Understanding the Development and Impact of Child Advocacy Centres (CACs)
5. Clients and cases
Researchers studied 1,804 case files. The following tables report results by two categories:
- victims, and
- all clients (including victims, witnesses, and family members) because one site was only able to provide aggregate data on all clients.
Demographic information
Victims were primarily female (67%) (Table 7).
| Gender | Victimstable note ** (n=978)table note * |
All Clients (n=1782)table note * |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Female | 651 | 67% | 1137 | 64% |
| Male | 327 | 33% | 645 | 36% |
Almost half of victims were 8 years or younger. The average age was 9.4 years (Table 8).
| Age | Victimstable note ** (n=957)table note * |
All Clients (n=1715)table note * |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | %table note *** | n | % | |
| Under 6 years | 233 | 24% | 382 | 22% |
| 6 to 8 years | 230 | 24% | 428 | 25% |
| 9 to 11 years | 195 | 20% | 354 | 21% |
| 12 to 14 years | 185 | 19% | 359 | 21% |
| Over 14 years | 114 | 12% | 192 | 11% |
Over half of victims were Caucasian (56%) (Table 9). The second largest group was Indigenous (17%).
While data regarding the provision of language interpretation are missing for 348 cases, interpretation services were provided for 14 clients. At one site, Immigration Services provided interpreters, although it is not part of the MDT.
| Ethnicity | Victimstable note ** (n=928)table note * |
All Clients (n=1227)table note *** |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Caucasian/white | 518 | 55% | 715 | 58% |
| Indigenous | 162 | 17% | 202 | 16% |
| Other (i.e. South Asian, Black) | 136 | 15% | 183 | 15% |
| Unknown | 112 | 12% | 127 | 10% |
Offences were primarily sexual in nature (72%) (Table 10). Physical assault was the second most common alleged offence (28% of offences).
| Alleged offence | Victimstable note ** (n=1189)table note * |
All Clients (n=2036)table note * |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Sexual assault | 378 | 32% | 691 | 34% |
| Physical assault | 329 | 28% | 617 | 30% |
| Other (i.e., sexual interference, luring a child via a computer, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation) | 478 | 40% | 683 | 34% |
| Unknown | 4 | 0.3% | 4 | 0.1% |
| Not applicable | 0 | 0% | 41 | 2% |
The accused were primarily family relatives (64%) (Table 11). They were also mostly adult males.
| Relationship of Accused | Victimstable note ** (n=966)table note * |
All Clients (n=1717)table note * |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Family member (i.e., parent, step-parent, uncle/aunt, sibling) | 615 | 64% | 1090 | 64% |
| Known to individual/victim, but not a family member (i.e. friend, acquaintance) | 161 | 17% | 365 | 21% |
| Unknown to individual/victim | 109 | 11% | 144 | 8% |
| Other (e.g., a friend’s older sibling) | 81 | 8% | 118 | 7% |
Police services and child protection agencies were the two most common referral sources (together comprising 94%) (Table 12). These data correspond with the fact that most investigations (71%) were jointly conducted by police and child protection.
| Referral Source | Victims (n=645) |
All Clients (n=824) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Police | 396 | 61% | 520 | 63% |
| Child Protection | 209 | 32% | 257 | 31% |
| Victim Services | 9 | 1% | 9 | 1% |
| Other (varies by site) | 26 | 4% | 31 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 1% | 7 | 1% |
The most common type of information provided to clients was general information about the justice system (37%), which highlights the importance of the victim advocate in helping clients navigate the criminal justice system. Indeed, case file data revealed that 79% of victims had received advocate support.
| Type | n | %table note ** |
|---|---|---|
| General information about the justice system | 229 | 37% |
| Counselling services | 223 | 36% |
| Case specific | 133 | 22% |
| Court preparation | 21 | 3% |
| Testimonial aids | 8 | 1% |
Over the course of the study, the most common service provided was forensic interviewing (received by 96% of victims). In comparison, only 11% of victims received forensic medical examinations. These numbers reflect the availability of on-site services, since five CACs offered on-site forensic interviews whereas only one offered on-site medical examinations.
Clients were most frequently referred to the following off-site services: counselling/therapy/mental health services (n=67), police/crown/courts (n=51), and victim services/victim witness coordinators/victim compensation (n=33). Therefore, CACs seeking to expand their on-site capacity may want to consider these services, particularly mental health services.
Police laid charges in 16% of cases involving victims (n=160). At one site, outcomes of sexual assault charges were: found guilty (n=4), guilty pleas (n=11, including 10 before the preliminary trial), and stays (n=7). Outcomes of sexual interference charges were: stays (n=15). Outcomes of common assault charges were: guilty pleas (n=2, including one before the preliminary trial) and stays (n=3).
The average elapsed time between first contact at the CAC and file closure was 187.7 days, and the median was 126.5 days. Since clients spent over half a year in contact with a CAC, the retention of staff, particularly the victim advocate who is the family’s main contact, was critical to maintaining trust and relationships.
Interview and survey results
Overall client satisfaction with CAC services
“They [CAC staff] are a godsend. I’m so glad they’re here . . . it’s a must that these services remain available. They are phenomenal. It feels like a whole team is behind you, even when you just met these people” (caregiver).
Almost all victims and non-offending caregivers appreciated the services received; they reported that they felt welcome and were treated fairly and non-judgmentally (Table 14). The child-friendly rooms were very popular, as was the fact that police officers at four sites wore street clothes instead of uniforms. As a result, victims did not feel pressured: “the kids loved her [RCMP officer]. She was very friendly” (caregiver)
| CAC experience | Yes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victim | Non-offending caregiver | |||
| n | % | n | % | |
| Felt safe during the interview(s) (n=26) | 22 | 85% | --table note * | --table note * |
| Child felt safe during the interview(s) (n=64) | --table note * | --table note * | 54 | 84% |
| CAC staff made you feel welcome (victim n=24) (caregiver n=70) | 24 | 100% | 66 | 94% |
| CAC staff made your child feel welcome (n=68) | --table note * | --table note * | 57 | 84% |
| CAC staff were fair (non-judgmental/open minded) when they talked to you (victim n=23) (caregiver n=73) | 22 | 96% | 69 | 95% |
| Question: Were/are you satisfied with the following supports you received at/through the CAC? |
yes | |
|---|---|---|
| n | % | |
| Support for themselves (non-offending caregivers) (n=65) | 65 | 100% |
| Support received by their child (n=60) | 60 | 100% |
| Information provided (n=62) | 56 | 90% |
| Wait times for services (n=57) | 52 | 91% |
Among the 36 victims who provided an overall rating of the CAC, 83% rated their experience as either “good” or “great.” The two victims who rated their experience as “not good” were from the same site. One did not want to be videotaped during the forensic interview, and the other was concerned that the offender would be present. No victim gave a rating of “terrible.”
Drawings of CYACs
Forensic Interviews
Of the 75 caregivers who were asked about their child’s experience, 91% (68 caregivers) said that their child underwent a forensic interview. Of the 45 caregivers whose child had a forensic interview in a child-friendly room, 76% (34 caregivers) reported that their child was comfortable in the room.
The victim advocate also supports caregivers during their child’s forensic interview. Parents are usually not allowed to monitor the interview to reduce possible stress on the child and provide a neutral setting. Since this can be stressful for caregivers, the victim advocate often meets with caregivers before, during, and after the interview to explain the interview’s purpose and rules, and to discuss questions and concerns.
Victims had conflicting feelings about the forensic interview. While many felt uncomfortable at the beginning, they often felt relieved afterwards as if “a weight was taken off my shoulders.” Others were “upset because of what happened, but relieved they [CAC workers] would take it seriously.” While most victims reported that people were nice to them during the interview (85%), only some were told what was going to happen afterwards (27%) (Table 16). Caregivers were more likely than youth victims to receive updates on their case and to know who to contact at the CAC. Child/youth victims reported wanting more details and explanations.
Caregiver satisfaction with the forensic interview was also mixed. A few parents were dissatisfied that they could not monitor their child’s interview:
“I don’t think it’s fair that parents aren’t in the room. I didn’t know anything. I didn’t know how or what to deal with after the fact...They should involve parents to determine what is truth and what is not” (caregiver).
Most frequent and important services
Caregivers and youth victims most frequently received support from the victim advocate. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated that the support they received from all professionals was helpful. Caregivers also identified the victim advocate as the most important service received by them (46%), while counselling/therapy was the most important service received by their child(ren) (33%).
“[The counsellor] was great – awesome. She was someone I could open up to, a shoulder to cry on. . . she understood and was easy to talk to” (youth).
Location and accessibility of services
Most caregivers found the CAC’s location convenient (84%), that services for themselves were easy to access (86%), and that services for their children were easy to access (79%).
Cultural sensitivity and language of services
Most youth victims (79%) and caregivers (91%) received services that were culturally sensitive. As one caregiver explained, the CAC director “understood our culture and religion and acted as a go-between [between the family and the Crown].” Another CAC that served a large Sikh population employed a South Asian victim advocate, which an MDT member cited as “important.” All youth victims and most caregivers (98%) received services in the language of their choice, although one caregiver felt that services should have been offered in French. While the need for culturally sensitive services was high among CACs in this study because they served diverse populations (including Indigenous and immigrant communities), this need could vary by CAC.
Satisfaction with the criminal justice system
The survey developed by Proactive and reviewed by the Department to measure client satisfaction with the criminal justice system was not widely utilized. Although respondents received a postage-paid, addressed return envelope, only one survey was returned. This may be because cases take so long to be completed that only a few people were able to offer their opinions during the timeframe of the study. The sole respondent was a caregiver of a seven-year-old child. They were satisfied with the information provided and court accompaniment. The Crown was available and explained the caregiver and child’s roles in the court process. The child did not have to testify in court, and neither the parent nor the child submitted a victim impact statement. While the parent was satisfied with the length of the trial and the CAC’s support, he/she was dissatisfied with the plea bargain, court decision, and sentence. The respondent rated his/her experience at the CAC as “great” and the court process as “good.” The child reported that she felt scared before she went to court, but was happy afterwards.
Client interviews provided further information. Both caregivers and youth victims were frustrated with the system, particularly lengthy investigations and trial delays which increased their stress.
The system was similarly stressful for caregivers, many of whom were “exhausted” because “it drags on forever”:
“No one told me the investigation would take six months. No one talks to you during that time. Every week feels like a month.”
“The CAC is helping me with going to court, but the date keeps changing. I think it is taking too long” (victim).
“The biggest problem is the Canadian justice system, it took so long!” (caregiver).
Although CACs alleviate many problems, they are not designed to fix clients’ biggest complaint: the criminal justice system, including frequent court adjournments. Many clients feel that speedier resolutions would reduce hardship: “finally getting a conviction would be a start to the long journey of healing” (caregiver). However, while CACs assist investigations and court preparation, they cannot control court delays or outcomes. Aside from perhaps collecting better evidence, CACs cannot produce more convictions or tougher sentences, even though some researchers have examined whether CACs lead to such outcomes.Footnote 29 As one caregiver observed, “[the CAC] is excellent, but in the end, it is not a people issue, it’s a systems issue. The system does not protect children.” CAC staff, such as the victim advocate, should inform clients upfront that, although they can help in many ways (e.g., providing a therapy dog for court accompaniment), they cannot control the criminal justice system.
- Date modified: