Speech to the
Child Abuse Prevention Symposium, University of Minnesota, November
30, 1995.
Theresa
Reid, Executive Director, the American Professional Society on the Abuse
of Children.
When
my friend and longtime colleague Ann Ahlquist asked me to speak today
she asked me address the question, "Where are we now? Are we better
or worse?" I wanted to know, "Better or worse than what?"
but Ann decided to put me to the real test and leave that up to me!
I
decided, quite arbitrarily, to set ten years ago as the "what":
Are we better or worse than we were ten years ago? In retrospect,
I can justify that choice by identifying 1985 as marking the beginning,
roughly, of our third decade of modern child abuse awareness--which
most people set as beginning with the publication BY Henry Kempe and
colleagues of the article, entitled "The battered child syndrome,"
in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the early 1960s.
Ten years ago, we were just a few years into our modern recognition
of child sexual abuse, and were experiencing already perhaps the peak
of "friendly" media coverage of the topic. So there are,
at a stretch, other reasons besides that 10 is a neat number, for
me to set as my topic, "Where are we, as a field, now? Are we
better or worse than we were in 1985?"
I'll
tell you right now that I'm an optimist by nature. I'm telling you that
because I don't like suspenseful situations, unless I know how they're
going to turn out; I like a certain amount of control over my suspense.
And so because, as is human nature, I assume that you're more or less
like me, I will relieve your suspense right now and tell you that, at
the end, I'm going to say that I think we're substantially better
off, even though it won't seem that way at points during my talk.
I will
address our status in three broad areas: federal legislation; the state
of our knowledge base; and media coverage of child abuse and neglect.
Federal
legislation.
Ten
years ago, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was
in place. As you know, CAPTA was sponsored by your own Senator Walter
Mondale and first passed in 1974. (Some conservative critics have long
tried to discredit CAPTA by referring to it as "the Mondale Act,"
as if merely breathing the "L" word constitutes an argument.)
It was the first piece of modern legislation tailor-made to articulate
a federal response to child maltreatment. Among its most important provisions
were the establishment of a "National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect," since known as "NCCAN," which would carry out
the provisions of the act. CAPTA established a minimum definition of
child abuse for use by state CPS agencies, and set important "eligibility
criteria" that states had to meet in order to receive federal funds.
These criteria required, among other things, that states mandate reporting
of suspected maltreatment, provide immunity from liability for mandated
reporters, promptly investigate reports of abuse, coordinate an interdisciplinary
response to reports, appoint a guardian ad litem to represent
the interests of the child in court, keep records confidential, and
maintain their own expenditures for child protective services: that
is, states couldn't just take the new federal money and use the state
funds they had been spending on CPS for road improvements. (This is
called the "maintenance of effort" requirement.)
I want
to give you a little context for the discussion of CAPTA to follow.
In 1974, when CAPTA was first passed, 60,000 reports of child maltreatment
were made to CPS agencies. That number rose to 1.1 million just 6 years
later , in 1980, and throughout the 1980's reports more than doubled,
to 2.4 million. The number of reports to CPS has continued to increase,
reaching an estimated 3.14 million in 1994.
Child
protective services has never responded adequately to this rapid
increase in the number of reports of child maltreatment. CPS workers
are underpaid, undertrained, underappreciated, and overworked. There
have never been enough of them even to investigate the flood of reports
coming in, let alone provide needed services for increasingly complex
problems presented by children and families: these problems often now
include drug abuse, spousal abuse, poverty, substandard housing in violent
neighborhoods, low mental functioning, maternal depression, and other
mental and emotional disorders.
Fewer
than half the children and families reported for abuse and neglect receive
any services; in fact, only 2/3 of children and families for whom abuse
is substantiated receive services of any kind--and often, services
offered are the services available, not necessarily the services they
need.
One
response to this crisis by beleaguered CPS systems has been the de
facto narrowing of the definition of child abuse and neglect; in
order somehow to triage reports, workers in many states investigate
only the more serious reports, meaning that a great deal of very real
abuse is not recognized by CPS. One sign of this failure of identification
is that 60% of fatal victims of abuse are not on CPS records. The failure
of CPS agencies to cope with the flood of child abuse and neglect reports
has been so widespread and egregious that now CPS systems in 22 states
are operating under court orders that mandate improvement in the system.
Surely
a crisis of this proportion with its far-reaching consequences for the
society requires a comprehensive, coordinated, federal response. CAPTA
was an historic first step in providing that leadership.
In
1985, halfway through Reagan's presidency, there was, not surprisingly,
bad news and good news. Authorized spending for CAPTA's programs had
been dramatically cut, even while, in order to receive funds, states
had to follow strict new rules for protecting disabled infants from
medical neglect (the "Baby Doe" requirements).
So,
while the bad news was that states were expected to move mountains with
pennies, at least the feds were talking the talk. That is, the philosophy
was expressed, even if the money wasn't appropriated to back it. In
1985, the federal government mandated the existence of NCCAN, established
a reasonable minimum definition of child abuse, and maintained the important
eligibility criteria for state grant funds. NCCAN was disbursing funds
for some of the most important research t hat has been conducted on
the problem; funding and overseeing demonstration projects to test new
ideas for prevention, intervention, and treatment; and funding Resource
Centers and a Clearinghouse through which research results were disseminated
and training and technical assistance were developed and delivered.
Today,
ten years later, there's bad news and bad news. You're probably aware
of this phenomenon called the "Republican Revolution" that
is sweeping the country. As you know, goals of this revolution are to
balance the federal budget in 7 years by streamlining, consolidating,
and cutting back federal programs, in the meantime returning more freedom
and responsibility to the states. Like many Americans, I favor streamlining
and consolidating to reduce redundancy and stretch the effectiveness
of my tax dollars.
However,
the epidemic of child maltreatment requires firm federal leadership.
Imagine having 50 different cancer research programs. That is what would
happen if the federal government abandoned its role in cancer research
, and is an apt analogy for the nation's approach to child abuse and
neglect if the federal government relegates that policy to the states.
APSAC has worked very hard--along with other members of the National
Child Abuse Coalition--to ensure that the federal government continues
to guarantee essential protections for children through eligibility
requirements for state grant funds, and continues the role only it can
play in sponsoring a coherent federal program of research, training,
demonstration project s, and dissemination of information.
Two
weeks ago, the House-Senate conference committee on welfare finished
its work. The resulting legislation--the Child and Family Services Block
Grant of the House-Senate welfare bill--is not as bad as it might have
been. It consolidates several smaller categorical programs, but it retains
important eligibility criteria for state grants, including reporting
and immunity for mandated reporters who act in good faith. It also requires
states to cooperate with the federal government in a coordinated system
of data collection in order to determine the size of the problem. It
also seems to retain a federally directed program of research and demonstration
projects. These are good things which we might have lost.
However,
aspects of this legislation remain deeply disturbing as a reflection
of the philosophy that the price of balancing the budget should be borne
by America's most vulnerable citizens. I will briefly outline six of
these problems.
1.
Every bill begins with a preamble called "findings," in which
the justification for the legislation is articulated. Findings do not
carry statutory weight, but reflect the philosophy of the drafters.
Omitted from the new "findings" are two important points,
which have been in CAPTA for years: that child abuse and neglect is
a matter of the highest national urgency, and that it is everyone's
problem.
I want
to ask these legislators: If child abuse and neglect is not a matter
of the highest national priority and a concern of every American, what
is?
2.
Important eligibility criteria have been omitted: states are no longer
required to appoint of a guardian ad litem for children involved
in the system; to promote interdisciplinary coordination in response
to reports; to ensure confidentiality of records; or to maintain their
own expenditures in child protection.
3.
This legislation requires states to spend no money on prevention. Without
a prevention setaside, many advocates are concerned that states will
opt to devote all of their resources to crisis intervention rather than
prevention.
4.
The legislation eliminates the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
5.
The legislation narrows the definition of child abuse and neglect, for
the first time including the words "recent," "imminent,"
and "serious," so that the minimum federal definition of child
abuse and neglect now reads, "The term "Child abuse"
means, at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the
part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death or serious
physical, sexual, or emotional harm, or presents an imminent
risk of such harm." Many advocates are concerned that, instead
of providing the support states need to cope with all the families who
need assistance, this change gives official federal approval to states
to screen out even more children.
6.
The legislation decreases authorized funding by 14%. If the legislation
is actually funded at the levels it has seen in the past--about half
of what is authorized--this nation will spend less than $14m for research,
demonstration, training, and dissemination activities specifically pertaining
to child abuse and neglect.
Let's
get this into perspective. In all likelihood, the entire national budget
earmarked for research, demonstration, training, and dissemination activities
in child abuse and neglect will be just a nick above what Demi Moore
makes for one movie, and about half what Sylvester Stallone makes for
one picture.
What
are our priorities here? As we know, child abuse and neglect is at the
root of many, many social ills, with the majority of drug addicts, prison
inmates, teen prostitutes, and teen mothers having been victims of abuse
and neglect in childhood, not to mention people whose adult functioning
is severely compromised. For this vast social problem, which has steadily
worsened in the 30 years since its official recognition, the federal
govt. is willing to spend no more than $14m to improve our response
to it.
At
this point you might be thinking, "She lied. She's not optimistic."
You're right. I did lie, but only about this one thing. As regards the
federal response to child abuse and neglect, I think we are worse off
than we were 10 years ago. At least, we are certainly no better; the
government seems to have learned nothing from the reports it commissioned,
at some expense, from the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect.
We
need to pick our battles, and keep our message clear, so I think we
should now advocate strongly for three things:
The
first is full funding. Every federal legislator in this nation should
hear from constituents that the Child and Family Services Block Grant
should be funded at least at the levels most recently appropriated
for the programs it consolidates, and preferably at the authorized level.
Second:
prevention set-asides must be restored in order to ensure the continuation
of prevention efforts.
Third:
the eligibility criteria requiring interdisciplinary coordination, maintenance
of effort by states, confidentiality of records, and appointment of
a guardian ad litem must be restored.
APSAC
can help you take these advocacy positions. If you call APSAC we will
fax you a sheet spelling them out and telling you how to contact your
representatives and your president.
My
second topic is the Knowledge
base,
and that
provides a cheerier picture.
What
did we know about child abuse and neglect in 1985? Judith Herman had
written eloquently about father-daughter incest; Jon Conte, Lucy Berliner,
Kee MacFarlane, Roland Summit, and others had done pioneering work on
nature and some short-term effects of csa; Henry Kempe and other physicians
were improving our ability to detect non-accidental injuries to children;
Norman Polansky and colleagues had written important work on neglectful
mothers. Overall, hundreds of articles ha d been published in the professional
literature about child abuse and neglect.
Today,
we are awash in scholarly articles and books on some aspect of child
maltreatment--a many-fold increase over 10 years.
It
is impossible to mention all the very important advances in knowledge
that have been made in the last 10 years, but let me mention a few:
There
is the work of John McCann, Jan Bays, and other physicians revealing
that medical evidence of sexual abuse is rarer than we thought; that
anomalies once thought to testify to sexual molestation are often found
in normal children; that most sexual abuse leaves no medical evidence.
There
is the work of David Finkelhor and Linda Williams, which relieved a
lot of anxious working parents, telling us that children are no more
likely to be sexually abused in day care than at home. These
researchers also found that the vast majority of sexual abuse in day
care is not the mass, multi-victim, multi-perpetrator cases spotlighted
in the media, abuse perpetrated by single individuals against one or
a few children.
John
Briere in that period of time has written extensively on long-term sequelae
of sexual abuse, and has developed the important Trauma Symptom Checklist,
which helps us to make clearer statements about the specific effects
of trauma.
William
Friedrich, of the Mayo Clinic, has done extremely important work on
normative sexual behavior in children, giving us some empirical basis
for our judgments that certain sexual behaviors in children might or
might not be indicative of exposure to sexual abuse.
Gail
Goodman and her colleagues Karen Saywitz and Bette Bottoms have produced
extremely important, even-handed and dispassionate work on children's
memory and suggestibility, work that has guided investigators, attorneys,
and judges, and that underlies the ongoing development of interviewing
protocols that elicit the most information from children with the least
distortion.
Deborah
Daro has contributed enormously to our understanding of the effectiveness
of child abuse prevention, guiding the wise allocation of funds for
those efforts.
Linda
Williams has demonstrated that a high proportion of women known
to have been sexually abused in childhood seem to "forget"
that experience decades later.
Stuart
Hart has pioneered the difficult and important effort of defining and
clarifying the marshy area of psychological maltreatment.
And
here at the University of Minnesota, of course, Byron Egeland and Martha
Erickson have provided very important information about the profound
effects of emotional neglect, and about the ways in which we might be
able to help parents break the cycle of maltreatment.
These
are just a few of the very important additions to our knowledge base
in the last ten years. A great deal of the money required to conduct
this research and disseminate its results has been provided by the federal
government and administered by NCCAN. Here, there is no doubt that we
are clearly ahead of where we were in 1985.
Glaring
holes still exist, however, both in the content of our knowledge and
in the means by which it is derived. One of our most pressing current
needs is adequate treatment outcome research. These problems have been
cogently articulated in several federally-funded reports, including
the National Research Council's 1993 report, Understanding Child
Abuse and Neglect, and successive reports of the U.S. Advisory Board
on Child Abuse and Neglect.
An
article published in The APSAC Advisor this year reported on
a survey of researchers in child abuse and neglect identifying as major
holes the failure to agree upon definitions and constructs, and the
lack of valid and reliable instruments to measure the variables researchers
seek to measure. Nearly one-third of researchers surveyed indicated
that they had created new measures in more than 50% of their research
studies. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in definitions for
sexual and physical abuse--the most studied areas--and virtually no
consensus in defining neglect and psychological abuse.
Under
these circumstances, the "knowledge" derived is clearly contingent.
However, the fact that these problems are being directly acknowledged
and systematically addressed is itself a sign of a maturation. These
are signs of the natural evolution of a field of inquiry. There is much
cause for optimism in the development of this knowledge base. Several
enabling structures are in place to nurture that development, including
the Research Forum at APSAC's National Colloquium, the Interagency Research
Committee that spans federal agencies, the child maltreatment researchers
list serv managed out of Cornell University, a periodic conference at
the University of New Hampshire bringing together interpersonal violence
researchers , and some excellent peer-reviewed journals, including APSAC's
new journal, Child Maltreatment.
The
knowledge base is growing in size and sophistication, and will no doubt
continue to do so; certainly it will grow more quickly if it is generously
and intelligently supported at the federal level.
My
final topic is Media
coverage.
As
I mentioned in my opening comments, in 1985 we were riding high on a
peak of "friendly" media coverage of child abuse and neglect.
According to one study, the vast majority of stories on child abuse
published between 1980 and 1984 in four major newsmagazines (U.S. News
and World Report, Time Magazine, Newsweek, and People) were about the
under-recognition of child sexual abuse and the effects of abuse on
child victims. For example, Newsweek ran a cover story in May, 1984,
entitled "A hidden epidemic: Sexual abuse of children is much more
common than most Americans suspect." In the early 1980s, millions
of Americans watched the made for TV-movie "Something about Amelia,"
in which Ted Danson played an upper-middle-class father who was molesting
his teenaged daughter. The McMartin preschool case broke in 1984, and
media coverage of those allegations was highly prejudicial to the prosecution,
as David Shaw later won a Pulitzer Prize for pointing out: that media
coverage largely assumed the truth of the allegations, the damage to
the children, and the perfidy of the defendants.
In
1985, however, coverage began to shift, at least in these major outlets,
so that for the next several years stories emphasizing society's denial
of sexual abuse vied equally for space with stories about false accusations
and children's alleged tendency to lie about sexual abuse. I remember
an article in Time magazine during that period entitled simply, "Why
children lie in court."
In
1991, the tables turned briefly, with the disclosures of incest by such
celebrities as Roseanne Barr, Oprah Winfrey, and former Miss America
Marilyn Van Derbur Atler. In 1991, fully 80% of stories in the major
media were sympathetic to survivors of alleged childhood incest.
Stories
of false accusations of incest quickly re-emerged, however, and between
1992 and June, 1994, 71% of stories about sexual abuse featured false
accusations. This latest swing corresponds with the founding, in 1992,
of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. FMSF has been very effective
in persuading the media to change its story from the suffering of victims
of incest to the suffering of fathers, mothers, and families whose grown
daughters have made false accusations of incest.
The
same period has seen a shift in many stories about physical abuse as
well, with the focus increasingly often on the pain of parents whose
families are ripped apart by overzealous social workers. This scenario
is being pitched very successfully to media reaching middle America.
Family Circle, Reader's Digest, Ladies Home Journal, and Woman's Day
have all recently featured stories of poorly trained CPS workers who
yank children from families on the basis of malicious reports or for
behavior most people consider clearly non-abusive--such as a swat on
the behind in a grocery store.
This
fear of jack-booted government social workers ripping up innocent families
has penetrated well beyond the readership of Family Circle and into
the offices of highly educated congressional staff. I have had conversations
this year with two influential staff members of different U.S. Senators--one
a senior legislative counsel, the other less well-educated, but very
influential in the drafting of child abuse legislation--who have expressed
very clear fears about this kind of government interference in their
lives. Both were new mothers, terrified at the prospect of having their
babies taken away from them by strangers working for the government.
And guess what? for the first time, the nation's major piece of child
abuse legislation requires states to provide detailed information about
false accusations of abuse.
Back
to sexual abuse for a moment: everyone in this audience is surely aware
of the media's reaction to the reversals of several convictions obtained
in mass day care cases: the Fells Acre case in Massachusetts, the Little
Rascals in North Carolina, the Wee Care (Kelly Michaels) case in New
Jersey, for instance. The prevailing opinion in the media is that such
cases reflect a "witch hunt" or "ritual abuse hoax"
that occurred in the 1980's. The Wall Street Journal's editorial
page is leading the pack in this crusade, and many major media outlets
have produced almost cookie-cutter stories about very different cases,
alleging hysteria and often malice by a wide range of interveners who
allegedly grille d, browbeat, and brainwashed children into believing
that horrible things were done to them. In many of these stories--particularly
in the Wall Street Journal's coverage-- facts stand absolutely
no chance in the face of ideology.
One
of the most outrageous examples of such reporting is the coverage of
the mass sexual abuse case in Wenatchee, Washington, going on right
now. There are some irregularities in the way that case was handled,
there's no doubt about it. Life so often doesn't fit textbook models
of perfect practice. But uncoerced confessions were received from 14
defendants, and 5 different juries handed down convictions against five
additional defendants. Fourteen victims have testified, most with clear
medical evidence.
In
trying to sell this story as another witch hunt, big-time out-of-town
journalists have to, in effect, argue that all of the juries in this
little out-of-the-way place are such rubes that they'll believe anything.
Without really caring about the evidence that has convinced the
juries, the journalists are on their own trip, pursuing the outrage
of the week, with no regard for the truth.
Let's
just briefly look at the facts here. I've discussed bad media coverage
of three major topics: false accusations of incest, jack-booted government
social workers acting on false accusations of physical abuse, and the
" ;ritual abuse hoax" of the 1980s. Let's just look at a few
underlying facts that aren't getting much play right now.
1.
By the most conservative estimate available, at least 1.6 million girls
and women are victims of father-daughter or stepfather-daughter incest.
In contrast, FMSF has claimed that somewhere in the range of 10,000
parents have called with inquiries about false allegations, yet they
are getting 71% of the media coverage right now.
2.
Of course CPS workers make mistakes, and when they do, the results can
be horrific. But errors of overintervention are comparatively rare;
as everyone here knows, as we've already discussed, CPS workers and
the foster care system are so overwhelmed that the chances are much,
much greater that children who desperately need services and protection
do not receive them. The data to that effect are very clear. Yet the
image of the jack-booted govt. social worker yanking children from innocent
parents is prevalent.
3.
The mass sexual abuse cases of the 1980s were quite rare, and were completely
untypical in their nightmarish complexity. According to the research
by Finkelhor and Williams, more than 80% of sexual abuse in day care
is perpetrated by an individual acting alone, against one or a few children.
But you would never know that from current media coverage, which focuses
on the rare mass sexual abuse cases.
How
did we get from a preponderance of friendly stories to a preponderance
of hostile stories, and how do we get back?
I think
the sources of the current media coverage are highly complex. I think
we are drawn to rhetorical extremes, for one thing. As a culture, we
have a love for sensationalism and drama, and an impatience with factual
and moral complexity. These factors feed an appetite for rhetorical
extremes; and extremism on one side invites extremism on the other.
We didn't complain a lot when media coverage of an alleged "ritual
abuse" conspiracy was sensationalistically gullible , back in the
mid-80s; when Geraldo and others were hawking stories about a widespread
satanic conspiracy, with as little basis in fact as the Wenatchee coverage
of today. We are now seeing a perhaps inevitable equal and opposite
reaction to such cove rage.
But
I think the most important factor underlying today's media coverage
is the only one we can do anything about, and that is professional practice:
there is no doubt that errors in professional practice have been made,
and that these errors always have the potential for causing very great
harm, and sometimes have done so.
Sometimes
these errors have been made because the knowledge base has been weak;
You might have noticed, in my review of our knowledge gains over the
last 10 years, that many of those knowledge gains undermine what we
thought we k new 10 years ago: when, for instance, we thought children
never lied or made misstatements about sexual abuse; that certain genital
anomalies were clear evidence of abuse; that certain sexual behaviors
were evidence of abuse, when in fact they turn out t o be fairly common
in children. Sometimes errors have been made because the knowledge base
hasn't evolved adequately; sometimes they have been made because practitioners
are, indefensibly, unaware of the knowledge base. Whatever their basis,
professional errors have given legitimate fuel to critics.
The
good news on the media front is that the news runs in cycles. There
is a clear "issue-attention cycle," whereby a particular story
gains a flurry of media attention only to disappear once the complexity
and intract ability of the problem become evident. Physical and sexual
abuse and neglect, and the necessity of intervening to help children,
will never disappear. I do think, however, that the reactionary take
on it will ease. Reporters have spoken to me recently of their sense
that the "ritual abuse hoax" story at least, has nearly been
played out, and have questioned the extremism of other reporters. In
addition to the waning of the fad, I think we have knowledge on our
side; as the knowledge base develops, if we are effective in communicating
that development, we can hope that media coverage will improve.
If we do our work in communicating with the media, we can hope
that the growing knowledge base will inform media coverage, even as
it informs our advocacy and our practice.
So,
where are we: are we better or worse than we were ten years ago? I have
to say that we're better, without any doubt. Of course we have had missteps,
and right now we have an uphill battle with the media and with federal
legislation. But these are blips in the large scheme of things. Our
knowledge base has grown tremendously in sophistication and breadth,
and this is a gain that cannot be eroded and that underlies all our
other work. To consolidate our gains, we need to strive actively on
at least three fronts:
. Be
a voice for children in state and national legislatures. Advocate for
serious money for primary prevention, for CPS training, for wide range
of treatment services for victims and support services for families,
for money for research, dissemination, and training to ensure that we're
putting our money into effective efforts.
. Hold
members of the media responsible for work that clouds rather than clarifies
the issues, and thereby puts children at risk. Write letters when coverage
is biased; thank them when coverage is fair; be available to them to
provide information and access to the most current research, and provide
referrals that will make their stories stronger and more accurate, protective
of children.
. Insist
that professional practice in this field is as good as it can possibly
be. Whether you are involved in prevention, investigation, intervention,
treatment--whatever discipline you represent--each individual is a critical
player, responsible for ensuring that his or her practice is informed
by the latest information and training available. We need to ensure
that we are rigorously self-policing: because lives are in the balance,
this is a moral imperative. Also, it will rob harsh critics of much
of their legitimacy. If adequate structures are not in place for this
self-policing, we need to build them, and enforce them. We need to build
a sense of professionalism, and a real professional community. And as
a community , we need to do everything within our power to support the
development, dissemination, and implementation of new knowledge.
One
other difference, between now and 10 years ago, contributes to my optimism:
in 1985, APSAC hadn't been founded. In 1995, it's 8 years old, and it's
here to stay. APSAC is the professional society for interdisciplinary
professionals in this field. APSAC's goal is to ensure that everyone
affected by child maltreatment--including people falsely accused of
abuse--receives the best possible professional response. We have consistently
provided ongoing continuing education and training towards that end,
and are constantly finding new ways of achieving our goal.
By
taking the steps I have outlined above, by supporting our professional
society, we can ensure that in ten years we can look back and say, again,
"We are better than we were ten years ago."
APSAC
is the nation's only interdisciplinary professional society for those
working in the field of child maltreatment. APSAC's goal is to ensure
that everyone affected by child maltreatment receives the best possible
professional response. For information about APSAC's membership benefits
and services, call APSAC at 312-554-0166, or fax at 312-554-0919, or
write: 407 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1300, Chicago IL 60605.
ŠAPSAC,
1995. All rights reserved.
