VIII Child Advocacy Centres

8.1 Introduction to Child Advocacy Centres in Canada

It should be very clear from the evidence reviewed thus far that children’s experience in the justice system can be stressful and, in some cases, can re-traumatize children. In recognition of the challenges posed to children who are victims of and/or witnesses to abuse and their families, there has been an international movement towards coordinating the service providers who work with the children and families. Commonly known as Child Advocacy Centres (CACs; or Child and Youth Advocacy Centres, CYACs), these centres bring together professionals from varying backgrounds to coordinate the justice response on a child’s behalf (e.g., McDonald, Scrim, & Rooney, 2013; Child Advocacy Centres/Child & Youth Advocacy Centres across Canada, 2021; National Children’s Alliance, 2021) with the aim of reducing system-induced trauma and better serving cases involving children and youth in the justice system. Though the structure of individual CACs varies (Herbert, Walsh, & Bromfield, 2018), medical, child protection, police, mental health, victim support and advocacy, and prosecution are usually the core disciplines and agencies involved in cases at a CAC. Together, these multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) represent the gold standard in response to children’s justice needs and their activities will include case review, coordination and shared decision-making. The collaboration seeks to reduce duplication of efforts (e.g., multiple investigative interviews), role confusion, and opportunities for miscommunication or missed communications, with the ultimate aim of the provision of culturally competent, child-focused wrap-around services to support young victims and witnesses. These professionals may be co-located at a single centre to facilitate optimal communication, or they may work collaboratively from their regular workspaces and the coordination takes place through joint meetings and regular communication. Some CACs even have support dogs on staff.

In Canada, CACs (or CAC-like centres) have been operating since the 1990s when the Regina Children’s Justice Centre was established and a moderate pace of development followed (e.g., the Saskatoon Centre for Children’s Justice in 1996 and the Zebra Child Protection Centre in Edmonton in 2002). A 2010 commitment of seed funding from Justice Canada’s Victims Fund led to a rapid increase of CACs and now the large majority of Canada’s provinces and territories have such organizations, many with several CACs (Stumpf, 2024a). To support the growing interest in the CAC model, National Canadian guidelines for CACs/CYACs were released in 2021 to assist new organizations as they work toward establishing a CAC; promote consistency across the country; and ensure that the integrity of the CYAC model is retained (Child Advocacy Centres/Child & Youth Advocacy Centres across Canada, 2021).

8.2 The role of Child Advocacy Centres in facilitating children’s involvement in the justice system

The CAC approach benefits children. CACs are designed to provide wrap-around services to children, including mental and physical health services, in an effort to decrease the trauma associated with being involved in the system. CACs will typically have someone in the role of a victim advocate, who serves as the family’s primary point of contact with all of the organizations and professionals involved in investigations. The advocate may assist with scheduling appointments and referrals to mental health or medical services and may support a child and their family through court proceedings or make referrals to victim witness support services. There is growing evidence that CAC-based investigations reduce stress and trauma experienced during abuse investigations for children and families (Elmquist et al., 2015). Though research directly on children’s perception of their CAC experience has been difficult to conduct, CACs include elements that have independently been shown to reduce children’s trauma, including highly trained professionals, child-friendly setting, access to mental health services, and support for the family. For example, caregivers who are supported during investigations contribute to more positive outcomes for children (Malloy & Lyon, 2006), and caregivers are more satisfied with CAC-based versus non-CAC investigations (Jones, Cross, Walsh, & Simone, 2007).

Researchers have also demonstrated that CACs feature more evidence-based practices (e.g., videotaping interviews, interviews conducted in child-friendly facilities), result in greater case coordination among professionals (police involvement, case reviews, MDT involvement), and increase access to mental health services (Cross et al., 2007, 2008), relative to non-CAC investigations. Further, in one study, children who worked with a CAC were more than twice as likely to receive a forensic medical examination than those in comparison non-CAC communities, and this increase was driven primarily by non-penetration cases (Walsh et al. 2007; see also Smith, Witte, & Fricker-Elhai, 2006). Importantly, prosecutions have been found to be more likely when a sexual assault exam has been conducted, regardless of the findings of the exam (Bracewell & Greenwood, 2021).

The benefits of the CAC approach are also evident in legal processes. Child abuse cases processed with MDTs are more likely to result in substantiation and prosecution (see Herbert & Bromfield, 2019; Miller & Rubin, 2009; Smith et al., 2006; Tjaden & Anhalt, 1994; Wolfteich & Loggins, 2007). Such MDT collaborative approaches are more common in communities with CACs (Cross et al., 2007). CAC cases have also been shown to have higher rates of law enforcement involvement (Smith et al., 2006), and result in faster charging decisions than non-CAC comparison communities (Walsh, Lippert, Cross, Maurice, & Davison, 2008). Further, in one study, prosecutor involvement at MDT meetings increased acceptance for prosecution by 80%, a finding the author argued may reflect, at least in part, the prosecutor’s ability to ensure appropriate investigative steps have been taken (Bracewell, 2018). Though there is substantial variability within Canada in Crown prosecutors’ type and degree of involvement at the investigation phase (including some prosecutors who have no involvement at all; Price, Dion, Earhart, & Brubacher, 2019), this finding demonstrates a potential considerable benefit of increased communication between prosecutors and investigators.

The concentration of specialized professionals who work on child abuse investigations means that the structures are available for increased training, learning, development of expertise, and improved role understanding among professionals (Lalayants & Epstein, 2005; Powell, Wright, & Hughes-Scholes, 2011; Sheppard & Zangrillo, 1996). All of these opportunities, if taken up in earnest, should contribute to a continuous loop of increasing professional competence, better service for children, and better outcomes for children and families.

In addition to these important benefits to children and families, the CAC approach also increases professionals’ productivity. In one US-based study, researchers observed a 33% cost savings for investigations conducted within a CAC versus a non-CAC (Shadoin et al., 2006). In Canada, the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary, Alberta (now the Luna Child & Youth Advocacy Centre) released a social return on investment (SROI) study in 2015 which indicated that the CAC approach reduced the cost of child abuse response by $550,000 annually. Further, the British Columbia Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres completed a SROI in 2022 that indicated that for every dollar invested in CYACs in British Columbia, $5.54 in social and economic value was created. Thus, not only is the CAC approach beneficial for professionals, children, and families, it also makes sense financially.

A recent study of BC Child and Youth Advocacy Centres found that for every dollar invested in an Advocacy Centre, $5.54 in social and economic value was created.

Though much of the research on the CAC model has taken place in the United States, the evidence base for Canadian-based CACs is increasing. An evaluation of funding provided to CACs in Canada clearly indicated that CACs reduced hardships for families. CACs met their aim of providing a central point of contact for services, reducing the burden of multiple visits on families, and closed gaps in service provision (Justice Canada, 2018). Further, the Department of Justice’s CAC Research Subcommittee identifies and seeks to address ongoing and new research needs and activities relevant to CACs in Canada. Additionally, led by Luna Child & Youth Advocacy Centre in Calgary, the Canadian Child and Youth Advocacy Research and Knowledge Centre has recently been established that will invest in ongoing training, research, and dissemination of knowledge (Parker et al., 2025; this Centre has been re-named Kindex Research and Knowledge Centre of Canadian CYACs). This network of practitioners, CAC-based researchers, and academics are all working towards increasing the evidence base for CAC practices, and to increasing knowledge sharing around how to best serve children and families involved in the justice system.

In sum, the evidence is growing about the wide range of benefits to children, families, and professionals that access to a CAC brings. Ultimately, CACs increase access to justice for children.