3.0 Survey findings

3.1 Operational level

Canada is a diverse country in terms of its geography, people, and languages. Given this diversity, CACs/CYACs have adopted different organizational structures and models of service to best meet the unique needs of the communities they serve.

CACs/CYACs across Canada are at various different stages of development. Some are operational, meaning that they are open and providing services to child and youth victims of abuse and their families. Others are on their way to becoming operational but are still in development; for example, they may be seeking funding to support the centre, finding and renovating a space, establishing relationships with service providers in the community, and developing protocols. Still, others may be earlier in the process and undergoing a feasibility study to assess whether their community has an interest in and the resources to develop a CAC/CYAC. This generally involves engaging key partners, developing a strategy, and reflecting on the organizational structure and service delivery model needed to respond to the unique needs of child and youth victims of abuse and their families in their community.

Most (n=28) of survey respondents indicated their centre was operational,5 while five reported that their centre was in development and two reported that their centre was undergoing a feasibility study.6 Of the 28 operational centres, most (n=25) identified that they operate on an April 1st to March 31st fiscal year. The remaining three operational centres reported that they operate on a calendar year. All 28 operational centres opened between 1994 and 2022; over two-thirds (70%) opened in the last decade, which demonstrates how the CAC/CYAC model has expanded in recent years.

Half of all operational and developing CACs/CYACs (18/35) reported that they operate under another host or umbrella non-profit or charitable organization. Thirteen CACs/CYACs indicated they are an independent non-profit or charitable organization. The remaining four reported that they operate under a government-based program, specifically a police service, victim services, a hospital or an integrated university health and social service centre.

Almost all operational CACs/CYACs (27/28) have adopted a site-approach model7 for their centre. In a site-approach model, most or all services are offered in the same location and under the same roof. One of these centres, Big Bear CYAC, specified that they use a coordinated site-approach; MDT partners have their own offices in their agencies and attend the Centre as needed to provide collaborative and coordinated services.

Along with having a physical location to serve clients, CYAC Simcoe Muskoka, CYAC Waterloo Region, Lanark CYAC, and Luna CYAC have adopted a mobile approach, meaning that they also deploy professionals to meet clients in or near their home. The mobile approach can be particularly useful for CACs/CYACs who serve multiple communities.

Only one centre reported not using a site-approach model; instead, Safe Kids & Youth (SKY) Coordinated Response has adopted a rural/virtual model, an approach where the MDT operates out of different locations. For instance, forensic interviews may be conducted in designated child-friendly interview rooms that have been set up in each community, but client meetings may occur in another location. The rural/virtual model can allow centres to serve as many clients as possible over a dispersed area. Centre d'appui aux enfants et à la jeunesse Marie-Vincent has also adopted a virtual model, along with a site-approach model; the virtual model is primarily used for clinical services and MDT meetings on specific cases.

The majority of centres (22/28) reported using a space or unit within a larger building, while five were located in a freestanding building. SKY Coordinated Response reported that, given their use of a rural/virtual model, they use child-friendly interview rooms in each community they serve and otherwise, the MDT members connect with each other virtually.

Over half of operational CACs/CYACs (18/28) reported that they serve urban and rural areas, while five centres serve only urban areas, two serve only rural areas, and three serve only Northern areas.8 See Appendix A for a list of the CACs/CYACs by their operational status.

3.2 Clientele served by CACs/CYACs

The mandate of each CAC/CYAC is shaped by the needs of the community within which it operates. Likewise and relatedly, the demographic characteristics of clients served may vary from one centre to another. While CACs/CYACs generally provide services to children, youth and their family members, this section focuses only on the number of children and youth served.

Between April 2021 and March 2022,9 10,665 child and youth victims were served by 23 CACs/CYACs.10 The majority of child and youth clients served were girls, representing approximately 71% of all victims served. Boys accounted for 29%, and non-binary children represented about 1% of clients served.

Almost all CACs/CYACs (27/28) reported that they served clients from a variety of social and ethnocultural backgrounds in their last fiscal year.11 Most CACs/CYACs reported that they served Indigenous clients (n=27) and 2SLGBTQI+ clients (n=25). Twenty-four centres also reported that they served racialized clients and clients with disabilities, while 18 served clients who were recent immigrants or refugees. Koala Place CYAC identified that they served human trafficking victims, victims of sexual exploitation and victims of internet luring in their last fiscal year.

3.2.1 Age of clients

All 28 operational CACs/CYACs indicated that they serve child and youth victims between the ages of three and 15 years (see Figure 2). While most CACs/CYACs also reported serving children aged zero to two years and those aged 16 to 18 years, few centres reported serving clients over the age of 18.

Figure 2: Ages of clients served by CACs/CYACs

Figure 2: Ages of clients served by CACs/CYACs
Text version

A vertical bar graph with 21 columns. The x-axis indicates the age of child and youth clients from the age of 0 to the age of 19, with an additional column for those aged 18+. The y-axis indicates the number of centres from 0 to 30 in multiples of 5.

The first column is above “0” and indicates that 18 centres reported serving this age group. The second column is above “1” and goes up to 18 centres. The third column is above “2” and goes up to 21 centres. The fourth column “3,” the fifth column “4,” the sixth column “5,” the seventh column “6,” the eighth column “7,” the ninth column “8,” the tenth column “9,” the eleventh column “10,” the twelfth column “11,” the thirteenth column “12,” the fourteenth column “13,” the fifteenth column “14,” and the sixteenth column “15” all go up to 28 centres. The seventeenth column is above “16” and goes up to 27 centres. The eighteenth column is above “17” and goes up to 25 centres. The nineteenth column is above “18” and goes up to 22 centres. The twentieth column is above “19” and goes up to 6 centres. The last column is above “18+” and goes up to 5 centres.

The last column 18+ has a footnote with the letter “a.” Below the graph, the footnote reads:

a Includes those over the age of 18, such as adult victims with special needs.

a Includes those over the age of 18, such as adult victims with special needs.

Note: All operational CACs/CYACs (28) responded to this question.

Five CACs/CYACs reported serving clients aged 18 and older:

3.2.2 Types of child abuse

Twenty-six of the 28 operational CACs/CYACs that responded to the survey had information from their last fiscal year on the type(s) of abuse experienced by child and youth clients. A total of 7,436 of their child and youth clients had experienced sexual abuse and 2,913 had experienced physical abuse. As shown in Figure 3 below, 423 clients were exposed to family violence, 260 were sexually exploited online, 244 were emotionally harmed, 122 were neglected and 65 were trafficked. It is important to note that some child and youth clients may have experienced more than one type of child abuse and therefore, these numbers should not be totaled due to possible over-counting.12

Figure 3: Number of child and youth victims served in their last fiscal year by type of child abuse

Figure 3: Number of child and youth victims served in their last fiscal year by type of child abuse
Text version

A vertical bar graph with seven blue columns. The x-axis indicates the type of child abuse from sexual abuse to human trafficking. The y-axis indicates the number of clients from 0 to 8,000 in multiples of 1,000.

The first column is above “sexual abuse” and indicates that there were 7,436 clients. The second column is above “physical abuse” and goes up to 2,913 clients. The third column is above “exposure to family violence” and goes up to 423 clients. The fourth column is above “online child sexual exploitation” and goes up to 260 clients. The fifth column is above “emotional harm” and goes up to 244 clients. The sixth column is above “neglect” and goes up to 122 clients. The last column is above “human trafficking” and goes up to 65 clients.

Notes:

  1. Twenty-five operational CACs/CYACs responded to this question.
  2. The response options were not mutually exclusive, as some clients may have experienced more than one type of child abuse.

CACs/CYACs identified other types of child abuse that their clients had experienced. These included witnessing a crime (n=234), peer physical assault (n=7), attempted child kidnapping or abduction (n=3), and drug endangerment13 (n=3).

3.2.3 Alleged offences criminally investigated

Among the 20 CACs/CYACs with information on criminal investigations, there were 8,055 criminal case investigations that began in their last fiscal year. Six centres indicated that 809 criminally investigated cases were still ongoing, and eight centres indicated that 2,862 cases had concluded.

It is important to note that not all child abuse meets a criminal threshold, nor are all types of abuse criminally investigated. For these reasons, the survey asked CACs/CYACs specifically about the number and characteristics of cases that were criminally investigated in their last fiscal year (see Figure 4). Not all CACs/CYACs were able to report on the number of offences that were criminally investigated. This may be because some CACs/CYACs did not collect data on criminal investigations or did not have access to these data. Among the 16 centres that were able to report, there were 2,769 sexual assault and 1,671 physical assault14 criminal investigations in their last fiscal year. CACs/CYACs also reported that 116 online child sexual exploitation cases, 73 neglect cases and 32 human trafficking cases were criminally investigated.

CACs/CYACs had the opportunity to report other offences that were criminally investigated in their last fiscal year, the most common being witnessing or being exposed to family violence (n=130), peer physical assault (n=7), witnessing a crime (n=4), attempted abduction (n=3), harassment (n=2), and inappropriate conduct at school by a teacher (n=2). Two CACs/CYACs also indicated how many allegations were criminally investigated that had not yet been determined as viable: 258 investigations into domestic violence allegations, 98 investigations into child abuse allegations, and 70 investigations into reports of harm. In these cases, allegations were made, investigations were conducted and information was collected but no charges were laid for a number of reasons, such as the complainant wanting to defer the investigation until they are ready to proceed.

Figure 4: Number of cases that were criminally investigated in their last fiscal year by type of offence

Figure 4: Number of cases that were criminally investigated in their last fiscal year by type of offence
Text version

A vertical bar graph with five blue columns. The x-axis indicates the type of offence from sexual assault to human trafficking. The y-axis indicates the number of cases criminally investigated from 0 to 3,000 in multiples of 500.

The first column is above “sexual assault” and indicates that there were 2,769 cases. The second column is above “physical assault” and goes up to 1,671 cases. The third column is above “online child sexual exploitation” and goes up to 116 cases. The fourth column is above “neglect” and goes up to 73 cases. The last column is above “human trafficking” and goes up to 32 cases.

The first column sexual assault has a footnote with the letter “a;” the second column physical assault has a footnote with the letter “b;” the third column online child sexual exploitation has a footnote with the letter “c;” the fourth column neglect has a footnote with the letter “d;” and the fifth column human trafficking has a footnote with the letter “e.” Below the graph, the footnotes read:

a Includes sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, sexual offences against children and youth, child pornography, and sexual violations against children (e.g., sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring and sexual exploitation).

b Includes physical assault causing bodily harm, physical assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, child abduction, and homicide (e.g., murder, attempted murder, infanticide, manslaughter).

c Includes child sexual abuse materials, youth-generated materials and sexting, the use of coercion and threats to extort images/videos from a child or youth, grooming and luring, live child sexual abuse streaming, and ordering videos/images to suit offenders’ preferences.

d Includes failure to provide the necessaries of life, child abandonment, and criminal negligence.

e Includes trafficking a person under the age of 18, receiving a financial or other material benefit for committing or facilitating human trafficking, and withholding or destroying a person’s identity documents in order to commit/facilitate the trafficking of that person.

a Includes sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, sexual offences against children and youth, child pornography, and sexual violations against children (e.g., sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring and sexual exploitation).

b Includes physical assault causing bodily harm, physical assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, child abduction, and homicide (e.g., murder, attempted murder, infanticide, manslaughter).

c Includes child sexual abuse materials, youth-generated materials and sexting, the use of coercion and threats to extort images/videos from a child or youth, grooming and luring, live child sexual abuse streaming, and ordering videos/images to suit offenders’ preferences.

d Includes failure to provide the necessaries of life, child abandonment, and criminal negligence.

e Includes trafficking a person under the age of 18, receiving a financial or other material benefit for committing or facilitating human trafficking, and withholding or destroying a person’s identity documents in order to commit/facilitate the trafficking of that person.

Notes:

  1. Sixteen operational CACs/CYACs responded to this question.
  2. The response options were not mutually exclusive, as some clients may have experienced more than one type of child abuse. As such, the number of clients for each type of child abuse should be analyzed separately and should not be added up together.

All CACs/CYACs reported having had cases of family violence and non-family violence where the alleged perpetrator was known to the victim, such as a neighbor, family friend, teacher or coach. All CACs/CYACs (34/35),15 but one, also had cases where the alleged perpetrator was a stranger to the victim.

3.3 Multi-disciplinary team members

The MDT is an essential part of the CAC/CYAC model.16 MDTs generally include representatives from law enforcement, child protection services, mental health services, medical services, and victim support and advocacy. However, the composition of MDTs varies greatly from one CAC/CYAC to another, as seen in previous research conducted by the Department of Justice Canada.17

In their last fiscal year, CAC/CYAC MDTs had an average of seven types of service providers (out of a possible 11 service provider types identified in the survey; see Figure 5). Almost all CACs/CYACs reported having a child protection and law enforcement representative on their MDT. Most centres also indicated that CAC/CYAC staff members, victim services workers, mental health professionals and child, victim and family advocates are part of their MDT. Forensic interviewers, medical professionals, Crown prosecutors, and education system professionals are less commonly reported as part of MDTs. While even less common, the following types of service providers are identified as being part of at least one centre’s MDT: Indigenous support workers (n=3),18 sexual assault support workers (n=2), support dog handlers (n=1), academic researchers (n=1),19 clinical project managers (n=1), forensic interview specialists (n=1), and representatives from local organizations, teams or programs such as the PACE program (n=1), the Alberta Vulnerable Infant Response Team (n=1), and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.20 (n=1).

Figure 5: Number of service providers by type on CAC/CYAC MDTs

Figure 5: Number of service providers by type on CAC/CYAC MDTs
Text version

A vertical bar graph with 10 blue columns. The x-axis indicates the type of service provider from child protection workers to education system professionals. The y-axis indicates the number of centres from 0 to 35 in multiples of five.

The first column is above “child protection worker” and indicates that 33 centres reported having child protection workers on their MDT. The second column is above “law enforcement” and goes up to 33 centres. The third column is above “CAC/CYAC staff member” and goes up to 30 centres. The fourth column is above “mental health professional” and goes up to 29 centres. The fifth column is above “victim services worker” and goes up to 29 centres. The sixth column is above “advocate” and goes up to 23 centres. The seventh column is above “forensic interviewer” and goes up to 18 centres. The eighth column is above “medical professional” and goes up to 16 centres. The ninth column is above “Crown” and goes up to 12 centres. The last column is above “education system professional” and goes up to 10 centres.

The third column CAC/CYAC staff member has a footnote with the letter “a,” and the sixth column advocate has a footnote with the letter “b.” Below the graph, the footnotes read:

a Includes coordinators, navigators, supervisors, managers, directors, advocates, forensic interviewers, counsellors/therapists, administrative staff, and other specialists (e.g., communications, child life, evaluation, trauma).

b Includes child, victim and family advocates.

a Includes coordinators, navigators, supervisors, managers, directors, advocates, forensic interviewers, counsellors/therapists, administrative staff, and other specialists (e.g., communications, child life, evaluation, trauma).

b Includes child, victim and family advocates.

Notes:

  1. All CACs/CYACs (35) responded to this question.
  2. The response options were not mutually exclusive. CACs/CYACs were asked to select all types of service providers represented on their specific MDT.

The co-location of MDT service providers, where service providers are housed at the CAC/CYAC, is often viewed as an important advantage of the CAC/CYAC model, as it can help facilitate quick responses, information sharing, frequent case meetings, and coordinated support.21 However, it is not always feasible for all members of the MDT to be housed at the centre. Research has shown that MDTs that are not co-located can still provide beneficial services to clients, and that these centres often adapt to meet the needs and resources of the communities they serve.22

Most CACs/CYACs (31/35)23 had at least one co-located MDT service provider. The most common co-located MDT service providers are CAC/CYAC staff members and advocates (see Table 1). Two CACs/CYACs reported that their MDT service providers are not co-located at their centre.

Table 1: Number of MDT service providers co-located at CACs/CYACs
MDT service providers co-located at the CAC/CYAC Number of CACs/CYACs
CAC/CYAC staff members a 23
Child, victim and family advocates 18
Law enforcement officers 14
Victim services workers 14
Mental health professionals 13
Child protection workers 13
Medical professionals 8
Forensic interviewers 7
Crown prosecutors 3
Education system professionals 2

a Includes coordinators, navigators, supervisors, managers, directors, advocates, forensic interviewers, counsellors/therapists, administrative staff, and other specialists (e.g., communications, child life, evaluation, trauma).

Note: Thirty-one CACs/CYACs responded to this question.

3.4 Information sharing/Memoranda of Understanding

A key part of the CAC/CYAC model is the ability for MDT partners to share information amongst themselves to minimize the number of times victims need to be interviewed. Information sharing also helps MDT partners work collaboratively to provide coordinated services to child and youth clients and their family members. To facilitate information sharing, it is helpful for centres to have an information sharing protocol or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place with partners.24

Most operating or developing CACs/CYACs (24/35) reported having information sharing protocols or MOUs in place with their MDT partners. Eight centres reported not having an information sharing protocol in place,25 and three indicated that their information sharing protocol was in development.

3.5 Case reviews

Case reviews provide the opportunity for CACs/CYACs and their MDT partners to monitor active cases by reviewing those cases, sharing updated case information, and coordinating interventions as needed. This can help partners make informed decisions, share different perspectives, increase MDT collaboration, improve support, and enhance communication.26 Most CACs/CYACs (21/28) reported that their MDT generally conducts case reviews. The other seven centres indicated their MDT does not generally conduct case reviews. Of these centres, three reported that information about a case is shared as needed; however, case reviews are rarely requested or organized. One of the centres reported that case reviews are generally not needed since their MDT partners work very closely together.

For the CACs/CYACs that reported that they do conduct case reviews, one reported that they conduct them daily, one weekly, three bi-weekly, and one every three weeks. Seven centres indicated they conduct case reviews monthly, and one centre conducts them quarterly. Seven additional CACs/CYACs reported conducting case reviews as needed.

3.6 Case tracking

Case records may include client demographic information, case information, and investigation and intervention outcomes. A case management or case tracking system helps centres to monitor the progress of cases and track case outcomes throughout the service trajectory.27 Twenty-eight operating or developing CACs/CYACs reported having a case management or case tracking system in place. Five developing centres indicated their case tracking system was in development, while the two remaining operating and developing centres indicated they did not have such a system in place.

Of the CACs/CYACs who indicated having a case tracking system in place, the majority (17/28) reported using specialized case management software, most commonly a customized database developed by Fused Air Inc. and Nucleus Labs.28 Seven centres reported using Excel.29

Those who reported having a case tracking system were asked to identify the MDT partners who are responsible for case tracking at the CAC/CYAC. The majority (21/24) indicated the responsible partner is a CAC/CYAC staff member, generally a coordinator, an advocate or a victim services worker. Other MDT partners that are sometimes responsible for case tracking include advocates,30 law enforcement officers, victim services workers, mental health professionals, medical professionals, social services workers, and research development advisors. One centre indicated that all MDT partners are responsible for their own case tracking.

3.7 Services

An essential part of CACs/CYACs is the services they provide. These services can include prevention, intervention, prosecution, treatment and support for child and youth victims and their families. All 28 operational CACs/CYACs indicated they offered forensic interviews in their last fiscal year, and almost all offered mental health services, as well as victim and family support and advocacy (see Table 2). These services can be offered at the CAC/CYAC, off-site or both at the centre and off-site. Forensic interviews were more commonly reported as taking place on-site, while forensic medical examinations more commonly took place off-site. Please refer to Appendix B for a breakdown of services provided by each CAC/CYAC.

Table 2: Location of services offered through CACs/CYACs in their last fiscal year
  Number of CACs/CYACs
 Services delivered  On-site  Off-site Both on-site and off-site Total
Forensic interview 18 1 9 28
Mental health services (e.g., counselling, crisis intervention) 11 8 8 27
Victim and family support and advocacy (e.g., providing information, referrals, acting as a liaison) 10   17 27
Forensic medical examination 5 14 5 24
Assistance in the preparation of Victim Impact Statements 6 4 10 20
Court preparation 5 4 10 19
Court accompaniment 1 8 10 19
Trauma assessment 8 3 7 18
Assistance in seeking compensation or restitution 5 4 9 18
Other a 2 1 3 6

a Includes child protection services (on-site and off-site), school planning meetings (off-site), referrals to other partners or supports (on-site and off-site), accompaniment to meetings with the Crown prosecutor (on-site), social support programs (on-site and off-site), case consultations about the child’s safety (on-site), witness case management (on-site), and Common Ground Youth Group (on-site).

Note: All operational CACs/CYACs (28) responded to this question.

In their last fiscal year, 10,264 forensic interviews were conducted at CACs/CYACs (n=25)31 (see Table 3). Most CACs/CYACs (25/28) identified that specialized law enforcement officers32 generally conduct the forensic interviews at their centre.33 CACs/CYACs also reported child protection workers (n=12) and forensic interview specialists (n=9) as their forensic interviewers, with one centre reporting that police officers with general training in forensic interviewing conduct the forensic interviews at their centre. In addition to forensic interviews, among the CACs/CYACs that were able to report, 1,936 clients received mental health services, 180 clients received assistance in preparing Victim Impact Statements, and 140 clients received assistance in seeking compensation or restitution.

Table 3: Services provided at CACs/CYACs to clients in their last fiscal year
Services provided Number of clients Number of CACs/CYACs
Forensic interviews conducted at the CAC/CYAC 8,430 25
Forensic interviews conducted off-site 1,834 6
Mental health services by CAC/CYAC staff or MDT partners 1,936 16
Assistance with the preparation of Victim Impact Statements 180 7
Assistance with seeking compensation 140 5

Note: Twenty-five CACs/CYACs responded to this question.

3.7.1 Support dogs

Almost half of CACs/CYACs (13/28) reported having at least one support dog. In total, these centres had 23 support dogs at the time of the survey, the median being one support dog per centre. The most common type of support dog used by CACs/CYACs are facility dogs (21/23), a dog trained to provide specific services and behaviours that meet the needs of the organization. One centre reported using a therapy dog, and another reported using a service dog.

A follow-up question was asked to centres about when and where the support dogs were used (see Table 4). All CACs/CYACs with support dogs use them at their centre generally and most use the support dogs at client meetings with MDT partners and during forensic interviews. Support dogs are less commonly used when conducting a forensic medical examination or during counselling sessions. CACs/CYACs generally offer support dogs to children and youth, as well as their caregivers, but they are less likely to offer support dog services to caregivers for the purpose of forensic medical examinations, court accompaniments, forensic interviews and court testimony reviews.

Table 4: When support dogs are offered through CACs/CYACs by location
  Number of CACs/CYACs
When support dogs are offered On-site Off-site a Both on-site and off-site Total
At the CAC/CYAC generally (e.g., first visit) 7   6 13
Client meetings with MDT partners 7   5 12
Forensic interview 9 1 2 12
Court accompaniment (including while testifying)   1 8 9
Court preparation 3 1 5 9
Court testimony review 2 1 5 8
Assistance in the preparation of Victim Impact Statements 2 1 3 6
Trauma assessment 3 1 2 6
Forensic medical examination 2 3   5
Counselling sessions 2   2 4
Other b 1     1

a While the Sanare CAC reported offering support dogs off-site when assisting in the preparation of Victim Impact Statements, court preparation, court testimony, forensic interviews, and forensic medical examinations, they were in the process of moving into a new building with partners at the time of the survey. Their goal was to make support dogs available on-site for these services in their new location.

b Includes the youth group at the Common Ground Church

Note: Thirteen CACs/CYACs responded to this question.

3.7.2 Educational services

The majority of operating and developing CACs/CYACs (29/33) reported that they provide some type of educational service, with four reporting not providing educational services.34 The most common types of educational services offered by CACs/CYACs are webinars, presentations and workshops (n=27),35 followed by media campaigns (n=19), online resources (n=16), community events (n=14) and conferences (n=9). Other types of educational services identified by centres include providing training to MDT partners (n=3) and training to other professionals, parents or the public (n=2).

All CACs/CYACs who provided educational services stated that they offer at least one type of educational service to the general public, and many also provide an educational service to professionals (28/29), child and youth clients (24/29), and parents and caregivers (24/29). CACs/CYACs generally reported targeting specific audiences when providing certain educational services. For instance, conferences, webinars, presentations and workshops are generally more targeted towards professionals. Community events are more geared towards both professionals and the general public. Media campaigns are also more frequently targeted to the general public. On the other hand, online resources are commonly provided for all audiences, including child and youth clients, parents and caregivers, professionals and the general public.

3.8 Case outcomes

CACs/CYACs were asked to share information on case outcomes. However, many centres do not have access to these data or are unable to report case outcome data. CACs/CYACs may face several challenges with collecting and accessing case outcome data. Some may be unable to access data from an MDT partner who uses a separate database system; others may not be able to receive the data from a partner if they do not have a data sharing agreement in place. Some centres shared that they do not have the resources to go through the volume of cases or an MDT partner (e.g., police officer) may not have the time to compile the data.

While a few CACs/CYACs reported case outcome data, most data were excluded from this section due to a low response rate.36 Nine CACs/CYACs reported that charges were laid in 2,335 cases since January 1, 2017. This number may not be reliable, and caution should be used when interpreting this information.

3.9 Child-friendly facilities in courthouses

Child-friendly facilities in courthouses are designed to make children who have to testify feel as comfortable as possible and to alleviate the anxiety and stress a child may feel in court. These courthouses may include, for example, child-friendly waiting rooms, courtrooms, and hallways that are colourful and have comfortable furniture and stuffed toys. These courthouses may also offer a separate back entrance and victim support staff to children and youth testifying. Half of the operational CACs/CYACs (14/28) reported that child-friendly facilities are available in the courthouses in their region. Ten reported that these facilities are not offered and four reported that they do not know whether child-friendly facilities are offered.

Most centres (10/13)37 that have child-friendly facilities in the courthouses in their region reported that these facilities include child-friendly waiting rooms. Six CACs/CYACs indicated that the courthouses have closed-circuit television (CCTV) rooms, allowing the victim and/or witness to testify from outside the courtroom via the CCTV video link. Two centres also indicated the courthouses in their region have a child-friendly courtroom, which may offer, for example, witness screens.

3.10 Remote testimony rooms in CACs/CYACs

In the last few years, partly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, several CACs/CYACs have introduced remote testimony to facilitate the participation of child and youth victims and witnesses in court processes. CACs/CYACs can offer remote testimony either in a designated remote testimony room or in another space at their centre. This new approach provides a safe and child-friendly environment for children and youth to testify, where they do not risk running into the accused and their risk of re-traumatization can be reduced. Eleven CACs/CYACs reported having the ability to offer remote testimony at their centre (see Figure 6). Six CACs/CYACs did not have the ability to offer remote testimony, and 11 centres were developing or considering offering remote testimony at the time of the survey.

Figure 6: Ability to offer remote testimony by CAC/CYAC

Figure 6: Ability to offer remote testimony by CAC/CYAC
Text version

A pie chart with three coloured sections. The legend below the chart notes that green is for “yes,” orange is for “in development/under consideration,” and red is for “no.”

The first section is green and represents the 11 centres that reported being able to offer remote testimony. The second section is orange and represents the 11 centres that reported developing or considering developing their ability to offer remote testimony. The last section is red and represents the six centres that reported not being able to offer remote testimony.

Note: All operational CACs/CYACs (28) responded to this question.

Those who were able to offer remote testimony were asked how often remote testimony had been used at their centre in their last fiscal year. While most reported that remote testimony was rarely (5/11) or never (4/11) used at their centre, two CACs/CYACs indicated that remote testimony was often used at their centre in their last fiscal year. To better understand the barriers in developing and using remote testimony, the Department of Justice Canada conducted interviews with centres that did, did not or were considering offering remote testimony. The final report will be available on the Department of Justice Canada website.

3.11 Training

Participating in continuing training and educational opportunities is essential for the successful operation of CACs/CYACs so that staff and MDT members are properly equipped to respond to the needs of their clients. Training opportunities may include attending workshops or conferences, keeping up to date on new research and literature, participating in cross-discipline peer review and skills-based learning.38 All operating and developing CAC/CYAC (n=34)39 indicated that their staff had attended training in their last fiscal year. On average, CAC/CYAC staff took approximately six different types of training in their last fiscal year. Most CACs/CYACs reported that their staff had taken training on trauma-informed practices/organizations, mental health, diversity and inclusion, and child abuse (see Table 5).

Two CACs/CYACs also identified other training topics, notably:

Table 5: Training topics taken by CAC/CYAC staff in their last fiscal year40
Training topics Number of CACs/CYACs
Trauma-informed practice/trauma-informed organizations 30
Mental health a 28
Child abuse b 27
Diversity and inclusion c 27
Victim support and advocacy d 25
Multi-disciplinary team e 24
Forensic interviewing f 17
Organizational capacity g 7
Other h 1

a Includes wellness for clients, wellness for CAC/CYAC staff and partners, therapeutic outcomes, vicarious trauma, mental health first aid courses, and training on sexual violence counselling.

b Includes prevention, internet child sexual exploitation, training on signs of human trafficking, and internet safety.

c Includes cultural context of trauma, and training about a specific client group such as Indigenous children.

d Includes the role of the victim advocate, support dog training, and court preparation and support.

e Includes case reviews, and team-building exercises.

f Includes forensic interview training, and the investigative process.

g Includes volunteer programming, and fundraising.

h Includes training on youth with problematic sexual behaviours, data equity, substance use and harm reduction, understanding hate and extremism, and disordered eating.

Notes:

In addition, 17 operating or developing CACs/CYACs shared training topics from which their staff could benefit. Along with mental health training being one of the most common training topics taken in their last fiscal year, it is the training topic the most often identified potentially beneficial for staff to take in the future. CACs/CYACs specifically identified that the following mental health topics could be beneficial: suicide risk and intervention, therapeutic responses to problematic sexual behaviours, emerging approaches to treatment, dissociation, therapeutic interventions for peer-on-peer offending, vicarious trauma, and anxiety reducing strategies for children when testifying.

Other training topics that CACs/CYACs believed could be beneficial to staff include:

3.12 Research and evaluation

Research helps to identify what could and does work to support child and youth victims served by CAC/CYACs. Likewise, evaluation helps to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of existing CAC/CYAC models and offerings. An evaluation can be formative or summative, and can examine one service, or part of or the whole CAC/CYAC.

In total, 22 CACs/CYACs reported conducting research, nine reported not conducting research and four reported not knowing if their centre conducted research. Of the CACs/CYACs who conduct research, 16 indicated they conduct research collaboratively with others, most commonly with academic researchers affiliated with a university (8/16). A few centres also reported collaborating with their provincial network (5/16) or with another CAC/CYAC (2/16). Additionally, two CACs/CYACs that conduct research reported undertaking the research both individually and collaboratively, and four other centres reported conducting research individually.

CACs/CYACs were also asked whether they had participated in research conducted by other organizations, such as a government, academic or non-governmental organization–beyond their participation in the Department of Justice Canada’s operational survey. Approximately one-third of CACs/CYACs (12/35) indicated that they participate in research conducted by others, while 19 do not and four are not sure whether they have participated in research conducted by other organizations.

As for evaluations, over half (20/35) of CACs/CYACs had undergone or were in the process of undergoing an evaluation. Of these 20 centres, half indicated they had been evaluated in the past and the other half indicated they were currently undergoing an evaluation at the time of the survey.41 In contrast, 14 CACs/CYACs reported never having undergone an evaluation.42

3.13 Funding

Funding can be a significant challenge for CACs/CYACs. As community-based organizations, it is essential for CACs/CYACs to secure funding to sustain, advance and expand their services and operations. The Department of Justice Canada, through the Victims Fund, provides funding to CACs/CYACs to support the development of new centres, centres under development or in the early stages of their implementation, the service delivery of operational centres, and the development of networks and capacity-building. CACs/CYACs may also receive funding from other sources such as other federal departments, provincial, territorial, or municipal governments, private foundations, donors, and fundraising events.

Almost all operating and developing centres (33/35) reported their annual budget for their last fiscal year.43 Overall, the majority (21/33) had an annual budget of less than $500,000 in their last fiscal year. The other 12 CACs/CYACs reported that they had an annual budget between $500,000 and $5 million (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Annual budget of CACs/CYACs in their last fiscal year

Figure 7: Annual budget of CACs/CYACs in their last fiscal year
Text version

A vertical bar graph with six blue columns. The x-axis indicates the annual budget of CACs/CYACs from under $100,000 to $2 million to $5 million. The y-axis indicates the number of centres from 0 to 14 in multiples of two.

The first column is above “under $100,000” and indicates that 2 centres reported having this annual budget. The second column is above “$100,000 to $249,000” and goes up to 13 centres. The third column is above “$250,000 to $499,999” and goes up to 6 centres. The fourth column is above “$500,000 to $999,999” and goes up to 4 centres. The fifth column is above “$1 million to $1.99 million” and goes up to 3 centres. The last column is above “$2 million to $5 million” and goes up to 5 centres.

Note: Thirty-three CACs/CYACs responded to this question.

All developing CACs/CYACs reported an annual budget of less than $250,000, with the exception of one developing centre with an annual budget of $250,000 to $499,999. In contrast, operational CACs/CYACs had a median annual budget of $250,000 to $499,999 in their last fiscal year reported. When interpreting these results, it is important to remember that each CAC/CYAC has a different structure and serves different communities in terms of size, geographical location, and sociocultural environment. A centre’s operating budget may also not be reflective of what is required for them to fully implement the CAC/CYAC model in a way that achieves the best outcomes for the children, youth and families they serve.

When asked where CACs/CYACs could use additional support or funding, almost all CACs/CYACs with an annual budget of less than $500,000 (n=17)44 reported that they struggled to secure enough funding to cover operating costs, such as the facilities or staffing. In addition, six other CACs/CYACs, three with an annual budget of $500,000 to $999,999 and three with an annual budget of $2 million to $5 million dollars, also reported needing more funding to cover operational costs; in total, more than four-fifths of centres (23/27)45 raised this concern. A few CACs/CYACs also stated they would benefit from funding for the development of remote testimony rooms and for expanding their centre, either through developing new locations or piloting different projects.

Table 6: Funding sources for CACs/CYACs
Sources of funding Number of CACs/CYACs
Federal grants/funding 32
Private sector/donors 25
Provincial/territorial grants/funding 25
Fundraising events 19
Foundations 18
Municipal grants/funding 14
MDT partners 7
Host organization 6

Notes:

  1. All CACs/CYACs (35) responded to this question.
  2. The response options were not mutually exclusive. CACs/CYACs were asked to select all sources through which they had received funding.

As indicated in Table 6 above, almost all CACs/CYACs received federal grants or funding to cover a portion of their operational costs. The majority received a portion of funding from provincial/territorial grants or funding as well as from the private sector and donors. More than half also received a portion of funding from fundraising events and foundations. Other sources of funding received by some centres included municipal grants and funding, MDT partners, and their host organization, where applicable. When interpreting these results, it is important to remember that the number of CACs/CYACs who received funding from these various sources does not take into account the amount of funding received from these sources.

3.14 Biggest successes and challenges

In the last section of the survey, operating and developing CACs/CYACs were invited to share the biggest success they had achieved, as well as the biggest challenge they faced. While centres were asked to only report one success and one challenge, some CACs/CYACs shared multiple successes and challenges. As a result, the numbers shared below do not add up to the total number of centres that responded to these questions.

In terms of the biggest successes, the responses varied considerably, showing the diversity among CACs/CYACs. The most common success mentioned (8/33)46 involves their strong partnerships with MDT partners; this included for instance how they have strengthened their relationships with partners through mutual respect and trust, how they have operated seamlessly together, and how the MDT comprises skilled and dedicated professionals. Another success shared (7/33) is the CAC/CYAC model, which centres feel supports children, youth and their families and made a meaningful change in their communities. CACs/CYACs also reported having success with their education and awareness activities (6/33) and the number of clients and families they serve (5/33).

All CACs/CYACs shared what their biggest challenges were. Over half (19/35) reported experiencing issues with securing sustainable funding for their personnel, services, facilities and expansion. In particular, five of these centres raised the challenge of securing sustainable funding for staffing resources, which they reported as essential to serving their community and its increasing needs.

Although MDT partnerships were viewed as a success by several CACs/CYACs, partner collaboration was also seen as a challenge for approximately one-quarter of all CACs/CYACs (9/35). Such challenges included the need for continuous relationship building, issues with creating change and working with MDT partners to change and adapt, communication challenges, lack of collaboration with certain partners or between partners, and difficulties in securing funding from their partners.

Additionally, six centres reported challenges with human resources, such as issues with staff retention and turnover, labour shortages, issues filling gaps in expertise on the team, and difficulties in hiring Indigenous staff. Four centres also reported challenges with increasing awareness of their centre, particularly with respect to the existence of their centre and their services, the recruitment of champions, and the recognition of the CAC/CYAC model.