Understanding the Development and Impact of Child Advocacy Centres (CACs)

Executive summary

Child Advocacy Centres (CACs) and Child and Youth Advocacy Centres (CYACs)Footnote1 arose out of a need to reduce stress placed on child/youth victims during sexual abuse investigations. Previously, a lack of coordination between social services and the criminal justice system meant victims were interviewed multiple times by different agencies, often by people untrained in child development.

CACs have been developed to create a safe place for child victims and their non-offending caregivers. They feature child friendly spaces, a multidisciplinary team approach with police, social services, victim advocates, and medical personnel working together as well as victim advocacy and support. As of 2016, 22 CACs are operating in Canada, and at least seven other sites are currently developing or exploring the model.

This study was commissioned by the Department of Justice (Department) to better understand how Canadian CACs are developing and operating; measure client satisfaction with CACs; measure client satisfaction with the criminal justice system’s process and outcomes; and measure how CACs meet the following Federal Victims Strategy (FVS) objectives: increasing access to victim services, enhancing capacity to deliver appropriate and responsive services to victims, and reducing financial and non-financial hardships for victims.

Three main data sources informed this report:

  1. case file data from the CACs,
  2. client interviews (child/youth victims and non-offending caregivers), and
  3. Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) interviews. Researchers also interviewed CAC stakeholders, including members of boards of directors and local politicians, and conducted a criminal justice system satisfaction survey.

Researchers conducted 109 MDT interviews (with 125 individuals) and 123 in-person interviews with 26 child victims (aged five to 11), 17 youth victims (aged 12 to 19), five adults who had been victims as children (i.e., deemed historical cases), and 75 non-offending caregivers.

Operation of the CACs

The six CACs featured diverse governance structures, which did not appear to influence service delivery as long as communication was open and the management board was knowledgeable and supportive. These findings highlight the CAC model’s flexibility.

There were four types of delivery models for the CACs in the study. One site was located in a hospital which helped clients gain access to specialized medical personnel; two CACs shared their location with other agencies; two were not co-located; and one was a virtual site. A dedicated physical, child-friendly space is a core component of the CAC model.

The study found that there is a need for a physical space for the CACs to operate effectively. Although the “virtual” site that was in development over the course of the study had a strong victim advocate and a robust MDT response, clients and MDT members expressed a preference for a physical, child-friendly location to increase convenience and reduce stress. It is currently developing a child and youth-friendly ‘soft room’ at a location that provides integrated services for youth. These findings are consistent with national practice guidelines for CACs regarding the critical importance of having a comfortable, safe, private designated space that is child-focused and neutral where forensic interviews can be conducted and other CAC services can be provided.Footnote2

The co-location of MDT members is also important. When law enforcement, child protection, and victim services and other partners, where feasible, were housed at the same site with CAC staff such as the victim advocate, it facilitated quick responses, information sharing, regular case meetings, and coordinated support for clients. While MDTs that are not co-located can still perform well, they must develop trusting relationships, well-negotiated and understood protocols, and conduct regular case review meetings.

The study also found that the role of the victim advocate was a significant strength of the CAC model. It was seen as providing the glue to hold the MDT together and supporting clients throughout the process. Caregivers identified the victim advocate as the most important service received by them and their child(ren). The victim advocate’s impact on clients was evident:

“The victim [advocate] is our rock through the whole process. I don’t know what we would do without her” (caregiver).

While the victim advocate’s role varied by site, his/her presence at the CAC is what mattered most. The advocates worked closely with victim services and the courts, supported other MDT members, communicated with clients, undertook community outreach, and maintained contact with families after file closure.

The study also highlighted the following as lessons learned: access to mental health services for clients and MDT members is essential; providing case updates and sharing information with clients, especially youth, is important; clients benefit from having both female and male staff in the CACs; and access to private spaces within CACs enhances the experience for clients.

Clients and Cases

Effect of CACs on clients

Overall, the CACs reduced both non-financial and financial hardship for clients. They reduced stress and re-victimization by providing a single, safe, and child-friendly place for victims and their families to obtain interviews, information, and support (for five of the six locations); reducing the number of victim interviews (e.g., by videotaping); providing a single point of contact through the victim advocate who provided emotional support, information, referrals to services, and/or assistance navigating intimidating systems; and in some sites providing emergency cell phones, bus tickets, taxi slips, and/or food vouchers.

The CACs have also worked to address gaps in the system which affect their particular clients, including access to medical examinations, availability of prosecutors with expertise to work with child victims, use of testimonial aids (e.g., screens and closed-circuit TV), and access to child-friendly environments for forensic interviews and court appearances.