Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016 Jul;17(3):341-57. doi: 10.1177/1524838015585319. Epub 2015 May 13.
The Child Advocacy Center (CAC) model has been presented as the solution to many of the problems inherent in responses by authorities to child sexual abuse. The lack of referral to therapeutic services and support, procedurally flawed and potentially traumatic investigation practices, and conflict between the different statutory agencies involved are all thought to contribute to low conviction rates for abuse and poor outcomes for children. The CAC model aims to address these problems through a combination of multidisciplinary teams, joint investigations, and services, all provided in a single child friendly environment. Using a systematic search strategy, this research aimed to identify and review all studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of the approach as a whole, recognizing that a separate evidence base exists for parts of the approach (e.g., victim advocacy and therapeutic responses). The review found that while the criminal justice outcomes of the model have been well studied, there was a lack of research on the effect of the model on child and family outcomes. Although some modest outcomes were clear, the lack of empirical research, and overreliance on measuring program outputs, rather than outcomes, suggests that some clarification of the goals of the CAC model is needed.
儿童倡导中心(CAC)模式被认为是解决当局对儿童性虐待问题回应中固有问题的一种方法。缺乏转介到治疗服务和支持、程序上有缺陷且可能造成创伤的调查做法,以及涉及的不同法定机构之间的冲突,这些都被认为是导致虐待定罪率低和儿童结局不佳的原因。CAC 模式旨在通过多学科团队、联合调查和服务的结合来解决这些问题,所有这些都在一个对儿童友好的环境中提供。本研究采用系统搜索策略,旨在确定和审查所有评估该方法整体有效性的研究,同时认识到该方法的部分内容(例如,受害者辩护和治疗反应)已经有独立的证据基础。审查发现,尽管该模式的刑事司法结果已经得到了很好的研究,但对于该模式对儿童和家庭结果的影响的研究却很少。尽管一些适度的结果是明确的,但缺乏实证研究,以及过度依赖衡量项目产出而不是结果,这表明需要对 CAC 模式的目标进行一些澄清。