Child forensic interviewing in Children’s Advocacy Centers: Empirical data on a practice model

Abstract

Objective: Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) aim to improve child forensic interviewing following allegations of child abuse by coordinating multiple investigations, providing child-friendly interviewing locations, and limiting redundant interviewing. This analysis presents one of the first rigorous evaluations of CACs ’ implementation of these methods. Methods: This analysis is part of a quasi-experimental study, the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers, which evaluated four CACs relative to within-state non-CAC comparison communities. Case abstractors collected data on investigation methods in 1,069 child sexual abuse cases with forensic interviews by reviewing case records from multiple agencies. Results: CAC cases were more likely than comparison cases to feature police involvement in CPS cases (41% vs. 15%), multidisciplinary team (MDT) interviews (28 % vs. 6%), case reviews (56 % vs. 7%), joint police/child protective services (CPS) investigations (81 % vs. 52%) and video/audiotaping of interviews (52 % vs. 17%, all these comparisons p <.001). CACs varied in which coordination methods they used, and some comparison communities also used certain coordination methods more than the CAC with which they were paired. Eighty-five percent of For the purposes of compliance with Section 507 of PL 104-208 (the “Stevens Amendment”), readers are advised that 100