A portrait of Canadian Child Advocacy Centres and Child and Youth Advocacy Centres in 2021–22

By Bianca Stumpf

Between 2022 and 2023, the Department of Justice Canada distributed a national operational survey to Child Advocacy Centres (CACs) and Child and Youth Advocacy Centres (CYACs) to collect information on the way they work, their clientele, their services, and other key aspects of their operations. This project served as an update to the 2014 national operational survey (Hickey 2015). Since the completion of the 2014 survey, the number of CACs/CYACs at some stage of development in Canada has more than doubled – from 23 centres in 2014 to 51 in 2023.

What are Child Advocacy Centres and Child and Youth Advocacy Centres?

CACs/CYACs are facility-based programs that provide a safe, trauma-informed, and child-friendly environment where children, youth, and their families can complete a forensic interview and receive services and supports after child abuse or other violent victimization has occurred. As part of their model of service delivery, CACs/CYACs establish Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) to provide a coordinated and collaborative approach to respond to the needs of children and youth and their families. These teams include professionals from areas such as law enforcement, child protection, medical and mental health, and victim advocacy. The goal of these centres is to minimize system-induced trauma on children and youth and their families, for example by conducting joint forensic interviews to reduce the number of questions directed at a child or youth and providing a child-friendly setting where a child or youth can access services.

Methods

The survey questionnaire was developed by adapting questions from the 2014 national operational survey to account for the lessons learned through the previous survey. For example, definitions for key concepts were added and questions were simplified. New questions were also added for new services, such as support dogs and virtual testimony. The draft survey was sent to the National Network of CACs/CYACs’ Research Subcommittee, composed of CAC/CYAC representatives and affiliated academics, for feedback. The survey was also pilot-tested in English and French by four different organizations across the country.

The survey was distributed to CACs/CYACs through the National Network of CACs/CYACs and was initially open from October to November 2022. Due to a low response rate, the data collection period was extended until April 2023. In total, 35 out of 51 CACs/CYACs responded to the survey, representing a 69 percent response rate. The survey results were analyzed, and the draft report was circulated to CACs/CYACs to ensure that the findings for their centre were accurately presented.

Summary of Findings

Of the 35 CACs/CYACs that responded to the survey, 28 identified as open, five were in development, and two were conducting a feasibility study to assess whether their community had an interest in or the resources for developing a CAC/CYAC. Almost all operational CACs/CYACs (27 of 28) adopted a site-approach model, where most or all services are offered in the one location. In addition to the site-approach model, five CACs/CYACs adopted a mobile approach, deploying staff and MDT partners to meet clients in or near their home – a model that can be particularly useful when serving multiple communities. Two CACs/CYACs reported adopting a rural/virtual model, with the MDTs operating out of different locations. With this type of model, one service may be offered in one community, and another may be offered in another location, which can be beneficial when serving a dispersed area. Over half of CACs/CYACs reported serving urban and rural areas; five serve only urban areas, two only rural areas, and three only northern areas.

Clientele

In 2021–22, 10,665 child and youth victims were served by the CACs/CYACs that responded to the survey.Footnote 59 Among those served, about seven in ten (71 percent) were girls and 29 percent were boys. Almost all operational CACs/CYACs reported that they served Indigenous clients and 2SLGBTQI+ clients in 2021–22. Many also reported that they served racialized clients, clients with disabilities, and clients who were recent immigrants or refugees.

All operational CACs/CYACs reported that they serve child and youth victims aged three to 15 years old. Some also reported serving clients younger than three and/or older than 15.

Over seven thousand (7,436) child and youth victims of sexual abuse and 2,913 victims of physical abuse were served by a CAC/CYAC in 2021–22. CACs/CYACs reported that they served 423 clients who were exposed to family violence, 260 who had experienced online child sexual exploitation, 244 who were emotionally harmed, 122 who were neglected, and 65 who were trafficked. All CACs/CYACs reported having had cases of family violence and non-family violence in which the alleged perpetrator was known to the victim, such as a family friend, teacher, or neighbour. All but one also reported cases in which the alleged perpetrator was unknown to the child or youth victim.

Multidisciplinary teams

According to the CACs/CYACs that responded to the survey, there were many service providers on their multidisciplinary team (MDT). The most common types reported were child protection workers, law enforcement officers, advocates, victim services workers, and other CAC/CYAC staff such as coordinators and supervisors. While most CACs/CYACs (31 of 35) had at least one type of MDT service provider working at the CAC/CYAC main location (referred to as “co-located”), previous research has shown that MDTs that are not co-located can still provide beneficial services to clients, and these centres often adapt to meet the needs and resources of the communities they serve (Herbert et al. 2018; Bertrand et al. 2018).

MDTs provide coordinated services to children and youth, and their families, by having information-sharing protocols in place and conducting case reviews. Information-sharing protocols allow MDT partners to share information among themselves, and over two-thirds of CACs/CYACs (24 of 35) indicated that they had information-sharing protocols in place with their partners. Case reviews provide the opportunity for MDT partners to monitor active cases by reviewing the cases, sharing updated information, and coordinating interventions, as needed. Three-quarters of operational CACs/CYACs (21 of 28) reported that their MDT conducts case reviews, most commonly on a monthly or as needed basis.

Services

CACs/CYACs provide a range of services to children and youth and their families, such as prevention, intervention, prosecution, treatment, and support. Based on the survey responses, the most common services offered by CACs/CYACs were forensic interviews, mental health services, and victim and family support and advocacy. Many CACs/CYACs also provided forensic medical examinations, assistance in preparing Victim Impact Statements, court preparation, court accompaniment, trauma assessment, and assistance in seeking compensation or restitution. Twenty-five out of 28 CACs/CYACs reported that a total of 10,264 forensic interviews were conducted/undertaken in 2021–22,  82 percent at the CAC/CYAC and 18 percent off-site.

In addition to court preparation and accompaniment, over one-third of CACs/CYACs (11 of 28) reported having the ability to offer virtual testimony at their centre. The remaining CACs/CYACs reported not having the ability to offer the service (n=6) or that they were in the process of developing or considering offering the service at the time of the survey (n=11). Virtual testimony can help facilitate the participation of child and youth victims and witnesses in court processes and is a service that has received growing attention from CACs/CYACs in recent years, partly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some operational CACs/CYACs (13 of 28) also indicated having at least one support dog. The most common type was a facility dog trained to provide specific services and behaviours that suit the needs of the CAC/CYAC. While CACs/CYACs reported offering support dogs at various times throughout a case, the dogs were most offered at the CAC/CYAC generally such as during their first visit or in the waiting room, during client meetings with MDT partners, and during forensic interviews.

Another service provided by most CACs/CYACs (29 of 33) was educational services, including: webinars, presentations, and workshops, as well as media campaigns, online resources, community events, and conferences.

Training

Continuous training is important to ensure that CAC/CYAC staff and MDT partners are properly equipped to respond to the needs of their clients. In 2021–22, the most common training taken by CAC/CYAC staff was on trauma-informed practices, mental health, diversity and inclusion, and child abuse. Many CACs/CYACs also reported that their staff had taken training on victim support and advocacy, case reviews and MDT building exercises, and forensic interviews.

Research and evaluation

Most CACs/CYACs (22 of 35) reported that they had conducted research independently or collaboratively with others. One-third also reported that they had participated in research conducted by other organizations, such as a government, academic, or non-governmental organization, beyond their participation in the operational survey. Over half of CACs/CYACs reported that they had undergone or were in the process of undergoing an evaluation at the time of the survey.

Funding

Since 2010, the Department of Justice Canada has provided funding for the development and enhancement of CACs/CYACs through the Federal Victims Strategy. CACs/CYACs may also receive funding from other sources, such as other governments, fundraising events, and private foundations. Most CACs/CYACs received a portion of their funding from federal and provincial/territorial grants, the private sector, or donors.

In 2021–22, the majority of CACs/CYACs (21 of 33) reported an annual budget of less than $500,000; the remaining CACs/CYACs reported an annual budget between $500,000 and $5 million. It is important to keep in mind that a CAC/CYAC’s annual budget may not reflect what they require to fully implement the CAC/CYAC model in a way that achieves the best outcomes for the children, youth, and families they serve. In fact, over half of the CACs/CYACs reported challenges with securing sustainable funding to cover their operating costs, such as paying their personnel and covering the cost of their facilities, signalling that funding remains a significant challenge for many CACs/CYACs.

Biggest successes and challenges

In the survey, CACs/CYACs were invited to share the biggest success they had achieved and the biggest challenge they had faced. The responses to their biggest success were varied; the most common successes pointed to their relationships with their MDT and their use of the CAC/CYAC model. Both successes were explained as helping to effectively support children, youth, and their families.

The most common challenge, as reported by over half of CACs/CYACs, was securing sustainable funding for their personnel, services, facilities, and expansion. Some CACs/CYACs also reported challenges with MDT collaboration, particularly with the need for ongoing relationship-building, and communication challenges.

Study Limitations

Not every CAC/CYAC responded to the survey, meaning that the findings presented above should not be interpreted as a full national portrait of CACs/CYACs in Canada. Each CAC/CYAC has their own unique mandate, clientele, partnerships, funding partners, and reporting mechanisms, all which have an impact on their operations. For instance, most CACs/CYACs reported operating on an April 1st to March 31st fiscal year, while a few operate on a calendar year. This difference had an impact on survey reporting, as many questions asked CACs/CYACs to provide information on the activities that occurred in their last fiscal year.

CACs/CYACs were also not able to provide all the data requested in the survey, despite best efforts to address potential data challenges in the development of the survey. Due to their reporting mechanisms and data sharing agreements, many were not able to receive or access MDT partner data or did not have the resources to access the data within the time constraints of the survey. These challenges led to lower response rates to certain questions. In particular, data on case outcomes, such as the number of cases that proceeded to court and the number of testimonial aids accessed, were excluded from reporting due to a low response rate.

Conclusion

This article presents data about the CACs/CYACs that participated in the survey. The data show how the CAC/CYAC model differs across the country in Canada to respond to the unique needs of the communities CACs/CYACs serve. It is, however, important to remember that not every CAC/CYAC responded to the survey. As a result, the survey results should not be interpreted as a complete national portrait of CACs/CYACs in Canada. This, coupled with the limitations outlined above, highlights the need for continued efforts to improve national data collection, including the development of national data requirements for both short- and long-term outcomes. Work is underway within the provincial networks of CACs/CYACs to adopt regional standardized approaches to defining key concepts and collecting data, and the National Child and Youth Advocacy Research and Knowledge CentreFootnote 60 is exploring how to improve data collection across the country.

For more information about the survey results, see: Results from the 2022-2023 National Operational Survey of CACs/CYACs in Canada

References

Bertrand, L.D., Paetsch, J.J., Boyd, J.-P. and Bala, N. 2018. Evidence Supporting National Guidelines for Canada’s Child Advocacy Centres. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada.

Herbert, J.L., Walsh, W. and Bromfield, L. 2018. “A National Survey of Characteristics of Child Advocacy Centers in the United States: Do the Flagship Models Match Those in Broader Practice?” Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 76, 583–95.

Hickey, S. 2015. Child Advocacy Centres and Child and Youth Advocacy Centres in Canada: National Operational Survey Results. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada.