Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 333–352 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Children’s Advocacy Center Model: Efficiency, Legal and Revictimization Outcomes

  • Paula Wolfteich
  • Brittany Loggins


This study compares the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) model with more traditional child protection services on several important outcomes such as substantiation of abuse, arrest and prosecution of the perpetrator, the efficiency of the multidisciplinary process and child revictimization rates. One hundred and eighty-four child abuse and neglect cases from a large metropolitan area in Florida comprised the sample. Cases were selected over a five year-period from three different modes of child protection services including a CAC. Similar outcomes were found between the CAC model and the Child Protection Team (CPT), a multidisciplinary model, which was first developed in Florida in 1978. In comparison with traditional child protective investigation, these models were associated with improved substantiation rates and investigation efficiency. Results are discussed in terms of the utility of CACs above and beyond the aspect of multidisciplinary coordination and whether the goals of the CAC model need to be redefined. Recommendations for further research in the areas of multidisciplinary team decision–making, the long-term impact of the CACs and the role of supportive professionals on the multidisciplinary team were made.


CAC Sexual abuse Investigation Intervention 


  1. Bishop, S. J., Murphy, M., Jellinek, M. S., & Quinn, D (1992). Protecting seriously mistreated children: Time delays in a court sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 465–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross, T. P., De Vos, E., & Whitcomb, D. (1994). Prosecution of child sexual abuse: Which cases are accepted? Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(8), 663–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cross, T. P., Whitcomb, D., & De Vos, E. (1995). Criminal justice outcomes of prosecution of child sexual abuse: A case flow analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(12), 1431–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, T. P., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., & Jones, L. M. (2003) Prosecution of child abuse: A meta-analysis of rates of criminal justice decisions. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4, 323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 248–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faller, K. C., & Henry, J. (2000). Child sexual abuse: A case study in community collaboration. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(9), 1215–1225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, S. L. (2004). A USA national survey of program services provided by child advocacy centers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(4), 411–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jellinek, M. S., Little, M., Benedict, K., Murphy, J. M., & Pagano, M. (1995). Placement outcomes of 206 severely maltreated children in the Boston juvenile court system: A 7.5 year follow-up study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(9), 1051–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jensen, J. M., Jacobson, M., Unrau, Y., & Robinson, R. L. (1996). Intervention for victims of child sexual abuse: An evaluation of the children’s advocacy model. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13(2), 139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Joa, D., & Edelson, M. G. (2004). Legal outcomes for children who have been sexually abused: The impact of child abuse assessment center evaluations. Child Maltreatment, 9(3), 263–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolbo, J. R., & Strong, E. (1997). Multidisciplinary team approaches to the investigation and resolution of child abuse and neglect. Child Maltreatment, 29(1), 61–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levy, H. B., Markovic, J., Chaudhry, U., Ahart, S., & Torres, H. (1995). Reabuse rates in a sample of children followed for 5 years after discharge from a child abuse inpatient assessment program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(11), 1363–1377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martone, M., Jaudes, P. K., & Cavins, M. K. (1996). Criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(5), 457–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2004. Child Maltreatment 2004. Retrieved May 2005 from
  15. Stroud, D. D., Martens, S. L., & Barker, J. (2000). Criminal investigation of child sexual abuse: A comparison of cases referred to the prosecutor to those not referred. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(5), 689–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thompson, K. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Crosby, R. D. Ammerman, F. F., Mitchell, J. E., & Brownfield, D. (2001). An assessment of the recidivism rates of substantiated and unsubstantiated maltreatment cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(9), 1207–1218Google Scholar
  17. Walsh, W., Jones, L., & Cross, T (2003). Children’s Advocacy Centers: One philosophy, many models. The APSAC Advisor, 3–5Google Scholar
  18. Way, I., Chung, S., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2001). Maltreatment perpetrators: A 54-month analysis of recidivism. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(8), 1093–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and CounselingValdosta State UniversityValdostaUSA
  2. 2.Orlando Regional Healthcare System: Howard Phillips Center for Children and FamiliesOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations