Smith Daniel W, Witte Tricia H, Fricker-Elhai Adrienne E
National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, 165 Cannon Street, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Child Maltreat. 2006 Nov;11(4):354-60. doi: 10.1177/1077559506292277.
Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) were developed to improve on child abuse investigative services provided by child protective service (CPS) agencies. However, until very recently, there has been little research comparing CAC-based procedures and outcomes to those in CPS investigations not based in CACs. The current study tracked 76 child abuse cases that were reported to authorities and investigated through either a private, not-for-profit CAC or typical CPS services in a mid-south rural county. Comparisons between CAC and CPS cases were made in terms of involvement of local law enforcement in the investigation, provision of medical exams, abuse substantiation rates, mental health referrals, prosecution referrals, and conviction rates. Analyses revealed higher rates of law enforcement involvement, medical examinations, and case substantiation in the CAC-based cases compared to the CPS cases. Despite limitations due to sample size and non-randomization, this study found preliminary support for the assumptions underlying the establishment of CACs.
儿童权益保护中心(CACs)的设立是为了改进儿童保护服务(CPS)机构提供的虐待儿童调查服务。然而,直到最近,很少有研究将基于儿童权益保护中心的程序和结果与非基于儿童权益保护中心的儿童保护服务调查进行比较。当前的研究追踪了76起向当局报告并通过一个私立非营利性儿童权益保护中心或美国中南部一个乡村县的典型儿童保护服务进行调查的虐待儿童案件。对儿童权益保护中心和儿童保护服务案件在地方执法部门参与调查、提供医学检查、虐待证据确凿率、心理健康转诊、起诉转诊和定罪率等方面进行了比较。分析显示,与儿童保护服务案件相比,基于儿童权益保护中心的案件中执法部门参与、医学检查和案件证据确凿的比例更高。尽管由于样本量和非随机化存在局限性,但这项研究为设立儿童权益保护中心的潜在假设找到了初步支持。