closures as covid spikes. CNBC Make It. Retrieved June 8, 2023, from
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/working-parents-struggle-with-school-rules-closures-
while-covid-rages.html.
Loinaz, I., Bigas, N., & Ma de Sousa, A. (2019). Comparing intra and extra-familial child sexual
abuse in a forensic context. Psicothema, 31(3), 271–276.
https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.351
Luken, A., Nair, R., & Fix, R. L. (2021). On racial disparities in child abuse reports: Exploratory
mapping the 2018 NCANDS. Child Maltreatment, 26(3), 267–281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595211001926
Mathews, B., & Bross, D. C. (2008). Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: Empirical
evidence and philosophical grounds. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(5), 511–516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.06.010
McCray, V. (2021, July 29). Georgia schools reopen, with varying approaches to pandemic. ajc.
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/georgia-schools-reopen-with-varying-
approaches-to-pandemic/ZVN3THTGHRB3TJBUSSRXAVVWW4/
Ménard, K. S., & Ruback, R. B. (2003). Prevalence and processing of Child sexual abuse: A
multi-data-set analysis of urban and rural counties. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4),
385–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024084916626
Meyer, M., Hassafy, A., Lewis, G., Shrestha, P., Haviland, A. M., & Nagin, D. S. (2022).
Changes in crime rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistics and Public Policy,
9(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443x.2022.2071369
Miller, J. M., & Blumstein, A. (2020). Crime, justice & the COVID-19 pandemic: Toward a
national research agenda. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 515–524.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09555-z
Monteleone, J. A. (1998). A parent’s & teacher’s handbook on identifying and preventing child
abuse. G.W. Medical Pub.
Murray, G. R., & Davies, K. (2022). Assessing the effects of covid-19-related stay-at-home
orders on homicide rates in selected U.S. cities. Homicide Studies, 26(4), 419–444.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679221108875
Murray, J. B. (2000). Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters. The Journal of
Psychology, 134(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009600863
Musser, E. D., Riopelle, C., & Latham, R. (2021). Child maltreatment in the time of covid-19:
Changes in the Florida foster care system surrounding the COVID-19 safer-at-home
order. Child Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104945.
92
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and
victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for
criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33(3), 339–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2000.10571174
National Institute of Justice Annual Report 2003. National Institute of Justice. (n.d.).
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/national-institute-justice-annual-report-2003
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) home page, part of the U.S. Department of
Education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). https://nces.ed.gov/
NCANDS Child File Codebook (2019). OMB No. 0970-0424. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Children’s Bureau. p. 1-154
New York State Courses for Infection Control & Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training.
(n.d.). Which U.S. states have the highest rates of child abuse
cases?.https://nyrequirements.com/blog/which_us_states_have_the_highest_rates_of_chil
d_abuse_cases
Nobes, G., Panagiotaki, G., & Russell Jonsson, K. (2019). Child homicides by stepfathers: A
replication and reassessment of the British evidence. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 148(6), 1091.
Pavone, P., Giallongo, A., La Rocca, G., Ceccarelli, M., Nunnari, G. (2020). Recent covid-19
outbreak effect in childhood. Infectious Diseases & Tropical Medicine. 6(594).
Phelps, C. & Sperry, L.L. (2020). Children and the covid-19 pandemic. American Psychological
Association. 12(S1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000861.
Piquero, A. R., Riddell, J. R., Bishopp, S. A., Narvey, C., Reid, J. A., & Piquero, N. L. (2020).
Staying home, staying safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dallas domestic
violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 601–635.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09531-7
Pereda, N., & Díaz-Faes, D. A. (2020). Family violence against children in the wake of COVID-
19 pandemic: A review of current perspectives and risk factors. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00347-1
Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2009). The International Epidemiology
of Child Sexual Abuse: A continuation of Finkelhor (1994). Child Abuse & Neglect,
33(6), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.007
Pierce, L., & Pierce, R. (1984). Race as a factor in the sexual abuse of children. Social Work
Research and Abstracts, 20, 9–14.
93
Plachkinova, M. (2021). Exploring the shift from physical to cybercrime at the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Cyber Forensics and Advanced Threat
Investigations, 2(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.46386/ijcfati.v2i1.29
Posick, C., Schueths, A. A., Christian, C., Grubb, J. A., & Christian, S. E. (2020). Child victim
services in the time of covid-19: New challenges and innovative solutions. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09543-3
Puls, H. T., Hall, M., Frazier, T., Schultz, K., & Anderst, J. D. (2021). Association of routine
school closures with child maltreatment reporting and substantiation in the United States;
2010–2017. Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105257.
Pusch, S. A., Ross, T., & Fontao, M. I. (2021). The environment of intrafamilial offenders – A
systematic review of dynamics in incestuous families. Sexual Offending: Theory,
Research, and Prevention, 16. https://doi.org/10.5964/sotrap.5461
Quirk, A. (2020). Mental health support for students of color during and after the coronavirus
pandemic. Center of American Progress, 1–9.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/mental-health-support-students-color-
coronavirus-pandemic
Rapoport, E., Reisert, H., Schoeman, E., & Adesman, A. (2021). Reporting of child maltreatment
during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic in New York City from March to May 2020. Child
Reese-Weber, M., & Smith, D. M. (2011). Outcomes of child sexual abuse as predictors of later
sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(9), 1884-1905.
Reitsema, A. M., & Grietens, H. (2015). Is anybody listening? the literature on the dialogical
process of Child sexual abuse disclosure reviewed. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(3),
330–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015584368
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2002). Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: Is a
special explanation required? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(2), 329-339.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.329
Rosenthal, C. M., & Thompson, L. A. (2020). Child abuse awareness month during the
coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(8), 812.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1459
Salt, E., Wiggins, A. T., Cooper, G. L., Benner, K., Adkins, B. W., Hazelbaker, K., & Rayens,
M. K. (2021). A comparison of child abuse and neglect encounters before and after
school closings due to SARS-COV-2. Child Abuse & Neglect, 118, 105132.
94
Salazar, L. F., Camp, C. M., DiClemente, R. J., & Wingood, G. M. (2005). Sibling incest
offenders. In T. P. Gullotta & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavioral
problems (pp. 503-518). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23846-8_23
Sasse, S. (2005). “motivation” and routine activities theory. Deviant Behavior, 26(6), 547–570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620500218260
Sawrikar, P., & Katz, I. (2017). The treatment needs of victims/survivors of Child sexual abuse
(CSA) from Ethnic Minority Communities: A literature review and suggestions for
Practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 166–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.021
Scott. S. (2023). Key messages from research on intra-familial child sexual abuse. Centre of
expertise on child sexual abuse dmss research. https://doi.org/10.47117/nkue4918
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010).
Fourth National Incidence Study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress:
Executive summary. PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e565022012-001
Sharma, S., Wong, D., Schomberg, J., Knudsen-Robbins, C., Gibbs, D., Berkowitz, C., &
Heyming, T. (2021). Covid-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting
during a pandemic. Child Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104990.
She, J., Liu, L., & Liu, W. (2020). Covid‐19 epidemic: Disease characteristics in children.
Journal of Medical Virology, 92(7), 747–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25807
Shipley, S. E. (2022). Child abuse reporting by educators (Order No. 29261496). Available from
ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (2697165598). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/child-abuse-reporting-educators/docview/2697165598/se-2
Shusterman, G. R., Fluke, J. D., Nunez, J. J., Fettig, N. B., & Kebede, B. K. (2022). Child
maltreatment reporting during the initial weeks of COVID-19 in the US: Findings from
NCANDS. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134, 105929.
Sidpra, J., Abomeli, D., Hameed, B., Baker, J., & Mankad, K. (2020). Rise in the incidence of
abusive head trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Disease in Childhood,
106(3). https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319872
Silverman, M., Sibbald, R., & Stranges, S. (2020). Ethics of covid-19-related school closures.
Canadian Journal of Public Health, 111(4), 462–465. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-
020-00396-1
Sinko, L., He, Y., Kishton, R., Ortiz, R., Jacobs, L., & Fingerman, M. (2021). “The stay at home
order is causing things to get heated up”: Family Conflict Dynamics during covid-19
from the perspectives of youth calling a national child abuse hotline. Journal of Family
Violence, 37(5), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00290-5
95
Smith, M. C. (2010). Early childhood educators: Perspectives on maltreatment and mandated

reporting. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(1), 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.011
Smith, M. and Gartner, N.R. (2023). "Institutional Corrections and COVID-19", Deflem,
M. (Ed.) Crime and Social Control in Pandemic Times (Sociology of Crime, Law and
Deviance, Vol. 28), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 227–
241. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620230000028015
Snyder, H. N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim,
incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Program, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
SPSS. (2022). SPSS advanced statistics v29. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc
Steinberg, L. D., Catalano, R., & Dooley, D. (1981). Economic antecedents of Child abuse and
neglect. Child Development, 52(3), 975. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129102
Swedo, E., Idaikkadar, N., Leemis, R., Dias, T., Radhakrishnan, L., Stein, Z., Chen, M., Agathis,
N., & Holland, K. (2020). Trends in U.S. emergency department visits related to
suspected or confirmed child abuse and neglect among children and adolescents aged
<18 years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, January 2019–
September 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(49), 1841–1847.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6949a1
Tener, D., Marmor, A., Katz, C., Newman, A., Silovsky, J. F., Shields, J., & Taylor, E. (2021).
How does covid-19 impact intrafamilial child sexual abuse? comparison analysis of
reports by practitioners in Israel and the US. Child Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104779.
Thompson, R. A., & Wyatt, J. M. (1999). Current Research on Child Maltreatment: Implications
for Educators. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 173–201.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23361497
Trepper, T. S. (1989). Intrafamily Child Sexual Abuse. In Treating stress in families (pp. 185–
207). essay, Brunner/Mazel.
Trepper, T. S., Niedner, D., Mika, L., & Barrett, M. J. (1997). Family characteristics of intact
sexually abusing families: An exploratory study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(4), 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1300/j070v05n04_01
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2007). Family structure variations in patterns and
predictors of child victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2), 282–295.
Tzeng, O., & Schwarzin, H. (1990). Gender and race differences in child sexual abuse correlates.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 135–161.
96
Ullman, S., & Filipas, H. (2005). Gender differences in social reactions to abuse disclosures,
post-abuse coping, and PTSD of child sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29, 767–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.01.005
US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2023). Child
maltreatment 2021. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-
maltreatment.
Ventus, D., Antfolk, J. and Salo, B. (2017) The associations between abuse characteristics in
child sexual abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(2):167-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2017.1318963
Wake, A. D., & Kandula, U. R. (2022). The global prevalence and its associated factors toward
domestic violence against women and children during COVID-19 pandemic—“the
shadow pandemic”: A review of cross-sectional studies. Women’s Health, 18,
174550572210955. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221095536
Watts, R., & Pattnaik, J. (2022). Perspectives of parents and teachers on the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on children’s socio-emotional well-being. Early Childhood
Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01405-3
Webster, S. W., O’Toole, R., O’Toole, A. W., & Lucal, B. (2005). Overreporting and
underreporting of child abuse: Teachers’ use of professional discretion. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 29(11), 1281–1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.007
Wellman, A., Bisaccia Meitl, M., Kinkade, P., & Huffman, A. (2020). Routine activities theory
as a formula for systematic sexual abuse: A content analysis of survivors’ testimony
against Larry Nassar. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2), 317–344.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09556-y
White, M. D., & Fradella, H. F. (2020). Policing a pandemic: Stay-at-home orders and what they
mean for the police. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 702–717.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09538-0
Whitt-Woosley, A., Sprang, G., & Eslinger, J. (2022). Foster care during the COVID-19
pandemic: A qualitative analysis of caregiver and professional experiences. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 124, 105444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105444
Wolf, C., & Haines, J. (2024, February 26). These are the top covid hot spots in the U.S.
usnews.com. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/these-are-the-top-
covid-hot-spots-in-the-u-s
Worling, J. R. (1995). Adolescent sibling-incest offenders: Differences in family and individual

functioning when compared to adolescent nonsibling sex offenders. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 19(5), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00021-y
97
Wu, Z., & McGoogan, J. M. (2020). Asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic COVID-19 in China.
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-020-00679-2
Wyatt, G. (1985). The sexual abuse of Afro-American and white American women in childhood.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 507–519.
Wyatt, G. E. (1990). Sexual abuse of ethnic minority children: Identifying dimensions of

victimization. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(5), 338–343.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.21.5.338
Zajenkowski, M., Jonason, P. K., Leniarska, M., & Kozakiewicz, Z. (2020). Who complies with
the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions of the
COVID-19 situation. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110199
Zviedrite, N., Hodis, J. D., Jahan, F., Gao, H., & Uzicanin, A. (2021). Covid-19-Associated
School Closures and Related Efforts to Sustain Education and Subsidized Meal
Programs, United States, February 18–June 30, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252848

Shut Down and Closed Off - A Routine Activity Approach To Invest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shut Down and Closed Off - A Routine Activity Approach To Invest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georgia Southern University

Digital Commons@Georgia Southern

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies

"Shut Down and Closed Off": A Routine Activity

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd

Part of the Criminology Commons, Education Commons, Epidemiology Commons,

research, policy, and practice are discussed.

M.S., Columbus State University, 2016

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY

COLLEGE OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

All Rights Reserved

“SHUT DOWN AND CLOSED OFF”: A ROUTINE ACTIVITY APPROACH TO

Major Professor: Akiv Dawson

Committee: Amanda Graham

Electronic Version Approved:

guidance that contributed to my educational journey. My thesis committee members share a

1.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic and School Closures……...…….……..………...9

1.2 COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse…………….…….….10

1.3 Study’s Purpose and Contributions………………………………………....11

2.1 What is known about Child Sexual Abuse?...................................................13

2.3 What is known about Educators and Child Sexual Abuse?...........................24

2.5 Current Study and Contribution to the Research Literature……...………...29

3 THEORY & RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………...…...…………...31

3.2 Routine Activity Theory, Crime, and the COVID-19 Pandemic...................33

3.3 Routine Activity Theory and Child Sexual Abuse.........................................34

3.4 Routine Activity Theory and the Current Study…………………………….34

3.4.1 Child Victim as Suitable Target…………………………….34

3.4.2 Parents and Other Family Members as Motivated

3.4.3 Educators and Other Reporters as Capable Guardians………37

3.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………………………...39

4 DATA AND METHODS……………………………………………………...............42

4.2 Selecting Cases…………………………………............................................42

4.3 Why Georgia?……….……………………………………………………….43

4.4 Variables under Study…………………..……………………………………45

4.4.1 Dependent Variables…………………………………………45

4.4.2 Independent Variable…………………………………..…….53

4.5 Analytic Plan…………………………………………………………………54

5.2 Motivated Offender: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA

5.3 Capable Guardians: COVID-19 School Closures and Patterns in CSA….....64

6.1 Study’s Key Findings………………………………………………………..67

6.1.1 Suitable Targets? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA Victim

6.1.2 Motivated Offenders? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA

6.1.3 Capable Guardians? COVID-19 School Closures and CSA

6.2 Study’s Contributions………………………………………………………..74

6.3 Study’s Limitations…………………………………………………………..74

6.4 Directions for Future Research………………………………………………76

6.5 Implications for Policy……………………………………………………….77

6.6 Study’s Conclusion…………………………………………………………..78

Table 5.1 CSA Victim Descriptive Statistics…...................................................................56

Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Perpetrator Characteristics.…............................. 61

Table 5.4 Cross Tabulations of COVID-19 School Closures on Perpetrator Demographic

Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics of CSA Reporters…..…………………..………………..65

Figure 1. Model of Routine Activity Theory………….......................................................33

Figure 2. Routine Activity Theory and the Current Study ……..........................................39

1.1 The COVID-19 Pandemic and School Closures

In 2020, COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, created a

daily lives (Doeden, 2022; Geprags et al., 2023).

2020; Smith & Gartner, 2023).

1.2 COVID-19 School Closures and Child Sexual Abuse

within their households (Krishnamachari et al.,2021). Immediately, education transformed from

COVID-19 school closures (Administration for Children and Families, 2021).