This article describes the scope of child abuse in Canada, and elaborates on the shortcomings of the traditional responses to this issue. Doing so, it explains the origin of the CAC model and assesses to which extent it constitutes an innovative justice solution. For this purpose, it analyzes the best practice standards of CACs through the four indicators of effective justice solutions offered by Effectius. Further, it provides for a case study, describing the Zebra Child Protection Centre in Alberta: the first centre of this nature to operate and achieve best practice standards in Canada.

In West Virginia, the law mandates a multidisciplinary team (MDIT) approach in dealing with child abuse. In some counties, the MDIT includes a Child Advocacy Center (CAC). The CAC has three broad goals, which are (a) to make the process of reporting child abuse as easy and free of trauma as possible for the child, (b) to help coordinate the investigation, and (c) to be a strong support and resource center for the child and his family throughout and subsequent to the investigation. Professionals involved in child abuse cases in counties with a CAC find the CAC model beneficial and preferable compared to child abuse cases before there were CAC programs.

Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) have been established to aid in the forensic interviewing process. Forensic interviewing is intended to gain accurate accounts of alleged abuse from children to aid in the pursuit of criminal charges. This study tested the effectiveness of forensic interviewing at the CAC in East Alabama (CACEA) in terms of legal outcome.

This study reviews the background and characteristics of the child advocacy center model, discusses the role of child advocacy centers in the conflict between the therapeutic and judicial models of child protection, presents new survey data from CAC executive directors about performance measurement practices, reviews the current literature on child advocacy center performance, and presents recommendations for improving the quality of outcome measurements for child advocacy centers.

The National Children's Advocacy Center was established in Huntsville, Alabama, in 1985 as the first CAC in the United States. By 2003, there were 460 full or associate CACs in 49 states. Although the original function of CACs was to respond to cases of child sexual abuse, most centers now also interview alleged child victims of serious physical abuse and child witnesses to other crimes. This article describes what is fundamental and consistent across CACs and discusses important ways in which CACs differ.

This study examines the impact of Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC) and other factors, such as the child’s age, alleged penetration, and injury on the use of forensic medical examinations as part of the response to reported child sexual abuse.

The Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) model of child abuse investigation is designed to be more child and family-friendly than traditional methods, but there have been no rigorous studies of their effect on children’s and caregivers’ experience. Data collected as part of the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers were used to examine whether CACs improve caregivers’ and children’s satisfaction with investigations.

This article explores the length of time between key events in the criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse cases (charging decision, case resolution process, and total case-processing time), which previous research suggests is related to victims’ recovery.