U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the National Institute 

of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
JULY 04 

A Resource for Evaluating Child 

Advocacy Centers 

Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D. 

NCJ 192825 
Sarah V. Hart 

Director 

Acknowledgments 

I would like to thank Jeremy Travis and substantive comments on earlier drafts of 

Christy Visher for providing me with the this document. I would also like to thank my 

opportunity to pursue work on this guide- husband, Thomas Hafemeister, and our son, 

book as a Visiting Fellow at the National Jackson Hafemeister, for hours of discussion 

Institute of Justice. I would also like to thank regarding the guidebook and facilitating my 

the Violence and Victimization Division within commitment to this work. And I would like 

the National Institute of Justice, which to thank my parents for their continued comincludes Bernie Auchter, Leora Rosen, mitment to me. Additionally, I would like to 

Cynthia Mamalian, Angela Moore Parmley, thank Benjamin Murray and Nancy Chandler 

and Richard Titus, for their support of this for their enthusiasm and commitment to this 

project. I would also like to thank Debra project. Finally, and perhaps most importantWhitcomb, a former visiting fellow at NIJ, ly, I would like to thank the Child Advocacy 

Marylouise Kelley in the Office for Victims of Center Directors, who contributed their valuCrime, and the staff of the Office of Juvenile able time and thoughtful perspectives on 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention for their CACs. I am deeply grateful to them. 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author and do not 

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D., is Director of Grants Program and Development at the Institute of Law, 

Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia. She was a Visiting Fellow at the National 

Institute of Justice at the time she developed this book. 

Funding for this project is provided by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 
Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


What Is Program Evaluation?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

How to Use This Resource Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Chapter 2: The Importance of Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


The Benefits of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


Evaluation Motivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Evaluation Barriers and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Chapter 3: The Evaluation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Internal Versus External Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Collaborating With an External Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Evaluation Team Members’ Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Evaluation Team Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Chapter 4: Program Monitoring Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Child-Friendly Facility Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


Medical Examination Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Mental Health Services Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Case Review Program Monitoring Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Parent Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


Multidisciplinary Team Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


Child Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


Chapter 5: Outcome Evaluations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Steps in Developing an Outcome Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Chapter 6: Impact Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


What Is an Impact Evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Impact Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Steps in Conducting an Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49


Additional Impact Evaluation Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


Chapter 7: Recruitment and Retention of Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Obtaining the Cooperation of Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Obtaining the Cooperation of the Multidisciplinary Team and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Obtaining the Cooperation of Parents and Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58


Recruiting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Followup Contact With Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62


Recruitment Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


Chapter 8: Planning an Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


iii 
Chapter 9: Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Developing Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Timing of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Protocol for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74


Training in Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75


Issues Related to Completing Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76


Data Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78


Pilot Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Management Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


Chapter 10: Analyzing Evaluation Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83


Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83


Chapter 11: The Evaluation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


The Evaluation Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

The Report’s Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


The Content of the Evaluation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92


Presenting the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95


Reviewing the Evaluation Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95


Disseminating the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96


Appendix A: Brief Descriptions of Other Types of Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1


Appendix B: Results of a Telephone Interview With CAC Directors . . . . . . . B-1


Appendix C: Sample Measures for Conducting a Program 


Monitoring Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1


Appendix D: Sample Measures for Conducting an Outcome Evaluation . D-1

Appendix E: Sample Measures for Conducting an Impact Evaluation . . . . E-1


Appendix F: Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1


Appendix G: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1


Appendix H: Other Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1


iv 
About the Author 

Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D., 

is Director of Grants 

Program and 

Development at the 

Institute of Law, 

Psychiatry and Public 

Policy at the University of 

Virginia. She was a 

Visiting Fellow at the 

National Institute of 

Justice at the time she 

developed this book. 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Administrators of Child Advocacy Centers 

(CACs) must possess a number of skills, 

including knowing how to conduct an 

evaluation. This resource book, written 

expressly for CAC administrators, is designed to give administrators who have 

varying amounts of evaluation experience 

the knowledge they will need to conduct 

either one-time or ongoing evaluations. 

This manual can also be used by those 

who contract with an external evaluator; 

it will be helpful in educating external 

evaluators about the issues surrounding 

a CAC evaluation. 

Evaluation is essential. It is the only way to 

ensure that a program is benefiting, not 

harming, the people it is designed to help 

(Thompson and McClintock 1998). There 

was a time when reducing the number of 

interviews to one was the ultimate goal of 

a CAC. Research has shown, however, 

that it is sometimes beneficial and necessary to interview children more than once 

(for example, by using the extended forensic assessment) (Carnes 2001; Carnes, 

Wilson, and Nelson-Gardell 1999; Myers, 

Saywitz, and Goodman 1996). 

Some directors have said that creating an 

evaluation resource applicable to all CAC 

administrators would be unlikely because 

each center is unique. Indeed, some researchers have argued that when programs such as CACs are widely diverse, it 

is impossible to conclude from an evaluation of a sample of projects whether the 

program’s concept is effective (Rossi, 

Freeman, and Lipsey 1999). 

“We get focused on serving people and forget to 

step back and look at our program. You have to 

evaluate. It’s not ethical not to evaluate.” 

CACs conduct their operations differently, 

but that does not preclude the development of a general evaluation manual. 

Indeed, results of a telephone interview 

with program directors revealed vast similarities among their centers’ core components (Jackson 2004). 

The evaluations presented in this book 

focus on the National Children’s Alliance 

membership standards, excluding organizational structure. (CACs vary in their 

protocols regarding these standards.) 

These standards encompass seven core 

components (among others): 

■ Child-friendly facility. 

■ Multidisciplinary team. 

■ Child investigative interview. 

■ Medical examination. 

■ Mental health services. 

■ Victim advocacy. 

■ Case review. 

One benefit of a CAC evaluation resource 

is that it introduces standard procedures 

and instruments, thereby producing consistency across evaluations. A standardized evaluation system, if adopted, would 

1 
CHAPTER 1 / JULY 04 

allow CAC administrators to do the 

following: ■ Learn from each other about how to 

implement the various evaluation 

protocols. 

■ Learn from each other about which systems are working effectively for whom 

and under what conditions. 

■ Customize their evaluation. 

a way to answer against the backlash.” 

“You need to be able to defend yourself. We need 

What Is Program Evaluation? 

Definition 

The term “evaluation” means different 

things to different people (Gunn 1987). 

This manual will use the definition outlined by Rossi and Freeman (1993, 5): 

“The systemic application of social science research procedures for assessing 

the conceptualization, design, implementation, and utility to answer basic questions about a program.” 

Types of evaluation 

Three major types of evaluations are covered in this manual: program monitoring 

evaluation, outcome evaluation, and impact evaluation. Other types of evaluations not covered in the manual are 

described in appendix A: Brief Descriptions of Other Types of Evaluations. 

Program monitoring evaluation. Program monitoring evaluation is the systematic documentation of key aspects of program performance that indicate whether 

the program is functioning as intended or 

according to some appropriate standards. 

For example, a program monitoring evaluation would be used to determine 

whether procedures for a child interview 

were appropriate. 

Outcome evaluation. An outcome evaluation determines whether the program 

has met its goals. For example, an outcome evaluation will help determine the 

number of children receiving a childfriendly investigative interview. 

Impact evaluation. An impact evaluation 

addresses the question: What is the effectiveness of the program? For example, an 

impact evaluation could determine what 

effect the child-friendly investigative interview process has had on children. Typically, impact evaluations must answer the 

question, “Compared to what?” 

A comprehensive evaluation generally 

encompasses all three of these evaluation 

methodologies (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services 1996). Large-scale 

evaluations are not necessarily better than 

scaled-back evaluations (Scriven 1993). 

Although it is possible to use one of these 

evaluations alone, evaluation methods are 

often combined. For example, to examine 

outcomes, a program’s procedures will 

need to be evaluated to demonstrate that 

the program is providing services that are 

influencing outcomes. In fact, a program 

monitoring evaluation is essential for 

understanding and interpreting both outcome and impact evaluation results. 

Without program monitoring information, 

there is no way of knowing which aspects 

of the program were fully and properly 

implemented. 

Evaluation steps 

A typical evaluation will follow these general steps: 

1. Select the evaluation team. 

2 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

2. Decide on evaluation questions. 

3. Decide on evaluation design. 

4. Plan the evaluation. 

5. Recruit participants. 

6. Collect data. 

7. Analyze data. 

8. Write the evaluation report. 

Evaluation is often thought of as a onetime event, but the evaluation process 

may need to be repeated to be sure any 

changes in the program are benefiting and 

not harming clients. Although potentially 

time consuming and costly, repeating an 

evaluation is the most effective method 

for determining if program changes are 

achieving their goal. Understanding programmatic change is vital. The following 

steps assist in determining the effects of 

changes made to the program: 

1. Identify a problem.

2. Conduct an evaluation. 

3. Interpret the results.

4. Make the necessary changes in the 

program. 

5. Conduct an evaluation of the changed 

program. 

6. Interpret the results.

7. Determine whether additional changes 

are necessary. 

Repetition of this cycle may be needed 

to isolate the effect of change. Initial weak 

results in early findings may not necessarily indicate that the program’s performance is poor. Rather, it may be an 

indication that further information is needed to determine why there is a problem 

in a particular area of the program. 

How to Use This 

Resource Book 

This resource book is designed to meet 

the general needs of all CAC administrators. Because the evaluation needs of 

CAC administrators vary widely, some 

sections and chapters in this volume may 

not be applicable for all users. 

A telephone interview with CAC directors 

(see appendix B) found that 80 percent of 

the responding directors had never used 

an assessment manual. (Those directors 

who had used an evaluation manual had 

used manuals from evaluations conducted 

by Philadelphia’s CAC, the United Way, 

court-appointed special advocates programs, and several other lesser known 

evaluation manuals). Yet 95 percent of 

directors believe an evaluation manual 

would be useful; 85 percent of interviewed directors reported elements they 

would like to see in an evaluation manual. 

The ideas suggested by directors served 

as the basis for this evaluation resource 

book. 

everyone asks is ‘How do you know it [the CAC 

works.” 

“We need evaluation because the first thing 

model] works?’ We need to have proof that it 

■ Chapter 1 introduces evaluation 

concepts. 

■ Chapter 2 discusses the importance of 

evaluation and addresses benefits, barriers, and ways to overcome barriers to 

evaluation. 

■ Chapter 3 discusses the need for and 

how to assemble an evaluation team. 

3 
CHAPTER 1 / JULY 04 

■ Chapters 4, 5, and 6 provide detailed 

information on the three most common 

types of program evaluations: program 

monitoring evaluations, outcome evaluations, and impact evaluations. 

■ Chapter 7 discusses issues related to 

recruiting and retaining participants in 

an evaluation. 

■ Chapter 8 outlines essential issues to 

address before implementing an 

evaluation. 

■ Chapters 9 and 10 provide information 

on data collection and analysis. 

■ Chapter 11 discusses the primary components of an evaluation report. 

The appendixes are designed to complement these chapters: 

■ Appendix A briefly describes other 

types of evaluations. 

■ Appendix B presents the findings 

from a telephone interview with CAC 

administrators. 

■ Appendix C contains sample measures 

to use in a program monitoring evaluation. 

■ Appendix D contains sample measures 

to use in an outcome evaluation. 

■ Appendix E contains sample measures 

and other resource information to use 

in an impact evaluation. 

■ Appendix F contains all the exhibits referenced in chapters 1–11. 

■ Appendix G is a glossary of terms used 

in this manual. 

■ Appendix H contains a list of scholarly 

references and other valuable resources 

for conducting an evaluation. 

Directors who are conducting their first 

evaluation may want to start by selecting 

one specific topic before moving to more 

complex evaluations. Do not expect the 

first evaluation to be perfect. Many unforeseen obstacles will arise. The first 

evaluation will serve as a reference point 

for future evaluations. 

This manual explains the evaluation process and how to plan it, and what to do 

with the data. It includes an array of 

forms and instruments that can be adapted by individual centers. 

Administrators who need further information or who are unsure how to proceed 

can consider contacting their local university for assistance (see “Community and 

university partnerships,” chapter 3). 

4 
Chapter 2: The Importance of Evaluation


Change often occurs in reaction to social 

problems. Changes within Child Advocacy 

Centers (CACs) are no exception. During 

the 1980s, a dramatic increase in the 

reported number of child sexual abuse 

(CSA) cases occurred, and the public 

became aware of the problem through 

the highly publicized McMartin Preschool 

case and other similar cases. The public 

viewed CSA investigations as another 

form of abuse, albeit system-induced 

abuse. In direct response to the criticism, 

the first CAC was developed in Huntsville, 

Alabama, in the mid-1980s. The Huntsville 

CAC and other new CACs attempted to 

redress the inadequacies of conventional 

case processing. 

“I see our center benefits children and families, 

but there are doubters, so we have to be able 

produce.” 

to say this is what we do and the benefits we 

In about 15 years, the number of CACs 

has grown tremendously—more than 400 

CACs are now established and 211 more 

efforts among the CACs, provides 

resources, and produces national guidelines for the centers. 

One of the goals of NCA is to reduce the 

amount of system-induced trauma children 

experience as a result of an investigation. 

For example, NCA recommends limiting 

the number of interviews to which children are exposed. 

CACs are established to realize these 

goals, but whether they are succeeding 

has never been empirically tested.2 A 

formal interview of CAC directors and an 

extensive literature search found only 

one published CAC outcome evaluation 

(Jenson et al. 1996). However, OJJDP has 

funded a national CAC evaluation, which is 

currently being conducted by the Crimes 

Against Children Research Center at the 

University of New Hampshire. 

“Our major problem with evaluation was the 

the surveys, which gives us a biased perspective. 

response rate. We got back maybe 25 percent of 

It’s really not very useful.” 

are in the planning stages.1 Continuous 

funding by the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) since 

1993, as authorized by the Victims of Child 

Abuse Act, has contributed to the growth 

of CACs nationwide. In addition, the CAC 

network has become increasingly coordinated. The National Children’s Alliance 

(NCA) (formerly the National Network of 

Children’s Advocacy Centers) coordinates 

Although most centers are not conducting 

formal evaluations, they are evaluating 

their programs informally. Informal evaluations may include personal client data, 

such as letters from children and parents 

who have used CAC services. This type of 

evidence suggests that the center is 

meeting the needs of the children. The 

5 
CHAPTER 2 / JULY 04 

danger in relying on informal evidence 

exclusively is that it fails to reveal the 

effects of the center on the rest of the 

client population. Similarly, many centers 

are administering client satisfaction questionnaires in an effort to evaluate their program, but the low response rate of these 

surveys renders the results unreliable. 

The Benefits of Evaluation 

A CAC evaluation can benefit programs 

in numerous ways. An interview with 

CAC administrators found that 56 percent 

of directors believe evaluation can help 

them improve their program; 40 percent 

believe that an evaluation would be useful 

in documenting how they are doing; and 

33 percent said it would help them obtain 

funding. 

CAC directors identified the following benefits of evaluations: ■ Meeting children’s needs. Directors 

believe that serving children is their primary goal. The best way to determine 

how well children are being served is to 

ask them. An evaluation that includes 

children’s responses helps assess how 

well the CAC is meeting its goal. 

■ Promoting the program. An evaluation 

can identify specific accomplishments 

that can be used to promote the program’s public image in the community. 

Furthermore, promotions help to inform 

the community of the mission, how it is 

carried out, and the benefits from services provided. 

■ Obtaining funding. Evaluations show 

results, and these results can place a 

CAC in a better position to obtain funding. Data from evaluations can be used 

in grant proposals and presentations to 

funding agencies. This information is 

also useful in guiding annual budgets 

and justifying resource allocations. 

■ Improving staff morale. Staff members seldom hear from clients or others 

about their performance. An evaluation 

is an opportunity to provide feedback to 

staff and enhance staff morale. 

■ Improving the program. An evaluation 

identifies strengths and weaknesses 

and can suggest effective strategies for 

correcting weaknesses. In addition, 

evaluation information can help improve 

the staff’s work performance by providing direction, identifying training and 

technical assistance needs, and recruiting talented staff and volunteers. 

Furthermore, evaluation information can 

be used to support annual and longrange program planning. The following 

examples illustrate how directors have 

used evaluation to improve their program: 

“We were looking at barriers to therapy. We found the main barrier was 

transportation, so we changed our 

protocol to include transportation.” 

“We thought our center was child 

friendly, but we found out it was 

congested; it looked like a daycare 

center sometimes.” 

“Through focus groups and interviews, some negative systemic 

problems were illuminated, which 

angered many people. The child 

abuse unit in the police department 

had never had a sergeant, but after 

the results of the study were disseminated, they got their own 

sergeant.” 

“We were having trouble getting 

the team to case review each week. 

We did an evaluation and found we 

needed to modify our protocol. For 

example, we reintroduced the written agenda and that seems to have 

worked well to solve the problem.” 

6 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

■ Stimulating the community to make 

changes. Evaluations are helpful in 

convincing a community to make 

changes. Holding an open house provides an opportunity to display evaluation results for the community to learn 

about program activities and the effectiveness of a program. 

■ Enhancing interagency cooperation. 

Illustrating a program’s effectiveness 

can make the program more attractive 

to other regulatory agencies and can 

be used to bring aboard new partner 

agencies. 

■ Deriving broader societal benefits. 

Data obtained from individual evaluations may benefit the human services 

field in general. However, it is essential 

that the public be made aware of evaluation results to accomplish this goal. 

■ Increasing organizational capability. 

Evaluation information is also useful to 

focus the attention of board members 

and other stakeholders on programmatic issues. 

■ Improving outcome measurement 

systems. Evaluation reports are useful 

not only for outside funding agencies 

and community leaders, but also as 

tools for improving the program itself. 

Evaluation results may reduce the time 

and cost of ongoing program monitoring 

activities, such as data collection procedures and instruments, training of data 

collectors, and data entry procedures. 

■ Enhancing accountability. The Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 requires Federal agencies to identify the goals of their programs and 

report the degree to which those goals 

were achieved. Indeed, many Federal 

(and some State) block grants require 

performance measurement and reporting. In addition, nonprofit agencies 

such as the United Way are requiring 

performance measurement reports. This 

resource book gives CACs access to 

materials developed specifically for CAC 

administrators to facilitate accountability. 

■ Meeting the challenges of a changing 

organization. Incorporating the evaluation process into a program structure 

from the beginning gives the program 

flexibility, which in turn facilitates organizational survival. Some centers experience “growing pains” during early 

development years and may require 

considerable adjustment. An evaluation 

during a program’s first year can be 

helpful in identifying problem areas. 

When a center has been fully operational for some time, the need to reexamine its goals and objectives is 

important. An evaluation at this stage 

of organizational development may be 

helpful in identifying what is working 

well and what needs adjusting. 

Evaluation Motivators 

The interview with CAC administrators 

(see appendix B) found that 53 percent 

of directors are conducting some type 

of program evaluation. Among these 

directors, 47 percent were conducting 

evaluations to improve their program; 22 

percent were required by either a parent 

organization or their board to conduct an 

evaluation; and 20 percent were conducting evaluations to fulfill funding or grant 

requirements. 

Directors identified several factors that 

would motivate them to independently 

begin an evaluation: 56 percent cited program improvement as a motivator for 

beginning an evaluation; 40 percent stated that an evaluation would be a means 

to document how the center is doing; and 

33 percent said that conducting an evaluation would facilitate obtaining funding. 

7 
CHAPTER 2 / JULY 04 

Evaluation Barriers and 

Responses 

For a variety of reasons, many program 

directors are reluctant to begin an evaluation. The interviews revealed that directors believed a number of significant 

barriers exist to conducting program evaluations. Forty percent of the directors 

believed time was a major factor for not 

conducting an evaluation. Skill or knowledge of the evaluation process was a 

detractor for 22 percent of the directors. 

Lack of money, fear of results, and widespread lack of cooperation represented a 

barrier for 21 percent of the directors. 

The following is a list of commonly noted 

barriers to conducting an evaluation, with 

rebuttals designed to alleviate concerns 

directors might have with conducting an 

evaluation: ■ Evaluations may make the program 

look bad. Problems that are revealed 

by an evaluation should not be viewed 

as evidence of program failure, but 

should be taken as an opportunity to 

learn what needs to be changed to 

improve the program. 

■ Evaluations divert resources away 

from the program. Because evaluations provide information on what does 

and does not work, an important purpose for conducting an evaluation is to 

determine which aspects are economically feasible in light of the program 

options. 

■ Evaluations cost too much. There are 

four levels of evaluation costs. Low-cost 

evaluations typically involve frequency 

counts and satisfaction outcomes, but 

do not indicate success in attaining outcome objectives. Low- to moderate-cost 

evaluations involve changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and 

behaviors, but the evaluation cannot 

attribute changes to the program because a control or comparison group is 

not used. Moderate- to high-cost evaluations typically involve the use of a 

comparison or control group, but are 

limited to short-term participant outcome changes. High-cost evaluations 

include all of the above data, as well as 

knowledge of long-term outcomes (e.g., 

after participants have left the program). 

Money spent on evaluations is generally 

viewed as an investment in the program 

because knowledge is gained as to 

whether the program is benefiting the 

participants. Experts suggest that on 

average, an evaluation costs between 

10 and 20 percent of the program’s total 

budget. Limited funds do not preclude 

an evaluation. Costs incurred by conducting an evaluation may have to 

be offset through alternative funding 

methods. 

■ Evaluations increase the burden for 

program staff. The burden for conducting an evaluation should be evenly distributed. Indeed, evaluations provide 

useful feedback that can be used to 

learn about the needs of the program 

and participants, improve staff performance, and validate staff successes. 

“Evaluation comes across as an eight-legged 

beast.” 

■ Evaluations are too complicated. The 

complexity of an evaluation depends on 

the type of evaluation being conducted. 

Program monitoring evaluations are relatively simple and systematize what 

most CAC administrators already do. 

Impact evaluations, on the other hand, 

8 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

are complex and may require the assistance of evaluation professionals. 

■ Performance standard setting is too 

difficult. Evaluations make it possible to 

set standards of performance. Without 

evaluation information, performance 

standards are completely arbitrary. 

Notes 

1. Benjamin Murray, personal communication, 

April 3, 2002. 

2. A multisite evaluation project has been implemented by the Crimes Against Children Research 

Center at the University of New Hampshire under 

the direction of Dr. David Finkelhor. 

9 

Chapter 3: The Evaluation Team


The most effective evaluations obtain 

input from a variety of sources (e.g., 

clients, staff, administrators), and this variety of input should be reflected in the 

diversity of the assembled evaluation 

team (Burt et al. 1997). An evaluation team 

“Our staff has been cooperative because the 

clinical supervisor walked through the proposal 

with everyone and addressed their concerns 

right away.” 

should be formed prior to beginning an 

evaluation. 

empower anyone; people got defensive. I would 

do things differently next time by convening an 

Evaluation Advisory Committee.” 

“The way the information was revealed didn’t 

Evaluation teams consist of individuals 

who will assist in planning and carrying 

out the evaluation and are involved in 

determining the following: 

■ What the purpose is of the evaluation. 

■ What type of evaluation will be 

conducted. 

■ Who will participate. 

■ When to conduct the evaluation. 

■ Where to conduct the evaluation. 

■ How to implement the evaluation. 

■ How to analyze and interpret results. 

■ How to produce evaluation reports. 

Because of the variety and scope of duties 

involved, considerable thought should be 

given to selecting team members. United 

Way of America (1996) recommends that 

an evaluation team consist of five to seven 

individuals because a larger team may 

impede decisionmaking by having too 

many diverse opinions. A team that is 

smaller than this recommended size may 

become autocratic in its decisionmaking. 

Because evaluations require expertise in 

several disciplines, it is helpful to create a 

working group of individuals with specialized training and experience, as well as 

members who will fill other specific evaluation roles. Such teams may be created 

from the following possibilities: 

■ Someone with strong subject-matter 

background. Directors with a background in child sexual abuse or in the 

multidisciplinary team approach. 

■ Someone with quantitative competence. A social scientist, perhaps the 

lead evaluator, with demonstrated quantitative skills. 

■ Multidisciplinary team representative. 

One of the multidisciplinary team members to provide agency representation. 

11 
CHAPTER 3 / JULY 04 ■ Staff. A staff member to be involved as 

early and as frequently as possible in 

evaluation planning, and provide input 

and cooperate with the project. 

that provides consultation, guidance, and support services. Then we incorporate this information into our best practices.” 

“We have a volunteer research advisory board 

■ Data collection personnel. Individuals 

to act as liaison between the participants and the team. An assigned data 

collector could function in this role. 

■ Persons to represent the qualitative 

and non-social-science aspects of 

evaluation. Both primary and secondary users of the evaluation need to be 

considered, such as the board of directors, chief executive officer, program 

director, funding agent, staff, community groups, participants, other organizations, legislators, parents of victims, 

and task force members. 

When it is decided to include an evaluation audience member, identify individuals 

who have the greatest interest in the evaluation results and identify what their 

interest might be. Representatives of this 

group must have been part of the evaluation design to ensure that the evaluation 

results are considered legitimate by the 

audience. 

Because some Child Advocacy Centers 

(CACs) are funded by the legislature or 

have the support of prominent community and political leaders, many directors 

indicated concerns about the political 

ramifications of an evaluation. When this 

is a concern, it may be useful to include 

individuals from these groups in evaluation proposal discussions or as evaluation 

team members. 

Internal Versus External 

Evaluator 

Any evaluation leader, whether internal 

or external, should possess evaluation 

expertise. Center discretion may be used 

to decide whether the evaluation team 

will be created before or after the team’s 

leader has been selected. 

The majority (71 percent) of administrators who are conducting evaluations indicated that they are conducting their own 

evaluation. However, 27 percent of the 

administrators interviewed would prefer 

that an external evaluator (e.g., university 

faculty) conduct the evaluation, and an 

additional 45 percent would prefer a combination of internal and external collaborators to conduct the evaluation. These 

percentages reflect a recognition of the 

need to consider including an external 

evaluator in the evaluation process. 

Exhibit 3.1 lists advantages and disadvantages of internal and external evaluators. 

questions that we believe are important. The 

outside person would have a different perspec­

“We prefer both an internal and an external 

evaluator. We would be able to include the 

tive and maybe think of things we didn’t think of.” 

Ideally, evaluations are objective reports 

of a program. However, there is often 

enormous economic, social, and psychological pressure to produce favorable evaluation results. An important reason for 

including an external evaluator is to prevent the bias surrounding data analysis 

results (Scriven 1993). Although it is necessary to guard against bias, it is also 

important to remember that preference 

and commitment do not necessarily constitute bias. Evaluations funded by grants, 

for example, may find possible solutions 

to bias by determining whether the 

12 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

funding agency has an office that administers independent contracts for conducting 

evaluations. 

Collaborating With an 

External Evaluator 

“Our county administrator had a management 

company come in and do an internal evaluation 

some useful information.” 

of our center. We didn’t want them to come at 

all, but it wasn’t so bad after all and we learned 

Locating an external evaluator 

To facilitate the search for an external 

evaluator, a detailed job description that 

describes what the evaluator will be 

expected to accomplish (Braskamp, 

Brandenburg, and Ory 1987), including 

the degree of involvement (such as level 

of project control, or partnership or advisory role), can be developed. When internal specifications for the evaluation 

process have not been determined, the 

description can be written to indicate that 

the evaluator will be responsible for 

assisting with the development of the 

evaluation design. Job descriptions will 

also be useful during the interview process to lead the discussion and select the 

most appropriate candidate. 

[from a university] who is paid by another 

Between all of the agencies involved, we are 

able to look at family connection, number of children revictimized, number of children involved in 

the juvenile justice system, number of pregnant 

teens, and domestic violence in our sample of 

“We have a contract with an external evaluator 

agency. We simply send them group data. 

children referred to the center.” 

The following sources might help locate 

an evaluator: 

■ Other CACs conducting an evaluation. 

■ Recommendations from other 

agencies. 

■ Local universities (faculty and graduate 

students). 

■ Professional associations (e.g., 

American Evaluation Association). 

■ State or local government planning and 

evaluation departments. 

■ Technical assistance providers (included 

in some Federal grants). 

■ The Internet. 

■ Public library reference resources. 

■ Research institutes and consulting 

firms. 

■ National advocacy groups and local 

foundations. 

■ Newspaper advertisements. 

no budget for evaluation. The university helps 

out where they can, and in exchange we give 

them access to data.” 

“Any help that I can get for free, I take. We have 

Community and university 

partnerships 

A college or university can be an excellent 

source for locating an evaluator because 

some faculty will be interested in conducting field research in this area. 

Departments that may have interested 

faculty include public administration, public policy, psychology, human development, criminal justice, social work, and 

13 
CHAPTER 3 / JULY 04 

sociology. It may be feasible to suggest 

an exchange of data, rather than fees for 

services provided by the faculty. 

A few centers have built working relationships with university faculty and graduate 

students. These relationships can be 

mutually beneficial to both directors and 

researchers: Researchers possess the 

necessary evaluation knowledge and 

directors have indepth insights into their 

program. 

ation. The victim advocate is in charge of the 

evaluation, but the intern calls the families.” 

“We have an intern who helps us with the evaluSome centers have expressed concern 

about hiring or working with graduate students and interns. A criminal background 

check can be performed on them, just as 

for any other employee of the center. This 

procedure has worked well for several 

centers. 

Advertising in a newspaper 

Advertising the evaluator position in a 

newspaper and soliciting applications is 

another alternative to a university or organization. The detailed job description written 

for the external evaluator position can be 

useful in crafting the advertisement. An 

advertisement should be specific and 

include any evaluation design criteria that 

have already been established by the CAC. 

A sample advertisement follows: 

Evaluator Needed 

Evaluator needed to conduct an outcome evaluation of the Child Advocacy Center in Metropolis, USA. 

Responsibilities include directing 

the team, designing an evaluation, 

collecting and analyzing data, and 

producing evaluation reports. 

Applicant must be able to work well 

in a team. Documented expertise 

and references required. 

Interviewing potential 

evaluators 

Whether solicited applications are received or faculty member collaborations 

are made, several potential areas of disagreement between administrators and 

evaluators need to be discussed before 

the partnership is made final. During the 

interview, the following issues should be 

discussed: 

■ Proximity of the applicant to the center. 

■ Philosophical compatibility between 

director and evaluator. 

■ Evaluator expertise and practical experience (a primary selection criteria). 

■ Evaluator’s understanding of the evaluation context (e.g., the evaluator’s comprehension of the environmental setting 

in which the evaluation takes place, 

such as a small CAC with a multidisciplinary team). 

■ How much information is to be collected and reported. 

■ In what form the information should be 

obtained. 

■ With what frequency the information 

should be collected. 

■ What level of reliability of information is 

acceptable. 

■ With what degree of confidentiality the 

information should be collected. 

■ Who owns the evaluation data. 

■ Who will author the evaluation report. 

Many evaluators specialize in various 

areas of evaluation (Thompson and 

14 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

McClintock 1998); for this reason, ensure 

that the evaluator is experienced in the 

desired type of evaluation (e.g., evaluating 

programs similar to your own) and that 

the evaluator will produce the type of 

information required. Evaluators should be 

familiar with each of these concepts, and 

a discussion of them can be one way to 

determine the evaluator’s knowledge and 

ability to convey concepts to nonevaluators. The selected evaluator should always 

be evaluated (Scriven 1993); obtaining a 

second opinion is important. 

Contracting with the evaluator 

A contract is necessary for either a collaboration or external evaluator, and it should 

clearly state expectations for the evaluation (Morris, Fitz-Gibbon, and Freeman 

1987; U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 1996). This can be 

accomplished by creating a contracted 

statement of work (SOW) (Gunn 1987). 

The expected roles and functions of the 

evaluator should be clearly defined before 

the evaluation begins. What will be accomplished and when it will be delivered, as 

well as the possible consequences for violating those expectations, should also be 

clearly defined. Because decisions are 

incumbent on timely evaluative information, stipulations for meeting deadlines 

should be included. The SOW should specify that an evaluation team will be selected 

and convened early in the planning phase 

of the evaluation; that periodic reports in 

addition to the final report will be required; 

and that any personnel changes must be 

approved to prevent “bait and switch” tactics (Gunn 1987). 

Positive evaluation partnerships 

This section provides examples of successful internal/external collaborative evaluation relationships. The characteristics of 

positive community-university relationships include having— 

■ University personnel on the CAC board 

of directors. 

■ A scientist on the board of directors 

who understands the value of research. 

■ An existing relationship between the 

director and faculty. 

■ Returns on the investment to the CAC, 

such as workshops or additional data 

collection that will be useful for the 

CAC. 

The following anecdotes come from 

directors commenting on successful 

partnerships. 

“We have hired a woman from X 

University who helps us out. She 

used to work at the center. This is a 

joint effort. The practitioners are 

deeply involved in the process. We 

need the front-line practitioners, and 

the Ph.D.s can help guide our work. 

We exchange access to data for 

expertise and advice.” 

“X took the initiative to contact us 

and has followed through and produced useful documents.” 

“A public management student 

wanted to do an evaluation of our 

program as his school project, so it 

was free for us, although we had 

to work some things out. He conducted phone interviews with a 

cross-section of agency personnel. 

However, we were opposed to his 

sending out client surveys himself. 

Therefore, we selected 100 clients 

to send surveys to and placed some 

surveys in the waiting room (we got 

30 back). He also wanted to sit in on 

therapy and the interviews and of 

course I objected to that. He wanted to see our records and witness 

daily activities and we just had to 

work around those requests. He 

15 
CHAPTER 3 / JULY 04 was professional and accommodating of our needs. It worked out 

beautifully.” 

Negative evaluation 

partnerships 

Several reported experiences of internal/ 

external collaborative evaluations were 

described as abysmal failures. Characteristics of poorly functioning communityuniversity relationships include— ■ Inability to agree on the research 

question. 

■ Unresolved confidentiality issues. ■ Dissipation of the commitment to the 

center over time. 

■ Lack of new or useful information provided to the center. ■ Difficulty contacting the faculty 

member. 

The following anecdotes come from 

directors describing failed collaborative 

relationships. 

“One time an evaluation was sponsored by the police department, but 

the evaluator did not bother to consult with the police involved in the 

project.” 

“X did an evaluation, but they didn’t 

have any knowledge of our culture. 

It was a bad experience.” 

“We had the cooperation of X, we 

had even done some preliminary 

planning, but they needed $15,000 

to set up the evaluation, so until 

they get the money the project is on 

hold.” 

“The outside evaluator didn’t know 

about the team concept or child 

abuse. They did a good research job, 

but the evaluation only scratched 

the surface, and it cost too much.” 

“X wanted to do an evaluation, but 

we couldn’t agree on access to information and when clients could 

complete the forms without contaminating the criminal justice aspects of the case. We wanted to do 

it, and had several false starts, but 

it’s complicated asking clients for 

information. It never worked out.” 

Evaluation Team Members’ 

Responsibilities 

Work on the evaluation purpose and 

design can begin after an evaluation team 

is assembled. Throughout the planning 

and implementation process, team members will be assigned to various tasks. It is 

imperative to inform the evaluation team 

of the inherent burden that an evaluation 

places on team members and on the program. The chart in exhibit 3.2 (see also the 

planning form depicted in exhibit 8.1) and 

the exercises below provide examples of 

the ways in which expectations, responsibility, and organizational activities can be 

defined and accomplished by the team 

(Gunn 1987; Shapiro and Blackwell 1987). 

Evaluation Team Exercises 

A working paper 

One way to involve all players in the decisionmaking process is through a working 

paper that outlines the technical language 

and the process of evaluation, and that 

includes schematic drawings of the steps 

in the process. The working paper is presented to the evaluation team by the evaluator. The evaluator begins with informal 

lessons in evaluation research and moves 

step by step into mapping out considerations, options, and decisions. 

16 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

The Delphi Method 

The Delphi Method is another group activity to elicit information from group members (Gunn 1987). The meeting can begin 

with a discussion of the purpose of the 

evaluation and proceed to having the team 

generate and prioritize a list of potential 

factors that could impact the evaluation 

(e.g., environmental, financial, managerial, 

material, sociological). Member ideas from 

these sessions should be recorded. The 

same procedures can be repeated for the 

remaining aspects of the evaluation. 

Create lists 

Another useful exercise to facilitate team 

discussions is to create lists of activities 

that the team will need to address. 

Creating and using lists for discussion 

can also be incorporated into the exercises. The following list-making activities 

enable team members to appreciate the 

association between the CAC’s activities 

and the program by providing an opportunity for each team member to express 

what he or she thinks is important about 

the program and by fostering discussion 

among other members (see also “Putting 

it all together: Building the logic model,” 

chapter 5): 

■ Realistic project goals and corresponding activities that are expected to lead 

to particular outcomes. 

■ Project services and other activities. 

■ Background characteristics of clients 

that might influence the relationship 

between activities and goals, such as 

history of abuse or need for translators. 

■ Events or factors during or after program activities that could influence how 

or whether the project accomplishes its 

goals; one example is factors that may 

affect desired outcomes, such as strong 

ties to family. 

Concerns and responses letter 

During the planning phase, it may be 

beneficial to survey staff, agencies, and 

other relevant parties to determine their 

concerns and possible areas of confusion 

regarding the forthcoming evaluation. A 

formal letter (see exhibit 3.3) to those 

involved in the evaluation, coauthored 

by the director and the evaluator and 

approved by the team, can address 

those issues. 

17 

Chapter 4: Program Monitoring Evaluations


This chapter is a step-by-step description 

of a program monitoring evaluation. Program monitoring (also referred to as 

process evaluation) is the systematic documentation of key aspects of a program’s 

performance that indicate whether it is 

functioning as intended and according to 

appropriate standards. (This resource uses 

the National Children’s Alliance standards 

for membership as the standard.) 

children.” 

“To find out if the center is truly child friendly 

and less traumatic to children, we have to ask 

The primary purpose of a program monitoring evaluation (PME) is to determine the 

degree of discrepancy between the program as intended and as implemented. 

The evaluation describes how a program is 

operating and assesses how well it is performing its intended functions (Rossi, 

Freeman, and Lipsey 1999). 

Program monitoring information may be 

based on surveys completed by staff at 

the Child Advocacy Center (CAC), the families served by the center, and the multidisciplinary team (MDT) members. These 

surveys describe the MDT’s perceptions 

of the center’s performance. This information will allow comparison between the 

staff’s perceptions of what the agency is 

doing (and how well it is doing it) and the 

perceptions held by the CAC clients (families, the MDT). 

Ideally, the families’ or the MDT’s perceptions of the CAC program and procedures 

will corroborate the staff’s perceptions. 

If only the CAC staff complete the questionnaires, the results will yield some evidence of the program’s strengths and 

weaknesses, but it will not be as strong or 

compelling as when there is corroborating 

evidence. 

A PME includes these steps: 

1.	 Define each kind of service available to 

clients. Among CACs, some services 

are standardized; for example, most 

CACs have a child interview component. However, each component has 

variations, for example: How much 

information does an interviewer have 

before conducting the child interview? 

Who conducts the child interview 

(someone on staff, police, Child Protective Services [CPS])? Therefore, 

describe in detail what a child interview 

entails. 

2. Identify important events. 

3. Indicate what should happen at each 

step. A flowchart of program activities, 

such as that shown in exhibit 4.1, can 

help identify important events and what 

should happen at each step. 

4. Stipulate the desired achievement level. 

Define standards for success based on 

experience, performance of comparable 

programs, and professional judgment. 

19 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

5. Specify the actual services provided. 

There may be some discrepancy 

between the services the agency 

intends to provide and the services 

actually provided. Implementation failure can occur in three ways: (1) no 

services are delivered, (2) the wrong 

services are delivered, or (3) the services delivered are not standardized 

(Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey 1999). 

To determine the services provided to 

clients, consider using a form like the 

one shown in exhibit 4.2. List the activities in the far left column and specify 

the purpose of the activity. Each CAC 

employee should record the duration of 

each activity for each client. 

6. Determine whether the agency is in 

legal, ethical, and regulatory compliance. Consult each State’s statutes and 

policies. 

7. Determine whether the agency meets 

the standards for all programs by comparing the actual performance with the 

defined standards. 

8. Assess deviations from the ideal program. Discuss why they occurred and 

how they affect the center’s goals. 

Appendix C contains sample PME measures for six components and sample satisfaction evaluations for three audiences 

(parents and child clients, the MDT, and 

staff). The first sample evaluation (“ChildFriendly Facility Program Monitoring 

Evaluation”) outlines all the considerations 

for a PME: 

■ The purpose of the evaluation. 

■ Participant recruitment. 

■ The number of participants needed. 

■ Participant eligibility. 

■ A recruitment script. 

■ When and where to recruit participants. 

■ Instruments to be administered. 

■ Who should administer instruments. 

■ When and how often to administer 

instruments. 

■ Where to administer instruments. 

The remaining PMEs provide only information that is unique to that type of 

evaluation: 

■ Program monitoring evaluations (childfriendly facility, child interview, medical 

examination, mental health services, 

victim advocacy, and case review). 

■ Client satisfaction evaluations (MDT, 

staff, parent, and child satisfaction). 

The corresponding measures can be 

found in appendix C. 

Child-Friendly Facility 

Program Monitoring 

Evaluation 

Purpose 

The child-friendly facility component of a 

PME determines whether the agency 

meets the standards for a child-friendly 

facility. Do not hesitate to involve families 

in an evaluation of the program. CAC 

directors who have involved families in 

evaluations report that families have been 

very cooperative. 

Participants 

Number of participants needed. Rather 

than specifying a certain number of participants required for this evaluation, it is 

better to recruit all eligible individuals 

during a specified period of time (e.g., 

6 months, every other month for 1 year, 

or some other timeframe) or randomly 

20 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

junior high students.” 

“We asked nonabused kids questions about 

our center. We conducted focus groups with 

select participants (e.g., select every fifth 

person referred to the CAC). Ensure that 

the staff are consistent and thorough in 

recruiting participants. 

Participant eligibility. Eligibility to participate in the evaluation will depend on the 

type of PME. Selecting eligibility criteria 

will help focus recruitment efforts. For a 

child-friendly facility PME, potential participants include CAC staff, the MDT, parents, and children. 

CAC staff. During the planning stages, 

alert staff of their evaluation responsibilities and obtain their consent to participate 

and their commitment to the evaluation. 

To avoid staff bias in completing questionnaires, give them complete independence 

and anonymity, without fear of retribution. 

This is obviously more difficult in smaller 

centers. Select staff who have consistent 

access to the facility, are paid employees 

of the CAC, and are knowledgeable about 

the CAC’s child-friendly environment. 

Multidisciplinary team members. The 

MDT has considerable exposure to the 

center; therefore, team members will 

be qualified to comment on the childfriendliness of the center. Invite those 

MDT members who have regular contact 

with the CAC to participate. 

Parents or guardians. Centers are designed with parents in mind, as well as 

children. Therefore, invite nonoffending 

parents to participate. 

Children seen at the CAC. Centers are 

designed for children; therefore, invite 

them to evaluate the child-friendliness of 

the center. Most directors (95 percent) 

report that they are willing to ask children 

questions about the center. Invite children 

who are under age 18, referred to the 

center for a child sexual abuse (CSA) investigation,1 and reside within the CAC’s 

jurisdiction.2 Parental consent will need to 

be obtained for children to participate in 

the evaluation. 

Community children. Consider inviting 

children from a local school to assess the 

center. Most directors believe that children will be honest in their appraisals and 

their feedback will be invaluable. Parental 

consent will need to be obtained for children to participate in the evaluation. 

Participant recruiter. Someone will need 

to be in charge of inviting people to participate in the evaluation (i.e., recruitment). 

Decide during the planning stages who 

will invite individuals to participate and 

explain the study to them. 

Recruitment script. Create a recruitment 

script to ensure that all recruitment efforts 

are similar. Think about what information 

individuals will need in order to make an 

informed decision about whether to participate (see “Confidentiality,” chapter 7). 

This is a sample script: 

I understand what a difficult time 

this is, but we are hoping to improve our services for families like 

yours who visit our center. I have a 

questionnaire asking about your 

thoughts about our center that I 

would like you fill out [or “I have a 

few questions I’d like to ask you 

about our center”]. It will take you 

XX minutes and would be very helpful to us and to families like yours. 

Would you be willing to help us out? 

Recruitment timing. When to recruit 

participants will depend on who the 

participants are. 

21 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

CAC staff and the MDT. Introduce the idea 

of an evaluation and obtain the full cooperation of the staff and the MDT before 

beginning the evaluation, preferably during the planning phase. 

Parents or guardians and children. Introduce the idea of participating in the evaluation when telling parents and children 

what to expect while at the center. Although they will complete the questionnaire at a later time, they will need some 

time to decide whether they are willing to 

participate. Never place families in an uncomfortable position by asking them to 

make an immediate decision. 

Where to recruit participants. Where to 

recruit participants will depend on who 

the participants are. 

CAC staff. CAC staff could be recruited at 

staff meetings, where everyone is together and the issues associated with an evaluation can be thoroughly discussed. 

MDT. The most effective and efficient 

place to recruit the MDT is at case review, 

where most members are present. 

Parents or guardians and children. Recruit 

parents and children in the waiting room 

or where the initial parent interview takes 

place. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. Staff, 

the MDT, parents, and children may complete four comparable instruments to 

measure perceptions of the child-friendly 

facility. Instruments are located in 

appendix C. 

Staff can complete the— ■ Child-Friendly Facility: General Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Staff Form. 

■ Child-Friendly Facility: Specific Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Staff Form. 

■ Home Observation for the Measurement of the Environment (HOME). 

MDT members can complete the— ■ Child-Friendly Facility: General 

Program Monitoring Questionnaire— 

Multidisciplinary Team Form. 

■ Child-Friendly Facility: Specific 

Program Monitoring Questionnaire— 

Multidisciplinary Team Form. 

Parents and guardians can complete the 

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Parent Form. 

Children can complete the Child-Friendly 

Facility: General Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Youth Form (modify this 

questionnaire to suit the age of the child). 

Administration of instruments. Staff 

may administer the questionnaires to 

themselves. Someone else (e.g., the data 

collector) should be responsible for ensuring that staff members complete the 

questionnaires. Someone neutral (preferably not a CAC staff person or an MDT 

member) should administer the questionnaire to the MDT. Someone who does not 

work directly with the family should administer the questionnaires to parents or 

guardians and children. 

How often and when to administer 

instruments. Typically, there will be a 

period of time during which the evaluation 

is taking place (e.g., a 5-month period). It 

is necessary to collect data from respondents only once because the evaluation 

is not designed to measure perceptions 

of the child-friendly facility over time. 

Parents, guardians, and children should 

complete the questionnaire after they 

have become comfortable with the center. For most families, this will be just 

before they leave the center; for parents it 

may be during the child interview. Staff 

and MDT members should complete the 

questionnaire at approximately the same 

22 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

time, for example, near the end of the 

evaluation. 

Location for administering instruments. Staff can complete the questionnaire anywhere at the CAC. The MDT can 

complete the questionnaire at a case 

review meeting. They may take it with 

them if they promise to return it promptly. 

Most centers have a waiting room where 

clients complete paperwork and wait for 

their child while the child is being interviewed. If the center typically sees one 

family at a time, it would be appropriate to 

have families complete the questionnaires 

in the waiting room, even if the questionnaire has to be read or interpreted for the 

family. If the center typically has many 

families in the waiting area, it still may be 

appropriate for them to complete the 

questionnaire in the waiting room if parents are able to read the questionnaire 

themselves. 

If many families are in the waiting room 

and the questionnaire needs to be read to 

a family, it would be preferable to find a 

quiet, private location. However, some 

centers do not have that kind of available 

space. If someone needs to read the 

questionnaire to a parent, the parent can 

maintain privacy by writing answers on 

his or her copy of the questionnaire. 

Child Investigative Interview 

Program Monitoring 

Evaluation 

Purpose 

The child investigative interview component of the PME determines whether the 

agency is meeting the standards for a 

child interview. Every CAC follows different procedures for conducting these interviews. Therefore, the first step should be 

to outline the procedures the center uses 

for a child interview. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Potential participants in this evaluation include child 

interviewers, children participating in a 

child interview, parents, and the MDT 

members who observe the interview 

(provided they observed the interview or 

participated in the preinterview conference and postconference planning of the 

interview). Because the child investigative 

interview ultimately is for the MDT members, as well as for the child, the MDT 

should participate in the evaluation of the 

child investigative interview program. 

CAC child interviewers. Some centers 

have a number of child interviewers, other 

centers have just one, and still others 

have child interviewers from law enforcement and CPS. Select individuals who 

interview children at the center regarding 

CSA allegations. 

Children. To obtain the perceptions of the 

children being interviewed, select children 

who are under age 18, were referred to 

the center for a CSA investigation, and 

reside within the CAC’s jurisdiction. 

Parental consent will need to be obtained 

for children to participate in the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians. Parents may be less 

informed about the child interview because they were not present. Nonetheless, they may be able to provide some 

perspective based on information they 

receive about the child interview or their 

perception of the child’s anxiety surrounding the interview. Select nonoffending parents or guardians whose children were 

interviewed at the CAC for allegations of 

CSA. 

When to recruit. When to recruit participants will depend on who the participants 

are. 

CAC child interviewers. Child interviewers 

should be made aware of the evaluation 

during the planning phase of the evaluation. 

23 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 Parents or guardians and children. The 

permission of parents or guardians to 

recruit children for the evaluation is 

needed. Depending on the age of the 

child, you might recruit parents and children together. Tell parents and children 

about the evaluation soon after they arrive 

at the center, even though they will not 

complete any questionnaires until later 

in their visit. This will give parents and 

children an opportunity to think about 

whether they want to participate. 

MDT. The optimal time to recruit the MDT 

is during the case review meeting when 

all the MDT members are gathered 

together. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. Five 

instruments that measure the perceptions 

of the child’s interview are located in 

appendix C. 

Child interviewers can complete the— ■ Child Investigative Interview Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Child 

Interviewer Form. 

■ Child Investigative Interview Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Child 

Interviewer Form—Short Form. 

Parents and guardians can complete the 

Child Investigative Interview Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Parent Form. 

Children can complete the Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Youth Form. 

MDT members can complete the Child 

Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—Multidisciplinary Team 

Form. 

Administration of instruments. The child 

interviewers can complete their own 

form. To maintain the child interviewer’s 

distinct role, that person should not question the child or the parent about the 

interview process. However, the administrator of the questionnaire should be 

familiar with the child and parent(s). For 

the MDT, someone other than the child 

interviewer should administer the questionnaire to the MDT. 

How often and when to administer 

instruments. This information is collected 

only one time, immediately following the 

child interview. Child interviewers should 

complete a questionnaire following each 

child interview. Children and parents can 

complete the questionnaire sometime 

between finishing the child interview and 

leaving the center. The MDT should complete a questionnaire after each interview 

for a specified period of time (e.g., 6 

months), depending on the purpose of 

the evaluation. Another sampling strategy 

is to have the MDT complete a questionnaire after every fifth interview, again over 

a specified period of time. 

Location for administering the instruments. Child interviewers can complete 

the questionnaire in their office. Parents 

can complete the questionnaires in the 

waiting room or in a private room, if one is 

available. Do not administer the questionnaire to children (or ask children questions 

about their experience) in the interview 

room, even if they are being questioned 

immediately after the interview. Take children to a neutral location where privacy is 

ensured to administer the questionnaire. 

To maintain children’s confidentiality, do 

not question them about the interview 

process or the interviewer in the presence of their parents. Preferably, the MDT 

will complete the questionnaire at the 

CAC just following the child investigative 

interview. Therefore, the questionnaire 

can be completed by the MDT in the 

observation room or some other private 

room at the CAC. 

24 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Other types of child investigative interview program monitoring evaluations 

Peer review of videotaped interviews. 

Several centers conduct peer review of 

videotaped child interviews. This method 

gives interviewers feedback on their interviewing skills, so they can continually 

improve those skills. 

Child interviewer rating scale. Bernie 

Newman of the Department of Sociology 

at Tufts University is developing a rating 

scale to evaluate the interviewer. Contact 

Chris Kirchner at the Philadelphia CAC for 

more information; 4000 Chestnut Street, 

Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104, 

215–387–9500. 

Medical Examination 

Program Monitoring 

Evaluation 

Purpose 

The medical examination component of 

a PME determines whether the CAC is 

meeting the standards for conducting a 

medical examination. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Potential participants in the medical examination portion 

of the PME include health care providers, 

CAC staff, children, and parents. 

Health care providers. Select health care 

providers who conduct CSA medical examinations for the CAC, either onsite or 

offsite. 

CAC staff. Recruit staff who deal with the 

medical examination in some capacity. 

Children. To obtain the perceptions of children receiving a medical examination, 

select children who underwent a medical 

examination for CSA either onsite or offsite, are under age 18, were referred to 

the center for a CSA investigation, and 

reside within the CAC’s jurisdiction. 

Parental consent will need to be obtained 

for children to participate in the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians. To include parents 

of children receiving a CSA medical examination, select nonoffending parents 

whose child has received an examination. 

When to recruit participants. When to 

recruit participants will depend on who 

the participants are. 

Health care providers. Recruit health care 

providers during the planning stages of 

the evaluation. Include them in designing 

the evaluation to encourage their ownership of the evaluation. 

CAC staff. Recruit staff during the planning stages of the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians and children. Most 

centers conduct the child interview on 

one day and schedule the medical examination for another day. Inform parents of 

the evaluation during the initial meeting at 

the center, even though they will be completing the instrument on another day. 

This gives parents time to think about 

whether they want to participate. If possible, hand the parents a card that describes the evaluation. Remember to 

obtain parental consent for children to participate in the evaluation. (A few centers 

conduct the medical examination before 

the interview, and still other centers provide both services on the same day. A different recruitment method will be needed 

for these centers.) 

25 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

Recruitment script. Recruitment scripts 

should be tailored to meet the concerns 

of each category of participant. 

Health care providers. Acknowledge that 

this evaluation may be burdensome for 

them and that coordination may be an 

issue. Emphasize the importance of the 

evaluation. 

CAC staff. Emphasize the benefits gained 

from an evaluation while acknowledging 

the added burden of an evaluation. 

Parents or guardians and children. Before 

writing a recruitment script for parents 

and children, think about what information 

parents and children will need to make an 

informed decision about participating in 

the evaluation. Consider describing the 

evaluation to the parents, informing them 

that they will not be completing the questionnaire until after the medical examination, whenever it is scheduled. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. 

Instruments to measure the perceptions 

of the medical examination procedures 

are located in appendix C. 

Health care providers can complete the— 

■ Medical Examination Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Health 

Care Providers Form. 

■ Factors Associated With Reduced 

Stress Associated With a Medical 

Examination—Health Care Providers 

Form. 

CAC staff can complete the Quality 

Assurance for Medical Examination Chart 

Review—CAC Staff Form. 

Parents and guardians can complete the 

Medical Examination Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Parent Form. 

Children can complete the Medical 

Examination Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Youth Form. 

Administration of instruments. Responsibility for administering the questionnaire will depend on the participants. 

Health care providers. Health care providers can complete their own questionnaire. Whoever is in charge of data 

collection will need to be vigilant in collecting the information from both onsite 

and offsite health care providers. 

CAC staff. Staff can complete their own 

forms. 

Parents or guardians and children. Medical 

personnel should not administer the medical examination component of the program monitoring questionnaire to parents 

or children. The administrator should be 

someone who is familiar with the parents 

and children. 

How often and when to administer 

instruments. Each participant in the CSA 

medical examination should complete a 

questionnaire following the examination, 

as follows: 

Health care providers. Health care providers should complete the questionnaire 

after conducting each CSA medical examination. Adopt procedures to ensure that 

the questionnaires are kept anonymous. 

CAC staff. Staff should complete the 

questionnaire after conducting each CSA 

medical examination in which they are 

involved. 

Parents or guardians and children. Parents 

and children can complete the questionnaire after the child’s medical examination, whether the examination is onsite or 

offsite. 

Location for administering the instruments. Where the questionnaire is 

26 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

administered will depend on who the 

participants are and where the medical 

examination is conducted. 

Health care providers. Health care providers can complete the questionnaire in 

their office. 

CAC staff. Staff can complete the questionnaire in their office at the CAC. 

Children. Some centers conduct medical 

examinations onsite, while other centers 

make referrals for medical examinations 

offsite. If families are referred to another 

location for a medical examination, make 

arrangements for children to complete the 

questionnaire at the remote location. Be 

sure children complete the questionnaire 

in a location other than the medical examination room, preferably in the absence of 

their parents. 

Parents or guardians. If medical examinations are conducted at the center, parents 

can complete the questionnaire in the 

waiting room or in the medical examination room after the child has left the room. 

If families are referred to another location 

for a medical examination, make arrangements for parents to complete the questionnaire at the remote location. Parents 

should not complete the questionnaire 

while their children are present. 

Second opinion software 

Several centers use peer review for medical examinations. Some centers have 

software that allows physicians to send 

film containing medical results over the 

Internet so that other physicians can provide a second opinion. Others show the 

medical data to colleagues who provide 

a second opinion in person. However, 

physicians have noted that it is possible 

for the opinions of people who are doing 

these exams in one region to become 

meshed. Therefore, they suggest establishing interrater reliability by seeking 

review from physicians from other parts of 

the country. 

Mental Health Services 

Program Monitoring 

Evaluation 

Purpose 

A mental health services PME determines 

whether the CAC is meeting the standards for providing mental health services 

or referring children and families to mental 

health services. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Potential participants for the mental health services portion of the PME include mental health 

professionals, children, and parents. 

Mental health professionals. Invite those 

mental health professionals who provide 

therapy either onsite or offsite to CSA victims referred to the CAC to participate in 

the evaluation. 

Children. To obtain the perceptions of children receiving mental health services, 

invite children who are receiving therapy 

for CSA, are under age 18, were referred 

to the center for CSA, and reside within 

the CAC’s jurisdiction. Parental consent 

will need to be obtained for children to 

participate in the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians. Invite parents who 

received a referral for their child’s therapy 

from the CAC, have a child under age 18 

referred to the center for allegations of 

CSA, are the nonoffending parent, and 

reside within the CAC’s jurisdiction. 

When to recruit participants. When to 

recruit participants will depend on who 

the participants are. 

27 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

Mental health professionals. Arrange for 

mental health professionals to participate 

in the evaluation during the planning 

phase of your evaluation. Working with 

offsite therapists will require much coordination. Involve mental health professionals as early and as much as possible in 

the planning of the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians and children. 

Whether the center provides onsite or offsite therapy, recruit parents and children 

while they are at the center, even though 

they will complete questionnaires at a 

later time. If possible, hand them a card 

they can take with them describing the 

evaluation. If mental health services are 

provided onsite, ask parents to think 

about the evaluation. When their child 

returns for the first therapy session, they 

can decide whether to participate in the 

evaluation. If mental health services are 

provided offsite, inform parents that they 

will be asked to participate when they 

arrive for their first therapy session. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. Four 

instruments that measure individuals’ 

perceptions of the mental health services 

are located in appendix C. 

Mental health professionals can complete 

the— ■ Mental Health Services Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Therapist 

Form. 

■ Therapeutic Intervention Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Therapist 

Form. 

Parents and guardians can complete 

the Mental Health Services Program 

Monitoring Questionnaire—Parent Form. 

Children can complete the Mental 

Health Services Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Youth Form. 

Administration of instruments. Responsibility for administering the questionnaire 

will depend on who the participants are. 

Mental health professionals. The mental 

health professionals can administer the 

questionnaires to themselves. The person 

responsible for data collection may have 

responsibility for collecting questions 

from mental health professionals. 

Parents or guardians and children. Who 

administers the questionnaires to parents 

will depend on where therapy is taking 

place. If the services are onsite, someone 

at the center who is familiar with the family can administer the questionnaires to 

parents and children. It is more difficult to 

arrange the evaluation when services are 

provided offsite. Several CACs have 

arranged to have someone at the remote 

location administer the questionnaires. To 

maintain the therapist’s distinct role, mental health professionals should not question parents and children about mental 

health services. 

Location for administering instruments. Where the questionnaire is 

administered will depend on who the 

participants are. 

Mental health professionals. Mental 

health professionals can complete the 

questionnaire in their office. 

Parents or guardians and children. Parents 

and children can complete questionnaires 

in the waiting room where the services 

are being delivered, either onsite or offsite. 

Other mental health services 

program monitoring evaluations 

To track whether children are still in therapy, therapists can complete a monthly 

form noting which children referred from 

the center are still attending and their 

attendance record, which children have 

quit therapy prematurely, and which have 

completed therapy. 

28 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Victim Advocacy Program 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Purpose 

A victim advocacy PME determines 

whether the center is meeting the standards for providing victim advocacy services to parents and children referred to 

the center. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Potential participants for a victim advocacy PME include 

victim advocates, parents, and children. 

Victim advocates. The eligibility of victim 

advocates depends on what model the 

CAC has adopted. 

■ Onsite CAC victim advocate. All victim 

advocates who provide services for 

families at the center are eligible to 

participate in the evaluation. 

■ Offsite victim advocate. If the victim 

advocates are located in another agency 

(e.g., prosecutor’s office) but are involved in the center, include these individuals in the evaluation. However, if 

the victim advocates provide completely 

distinct services that do not directly 

affect the center, they may be excluded 

from the evaluation. 

■ Onsite victim advocate and offsite victim advocate. Some centers have both 

onsite and offsite victim advocates. 

Again, if the offsite victim advocates are 

involved in the center, include these 

individuals in the evaluation. 

Parents or guardians. Include parents 

receiving services from a victim advocate. 

Select nonoffending parents whose child 

is under age 18 and was referred to the 

CAC for a CSA investigation. 

Children. Whether it is appropriate to 

invite children to participate in the evaluation will depend on the center’s 

procedures. If children participate, 

parental consent will need to be obtained. 

Include children who receive services 

from a victim advocate (or a child advocate), are under age 18, were referred 

for CSA, and reside within the CAC’s 

jurisdiction. 

When to recruit participants. When to 

recruit participants will depend on who 

the participants are and on when and 

where the victim advocate provides services to victims of CSA and their families. 

Victim advocates. Obtain the commitment of the victim advocates to participate in the planning phase of the 

evaluation. 

Parents or guardians and children. If the 

victim advocate provides services to parents and children only while the families 

are at the center, have parents and children complete the questionnaire while at 

the center. Invite parents and children to 

participate during the initial parent interview. If the victim advocate provides 

services throughout the process, invite 

parents and children to participate at 

some point during their initial visit to the 

center. If possible, hand them a card to 

take with them describing the evaluation 

and tell families they will be contacted at 

a later time about their participation. If the 

victim advocate provides services to families only after a decision to proceed to 

court, recruit families before they leave 

the center. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. Three 

instruments that measure perceptions of 

the victim advocate’s services are included in appendix C. 

Victim advocates can complete the 

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Victim Advocate Form. 

Parents and guardians can complete the 

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Parent Form. 

29 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

Children can complete the Victim 

Advocacy Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—Youth Form. 

Administration of instruments. In 

assigning responsibility for administering 

the questionnaire, the victim advocate’s 

role must be kept separate from the evaluation process. 

Victim advocates. Victim advocates can 

complete their own questionnaire. 

Parents or guardians and children. To 

maintain the victim advocate’s distinct 

role in providing referral services and 

assistance through the court process to 

parents and children, the victim advocate 

should not administer the questionnaire 

to parents and children. 

How often and when to administer 

instruments. Victim advocates, parents, 

and children should complete questionnaires as follows: 

Victim advocates. Each victim advocate 

should complete a questionnaire after the 

family’s first visit. If victim advocates have 

ongoing contact with families, then the 

victim advocate can complete a questionnaire after each subsequent contact or at 

periodic intervals. 

Parents or guardians and children. If victim advocates provide one-time services, 

parents and children should complete the 

questionnaire during their first visit to 

the CAC, preferably just before leaving the 

center. 

If victim advocates provide ongoing services, parents and children should complete the questionnaire during their first 

visit to the CAC and at specified periods 

thereafter (e.g., once a month, every 

other month). Base the frequency of 

these questionnaires on the center’s 

average length of contact with families. 

Location for administering instruments. Where the questionnaire is 

administered will depend on who the 

participants are. 

Victim advocates. Victim advocates can 

complete the questionnaire in their office. 

Parents or guardians and children. Where 

parents and children complete questionnaires will depend on the center’s procedures. As a rule, however, parents and 

children can complete the questionnaire 

in the waiting room. For followup data collection, families may need to answer 

questions over the telephone. 

Case Review Program 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Purpose 

The case review component of a PME 

determines whether the CAC is meeting 

the standards for case review. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Potential participants in the case review portion of the 

PME include agency representatives and 

CAC staff. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

Recruit representatives from each of the 

agencies affiliated with the CAC that 

attend case review meetings. 

CAC staff. Recruit staff who attend case 

review meetings. 

When to recruit participants. When to 

recruit participants will depend on who 

the participants are. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

Recruit MDT members during the planning stages of the evaluation. Include 

30 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

them in designing the evaluation to encourage their ownership of the evaluation. 

CAC staff. Recruit staff during the planning stages of the evaluation to ensure 

their buy-in and draw upon their expertise. 

Recruitment script. Recruitment scripts 

should be tailored to meet the concerns 

of each category of participant. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

Acknowledge that this evaluation may be 

burdensome for them and that coordination may be an issue. Emphasize the 

importance of the evaluation. 

CAC staff. Emphasize the benefits gained 

from an evaluation while acknowledging 

the added burden of an evaluation. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. 

Instruments to measure the perceptions 

of the case review meetings and procedures are located in appendix C. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies 

can complete the— 

■ Case Review Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—A 

■ Case Review Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—B 

■ Case Review Meetings and 

Procedures Questionnaires 

CAC staff can complete the--

■ Case Review Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—A 

■ Case Review Program Monitoring 

Questionnaire—B 

■ Case Review Meetings and 

Procedures Questionnaires 

Administration of instruments. The person 

who administers and collects the questionnaires should be a neutral and trusted 

individual. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

An individual who does not regularly 

attend case review should administer the 

questionnaires to the MDT members to 

maintain neutrality. 

CAC staff. An individual who does not regularly attend case review should administer the questionnaires to the staff to 

maintain neutrality. 

How often and when to administer 

instruments. Each participant in the case 

review component of a PME should complete the questionnaires as follows: 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

MDT members initially should complete 

the questionnaire one time, evaluate the 

results, and determine how often thereafter to administer the questionnaire (e.g., 

quarterly, yearly). The purpose at this 

point is to get a snapshot of how the case 

review meetings and procedures are 

working. 

CAC staff. Staff should complete the 

questionnaire on the same schedule as 

the MDT members. 

Location for administering the instruments. Where the questionnaire is 

administered will depend on who the 

participants are. 

Representatives from affiliated agencies. 

It is optimal for MDT members to complete the questionnaire at some point 

during the case review meeting when 

everyone is present. However, some 

members may prefer to complete the 

questionnaire in a private location. If this 

is the case, make firm arrangements for 

31 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

the MDT members to return the questionnaire (e.g., at the following case review 

meeting). 

CAC Staff. Staff can complete the questionnaire at the same location as the MDT 

members or in their office at the CAC. 

Parent Satisfaction Program 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Purpose 

Although it is important to know whether 

the CAC is providing particular services to 

clients (i.e., through a program monitoring 

evaluation), their level of satisfaction with 

those services also matters. An easy way 

to link program services with outcomes is 

to use client satisfaction questionnaires, 

which are among the most common form 

of evaluation used by CAC directors. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. Although centers 

are developed with children in mind, children and parents cannot be separated. 

Therefore, it will be important to obtain 

the perceptions of nonoffending parents 

(or guardians) who have a child under age 

18 referred to the center for a CSA investigation and reside within the CAC’s 

jurisdiction. 

When to recruit participants. Recruit 

parents during their initial parent interview 

at the center, although parents will actually complete the questionnaire at some 

other time. This gives parents time to 

think about whether they want to participate in the evaluation and to experience 

the center before they comment on their 

satisfaction with it. 

Recruitment script. Make the same 

recruitment speech to all potential participants, perhaps adapting the following 

sample script: 

I understand what a difficult time 

this is, but we want to be sure that 

we are doing the best possible job 

at the center. We have a survey that 

we would appreciate you filling out 

for us. We believe that this information will help us better serve families like yours. The survey will 

probably take you 10 minutes to fill 

out. Your help will be very much 

appreciated. We encourage you to 

provide negative comments if that 

is how you feel. We want to turn 

those negative comments into positive changes. This information will 

help us improve our services to 

families and receive funding for the 

program so we can continue to 

operate. Would you be willing to 

help us? 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. A number of possible parent satisfaction questionnaires are located in appendix C. 

These questionnaires have been developed and used by centers across the 

country. Select one that reflects the goals 

of your evaluation. ■ Parents’ Perceptions of the Medical 

Examination 

■ Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health 

Services—Five Questions 

■ Parent Satisfaction Regarding 

Prosecution 

■ Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health 

Services 

■ Parent Satisfaction With the Victim 

Advocate 

■ Parent Satisfaction—3-Month Followup 

■ Parent Status—3-Month Followup 

■ Parent Status—6-Month Followup 

32 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

■ Parent Status—1-Year Followup 

■ Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire 

■ Parent/Caregiver Survey 

■ Parent Survey 

■ Family Satisfaction With CAC Services 

■ Parent Satisfaction—Multiple Systems 

Form 

■ Parent Questionnaire—Initial Telephone 

Interview 

■ Parent Questionnaire—3-Month 

Followup Telephone Interview 

■ Parent Satisfaction With the Child 

Advocacy Center 

■ Parent Survey—11 Questions 

■ Evaluation of Services 

■ The Child Advocacy Center Parent 

Survey 

■ We’d Like to Hear From You 

■ Client Satisfaction Questionnaire 

(CSQ–18A) 

■ Client Satisfaction Questionnaire 

(CSQ–18B) 

■ Client Satisfaction Questionnaire 

(CSQ–8) 

Administration of instruments. The person who administers the questionnaires 

to parents should not work directly with 

the parents. 

When and how often to administer 

instruments. Depending on the purpose 

of the evaluation, this questionnaire may 

be administered one time or multiple 

times over a specified period of time. For 

example, if the CAC is interested in how 

parents’ perceptions of the center change 

over time, collect data from families every 

other month until the case is closed. 

Trends in satisfaction will emerge, and 

staff will stay connected with the family 

throughout the investigation. 

Location for administering instruments. Initially, this information can be 

collected from families while they are at 

the center. However, all subsequent interviews may be conducted over the telephone (see “Followup Contact With 

Families” in chapter 7). 

Potential problems with parent 

satisfaction evaluations 

Parents do not return forms. When parents take instruments home to complete, 

the greatest obstacle is ensuring that they 

return the questionnaires to the center. 

The best solution is to have parents complete the form before they leave the center and to obtain followup contact 

information from families at that time. 

Parents confuse the CAC with other 

agencies. CAC directors are concerned 

that client satisfaction surveys are not 

valid. For example, parents may confuse 

the services provided by the center with 

the services provided by the various agencies represented on the MDT. One solution to this problem is to focus the questionnaire on services provided by the 

CAC. Also, if families complete the questionnaire while at the CAC, the visit to the 

center will be central in their minds. 

Clients do not supply honest responses. 

A good evaluation requires honest responses from participants. Directors are 

concerned that families are reluctant to say 

anything negative about the center, perhaps because of fear that their comments 

may affect their case or because they have 

not had enough experience with the center. Some directors have tried to rectify 

this problem by emphasizing to parents 

that both their positive and negative 

33 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

comments are necessary and that both 

kinds of information help the center to 

improve the services provided to families. 

Multidisciplinary Team 

Satisfaction Program 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Purpose 

An MDT satisfaction PME determines the 

team’s satisfaction with the CAC’s services. Many directors consider the agency 

as also being of service to the MDT, not 

just parents and children. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. All members of 

the MDT are eligible to participate, except 

for CAC staff. Most centers’ MDTs include the following members: 

■ Law enforcement personnel (police, 

detectives, sheriffs). 

■ Child protective service workers. 

■ Prosecution staff. 

■ Medical personnel. 

■ Mental health professionals. 

■ Victim advocates. 

When to recruit participants. Begin 

recruiting the MDT during the planning 

stages of the evaluation. Be sure to have 

one or two MDT representatives on the 

evaluation team to facilitate the cooperation of the MDT as well as to provide 

feedback on the evaluation design. It is 

important to have each team member 

complete an agency satisfaction questionnaire. Therefore, give the team ample 

time to become familiar and comfortable 

with the evaluation. 

Recruitment script. All MDT members 

should hear the same recruitment script. 

The following sample script may be 

adapted: 

We think each team member is an 

essential component in what we do 

here. We want to ensure that we 

are meeting your needs, so we invite you to participate in our evaluation by filling out this questionnaire. 

If we find that we need to adjust 

our procedures, that is great. That is 

the kind of feedback we need from 

you. The questionnaire should take 

you about 15 minutes to complete. 

You will be able to complete the 

questionnaire here after case review, or you can take it with you and 

return it at the next case review 

meeting. The questionnaire will be 

anonymous. We are confident this 

evaluation will help us serve you 

better. 

Where to recruit participants. The most 

convenient place to recruit the MDT is at 

case review, when all (or most) MDT 

members are together in one location. If 

your center does not engage in case review, then recruitment of the MDT may 

need to be done on an individual basis, 

perhaps when team members are visiting 

the CAC. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. A number of MDT questionnaires are located in 

appendix C. These questionnaires have 

been developed and used by centers 

across the country. 

■ Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire 

■ Multidisciplinary Team Survey 

■ Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Member’s 

Perceptions of the MDT 

34 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

■ Multidisciplinary Team Satisfaction 

■ Agency Satisfaction Survey 

■ State Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation 

■ Child Advocacy Center Agency Survey 

■ Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire 

■ Child Advocacy Center Team Evaluation 

■ Child Advocacy Center Yearend Survey 

■ Mental Health Agency Satisfaction 

Survey 

■ Agency Satisfaction Questionnaire 

■ Agency Evaluation 

■ Survey of the Multidisciplinary Team 

Regarding Protocols 

■ Director and Staff Satisfaction 

Questionnaire 

Administration of instruments. The person who administers and collects the 

questionnaires should be a neutral and 

trusted individual, preferably not an MDT 

member. 

When and how often to administer 

instruments. How often the instrument is 

administered depends on the purpose of 

the evaluation. At a minimum, the questionnaire should be administered once a 

year to monitor the program. However, 

some centers may distribute it every 6 

months to track progress during terms of 

rapid organizational change, while others 

may distribute it every 2 to 5 years to 

monitor the program. 

Location and time for administering 

instruments. There are several options 

for administering the questionnaire. 

However, it is recommended that the 

MDT complete the survey at the close of 

a case review meeting. It may also be 

useful to provide an incentive—such as 

lunch or home-baked cookies—to encourage the MDT to stay and complete the 

questionnaire. 

The questionnaire can be administered 

either before case review begins or after 

it ends. In either case, all or most of the 

MDT are present, ensuring that the questionnaires are completed and returned. 

Some team members, however, may be 

uncomfortable completing the questionnaire in the presence of their colleagues. 

The questionnaires might be given out at 

the close of case review (so it does not 

detract from case review) with the request that questionnaires be returned at 

the following case review. This way, team 

members can complete the form at their 

leisure and in the absence of team members. However, there may be some delay 

in receiving completed questionnaires. 

CAC staff satisfaction. The MDT instruments do not have a separate section 

to measure staff satisfaction with the 

director. However, a Director and Staff 

Satisfaction Questionnaire is located after 

all the MDT satisfaction instruments (see 

appendix C). 

Child Satisfaction Program 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Purpose 

Knowing that an agency is providing particular services to children is not enough. 

The children’s satisfaction with those 

services is also important. Therefore, this 

part of the evaluation determines children’s satisfaction with the services provided to them by the center. 

Participants 

Participant eligibility. A PME involving 

children is complex, partly because one 

must obtain the parent’s consent prior 

35 
CHAPTER 4 / JULY 04 

to inviting children to participate in the 

evaluation. 

Centers are designed to benefit children. 

Invite children to participate in the evaluation who are under age 18, were referred 

to the center for a CSA investigation, and 

reside within the CAC’s jurisdiction. 

Recruitment script. Great care must be 

taken when inviting children of different 

ages to participate in an evaluation. Write 

a script, or several scripts, perhaps adapting the following sample so it is age 

appropriate for each child: 

[Child’s name], you’ve been working 

really hard here today and you’ve 

been doing a great job. There is one 

more thing I’d like to ask you to do. 

I’m trying to make sure that we are 

doing the best possible job here at 

the center for kids like you. To figure 

that out, I’d like to ask you some 

questions about your visit here. I 

just want to know how things were 

for you during your visit here—good 

or bad. This will take us just a few 

minutes. Would you be willing to 

help me out? It’s entirely up to you. 

When to recruit participants. First, parents must give consent for their children 

to participate in an evaluation. Therefore, 

parents should be asked about participation during the initial parent interview at 

the center. After they have given their permission, the children can be asked to participate. Wait to invite younger children 

to participate until it is time for them to 

complete the questionnaire (or answer 

oral questions). Older children can be told 

about the evaluation early in their visit and 

can give their formal assent just before 

completing the questionnaire. Always 

respect a child’s right to refuse to participate, even if the parent gives consent. 

Administering instruments 

Instruments to be administered. A number of child satisfaction questionnaires are 

located in appendix C. These questionnaires have been developed and used by 

centers across the country. No single 

instrument is appropriate for all ages of 

children, making data analysis and interpretation more difficult. 

■ Child Satisfaction With the Prosecution ■ Child Satisfaction With the Medical 

Examination 

■ Child Interview—Child Form ■ Child Satisfaction With Child Advocacy 

Center Services 

■ Youth Satisfaction Questionnaire 

■ Child Questionnaire 

Administration of instruments. The 

person administering the questionnaire 

should not work directly with the children. 

However, if possible, the person should 

be someone the child is familiar with to 

prevent the child from feeling anxious 

about interacting with another stranger. 

The questionnaire administrator could 

interact with the child in the playroom for 

a few minutes before administering the 

questionnaire. 

When and how often to administer 

instruments. This information is collected 

only while the child is at the center. However, it might be interesting to obtain followup information to determine whether 

their perceptions of the CAC’s services 

changed over time. 

Location for administering instruments. Children should complete the 

questionnaires while at the center. Find 

a private, neutral location; the playroom 

may be distracting, and the child investigative interview room is inappropriate. 

36 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

If at all possible, ask children questions in 

the absence of their parents. 

Notes 

1. Recruit only children who are referred to the center for a CSA investigation because these children 

are similar in some important ways (e.g., they have 

all alleged that sexual abuse has occurred), which 

increases the similarity of the sample and therefore 

increases the statistical power. However, if recruiting 

all children referred to the center, note which type 

of abuse they have reported (e.g., physical, sexual, 

emotional, witnessing violence); the findings may be 

analyzed by these different categories of abuse. 

2. Occasionally a center will have a referral from a 

police department outside its jurisdiction, perhaps 

because it is a particularly difficult case. Because 

there may be something unique about the case, it 

is advisable to exclude these individuals from the 

evaluation. 

37 

Chapter 5: Outcome Evaluations


This chapter provides a step-by-step outline for conducting an outcome evaluation, which is the process of measuring 

whether a program has met its goals and 

can answer important questions about the 

program (Thompson and McClintock 1998). 

Outcome evaluations are useful for financial planning, grant writing, and program 

monitoring. They are also good tools for 

validating program practices. 

Steps in Developing an 

Outcome Evaluation 

we needed to know what to expect. There were 

things were good, bad, or indifferent.” 

“We decided to assess our program because 

no national data so we didn’t know whether 

Developing an outcome evaluation entails 

six steps. The following sections provide a 

brief overview of each step followed by 

detailed descriptions: 

1. Determine the goals. 

2. Develop the objectives. 

3. Identify procedures and processes. 

4. Determine the outcomes. 

5. Select the instruments. 

6. Build the logic model. 

Determine the goals 

Outcome evaluation is, in part, the process of judging whether a program is 

achieving or has achieved its intended 

goals (Craig and Metze 1986). A clear 

determination of the program’s goals is 

central to beginning this process and may 

be done collectively with the assistance of 

the members of the team. For goals to be 

useful, they should be specific. For example, rather than stating that the goal is to 

shorten the investigative process, the goal 

could be more concretely stated as decreasing the length of time between referral to the Child Advocacy Center (CAC) and 

the point when a decision is made about 

whether to prosecute the case. 

Develop the objectives 

Once goals have been determined, objectives can be developed. Objectives describe the knowledge, attitudes, and 

behaviors that the program intends to 

bring about. Constructing objectives involves writing operational definitions of 

the goals. The goals must be defined using 

terms and concepts that are observable 

and measurable. Defining concepts in 

operational terms can be one of the more 

difficult tasks encountered, but it is considered the hallmark of good research and 

evaluation. 

It is important to develop goals and objectives so the program results can be verified. The program’s goals and objectives 

form the foundation for selecting measures for the outcome evaluation and, 

hence, verifying results. 

39 
CHAPTER 5 / JULY 04 

Two interim steps should be completed 

before specifying the outcome to be 

measured by the evaluation: identifying 

the procedures and identifying the processes needed to convert the program’s 

procedures into outcomes. 

“Our greatest problem is we [the center and 

center—what is a positive outcome?” 

agencies] haven’t agreed on the goals of the 

United Way also provides excellent guidance on developing goals, objectives, and 

outcomes (United Way of America 1996). 

The following four points may be useful in 

creating clear objectives (Shortell and 

Richardson 1978): 

Use strong action-oriented verbs. Use 

strong concrete verbs to describe the 

observable or measurable behavior that 

will occur, such as “increase” rather than 

the weaker, less specific term “promote.” 

Strong action verbs include “to meet,” “to 

increase,” and “to find.” Weaker verbs 

include “to understand,” “to encourage,” 

and “to enhance.” 

State only one purpose or aim. The aim 

describes what will be done. Even though 

a center has multiple objectives, write 

only one objective at a time, clearly stating a single purpose for each. This enables 

the evaluation team to evaluate each 

objective separately and thus enables the 

center to determine which objective it is 

meeting. Specifying two or more objectives simultaneously makes it difficult to 

determine whether the center has truly 

achieved its objective because some, but 

not all, of the objective might be achieved. 

For example, rather than stating that the 

objective is to increase the number of 

cases accepted for prosecution and thereby increase conviction rates, break these 

objectives into two clearly defined 

objectives. The first objective might read: 

to increase the number of cases accepted 

for prosecution from 10 to 15 over a 1­

year period; and the second objective 

might read: to increase the rates of conviction of perpetrators from 3 to 5 out of 

100 over a 1-year period. 

Specify a single end product or result. 

Results describe evidence that will exist 

when the evaluation has been completed. 

As with specifying a single aim, specify a 

single result to clearly tie the result to the 

aim. For example, “to establish communication” is an aim rather than a result. Determine what constitutes evidence of 

communication in concrete terms (e.g., a 

telephone call, a meeting, a report); these 

are the results. If results are not specified, assessing success is difficult. 

Specify the expected time for achievement. It is also useful to specify the timeframe for achieving an objective. “As soon 

as possible” is not specific enough. It is 

more useful to specify a target date or 

range of target dates, such as “between 

May 1 and May 30.” 

Identify procedures and processes 

After the goals have been developed and 

the objectives defined, the next step is 

identifying the procedures needed to 

achieve the processes and outcomes. 

Procedures, processes, and outcomes are 

related in the following way: 

Procedures ➛ Processes ➛ Outcomes 

Procedures are the program’s activities 

that constitute the delivery of services. 

The procedures are chosen because they 

are hypothesized to produce changes in 

clients. How those changes come about 

is referred to as a process. 

Processes differ from procedures in that 

processes usually occur within the client, 

40 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

whereas procedures are observable 

actions of professionals and others who 

are trying to help the client (Yates 1996). 

Outcomes are the result of services and 

are specified in terms of goals. 

To develop an outcome evaluation, it is 

essential to examine the relationship between procedures, processes, and outcomes. For example— 

The CAC implements a program 

that involves having a specially 

trained interviewer interview children (procedure). Children who are 

interviewed by a specially trained 

interviewer are more comfortable 

and therefore experience lower 

levels of stress while being interviewed (process). Children with 

lower levels of stress provide a 

more complete account of the 

events (outcome). 

For each of the stated goals, describe in 

detail the procedures in place to accomplish the goals. A good outcome evaluation requires a program monitoring 

evaluation to ensure that the procedures 

are implemented as intended. 

Process involves how change comes 

about. To identify the process responsible 

for change, it is necessary to identify 

a theory and then construct if-then 

statements. 

The importance of theory. According to 

Chen and Rossi (1992), evaluation should 

be driven by theory. Program theory is 

defined as the set of assumptions about 

the manner in which the program is related to the social benefits it is expected to 

produce and the strategy and tactics the 

program has adopted to achieve its goals 

and objectives. Thus, theory describes 

what you believe happens and why. 

The following example demonstrates the 

importance of having a theory before the 

evaluation begins. Let’s say there is a high 

incidence of child sexual abuse (CSA) in a 

particular jurisdiction. In response, a CAC 

is developed in the community. Five years 

later there is a large decrease in the incidence of CSA cases in that jurisdiction. 

What accounts for the reduction? ■ There is a comprehensive method of 

processing CSA cases (i.e., the CAC). 

■ Cases are taken more seriously when 

they are reported (e.g., immediate 

response). 

■ Increased resources are available in 

the jurisdiction (e.g., revitalization or 

gentrification). 

■ Citizens are initially more likely to report 

CSA because they have learned there is 

a quick response to the problem. 

■ Unemployment has decreased in the 

jurisdiction. 

■ The individuals working on prevention 

programs in that jurisdiction are dedicated. 

■ The people working on these cases are 

more educated about the issue of CSA 

and therefore respond more effectively. 

■ There is greater publicity that CSA 

cases in the jurisdiction are being processed and prosecuted quickly and 

effectively, which may deter some 

perpetrators. 

■ The time from reporting a CSA case to 

prosecution has been shortened and 

thus fewer children are being victimized. 

■ The presence of the CAC in the community reminds potential perpetrators 

that CSA is taken seriously and therefore deters the perpetrator from offending against children (at least in that 

jurisdiction). 

■ More perpetrators are being sentenced, 

so fewer perpetrators are in the 

community. 

41 
CHAPTER 5 / JULY 04 

A combination of these factors could be 

at work, so it is important to collect data 

on as many of these factors as possible in 

order to test the competing explanations. 

If-then chain of events. Some predictions must be made about how the 

program’s activities might affect the outcomes. This hypothesis should be a 

testable (i.e., definable, observable, and 

measurable) statement that specifies a 

possible relationship between different 

aspects of a problem (Craig and Metze 

1986). A preferred method for developing 

a hypothesis is to construct detailed ifthen statements (United Way of America 

1996). For each specific goal component 

to be evaluated, create if-then statements. 

For example— 

If there is a case review, then team 

members will share information. 

If team members share information, 

then information distribution will be 

expedited. 

If information distribution is expedited, then the investigation period 

will be shorter. 

If the investigation period is shorter, 

then the length of time from receiving a report of CSA to a prosecutorial decision will be shorter. 

The theory selected has important implications for what is chosen to measure. 

For example— 

If multiple interviews are theoretically viewed as a stressor to children, then reducing the number of 

interviews should result in children 

experiencing lower levels of stress. 

Therefore, to determine whether 

the number of interviews reduces 

children’s stress, children’s stress 

levels should be measured. 

Determine the outcomes 

Outcomes are the operational definition 

of objectives. Consider the following factors when developing outcome statements. 

Indicators of outcomes. Indicators of 

outcomes must be observable, measurable, and unambiguous. They might include the number of events occurring in a 

specified period of time, the events themselves, or the number of questions asked 

of clients. For example, an indicator of 

parent satisfaction can be reflected in the 

answers parents give on a questionnaire 

about their perceptions of the center. An 

indicator of a speedy investigation might 

be the number of days between initial 

referral and a subsequent decision to 

prosecute. 

“The Child Crisis Unit [law enforcement] comThey 

found that arrests increased 73 percent and 

confessions increased 72 percent. They attribute this to the CAC team.” 

pared statistics for Year 5 and Year 6. 

Inferences based on research. If outcome indicators are unavailable, then 

existing research may be used to make 

inferences about outcomes. For example, 

if research shows that multiple interviews 

are stressful to children, and it can be 

shown that the CAC is conducting fewer 

child interviews per child, one might infer 

that children are experiencing lower levels 

of stress. However, such inferred evidence is not as strong as measurable 

indicators. 

Immediate, intermediate, and longterm outcomes. To understand the entire 

process, consider outcomes that are 

immediate, intermediate, and long term. 

42 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

The following is an example of a series of 

if-then statements that include immediate, intermediate, and long-term goals: 

If CSA cases are processed using 

the CAC’s specially trained interviewers (input), then children will 

experience lower levels of stress 

than children whose cases are processed through a conventional criminal justice system (immediate 

outcome). 

If children experience lower levels 

of stress, then they will provide a 

more complete disclosure (immediate outcome). 

If children provide a more complete 

disclosure, then prosecutors will be 

more likely to accept the case and 

prosecute the alleged perpetrator 

(intermediate outcome). 

If the prosecution accepts more 

cases for prosecution, then children 

may have to testify. However, children with lower levels of stress may 

appear more competent while testifying (intermediate outcome). 

If children appear competent while 

testifying, then more perpetrators 

will plead guilty or be convicted 

(intermediate outcome). 

If perpetrators plead guilty or are 

convicted, then they will be less 

likely to abuse children again (intermediate outcome). 

If perpetrators are less likely to 

abuse children, then fewer children 

will be sexually abused (long-term 

outcome). 

An evaluation may not include long-term 

outcomes, which is perfectly acceptable. 

The following steps are useful, nevertheless, for thinking through the problem: 

Define parameters. Clearly define what 

responsibility and credit the CAC can take 

for various outcomes. To say that CSA 

decreased in a community with a CAC 

might be inappropriate if the CAC processed only 20 percent of the reported 

cases. 

To say that a CAC is responsible for a 

communitywide reduction in CSA leaves 

the CAC open to criticism if the CSA rate 

increases because unemployment increases. Always define the outcome 

parameters in a way that allows only 

the CAC to be held accountable for the 

outcome. 

Measure and include multiple outcomes. A program for child victims of 

sexual or physical abuse (i.e., the CAC) 

should have diverse procedures, targeted 

processes, and outcomes. Therefore, 

measure as many outcomes as is reasonable. Measuring the same concepts in 

multiple ways also permits the CAC to 

have greater confidence in the results. 

Define success thresholds. In defining 

outcome success, Rossi, Freeman, and 

Lipsey (1999) recommend defining a 

“success threshold” for various services. 

Then, how many clients moved from below that threshold to above it after receiving CAC services can be reported. For 

example, a success threshold might be 

moving children 10 points on the Child 

Behavior Checklist rather than moving 

children from above to below the clinical 

level on the Child Behavior Checklist. 

Specify outcomes at different levels. 

Outcomes may differ by level. For example, an indicator of success at the governmental level might include employment, 

the economy, and the political climate. An 

indicator at the family level might include 

parent satisfaction with the CAC’s services. Both kinds of information can provide 

meaningful information for interpreting 

the results of the evaluation (see “Contexts,” chapter 8). 

43 
CHAPTER 5 / JULY 04 

Approximate goals. Goal approximation 

is another way to conceptualize outcomes. The goal approximation form in 

exhibit 5.1 facilitates the CAC’s thinking in 

terms of a scale of possible outcomes, 

from negative to positive. 

Select the instruments 

Once the outcomes are identified, select 

instruments to measure those outcomes. 

Appendix D contains forms and questionnaires for measuring outcomes in the following categories: 

■ Multidisciplinary Team 

— Child Advocacy Center Team


Evaluations 


— Key Informant Interview Questions 

— Interagency Collaboration


Questionnaire Forms


— Child Advocacy Center Team Meeting 

Assessment 

■ Child Investigative Interview 

— Assessment of the Interviewer 

■ Mental Health Services 

— Assessing Mental Health Services 

— Mental Health Services—Therapist 

Form 

— Form for Clinical Treatment Goals 

— Treatment and Outcomes Survey 

— Client Outcomes Reporting Form 

— Initial and Discharge Diagnostic


Assessment Form


■ Medical Examination 

— Assessing Medical Services 

— Genital Examination Distress Scale 

— Child’s Perceptions of the Genital 

Examination for Child Sexual Abuse 

— Parents’ Perceptions of the Genital 

Examination of Their Child for Child 

Sexual Abuse 

— Physician’s Perceptions of the


Medical Examination


■ Court Process 

— Children’s Perceptions of Court-


Related Stress


■ Case Tracking Forms 

— CARES NW Statistics Sheet 

— Case Tracking Questions 

— AWAKE Intake Report 

— CARES Program Intake Information 

Form 

— Georgia Center for Children Intake 

Sheet 

— Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/ 

Case Tracking Forms (for Information 

Gathered by Child Protective 

Services (CPS)) 

— Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/ 

Case Tracking Forms (for Information 

Gathered by Law Enforcement (LE)) 

— Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/ 

Case Tracking Forms Worksheet 

Legal/Court Process (for Information 

Gathered by County Attorney) 

— Georgia Center for Children Child


Victim Fact Sheet


— St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center— 

Prosecution Case Disposition Form 

44 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Putting it all together: Building 

the logic model 

After completing all the steps described 

earlier, practice the steps by putting them 

into one cohesive package, called a logic 

model. A logic model guides the process 

of developing the outcome evaluation. A 

completed model is provided in exhibit 

5.2. Completing a logic model offers the 

team an opportunity to examine the relationship between the CAC’s activities and 

the program’s outcomes. It is an excellent 

exercise for the entire team. 

The logic model form has several headings, which are described in the following 

sections. 

Background factors. Background factors 

are characteristics of people involved in 

the evaluation that may influence the relationship between program activities and 

goals. 

Program activities. Program activities, 

similar to inputs, are the particular components of a CAC, such as the multidisciplinary team and mental health services. 

Inputs. Inputs are activities that make up 

a particular program. 

Outputs. Outputs are the activities that 

result from program activities. 

External factors. External factors are 

events or factors that occur during an 

evaluation that may influence whether 

the program accomplishes its goals. 

Immediate outcomes. Immediate outcomes are the results that occur in temporally close proximity to the activities, 

such as whether the case is accepted for 

prosecution. Including prosecution rates 

as an outcome requires patience because 

outcomes may not be available for quite 

some time (often 2 years after the child 

is initially seen at the CAC). 

Intermediate outcomes. Often an intermediate outcome is necessary for a longterm outcome to be accomplished. 

Intermediate outcomes are results that 

occur between immediate and long-term 

outcomes, such as a conviction. 

Long-term outcomes. Long-term outcomes are benefits that accrue to society 

when intermediate outcomes are produced and maintained for many people 

over substantial periods of time. Thus, 

long-term outcomes typically result after 

the individual has departed from the program. A long-term outcome might reflect 

that the number of prosecutions in a jurisdiction increases or that rates of CSA decrease in a given jurisdiction as a result of 

increased prosecutions. 

Unintended or negative outcomes. 

When planning an evaluation, be aware of 

possible unintended or negative consequences of the evaluation. For example, 

the evaluation might affect populations 

that were not targeted (e.g., parents or 

offenders). Think about and note in the 

logic model the possible risks to other 

participants. The goal approximation form 

(exhibit 5.1) helps develop these ideas. 

Consider how to avoid or minimize the 

risks. It may be necessary to determine 

whether the risks are outweighed by the 

benefits gained from the evaluation. 

Instruments. Indicate which instruments 

will be used to measure each outcome. 

Instruments may need to be created to 

measure particular outcomes that reflect 

the program’s goals. 

Sample outcome measurement 

framework 

Similar to the logic model form is an outcome measurement framework form 

(exhibit 5.3). Use whichever form meets 

the needs of the evaluation team. The two 

forms have some differences, but they 

cover some of the same information. 

45 
CHAPTER 5 / JULY 04 

Limitations of an outcome 

evaluation 

Keep in mind the possible limitations 

associated with an outcome evaluation. 

The limitations should not deter centers 

from conducting evaluations; they are 

simply noted as issues to consider. 

Failure to cover all important outcomes. If the outcomes selected for the 

evaluation are not appropriate or if they 

fail to cover all important outcomes, then 

efforts to improve the program based on 

this faulty information may prove detrimental. Therefore, take the time to carefully examine what the center wants to 

learn from the evaluation. 

Corruptibility of indicators. It is human 

nature to want an evaluation to turn out 

favorably, and it is possible to manipulate 

the outcome indicators to make performance look better than it really is. Be aware 

of this tendency or use external evaluators to combat it. 

Interpretation of results. Interpretations 

made out of context can be misleading 

and damaging. It is preferable to explain 

outcome data in the context of the program. For example, one program or activity 

might be considerably more difficult to 

implement than another, such as an onsite 

versus an offsite medical examination. 

Direct comparisons of the two services 

would be unfair. 

Implementing an outcome 

evaluation 

Once goals and outcomes have been 

determined, follow the steps delineated 

in chapter 4 on program monitoring. 

The following is a brief synopsis of the 

steps for conducting an outcome evaluation (Scriven 1993). The first four steps 

have been discussed in this chapter in 

detail: 

1. Determine the goals of the program. 

2. Convert these goals into measurable 

objectives. 

3. Operationally define the variables. 

4. Find or construct tests that measure 

these objectives or determine 

thresholds. 

5. Define and recruit the population to be 

sampled (chapter 7). 

6. Run tests on an appropriate sample of 

your target population (chapter 9). 

7. Use data synthesis techniques (statistics) to unify the results in order to determine whether or to what extent the 

program has met its goals (chapter 10). 

8. Report the program evaluation results 

in terms of the program’s success in 

meeting its goals (chapter 11). 

46 
Chapter 6: Impact Evaluations


This chapter introduces the methods used 

to conduct impact evaluations. Even directors who are working with professional 

evaluators will find this background information useful as they progress through 

the steps outlined in the second half of 

this chapter. 

What Is an Impact 

Evaluation? 

An impact evaluation answers such questions as “What is the effectiveness of the 

program?” or “What impact has the program had on participants?” Many Child 

Advocacy Center (CAC) directors are interested, for example, in knowing whether 

the cases processed through a CAC result 

in less system-induced trauma to children 

than traditional methods of processing 

cases. They also want to know the longterm outcomes of children served by a 

CAC. Although children’s well-being is of 

paramount concern, CAC directors also 

want to know whether cases processed 

through a CAC using the multidisciplinary 

approach are better investigated than 

cases processed through the traditional 

methods (e.g., law enforcement). 

Answering questions such as these 

requires an impact evaluation (Rossi and 

Freeman 1993, 116–117). 

Impact Evaluation 

Methodology 

An impact evaluation compares program 

participants to nonparticipants with similar 

backgrounds on characteristics and experiences relevant to the evaluation (Rossi, 

Freeman, and Lipsey 1999). The comparisons are made so that causal statements 

can be made. For example, after comparing the levels of stress found in two 

groups of children alleging sexual abuse— 

those seen at a CAC and those not seen 

at a CAC—one can draw conclusions 

about the differences between the two 

groups and the reasons for the differences. 

To better convey the complexities of comparing groups and how causal inferences 

can be made, the following section 

describes both the experimental and 

quasi-experimental methodology that 

form an impact evaluation. 

Experimental designs 

Experimental designs have two basic and 

related characteristics: random assignment of participants and use of control 

groups. 

Random assignment of participants. 

“Random” is often considered synonymous with “arbitrary,” and to some extent 

this is the case. In experimental designs, 

47 
CHAPTER 6 / JULY 04 

random assignment occurs when participants are assigned to one group or another based on chance alone. (A random 

numbers table may be used to make 

assignments; see, for example, the one 

found at http://www.randomizer.org/form. 

htm). Thus, participants are randomly 

assigned either to the group of individuals 

who will receive the intervention (i.e., 

their case is processed through the CAC) 

or to the group of individuals who will not 

receive the intervention (i.e., their case is 

not processed through the CAC). Those 

who receive the intervention are called 

the “treatment group”; those who do not 

are called the “control group.” 

The underlying assumption of random 

assignment is that systematic differences 

between groups that might affect the outcome will be eliminated because each 

participant has an equal probability of 

being assigned to each group. Thus, if differences are found between the groups, 

the evaluator can be more confident that 

the differences are due to the CAC intervention rather than to some other cause. 

The use of control groups. Control 

groups allow evaluators to make comparisons using such phrases as “better than” 

and “more than.” The control and treatment groups should be equivalent in all 

important and relevant respects. For example, members of both must be alleged 

victims of child sexual abuse (CSA). The 

only important difference between them 

is whether they received CAC services; 

because the participants are equivalent on 

all other relevant characteristics, causal 

inferences can be made (i.e., differences 

between the groups are due to the CAC 

intervention). 

Quasi-experimental designs 

Experimental designs are the most rigorous methodologically. Many real-life situations simply do not lend themselves to 

this type of design, either for ethical or 

practical reasons. In such cases, quasiexperimental methods may be used. 

However, quasi-experimental designs are 

less methodologically rigorous than experimental designs. Quasi-experimental 

designs have two primary characteristics: 

nonrandom assignment of participants 

and use of comparison groups. 

Nonrandom assignment of participants. Nonrandom assignment of participants means that individuals are not 

randomly assigned to one group or another, as they are in experimental designs. 

Membership in a group has nothing to do 

with chance. Rather, there are naturally 

occurring groups that existed prior to the 

study and thus are not the result of the 

intervention. For example, one group may 

consist of children’s cases processed in a 

jurisdiction with an existing CAC and 

another group may consist of children’s 

cases processed in a nearby jurisdiction 

through the police department because 

there is no CAC. 

Comparison groups, rather than control groups. The term “comparison 

group” is used in quasi-experimental designs and the term “control group” is 

used in experimental designs to distinguish the difference in methodology. The 

term “comparison group” denotes the 

inability to ensure there are no differences 

between the two groups because participants are not randomly assigned. 

Although comparison groups are not as 

“pure” as control groups, they are useful 

in making comparisons with the treatment group. The treatment and comparison groups should be as similar as 

possible in all important and relevant 

aspects. 

Two types of comparison groups can be 

used in quasi-experimental designs. 

Simple comparison group design. As 

mentioned, the comparison group should 

be as similar as possible in all relevant 

48 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

characteristics, with the exception of 

exposure to the intervention. Therefore, 

for a fully operational CAC, an appropriate 

comparison group would be a group of 

children whose cases are processed 

through the conventional criminal justice 

system (for example, in a nearby jurisdiction that does not have a CAC). 

A potential problem with using a nearby 

jurisdiction as a comparison group (aside 

from obtaining the cooperation of the 

agencies in that jurisdiction) is that there 

may be some systematic difference between the two jurisdictions. For example, 

the neighboring jurisdiction may have a 

significantly higher unemployment rate or 

lower average income levels. Thus, any 

differences found between the comparison group and the treatment group may 

be due to factors other than the CAC’s 

intervention (e.g., economic resources). 

Pre-post design. In a pre-post design, the 

comparison group would be children 

whose CSA cases were processed before 

the CAC opened. Once the center opens, 

the treatment group becomes the children whose CSA cases are processed 

through the center. Thus, for a center that 

is still in the planning stages, a pre-post 

design is appropriate. 

before-and-after questionnaire. When they 

be here. When they left, 97 percent said they’d 

come here for the post-exam.” 

“We did ask kids about their feelings about 

being here for a medical exam. We had a 

walked in, they were scared and didn’t want to 

The pre-post design reduces the potential 

systematic differences in comparison 

groups because all children come from 

the same jurisdiction. However, the majority of centers do not implement an evaluation prior to opening the center and thus 

most centers cannot use this design. 

The case for quasi-experimental 

designs. Although quasi-experimental 

designs are less methodologically rigorous than experimental designs, they can 

yield credible estimates of the effects of 

ongoing programs. Quasi-experimental 

designs require strong theory and important assumptions about how people 

behave. Thus, evaluators who use quasiexperimental designs should think about 

the following issues: 

■ What will happen to the participants as 

a result of the intervention? 

■ What if-then statements is the evaluation using? 

■ Did the program have its intended 

effects? Was causality established? 

■ Were the measures focused on services provided? 

Steps in Conducting an 

Impact Evaluation 

Impact evaluations involve nine steps: 

1. State the impact evaluation’s objective. 

2. Develop the questions the evaluation 

should answer. 

3. Predict the outcomes (i.e., state the 

hypothesis). 

4. Select the impact evaluation’s design. 

5. Select the treatment and comparison/ 

control groups. 

6. Recruit participants. 

7. Consider the long-term impact. 

8. Identify influencing factors (i.e., moderating variables). 

9. Select measurement instruments. 

49 
CHAPTER 6 / JULY 04 

Step 1. State the impact 

evaluation’s objective 

Developing the impact evaluation’s objective is the first step. For example, an 

objective in developing a CAC might be 

“to reduce the amount of system-induced 

trauma that children would otherwise 

experience while in the criminal justice 

system.” 

Step 2. Develop the questions 

the evaluation should answer 

Next, restate the objective as a question. 

For example, “Do children whose CSA 

cases are processed through a CAC experience less system-induced trauma than 

children whose CSA cases are processed 

through the conventional criminal justice 

system? How do these children fare in 

the long run?” 

Step 3. Predict the outcomes 

(i.e., state the hypothesis) 

After the objective is stated and the questions asked, the hypothesis needs to be 

clarified. For example: “Victims of CSA 

whose cases are processed through a 

CAC will experience significantly less 

stress (as measured by the Trauma 

Symptom Checklist) than children whose 

cases are processed through the conventional criminal justice system.” 

Making predictions that can be tested 

(i.e., forming hypotheses) is critical to 

research and evaluation because predictions force you and the evaluator to consider the relationships between variables, 

as well as the explanation for those relationships, before any data are collected. 

Step 4. Select the impact 

evaluation’s design 

Decide whether to use an experimental 

or a quasi-experimental design. Given the 

ethical and practical considerations, most 

CACs will find that a quasi-experimental 

design is most appropriate. 

Step 5. Select the treatment 

and comparison/control groups 

Next, determine eligibility criteria and 

decide who will be selected for the treatment and comparison/control groups. For 

the treatment and control groups, select 

children who meet the following criteria: ■ Referred to the CAC for a CSA 

investigation. 

■ Under age 18. 

■ Reside within the CAC’s jurisdiction. 

For the comparison group, selection will 

depend in part on which type of design is 

used. 

Pre-post design using CAC children. 

If the CAC is in the planning stages, the 

center may be able to select a group of 

children whose cases are being processed through the current system or 

have been processed in the past, such as 

all children whose CSA cases were 

processed 1 year prior to the CAC opening. To do this, it is necessary to enlist the 

assistance of the multidisciplinary team’s 

(MDT’s) agencies to collect data on children whose cases were processed before 

the CAC opened. Although changes in 

procedures are probably already in progress (e.g., an MDT may already exist), 

comparisons may still be made. Some 

agencies may be concerned that a CAC is 

trying to make the existing systems look 

deficient by using children whose cases 

are processed through these various 

agencies. But given that these agencies 

have already agreed to develop a CAC, it 

may be easier to obtain their cooperation 

than if a CAC is not in the planning 

stages. 

50 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Nearby jurisdiction without a CAC. If 

the CAC is already operating, then a sample of children from a nearby jurisdiction 

without a CAC may be an appropriate 

comparison group. However, the various 

agencies may not be cooperative because 

the evaluation may be perceived as trying 

to imply their deficiency. Therefore, establishing a relationship with cooperating 

agencies will require the utmost sensitivity far in advance of the evaluation’s start 

date. 

Step 6. Recruit participants 

Recruitment is discussed thoroughly in 

chapter 7 and reviewed briefly here. 

Determine the number of participants 

needed. In a quasi-experimental design, 

a minimum number of participants are 

needed in both the treatment and comparison groups in order to conduct statistical tests of the difference between the 

groups. As a general rule, 20 participants 

are needed per group. A professional evaluator should conduct what is called a 

power analysis (Cohen 1992b). This is a 

method for determining how many participants are needed to detect differences 

between the groups. 

Recruit other agencies. During the planning phase, obtain cooperation from the 

various agencies who will participate in 

the evaluation. It may foster cooperation 

to include agency representatives on your 

evaluation team. Depending on the center’s relationship with the representatives 

of the partner agencies, the process 

might begin by enlisting the cooperation 

of supervisors and then explaining the 

evaluation to the line employees. 

Begin planning the coordination effort 

early because it will take some time for 

the process to work smoothly. Although 

flexibility is desired, you should have a 

general coordination plan in mind prior to 

approaching the decisionmakers in each 

agency. A fairly well developed coordination plan should be in place before the 

evaluation effort is explained to the line 

employees. Ask for feedback from line 

employees and take their suggestions 

into consideration. 

Coordinate with other agencies. There 

are several ways to coordinate the process 

of recruiting families from other agencies. 

For example, a victim advocate from the 

police department or in the Child Protective Services (CPS) agency may contact a CAC evaluation member (such as 

the data collector) when a CSA case 

comes into the department or agency. The 

CAC team member can go to the police 

station or CPS office to make the initial 

contact with the family. The center may 

want either the police officer or the CPS 

worker to introduce the data collector to 

the family so the family is assured of the 

evaluation’s legitimacy. Although this is an 

ideal scenario, it is not always possible, so 

it may be helpful to develop an alternative 

procedure for recruiting families that fits 

the needs of various agencies. 

Recruit families from other agencies. 

After a plan is in place to coordinate evaluation activities with the various agencies 

involved in the evaluation, the center may 

begin recruiting families from those agencies. As with all recruiting efforts, the center is required to follow ethical and legal 

mandates (see “Confidentiality,” chapter 

7). For example, participation must be 

voluntary, but offering incentives to participate is appropriate (Boruch 1997). Remember that the consent of parents must 

be obtained to ask children questions. 

To ensure that recruitment is consistent, 

the center may consider developing a 

recruitment script. A standard script ensures that the center will include all the 

information that potential participants 

need to know, while also ensuring that 

all potential participants receive the same 

51 
CHAPTER 6 / JULY 04 

information. Consider adapting the recruitment script in exhibit 6.1. 

Step 7. Consider the 

long-term impact 

According to Yates (1996), “What happens 

as a result of human service provision 

may be different from what happens after 

human service provision.” Although it is 

possible to simply compare groups at the 

same point in time, the question most 

directors ask is whether the CAC helps 

children in the long run. Answering this 

kind of question requires long-term 

followup. This requires collecting information from both the treatment and the 

comparison/control groups during their initial CAC visit and at specific points of time 

in the future, such as 1 and 2 years after 

they leave. 

How often participants are asked to complete the questionnaire depends on the 

center’s adopted theory of change (see 

chapter 9). Chapter 7 describes methods 

to recruit families and stay in touch with 

them over time. 

Step 8. Identify influencing 

factors (i.e., moderating 

variables) 

Directors need to consider—and measure—a number of possible factors that 

could influence the effect the center has 

on children. Factors that influence the outcome are referred to as moderating variables—the relationship between two or 

more items that are influenced by another 

factor (Mark, Hofmann, and Reichardt 

1992). For example, the relationship 

between CAC activities and child stress 

may be moderated by the relationship 

between the parent and the child. That is, 

children may experience lower levels of 

stress during the investigation when they 

have a positive relationship with their parent(s), whereas children may experience 

higher levels of stress during the investigation when they have a poor relationship 

with their parent(s), all other factors being 

equal. Thus, the CAC program may have 

less effect on children who have a positive 

parent-child relationship and a greater 

effect on children who have a poor parentchild relationship. 

A number of influencing factors should be 

considered and measured, such as characteristics of the interviewer, characteristics of the child and family, and social 

support (Berliner and Elliott 1996). There 

are also socioeconomic and political 

processes beyond the control of the participants that affect children, such as 

social support, health status, and economic self-sufficiency. The following are 

some additional factors to consider collecting data on: 

■ Mother’s support of the child. 

■ Type of abuse. ■ Child’s relationship with the alleged 

perpetrator. 

■ Mother’s relationship with the alleged 

perpetrator. 

■ Mother’s level of distress. ■ The level of trust the child has with an 

adult. 

■ Child’s level of depression. 

■ Time of disclosure. 

■ Child’s coping style. 

■ Family’s level of conflict. 

■ Family’s level of cohesion. ■ Degree of court preparation (stress 

inoculation). 

■ Demographic characteristics of participants, such as age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, household income, 

household composition (head of household, family structure), disability status, 

52 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

prior work history, health status, criminal record, and employment status. 

■ Geographic location of participant’s residence, such as neighborhood, political 

boundaries, ZIP Code, census tract, city, 

and county. 

Step 9. Select measurement 

instruments 

Appendix E contains several instruments 

for measuring child stress and trauma and 

influencing factors. Some are available 

only through a publisher and are described 

only briefly. Others are reproduced in their 

entirety. Select an instrument that is 

appropriate for the evaluation. Inclusion in 

this list does not imply endorsement. 

Please check each instrument for information on its validity and reliability. 

Child stress and trauma impact 

evaluation questionnaires 

■ The How I Feel Questionnaire 

■ Child Anxiety Scale—Parent Form 

■ Family Stress Questionnaire 

■ Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children 

(TSC–C) 

■ Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) 

■ State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for 

Children 

■ Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS) 

■ Coping Responses Inventory—Youth 

Version 

■ Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) 

■ Preschool Behavior Checklist (PBCL) 

■ Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior 

Scales (PKBS) 

■ Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI) 

■ Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety 

Scale (RCMAS) 

Influencing factors impact 

evaluation questionnaires 

■ Children’s Version of the Family 

Environment Scale (CVFES) 

■ Parenting Stress Index (PSI)—Third 

Edition 

■ Parent-Child Relationship Inventory 

(PCRI) 

■ Knowledge of Infant Development 

Inventory (KIDI) and Catalogue of 

Previous Experience With Infants 

(COPE) 

■ Conflict Tactics Scale—II 

■ Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale 

■ Exposure to Violence and Trauma 

Questionnaire 

■ Stressful Life Events Screening 

Questionnaire 

■ Family Adaptability and Cohesion 

Evaluation Scales (FACES III)—Family 

Version 

■ Family Environment Scale (FES) 

Additional Impact Evaluation 

Considerations 

Several other issues should be considered 

when planning an impact evaluation. 

Eliminating conflicting 

explanations 

There are often multiple explanations for 

why changes occur in the target population. Therefore, it is important to eliminate 

as many competing explanations as possible to be confident that the program itself 

53 
CHAPTER 6 / JULY 04 

is responsible for the evaluation results. 

There are two conflicting explanations 

unique to impact evaluations: history and 

maturation. 

History. History may be relevant if the 

comparison group is different from the 

treatment group prior to the evaluation. 

For example, it would be problematic if 

children from the comparison group had 

higher levels of family conflict than children in the treatment group because differences between the two groups could 

be due to family levels of conflict (i.e., history) and not the program. Therefore, if 

random assignment of participants to 

groups cannot be made, take steps to 

ensure that both groups are equal on 

important variables. This can be done statistically if measures of influencing variables have been collected (e.g., family 

conflict). 

Maturation. Maturation may be relevant 

when events outside the program cause 

the intervention group to change while 

children are in the program. For example, 

if an investigation is lengthy, a child may 

have a greater understanding of the investigation over time simply because of 

cognitive maturity. Accounting for history 

and maturation will help eliminate conflicting explanations for the findings. 

Preexisting characteristics 

The concern here is that change in participants is due to the passage of time and 

not as a result of the CAC. One way to 

control for this type of error is to collect 

measures on characteristics that might 

change over time, such as age. 

Timing issues 

A preferred design is one in which information is collected from participants both 

before (or as) they enter the program, and 

after they leave the program. This design 

provides information about how participants were before they entered the program and after they completed the 

program. 

Frequency issues 

A strong design is one in which information from participants is collected multiple 

times, including after they leave the center, to understand the long-term impact of 

the program on participants. 

Societal influences 

Changes in existing laws, services, or 

public awareness may affect the evaluation’s outcomes; therefore, more information on these factors may need to 

be gathered. For example, a new law may 

make it easier to convict perpetrators, 

allowing a more expedient prosecution of 

a child’s case. 

Selecting individuals to 

participate in the evaluation 

Selecting (i.e., sampling) participants for 

the evaluation is always a difficult challenge but critically important because 

who participates in an evaluation can 

make a tremendous difference in the 

results. Who participates in the CAC 

evaluation should be less of an issue 

because all individuals referred to the center should be eligible for participation in 

the evaluation. However, a significant 

challenge that will need to be addressed 

(and that must be explained) is refusal to 

participate in the evaluation. Without explanations for why clients refuse to participate, results will not be reflected 

accurately and will undermine the final 

report. Therefore, documenting refusals 

and collecting basic information on them 

for comparison with the final group of participants is critical. Individuals may refuse 

to participate for a number of reasons, 

and it may be beneficial to consider 

54 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

tracking their reasons. For example, 

participants may refuse to participate 

because of lack of interest, inconvenience, busy schedules, objection to the 

approach, objectionable topic, poorly 

worded questions, distrust, or dislike of 

the recruiter. 

The need for program 

monitoring 

Like an outcome evaluation, an impact 

evaluation typically requires a program 

monitoring component, because it is 

important to know how the existing system is being implemented, as well as 

how children respond to that system. 

55 

Chapter 7: Recruitment and 

Retention of Participants 

This chapter provides information about 

recruiting and retaining staff, agencies, 

and families. A checklist at the end of the 

chapter contains a number of issues the 

evaluation team can discuss before beginning an evaluation. 

Obtaining the Cooperation 

of Staff 

Staff play a crucial role in evaluations; a 

successful evaluation depends on their 

cooperation. However, staff may express 

some resistance for the following reasons: 

■ Evaluations can increase their workloads. 

■ They may be concerned about possible 

negative results. 

■ They may be concerned that the evaluation will reflect negatively on them 

personally. 

“Law enforcement and CPS [Child Protective 

Services] feel stretched as it is. A change to a 

multidisciplinary team is a significant change.” 

To help ensure staff cooperation, involve 

them in the planning phase and throughout all other phases of the evaluation. The 

director may have to convince staff that 

the evaluation is necessary to improve 

the program and may need to adjust priorities to enable staff to contribute without 

feeling overburdened. Above all, staff must 

be given credit for their contributions to 

the evaluation. 

Obtaining the Cooperation of 

the Multidisciplinary Team 

and Agencies 

It is important to obtain the specific cooperation of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) 

members, as well as that of their agency’s 

supervisors and directors during the planning phase of the evaluation to ensure 

cooperation. Once the evaluation has begun, staff from the partner agencies will 

have extra duties (e.g., completing questionnaires) that they may resist if they 

were not included in the planning phase. 

Therefore, the evaluation team should 

include a representative from the MDT 

and ensure that the agency supervisors 

and directors are aware of the MDT representative’s participation in the evaluation. 

The first task is to think about whose 

cooperation will be needed and to consider how the evaluation will impact those 

persons. The prospective collaborators 

should be informed about the following: 

■ Why the evaluation is being done. 

■ What will be gained as a result of the 

evaluation. 

■ What their involvement (if any) will be. 

■ The plans for the results. 

57 
CHAPTER 7 / JULY 04 

nary team in our evaluation planning because 

“We need to be sure to include the multidisciplithe centers are as much the team’s as ours.” 

A starting point may be to secure agreement from the various team members’ 

supervisors (Boruch 1997). Supervisors 

can stress to team members the importance of cooperating with the evaluation, 

give the team members the flexibility to 

cooperate, and if cooperation is lacking, 

provide some leverage to gain the team’s 

cooperation. 

A number of incentives can be offered to 

encourage team members to participate: 

■ Intellectual justification. Point out to 

potential partners that their participation 

will contribute to a better evaluation, 

better answers, and eventually a better 

program. 

■ Stewardship. Emphasize that the 

purpose of the Child Advocacy Center 

(CAC) is to facilitate and assist the 

MDT’s respective agencies in coordinating their response to child abuse so that 

client vulnerability is reduced and their 

well-being is enhanced. In addition, 

offer potential partners the opportunity 

to help shape the evaluation that will 

eventually reduce clients’ vulnerability 

and enhance their well-being. 

■ Precedent. If possible, point out 

the precedents for their agency’s 

participation. 

■ Compensation. If possible, offer 

money to help defray the cost of their 

participation. 

■ Training opportunity. Evaluations offer 

participating agencies the opportunity to 

learn new procedures and better ways 

of operating. 

Credibility is the strongest asset the CAC 

can use to gain the cooperation of the 

partner agencies. Cooperating agencies 

also will be interested in the history, conscientiousness, and prestige of the funding agency, if these exist; scientific 

productivity; and perhaps most importantly, willingness to invest time in negotiating a plan that works for all involved 

agencies. 

Obtaining the Cooperation 

of Parents and Children 

Determining who will participate 

One of the first decisions to make is to 

determine who will participate in the evaluation because the type of participant will 

determine the type of evaluation. A pipeline study can help in this process. A 

pipeline study focuses attention on how 

many individuals, what types of cases, 

and when individuals should be included 

in or excluded from the study (Boruch 

1997). For example, an evaluation that 

focuses on children being referred to the 

CAC might begin by tracking all reports of 

child sexual abuse (CSA) in the jurisdiction 

and then trace the process of how and 

when reports are made, how cases are 

diverted or discovered to be ineligible, and 

how eligible cases enter the criminal justice system and at what point in time. 

Qualitative components (such as administrative records, interviews, and case 

analyses) might be incorporated to produce a detailed description of what decisions are made, when, and by whom. 

Based on this information, the evaluation 

team can determine who is eligible to 

participate. 

58 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Determining who will recruit 

participants 

One or two individuals should be given 

primary responsibility for recruiting participants so the team knows who is responsible and to prevent diffusion of 

responsibility. To adequately convey to 

potential participants what their involvement will entail, the recruiter should be 

very familiar with the evaluation and the 

CAC. This person should not, however, 

be someone who works directly with the 

family, although it may be someone on 

staff. It is advantageous if the staff member working with the family introduces 

the recruiter to them to legitimize the 

evaluation. 

Compensating participants 

For some aspects of the evaluation, compensation will not be an issue. For other 

aspects, monetary incentives may increase the level of participation. If the 

evaluation is funded through a grant, it 

may be possible to offer participants $5 

to $10 for their time. It is preferable to 

phrase the remuneration in terms of compensating participants for their time rather 

than their responses. However, the decision to offer clients compensation should 

be made in collaboration with the MDT 

members. Encourage the MDT to think 

seriously about the implications of participant compensation for the case investigation prior to making this decision. 

Recruiting participants 

Regardless of the type of evaluation being 

conducted, collecting data from individuals will be necessary, and data collection 

will impose an extra burden on participants because it takes time to complete 

surveys. For this reason, it is important to 

have experienced and sensitive individuals recruit participants. 

Developing a recruitment 

strategy 

Develop a strategy to recruit parents 

and their children for the evaluation. 

Evaluation teams that have included former clients (parents of a victim) find that 

they can be helpful in developing a strategy to which families are receptive. If the 

evaluation team does not include a parent, other members of the team can talk 

with parents at the center about their willingness to participate (referred to as “preevaluation consulting”). This strategy will 

make clients feel that they have provided 

valuable input into the evaluation. In addition, the center can convey to families 

that their ideas have been incorporated 

into the strategy for recruiting participants. If ideas from clients need to be 

elicited in a more systematic manner, 

another option may be to conduct a focus 

group with families who have been 

through the center (see Krueger 1988). 

When developing a recruitment strategy, 

factors such as language, culture, and literacy should be considered. For example, 

many CACs have minority and foreignborn clients for whom English is a second 

language (or who speak only a foreign language); some centers have clients with 

distinct cultural backgrounds; and some 

centers have clients who may be functionally illiterate. Each of these factors 

may affect how a center recruits participants. A center with a large population of 

foreign-speaking clients, for example, may 

need to enlist a bilingual staff member to 

recruit and administer questionnaires to 

these participants. Chapter 8 discusses 

cultural issues that evaluators should be 

sensitive to and chapter 9 discusses 

literacy. 

Recruitment instructions 

Recruiters should explain to participants: 

■ The purpose of the study. 

59 
CHAPTER 7 / JULY 04 

■ That confidentiality will be maintained. ■ That other families have been 

consulted. 

■ That other families have willingly agreed 

to participate. 

■ What they will be asked to do. 

Information about the evaluation must 

be provided to participants, typically written in an informed-consent form. Participants should be informed that although 

they agree to participate, they may 

elect to withdraw at any time (see 

“Confidentiality”). 

The appropriate attitude while recruiting is 

to be sympathetic but matter-of-fact. This 

attitude will increase cooperation from 

parents, children, and team members. 

Although recruitment may feel intrusive 

and awkward at first, it becomes easier to 

recruit potential participants with practice. 

Recruiting at the center 

One method for making recruitment easier for the recruiter is to write a script and 

rehearse it until it is almost memorized. 

Some recruiters find the process to be 

foreign at first, but the feeling quickly 

gives way to a relaxed approach that participants detect and willingly respond to 

(see exhibit 7.1 for a sample script). 

Recruiting through the mail 

If the evaluation entails recruiting participants after they have left the center, ask 

parents while they are at the center if 

they would be willing to complete a survey that would be sent to them after a 

certain period of time. The mailed survey 

should contain a cover letter describing 

the purpose of the study and what is 

expected of participants. Exhibit 7.2 is 

a sample cover letter that can be modified to reflect particular evaluations 

(Beauchamp, Tewksbury, and Sanford 

1997). 

Recruiting via the telephone 

If the evaluation entails conducting telephone interviews with participants, notify 

parents while they are at the center. Avoid 

calling parents without prior notification. 

If, however, the evaluation team must 

contact families by telephone after they 

have left the center, send a postcard prior 

to telephoning to notify parents that they 

will be contacted soon. If possible, also 

send a copy of the interview before calling, so they will know what questions to 

expect. Exhibit 7.3 is a telephone recruitment script that can be adapted.1 

Recruiting families at rural 

centers 

Each center will have unique issues 

associated with its evaluation. Directors 

from rural centers have noted particular 

difficulty in getting families involved in 

group therapy, perhaps because rural families believe that small centers cannot protect their privacy. Special precautions may 

need to be taken to ensure the anonymity 

of these participants and to ensure that 

the MDT does not have access to their 

personal information. For example, a special pledge of anonymity may be designed 

to reflect the steps the center has taken 

to ensure anonymity, including the fact 

that no names appear on questionnaires. 

Recruiting children with 

disabilities 

Many directors have noted that a small 

proportion of their referrals are children 

who may be developmentally delayed or 

have a disability. Centers may be particularly interested in obtaining the perceptions of these children, and doing so may 

require making special arrangements. In 

some cases, communication with children 

60 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

with special needs may require no more 

than simplifying the language used with 

them. However, this will not always be 

sufficient. Directors who have dealt with 

this issue have offered these solutions: 

■ Ask the clinical director to administer 

the questionnaire to the child. 

■ Talk to parents about how best to communicate with the child. 

■ Talk to the child’s special education 

teacher regarding how to communicate 

with the child. 

■ Enlist a specialist to administer the 

questionnaire to the child. 

“The biggest challenge was followup, getting 

they just want to get their lives back to normal, 

information from families. When court is over, 

so they don’t respond to letters or phone calls.” 

Followup Contact 

With Families 

If the evaluation design calls for a followup component, families will need to be 

contacted after they leave the center. 

Families with a history of CSA are often 

difficult to contact after leaving the center. 

This can make it difficult to obtain followup information, but it is critical to do so. 

Loss of participants (referred to as “attrition”) has a tremendous impact on 

results. It may reduce the evaluation’s 

ability to detect differences between 

groups, or it may bias the results. 

Therefore, it is important to take the necessary precautions while the family is still 

at the CAC to ensure future contact with 

them. Begin by asking parents if they are 

willing to be contacted in the future. A 

permission-to-recontact script can be 

used separately or in combination with an 

informed-consent form that contains a 

section about followup contacts (see 

exhibits 7.4 and 7.5).2 

Collecting and maintaining 

future contact information 

from families 

Either verbally or in the informed-consent 

form, ask parents for information about 

how to contact them in the future (referred to as “forward tracing”). Create a 

form that includes information that will be 

helpful in contacting families in the future. 

The following are some items to include 

on the form: 

■ Name. 

■ Address. 

■ Telephone number. 

■ Contact information for three or more 

friends or relatives. 

■ Current employer. 

■ Civic, professional, or religious organizations to which the individual belongs. 

■ Photographs. 

■ Permission-to-recontact statements. 

Once participants leave the center, one 

way to maintain contact with them is by 

sending periodic communications, such 

as birthday cards and postcards, to let 

them know the CAC’s staff members are 

thinking about them. 

Locating families in the future 

In spite of all best efforts, some families 

will be extremely difficult to contact. In 

such cases, the forward-tracing information may then become useful. Some 

61 
CHAPTER 7 / JULY 04 

backward-tracing methods also may be 

successful, such as the following: 

■ Community resource networks. ■ Current and former staff, directors, students, parents, and community leaders. ■ School records, yearbooks, and 

directories. 

■ Public records, driver’s licenses, marriage certificates, birth and death certificates, and voter registration records. ■ Institutional resources, such as prisons, 

houses of worship, employers, mental 

health facilities, and police records. 

■ Welfare rolls. ■ Mail, post office forwards, forwarding 

address requests, and forwarding by 

intermediaries such as parents. 

■ Telephone directories, standard directories, address/telephone directories, 

operator tracing. 

■ Neighborhood canvassing. 

Followup schedules 

If the evaluation design includes future 

contacts with families at specified time 

intervals, consider developing a schedule 

like exhibit 7.6 to organize followup 

activities. The schedule can be updated 

frequently to help organize this often confusing activity. 

Confidentiality 

Confidentiality is an important legal, ethical, and technical concept designed to 

protect research participants. There is a 

distinction between data collected for 

program improvement and data collected 

for research. In some States, informed 

consent is not necessary for program 

improvement but is necessary for 

research purposes. To determine if this 

distinction is applicable to your center, 

check your State’s statutes. 

Typically, to conduct research with human 

beings through a university, the research 

design and protocol must be approved by 

a governing body consisting of a number 

of university and community representatives. This governing body is referred to as 

an institutional review board (IRB). When 

a request for IRB approval is submitted, a 

formal review of the research design and 

protocol is undertaken. 

Although CACs are not governed by an 

IRB, centers may wish to coordinate with 

a university IRB or to establish their own 

IRB to ensure that the design and protocol meet ethical and legal standards and 

to develop and implement procedures 

that protect the rights of participants. Regardless of legality, it is ethical to ensure 

the rights of participants. 

Ensuring anonymity 

To ensure participant anonymity, the 

measurement instruments should not 

contain the respondent’s name or other 

personal identifying information. One way 

to preserve anonymity is to use a cover 

sheet on the survey instrument that contains the participant’s name, the title of 

the evaluation, and an identification number. Each page of the survey itself should 

contain only the identification number 

without any name. When the participant 

has completed the form, the cover sheet 

can be detached from the survey and filed 

separately. Both cover sheets and surveys 

should be kept in separate locked drawers. Alternatively, if names are contained 

on the survey, the name should be 

removed when the survey is complete 

and replaced with a code (Gunn 1987). 

The director should take steps to ensure 

that persons who are not working with 

the data do not have access to it. 

62 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Confidentiality procedures 

To ensure ethical propriety, develop a written informed-consent form that details 

the purpose of the study and the rights 

of the participants (Boruch 1997). The 

informed-consent form should tell participants the following: 

■ All features of the research that 

might influence their willingness to 

participate. 

■ That they are free to decline to participate or withdraw from participation at 

any time. 

■ That there are protections from physical 

and mental discomfort, harm, and danger. If a risk exists, participants must be 

informed of the risk and strategies 

taken to minimize it. 

■ That information obtained during 

the course of an investigation is 

confidential. 

■ How and where the data are stored. 

■ How long the data will be kept. 

■ Who has access to the data. 

Participants should read the informedconsent form and sign two copies of the 

form prior to completing a survey or answering interview questions. Participants 

receive one copy and the researcher retains the other copy. 

Sample informed-consent forms 

Sample adult and child informed-consent 

forms and a youth assent form are provided in exhibits 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9, respectively 

(adapted from Bernie Newman at Tufts 

University). 

Confidentiality training 

Issues of confidentiality should be discussed in training sessions. Discuss the 

legal and ethical consequences of violating confidentiality for the program with 

the team members and consider having 

data collectors sign a pledge of confidentiality (United Way of America 1996). A 

sample pledge is provided as exhibit 7.10. 

Recruitment Checklist 

The following is a brief checklist of things 

that should be considered when recruiting 

staff, agencies, and families to participate 

in the evaluation: 

■ Determine eligibility. Determine and 

lay out conditions for participation in the 

evaluation. 

■ Determine who will be responsible 

for recruiting participants. Select one 

or two persons who are familiar with 

the evaluation requirements to recruit 

potential participants for the evaluation. 

■ Develop incentives and ways to reduce or remove disincentives. A number of things can be done to increase 

the likelihood that individuals will participate in the evaluation. Consider providing financial incentives; reduce the 

burden of responding by using administrative records rather than personal 

interviews when possible; minimize 

the intrusiveness of questions; and minimize the number of questions asked. 

■ Make decisions about what is 

explained to participants. Decide 

what information is explained to participants during recruitment and administration of questionnaires, such as how 

much time will be required of them. 

“Another CAC wanted us to do an evaluation, 

but the parent questionnaire took 30 minutes. It 

was too long—and a lot of paperwork. Five to 

ten minutes is okay.” 

63 
CHAPTER 7 / JULY 04 

■ Follow ethical standards of informed 

consent. Produce an informed-consent 

form for participants to sign. 

■ Pay vigorous attention to the wellbeing of participants. The well-being 

of participants can be demonstrated by 

providing assurances of their privacy, 

promoting mutual education and respect, and avoiding scientific vernacular, 

such as the term “subjects,” which is a 

form of depersonalization. 

■ Maintain contact with participants. 

If followup contact will be necessary, be 

sure to maintain ongoing contact with 

families. 

■ Keep track of reasons clients/families 

decline to participate. This information 

will be useful when results are interpreted, and the funding agency will be 

particularly interested in this information. 

Notes 

1. Permission to use this form was granted by 

Victoria Weisz, Ph.D., M.L.S., personal communication, April 3, 2002. 

2. For additional information about maintaining contact with research participants, see Dutton, Mary 

Ann et al., “Recruitment and Retention in Intimate 

Partner Violence Research,” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 

September 2003, NCJ 201943. 

64 
Chapter 8: Planning an Evaluation


Conducting an evaluation is an enormously 

complex and challenging task. Chapters 

4–6 discussed evaluation design; this 

chapter focuses on the evaluation’s goals 

and considers the design options discussed in previous chapters. Planning is 

one of the most critical aspects of conducting an evaluation. 

Once the evaluation’s purpose and goals 

have been identified, the next step is to 

develop an evaluation plan. The evaluation 

plan should be developed at least 2 to 3 

months before the evaluation begins. 

When the plan is complete and the instruments and protocols have been pilot tested (i.e., a small sample of individuals has 

completed the evaluation protocol; see 

chapter 9), data collection can begin. This 

preliminary work will provide some quality 

assurance for the evaluation. Quality assurance is important because low-quality 

data yield low-quality results, which can 

support disastrous decisions (Yates 1996). 

Therefore, developing the evaluation plan 

should not be rushed. The evaluation planning form in exhibit 8.1 can simplify the 

planning and organization of the evaluation. As a first step in planning and organizing the evaluation, each team member 

should read this resource book so everyone has the same information before making decisions about the evaluation. 

The best way to ensure that planning 

activities are accomplished is to hold regular evaluation team meetings (Gunn 1987). 

If an external evaluator is involved, that 

person’s first tasks will be to identify the 

key program personnel and primary users 

of the evaluation report and to begin developing good working relationships with 

these people. However, some team members may not regard the external evaluator 

as part of the team. Therefore, to facilitate 

the evaluator’s acceptance as part of the 

evaluation team, the evaluator should 

participate in program events and staff 

meetings. 

During the planning stages, the team will 

need to: 

■ Discuss why the evaluation is important. 

■ Identify goals for the evaluation. 

■ Decide which program or programs to 

evaluate first. 

■ Decide which values are absolute.1 

■ Identify relevant State legal standards. 

■ Establish ethical standards (e.g., 

confidentiality). 

■ Establish fiscal standards (e.g., fiscal 

availability). 

■ Establish ecological standards (e.g., 

which contexts will be considered in 

the evaluation). 

■ Determine what types of information 

are particularly important to collect. 

■ Determine what kind of information will 

be produced. 

65 
CHAPTER 8 / JULY 04 

■ Identify indicators and measures. 

■ Develop a timeline for the entire 

evaluation. 

■ Identify who will use the data collected 

and the evaluation results. 

■ Determine how the information will be 

used. 

■ Ensure that data collection instruments 

are prepared, data collection plans are 

developed, and all instruments and 

plans are pilot tested. 

■ Plan and monitor a pilot process for the 

evaluation. 

■ Determine how to use the results of 

the pilot to make necessary changes. 

■ Determine methods for monitoring data 

analysis and writing the evaluation 

report. 

■ Schedule regular meetings (weekly or 

biweekly) to assess problems and 

progress. 

The options for each of these evaluation 

activities need to be objectively presented 

to the team. Involving all team members 

in this critical planning process requires 

open discussion; agreement at the early 

stages will facilitate cooperation throughout the evaluation. 

Evaluation planning form 

An evaluation planning form will facilitate 

planning and organizing the evaluation. 

(See exhibit 8.1 in appendix F.) This form 

lays out all the issues to address, and the 

cells can be filled in as decisions are 

made. Meetings may be scheduled to 

address some of the topics. To maintain 

focus, only one or two substantive topics 

should be discussed per meeting. The 

team members should come prepared to 

discuss the issues and options. 

When to start the evaluation 

Some evaluation issues are relevant regardless of the type of evaluation being 

conducted. For example, when should the 

evaluation begin? Child Advocacy Center 

(CAC) directors disagree about when it is 

optimal to start an evaluation. There are 

three possible options: 

■ Before the center opens (to obtain 

baseline data). 

■ At the time the center opens. 

■ At some point after the center has 

opened. 

training.” 

“It’s not fair to evaluate the program in the first 

6 to 9 months. If evaluation is part of the training, 

they’ll forget it. It’s better to start the evaluation 

the next year, when you can do evaluation 

The best evaluation integrates the evaluation into ongoing program activities. Therefore, planning the evaluation would ideally 

begin at the same time as planning the 

CAC, so that evaluation feedback can be 

used to shape program operations. However, many CAC directors begin an evaluation after the CAC is operating. Advantages 

and disadvantages to each of the three 

options are delineated in exhibit 8.2. 

The need for baseline 

information 

Ideally, an evaluation design consists of 

comparing one thing with another. One 

common approach compares what happened before a program was implemented with what happened after it was 

implemented (referred to as a “pre-post 

design,” see chapter 6). Another method 

compares what happened after the 

66 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

program was implemented with what 

happened in the absence of a program 

(comparison or control study, see chapter 

6). Information collected before the program begins is referred to as baseline 

data. Baseline data include information 

collected on participants before (or just 

as) they enter the program. 

our results.” 

“We need baseline data. We are inadequate at 

this. We have nothing against which to compare 

Baseline information is essential for 

demonstrating that change has occurred, 

and it provides strong evidence of the program’s functioning and improvement. 

Several measures can be taken when 

clients first enter the CAC to allow comparison with subsequent data collection 

points. This will not be necessary or practical for each type of evaluation, but it is 

worth considering during the planning 

stages. Whether participants complete 

forms as they enter the door or at some 

later time during their first visit is not of 

monumental consequence, as long as the 

forms are completed before they leave 

the center. This is partially a practical concern because families may be difficult to 

locate once they leave the center. 

Evaluation timeline 

Another issue common to all types of 

evaluation is the duration of the evaluation. How long will the entire evaluation 

last? How long will each component of 

the evaluation last? The following factors 

affect an evaluation timeline: 

■ Existing organizational deadlines or 

events that may affect scheduling of key 

steps and milestones (e.g., agency 

funding cycle, annual board meeting, 

conferences). 

■ Typical length of service to a client (e.g., 

one-time, weekly). 

■ How long after completion of services 

initial results would be expected. 

■ External restraints (e.g., university students cannot collect data during final 

exams). 

Evaluation timeline 

planning form 

Once the evaluation plans have been 

outlined, the timeline planning form can 

organize the specific timeline. A sample 

timeline planning form is shown in exhibit 

8.3. All evaluation team members should 

have an opportunity to review the form 

and provide feedback. 

Contexts 

Regardless of the type of evaluation being 

conducted, one must also consider the 

various contexts that might affect the 

evaluation. In the midst of conducting an 

evaluation, it is easy to become focused 

on the evaluation and lose sight of factors 

that might be influencing it. The prevailing 

social conditions are crucial when it 

comes to explaining the successes and 

failures of social programs (Pawson and 

Tilley 1997). 

Indeed, many contextual factors might 

influence an evaluation’s results. Among 

the factors that can be identified, the 

ones that are likely to affect the evaluation 

must be measured. Some factors cannot 

be measured; these must be recorded on 

tracking sheets, with a description of how 

they might affect the evaluation. This information will be particularly important when 

interpreting the results. In addition, detailed notes will strengthen the evaluation’s credibility. 

67 
CHAPTER 8 / JULY 04 

The following contexts should be considered, and there may be others as well. 

These conditions will vary from CAC to 

CAC; therefore, an evaluator should focus 

on the ones that are most relevant to their 

specific CAC. 

Evaluation context 

What is the evaluation context? What 

evaluation-related resources are available? 

What is the agency’s history of conducting 

evaluations? How is the evaluation related 

to other agency activities? 

Staff context 

What is the involvement of staff in the 

evaluation? What experience do staff 

members have with evaluations (positive 

or negative)? What are the staff’s attitudes 

toward evaluations? What do the staff 

know about evaluations? 

Participant context 

Are participants culturally diverse? Will 

they need translated instruments or similar tools? Are family and community supports available to families? 

Social context 

What is the social context in which the 

evaluation takes place? Social context 

includes unemployment, local economy, 

crime rates, health care funding, and government regulations. 

Administrative context 

What is the administrative context of the 

evaluation? Have there been changes in 

administration? 

Cultural issues 

Several CAC directors have commented 

that external evaluators have not been 

sensitive to the cultural aspects of their 

clients’ needs. Be sure the evaluator is 

aware of these issues. The evaluation 

should reflect the community’s norms, 

which may vary by ethnicity, religion, and 

socioeconomic status. The evaluation protocol may need to set different goals for 

different cultural groups. 

to your population into the evaluation. For 

example, an evaluation of a reservation CAC 

must integrate the spiritual aspects of Indian 

tribes.” 

“You must integrate the cultural issues relevant 

Many people today are aware of cultural 

issues. However, it is important not only 

to be aware of cultural issues, but also 

to think about how cultural issues might 

affect the evaluation. The following cultural factors may impact an evaluation. 

Evaluation methods and instruments 

should be culturally sensitive. Evaluation methods and instruments must be 

culturally appropriate for the participants. 

Many instruments are tested (i.e., standardized on middle-class white groups 

before they are released for use by the 

larger community). If the CAC’s clientele 

consists largely of a minority population, 

the measures used should have been 

tested on the ethnicity of the client population. If not, determine whether the 

author of the instrument has developed a 

culturally relevant instrument. A representative of the ethnic community who will 

not be participating in the evaluation 

should review both the instrument and 

the data collection procedures. 

Culture is not race. Race should not be 

confused with culture. Culture is an interplay of common attitudes, values, goals, 

and practices that one generation hands 

down to the next. Race, on the other 

hand, is a segment of the human population that is more or less distinguished by 

genetic physical characteristics. 

68 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Spanish because at our CAC a minority population is the majority population. ” 

“We had to copy the treatment surveys into 

Concepts vary within and among 

groups. Some behaviors vary tremendously within and among ethnic groups. 

Physical discipline, for example, may be a 

normative response to child misbehavior 

among some ethnic groups, but considered deviant among other ethnic groups. 

Variations in parental discipline within an 

ethnic group may be even greater than 

variations among ethnic groups. 

Cultural response sets differ. Philosophies that differ by cultural affiliation may 

affect how a person completes a questionnaire. For example, European descendants may endorse individuality, but 

members of some other ethnic groups 

may endorse collective norms. 

Pre-post results can be affected by 

culture. Some variations in pre-post 

tests may be due to cultural differences. 

Members of some cultures consider it 

prying to ask them questions before they 

know you well; they may therefore provide minimal information when they enter 

a program. However, after they have completed the program (and presumably feel 

more comfortable with the staff), they 

may be more open to questions and 

those reports may be more reliable than 

their previous responses. A difference in 

pre-post responses may reflect greater 

comfort rather than the intervention. 

Cultures vary. There are variations within 

a culture. For example, every language 

has different dialects. Therefore, a translated instrument should be written in the 

dialect of the participants who will be 

using it. 

Troubleshooting 

Planning an evaluation should include 

identifying potential problems and exploring how others have solved those problems. Below are a number of evaluation 

problems encountered by CAC directors 

and how they have solved those problems. ■ The team cannot agree on the goals 

and outcomes of the center. Team 

members will need to put the CAC first 

and make some compromises. Teambuilding exercises (chapter 3) can facilitate reaching a consensus. 

■ It is difficult for direct service providers to find valid instruments. This 

is often an issue for anyone conducting 

research. However, several resources 

are available, such as university faculty, 

the American Evaluation Association 

(http://www.eval.org), or the Mental 

Measurements Yearbook Database. If 

these sources do not have an appropriate instrument, a new one may need to 

be created. 

■ Agency turnover interrupts the evaluation. Turnover can be a serious detriment to an evaluation and may indicate 

more systemic problems than this manual is intended to address. However, 

retreats, training seminars, and colocating the multidisciplinary team 

(MDT) can strengthen team cohesion. 

■ The response rate for returning surveys is low. One solution to this problem is to have families complete the 

survey before leaving the center. 

Mailed surveys should include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope in which 

to return the survey. 

■ Staff cannot contact clients once 

they leave the center. Chapter 7 discusses several steps that can be taken 

to maintain contact with families once 

they leave the center. 

69 
CHAPTER 8 / JULY 04 

■ Parents are dissatisfied with the CAC 

because they are in crisis. Some responses on client satisfaction questionnaires will be negative. However, 

grouping the surveys together will give 

a result that says, “On average, this is 

how satisfied the clients are.” A few ■ Families know nothing about MDTs 

seriously negative reports will not be and yet are asked about MDT memdetrimental to the overall findings. bers. Again, the questionnaire should 

“Complaints by families are due to misunderstanding. Families confuse the CAC with CPS.” 

elicit knowledge that the clients have. Some families at the center report high Prompts may help. For example, a ques­ satisfaction with the program, but later tion about police officers could ask par- become disillusioned with the system ents, “Who was the police officer who and blame the CAC. This is an important came to your home? Tell me about that scenario to understand, possibly sug- person.” gesting that families need continued 

contact with CAC resources throughout 

the investigative process and into the Note court process. 

1. For example, the fact that a school receives new 

■ Some parents confuse the CAC with computers that benefit students is good, but it canChild Protective Services (CPS) or not be overridden by the importance of preventing 

electrical shock to students. The “cannot” is an some other system agency. Client sat- absolute value that must be considered (Scriven isfaction questionnaires should address 1993).


only CAC activities. Questionnaires’


administrators should clarify and reiter­


ate for participants that they are inter­


ested only in the clients’ perceptions of


their visit to the CAC. Participants may


be less confused if they complete the


survey while at the CAC.


70 
Chapter 9: Data Collection


Previous chapters have emphasized designing and planning an evaluation. This 

chapter focuses on developing the data 

collection protocol and actually collecting 

data. Evaluation data can be any information about the program or its participants, 

taken from a variety of sources: program 

records (data already being collected, such 

as the number of families served); official 

records from Child Protective Services 

(CPS), law enforcement and prosecution 

agencies, or mental health professionals 

(although there may be some confidentiality concerns with sharing these records); 

information from specific individuals, such 

as participants, parents, teachers, and representatives of other agencies; and information obtained by trained observers who 

rate behavior, facilities, or environments. 

believed the CAC was helpful to kids, but there 

was no way to articulate the quality of the CAC 

researchers, which helped us become enthused.” 

“We decided to assess our program because I 

without concrete data. We then partnered with 

Any type of evaluation requires data collection. If data are collected, ethical considerations require that the data be used to 

monitor or change the program. That is, do 

not gather data—especially personal information from individuals—simply for the 

sake of doing so. Evaluation information 

does not have to be made public, but it 

does have to be used in some manner. 

Sources of Information 

A number of data sources are useful for 

the evaluation. The data gathered can be 

divided into two categories: qualitative and 

quantitative. Qualitative data include participants’ thoughts or observable behaviors, obtained from personal interviews, 

focus groups, and direct observation. 

Qualitative data can be converted into 

quantitative data by assigning numerical 

values to the qualitative data (however, 

this kind of data must be interpreted very 

cautiously). 

Quantitative information uses numerical 

values to represent information, allowing 

for statistical analyses. The main forms of 

quantitative data collection are questionnaires, ratings by trained observers, and 

service records. When determining which 

source of information to use, consider the 

following: 

■ Which source is the most accurate. 

■ The burden the source places on 

participants. 

■ The availability and accessibility of the 

source. 

■ Whether existing resources would work 

as well. 

Collecting data from the 

multidisciplinary team 

CAC directors have reported that at some 

point in an evaluation, they have difficulty 

71 
CHAPTER 9 / JULY 04 

collecting information from representatives of the various agencies participating 

on the multidisciplinary team (MDT). 

Several data collection strategies may be 

useful in these situations. 

Obtain information at case review. 

Obtaining information at case review can 

be done either informally or formally. 

Some directors simply listen passively 

and take down the information, while 

other directors ask agencies to make a 

formal report (written or verbal) at the 

start of each meeting. 

Make providing information a funding 

requirement. Inform the agencies that 

this information is a funding requirement. 

Ask all agencies to submit a written 

monthly report to the center. 

Call the agencies for the information. 

Agencies can provide evaluation information over the telephone. 

Send case tracking forms to agencies. 

One strategy is to send color-coded tracking forms to the various agencies (e.g., 

pink for law enforcement and green for 

prosecution). Agencies fill in the requested information and return the form to the 

center. (See appendix D for examples of 

case tracking forms.) 

Incorporate into the interagency agreement that the agency will provide this 

information. Write a paragraph in the 

interagency agreement stating that the 

member agencies will provide periodic 

reports to the center for evaluation 

purposes. 

Go to the agency and ask the appropriate individual for the information. Although this method is time consuming, one 

is sure to obtain the needed information. 

Obtain information about the outcome 

of a case at the court hearing. Many 

centers have personnel who attend court 

hearings with families. While at the hearing, make a record of the case outcomes 

for later entry into the database. 

Obtain information while talking informally with MDT members. For example, 

the MDT members will often arrive at the 

center before the family. While casually 

talking about the weather, staff can also 

get needed information from the MDT 

members. 

Make arrangements to use the 

agency’s computers to access the 

needed information. Currently, few systems have coordinated computer networks. In Oregon, the district attorneys 

are adopting a State model that will integrate all the agency’s computers to track 

cases more easily. A common problem 

with computer networks, however, is 

that each agency uses a different casetracking system. In addition, although networking community agencies seems like 

the best solution, many agencies are 

concerned with confidentiality issues, 

which must be resolved before computer 

networking can be a viable solution. 

Developing Instruments 

It is relatively easy to write the first draft 

of a new instrument. However, it will likely take several drafts to develop a satisfactory instrument. Instruments are often 

blamed when no differences are found 

between or among groups, particularly if 

the measure was developed by the investigator and not tested on a large number 

of people. When developing a new instrument, take the following precautions: ■ Word questions carefully. Research has 

demonstrated enormous differences in 

results of studies based on how questions are worded (Schwarz 1999). 

■ Make the survey as short as possible. 

72 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

■ Ensure that early questions do not 

affect later questions. 

■ Test the survey before administering it 

to the target population. 

Two methods for obtaining information 

are available, each of which has certain 

implications (Yates 1996). Everyone can 

answer the same questions, allowing data 

from all the clients to be combined to 

allow for powerful statistical analyses and 

providing generalizable results. However, 

the unique types of outcomes experienced by the clients cannot be determined, and valuable information may be 

missed. Alternatively, each person can 

answer a set of individualized questions 

to maximize detection of improvements in 

individual lives. However, these outcomes 

cannot be generalized to other groups. 

Another approach is to begin with individualized questions to define the outcomes; 

then, when the important outcomes have 

been identified, use a more general level 

of measurement. 

Timing of Data Collection 

The timing and frequency of collecting 

information for the evaluation depend 

heavily on expectations about how people 

respond to the agency’s program. For 

example, if children attend court school, 

how long after court school would one 

expect children to feel less anxious about 

testifying? Both theory and practical experience will help determine the appropriate 

timing for data collection. Timing is critical 

because effects may be missed if the timing of data collection is unsuitable for the 

evaluation or if the program takes effect 

at some point after the evaluation has 

been completed. Keep in mind that program effects can work in any of the following ways: 

■ In a stairway fashion. The effect increases, but incrementally in stages. 

For example, clients in therapy often 

experience plateaus and breakthroughs. 

■ A gradual increase. The effect increases steadily. For example, a medical 

examination may make children feel 

their bodies are physically healthy, 

which may help them deal more effectively with any psychological scars. 

■ A quick increase and then a decrease. 

The effect is seen initially, but then dissipates over time. For example, some 

directors have noted that participants 

are satisfied with the Child Advocacy 

Center (CAC) while they are participating in the center, but note that the positive effects decrease over time. 

■ An increase after a long period of 

time. The effect is delayed for some 

period of time (referred to as the 

“sleeper effect”) and manifests at 

some point in the future. For example, 

the effects of therapy on revictimization 

likely fit this description (although no 

studies are currently available). 

When to administer parent 

satisfaction questionnaires 

CAC directors disagree about when to 

administer parent satisfaction questionnaires. Among the several choices, 

directors indicate that asking parents to 

complete the form just before leaving 

the center is the most effective way to 

ensure that participants complete the 

instrument. Exhibit 9.1 describes the 

advantages and disadvantages of each 

choice. 

When to stop recruiting a family 

To obtain trustworthy results, the CAC 

needs to collect information from all families seen at the center. However, at some 

point staff will need to cease trying to 

contact particular families. Paying attention to the family’s cues can help 

73 
CHAPTER 9 / JULY 04 

determine when to stop trying to contact 

a family. For example, stop calling a family 

if a number of messages have not been 

returned. If staff make contact with families, but they are always too busy to talk, 

stop trying to recruit them. After giving a 

persuasive pitch about why their participation is critical to the evaluation, give 

families an opportunity to decline and 

respectfully thank them for their time. 

Some families may not want to cooperate 

with the evaluation, and that is their right. 

However, be sure to collect some data on 

these families (e.g., information taken 

from the intake form) for subsequent 

comparison with those clients who did 

agree to participate to determine how 

these clients differ from those who participated in the evaluation. This information 

will help when interpreting the results and 

will point to ways to recruit these individuals in future evaluations. 

Data collection needs to be standardized 

because variations between groups could 

be due to variations in data collection 

procedures, not to the intervention. 

Therefore, it is critical to conduct pilot 

tests (discussed later in this chapter) and 

to adjust the protocol prior to beginning 

the actual evaluation. 

The following issues should be addressed 

in any data collection protocol. The first 

four items are discussed in this chapter 

and the remaining items are discussed 

elsewhere in the manual: 

■ Administering the evaluation and 

collecting the data. 

■ Training in data collection. 

■ Data monitoring. 

■ Data storage. 

“Explain the hazards of intrusion and tell people 

have to give families an opportunity to decline.” 

not to invade people’s lives. For instance, you 

can’t call families any time you want to. And you 

Protocol for Data Collection 

Consistent data collection is critical to a 

good evaluation. One way to achieve 

consistent data collection is to develop a 

data collection protocol that outlines and 

describes the steps to be taken in collecting information for an evaluation. This 

ensures that everyone who collects information for the evaluation does so in 

exactly the same way (i.e., the protocol is 

standardized), both in the beginning (as 

staff are learning to implement the protocol) and in the future (in determining 

whether staff have deviated from the 

protocol). 

■ Data entry into a computer and data 

cleaning (chapter 10). 

■ Why the evaluation is important 

(chapter 1). 

■ Who will recruit participants (chapters 4 

and 7). 

■ Who will participate (chapters 4 and 7). 

■ Where participants will be recruited 

(chapters 4 and 7). 

■ What data will be collected (chapters 

4–6). 

■ Confidentiality (chapter 7). 

Periodic reassessment of 

the protocol 

An evaluation protocol ensures that procedures for gathering information are the 

same for all individuals in the evaluation. 

74 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Although pilot testing will prevent many 

problems, environments and priorities 

may change over time, requiring modification of your procedures, protocols, and 

expected outcomes after the evaluation 

has begun. Some programs reassess 

their protocol on a regular schedule (e.g., 

quarterly, semiannually, annually). Regardless of how often the agency chooses to reassess its protocol, a periodic 

formal review of the evaluation protocol is 

crucial. Be sure to involve the evaluation 

team in the reassessment, which should 

ask the following questions: 

■ Which aspects of the evaluation are 

working properly? 

■ Which aspects of the evaluation are not 

working well? 

■ Which aspects of the evaluation continue to be troublesome? 

Although it is important to maintain 

stability in the program for purposes of an 

evaluation, program changes may be necessary after the evaluation has already 

begun. If changes are made in either the 

program or the evaluation protocol, be 

sure to identify key changes and when 

those changes occurred. This information 

can help identify types of project variations and take them into account when 

interpreting results and writing the evaluation report. 

Training in Data Collection 

Data collectors 

The value of the data ultimately depends 

on the quality of the information collected, which is affected by the quality of the 

data collectors. Therefore, only designated 

and trained individuals should administer 

the questionnaires and interviews to participants. Data collectors must be able to 

follow procedures carefully. To prevent 

bias in data collection, avoid having program staff who work with participants 

collect the data. Data collectors may be 

program staff who do not work directly 

with participants, such as volunteers or 

university students. 

Because consistency in data collection is 

critical to a good evaluation, procedures 

for data collection must be developed and 

followed uniformly by data collectors. 

Therefore, data collectors need to be 

trained in the data collection protocol. 

Data collectors can practice their skills by 

performing mock data collection exercises 

and role playing. Consider training data 

collectors in the following issues. 

The importance of data 

collection protocols 

Research has shown that variations among 

data collectors can affect the results of an 

evaluation. Therefore, it is important that all 

protocols for data collection are in writing 

and are followed explicitly. This method 

will ensure that how one data collector 

interacts with one participant is the same 

as how all other data collectors interact 

with all participants. With a written data 

collection protocol, the results can be 

attributed to the program and not to 

variations between and among the data 

collectors. 

Confidentiality 

Because confidentiality is such an important requirement in evaluation, data collectors will want to be well versed in 

issues of confidentiality (see chapter 7). 

Ground rules for handling 

difficult situations 

It is quite likely that at some point the 

data collector will encounter problems 

collecting data from participants. Therefore, anticipate problems and establish 

75 
CHAPTER 9 / JULY 04 

ground rules for dealing with particular 

and recurring problems. For example, 

train data collectors how to handle outbursts of anger by clients. Visiting the 

CAC is a very tense time for most people 

and some people may be uncooperative 

with any evaluation efforts. It will be up 

to the data collector to defuse these 

situations. 

Refusal to complete the 

questionnaire 

Some clients will refuse to complete 

the questionnaire. However, staff can 

do several things to encourage their 

cooperation. 

■ Reiterate the importance of the evaluation and how the data are being used. 

■ Offer them the opportunity to complete 

the questionnaire at a more convenient 

time. 

■ Offer to send the questionnaire home 

with them to fill out at their leisure 

(although this strategy is not advised). 

■ If they still refuse, graciously thank 

them for their time. 

Nondirective responding to 

questions 

Data collectors can affect a participant’s 

reports by the way they respond to questions. Therefore, data collectors need 

training in how to respond to questions in 

a nondirective manner (see Groves 1989 

for a discussion of interviewer training). 

For example, if a participant is unsure how 

to answer a question, the interviewer 

should say, in a nonjudgmental tone of 

voice,“ There are no right or wrong 

answers, just choose the answer that 

best describes how you feel,” or “Answer 

the question however you interpret it.” 

Child abuse reporting laws 

Data collectors will be interacting with 

victims of abuse or parents of victims of 

abuse. Because these cases are governed 

by State child abuse reporting laws, it is 

imperative that the data collectors be 

aware of relevant State laws. 

Responsibility for quality control 

Data collectors are in the best position to 

observe problems, as they will have continual access to the data (i.e., completed 

questionnaires). Therefore, data collectors 

will need to continuously assess the data 

collection procedures. For example, it is 

quite possible that a particular question is 

always left blank on a questionnaire or 

that most participants fail to complete the 

back side of a questionnaire. One possible 

solution is that data collectors could say 

to participants prior to handing them the 

questionnaire, “Please note that this 

questionnaire has two sides.” Quality control is critical to a successful evaluation 

because the results of the evaluation 

could be adversely affected if a considerable amount of data are missing. When 

problems are discovered, a method 

should be in place for bringing these problems to the attention of the evaluation 

team, proposing solutions, and adjusting 

the protocol as necessary to rectify the 

problem. 

Issues Related to 

Completing Questionnaires 

Administering questionnaires might seem 

simple at first: Hand a questionnaire to an 

individual and that person fills it out. However, centers need to be aware of a number of important issues. 

76 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Length of time 

Throughout the evaluation, staff should 

collect information on how long it takes 

participants to complete questionnaires or 

interviews. To do this, record the date, the 

time started, and the time stopped on 

each questionnaire. If sending a mail survey, request information from participants 

on how long it took them to complete the 

survey. 

Information about how long it takes participants to complete questionnaires is beneficial for several reasons. It allows the 

staff to— 

■ Determine when there is enough time 

during the CAC visit for participants to 

complete the survey. For example, is 

there enough time to complete the 

questionnaire while the child is being 

interviewed? 

■ Inform future participants of approximately how long it will take them to 

complete the questionnaire. Many participants will ask how long it will take 

them, and staff will need to be able to 

give a realistic approximation. 

■ Summarize in the evaluation report how 

long it took participants to complete the 

questionnaire. Readers of the evaluation 

report will want to know this information because if the questionnaire took a 

long time to complete, participants may 

have become fatigued or may have 

completed the questionnaire in a careless manner, affecting the results. 

Administrators’ proximity 

While participants are completing questionnaires, staff should be nearby in case 

they have any questions, but staff should 

also give clients enough privacy to feel 

comfortable answering the questions 

honestly. 

Checking for completeness 

When the participant has completed the 

questionnaire, the data collector may 

want to look it over quickly to be sure it is 

complete. If there is missing information, 

the data collector might say, “I see here 

you have missed this question,” and hand 

back the questionnaire. If the person does 

not want to answer the question, simply 

respond with “I understand,” take back 

the questionnaire, and graciously thank 

the participant for his or her time. 

Assurances of confidentiality 

Assure participants that the team members working on their case do not have 

access to the questionnaires (if this is 

indeed the case). As further evidence of 

the center’s commitment to confidentiality, when the client completes the questionnaire, place the questionnaire in an 

envelope, seal it, and place the envelope 

in a large sealed box with a slit in the top. 

This will help reassure clients that the 

information they provide is anonymous 

and confidential. 

Comments on questionnaires 

Most evaluations use quantitative questionnaires, which are readily transferable 

to a computer database, but leave no 

space for participants’ comments. Even 

so, participants often write revealing or 

informative comments on forms. Keep 

track of these comments because they 

often provide valuable information for 

understanding why someone completed 

a questionnaire in a particular way. Also, 

this information may be useful when 

interpreting the results and writing the 

evaluation report. 

Literacy 

Literacy will be an issue for some families, and staff may need to administer the 

questionnaire in a different manner. One 

77 
CHAPTER 9 / JULY 04 way to do this and still maintain confidentiality is to give one questionnaire to the 

client and one to the data collector. The 

data collector then reads the questions 

and possible responses while the client 

indicates (writes/circles/checks) on his or 

her copy the desired response. 

“Families have a low literacy rate, so our rate of 

return is higher with face-to-face interviews 

(and many families don’t have phones).” 

Translation of standardized or 

commercial questionnaires 

Unfortunately, most questionnaires are 

available only in English, which presents 

some difficulties for those centers with 

many non-English-speaking clients. Many 

standardized questionnaires have only 

been tested (i.e., established reliability 

and validity) on Caucasian populations; 

therefore, the questionnaire may not work 

the same way for a non-Caucasian population. Although some centers have bilingual staff who translate the questions 

from English to Spanish, the reliability and 

validity of the instruments may be compromised when they are translated. Also, 

many words and phrases cannot be translated directly from English into other 

languages. 

Data Monitoring 

Someone needs to monitor the data collected from participants; this person is 

often referred to as the data monitor. 

Ideally, one person acts as data monitor 

and is responsible for all the data monitoring tasks: receiving collected data, recording incoming data, controlling quality, and 

storing data. There are several methods 

to monitor the data; computer or paper 

tracking forms are the most effective and 

efficient. 

The CAC will need to develop a data monitoring protocol. For example, a completed 

questionnaire should be turned in to the 

data monitor immediately and then 

logged into a data tracking form. If a completed questionnaire is missing, this tracking method will enable the data monitor 

to determine whether (a) the individual 

actually completed the questionnaire, 

which was subsequently lost, or (b) the 

individual never completed the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire has been 

logged in, it can be properly stored until 

data entry. 

Throughout the data collection process, 

the data monitor should conduct routine 

quality control checks of the data and 

schedule meetings with data collectors 

to ensure that data collection procedures 

continue to be consistently followed. The 

data monitor should also check incoming 

questionnaires for quality (e.g., no items 

are missing, copied questionnaires look 

clean and readable). If lapses in quality are 

detected, the data monitor can inform 

data collectors of these problems and 

take steps to rectify them. 

A list of data monitoring responsibilities 

should include the following: ■ Conducting random observations of the 

data collection process. 

■ Conducting random checks of respondents’ completed questionnaires. ■ Ensuring completed questionnaires are 

kept in a secure place. 

■ Looking for anecdotal information written by participants on questionnaires. 

Data tracking forms 

Data tracking is an important part of organizing the data. Some methods, however, make tracking data easier. One 

method is to use paper or computer 

78 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

tracking forms, which can be developed to 

fit the agency’s needs. Data tracking forms 

often include the following information: 

■ Participant number. 

■ Date administered (or sent). 

■ Name of person who administered the 

questionnaire. 

■ Date received. 

■ Date entered into computer. 

■ Name of person who entered the data. 

Exhibits 9.2 through 9.5 illustrate sample 

data collection tracking forms that can be 

tailored as needed. The forms may be 

combined or kept separate, whichever is 

more efficient for the purposes of the 

evaluation. 

Data storage 

Data monitors are also responsible for 

proper storage of the data. Two types of 

data will need to be stored. 

Data that have been collected from participants, but not entered into a computer. Store completed questionnaires in 

a secure location, preferably where only 

the data collectors, data monitors, and 

data entry personnel have access to the 

questionnaires. This will prevent breach of 

confidentiality and loss of questionnaires. 

A data tracking form will allow staff to 

check which questionnaires should be in 

the CAC’s possession at any given time. 

Data that have been collected from participants and entered into the computer. Once the data have been entered into 

a computer, a computer security system 

can ensure that only the data monitor and 

data entry personnel have access to the 

files. Including a column on the data tracking form for the date a questionnaire was 

entered into the computer will allow staff 

to easily compare stored questionnaires 

with what has been entered into the 

computer. Once information from the 

questionnaire has been entered, questionnaires should be stored in a secure location for up to 7 years (depending on the 

State institutional review board requirements). Thereafter, the questionnaires 

should be destroyed. 

Data entry 

Data entry means transferring the information (most typically numbers) recorded 

on questionnaires or from coded interviews to a computer database. Data entry 

sounds relatively simple; however, a number of easy-to-make mistakes can affect 

the results of the evaluation. Thus, it is 

important to establish a data entry protocol, which might require the following 

steps. 

Defining evaluation concepts. Each 

variable to be entered into the computer 

must be defined. For example, does tracking how many interviews are conducted 

with a child include only the number of 

interviews at the center, or does it include 

the number of “noninterviews”? For example, is it an interview when law enforcement personnel report that they had 

a short informal talk with the child, but 

state that it was not an “investigative interview”? Be sure to record these definitions for inclusion in the evaluation report. 

Creating rules for entering data. Rules 

must specify what to do with problems 

such as missing data or when two items 

on a line are circled. A statistician can 

help identify the best way to handle missing data. 

Data entry training 

Errors in results can occur at any point in 

the evaluation process. Improper or careless data entry can seriously impair the 

results. Therefore, select one or two 

79 
CHAPTER 9 / JULY 04 

conscientious individuals to enter the 

data, and invest in training these individuals. Each person who enters data must 

understand the following: 

■ How to use the computer system. ■ Definitions of the concepts contained in 

the data entry protocol. 

■ The rules of data entry defined in the 

data entry protocol. 

■ Their role in implementing the 

evaluation. 

Pilot Testing 

No matter how carefully the data collection is planned, unforeseen problems are 

likely to arise. Therefore, after the planning phase is complete, the entire evaluation must be tested on a small subset of 

individuals selected from the group who 

will potentially participate in the evaluation (e.g., parents). This process is referred to as a pilot test. Either the entire 

protocol may be tested or, as segments 

of the evaluation are sufficiently developed, each segment may be tested 

individually. 

Pilot testing identifies problems before 

the evaluation begins, thereby ensuring 

that the protocol will succeed and decreasing the need to change the protocol 

during the evaluation. A pilot test helps 

identify what the data collection system 

requires in terms of time, money, and 

other resources. 

A pilot test can answer some important 

questions that will be helpful once the 

evaluation begins: ■ How long does it takes participants to 

complete the instruments? 

■ Can self-administered questionnaires 

be completed without staff assistance? 

■ Can the instrument be completed in the 

allotted time frame? 

■ Are the procedures and instruments 

culturally appropriate? 

■ Are the notification procedures (letters, 

informed consent) easily implemented? 

■ How long will data collectors spend on 

each protocol? 

■ What are the response rates on first, 

second, and third mailings (for mail 

surveys)? 

■ How easily are former participants 

located? 

■ What is the refusal rate for in-person or 

telephone interviews? 

■ What data are frequently missing in 

program records? 

■ What data collection errors are common 

(e.g., missed questions)? 

■ What data are needed for analysis, but 

unavailable? 

■ What are the printing, postage, and 

other costs (beyond staff time)? 

■ When and how should staff follow up 

with participants? 

Pilot testing the instruments 

If the evaluation includes a questionnaire, 

at least six people representative of the 

pool of evaluation participants should 

complete the questionnaire. These participants will need to know that they are part 

of a pilot test. When instruments have 

been completed, inspect them for completeness and see whether the participants followed the instructions. Then ask 

for feedback on the following issues: ■ The wording of questions (less of an 

issue with standardized measures). 

80 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

■ The content of the questions. Did 

some questions make participants 

uncomfortable? 

■ The adequacy of the response 

categories. 

■ The clarity of instructions. 

■ The layout and format of the instrument. Is it easy to miss a question? 

Is there enough space to write 

comments? 

It is better to adjust the protocol during a 

pilot test than after the evaluation has 

begun. 

If a protocol or instrument is changed, the 

revised protocol or instrument must be 

retested to ensure that the solutions corrected previous problems and did not 

cause any new problems. A little time at 

this stage will avoid considerable difficulty 

later in the evaluation. Also, these issues 

should be monitored throughout the 

entire evaluation. 

Pilot analyses 

Chapter 10 discusses data analysis in 

detail. However, it is worth noting here 

that some preliminary analyses of the 

pilot data can ensure that the planned 

core analyses are possible (Boruch 1997). 

Data from the pilot study can be used 

to— 

■ Refine the primary questions. 

■ Conduct quality control checks on the 

data. 

■ Lay out the tables that will summarize 

the final analyses. 

■ Compare groups on the basis of pilot 

data (if possible). 

Management Information 

Systems 

The best advice for developing a casetracking system is to use a management 

information system (MIS). These systems 

organize information using computers and 

allow the information to be accumulated 

and displayed in a variety of ways. A variety of computer software programs can 

be purchased already programmed. With 

a little patience and training, staff can customize this kind of software to meet the 

CAC’s specific needs. After the initial frustration of learning to program software, 

enter the data, and produce reports, casetracking tasks will be much simpler. 

It is possible to improve the accuracy of 

data entry through the use of an MIS. For 

example, drop-down menus can streamline data entry. Nonetheless, data entry is 

time consuming, and even drop-down 

menus are subject to error. The development of scannable questionnaires will 

reduce human data entry error and resources. Large amounts of data can be 

entered relatively easily, quickly, and 

accurately. 

Many centers that get involved with an 

evaluation will probably continue to engage in some type of data collection once 

the formal evaluation has been completed. Thus, they need to be able to continue 

to collect and organize incoming information. Developing an MIS will allow them 

to generate periodic and ongoing reports 

quickly and easily. These reports provide 

up-to-date information that strengthens 

decisionmaking. 

“I would really like someone to set up the evaluation, then we could keep it going long term.” 

81 

Chapter 10: Analyzing Evaluation Data


This chapter provides information relevant 

to analyzing the evaluation data. Discussions include the importance of selecting 

a data analyst, the steps in data analysis, 

interpreting the results, and generalizability. 

The evaluation team should include a statistical analyst to help develop the data 

collection procedures, select the instruments for the evaluation, and conduct the 

analyses. The instruments selected affect 

the types of questions that can be asked 

and the types of analyses that can be performed. If no one on the team has these 

skills, an outside consultant should be 

hired to perform these duties. 

Data Analysis 

There are five steps to analyzing the data: 

1. Cleaning the data. 

2. Tabulating the data. 

3. Conducting the core analyses. 

4. Analyzing the data by key characteristics. 

5. Interpreting the results. 

Cleaning the data 

Errors are likely to be made while transferring data from a questionnaire to a computer, and errors in data entry can cause 

faulty results. Therefore, it is necessary to 

“clean” the data. Data cleaning ensures 

that the numbers respondents indicated 

on the questionnaire match the numbers 

entered into the computer. Data can be 

cleaned in one of several ways. 

An individual doublechecks the entered 

data. One individual checks the entered 

data (either on the computer or on a printout of the data) against the responses on 

the original questionnaire. Errors are noted 

and then corrected. 

Two individuals doublecheck the 

entered data. One individual reads aloud 

the entered data (either on the computer 

or on a printout of the data), while the 

other person checks the responses on the 

respondent’s original questionnaire. Errors 

are noted and then corrected. 

Frequency analyses are conducted. A 

frequency analysis helps determine 

whether the entered numbers are within 

the range of possible responses on the 

questionnaire. For example, if the questionnaire contains a five-point Likert scale 

(from one to five), then the range of numbers for each question should be only 

between one and five. If a frequency 

analysis finds a question with a range of 

responses between one and eight, then 

it can be concluded that an item was 

entered incorrectly. However, this check 

ensures only that respondents stayed 

within the rating scale limits and not that 

the data were entered accurately. 

A logic check is conducted. A logic check 

involves determining whether answers to 

various questions make sense. For example, if a respondent indicates that he or 

she has no children, all subsequent questions regarding children should have a 

83 
CHAPTER 10 / JULY 04 

code of “not applicable.” Any other response suggests a data entry error. 

An accepted practice is to select at random 10 percent of the questionnaires. 

(See http://www.randomizer.org/form.htm 

for a random numbers table.) If these contain no or very few errors, one can be relatively confident that the data are clean. 

However, if pervasive mistakes are found, 

the entire data set will need to be checked 

and corrected. Tracking who enters the 

data may identify patterns of error associated with each data entry person. 

Tabulating the data 

Before calculating the core analyses, the 

evaluator should become familiar with the 

data. The best way to do this is to run frequencies on the data, which give such 

information as how many participants 

completed each question and the range of 

responses to those questions. 

Typically, data are grouped to form summaries rather than to focus on a particular 

individual. For example, reporting on the 

number of participants in an evaluation 

simply means counting the total number 

of participants who completed questionnaires. However, reporting the percentage 

of people who agreed to participate in the 

study requires dividing the number of participants who completed a questionnaire 

by the total number of people invited to 

participate in the evaluation. Percentages 

are often preferable to averages because, 

depending on the response rate, averages 

can be affected by a few very high or very 

low scores. 

Scoring instruments. Several standardized or commercial instruments used in 

evaluations require some manipulation to 

create a score for each participant. For 

example, the Conflict Tactics Scales 

(Straus et al. 1996) require summing 

certain items to create a score for each 

person. When selecting an instrument for 

an evaluation, be sure to obtain the 

instructions for scoring the instruments, 

regardless of who will analyze the data. 

Some instruments, such as the Child 

Behavior Checklist (Achenbach 1992), 

have available a computer program that 

scores the instrument. 

Assigning weights to questions. Not all 

outcomes are equally important; therefore, certain questions may be weighted 

to have a greater effect on the results. For 

example, a question may have a weight of 

1.5 if the outcome is particularly valuable, 

and a weight of 1.0 if the outcome is simply expected (Yates 1996). 

Conducting the core analyses 

Once the preliminary work is done, the 

core analyses can begin. The evaluation 

team should have decided during the 

planning stages which analyses to conduct; otherwise, once the data are collected, the great temptation is to conduct 

numerous analyses, which becomes 

unwieldy and overwhelming. The better 

strategy is to develop hypotheses (see 

chapter 5), plan the analyses around these 

hypotheses, and stick to the plan. 

Rather than conducting the analyses only 

after all the data have been collected, 

analyses should occur periodically 

throughout the evaluation (e.g., monthly, 

quarterly). For example, first-quarter analyses can have several uses: 

Enhancing adherence to the evaluation 

plan. Analyses conducted early in the 

evaluation can demonstrate that the 

evaluation is going to provide useful information, thus enhancing the team’s 

commitment to the evaluation. 

Determining the need to make corrections and changes. Analyses conducted 

early in the evaluation can reveal whether 

changes in the protocol need to be made 

before the evaluation is complete. 

84 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Determining why discrepancies in the 

protocol have occurred. Periodic reports 

may suggest the need for reminders to 

individuals involved in the evaluation 

about why adherence to the protocol is 

critical, as well as possible incentives for 

compliance, including peer recognition 

and rewards. 

In addition to periodic reports of the analyses, the data analyst and evaluation team 

should meet regularly to discuss emerging findings. These meetings could be 

separate from other meetings or incorporated into regular meetings (e.g., evaluation team meetings, staff meeting, 

multidisciplinary team meetings). Be 

sure to invite discussion from the team 

members about the results. However, 

keep in mind that these results are preliminary and may change with the inclusion of the entire sample. Similarly, a 

chance difference that appears early may 

disappear by the end of the evaluation. 

Therefore, major decisions should not be 

based on periodic reports (Boruch 1997). 

Analyzing the data by key 

characteristics 

If a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) has 

information on subgroups of individuals, 

for example, certain ethnic groups or children who have testified in court, the data 

can be analyzed by subgroup. While this 

may make the analyses more complex, it 

will also yield more realistic and meaningful results. The most useful evaluation 

incorporates subgroup analyses to ask 

the following questions: 

■ What works about the program? 

■ For whom is the program most 

beneficial? 

■ Under what conditions is the program 

most beneficial? 

Results based on subgroup analyses will 

help fine tune the program. For example, 

differences between ethnic groups on levels of child stress during a medical examination may indicate the need to adjust the 

protocol to accommodate the needs of 

the various subgroups. On the other 

hand, finding no differences between 

these groups would suggest that the protocol is affecting all clients equally. 

Interpreting the results 

Interpreting the results is often the most 

difficult aspect of any evaluation for several reasons, discussed below. 

Numerical context and explanation. 

Numbers typically need to be placed in 

some context for their meaning to be discernable. Consider the following example: 

CAC Alpha shows an increase in 

prosecution rates from 35 percent 

to 50 percent, which is pretty good. 

CAC Beta shows an increase in 

prosecution rates from 5 percent to 

20 percent, which is great. 

Both examples show an increase of 15 

percent in prosecution rates, and yet it is 

very different to be starting at 35 percent 

instead of 5 percent. The reader needs 

a context within which to interpret the 

numbers. 

As another example, what does it mean 

to say that a center has served 300 children this year? Whether this is a lot or a 

little depends on the context in which the 

center operates. If CAC Alpha reported 

that there were 5,000 reports of child sexual abuse (CSA) in the counties that it 

serves, and the center served 300 of 

those children, the reader knows that the 

center is serving a small percentage (6 

percent) of the children who allege that 

abuse has occurred. In contrast, if there 

85 
CHAPTER 10 / JULY 04 

were 500 CSA cases in the counties that 

CAC Beta serves, and the center served 

300 of those children, the reader knows 

that it is serving a large percentage (60 

percent) of the children who allege that 

abuse has occurred. Thus, a CAC could be 

serving a few or a lot of children, but 

there is no way to know which without a 

numerical context. Numbers in isolation 

are basically meaningless. 

“One of our outcomes was to increase the numfound that 75 percent of families say they want 

suggests some missing link here. Now we have 

to find the missing link.” 

ber of families who actually go into therapy. We 

to enter therapy, but only 30 percent actually do. 

Why don’t they? What’s going on here? This 

Not only do numbers need a context, they 

also require explanation to help readers 

understand what they mean. An explanation answers the question why—what 

accounts for these results? For example, 

the finding that 6 percent of the CSA 

cases are referred to a center can be explained in two ways. It could mean that 

the center is not serving very many children. However, another interpretation is 

that most of these cases are not being 

referred to the center. The question, then, 

is why not? With this information, agencies can then determine why agencies 

are referring so few cases to the center. 

If the evaluation results differ from the 

predictions, this discrepancy must be explained. When thinking about possible explanations, always consider internal and 

external influences on the evaluation. For 

example, possible external influences on 

the results may include rising unemployment in the neighborhood or reduced 

funding for the program. Possible internal 

influences may be high staff turnover or 

the introduction of a new curriculum. 

Implications and recommendations. 

Another difficult evaluation task is to derive implications from the findings: What 

can be inferred from these findings? It is 

insufficient to simply state a conclusion 

(i.e., a statement or a set of statements 

about the merit, worth, or value of the 

evaluation) without addressing the implications of that conclusion. For example, 

what are the implications of finding a drop 

in referrals for a particular ethnic group? 

Management might want to replace the 

director of program services, but the evaluator might want to conduct a followup 

study to determine why the drop in referrals occurred. Be sure to discuss with the 

team members the possible implications 

of the findings. 

The team should discuss the implications 

of the findings because recommendations 

flow most naturally from the implications. 

Some of the exercises discussed at the 

end of chapter 3 can facilitate these discussions. The team will need to make 

explicit recommendations for the evaluation report because more often than not, 

data do not speak for themselves. In addition, even if the readers could form their 

own recommendations, they should 

also receive the evaluation team’s recommendations, as the two sets of recommendations may differ. However, it is a 

considerable leap from conclusions to recommendations, so be cautious in making 

recommendations (Scriven 1993). 

Statistical significance versus practical 

significance. Statistical significance 

refers to whether results occurred at a 

level greater than chance. Some events 

occur due to chance alone; therefore, a 

test is needed to determine whether the 

results were due to chance or whether 

the probability of a particular result 

occurred at greater-than-chance levels. 

Researchers have long agreed that there 

is statistical significance if the probability 

of the result occurring from chance alone 

is less than 5 percent (denoted by p < .05). 

86 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

One shortcoming of relying on a significance level is that it depends on the number of participants in the evaluation. That 

is, it is far easier to reach significance 

with a large number of participants (i.e., 

a large sample size). Therefore, some 

researchers have started to report critical 

intervals rather than significance levels. 

Critical intervals indicate the degree of 

confidence one can have in the results 

when they fall within a particular range. In 

one example, there is a correlation of .63 

between case review and the case being 

accepted for prosecution, and the confidence interval is 95 percent. One can be 

95 percent confident that the result (the 

correlation) is not due to chance if the correlation falls between .61 and .65. That is, 

in 95 out of 100 samples from the same 

population, the estimated correlation 

should fall between .61 and .65. 

Although researchers adhere to statistical 

significance, statistical significance and 

practical significance may be different. 

That is, statistical significance does not 

always reveal the importance of the result. For example, differences that are 

very small are not likely to be important, 

even if they are statistically significant 

(remember that significance is strongly 

affected by the number of participants in 

the evaluation). As a rule of thumb, differences of less than 5 percentage points 

are seldom meaningful for program managers or funding agencies. Differences of 

10 or more percentage points are more 

likely to be of practical concern (United 

Way of America 1996). 

Finding no differences. Directors are 

often concerned that an evaluation will 

fail to reveal the program’s effectiveness. 

However, lack of significant change 

among the participants, for example, 

does not necessarily rule out program 

effectiveness (Boruch 1997). Below are 

several possible explanations of why an 

evaluation failed to reveal program 

effectiveness: ■ Differences may exist, but the data do 

not reflect this fact. Often the program 

works differently for different people, 

and analyzing data only for the group of 

participants as a whole may not reveal 

differences. One way to test for this is 

to include in the analyses a measure of 

something that could affect the results 

(referred to as a moderating variable; 

see chapter 6). For example, if child age 

is a potential moderating variable in the 

analysis of child stress, older children 

may demonstrate significant differences 

in pre-post intervention levels of stress, 

while younger children may not. 

■ The measurement of the response to 

the program was invalid. Often instruments are blamed when no differences 

are found, particularly if the measure 

was developed by the investigator for a 

particular study, and therefore the validity and reliability are unknown. It may be 

that the instrument does not measure 

what the team intended to measure (in 

technical terms, the instrument is not 

valid). For example, a child behavior 

scale would not be a valid measure of 

child stress because it measures child 

behavior and not child stress. 

■ The statistical power of the experiment 

is too low. Statistical power refers to 

the probability of detecting differences 

in the effectiveness of the program. 

Fewer than 7 out of 10 studies are sufficiently powerful to detect differences of 

even moderate size. “No difference” 

results are a real possibility. However, 

one can ensure having enough statistical power to detect differences by 

conducting a power analysis (Cohen 

1992a). In addition, recruiting participants who are similar on some important characteristics (referred to as 

“homogeneity”)—for example, by 

87 
CHAPTER 10 / JULY 04 

recruiting participants who are all victims of CSA—reduces the amount of 

variability among participants and therefore increases statistical power. 

■ The wrong population participated in 

the evaluation. This is less likely to 

occur at a CAC. However, data analysis 

may reveal no differences if, for example, the dysfunctional families are excluded from the study because they 

refuse to participate, they drop out of 

the program, or staff are unable to 

locate them at a later date, leaving only 

more functional families participating in 

your evaluation. Functional families may 

not benefit from the CAC’s services as 

much as dysfunctional families, and 

therefore the evaluation would not find 

significant changes among functional 

families. 

A number of factors may explain a finding 

of no difference, and sometimes the 

results will not be as expected. 

Typically, several factors may explain 

the evaluation’s results. Therefore, select 

a theory (or process) for why certain 

results may occur before implementing 

the evaluation and eliminate as many 

competing explanations as possible by 

measuring competing explanations (see 

chapter 5). For this reason, the evaluation 

should include the following: 

■ Exposure to other important influences. 

Chapter 8 discusses a number of contexts to consider when planning an evaluation. This might help determine which 

contexts could influence the results. 

■ Program monitoring evaluation. To 

ensure that the outcomes result from 

the program rather than from some 

other factor that was not measured, 

simultaneously conduct a program monitoring evaluation to ensure the services 

that were supposed to be provided to 

clients actually were provided. 

Recruitment challenges: Voluntary 

participation and attrition. Voluntary 

participation refers to a sample selection 

method in which participants in the evaluation consist only of those individuals 

who voluntarily agree to participate. Many 

directors conducting client satisfaction 

surveys, for example, report difficulty 

obtaining information from every client 

and, therefore, data collection is limited 

to those individuals willing to participate. 

Although not purposefully selecting 

success-prone participants for the evaluation (known as “creaming”), by having 

data only on these voluntary participants, 

the program may appear more effective 

than it really is. Participant attrition, on the 

other hand, refers to individuals who 

started the program (and therefore some 

data may have been collected on them), 

but who fail to complete the program or 

are unable to be contacted later for followup data collection. As with voluntary 

participation, an evaluation report based 

on data collected only on individuals who 

completed the program or who were 

available for followup data collection may 

make the program appear more effective 

than it really is. More important, implications and recommendations based on 

information received from this limited 

pool of clients may be misleading, and 

even damaging, to the program. 

Generalizability. Typically, a researcher 

selects a subset of individuals (referred 

to as the sample) from a total pool of individuals (referred to as the population) to 

participate in a study or evaluation. For 

example, a center might randomly select 

25 percent of the clients seen at the CAC 

to complete a client satisfaction survey 

rather than requiring 100 percent of the 

clients to participate. The assumption is 

that the results from this random sample 

generalize to the population (that is, the 

sample is representative of the population 

of CAC clients). The results of an evaluation based on a representative subset of 

88 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

participants would be the same if the 

evaluation included all CAC clients. 

Whether a study’s results are generalizable depends heavily on the sample 

selection method and what questions are 

being asked. 

For example, to learn how law enforcement personnel on the multidisciplinary 

team perceive the CAC, one should ask a 

subset of those law enforcement personnel who interact with the CAC to participate in the evaluation. To learn how law 

enforcement in the larger community perceive the CAC, one should ask a subset of 

all law enforcement in a particular jurisdiction to participate in the evaluation. These 

are very different samples of law enforcement that are perfectly appropriate for 

each of the questions being asked. 

As another example, whether 10 percent 

of all reported CSA cases referred to a CAC 

is generalizable to all CAC cases depends 

on whether the 10 percent of cases referred to the CAC were similar to all CSA 

cases reported in the jurisdiction (making 

the results generalizable), or whether that 

10 percent of cases represented only the 

most egregious CSA cases (making the 

results not generalizable). 

Generalizability is hampered by a voluntary participation recruitment strategy 

because those who decline to participate 

in an evaluation may be systematically different from those who agree to participate (e.g., more serious cases, greater 

family dysfunction). An effect based on 

the voluntary sample may indeed hold for 

people like those in the voluntary group, 

but it cannot be determined whether the 

effect holds for the entire client population. Thus, defining eligibility criteria of 

potential participants is essential for 

understanding the generalizability of the 

evaluation (Boruch 1997). 

One strategy for assessing the effect of 

attrition and voluntary participation on the 

evaluation results uses the data collected 

(e.g., on intake forms) from individuals 

who refuse to participate, who drop out, 

or who cannot be contacted for the followup to identify any differences between 

those individuals and individuals who 

agreed to participate in the evaluation. If 

differences are found, it may be argued 

that the program would be deemed less 

effective if all CAC clients were included 

in the evaluation. On the other hand, if no 

differences are found between the two 

groups, then there can be greater confidence that the evaluation results are 

generalizable. 

89 

Chapter 11: The Evaluation Report


This chapter provides information relevant 

to the evaluation report. Discussions include selecting the evaluation author, 

determining the evaluation audience, practical information on the content of various 

evaluation reports, and finally, presenting 

and disseminating the evaluation report. 

The Evaluation Author 

The first thing to determine is who is 

going to write the evaluation report. This 

person should have been selected during 

the planning phase of the evaluation and 

should serve on the evaluation team. The 

person responsible for writing the evaluation report should consult with the team 

while writing the report. When the report 

is finished, the team should also review 

the final document before it is released. 

ceived problems. Steps have been taken to clear 

up those problems, but the main problem was 

never mentioned in the report. Some good things 

have come of the evaluation; for example, the 

lighting was changed.” 

“We hired an outside evaluator to look at how 

employees and board members worked together. 

We received a several-page report stating perSome evaluation reports will have one 

author, while others will share authorship. 

Determining the order of authorship (if 

there is more than one author) should also 

be decided during the planning stages to 

avoid later disputes. According to the 

American Psychological Association’s 

Guidelines for Authorship (Fine and Kurdek 

1993), authorship should be conferred on 

all individuals who make a substantial contribution to the document, commensurate 

with education and experience. 

The Report’s Audience 

The evaluation report provides information 

to decisionmakers (Morris, Fitz-Gibbon, 

and Freeman 1987). However, different 

people will want different information, 

even to answer the same question. In 

addition, some users will expect the evaluation report to support a specific point of 

view. Therefore, it is important to identify 

decisionmakers’ opinions early on in order 

to anticipate potential controversies and to 

design reporting procedures that take 

them into account. Furthermore, understanding the audience’s motivations facilitates influencing them with the evaluation 

report. 

Before the report is written (and preferably 

while planning the evaluation), the evaluation team should determine the users of 

the report. Potential audiences might include service providers, direct sponsors 

(grantors), indirect sponsors (legislature), 

special interest groups, researchers and 

other scholars, journalists, prominent political leaders, and the multidisciplinary team 

(MDT).1 

91 
CHAPTER 11 / JULY 04 

Once the readership has been identified, 

the team can determine what information 

the readers will need and why by asking 

the following questions: 

■ Who are the key people? 

■ What do the key people want to know? 

■ What do the key people consider 

acceptable criteria for program 

success? 

■ What is the best means of communicating with the key people? 

■ Which issues do key people perceive as 

important? 

What evaluators need to know 

about the audience 

After creating an audience list and identifying some characteristics about the audience, the team should consider what it 

knows about all audience members, such 

as the following: 

■ Their philosophy of evaluations. 

■ Their relationship to the program. 

■ Their relevant personal characteristics. 

■ Their preference for communication 

forms and style. 

■ Their political affiliations. 

This kind of information can be entered 

into a table for easy access (for an example, see exhibit 11.1). Be sure to elicit information from all team members about 

the audience because each team member 

may have a different, useful perspective. 

Timeliness of and timetables for 

evaluation reports 

Late reports may not be used or will be 

used less effectively in making decisions. 

Therefore, all reports must be completed 

on time to ensure they are useful. One 

method for ensuring timely reports is to 

obtain a commitment from the report’s 

author that reports will be submitted on 

time; this stipulation may be in the statement of work (see chapter 3). 

Effective reporting and communication 

must be ongoing throughout the evaluation. Periodic reports are useful for updating the audience and making incremental 

changes if necessary. The final report is 

necessary for summarizing and disseminating the big picture. While planning the 

evaluation, determine how often periodic 

reports will be generated and when the 

final report will be completed. 

One difficulty with scheduling report due 

dates is that different users of the report 

may need the report at different times. 

Therefore, during the planning stages— 

■ Ask each user what information will be 

needed, and when. 

■ Determine when you can provide relevant information to the audience. 

■ Provide the audience with a schedule 

so they know when to expect reports 

(see exhibit 11.2). 

■ Develop a scheduling form that is clearly understood by the intended users. 

The Content of the 

Evaluation Report 

Below are some excellent tips for writing 

the evaluation report. However, the report 

should meet the needs of your audience. 

For example, a detailed analysis of the 

evaluation design might be of little interest to decisionmakers who are interested 

in the implications of the evaluation. However, when requesting future or further 

funding for the evaluation, the design of 

the evaluation will be critical. 

92 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

The evaluation report should not look like 

a research report. However, the Joint 

Committee on Standards for Educational 

Evaluation states that standards in reporting research require full and frank disclosure of all results (Scriven 1993). This 

statement implies that the evaluation 

team must remember its mistakes, make 

note of them, and report those that may 

affect the evaluation. 

The following are nine elements of a good 

evaluation report (Scriven 1993): 

■ The report should always answer the 

question “So what?” This is the first 

thing that a reader should learn from 

your report. Explain to the reader the 

overall purpose of the evaluation, the 

major findings, and what they mean. 

■ The presentation of data should be 

standardized. A report is more efficient 

and easier to understand if the results 

are presented in a consistent format. 

■ The report should be comprehensible. 

Jargon reduces the writer’s ability to 

communicate clearly to those who are 

not members of his or her particular 

profession; for example, never use the 

terms “independent variable” or “dependent variable” in a report. 

■ The report should be based on information from credible sources. 

Collecting data from the right sources, 

regardless of the method employed, 

builds trust in the report. 

■ The report should be concise. The 

report should be as straightforward as 

possible. 

■ The report should provide recommendations. Always provide possible 

solutions for problems rather than just 

the negative results. Also, negative 

outcomes should include anecdotal 

explanations derived from conversations with colleagues and staff. 

■ The report should integrate into the 

conclusion a consideration of unexpected outcomes. Report both positive 

and negative unexpected results and 

possible explanations for their occurrence and why the results were not 

anticipated. 

■ The report should discuss the generalizability of the findings. Discuss 

whether the individuals who participated in the evaluation are the same as or 

different from clients in general on 

important characteristics. 

■ The report should discuss the various 

standards affecting the evaluation. 

This can be determined from a needs 

assessment, ethics, and the law. 

Topics to cover in periodic 

reports 

Generally, periodic reports are produced 

quarterly or less frequently. They are 

designed to inform staff about the progress of the evaluation and to facilitate 

the research team’s efforts to keep the 

evaluation on track. These reports usually 

do not include analyses, partly because 

the statistical power is insufficient to detect changes due to the smaller number 

of participants. At different stages of the 

evaluation, the report will emphasize different facets of the project. 

Early in the evaluation. One of the first 

reports will consist primarily of the evaluation design. Issues to address include the 

primary purpose for the evaluation, the 

design selected to answer the evaluation 

questions, the participants in the evaluation (e.g., pipeline-related data; see chapter 7), estimates of how many participants 

93 
CHAPTER 11 / JULY 04 

are needed for the evaluation (derived 

from conducting a power analysis), the 

measures to be used, and the report’s 

audience. 

Midcourse and periodic reports. 

Midcourse and periodic reports might 

address problems encountered in selecting participants and a comparison group, 

with possible solutions; updates and modifications to the evaluation design; baseline data comparisons; preliminary results, 

if available; and any followup surveys of 

participants. 

Later in the experiment. Near the end of 

the study, the report can present preliminary analyses. In addition, the report can 

address quality control issues and reporting and publication options. 

Topics to cover in a final 

evaluation report 

The final evaluation report summarizes 

and disseminates the big picture. However, its content will depend heavily on its 

audience. A comprehensive final evaluation report will contain the components 

listed below. 

The executive summary. The executive 

summary discusses the evaluation’s overall purpose, findings, and implications. 

The evaluation question. This section of 

the report discusses the authorization and 

justification for the evaluation. Include in 

this section references to any related 

studies that support the evaluation design 

or evaluation questions. 

The design of the study. Describe the 

study design in detail. Include the sponsor 

of the evaluation, statistical power (the 

number of participants), the pipeline study 

(if applicable), eligibility criteria, recruitment procedures, a description of the participants, a description of logic models 

and if-then statements, outcome variables, and measurement methods. 

The description of control or comparison groups. This section describes the 

selection of any control or comparison 

and treatment groups and how the control or comparison group is similar to or 

different from the treatment group (i.e., 

Child Advocacy Center (CAC) client 

participants). 

Integrity of the design. This section 

of the report describes baseline data 

comparisons, eligibility-related data, participant acceptance rates, validity and 

reliability of the measures (standardized 

questionnaires should provide this information), changes in the design of the evaluation that occurred during the course of 

the study, attrition, and missing data. 

Analyses and results. The analyses and 

results are typically presented simultaneously. First, discuss which type of analysis 

was performed, followed by the results of 

that analysis. Comparisons among groups 

or subgroup analyses (i.e., what works for 

whom) should be included here. Also include any limitations of the analyses and 

special problems, such as missing data. 

Conclusions and implications. This section discusses the findings and interprets 

the results. The implications of the findings are important and must be specified 

for the reader. Also discuss how various 

internal and external factors that could not 

be measured might have affected the 

evaluation (see chapter 8). 

Recommendations (when applicable). 

Typically, recommendations accompany 

an evaluation report and follow the section on implications because the recommendations emerge from the finding’s 

implications. 

References. Provide references or citations for any published or unpublished 

work used in the evaluation report. 

94 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Appendixes. A number of appendixes 

may be included in the evaluation report: 

survey questions, inventories, administrative reporting form(s), a copy of the informed consent form(s), and supporting 

statistical tables (if they are not in the text). 

Public-use data file (if applicable). If 

your funding agency requires researchers 

to place their data in a public-use data 

depository, then specify in the report 

where the data can be accessed. 

Presenting the Data 

Several formats can be used to present 

the results of the evaluation: 

■ Present both totals and subgroups in 

a table. Present the data by subgroups 

broken down by relevant characteristics 

(e.g., gender, age, or racial groups), as 

well as by the whole sample. This kind 

of information is often more useful than 

a simple total. (Exhibit 11.3 shows a 

sample trauma symptom checklist for 

children.) 

■ Present only subgroups in a table. 

Present all of the results only by subgroups, such as gender, age, or racial 

groups. 

■ Present comparison groups in a 

table. Present the results by treatment 

and comparison group (see a sample 

in exhibit 11.4). Statistical computer 

packages have a cross-tabulations 

command to calculate this information 

automatically. 

■ Present data visually by graphing the 

data. Graphs tend to jump out at readers and capture their attention. However, a visible difference between two 

lines on a graph can occur because of 

chance alone and does not mean that 

there is a statistically significant difference between the two lines. Thus, the 

text needs to explicitly interpret the 

graph for the reader. 

Reviewing the Evaluation 

Report 

An effective evaluation report will contain 

no surprises because all major issues will 

have been discussed among the team 

members, and group decisions will have 

been made before writing the evaluation 

report. To further prevent surprises, preliminary drafts of the evaluation report 

should be shared with the evaluation 

team to obtain their reactions to the report’s content and style. The team may 

provide missing data and anecdotal information that may make the report more 

complete. The team should also have an 

opportunity to comment on the final draft 

of the report. Consider attaching a cover 

letter requesting team members and any 

external reviewers to answer the following questions: 

■ Do the findings seem reasonable? 

■ Are they presented clearly? 

■ What questions do they raise that are 

not answered in the report? 

■ Are explanations of problem areas and 

proposed remedies satisfactory? 

■ What other tables or charts would be 

helpful? 

■ Does anything seem to be missing, 

such as an overlooked outcome or 

influencing factor? 

The statement of work may stipulate that 

the entire team must approve the evaluation report before it is released (Gunn 

1987). After it has been approved by the 

entire evaluation team, release the report 

to the larger audience. 

95 
CHAPTER 11 / JULY 04 

Disseminating the Report 

How the report is disseminated will affect 

how it is written. Some funding sources 

may stipulate how the report is to be disseminated. If the evaluation is sponsored 

through a government or foundation 

grant, for example, the authority to release the report lies with the principal 

investigator (Boruch 1997). Different venues for disseminating the evaluation report will reach very different audiences: 

■ Conference presentations. Conference 

presentations allow delivery of the results of the evaluation to a potentially 

large and diverse audience. 

■ Newspapers. Newspaper notices regarding the evaluation can increase 

community awareness about the center. 

■ Newsletters. Publishing the evaluation 

report in a newsletter, such as the 

National Children’s Alliance newsletter, 

notifies other centers of the evaluation 

activities. This method allows a large 

number of people to learn from the center’s evaluation methods and results. 

■ Open houses. Invite the community to 

an open house at the center and display 

the results of the evaluation in several 

locations throughout the center. Both 

the open house and the display of the 

evaluation results will foster positive 

community relations. 

■ Journals. Depending on the evaluation, 

the results may be published in a journal. Journals that would be amenable to 

an evaluation report include Child Abuse 

& Neglect, Child Maltreatment, The 

Advisor, and New Directions for Program Evaluation. If unsure where to 

submit the evaluation, consult with a 

faculty member at a local university or 

with staff at the American Evaluation 

Association. 

Presenting the report publicly 

It is sometimes difficult to determine who 

will present the evaluation to a group of 

people, for example, at a conference. 

Thus, decide during planning who “owns” 

the evaluation data. 

In some cases, a sole evaluator may be 

responsible for the evaluation. This person 

will know the evaluation data best and 

will be in the best position to present the 

report to the public. However, in some 

situations it may be preferable for the 

director (or some other team member) to 

present the report. The audience to whom 

the evaluation is being reported may dictate who should present the evaluation 

results. 

Making the presentation 

The evaluation report should be delivered 

in a manner consistent with the evaluation questions asked, although the specific information presented depends on the 

audience. Visual aids should accompany 

any presentation. The presentation should 

include the evaluation theory, the evaluation predictions (i.e., hypotheses), the design of the study (who participated, the 

measures used, and the timeline of the 

study), analyses and results, and implications and recommendations. 

Discoverability of the 

evaluation report 

Depending on State statutes, the evaluation report may be discoverable. That is, 

the report could be subpoenaed and used 

as evidence in legal proceedings against 

the center. As these statutes vary from 

State to State, the applicable law in the 

State must be identified. 

96 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Summary comments 

This resource book was written to educate CAC administrators about evaluation 

and to encourage administrators to engage in evaluation. Evaluation is important 

because it is the only way to ensure that 

a program is benefiting, not harming, the 

people it is trying to help (Thompson and 

McClintock 1998). Furthermore, in this 

time of increased accountability, it is imperative that administrators arm themselves with data to support the contention 

that CACs are a beneficial method of processing child sexual abuse cases. Administrators have to be able to say more than 

“I know it works.” 

With the publication of this manual, all 

CAC administrators can engage in some 

form of evaluation (program monitoring, 

outcome evaluation, or impact evaluation). 

This resource book contains all the necessary tools to conduct an evaluation, either 

independently or with the assistance of 

an evaluation professional. For example, it 

provides CAC administrators with practical information on recruiting and retaining 

participants, collecting data, analyzing the 

data, and writing the evaluation report. In 

addition, this volume contains a large 

range of instruments for use in various 

types of evaluations. Although undertaking an evaluation can be challenging, the 

benefits of doing so far outweigh the 

challenges. 

Note 

1. Some centers share evaluation reports with the 

MDT and some do not. If the MDT is completing 

surveys, then it seems only fair that they should 

have access to the results. Spend 5 minutes at case 

review highlighting the results or give team members a one-page summary with bulleted results. 

97 

Appendix A 

Brief Descriptions of Other Types of Evaluations 

Multisite Evaluation 

Many directors evaluate their own Child 

Advocacy Centers (CACs). However, at 

times one may want to collaborate with 

other CACs to conduct a multisite evaluation (i.e., the same evaluation in multiple 

locations). 

Prospective multisite evaluations have 

been defined by Sinacore and Turpin (1991) 

as evaluations in which— 

■ An investigator intends to use multiple 

sites at the beginning of the evaluation. 

■ The evaluation is a planned activity. 

■ Preferably, the evaluation is implemented in the same way at different geographical locations. 

■ The analysis consists of analyzing original data.1 

Conducting a multisite evaluation offers 

many benefits: 

■ The sample size is larger. 

■ More data are collected over a shorter 

period of time. 

■ Deliberate sampling can obtain a 

more diverse sample (referred to as 

heterogeneity). 

The greatest hurdle faced in conducting a 

multisite evaluation is standardizing evaluation protocols. This will require detailed 

planning and training so that data collection is consistent from site to site. Training 

manuals are helpful for standardization so 

that everyone has the various protocols in 

writing. Standardized methods of data 

organization (i.e., data collection, storage, 

entry, and cleaning) ensure that all sites 

treat the data in the same way. 

When evaluations operate in a number 

of locations, a core set of performance 

measures can be supplemented with 

“local” performance measures. 

Efficiency Analysis 

This section introduces the concepts involved in efficiency analysis; it does not 

describe in detail how to conduct an efficiency analysis. Implementing an efficiency analysis is impractical for most people 

because of the required technical procedures, the methodological sophistication, 

the moral controversies over placing 

economic values on services, and the 

absence of a single “right” way to conduct 

this type of evaluation (Rossi, Freeman, 

and Lipsey 1999). Nonetheless, it may be 

helpful to know the terminology and 

methodology. The purpose of an efficiency 

analysis is twofold: 

1. In practice, evaluators tend to add all the data together from each site (referred to as a data pooling technique) to conduct statistical 

analyses. However, one can check for differences by sites by using a statistic called an analysis of variance. If one location stands out 

from the others on a particular variable, that group may need to be analyzed separately. 

A-1 
APPENDIX A / JULY 04 ■ To gain knowledge about program 

costs. 

■ To determine the differential payoff of 

one program versus another. 

There are two types of efficiency analysis: cost-effectiveness analysis and costbenefit analysis. 

Cost-effectiveness analysis 

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares the 

costs of two or more programs with similar goals to determine which program is 

most cost effective. Cost-effectiveness 

requires monetizing the program’s costs 

so that the program’s benefits are expressed in outcome units (Rossi, Freeman, 

and Lipsey 1999). For example, in a comparison of two program components 

designed to reduce child stress, the outcome unit would be a specific reduction 

in child stress as measured by a standardized instrument. 

The disadvantage of this type of analysis 

is that it cannot ascertain the worth or 

merit of a given intervention in monetary 

terms. Even so, Rossi and colleagues recommend a cost-effectiveness analysis for 

most social programs. 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Cost-benefit analysis requires estimating 

the benefits (i.e., outcomes produced, 

both tangible and intangible) and the 

costs (i.e., resources consumed, both 

direct and indirect) of undertaking a program. Once specified, the benefits (outcomes) and the costs are either measured 

in the same units, typically monetary, or 

translated into a common measure (usually monetary), and outcomes are contrasted with costs (Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey 

1999). However, cost analysis should consider costs other than money (Scriven 

1993), such as psychological costs, space 

costs (displacing something), and opportunity costs (displacing other programs). 

The most direct cost-benefit analysis subtracts costs from benefits. Typically the 

benefits of a program are greater than its 

costs, resulting in a net benefit. Sometimes, however, the costs of a program 

are greater than its benefits; this does not 

always mean the program should be 

discontinued. For example, the community is responsible for treating child victims 

of sexual abuse. Even though the costs 

may be very high, no monetary value can 

be placed on helping these individuals. 

However, one may want to compare the 

costs and benefits of two different programs that treat child victims of sexual 

abuse, such as onsite therapy versus offsite therapy. A cost-benefit analysis can 

help determine which model to implement. 

When conducting a cost-benefit analysis, 

beware of the following pitfalls. 

Identifying and measuring all program 

costs and benefits. When important benefits are disregarded because they cannot 

be measured or monetized, the project 

may appear less efficient than it is; if certain costs are omitted, the project will 

seem more efficient than it is, resulting in 

misleading estimates. 

Expressing costs and benefits in terms 

of monetary values. Expressing all costs 

and benefits in terms of a common denominator, such as a monetary value, may 

not capture the essence of the outcome. 

For example, what value should be placed 

on providing treatment to child sexual 

abuse (CSA) victims? 

A cost-benefit analysis requires many 

people to accomplish many tasks (Yates 

1996). To isolate the resources spent on 

each client, evaluators must calculate the 

costs of every aspect of a program, including personnel, facilities, equipment, 

and supplies. 

A–2 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

The ratio of benefits to costs indicates the 

profitability of the program. If the ratio 

exceeds 1:1, the benefits are greater than 

the costs and the program is profitable. 

However, Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey 

(1999) recommend against using a costbenefit ratio because a ratio is more difficult to interpret. 

Coverage 

Many CAC directors have reported concerns that not all CSA cases are being 

referred to their center. This issue is referred to as coverage (Rossi, Freeman, 

and Lipsey 1999). The concern is whether 

the agency is serving the population in 

need of its services. There are two forms 

of coverage: undercoverage, measured by 

the proportion of clients in need of services who actually receive those services, 

and overcoverage, the proportion of 

clients who are not in need of services 

compared with the total number of clients 

in a particular population not in need of 

services. In an effort to maximize reaching 

those in need and minimize reaching 

those not in need, coverage efficiency is 

measured by the following formula: 

Number in Number not in 

Coverage 

efficiency = 100 x need served 

Total number – need served Total number 

in need not in need 

To determine a center’s coverage, use official records or survey the community to 

determine how many CSA cases are reported and compare those numbers to the 

number of clients referred to the center. 

A–3 

Appendix B 

Results of a Telephone Interview With CAC Directors 

To design an evaluation resource book that 

would benefit Child Advocacy Center 

(CAC) directors, it was necessary to understand the services that CACs provide. It 

was also important to learn what directors 

were doing in terms of evaluations and to 

elicit their thoughts on what the resource 

book should contain. Therefore, telephone 

interviews were conducted with CAC 

directors. CACs may have membership in 

the National Children’s Alliance (referred to 

as member and associate member centers) or not (referred to as nonmember 

centers). 

Methodology 

Participants 

A stratified random selection design (stratified by State, number of children served, 

ethnicity of children served, and member/ 

nonmember status) was used to select 

potential participants. Participants were 

117 CAC directors. Exhibit B.1 lists the 

directors’ characteristics, shown by member and nonmember status and by the 

entire sample. 

Semistructured interview 

The investigator developed a semistructured interview. The first section of the 

interview asked about services provided 

by centers. This section was based on the 

National Children’s Alliance proposed 

guidelines for membership. These are 

core components that are a part of the 

majority of the centers’ programs—with 

the exception of organizational and cultural 

capacity (i.e., a child-friendly facility, a multidisciplinary team, a child investigative 

interview, a medical evaluation component, a mental health component, victim 

advocacy, case review, and case tracking). 

Results of this part of the survey are presented elsewhere (Jackson 2004). 

The second section of the questionnaire 

asked directors about their activities and 

thoughts regarding evaluations. The results 

of this part of the survey are presented 

here. 

Procedure 

Letters were sent to invite 142 CAC 

administrators to participate in the study. 

Followup telephone calls were made to 

directors to schedule the telephone interview. Twenty-five centers either could not 

be contacted or were no longer a CAC 

(e.g., one nonmember program was redesigned to mentor adolescents). 

Over a 4-month period of time, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 117 CAC administrators. The total 

sample consisted of 74 member administrators and 43 nonmember administrators. 

Contact was made with both a member 

and a nonmember center in every State 

but six where there were both types of 

centers. (Only a member center was contacted in Montana and only nonmember 

centers were contacted in Colorado, 

Indiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Vermont.) The interviews lasted between 30 

and 120 minutes. 

B–1 
APPENDIX B / JULY 04 

Results 

Exhibit B.2 summarizes part of the telephone interview. Results revealed that 

many centers (53 percent) are conducting 

some type of evaluation. 

As exhibit B.3 shows, many directors 

across the country are engaged in a number of different evaluation activities. 

However, directors also had excellent 

ideas for needed research and evaluation 

(exhibit B.4). The percentage beside each 

type of evaluation or research question 

indicates the percentage of CAC directors 

who identified that evaluation or research 

activity. The exhibit is divided by member 

and nonmember status; to maintain 

anonymity, no identifying information is 

given as to which centers are engaged in 

which type of evaluation. 

Exhibit B.1. Directors’ Demographics 

Member (N = 74) Nonmember (N = 43) Total 

Directors’ Background* Social work 40% Social work 59% Social work 47% 

Business and social work 16% Law enforcement 8% Business and social work 11% 

Medical 7% Counseling 5% Medical 7% 

Medical 5% 

Education 5% 

Directors’ Education MSW 22% MSW 22% MSW 22% 

MA Counseling 7% MA Counseling 11% MA Counseling 9% 

BS Education 7% BS Social work 8% BS Education 7% 

BS Nursing 6% BS Criminal justice 6% BS Social work 6% 

MA Public administration 6% BS Nursing 6% BS Nursing 6% 

Length of Time as 

Director at the Center Average 4.4 years Average 4.2 years Average 4.3 years 

Range 0–14 years Range 0–12 years Range 0–14 years 

* Only the most common backgrounds and levels of education are presented here. A list of all directors’ backgrounds and education is 

available from the author. 

BA = Bachelor of Arts 

BS = Bachelor of Science 

MA = Master of Arts 

MSW = Master of Social Work 

B–2 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Exhibit B.2. Results of Telephone Interviews With Child Advocacy Center Directors (N = 117) 


Question Directors’ Responses Respondents in Agreement


Are you conducting any kind Yes 53% 

of an assessment of your program? 

When did you begin the evaluation?* At some point after the center was opened 63% 

At the time the center opened 37% 

What kinds of things are you evaluating?*† Client satisfaction 65% 

Agency satisfaction 62% 

What made you decide to evaluate For grants (writing or receiving grants) 19% 

your program?* To determine if our program is on track 10% 

To meet a requirement (e.g., parent 

organization) 10% 

Who is doing the evaluation?* CAC director and/or staff 71% 

External evaluator 20% 

A combination of internal and external 

individuals 9% 

Whom would you prefer to conduct	 Prefer a combination of internal and 

your evaluation? external 45% 

Prefer someone external 27% 

Prefer someone internal 21% 

I don’t know 7% 

What are some benefits to conducting 	 To improve the program 56% 

an evaluation?†	 To document how the center is doing 40% 

To obtain funding for the program 33% 

To be accountable to the community 9% 

To boost morale of staff and MDT members 8% 

What are some barriers to conducting 

an evaluation?† 

Time 

Evaluation skill/knowledge 

Money 

Fear of results 

40% 

22% 

21% 

21% 

No cooperation (team, families, staff) 

No need for evaluation (e.g., “I just know”) 

21% 

7% 

What are some things that might motivate 

you to begin an evaluation?† 

If we wanted to improve our program 

If we needed to document how we are doing 

If we wanted to use the results to obtain funding 

If we thought we needed to be responsive to 

the community’s needs 

If someone required it (e.g., parent organization) 

If there was an evaluation tool 

56% 

40% 

33% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

If we wanted to boost the morale of our staff 

and MDT members 8% 

What kinds of things would you like to 

If I was given the money to do the evaluation 

If I was receiving complaints about the program 

There are no motivators (e.g., “I know how the 

program is working”) 

If I had more time 

Aspects of the center itself 

6% 

5% 

4% 

2% 

50% 

evaluate?† Aspects of the MDT 44% 

The impact of the CAC on children 30% 

Client satisfaction 22% 

Aspects of therapy 18% 

Aspects of the child interview process 18% 

Research questions 18% 

Aspects of prosecution 16% 

Children’s satisfaction with the center 15% 

Aspects of the medical examination 7% 

B–3 
APPENDIX B / JULY 04 

Exhibit B.2. Results of Telephone Interviews With Child Advocacy Center Directors (N = 117) (continued) 

Question Directors’ Responses Respondents in Agreement 

How much money would you be willing to	 I don’t know 33% 

spend on an evaluation? 	 A lot 31% 

A small amount 24% 

Zero 12% 

*These questions were asked only of center directors who were conducting an evaluation. 

† Responses to these questions are not mutually exclusive.

Exhibit B.3. Percentage of CAC Evaluators Currently Engaged in Each Type of Evaluation Activity 

Member Nonmember 

Agency satisfaction 89% Agency satisfaction 65% 

Client satisfaction 70% Client satisfaction 63% 

Peer review of videotaped interviews 11% Pre-post education evaluation 13% 

MDT issues 11% Prosecution rates 12% 

Pre-post education evaluation 8% Peer review of videotaped interviews 6% 

Paperwork protocols 8% Pre-post evaluation of groups or therapy 6% 

Pre-post evaluation of groups or therapy 4% Paperwork protocols 5% 

Pre-post medical exam 3% Evaluation of office staff 2% 

Pre-post child interview 3% 

Focus groups 3% 

Child satisfaction 1% 

Co-locating assessment * 

Community survey * 

Cost-benefit analysis * 

Evaluation of forensic evaluations * 

Family pre-post therapy * 

Mother advocate program * 

Prosecution rates * 

Tracking revictimization, juvenile justice, 

teen pregnancy, and domestic violence * 

Utilization of the CAC * 

* Less than 1% of respondents gave this answer. 

B–4 
A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS 

Exhibit B.4. Percentage of CAC Directors Who Would Like to Engage in Each Type of Evaluation 

Member Nonmember 

Impact of CACs on children 40% Client satisfaction 43% 

MDT issues 36% MDT issues 30% 

Client satisfaction 31% Impact of CACs on children 20% 

Breadth and adequacy of CAC services 21% Quality of forensic interviewers 19% 

Agency satisfaction 21% Breadth and adequacy of CAC services 15% 

Pre-post evaluation of groups or therapy 13% Agency satisfaction 14% 

Impact of trained versus untrained Prosecution rates 13% 

child interviewers 13% 

Quality of forensic interviewers 11% Impact of trained versus untrained 

child interviewers 8% 

Mental health of staff 10% Reliability of medical assessments 7% 

Prevention of child sexual abuse 9% Mental health of staff 3% 

Prosecution rates 9% Child satisfaction 3% 

Timeliness in responding to a report 7% Pre-post evaluation of groups 

or therapy 3% 

Whether medical evidence affects prosecution 5% Timeliness in responding to a report 3% 

Effectiveness of a medical examination 4% Peer review of videotaped interviews 3% 

Completion of clinical services 3% Paperwork protocols 3% 

Child satisfaction 3% How do cases close * 

Pre-post medical exam 2% Risk factors for revictimization * 

Pre-post child interview 2% Utilization of the CAC * 

Juvenile justice outcomes 2% Expertise of personnel * 

Facility expansion * Prevention of child sexual abuse * 

Whether children are safer than The effects of live versus 

before they disclosed * videotaped testimony * 

Risk factors for revictimization * Effectiveness of court school * 

Public defenders’ perceptions of the CAC * Ways to increase the sensitivity of FBI agents * 

Whether immediate parental support Ways to increase Tribal/non-Tribal 

helps children improve faster * coordination * 

Impact on siblings * Whether clients enter counseling * 

Factors contained in medical records that Whether the court process helped 

predict child sexual abuse * children feel secure * 

Expertise of personnel * How best to govern a CAC * 

Advisory Board * Increasing mental health coordination * 

Judges’ perceptions of the CAC * The most useful case review methods * 

Ways to empower parents * 

Mental health outcomes between domestic 

violence, child sexual abuse, and the CAC * 

B–5 
APPENDIX B / JULY 04 

Exhibit B.4. Percentage of CAC Directors Who Would Like to Engage in Each Type of Evaluation (continued) 

Member Nonmember 

Utilization of the CAC * 

Impact of CAC on prosecution * 

Cost-benefit analysis * 

Community residents’ perceptions of the 

CAC (e.g., residents in the grocery store) * 

* Less than 1% of respondents gave this answer. 

B–6 
C–1

Child-Friendly Facility Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–5

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Staff Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–7

Child-Friendly Facility: Specific Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Staff Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–8

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–9

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Multidisciplinary Team Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–10

Child-Friendly Facility: Specific Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Multidisciplinary Team Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–11

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–13

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–14

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C–15

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Child Interviewer Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–17

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Child Interviewer Form—Short Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–18

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–19

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–20

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Multidisciplinary Team Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–21

Appendix C

Sample Measures for Conducting a 

Program Monitoring Evaluation
C–2

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–23

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Health Care Providers Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–25

Factors Associated With Reduced Stress Associated With a Medical Examination—

Health Care Providers Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–27

Quality Assurance for Medical Examination Chart Review—

CAC Staff Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–29

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–30

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–31

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–33

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Therapist Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–35

Therapeutic Intervention Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Therapist Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–37

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–38

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–39

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C–41

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Victim Advocate Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–43

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–45

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–46

Case Review Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–47

Case Review Program Monitoring Questionnaire—A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–49

Case Review Program Monitoring Questionnaire—B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–50

Case Review Meetings and Procedures Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–51
C–3

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–57

Parents’ Perceptions of the Medical Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–59

Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health Services—Five Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–60

Parent Satisfaction Regarding Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–61

Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–62

Parent Satisfaction With the Victim Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–63

Parent Satisfaction—3-Month Followup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–64

Parent Status—3-Month Followup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–65

Parent Status—6-Month Followup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–67

Parent Status—1-Year Followup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–69

Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–71

Parent/Caregiver Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–73

Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–75

Family Satisfaction With CAC Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–76

Parent Satisfaction—Multiple Systems Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–78

Parent Questionnaire—Initial Telephone Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–83

Parent Questionnaire—3-Month Followup Telephone Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–85

Parent Satisfaction With the Child Advocacy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–87

Parent Survey—11 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–90

Evaluation of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–91

The Child Advocacy Center Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–93

We’d Like to Hear From You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–96

Client Satisfaction Questionnaires (CSQ–18A; CSQ–18B; CSQ–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–98

Multidisciplinary Team Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–99

Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–101

Multidisciplinary Team Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–102

Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Member’s Perceptions of the MDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–103

Multidisciplinary Team Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–109

Agency Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–111

State Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–114
C–4

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Child Advocacy Center Agency Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–115

Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–116

Child Advocacy Center Team Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–118

Child Advocacy Center Yearend Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–119

Mental Health Agency Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–120

Agency Satisfaction Questionnaire (TEDI BEAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–121

Agency Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–125

Survey of the Multidisciplinary Team Regarding Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–126

Director and Staff Satisfaction Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–128

Child Satisfaction Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–129

Child Satisfaction With the Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–131

Child Satisfaction With the Medical Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–131

Child Interview—Child Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–132

Child Satisfaction With Child Advocacy Center Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–133

Youth Satisfaction Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–134

Child Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C–135
C–5

Child-Friendly Facility 

Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–7

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Staff Form

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. Are there toys for both girls and boys? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Are there activities for adolescents? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

3. Is the room clean? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Does someone greet the family ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

right away?

5. Does someone interact with the children ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

while they are waiting?

6. Does someone explain to families what ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

is going to happen while at the center?

7. Is the walkway to the center child friendly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

8. Is there too much stuff for young kids? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

9. Is good use being made of the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

waiting room?
Child-Friendly Facility: Specific Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Staff Form 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

Waiting Room

1. The waiting room provides maximum ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

separation of the child from the 

alleged offender.

2. The waiting room is physically safe ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

for children.

3. The staff are always able to observe ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the individuals in the waiting room.

4. The CAC provides a separate area ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

where children and parents can wait.

5. The available materials and toys reflect ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the interests and needs of children of 

all ages.

Other Rooms

6. The CAC provides a separate area for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

case consultation.

7. The CAC provides a separate area for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

meetings with caregivers.

8. The CAC provides a separate area ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

for interviews.

9. The CAC provides a place for team ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

members to observe the actual 

interview.

10. Overall, the CAC environment reflects ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the social, cultural, and ethnic makeup 

of the community served.

11. The location of the CAC is convenient ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to clients.

12. The location of the CAC is convenient ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to team members (to the maximum 

extent possible).

C–8

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–9

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment

(HOME) 

Authors: B. Caldwell and R. Bradley 

Purpose: This instrument can be adapted to measure the CAC environment for child

appropriateness. The instrument has established reliability and validity and has been

used extensively in research with children and families. 

Resource: Administration Manual: Home Observation for Measurement of the

Environment (revised ed.). Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1984.
C–10

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Multidisciplinary Team Form 

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help determine what we need to work on to serve you and our clients better. Completed surveys

are anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Center staff will not have

access to individual responses, but general feedback on the range of responses will be

provided to ensure service improvement.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. Are there toys for both girls and boys? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Are there activities for adolescents? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. Is the room clean? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Does someone greet you right away? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

5. Does someone interact with the children ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

while they are waiting?

6. Are the staff courteous? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

7. Does someone explain to the family what ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

is going to happen while at the center?

8. Is the walkway to the center child friendly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

9. Is there too much stuff for young kids? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

10. Is good use being made of the waiting ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

room?
C–11

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child-Friendly Facility: Specific Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Multidisciplinary Team Form 

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate our Child Advocacy Center (CAC). We are

interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help

determine what we need to work on to serve you and our clients better. Completed

surveys are anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Center staff will not

have access to individual responses, but general feedback on the range of responses

will be provided to ensure service improvement.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

Waiting Room

1. The waiting room provides maximum ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

separation of the child from the alleged 

offender.

2. The waiting room is physically safe ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

for children.

3. The staff are always able to observe the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

individuals in the waiting room.

4. The CAC provides a separate area where ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

children and parents can wait.

5. The available materials and toys reflect the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

interests and needs of children of all ages.

Other Rooms

6. The CAC provides a separate area for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

case consultation.

7. The CAC provides a separate area for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

meetings with caregivers.

8. The CAC provides a separate area for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

interviews.

9. The CAC provides a place for team ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

members to observe the actual interview.
C–12

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

10. Overall, the CAC environment reflects the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

social, cultural, and ethnic makeup of the 

community served.

11. The location of the CAC is convenient ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to clients.

12. The location of the CAC is convenient to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

team members (to the maximum extent 

possible).
C–13

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Parent Form 

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help determine what we may need to work on to serve you and other families better. Completed

surveys are anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Staff will not have

access to individual responses, but general feedback on the range of responses will be

provided to ensure service improvement.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. Are there toys for both girls and boys? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Are there activities for adolescents? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. Is the room clean? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Did someone greet you right away? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

5. Did someone interact with your child ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

while you were waiting?

6. Were the staff courteous? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

7. Did someone explain to you what was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

going to happen while at the center?

8. Is the walkway to the center child friendly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

9. Do you feel like this is some place you ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

like visiting?

10. Do you feel safe here? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

11. Does this feel like a safe place to talk to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

people about what happened?

12. Is there too much stuff for young kids? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

13. Is the center making good use of its ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

waiting room?
C–14

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Child-Friendly Facility: General Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Youth Form

Recruitment Script: We are trying to figure out whether we are doing the best possible

job here at the Child Advocacy Center. We need to know what you think about things

here, whether you think they are good or bad. If you had a bad time here, we need to

know why so we can make things better. The people whom you talked with today are

not going to see your answers to these questions, so you can be completely honest. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. Are there toys for both girls and boys? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Are there activities for people your ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

own age?

3. Is the room clean? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Did someone greet you right away? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

5. Did someone interact with you while ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

you were waiting?

6. Were the staff nice to you? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

7. Did someone explain to you what was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

going to happen while you were at 

the center?

8. Did you like the toys at the center? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

9. Is this some place you like visiting? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

10. Do you feel safe here? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

11. Does this feel like a safe place to talk to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

people about what happened?
C-15

Child Investigative Interview 

Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–17

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Child Interviewer Form

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are legally sound.

2. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are developmentally appropriate.

3. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

that are neutral.

4. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are of a fact-finding nature.

5. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

that are coordinated to avoid duplicate 

interviewing.

6. The CAC has the capacity to allow team ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

members to observe interviews.

7. The CAC has the capacity to relay feedback ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to the interviewer during the interview.

8. Team interviews are routinely conducted ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

at the CAC.

9. Team interviews are conducted in ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

field settings.

10. The team’s written guidelines include a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

section regarding an appropriate interviewer.

11. The team’s written guidelines include a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

section regarding sharing information 

with investigators.

12. If children have been interviewed elsewhere, please explain.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
C–18

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Child Investigative Interview Program

Monitoring Questionnaire—Child 

Interviewer Form—Short Form 

1. Was a joint investigation conducted? ❑ Yes ❑ No

2. Number of investigative interviews: _____________

3. How much information did you obtain from the child (please check one)?

❑ A little

❑ Partial disclosure, but not enough to prosecute

❑ Partial disclosure, enough to prosecute

❑ Full disclosure, but no evidence of abuse

❑ Full disclosure

4. Was your performance as an interviewer ❑ Yes ❑ No 

ever evaluated?

5. Do you receive feedback about your ❑ Yes ❑ No

interviewing performance?

6. Did you receive initial training? ❑ Yes ❑ No

7. If yes, please describe your training.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

8. Do you receive ongoing training? ❑ Yes ❑ No
C–19

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Parent Form

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help determine what we may need to work on to serve you and other families better. Completed

surveys are anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Staff will not have

access to individual responses, but will receive general feedback on the range of

responses.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. My questions regarding my child’s ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

interview were answered to my 

satisfaction.

2. My child seemed calm after the interview. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. I was as informed as possible about my ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

child’s interview.

4. The person who interviewed my child ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

made me feel comfortable about the 

interview.

5. I understand why I could not be with my ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

child during the interview.

6. I think I should be able to observe my ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

child’s interview.
C–20

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Youth Form

Recruitment Script: We are trying to figure out whether we are doing the best possible

job here at the Child Advocacy Center. We need to know what you think about things

here, whether you think they are good or bad. If you had a bad time here, we need to

know why, so we can make things better. The people whom you talked with today are

not going to see your answers to these questions, so you can be completely honest. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. I was told what to expect before I was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

interviewed.

2. The person who interviewed me was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

nice to me.

3. I was scared about being interviewed. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. The room where I was interviewed was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

uncomfortable.

5. The interview was not as bad as I thought ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

it would be.

6. I was given something to draw with during ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the interview.

7. I was told what to do if I needed to go to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the bathroom.

8. I was told that I could say “I don’t know” ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

any time that was the truth.

9. The interviewer talked to me in a nice voice. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

10. The interviewer took me back to my parent ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

or guardian when we were done talking.
C–21

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Investigative Interview Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Multidisciplinary Team Form

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are legally sound.

2. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are developmentally appropriate.

3. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are neutral.

4. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are of a fact-finding nature.

5. The CAC promotes investigative interviews ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are coordinated to avoid duplicate 

interviewing.

6. The CAC has the capacity to allow team ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

members to observe interviews.

7. The CAC has the capacity to relay feedback ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to the interviewer during the interview.

8. Team interviews are routinely conducted ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

at the CAC.

9. Team interviews are conducted in ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

field settings.

10. The team’s written guidelines include a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

section regarding an appropriate interviewer.

11. The team’s written guidelines include a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

section regarding sharing information 

with investigators. 

12. If children have been interviewed elsewhere, please explain.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

C-23

Medical Examination Program

Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires 

C–25

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Health Care Providers Form

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the medical examination component of our

Child Advocacy Center (CAC). We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help determine how we can serve families better. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. A specialized medical evaluation is available ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

to the CAC.

2. The CAC’s medical policies describe under ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

what circumstances a medical evaluation is 

recommended.

3. The CAC’s medical policies describe how ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the medical evaluation is made available 

to clients.

4. The CAC’s medical policies describe how ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

taking the medical history is coordinated 

with investigative interviewing.

5. Each team member receives a written ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

protocol for the medical evaluation.

6. Medical evaluations are provided by ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

specially trained personnel at the CAC.

7. The CAC is able to arrange a medical ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

evaluation by a specially trained physician 

in an appropriate facility.

8. Medical response is available on a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

24-hour basis.

9. Medical services are made available to all ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

CAC clients regardless of their ability to pay.

10. CAC staff are trained about the purpose and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

nature of the medical evaluation.

11. Parents and caregivers are told about the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

purpose and nature of the medical evaluation.
C–26

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

12. Children are told about the purpose and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

nature of the medical evaluation.

13. Findings of the medical evaluation are shared ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

with investigators and prosecutors on the 

multidisciplinary team in a routine manner.

14. Findings of the medical evaluation are shared ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

with investigators and prosecutors on the 

multidisciplinary team in a timely manner.
C–27

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Factors Associated With Reduced Stress Associated With

a Medical Examination—Health Care Providers Form1

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the medical examination component of our

Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or

negative. Your feedback will help determine how we can serve families better. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. I address the immediate questions ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

and concerns of the child.

2. The person who prepares the child ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

is not the person who conducts the 

examination.

3. The child is given a tour of the clinic. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

4. The child can choose whether the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

examiner is a male or female.

5. The child can choose who will be ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

present during the examination.

6. The child is encouraged to make a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

written report card about the physician.

7. The child is taught imagery and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

breathing techniques.

8. I discuss with the child what to say ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

to me when feeling frightened or 

uncomfortable.

9. I have the child practice the positions ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

that will be required of the child 

during the examination.

10. I have the child write a letter to me ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

after the examination expressing his 

or her feelings about the examination 

and toward me.

11. I meet with the child and parent ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

before the examination.

1. Berson, Nancy L., Marcia E. Herman-Giddens, and Thomas E. Frothingham. 1993. Children’s perceptions of genital examinations 

during sexual abuse evaluations. Child Welfare LXXII (1): 41–49.
C–28

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

12. I advise parents not to discuss the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

examination with their child prior to 

the examination because of parents’ 

possible misperceptions.

13. The parent is not given an active role ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

during the examination, but is there 

for support and comfort.

14. The parent is not allowed to look at ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

the genital area during the examination.

15. The parent of the opposite sex is not ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

allowed to be present (unless the 

child is very young).

16. I explain to parents that the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

examination is different from 

adult gynecological or urological 

examinations.

17. I allow the child to have a favorite ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

toy or animal during the examination.

18. I avoid discussing the results of the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

examination in front of the child 

because of possible misperceptions.

19. I reassure the child that the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

examination found her or him 

healthy and normal.

20. I do not question the child about the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

abuse during the medical examination 

(thereby separating the role of 

interviewer from medical examiner).

21. If the child wants to talk about the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

abuse, I tell the child to talk about the 

experience with the interviewer.

22. The child gives me a grade on how ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ Not Applicable

well I did.
Quality Assurance for Medical Examination 

Chart Review—CAC Staff Form 

(CARES—Boise, Idaho, at St. Luke’s)

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the medical recordkeeping at the Child

Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help determine how we can serve families better. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. Is the history of the presenting ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

concerns clearly documented?

2. Is there documentation of who ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

brought the child in for the exam?

3. Is there documentation about prior ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

sexual or physical abuse history?

4. Is the past medical history complete? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

5. Are the child’s statements recorded? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

6. Is there a description of the child’s ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

behavior/affect during the examination?

7. Are the examiner’s questions ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

documented?

8. Are the examination positions ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

documented?

9. Is the complete exam documented? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

10. Are the genital findings documented ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

using accepted terminology?

11. Are the interpretations documented? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

12. If labs are ordered, is the order ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

documented?

13. Are followup recommendations ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

documented?

14. Is there documentation of prior ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No ❑ N/A

genital examinations and findings?

15. Other Comments? _________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

C–29

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–30

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help

determine how we can serve you and other families better. Completed surveys are

anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Staff will not have access to individual responses, but will receive general feedback on the range of responses.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the word that best reflects your opinion.

1. I was informed about what my child’s ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

medical examination would be like.

2. I was told before the medical examination ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

whether or not I could be with my child 

during the examination.

3. The person who provided the medical ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

examination answered all of my questions 

about the examination.
C–31

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Medical Examination Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form

Recruitment Script: We are trying to figure out whether we are doing the best possible

job here at our Child Advocacy Center. We need to know what you think about things

here, whether you think they are good or bad. If you had a bad time here, we need to

know why so we can make things better. The people who you talked with today are not

going to see your answers to these questions, so you can be completely honest. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. I was told what the medical examination ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

would be like.

2. Before the medical examination began, ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

I was told I could bring whomever I 

wanted into the exam room.

3. The person who examined me answered ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

all of my questions about the examination.

C-33

Mental Health Services 

Program Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–35

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Therapist Form

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements by placing a checkmark by the response that best reflects your opinion.

1. Mental health services are available to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

clients at the CAC.

2. The CAC coordinates mental health services ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

for clients through other treatment providers.

3. The team’s written protocol includes state- ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

ments about mental health treatment 

availability.

4. The team’s written protocol includes ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

statements about the role of the mental 

health clinician on the multidisciplinary team.

5. The team’s written protocol includes ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

statements about the mental health 

clinician’s role in case tracking.

6. The team’s written protocol includes ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

statements about the mental health 

clinician’s role in case reviews.

7. Mental health services for the child client ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

are routinely made available onsite.

8. Mental health services for the child client are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routinely made available through agreements 

with other agencies.

9. Mental health services for the nonoffending ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

caregiver(s) are routinely made available 

onsite.

10. Mental health services for the nonoffending ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

caregiver(s) are routinely made available 

through agreements with other agencies.

11. Mental health treatment services are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available regardless of ability to pay.
C–36

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

12. There is a clear delineation between the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

treating mental health clinician and any 

individual who may be conducting the 

investigative interview.

13. There is a clear delineation between the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

treating mental health clinician and any 

individual who may be involved in the 

ongoing investigation.
Therapeutic Intervention Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Therapist Form

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements by placing a checkmark by the word that best reflects your opinion.

1. Mental health services are available to clients at the CAC. ❑ Yes ❑ No

2. The CAC coordinates mental health services for clients ❑ Yes ❑ No 

through other treatment providers.

3. The team’s written protocol includes statements about ❑ Yes ❑ No

mental health treatment availability.

4. The team’s written protocol includes statements about ❑ Yes ❑ No 

the role of the mental health clinician in case tracking.

5. The team’s written protocol includes statements about ❑ Yes ❑ No 

the role of the mental health clinician in case review.

6. The team’s written protocol includes statements about ❑ Yes ❑ No 

the role of the mental health clinician on the 

multidisciplinary team. 

7. Mental health services for the child client are routinely ❑ Yes ❑ No

made available onsite.

8. Mental health services for the child client are routinely ❑ Yes ❑ No 

made available through linkage agreements with other 

agencies.

9. Mental health services for the nonoffending caregiver(s) ❑ Yes ❑ No

are routinely made available onsite.

10. Mental health services for the nonoffending caregiver(s) ❑ Yes ❑ No 

are routinely made available through linkage agreements 

with other agencies.

11. Mental health treatment services are available regardless ❑ Yes ❑ No 

of ability to pay.

12. There is a clear delineation between the treating mental ❑ Yes ❑ No 

health clinician and any individual who may be conducting 

the forensic interview.

13. There is a clear delineation between the treating mental ❑ Yes ❑ No

health clinician and any individual who may be involved in 

the ongoing investigation. 

C–37

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–38

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Parent Form

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help

determine how we can serve you and other families better. Completed surveys are

anonymous and will be kept absolutely confidential. Staff will not have access to individual responses, but will receive general feedback on the range of responses.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the word that best reflects your opinion.

1. I was told about mental health services that ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

are available to my child.

2. I was given information on how to contact ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

mental health agencies for my child.

3. I was told about mental health services ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available for myself.

4. The person who told me about available ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

mental health services was not the person 

who interviewed my child.
C–39

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Mental Health Services Program Monitoring

Questionnaire—Youth Form

Recruitment Script: We are trying to figure out whether we are doing the best possible

job here at our Child Advocacy Center. We need to know what you think about things

here, whether you think they are good or bad. If you had a bad time here, we need to

know why, so we can make things better. The people you talked with today are not

going to see your answers to these questions, so you can be completely honest. 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the appropriate response.

1. I was told about mental health services ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

that are available to me.

2. I was given information on how to contact ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

mental health agencies for myself.

3. The person who told me about available ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

mental health services was not the person 

who interviewed me.

C-41

Victim Advocacy Program

Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Victim Advocate Form 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the word that best reflects your opinion.

1. Victim advocacy services were available ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

throughout the investigation and prosecution.

2. The team’s written protocol describes the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

availability of victim support.

3. The team’s written protocol describes the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

availability of advocacy services.

4. Victim support and advocacy services are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available at the CAC.

5. Victim support and advocacy services are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available through agreements with other 

service agencies.

6. Crisis intervention is routinely provided ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

throughout the investigation.

7. Crisis intervention is routinely provided ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

throughout the prosecution.

8. Procedures are in place to provide periodic ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

followup contacts with the child.

9. Procedures are in place to provide periodic ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

followup contacts with the nonoffending 

caregiver.

10. Court preparation is routinely available to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

all clients.

11. Court accompaniment is routinely available ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

to all clients.

12. Assistance preparing victim impact ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

statements is routinely available to 

all clients.

13. Assistance with presentencing reports is ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routinely available to all clients.

14. Referrals for corollary services are routinely ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available to all clients.

C–43

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–44

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

15. Referrals for housing assistance are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routinely available to all clients.

16. Referrals for transportation assistance are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routinely available to all clients.

17. Referrals for public assistance are routinely ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available to all clients.

18. Referrals for domestic violence are routinely ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

available to all clients.

19. Information regarding local services is ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routinely available to all clients.

20. Information regarding the rights of crime ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

victims is routinely available to all clients.

21. Information regarding victim compensation ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

is routinely available to all clients.
C–45

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Parent Form 

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help us

serve you and other families better. Completed surveys are anonymous and confidential. Staff will not have access to individual responses, but they will receive general

feedback on the range of responses.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements by placing a checkmark by the response that best reflects your

opinion.

1. The victim advocate provided referrals ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

for things I needed.

2. The victim advocate maintained contact ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

with me while I was at the center.

3. The victim advocate answered any questions ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

I had about what was going on at the center.
C–46

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Victim Advocacy Program Monitoring Questionnaire—

Youth Form 

Recruitment Script: We are trying to figure out whether we are doing the best possible

job here at the Child Advocacy Center. We need to know what you think about things

here, whether you think they are good or bad. If you had a bad time here, we need to

know why, so we can make things better. The people you talked with today are not

going to see your answers to these questions, so you can be completely honest. 

Please place a checkmark by the response that best reflects how you feel about

each of the following statements.

1. The victim advocate was very helpful to me. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. I felt comfortable with the victim advocate. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. The victim advocate told me what to expect ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

while I was at the center.
C-47

Case Review Program

Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–49

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Case Review Program Monitoring Questionnaire—A 

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by placing

a checkmark by the response that best reflects your opinion.

1. Criteria for case review procedures are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

included in the team’s written protocols.

2. A forum for the purpose of reviewing cases ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

is conducted on a regularly scheduled basis.

3. An individual is identified to coordinate the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

case review process.

4. Team members are timely in their review ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

of cases.

5. Representatives of all team disciplines ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

participate in case review.

6. Recommendations from case reviews are ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

communicated to appropriate parties for 

implementation.
C–50

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Case Review Program Monitoring Questionnaire—B 

1. In your opinion, what is the primary purpose of case review?

❑ Best interests of the child

❑ Prosecution

❑ Arrest of alleged perpetrator

❑ Safety for children

❑ Health status of the child

❑ Mental health of the child

❑ Other 

2. What are the barriers in the proceedings of the case review?____________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

3. What do you like best about case review?_____________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

4. What can we do to improve services?________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

5. Are there services the CAC could provide that are not being provided?____________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
Case Review Meetings and Procedures Questionnaires

For each of the following statements, please circle the number that best describes

your response to each of the following statements.

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

Case Review

1. Our MDT is good at sharing information 1 2 3 4 5 

at case review.

2. The quality of the team’s decisionmaking 1 2 3 4 5 

is excellent.

3. Our MDT meetings are too long. 12345

4. Our MDT does not review enough cases 12345

at each case review. 

5. The entire team always attends case review. 12345

6. The MDT has just the right number 1 2 3 4 5 

of members. 

7. Team members attend case review on a 1 2 3 4 5 

regular basis (95 percent of the time).

8. The team does a good job overall. 12345

9. The team makes joint decisions rather than 1 2 3 4 5 

one person making an autocratic decision.

10. Case review scheduling should be different. 12345

11. Someone always leads the meetings. 12345

12. The location of the team meetings is 1 2 3 4 5 

convenient for me.

13. The case review meeting has 

good leadership. 12345

14. I like it when our CAC provides lunch during 1 2 3 4 5 

case review. 

15. The timing of case review meets my needs 1 2 3 4 5 

(day of week and hour).

16. The meetings have sufficient structure. 12345

C–51

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

17. Case review is just another one of a million 1 2 3 4 5 

meetings I have to attend.

18. There are penalties (tangible or intangible) 1 2 3 4 5 

involved if I fail to attend case review.

19. The team follows formal procedures for 1 2 3 4 5 

case review.

20. We need to review more cases. 12345

21. The appropriate person is leading the 1 2 3 4 5 

case review.

22. A procedure is in place to ensure that 1 2 3 4 5 

each team member is following through 

with assigned duties.

23. Anyone can add a case to case review. 12345

24. We follow the case review agenda strictly. 12345

25. I have input into team decisionmaking. 1 2 3 4 5 

26. Interpersonal issues are set aside during 1 2 3 4 5 

case review.

27. The MDT has no investment in the 1 2 3 4 5 

case review.

28. I do not have enough input into the cases 12345

during case review.

29. Our team focuses more on problem solving 1 2 3 4 5 

than on blaming one another.

30. Case review gives me an opportunity to ask 12345

interdisciplinary questions.

31. The team members are helpful in answering 1 2 3 4 5 

questions I have about the investigation.

32. The team members educate one another 1 2 3 4 5 

about all the pieces of the investigation.

33. Case review is not a high priority for me. 12345

34. I understand the case review protocol. 12345

35. I would prefer to have case review only 12345

when it was absolutely necessary.

C–52

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

36. We plan, as a team, how to proceed 12345

on a case.

37. I learn something from the other members 12345

during case review.

38. Our team has fun during case review. 12345

39. Team members are comfortable making 12345

jokes during case review.

40. A problem that arises at case review is 12345

dealt with immediately.

Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)

1. The team members are able to talk with 1 2 3 4 5 

one another informally as needed.

2. I have the support of my supervisors. 12345

3. Team members are good at following 12345

through on a case.

4. There is too much turnover among team 1 2 3 4 5 

members. 

5. There is too much turnover among 1 2 3 4 5 

supervisors.

6. There is no clear division of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 

among the team members.

7. I read the protocol periodically to remind 1 2 3 4 5 

me of the mission and agreement.

8. I am forced to do things I do not want to 1 2 3 4 5 

on the MDT.

9. I enjoy being face to face with the people 1 2 3 4 5 

I work with on the MDT. 

10. I believe in the team process. 12345

11. I follow the protocol outlined in our 1 2 3 4 5 

interagency agreement.

12. The team shares my burden in these 1 2 3 4 5 

investigations.

C–53

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

13. Our team is suffering from lack of leadership. 12345

14. There are too many personality conflicts on 1 2 3 4 5 

our team.

15. The team celebrates victories together. 12345

16. Co-location is the key to a successful MDT. 12345

17. I readily share information with the other 1 2 3 4 5 

MDT members.

18. Our team makes more political decisions 1 2 3 4 5 

than child-centered decisions.

19. We do a little of everything, rather than 1 2 3 4 5 

specialize in certain kinds of cases.

20. I always follow through on things that 12345

are expected of me.

21. My level of education is appropriate for 12345

my position.

22. My level of expertise is appropriate for 12345

my position.

23. I interact regularly with the team members 12345

outside of case review.

24. I tell other employees in my agency how 12345

well the MDT works.

25. Other team members understand my 12345

agency-imposed limitations. 

26. I do not want anyone telling me what to do 1 2 3 4 5 

about a particular case. 

27. I do not take criticism from the team well. 12345

28. There is too much criticism among the MDT. 12345

29. The team is always telling me what to do. 12345

30. The team members are all on different tracks. 12345

31. Team members respect me. 12345

32. Team members support one another. 12345

C–54

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

33. Team members share their frustrations 12345

with one another.

34. Team members share their joys and triumphs 12345

with one another.

35. The quality of the investigation is paramount. 12345

36. Each team member has a different 12345

expectation for the investigation.

37. There is a lot of give and take among the 12345

team members.

38. My team members listen to what I 12345

have to say.

39. Our team does fun things together, like 12345

attend parties, write a newsletter, and 

acknowledge birthdays, marriages, and births.

40. The team does not know how much work 12345

I do behind the scenes.

41. My agency is understaffed. 12345

42. We are investigating more cases as a 12345

result of the MDT.

43. I know how the case is progressing 12345

at all times.

44. The number of interviews children receive 12345

has decreased because of the MDT.

45. Team members are all on the same page, 12345

so cases do not get lost.

46. I am adequately trained to be doing this 12345

kind of work.

47. Being a part of the team enhances my 12345

productivity.

48. Our team socializes together. 12345

49. I believe in the CAC concept. 12345

50. The MDT is the best way to conduct 12345

investigations. 

C–55

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

51. The MDT shares responsibilities. 12345

52. When disagreements occur, the team 12345

handles them immediately.

53. Team members respect one another. 12345

54. I am mandated to work as a team 12345

member in my State.

55. My supervisor supports my participation 12345

in the MDT.

56. The MDT has the support of the 12345

district attorney. 

57. My input is valuable to the team. 12345

58. Our team attends team training. 12345

59. A problem among or between MDT 12345

members is dealt with immediately.

60. We immediately welcome/embrace 12345

new members (e.g., we take them to lunch).

61. We have a forum for recognizing 12345

outstanding contributions by team members.

Child Advocacy Center (CAC)

1. I have received professional support from 1 2 3 4 5 

the CAC.

2. I have received professional training from 1 2 3 4 5 

the CAC.

3. The CAC staff make me feel as though 12345

my opinions are valid. 

4. I use the services provided by the CAC. 12345

5. I feel comfortable at the center. 12345

6. The CAC does everything it can to help 12345

me during the investigation.

7. The CAC benefits me personally. 12345

8. The CAC asks me where it needs to 12345

make improvements.

C–56

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C-57

Parent Satisfaction Program

Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–59

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parents’ Perceptions of the Medical Examination

For each of the following statements, please mark the response that best

describes your opinion.

1. Rate the doctor’s kindness. ❑ Very kind ❑ Okay ❑ Terrible 

2. Rate the doctor’s gentleness. ❑ Very gentle ❑ Okay ❑ Terrible

3. How well did your child do compared ❑ Better ❑ Same ❑ Worse

to other doctor visits?

4. Would you choose this doctor for regular ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Maybe

pediatric care?

5. Has your child previously had a ❑ Yes ❑ No

genital exam?
C–60

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health Services—

Five Questions 

For each of the following three questions, please check the response that best

reflects your opinion.

1. Do you feel like you received crisis ❑ Yes ❑ No

intervention while at the center?

2. Would you prefer to have therapy at the ❑ Yes ❑ No

center rather than at a community agency?

3. Do you feel you are going to be better ❑ Yes ❑ No

off after treatment?

Please answer the following two questions.You may use the back of the paper

if you need more space to write.

4. How long did it take you to get an appointment with a therapist?_________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

5. What is your greatest barrier to attending therapy?_____________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
Parent Satisfaction Regarding Prosecution

Please circle the number that best describes your response to each of the 

following statements.

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

1. The prosecutor was supportive. 12345

2. I was appropriately informed about the 12345

court process.

3. The prosecutor was nonjudgmental. 12345

4. I felt comfortable with the prosecutor. 12345

5. The prosecutor seemed comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 

with my child.

6. The prosecutor seemed well trained. 12345

7. The prosecutor did not worsen the trauma 12345

my child has experienced.

8. I had difficulty locating the courthouse. 12345

9. I was kept informed of the progress of 1 2 3 4 5 

the investigation.

10. I was adequately informed of cancellations 1 2 3 4 5 

or postponements of court proceedings.

11. My child was prepared to testify. 12345

12. I received adequate assistance when I 12345

came to court.

13. I found the atmosphere of the courtroom 12345

to be child friendly.

What did the CAC do that was helpful to you during your involvement in the case?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is there an area you feel needs improvement? ________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–61

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–62

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Parent Satisfaction With Mental Health Services

Please respond to the following seven questions.

1. I received mental health services 

______ at the center. 

______ in the community. 

2. My child completed ______ number of therapy sessions.

3. I completed ______ number of therapy sessions.

4. The following people were present during therapy:

______ myself

______ the therapist

______ my child

______ other (specify_______________________________________________________)

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, the intensity of therapy was a ______.

6. I met with the therapist ______ times a week/month.

7. The therapist was highly qualified. ❑ Agree ❑ Neutral ❑ Disagree
C–63

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Satisfaction With the Victim Advocate

For each of the following questions, please mark the response that best reflects

your opinion or experience. Please note that question 10 asks you to write out

your response.

1. Did you feel comfortable contacting the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

victim advocate whenever you needed to?

2. How long did it take the victim advocate ❑ Minutes ❑ Hours ❑Days

to return your calls?

3. Did the victim advocate generally answer ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

your questions or put you in contact with 

those who could answer your questions?

4. Did the victim advocate tell you about ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

court services?

5. Did you receive the appropriate referrals ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

to meet your needs?

6. Were you comfortable with the victim ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

advocate?

7. Did the victim advocate address your ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

concerns?

8. Was the information provided by the victim ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

advocate useful?

9. Were you able to contact the referrals you ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑No

needed to contact?

10. What referral services did the victim advocate make for you?____________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________ 
C–64

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Parent Satisfaction—3-Month Followup

Date:

Month Day Year

How do you feel about the services you received at our center? ____________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Were the staff friendly? ❑Yes ❑ No Please explain ______________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Were all of your questions answered to your satisfaction? ❑Yes ❑ No 

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was it like completing the questionnaires? ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Was the feedback you received about the questionnaires helpful? ❑Yes ❑ No

Do you have any suggestions on how we can better serve families in the future?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Parent Status—3-Month Followup

Date:

Month Day Year

How has your child been since your visit to this center? ______________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have you noticed any changes in the following behaviors? Check all that apply:

______ Sleep

______ Appetite 

______ School grades 

______ Interest in school 

______ Peer relationships 

______ Interactions with family 

Have you noticed any of the following? Check all that apply:

______ Sadness 

______ Fearfulness 

______ Withdrawal

______ Aggression 

______ Guilt 

______ Low self-esteem

______ Nightmares 

______ Bed wetting 

______ Stomachaches

______ Headaches

Has your child received treatment? ❑Yes ❑ No 

If yes, what types of services were provided? ____________________________________

If yes, how long did your child receive services? __________________________________

If yes, were the services helpful? ❑Yes ❑ No Explain __________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–65

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–66

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

What was the outcome of the investigation? __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are there any [additional] services you feel your child or family needs? ____________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is your child currently involved with the legal system? ❑Yes ❑ No 

If yes, where does your child’s case stand now? ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the legal outcome? ____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Parent Status—6-Month Followup

Date:

Month Day Year

How has your child been in the past 3 months?________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have you noticed any changes in the following behaviors? Check all that apply:

______ Sleep

______ Appetite 

______ School grades 

______ Interest in school 

______ Peer relationships 

______ Interactions with family 

Have you noticed any of the following? Check all that apply:

______ Sadness 

______ Fearfulness 

______ Withdrawal

______ Aggression 

______ Guilt 

______ Low self-esteem

______ Nightmares 

______ Bed wetting 

______ Stomachaches

______ Headaches

Are there any services you feel your child or family needs? ❑Yes ❑ No 

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any concerns about abuse possibly reoccurring? ❑Yes ❑ No

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–67

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–68

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Ask the following if these questions were not answered at 3 months.

Has your child received treatment? ❑Yes ❑ No 

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How long did your child receive services? ______________________________________________________

If your child received services, what types of services were provided? ____________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If your child received services, were the services helpful? ❑Yes ❑ No

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the outcome of the investigation? __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is your child currently involved with the legal system? ❑Yes ❑ No

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If yes, where does your child’s case stand now? ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the legal outcome? ____________________________________________________________________
C–69

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Status—1-Year Followup

Date:

Month Day Year

How has your child been in the past 6 months?________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have you noticed any changes in the following behaviors? Check all that apply:

______ Sleep

______ Appetite 

______ School grades 

______ Interest in school 

______ Peer relationships 

______ Interactions with family 

Have you noticed any of the following? Check all that apply:

______ Sadness 

______ Fearfulness 

______ Withdrawal

______ Aggression 

______ Guilt 

______ Low self-esteem

______ Nightmares 

______ Bed wetting 

______ Stomachaches

______ Headaches

Are there any services you feel your child or family needs? __________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any concerns about abuse possibly reoccurring? ❑Yes ❑ No 
C–70

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Ask the following if these questions were not answered at 6 months.

Has your child received treatment in the past 6 months? ❑Yes ❑ No 

How long did your child receive services? ________________________________________

If your child has received services in the past 6 months, what types of services were

provided? ____________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Were the services helpful? ❑Yes ❑ No 

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the outcome of the investigation? __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is your child currently involved with the legal system? ❑Yes ❑ No 

Please explain ______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If your child is involved in the legal system, where does your child’s case stand now?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the legal outcome? ____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–71

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire

Our Child Advocacy Center (CAC) wants to provide the best possible services to

the children and families that we serve. Please take some time to complete and

return this survey so that we may assess and improve our services.

1. What types of services did you receive at the CAC (check all that apply)?

______ Medical exam 

______ Family history 

______ Crisis counseling 

______ Child interview 

______ Referrals 

______ Courtroom orientation 

______ Prevention session

______ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

2. Did we explain to you why you were ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

referred to the CAC?

3. Did we listen to what you had to say? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Was your child treated with care and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

respect?

5. Were you treated with care and respect? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

6. Were the surroundings child friendly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

7. Were you provided with helpful information? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

8. Were your telephone calls returned ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

promptly?

9. If needed, would you be comfortable ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

returning to the CAC?
C–72

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

10. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the CAC by circling one

response per question: 

Not 

Poor Fair Excellent Applicable

Child protection specialist 1 2 3 NA

CAC receptionist/greeter 1 2 3 NA

Medical examination 1 2 3 NA

Waiting time for services 1 2 3 NA

11. Please use the scale below to rate overall the services we have provided to you: 

Worst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Best

service service

12. Please tell us how we can improve our program:_______________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for completing this survey.

If you would like to speak with someone at our agency about the services you

received, or your family’s situation, please feel free to contact us at 555–555–5555.
Parent/Caregiver Survey

Recruitment Script: Please help us evaluate the care you and your child have received at

our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested in your honest opinion, whether positive

or negative. Your feedback will help determine how we can serve you and other families

better. Completed surveys are anonymous and confidential. Staff will not have access to

individual responses, but will receive general feedback on the range of responses.

Today’s date:______________________ 

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following

statements about your first visit to our center.

Strongly Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

1. The person who scheduled my 4321

appointment took time to explain 

what would happen and answer 

my questions.

2. The person who scheduled 4321

my appointment made sure I 

understood the purpose of my 

visit to the center.

3. The travel directions were clear. 4321

4. The center is convenient to public 4321

transportation.

5. When I first came to the center, 4321

my child(ren) and I were seen 

within a reasonable period of time.

6. The receptionist seemed friendly 4321

and nonjudgmental and made me 

feel at ease.

7. The playroom staff were nice to 4321

my child(ren) and made them feel 

comfortable.

8. The center provided a safe space 4321

for my child(ren) and me.

9. The interview process was clearly 4321

explained to me before my child’s 

interview took place.

C–73

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–74

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Strongly Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

10. I was given information on 4321

possible behaviors I can expect 

from my child as a result of what 

happened to her/him.

11. I was given information on how 4321

to handle those behaviors.

12. I was told about the various 4321

services and benefits provided 

by the center.

13. I was given information regarding 4321

other services available in my 

community.

Now we would like you to respond to the following questions.

14. Have you received as much help as you wanted? ❑ Yes ❑ No 

15. Please list the services you needed, but did not receive.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. Do you have any concerns that this survey did not address?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey!
Parent Survey 

We are here to help serve you and your child.We need your suggestions on ways

we can do a better job.We also want to hear from you when we do good work.

Please take some time to complete and return this survey so that we can assess

and improve the CAC.

Please check the appropriate response:

1. The staff of the CAC were courteous and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

responsive to your requests.

2. The CAC is a child-friendly place. ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. The social worker was courteous and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

responsive to your requests.

4. The law enforcement officer was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

courteous and responsive to your 

requests.

5. The counselor you met with was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

courteous and responsive to your 

needs.

6. The medical exam was scheduled at a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

convenient time.

7. The district attorney’s office was ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

courteous and responsive to your 

requests.

8. You were provided with helpful ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

information.

9. If needed, would you feel comfortable ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

returning to the CAC?

Please comment:

10. Please tell us what you liked best about the CAC: __________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–75

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–76

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Family Satisfaction With CAC Services 

Please complete this questionnaire at the end of your first visit to the Child

Advocacy Center (CAC). Please rate the following statements using the 6-point

scale below.

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

1. Our initial contact with the CAC was positive.

012345

2. The phone call from CAC staff explaining the interview process was helpful.

012345

3. The waiting room at the CAC was relaxing for my children.

012345

4. The purpose of the interview was clearly explained to me before we arrived.

012345

5. My child did not wait too long in the waiting room before being interviewed.

012345

6. CAC staff were available to offer my child support while in the waiting room.

012345

7. The environment at the CAC was comforting.

012345

8. The environment at the CAC was appropriate for children.

012345

Scheduling

9. The scheduling of our interview was timely.

012345

10. CAC staff were accommodating in terms of meeting our scheduling needs.

012345
C–77

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

11. Getting to the CAC was made easy because of the transportation provided.

012345

12. The CAC location was easily accessible to everyone, including people 

with disabilities.

012345

Parental Interview

13. The questions asked of me were necessary.

012345

14. CAC staff asked me too many questions.

012345

15. It seemed as if I had to keep telling our story over and over to different people

while at the CAC.

012345

16. CAC staff helped me to feel comfortable during our interview.

012345

17. CAC staff were able to offer me support throughout my interview with them.

012345

18. In our interview, CAC staff gave me sufficient information about the interview

process for my child.

012345

19. I felt that any concerns I had were responded to adequately.

012345
C–78

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Parent Satisfaction—Multiple Systems Form 

Using the following rating scale, for each statement below, please circle the number that best represents how you feel.

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

CAC Interaction With Families

1. CAC staff supported me and my child.

012345

2. CAC staff were well trained to handle issues arising from sexual abuse of my child.

012345

3. CAC staff made my child’s trauma worse through insensitivity.

012345

4. I felt comfortable with my child being interviewed by the investigation team.

012345

5. CAC staff were nonjudgmental.

012345

Child’s Interview

6. My child seemed upset after the interview.

012345

7. Throughout the investigation, my child was interviewed too many times.

012345

8. CAC staff were available to my child before and after the interview.

012345

9. I would rather have had my child interviewed someplace else.

012345
C–79

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

Child Protective Services (CPS) Worker Contact

10. CPS staff supported me and my child.

012345

11. CPS staff were well trained to handle issues arising from sexual abuse of my child.

012345

12. CPS staff made my child’s trauma worse through insensitivity.

012345

13. I felt comfortable with the CPS staff.

012345

14. CPS staff were nonjudgmental.

012345

Police Officer Contact

15. Police officers supported me and my child.

012345

16. Police officers were well trained to handle issues arising from sexual abuse 

of my child.

012345

17. Police officers made my child’s trauma worse through insensitivity.

012345

18. I felt comfortable with the police officers. 

012345

19. Police officers were nonjudgmental.

012345
C–80

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

Referrals and Access to Services

20. CAC offered to provide needed information about services for my child.

012345

21. CAC staff made it clear that we could use their services at any time.

012345

22. I clearly understood recommendations for services made by the CAC.

012345

Criminal Justice System

23. CAC staff clearly explained the steps in the police investigation to me.

012345

24. CAC staff provided me with information about court school.

012345

25. CAC staff answered any questions I had about the criminal justice system.

012345

26. CAC staff indicated that they would be available to go with me to any court hearing

upon my request.

012345

27. I was informed about crime victim compensation.

012345
C–81

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Does Not Strongly Strongly

Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

012345

Court System and Attorneys

28. Attorney staff clearly explained the steps in the legal proceedings. 

012345

29. Attorney staff ensured that we knew about court school.

012345

30. Attorney staff answered any questions I had about the criminal justice system.

012345

Please make any additional comments: ________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–82

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Thank you so much for your input. Families who respond to this survey help us offer

services at the CAC in the best possible way for all families.

To be completed by the CAC staff.

Type of interview: __________________________________________________________________________________

Who was present for the joint interview? 

______ CAC

______ CPS

______ Police

______ Attorney

______ Mental health professional

______ Other (_____________________________________________________________)

Who was the lead interviewer (check one)?

______ CAC child interviewer

______ CPS

______ Police

______ Attorney

______ Mental health professional

______ Other (_____________________________________________________________)
C–83

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Questionnaire—Initial Telephone Interview

Interview date:________________________________________________________________

Interviewer: __________________________________________________________________

Interviewee: M F Guardian Parent

No phone: ______ Unable to contact: ______ Refuse to participate: ______

Police case #: ________________________________________________________________

The following questions ask your opinions about the quality of services provided to

your child. We are interested in learning whether the work done by the police, social

workers, and others has been helpful to you and your child. You do not need to fill out

this form. A researcher from the police department will call you in a few days to ask you

these questions. We will be combining the information from many people to learn about

the quality of services provided by our agencies. Participation in this telephone survey

will in no way affect your child’s case.

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

1. I am satisfied with how my child was 12345

interviewed.

2. The interview process was clearly explained 1 2345

to me before my child’s interview took place.

3. I felt supported by the police officer. 12345

4. I felt supported by the child protective 12345

service worker.

5. I felt my concerns about this problem have 12345

been listened to.

6. I was told what to expect in the future 12345

regarding the investigation of my child’s case.

7. The interview was a helpful experience for 12345

my child.

8. I was told about counseling and support 1 2 3 4 5

services available for my family.

9. I feel I can trust the people working on my 12345

child’s case.
C–84

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

10. The setting of my child’s interview put 12345

me at ease.

11. I feel I know what is going on in my 12345

child’s case.

12. I know what is expected of my child for 1 2 3 4 5

the investigation of the abuse.

13. I am confident I can handle questions my 12345

child asks me.

14. I know whom to call if I have questions 12345

about the investigation of my child’s case.

15. I feel alone in dealing with this problem. 12345

16. I feel things will get better now that the 1 2 3 4 5

case has been investigated.

17. The investigators seemed to be in a hurry 1 2 3 4 5

when they talked to my child.

18. I was told some things I didn’t understand. 12345

19. Overall, I am satisfied with the help I received. 12345
C–85

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent Questionnaire—3-Month 

Followup Telephone Interview

Interview date:________________________________________________________________

Interviewer: __________________________________________________________________

Interviewee: M F Guardian Parent

No phone: ______ Unable to contact: ______ Refuse to participate: ______

Police case #: ________________________________________________________________

The following questions ask your opinions about the quality of services provided to

your child. We are interested in learning whether the work done by the police, social

workers, and others has been helpful to you and your child. You do not need to fill out

this form. A researcher from the police department will call you in a few days to ask you

these questions. We will be combining the information from many people to learn about

the quality of services provided by our agencies. Participation in this telephone survey

will in no way affect your child’s case.

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

1. I am satisfied with how my child’s case 1 2 3 4 5

has been handled since the first interview.

2. I felt supported by the police officer. 12345

3. I felt supported by the child protective 12345

service worker.

4. I felt my concerns about this problem had 12345

been listened to.

5. I was told what to expect in the future 1 2 3 4 5

regarding the investigation of my child’s case.

6. The interview process was a helpful 12345

experience for my child.

7. I was told about counseling and support 1 2 3 4 5

services available for my family.

8. I feel I can trust the people working on my 12345

child’s case.

9. I feel I know what is going on in my 12345

child’s case.
C–86

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

10. I know what is expected of my child for 1 2 3 4 5

the investigation of the abuse.

11. I am confident I can handle questions my 12345

child asks me.

12. I know whom to call if I have questions 1 2 3 4 5

about the investigation of my child’s case.

13. I feel alone in dealing with this problem. 12345

14. I feel things will get better now that the case 1 2 3 4 5 

has been investigated.

15. I was told some things I didn’t understand. 12345

16. Overall, I am satisfied with the help I received. 12345
Parent Satisfaction With the Child Advocacy Center

Recruitment Script: Please help us assess our Child Advocacy Center. We are interested

in your honest opinion, whether positive or negative. Your feedback will help us serve

you and other families better. Completed surveys are anonymous and confidential. Staff

will not have access to individual responses, but will receive general feedback on the

range of responses.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements by placing a checkmark by the response that best reflects your opinion.

1. Were you comfortable while you were here? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

2. Was the location of the CAC convenient for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

you to get to?

3. Did you feel the services were accessible ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

to you?

4. Regardless of the outcome of your case, ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

did the CAC do everything they could to 

provide all the services you needed?

5. Did the CAC schedule your appointment in ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

a timely manner?

6. Did you understand the purpose of your visit? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

7. Were the travel directions made clear to you? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

8. Once at the center, were you seen within a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

reasonable time?

9. Was the receptionist friendly and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

nonjudgmental?

10. Did the playroom staff make your child ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

feel comfortable?

11. Were you given information on possible ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

behaviors you might expect from your child 

as a result of what happened to him or her?

12. Were you given information on how to handle ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

your child’s behaviors?

13. Did you receive thorough information before ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

you arrived at the CAC?

14. Was the district attorney supportive of you? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

C–87

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–88

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

15. Did the atmosphere at the CAC make a ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

difference to you?

16. Did the district attorney follow through on ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

your case?

17. Were the staff cooperative? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

18. Did someone explain the CAC’s services to ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

your satisfaction?

19. Was there something you needed to know, ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

but no one told you?

20. Was there comfortable seating for you? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

21. Was the center child friendly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

22. Was your child comfortable while here? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

23. Were the toys age appropriate? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

24. Did you feel safe while you were here? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

25. Did the doctor make you feel comfortable? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

26. Were the staff courteous to you? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

27. Did you feel you were treated fairly? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

28. Were you easily able to contact the agency ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

representative?

29. Did the CAC make a difference for you in ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

this process?

30. Were the staff on time? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

31. Were you satisfied with the demeanor ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

of the staff?

32. Do you feel you have an assurance of safety? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

33. Do you feel you have been informed of ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

everything you need to know?

34. Have you been informed of victim’s rights? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

35. Do you feel like you can trust the CAC staff? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No
C–89

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

36. What was the most frustrating part of the process for you? ____________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

37. How did your child feel after the interview? ________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

38. How long did you have to wait for an appointment?______________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

39. What kind of services did you receive while you were here?____________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

40. What could each of the agencies have done differently?

CAC _____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Child Protective Services ___________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Police ____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Medical __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Victim advocate ___________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Other ____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
Parent Survey—11 Questions

We are here to help serve you and your child. We need your suggestions on ways we

can do a better job. We also want to hear from you when we do good work. Please take

some time to complete and return this survey so that we can assess and improve the

Child Advocacy Center (CAC). 

Please check the response that best reflects your agreement or disagreement

with each statement.

1. Were the staff at the CAC courteous and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

responsive to your requests?

2. Was the CAC a child-friendly place? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. Was the social worker courteous and ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

responsive to your requests?

4. Was the law enforcement officer courteous ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

and responsive to your requests?

5. If you met with a counselor, was the ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

counselor courteous and responsive to 

your needs?

6. If your child needed a medical exam, was it ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

scheduled at a convenient time?

7. If you have had contact with the district ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

attorney’s office, were the staff courteous 

and responsive to your requests?

8. Were you given helpful information while ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

at the CAC?

9. If needed, would you feel comfortable ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

returning to the CAC?

Please write your comments to the following statements.

10. What I liked best about the CAC is: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Other comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–90

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–91

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Evaluation of Services

Recruitment Script: You have recently received services from the Child Advocacy Center

(CAC). In order to improve our services, we are asking for your feedback. We value your

opinion and appreciate your time in completing this form.

1. With whom did you have contact at the CAC? Please place a check after the staff

members that you met with and rate your satisfaction with the way that you were

treated by circling a number from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most and 1 being the

least satisfied.

Met Level of Satisfaction

With Least Most

Staff Member ✔ Satisfied Satisfied

Receptionist 1 2 3 4 5

Social worker 1 2 3 4 5

Police officer 1 2 3 4 5

Victim advocate 1 2 3 4 5

Doctor 1 2 3 4 5

Nurse 1 2 3 4 5

District attorney 1 2 3 4 5

Other (specify________________________) 1 2 3 4 5

2. Did you have any difficulty contacting the CAC? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Were you kept informed of the progress of the investigation? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. If your case went to court for a trial or other court proceedings, were you 

adequately informed of cancellations or postponements of court proceedings?

____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. If your case went to court for a trial or other court proceedings, were you adequately prepared to testify? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–92

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

6. If your case went to court for a trial or other court proceedings, did you receive adequate assistance when you came to court? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. The CAC was designed to provide a child-friendly atmosphere. Did you find this

to be true? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Did your child find the CAC to be child friendly? ____Yes ____No

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. What did the CAC do that was helpful to you during your involvement in this case?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Is there any area of the center that you feel needs improvement?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–93

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

The Child Advocacy Center Parent Survey

This survey is optional and completely confidential. Your participation will help the center better serve future clients. Please take a few moments to answer the questions and

return the form to us.

For each statement below, please circle the number that best represents how

you feel.

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

About the Center

1. My initial contact with the center was positive.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

2. The phone call from the CAC explaining the appointment was helpful.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

3. The purpose of my visit to the CAC was clearly explained to me before I arrived.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

4. My appointment at the center was scheduled in a timely manner.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

5. The CAC staff were willing to work with my schedule.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

6. I was given clear directions to get to the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

7. The CAC is easily accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

8. The reception area at the CAC was relaxing for my child(ren).

0 1 2 3 4 5 

9. My child(ren) did not have to wait too long at the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 
Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

10. The CAC has a child-friendly environment.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

11. The CAC staff helped me to feel comfortable.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

About the Process

12. The questions asked of me (or my child) seemed important to the investigation.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

13. The CAC staff answered my questions about my child’s (children’s) interview and

explained the process to us before it began.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

14. My child(ren) did not seem upset after the interview. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

15. I felt comfortable with my child(ren) being interviewed at the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

16. The CAC staff answered my questions about the medical exam and explained the

process to us before it began.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

17. The CAC staff were sensitive to my child’s (children’s) feelings. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

18. I felt comfortable with my child(ren) receiving the medical exam at the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

19. The doctor or nurse practitioner who examined my child(ren) helped me understand

the results of the exam.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

20. My child(ren) did not seem upset after the medical exam.

012345

C–94

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–95

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

About the Team

21. CAC staff involved were supportive to me and my child(ren).

012345

22. The CPS worker involved was supportive to me and my child(ren).

012345

23. Police officers involved were supportive to me and my child(ren).

012345

24. The steps involved in the police investigation were clearly explained to me.

012345

25. My questions about the criminal justice system were adequately answered.

012345

26. The juvenile officer involved was supportive to me and my child(ren).

012345

27. CAC staff provided me with counseling referral information for myself and my child.

012345

28. CAC staff invited me to call them if I have questions.

012345

29. I was informed of the CAC followup call I would receive from the center’s 

case manager.

012345
We’d Like to Hear From You

Recently, you and some of your family members visited the Child Advocacy Center

(CAC). We care about what you think, and your comments will help us better serve

other families who come to the center.

Check all that apply.

1. What was your first impression of the CAC itself?

❑ Welcoming

❑ Scary

❑ Other (explain__________________________________________________)

2. I found the volunteers (check all that apply):

❑ Helpful 

❑ Not helpful

❑ Friendly 

❑ Not friendly

❑ Other (explain__________________________________________________)

3. The staff helped me understand (check all that apply): 

❑ The center 

❑ The team 

❑ No information was shared with me 

4. At the center, I felt: 

❑ Comfortable 

❑ Uncomfortable 

Please tell us why you felt either comfortable or uncomfortable: ______

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ 

5. At the center, my child felt: 

❑ Comfortable 

❑ Uncomfortable 

Please tell us why your child felt either comfortable or uncomfortable: 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

C–96

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–97

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

6. How old are your children? Please circle a number for each child’s age.

Under 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 over 16

7. Were you or your child interviewed about this case at another location before your

visit to the CAC? ______Yes ______No

If yes, where? (Check all that apply.) 

❑ Police station 

❑ Child welfare offices

❑ School

❑ Other (where?__________________________________________________)

8. Is there anything specific we could have done to help you or your child while you

were at the center? ______Yes ______No

If yes, please explain:_______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________ 
C–98

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Client Satisfaction Questionnaires 

(CSQ–18A; CSQ–18B; CSQ–8)

Purpose: The client satisfaction questionnaire instruments are self-report questionnaires constructed to measure satisfaction with services received by individuals and

families. 

Cost: The scales are copyrighted and cost $250 for 500 uses ($.50 per use) and 

$.30 per use in blocks of 100 for more than 500. 

Contact: Clifford Attkisson, Ph.D.

Professor of Medical Psychology

200 Millberry Union West

500 Parnassus Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94143–0244

Fax: 415–476–9690

E-mail: cliff@saa.ucsf.edu
C-99

Multidisciplinary Team

Satisfaction Program Monitoring

Evaluation Questionnaires

C–101

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire 

1. Please check which of the following are official members of the multidisciplinary

team (MDT):

______ Law enforcement

______ Child Protective Services

______ Prosecution

______ Mental health professional

______ Medical personnel

______ Victim advocate

______ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

For each of the following statements, please check the response that best reflects

your level of agreement or disagreement with the statement.

2. The Child Advocacy Center (CAC) has written ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

agreements, protocols, and/or guidelines 

signed by authorized representatives of all 

team components.

3. All members of the multidisciplinary team, ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

as defined by the needs of the case, are 

routinely involved in investigations.

4. The CAC provides a routine opportunity for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the multidisciplinary team to provide feedback 

and suggestions regarding procedures and 

operations of the agency.

5. The CAC provides opportunities for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

multidisciplinary team members to receive 

ongoing and relevant training, including 

cross-cultural training.

6. The CAC has implemented procedures for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

routine sharing of needed information among 

team members.
C–102

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Multidisciplinary Team Survey

Please write your response to each of the following questions in the 

space provided.

1. What is the purpose, role, and function of the MDT? ______________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Why would you not use the center?__________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Why would you use the center? ______________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. What makes you decide whether or not to refer a child to our center?__________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the remaining questions, please circle the response that best describes your

response to each question.

Needs 

Excellent Good Satisfactory Improvement Terrible

12345

1. How would you rate the interview? 1 2 3 4 5

2. How would you rate the therapist? 1 2 3 4 5

3. How would you rate the court? 1 2 3 4 5

4. How would you rate the teamwork? 1 2 3 4 5

5. How do you view your treatment here? 1 2 3 4 5
Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Member’s Perceptions of

the MDT 

For each of the following statements, please circle the number that best reflects

your response to each statement.

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Questions Regarding the MDT

1. I know the MDT model can work.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

2. MDT members are never raked over the coals for errors.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

3. MDT members have insurmountable philosophical differences.

012345

4. MDT members are professional in their behavior.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

5. MDT members enjoy working together on a case.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

6. I feel burned out as a result of being a member of the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

7. MDT members constantly battle over how to make things work.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

8. MDT members have territorial issues.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

9. MDT members would not take it well if they were told that parents had made

negative comments about them.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

10. I do not have to have my way every time.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

C–103

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–104

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

11. When I have a concern about something, I feel free to raise it with the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

12. There is no consistency in our MDT composition.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

13. The other MDT members do not work as hard as I do.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

14. The other MDT members are not doing their job.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

15. The MDT discusses personal issues informally.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

16. I am comfortable giving feedback to the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

17. I understand the barriers other MDT members face.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

18. MDT members do not experience role confusion.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

19. The MDT membership is generally stable.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

20. MDT members always help the newcomers along.

012345

21. Change among the MDT membership is constant.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

22. I feel comfortable disagreeing with my supervisor.

0 1 2 3 4 5 
C–105

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

23. The MDT has had some positive experiences in terms of case outcomes.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

24. I feel like someone on the MDT is always looking over my shoulder.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

25. The MDT members are generally comfortable with one another.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

26. The MDT is open to suggestions and criticism.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

27. The MDT members do not know one another very well.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

28. The MDT members socialize outside of work.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

29. The MDT members trust one another.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

30. The MDT members blame one another.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

31. The MDT is part of my support system.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

32. Awards are presented to MDT members.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

33. Our MDT engages in ongoing team-building activities.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

34. I am proud of the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 
C–106

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

35. The MDT members are comfortable bringing up problems.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

36. The turnover and transfer rates are affecting the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

37. I am dedicated to the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

38. The MDT is a good idea.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

39. The MDT has a regular forum for discussing system issues.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

40. MDT members have no accountability when there is an MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

41. The MDT should be able to require a team member to perform some act.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

42. I am frustrated by the outcome of the cases the MDT has been involved with.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

43. It is preferable for the MDT to be co-located.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

44. It was easier to investigate cases the conventional way.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

45. I am able to see the benefit on the MDT of what I do.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

46. I would never want to work without the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 
Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

47. The MDT leader is neutral.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

48. The MDT’s primary agenda is the best interests of the child.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

49. The MDT model is better for kids.

012345

50. The MDT members should evaluate the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

51. The MDT is under one roof and that helps a lot.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

52. I know how the MDT model works.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

53. I support the MDT model.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

54. We need more MDT training. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

55. It’s hard to keep the MDT going because the CAC has no authority over the team.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

56. I read the protocol occasionally to remind myself of the agreement.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

57. At times, the MDT members are able to laugh, which releases some tension.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Questions Regarding the CAC

58. I am generally cynical about the CAC.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

C–107

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
C–108

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Does Strongly Strongly

Not Apply Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5 

59. The location of the CAC is inconvenient.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

60. The accessibility of services is appropriate.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

61. I am not comfortable coming to the CAC; for example, I do not feel welcome.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

62. Working with the CAC has increased our team’s cohesion.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

63. The CAC director is good at settling issues.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

64. The CAC should not have decisionmaking authority within the MDT.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

65. The CAC staff are available to meet our needs.

0 1 2 3 4 5 

66. The CAC staff provide the services we need.

0 1 2 3 4 5 
Multidisciplinary Team Satisfaction

Please tell us how you feel about each of the following statements by circling

the number that best reflects your response to each statement.

Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

1. The team members follow the mandates contained in the written protocol.

12345

2. I follow the written protocol.

1 2 3 4 5 

3. I find the written protocol useful.

1 2 3 4 5 

4. I am not comfortable discussing cases with other team members (in terms of 

confidentiality issues).

1 2 3 4 5 

5. I am very satisfied with the way my team members resolve conflicts in the context

of the MDT.

1 2 3 4 5 

6. Participation in an MDT results in less system-inflicted trauma to children.

1 2 3 4 5 

7. Participation in an MDT results in better case decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 

8. Participation in an MDT results in more accurate investigations.

1 2 3 4 5 

9. Participation in an MDT results in more appropriate interventions.

1 2 3 4 5 

10. I am satisfied with the designation of the lead agency.

1 2 3 4 5 

C–109

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

11. I do not know the method of resolving team disputes among team members.

1 2 3 4 5 

12. Our team works collaboratively.

1 2 3 4 5 

13. Collaboration among team members produces the best case results.

1 2 3 4 5 

14. It would be valuable for my team to participate in joint training exercises.

1 2 3 4 5 

15. My team participates in social activities outside case reviews.

1 2 3 4 5 

16. My supervisor supports my participation in the MDT.

1 2 3 4 5 

17. We have provisions for joint training in our written protocols.

1 2 3 4 5 

18. My agency provides sufficient staffing for participation in an MDT.

1 2 3 4 5 

19. My agency provides sufficient budget for participation in an MDT.

12345

20. I am not satisfied with our interagency coordination.

12345

21. There are turf issues among the MDT members.

1 2 3 4 5 

22. I am engaged in joint training with the other agencies.

1 2 3 4 5 

C–110

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
Agency Satisfaction Survey

1. Which professional agency are you affiliated with (please check one)? 

❑ Police

❑ Child Protective Services

❑ District attorney’s office

2. How many evaluations do you attend in a year (please check one):

❑ I attend all or almost all evaluations.

❑ I attend 1–5 evaluations per year.

❑ I attended more than 5 evaluations in the past year.

Please tell us how you feel about each of the following statements by circling the

number that best describes your response to each statement.

Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

1. CAC staff answer the phone in a courteous manner.

1 2 3 4 5 

2. CAC staff respond to my needs.

1 2 3 4 5 

3. I am confident telephone messages are given to the appropriate staff.

1 2 3 4 5 

4. CAC intake staff return an initial referral call within 1 business day.

1 2 3 4 5 

5. Evaluations (nonacute) are scheduled within 2 weeks of referral.

1 2 3 4 5 

6. Child Protective Services (CPS) is made to feel like part of the team on

evaluation day.

1 2 3 4 5 

7. Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) are made to feel like part of the team on

evaluation day.

1 2 3 4 5 

C–111

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

8. CPS is consulted before concluding an evaluation.

1 2 3 4 5 

9. LEA is consulted before concluding an evaluation.

1 2 3 4 5 

10. Evaluations are done in a child-sensitive and caring manner.

1 2 3 4 5 

11. The child and family are treated with respect.

1 2 3 4 5 

12. CPS has a clear understanding at the end of the evaluation process what program

staff will state in their written report.

1 2 3 4 5 

13. LEA has a clear understanding at the end of the evaluation process what program

staff will state in their written report.

1 2 3 4 5 

14. Reports are written in a clear, accurate, and comprehensive manner that reflects

the evaluation process.

1 2 3 4 5 

15. Written reports are mailed within 2 weeks of an evaluation.

1 2 3 4 5 

16. Staff are responsive to the need for a report to be transcribed on an urgent basis.

1 2 3 4 5 

17. Staff are available to consult on difficult cases.

1 2 3 4 5 

18. The staff are prepared and testify well in court. 

1 2 3 4 5 

C–112

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–113

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

19. The best interest of the child is served by the program evaluation process.

1 2 3 4 5 

20. Overall, my impression of the program is favorable.

1 2 3 4 5 

Additional comments are welcome. Thank you.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–114

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

State Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation

1. Do the team members show up for ❑ Yes ❑ No

scheduled meetings?

2. Do team members sign the sign-in and ❑ Yes ❑ No

confidentiality forms at each meeting?

3. Which services are needed but not available?____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Which services are available and used?__________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Does Child Protective Services follow the ❑ Yes ❑ No 

group’s recommendation for treatment?

6. Are families getting treatment? ❑ Yes ❑ No

7. We make ______ number of referrals to the prosecutor.

8. The prosecutor accepts ______ number of cases.

9. What are the outcomes of the prosecutions (e.g., plea is now considered a success)?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Is the team working well together? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No
Child Advocacy Center Agency Survey

The Child Advocacy Center (CAC) seeks to effectively meet the needs of the professionals and volunteers who use the CAC. Please take some time to complete and return

this survey so that we can evaluate and improve our work.

For each of the following questions, please check the response that best reflects

your opinion.

1. When you call the CAC, are the staff ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

courteous and helpful?

2. When you call to make an appointment, ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

are you able to schedule a time that is 

convenient for you and the client?

3. When you arrive at the center, are the forms, ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

tools, and equipment necessary to do your 

job ready and available?

4. Are the staff of the CAC responsive to ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

your requests?

5. Is the case review meeting scheduled at a ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A 

convenient time?

6. Do the meetings start and end on time? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

7. Are you benefiting from the case review ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

process?

Please comment:

8. What would you change about the facility itself if you could? __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. What would you change about the case review meeting if you could? ______________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. What is the best thing about the CAC? __________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–115

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
Multidisciplinary Team Questionnaire 

Date: ________________________________________________________________________

Department you represent: ____________________________________________________

Please tell us how much you feel the CAC has contributed to the cases you discussed today. Even if you have had minimal involvement with the cases discussed

at today’s meeting, you may be able to give your impressions about the services

offered. Circle the appropriate response below. Circle 8 if the question does not

apply (N/A).

1. For cases discussed today, how much have the CAC services contributed to the

following?

Very

Not at All Somewhat Much N/A

1 4 78

a. The overall efficiency of the investigation process.

1 2345678

b. Improving communication among professionals involved in the case. 

1 2345678

c. Improving coordination through multiprofessional meetings.

1 2345678

d. Decreasing further trauma to the child during the investigation.

1 2345678

e. Maintaining up-to-date information about the case.

1 2345678

f. Ensuring therapeutic services for the child and family.

1 2345678

g. Minimizing duplicate services among professionals involved in the case. 

1 2345678

h. Ensuring that the victim is protected from further abuse.

1 2345678

C–116

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–117

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Very

Not at All Somewhat Much N/A

1 4 78

i. Helping me with my work on this case.

1 2345678

Using a different scale, rate your agreement with the following two questions.

2. Overall, the CAC’s contribution to the cases discussed assisted me in working on

my cases.

Neither

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2345

3. Overall, the CAC’s contribution to the cases discussed is helpful to victims and family

members.

Neither

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2345
Child Advocacy Center Team Evaluation

Please rate the following statements about the multidisciplinary team, based

on your personal opinion. Please place the number that best describes your

perception on the line before each sentence.

Not at All Consistently

1234

1. ______ The team is clear about what it needs to accomplish and is unified in its

purpose.

2. ______ Team members know that each person needs to accomplish team goals.

3. ______ Team members share values that support the team.

4. ______ Team members get and give prompt, direct, reliable, and useful feedback

(positive, negative, developmental) about the performance of the team.

5. ______ All team members participate; contributions are acknowledged; consensus

is sought. 

6. ______ Team members trust one another enough to talk about issues openly and 

promptly. 

7. ______ Team members feel a sense of belonging to the team, both emotionally and

professionally. 

8. ______ Team members express ideas on both problems and group process.

9. ______ Team members listen to one another.

10. ______ Disagreement is valued and used to improve the performance of the team.

11. ______ The leader does not dominate, and the group does not overly depend on

the leader. 

12. ______ Team members celebrate personal and team accomplishments.

13. ______ Team members possess and consistently use the following teamwork skills

(check all that apply):

❑ Problem solving

❑ Conflict management

❑ Confrontation

❑ Listening

❑ Validation/support

❑ Coordination

C–118

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–119

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Advocacy Center Yearend Survey

Please rate the following statements based on your personal opinion, using the

scale below.

Not at All Consistently

1234

To what extent has the Child Advocacy Center approach been helpful in each of the

following areas?

1. ______ Reducing the number of individuals a child must interact with during the initial investigation.

2. ______ Making the interview process less intimidating for the child.

3. ______ Strengthening your efforts in individual cases.

4. ______ Videotaping to enhance the investigative process.

5. ______ Fostering communication among participating professionals.

6. ______ Fostering cooperation among participating agencies.

Please indicate your role in the investigative process.

❑ Child Protective Services

❑ County attorney

❑ District attorney

❑ Police

❑ Probation

❑ Victim advocate

❑ Offender treatment

❑ Other (please specify _______________________________________________)

Please use the space below for any additional comments.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–120

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Mental Health Agency Satisfaction Survey 

Name of agency: ______________________________________________________________

Name of therapist: ____________________________________________________________

Name of client: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Please rate the following statements using the scales provided. Note that each

question uses a different scale.

1. What was your overall satisfaction level with the services provided by the Child

Advocacy Center (CAC) for this particular child? 

Extremely Generally Somewhat Totally

Pleased Pleased Satisfied Unsatisfied Dissatisfied

12345

2. Did staff respond in a timely manner to your initial request and ongoing needs 

pertaining to this case?

Very Quick Timely A Little Slow Very 

Response Response Average to Respond Slow

1 2 3 4 5 

3. Did the services provided by the CAC help you conduct your work with the child?

Extremely Quite No Not Very Did not

Helpful Helpful Difference Helpful Help

12345

4. How would you rate the courtesy and cooperativeness of the staff?

Excellent Good Average Fair Poor

12345

5. Please provide any additional comments below. Thank you.______________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–121

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Agency Satisfaction Questionnaire

(TEDI BEAR)

Please respond to the following questions.

1. Have you ever heard of the Child ❑ Yes ❑ No 

Advocacy Center (CAC)? 

2. How were you informed about the CAC?

❑ Agency supervisor/worker 

❑ County department of social services

❑ Area law enforcement 

❑ Area district attorney

❑ Area mental health center 

❑ Physician

❑ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

3. What services do you have difficulty obtaining when working with abused or 

neglected children? (Please check all that apply.)

❑ Individual therapy 

❑ Medical examinations

❑ Family therapy 

❑ Forensic interviewing

❑ Mental health evaluations 

❑ Parenting classes

❑ Psychological assessments 

❑ Multidisciplinary team review

❑ Case consultation

❑ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

4. What other resources do you need when working with abused or neglected 

children? (Please check all that apply.)

❑ Child-friendly location in which to interview children.

❑ Educational opportunities to learn how to interview children.

❑ Educational opportunities to learn how to treat children.

❑ Professional support system in which to process cases and deal 

with burnout.

❑ Other (please specify________________________________________________)
5. Have you used the CAC? ❑ Yes ❑ No

If yes, how? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. What CAC services have you used?

❑ Medical examination 

❑ Child investigative interview

❑ Therapeutic services 

❑ Consultation

❑ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

7. Please rate our overall performance in your case:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent 

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Please rate our location: 

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

9. Please rate the layout of the facility (for example, are the individual rooms set up

appropriately?):

Lobby ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Interview room ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Observation room ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Medical exam room ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Therapy room ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent 

Conference room ❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Please rate our scheduling (for example, did we schedule your referral quickly?):

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C–122

APPENDIX C / JULY 04
C–123

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

11. Please rate the timeliness in which your reports were returned:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Please rate the services of the medical examiner:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. Please rate the services of the interviewer:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Please rate the services of the child and family therapist:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15. Please rate the services of the child life specialist:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. Please rate the services of the reception staff:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–124

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

17. Please rate the treatment that the child and family received:

❑ Poor ❑ Fair ❑ Good ❑ Excellent

Comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. If our services were not available or if you chose not to use our services, where did

you refer the client for assessment or treatment? (Please check all that apply.)

❑ Local mental health center

❑ Local physician 

❑ Other child advocacy center

❑ County department of social services

❑ Other (please specify________________________________________________)

19. With which type of agency are you employed?

❑ County department of social services 

❑ Law enforcement

❑ Medical 

❑ Mental health

❑ Other

County in which you are employed:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other comments, concerns, or ideas: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–125

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Agency Evaluation 

For each of the following questions, please check the response that best reflects

your opinion. Please provide written comments when requested.

1. Have you referred a child to the center ❑ Yes ❑ No 

for a child investigative interview?

2. If no, why not? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. If you answered yes to question 1, were ❑ Yes ❑ No

you satisfied with the services?

4. Have you taken a child to the center for a ❑ Yes ❑ No

medical examination?

5. Were you satisfied with the center and ❑ Yes ❑ No

its furnishings?

6. Did the office furnishings and equipment ❑ Yes ❑ No

meet your needs?

7. Do you have any suggested improvements for the facility? ______________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Do you have any suggested program improvements? __________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C–126

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Survey of the Multidisciplinary Team Regarding Protocols 

My profession is ______________________________________________________________

Circle the response that best describes how you feel about each of the following

statements.

Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

1. I am aware that local county protocols exist.

1 2 3 4 5 

2. I have a copy of my county protocol.

1 23 45

3. I attended local protocol training.

1 2 3 4 5 

4. I have read the section of the protocol that applies to me.

1 2 3 4 5 

5. I follow the protocols for my county.

1 2 3 4 5 

6. I think my county should conduct more joint investigations of child sexual abuse.

1 2 3 4 5 

7. I think my county should conduct more joint investigations of child physical abuse.

1 2 3 4 5 

8. I believe joint investigations of child sexual abuse promote better prosecution of

these cases.

1 2 3 4 5 
C–127

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Neither 

Strongly Agree nor Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 

9. I believe joint investigations of physical abuse promote better prosecution of

these cases.

1 2 3 4 5 

10. Child investigative interviews are effective for gathering information from a child

victim.

1 2 3 4 5 

11. I believe child investigative interviews help reduce the number of times a child victim must be interviewed.

1 2 3 4 5 
C–128

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Director and Staff Satisfaction Questionnaire 

For each of the following questions, please check the choice that best reflects

your response to the question.

1. Do staff trust the director? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Are the staff’s skills appropriate for their ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

positions?

3. Do the staff feel burned out? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

4. Does the director treat the staff with ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

respect? 

5. Does the staff treat the director with ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

respect? 

6. Do staff spend the appropriate amount of ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

time with families?

7. Does the staff take appropriate care of ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

families while they are at the center?

8. Are the staff enthusiastic about their work? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No 

9. Are there team-building activities for ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

the staff? 

10. How much is reasonable to expect from staff each week? ________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C-129

Child Satisfaction Program

Monitoring Evaluation

Questionnaires

C–131

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Satisfaction With the Prosecution 

Are you happy, sad, mad, or scared about the way your case was decided?

❑ Happy ❑ Sad ❑ Mad ❑ Scared

Did the attorney talk nicely to you? ❑ Yes ❑ No 

Would you recommend this center to ❑ Yes ❑ No

someone else?

Child Satisfaction With the Medical Examination 

Please check the choice that best reflects your response to each of the following

questions.

1. Were you told what would happen during ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don‘t Know 

the exam?

2. Do you think it was helpful to know what was ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don‘t Know 

going to happen during the examination?

3. Did the doctor tell you what was found after ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don‘t Know

the examination was done?

4. Was the doctor who examined you nice ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don‘t Know 

to you?
C–132

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Happy Sad Mad Scared

2. How did you feel during the interview?

Happy Sad Mad Scared

3. How did you feel talking about ______ today?

Happy Sad Mad Scared

Child Interview—Child Form

Instructions: Show the child the four faces and explain the emotion word below each

face (e.g., while pointing to the face say “This face is happy.”). Then ask the child the following three questions (e.g., How did you feel today?). Then while pointing to each face,

say to the child: “Did you feel happy, sad, mad, or scared?” 

1. How did you feel today?
C–133

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Satisfaction With Child Advocacy Center Services 

Type of interviewer: ________________________________________________________________________________

Age of child: ________________________________________________________________________________________

Answer “a little,” “a lot,” or “not at all” to each of the following questions.

1. How much did you like the waiting room ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

at the CAC?

2. How much time did you have to wait ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

at the CAC?

3. How much did you like the toys in the ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

waiting room?

4. How much did you like the people you ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

spoke to at the CAC?

5. How safe did you feel at the CAC? ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All 

6. How comfortable did you feel during your ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

interview?

7. How upset were you during the interview? ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All 

8. How much sense did the interview ❑ A Little ❑ A Lot ❑ Not at All

questions make to you?

Answer “yes” or “no” to the next three questions.

9. Would you rather have been interviewed ❑ Yes ❑ No

someplace else?

10. Were you interviewed too many times? ❑ Yes ❑ No

11. Did the interviewer ask questions in the ❑ Yes ❑ No 

best way for you?
C–134

APPENDIX C / JULY 04

Youth Satisfaction Questionnaire

Please help us to make this program better by answering questions about the services

you received here. We want to know how you felt—good or bad. Please answer all of

the questions. Thanks.

Please check the response that best describes how you feel for each

question below:

1. Did you like the help you were getting? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

2. Did you get the help you wanted? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

3. Did you need more help than you got? ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

4. Were you given more services than ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

you needed?

5. Have the services helped you with ❑ Yes ❑ Somewhat ❑ No

your life?

Please circle a grade for each of the following areas:

The age-appropriateness of the center A B C D F N/A

The interview A B C D F N/A

The medical examination A B C D F N/A

Mental health services A B C D F N/A

Staff support from the CAC while at A B C D F N/A

the center

[Add other services the CAC offers] A B C D F N/A
C–135

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Questionnaire

Instructions. I would like you to answer two questions about how you felt about what

happened here today.

1. Would you point to the face that shows how you felt about talking to the interviewer just now?

Very Good Good A Little Good Bad Very Bad

12 345

2. Would you point to the face that shows how you felt about the rooms where you

have been waiting and talking to people here today?

Very Good Good A Little Good Bad Very Bad

12 345

D–1

Multidisciplinary Team Outcome Evaluation Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . .D–3

Child Advocacy Center Team Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–5

Key Informant Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–7

Interagency Collaboration Questionnaire Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–9

Child Advocacy Center Team Meeting Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–14

Child Investigative Interview Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire . . . . D–15

Assessment of the Interviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–17

Mental Health Services Outcome Evaluation Questionnaires . . . . . . . D–21

Assessing Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–23

Mental Health Services—Therapist Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–26

Form for Clinical Treatment Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–27

Treatment and Outcomes Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–28

Client Outcomes Reporting Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–31

Initial and Discharge Diagnostic Assessment Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–33

Medical Examination Outcome Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–39

Assessing Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–41

Genital Examination Distress Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–44

Child’s Perceptions of the Genital Examination for Child Sexual Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–45

Parents’ Perceptions of the Genital Examination of Their Child for Child Sexual Abuse . . . D–46

Physician’s Perceptions of the Medical Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–47

Court Process Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–49

Children’s Perceptions of Court-Related Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D–51

Appendix D

Sample Measures for Conducting an Outcome Evaluation
D–2

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Case Tracking Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–53

CARES NW Statistics Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–55

Case Tracking Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–58

AWAKE Intake Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–61

CARES Program Intake Information Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–62

Georgia Center for Children Intake Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–64

Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/Case Tracking Forms (for information gathered 

by Child Protective Services (CPS)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–67

Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/Case Tracking Forms (for information gathered 

by law enforcement (LE)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–79

Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/Case Tracking Worksheet Legal/Court Process 

(for information gathered by county attorney) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–90

Georgia Center for Children Child Victim Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D–92

St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center—Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-98
D–3

Multidisciplinary Team

Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaires

D–5

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Advocacy Center Team Evaluations

For each of the following questions, using the rating scale to the right of the

question, please circle the response that best describes how you feel.

Question Not at All Consistently

1. The team is clear about what it needs 1 2 3 4

to accomplish and unified in its purpose.

2. Team members know they need each 1 2 3 4

other to accomplish team goals.

3. Team members share values that 1 2 3 4

support the team.

4. Team members get and give prompt, 1 2 3 4

direct, reliable, useful feedback.

5. All team members participate, contri- 1 2 3 4

butions are acknowledged, consensus 

is sought.

6. Team members trust each other 1 2 3 4

enough to talk about issues openly and 

promptly.

7. Team members feel a sense of 1 2 3 4

belonging to the team, both emotionally 

and professionally.

8. Members express ideas on both 1 2 3 4

problems and group process. 

9. Members listen to one another. 1 2 3 4

10. Disagreement is valued and used to 1 2 3 4

improve the performance of the team.

11. The leader does not dominate, and 1 2 3 4

the group does not overly depend on 

the leader.

12. Team members celebrate personal 1 2 3 4

and team accomplishments.

13. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4

use teamwork skills such as problem 

solving.
D–6

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

For each of the following questions, using the rating scale to the right of the

question, please circle the response that best describes how you feel.

Question Not at All Consistently

14. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4

use teamwork skills such as conflict 

management. 

15. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4

use teamwork skills such as 

confrontation.

16. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4 

use teamwork skills such as listening. 

17. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4 

use teamwork skills such as validation/

supporting.

18. Members possess and consistently 1 2 3 4

use teamwork skills such as 

coordinating. 
D–7

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Key Informant Interview Questions

Assessing Interagency Collaboration

Understanding Goals of the Agency Represented by the Key Informant

1. What are the goals of your agency?

2. In your view, how do your agency’s goals differ from that of the other agencies in

the collaborative system?

3. What effect, if any, does this difference have on service delivery?

4. In what ways are your goals similar? (and/or what are the system goals?)

Roles and Perceptions of the Interagency Collaborative Process

1. What is your agency’s role in the collaborative process?

2. Is your agency effective in that role? What makes your agency effective?

3. What ways would you suggest that would improve the effectiveness?

4. What are the roles of the other agencies with which you work closely? Are they

effective in their roles?

5. In your view, how do the other agencies see your role? Do they view you as effective in your role?

Focus on Interagency Communication

1. Do you believe that the various agencies (e.g., Children First, Department for Social

Services, Commonwealth Attorney’s Office) communicate well with each other?

2. How do you communicate your needs to other agencies? (e.g., verbal/written, frequency, kinds of information, etc.)

3. How do other agencies communicate their needs to you? (e.g., verbal/written, frequency, kinds of information, etc.)

4. Is this communication effective? What makes it effective? What would make it

more effective?

5. How is a client transferred/referred in and out of your agency? What are the steps

involved in this process?

Focus on Agency View on Client as Part of the Collaborative

System/Empowerment of the Client

1. How do you involve the client/victim/family in the collaborative process?

2. In your view, do the services provided by the collaborative system empower the

client/victim/family? How?

3. In your view, do the services provided by the collaborative system disempower the

client/victim/family? How?

4. How could the collaborative system more effectively empower the

client/victim/family?
D–8

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Focus on Interagency Teamwork and Interdependence

1. In what ways does the collaborative system share resources (e.g., staff, training,

financial, information, etc.)? How could this process improve?

2. Do you view the other agencies as being emotionally supportive of your agency?

In what ways? What would you like to see different?

3. What are the strengths of the services delivered by the collaborative system?

4. What are the weaknesses of the services delivered by the collaborative system?

Focus on Interagency Conflict

1. What are typical kinds of interagency conflicts within the collaborative system?

2. How are these conflicts usually handled (e.g., avoidance, minimizing, power struggle, or systemic examination of the problem)? Are conflicts (inter- or intra-agency)

formally documented in any way?

3. How could the management of interagency conflict be improved?
D–9

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Interagency Collaboration Questionnaire Forms

(Beauchamp, Tewksbury, and Sanford 1997)

As part of an effort to evaluate the interagency collaborative system that addresses and

responds to child sexual abuse in our community, we are interested in the perceptions

and experiences that the staff of this agency have had with the other agencies in the

collaborative system. 

For each statement, use the rating scale below to describe how you feel about that

statement. For the questions, please provide a brief answer regarding your opinion

about the particular issue.

Interagency Collaboration Questionnaire

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly Question Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

1. Managers of the various agencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

meet on a regular basis to discuss 

cases and other collaboration issues.

2. The collaborative agencies involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

in addressing child sexual abuse 

share similar goals.

3. There is very little, if any, unneces- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

sary overlap of roles among the 

various agencies.

4. The various collaborative agencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

communicate effectively with each 

other.

5. Sufficient training opportunities exist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

within the collaborative system.

6. The services provided by the collab- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

orative system empower the family 

and victim.

7. Victims and families are told what to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

expect during the investigative, legal, 

and treatment phases.

8. Opportunities for consultation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

between agencies are sufficient.

9. What effect, if any, does this overlap of roles have on service delivery?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
D–10

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

10. What effect, if any, do differences in agency goals have on service delivery to victims and families?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

11. What are the strengths of the collaborative system?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

12. What are the weaknesses of the collaborative system?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

13. What would make interagency communication more effective?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

14. How could the collaborative system more effectively empower the family of a victim of child sexual abuse?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Child Protective Services Workers

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly Question Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

15. The CAC and Social/Protective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Services readily share case 

information.

16. The CAC and Social/Protective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services communicate effectively 

with each other.

17. The referral process between the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

CAC and Social/Protective Services 

is effective.
D–11

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

18. Case information provided to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

CAC by Social/Protective Services 

is helpful in the treatment planning 

process.

19. The CAC and Social/Protective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services share similar goals.

20. When they arise, conflicts between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the CAC and Social/Protective 

Services are usually resolved 

effectively.

21. How could communication between the advocacy center and Social/Protective 

Services be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

22. What is the role of Social/Protective Services in the collaborative system?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

23. How could conflict resolution between the advocacy center and Social/Protective

Services be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Mental Health Services

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly Question Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

24. The CAC and treatment agency/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

agencies readily share case 

information.

25. The referral process between the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

CAC and the treatment agency/

agencies is effective.

26. The CAC and the treatment agency/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

agencies share similar goals.
D–12

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

27. Conflicts arise between the CAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

and the treatment agency/agencies.

28. When they arise, conflicts between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the CAC and the treatment agency/

agencies are usually resolved 

effectively.

29. What is the role of the treatment agency/agencies in the collaborative system?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

30. How could conflict resolution between the CAC and the treatment agency/agencies

be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

31. How could communication between the CAC and the treatment agency/agencies

be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Law Enforcement

Neither

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly Question Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

32. The CAC and law enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

agency/agencies readily share 

case information.

33. The CAC and the law enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

agency/agencies communicate 

effectively with each other.

34. Case information provided to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

CAC by the law enforcement 

agency/agencies is helpful in the 

treatment planning process.

35. The CAC and the law enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

agency/agencies share similar goals.

36. When they arise, conflicts between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the CAC and the law enforcement 

agency/agencies are usually resolved 

effectively.
D–13

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

37. How could communication between the CAC and the law enforcement

agency/agencies be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

38. What is the role of the law enforcement agency/agencies in the collaborative 

system?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

39. How could conflict resolution between the CAC and the law enforcement agency/

agencies be improved?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
D–14

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Child Advocacy Center Team Meeting Assessment

(CAC, Poughkeepsie, New York)

Please rate the following statements according to the number that best describes

your opinion of this meeting.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1234

1. The meeting was orderly, with few (if any) side conversations.

1234

2. Cases were discussed clearly and succinctly, with little irrelevant information.

1234

3. Disagreement was accepted without defensive reactions.

1234

4. We demonstrated that we were listening to each other very well.

1 2 3 4 

5. I felt connected to the team process, even when I was not directly involved in 

the discussion.

1234

6. The meeting was very productive.

1234

7. The meeting was hard to follow due to lack of order and many side conversations.

1234

8. Cases were discussed in a disjointed, lengthy manner with much irrelevant

information.

1234

9. Defensive reactions to disagreements blocked team process.

1234

10. We didn’t listen to each other very well.

1234

11. I did not feel a part of the team process.

1234

12. The meeting was not at all productive.

1234
D–15

Child Investigative Interview

Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaire

D–17

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Assessment of the Interviewer1

(Newman 1998)

For each item, rate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly

disagree with the statement.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4 32 1

Rapport Building

1. ____ Interviewer started the interview with a statement of date, time, location, and 

everyone present.

2. ____ Interviewer was able to engage the child to participate in the interview.

3. ____ Interviewer introduced himself/herself to the child and explained his/her role.

4. ____ Interviewer familiarized the child with the purpose of the interview or 

assessed the child’s understanding of the interview.

5. ____ Interviewer addressed the physical surroundings and explained the purpose of

the equipment, such as a one-way mirror, to the child.

6. ____ Interviewer answered any questions the child asked.

7. ____ Interviewer told the child he/she was free to ask questions.

8. ____ Interviewer explained documentation and memorialization.

9. ____ Interviewer empowered the child.

10. ____ Interviewer gave the child permission to challenge authority.

11. ____ Interviewer gave the child permission to decline to answer questions the child 

felt were too difficult or emotionally disturbing.

12. ____ Interviewer instructed the child not to guess.

13. ____ Interviewer encouraged the child to correct or disagree with him/her.

14. ____ Interviewer ascertained the child’s understanding of the interview by asking 

who prepared the child and what they said, and by clarifying misperceptions.

15. ____ Interviewer attempted to evaluate the suggestibility of the child.

1. Videotaped interviews are viewed by coders for the following characteristics in order to assess the skill of the interviewer (see Dr.

Bernie Newman at Temple University). There are four potential uses of this instrument: effective feedback training, peer review,

assessment of readiness of team member to interview, and confidence building.
D–18

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4 32 1

Developmental Screening/Skills Assessment

16. ____ Interviewer assessed the child’s level of functioning and dynamic processes.

17. ____ Interviewer modified and adapted language, tasks, etc., to accommodate the 

child’s abilities.

18. ____ Interviewer framed questions in a developmentally sensitive manner.

19. ____ Interviewer used different types of questions in response to the child’s level of

functioning.

20. ____ Interviewer engaged in responsive listening by repeating back to the child 

what the child said.

21. ____ Interviewer assessed the child’s ability to tell truth from lies.

22. ____ Interviewer assessed the child’s ability to tell real from pretend.

23. ____ Interviewer assessed the child’s ability to tell the difference between 

something that happened versus something made up.

24. ____ Interviewer assessed the child’s ability to tell right from wrong.

25. ____ Interviewer used role play to assess the congruency of these concepts.

26. ____ Interviewer used different concepts to assess developmental level and knowledge of truth telling.

27. ____ Interviewer assessed congruency of concepts in a developmentally sensitive 

manner.

Anatomy Identification

28. ____ Interviewer asked the child to identify sexual and nonsexual body parts.

29. ____ Interviewer explored the concept of good touch versus bad touch.

Elicitation of Abuse-Specific Information

30. ____ Interviewer used a combination of open-ended questions and focused, 

directed, and structured questions.

31. ____ Interviewer questioned the child using both general questions and specific 

questions as needed in the interview.

32. ____ Interviewer explored contextual information—what, when, where, how, and 

who.

33. ____ Interviewer explored situational information.
D–19

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4 32 1

34. ____ Interviewer explored multiple versus isolated incidents of abuse.

35. ____ Interviewer explored secondary information about the context in which the 

abuse occurred (sounds, smells, events that occurred during the abuse).

36. ____ Interviewer explored issues such as coercion, threats, bribes, punishments, 

and rewards.

37. ____ Interviewer explored the use of pornography, sexual aids, and video 

equipment.

38. ____ Interviewer explored alternate explanations with the child.

39. ____ Interviewer probed for more detail with nonleading questions.

40. ____ Interviewer asked the child to clarify words or phrases when the meaning was

not obvious.

41. ____ Interviewer asked the child how he/she obtained knowledge of different 

words.

Closure

42. ____ Interviewer acknowledged the child’s participation and effort.

43. ____ Interviewer asked the child if there was anything he/she forgot to ask or 

anything child would ask if he/she was the interviewer.

44. ____ Interviewer left the door open for possible reinterview.

45. ____ Interviewer gave the child information about possible next steps in the abuse 

investigation.

46. ____ Interviewer addressed the child’s fears, concerns, and issues.

47. ____ Interviewer avoided false hopes by responding truthfully but generally to the 

child.

48. ____ Interviewer addressed personal safety with the child.

Interviewer Style

49. ____ Interviewer did not initiate physical contact with the child and only touched the

child if the child initiated it.

50. ____ Interviewer was relaxed yet alert.

51. ____ Interviewer demonstrated patience with the child and did not rush the child.
D–20

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4 32 1

52. ____ Interviewer probed for inconsistencies gently.

53. ____ Interviewer did his/her best to make the child comfortable.

54. ____ Interviewer did not lead the child through nonverbal expressions or body 

language.

55. ____ Interviewer praised the child in ways that were not leading (i.e., did not praise 

the child for disclosing but did so for neutral statements).

56. ____ Interviewer was attentive to the needs of the child.

57. ____ Interviewer showed an awareness of how the child was coping with the 

process and supported the child though the process. 

Final Questions

58. What did the interviewer do best in this interview?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

59. In what areas could the interviewer show improvement?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
D–21

Mental Health Services

Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaires

D–23

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Assessing Mental Health Services 

Focus on Defining Key Informant’s Role/Experience at the CAC

1. What is your primary responsibility here at the Child Advocacy Center (CAC)?

2. What are your other responsibilities?

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the typical level of stress you experience in a given

week?

4. How do you manage this stress? What is in place here at the CAC to help with this

stress?

5. In your view, what makes your experience at this CAC a positive professional

experience?

6. What hinders your ability to work effectively in general?

7. What hinders your ability to work effectively clinically?

8. What is your view about the interdisciplinary team at this CAC?

9. What would assist you in improving your utilization of the team?

10. In general, what do you think your clients’ perspective is of this CAC? Of you as

a professional providing the various services?

Focus on General Management of Clinical Cases

Ask for perspectives (positive/negative) on the service delivery flow, including key

components:

11. Receipt of referral

12. Intake

13. Assignment of cases

14. Intervention/service provision

15. Referral out

16. Termination

17. Clinical case reviews

18. Charting/chart reviews

19. Telephone consults

20. On call
D–24

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Focus on Mental Health Services

21. Who comprises the population that you serve?

22. How do you define who your client is?

23. How do you know when a child/family is in crisis? What is a crisis?

24. What is crisis intervention?

25. How do you know when the crisis has remitted?

26. How does crisis intervention differ from brief or short-term therapeutic services?

27. In your view, what are the critical components of effective intervention?

28. In general, how effective do you feel you are in your interventions, on a scale of

1 to 10? Why?

29. How do you decide when to refer? Not to refer?

30. What is involved in the referral process?

31. How effective is the referral process? What changes would you suggest to make

this service component more effective?

32. What is involved in court support? What changes would you suggest to make this

service component more effective?

33. What is involved in case management?

34. How effective is case management? What changes would you suggest to make

this service component more effective?

35. In your view, how do you differentiate between clinical work and case

management?

36. How effective do you feel this CAC is in the provision of clinical services? 

37. What would you like to see different in the area of clinical services? 

Assessing Supervision

38. What do you consider to be effective supervision? What are the components?

39. What is the system for supervision of cases here at this CAC?

40. How often do you receive supervision? Would you like more or less?

41. How helpful is your supervision to your professional growth? To the clinical management of your cases (interventions and case management)?

42. If there were a system put in place to evaluate supervision, what would you like to

suggest be included?
D–25

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Assessing General Staffing Issues

43. What is the orientation process here at this CAC?

44. What would you add or delete from the orientation process?

45. What types of training are provided by this CAC?

46. How important is training to you on a scale of 1 to 10?

47. What types of training do you need to be more effective in your position? How

would they help you?

48. What would you suggest to ensure that training occurs on a regular basis?

49. Are financial resources available for you to receive the ongoing training you need to

be effective in your position?

50. What kind of support do you feel from your colleagues? Your supervisor? Office

staff? The Board of Directors?

51. What would you suggest be put in place to enhance the support you experience

from these entities?

52. How do the office staff (or clinical staff) support you?

53. Do you think the office staff (or clinical staff) understand your position and the

associated responsibilities? If not, why?

54. What could enhance your work if done differently by the office staff (or clinical

staff)?

55. What are your perceptions of the office staff (or clinical staff) positions?

56. How do you help the office staff (or clinical staff) do their jobs? What could you do

differently to help them be more effective in their positions?

57. What impact do you think the office staff (or clinical staff) have on a client? How

effective do you think the office staff (or clinical staff) are in this area?

Assessing the Wishes—Developing a Wish List

58. What would you like to discuss that has not been already covered that you feel is

important to understanding service delivery and overall CAC functioning?
D–26

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Mental Health Services—Therapist Form

This family has ____________ risk factors, which include:

(number)

_______________________ _______________________

_______________________ _______________________

_______________________ _______________________

_______________________ _______________________

_______________________ _______________________

_______________________ _______________________

Diagnosis: ____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Type of counseling provided to this family (check all that apply):

_____ Individual counseling

_____ Group counseling

_____ Residential program

Length of treatment for this family: ______________________________________________ 

Number of referrals for therapy: _________________________________________________ 

Child outcomes—Therapist reported 

Child Behavior Checklist score: _______________________________________________ 

Child Sexual Behavior Inventory score: ________________________________________ 

Therapist’s degree: ____________________________________________________________ 

Therapist’s training: ____________________________________________________________
D–27

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Form for Clinical Treatment Goals

(Beauchamp, Tewksbury, and Sampson 1997)

Estimated

Presenting Goals and Completion Completion Modality and

Problem Objectives Date Date Frequency Rating

Rating scale: For each goal, rate the level of goal attainment by responding to the

statement “I feel that this goal was achieved.”

Neither 

Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

123 4 5 6 7

Client/parent signature ____________________________________ Date _______________ 

Therapist signature _______________________________________ Date _______________ 

Supervisor signature ______________________________________ Date _______________
D–28

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

1. Was the victim referred to treatment?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 9

2. How quickly did the victim enter

treatment?

NA, victim was not referred 0

Less than 1 week 1

1 to 2 weeks 2

2 to 3 weeks 3

More than 3 weeks 4

Don’t know 9

3. What type of treatment was the victim referred to (circle all that apply)?

NA, victim was not referred 0

Individual counseling 1

Group counseling 2

Residential program 3

Other ____________________ 4

Don’t know 9

4. Was treatment specifically designed

for the victim of sexual abuse?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 9

5. How long did the victim participate in

treatment?

NA, victim was not referred 0

Victim was referred but 

did not participate 1

1 week 2

2 to 5 weeks 3

6 to 10 weeks 4

More than 10 weeks 5

Don’t know 9

6. What type of treatment was the

victim’s parent(s) referred to?

NA, parent(s) was not referred 0

Individual counseling 1

Family counseling 2

Parenting classes 3

Child welfare agency/family 

preservation 4

Other ____________________ 5

Don’t know 9

7. Was the perpetrator referred to

treatment?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 9

Treatment and Outcomes Survey

Case ID# ______________________________________________

Date __________________________________________________ 

Clinical Director ________________________________________ 
D–29

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Investigation/Tracking

8. Was the case investigated by CPS?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 9

9. What was the outcome of the CPS

investigation (circle all that apply)?

NA, not investigated 0

Substantiated 1

Unable to investigate 2

Unfounded 3

Family received voluntary 4

services

Court ordered services 5

Referred to other agency 6

Child removed from home 7

Other ________________________ 8

Don’t know 9

10. What was the outcome of the police

investigation?

Not a police case 0

Unfounded 1

Closed by arrest 2

Lack of evidence 3

Closed by exception 4

Closed and cleared 5

Referred to other law

enforcement agency 6

Screened with county attorney:

Filed 7

Declined 8

Don’t know 9

11. Were criminal charges filed?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 9

12. Type of criminal charges filed? If

felony, place 1, 2, or 3 in blank to

represent degree. If misdemeanor,

place A, B, or C in blank to represent

type.

NA, charges were not filed 0

Forcible sexual assault 1

Aggravated sexual abuse 2

Rape 3

Forcible sodomy 4

Child homicide 5

Sexual abuse of a child 6

Physical abuse 7

Unlawful sexual intercourse 8

Gross lewdness 9

Lewdness 10

Other________________________ 11

13. If case was not filed, why not?

Insufficient evidence 1

Victim declined to participate 2

Victim unavailable 3

Perpetrator not identified 4

Statute of limitations expired 5

Victim not qualified 6

Victim inconsistencies 7

Other ________________________ 8
D–30

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

14. Was a conviction obtained?

Yes, perpetrator found guilty 1

No, charges were dismissed 2

Not guilty—acquitted 3

15. What were the final charges (circle all 

that apply)? If felony, place 1, 2, or 3

in blank to represent degree. If a misdemeanor, place A, B, or C in blank to

represent type.

NA, charges were not filed 0

Forcible sexual assault 1

Aggravated sexual abuse 2

Rape 3

Forcible sodomy 4

Child homicide 5

Sexual abuse of a child 6

Physical abuse 7

Unlawful sexual intercourse 8

Gross lewdness 9

Lewdness 10

Other ________________________11

16. What was the final disposition (circle

all that apply)?

NA, case was not heard 0

Pending 1

Held in abeyance 2

Probation 3

Fined 4

State hospital 5

Treatment ordered 6

Incarcerated—prison or jail 7

Length of sentence 

in months: ___________________

Diverted with other conditions 8

Other ________________________ 9

17. What was the final outcome for the

victim?

Victim held in protective 1

supervision

Custody to child welfare agency 2

Return home 3

Other ________________________ 4
D–31

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Client Outcomes Reporting Form

(TEDI BEAR: The Children’s Advocacy Center)

Child’s name __________________________________________________________________ 

Child’s date of birth ____________________________________________________________

Child’s date of entry ___________________________________________________________

Child Behavior Checklist (for all clients)

CBC Scale Base- Date 3-month Date 6-month Date

line

Raw T Raw T Raw T

score Percentile score score Percentile score score Percentile score

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory

Date: Date: Date:

Baseline Pre-Parent Class Post-Parent Class

Standard Standard Standard

Raw score score Raw score score Raw score score

Date of educational session: ____________________________________________________ 

Educational materials/handouts used:

_____ Touch coloring book

_____ Talk about sex

Withdraws

Internalizing

Inappropriate expectations
D–32

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Child development:

_____ Mental health

_____ Rules

_____ Parent pressures

_____ Ages birth–3

_____ Self-esteem

_____ Kids Count on You

_____ Ages 2–6

_____ Myths/misconceptions

_____ Effects of abuse

_____ Ages 5–12

_____ Teen years

Other _______________________________________________________________________

Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children

Date: Date:

Baseline 6 months

Category Raw score T score Raw score T score

Underresponse
D–33

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Initial and Discharge Diagnostic Assessment Form

Client name _________________________________________________________________ 

Case number _________________________________________________________________

Date of birth __________________________________________________________________

Age _________________________________________________________________________

Initial Diagnostic Assessment

Date ________

Axis DSM–IV Diagnostic Classification Code

Discharge Assessment

Date ________

Axis DSM–IV Diagnostic Classification Code
D–34

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Client name ________________________ Case number _____________________________ 

Diagnostic Summary

(List identified issues/behavior that support the Axis I and Axis II diagnosis and provide

clinical impressions.) 

Therapist signature _______________________________________ Date _______________

Clinical supervisor signature _______________________________ Date _______________ 

Client name ______________________________________ Case number _______________ 
D–35

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problem

For each category below, identify each problem and rate at initial diagnostic assessment

and discharge. 

1. Problems With Primary Support Group

A. _________________________________________________________________________

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

2. Problems Related to the Social Environment

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem
D–36

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

3. Emotional Problems 

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

4. Occupational Problems 

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

5. Economic Problems 

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem
D–37

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

6. Problems Related to Legal System Involvement

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

7. Problems Related to Access to Health Care

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem
D–38

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

8. Housing Problems 

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

9. Educational Problems 

A. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

B. _________________________________________________________________________ 

At initial assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

At discharge assessment:

Not a problem 123456 7 Major problem

Axis V

Global Assessment Functioning Scale

A. Current rating at time of initial clinical assessment: ______________________________ 

B. Current rating at time of discharge: ____________________________________________ 

Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale

A. Current rating at time of initial clinical assessment: ______________________________ 

B. Current rating at time of discharge: ____________________________________________ 
D–39

Medical Examination

Outcome Evaluation 

Questionnaires

Assessing Medical Services 

Focus on Defining Key Informant’s Role/Experience at the Child Advocacy

Center (CAC)

1. What is your primary responsibility here at the CAC?

2. What are your other responsibilities?

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the typical level of stress you experience in a given

week?

4. How do you manage this stress? What is in place here at the CAC to help with

this stress?

5. In your view, what makes your experience at this CAC a positive professional

experience?

6. What hinders your ability to work effectively in general?

7. What hinders your ability to work effectively medically?

8. What is your view about the interdisciplinary team at this CAC?

9. What would assist you in improving your utilization of the team?

10. In general, what do you think your clients’ perspective is of this CAC? Of you as

a professional providing the various services?

Focus on General Management of Medical Cases

Ask for perspectives (positive/negative) on the service delivery flow, including key

components:

11. Receipt of referral

12. Intake

13. Assignment of cases

14. Intervention/service provision

15. Referral out

16. Termination

17. Medical case reviews

18. Charting/chart reviews

19. Telephone consults

20. On call

D–41

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
D–42

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Focus on Medical Services

21. Who comprises the population that you serve?

22. How do you define who your client is?

23. In your view, what are the critical components to effective intervention?

24. In general, how effective do you feel you are in your interventions on a scale of 1 to

10? Why?

25. How do you decide when to refer? Not to refer?

26. What is involved in the referral process?

27. How effective is the referral process? What changes would you suggest to make

this service component more effective?

28. What is involved in court support? What changes would you suggest to make this

service component more effective?

29. What is involved in case management?

30. How effective is case management? What changes would you suggest to make

this service component more effective?

31. In your view, how do you differentiate between medical work and case

management?

32. How effective do you feel this CAC is in the provision of medical services?

33. What would you like to see different in the area of medical services? 

Assessing Supervision (if applicable)

34. What do you consider to be effective supervision? What are the components?

35. What is the system for supervision of cases here at this CAC?

36. How often do you receive supervision? Would you like more or less?

37. How helpful is your supervision to your professional growth? To your clinical management of your cases (interventions and case management)?

38. If there were a system put in place to evaluate supervision, what would you like to

suggest be included?

Assessing General Staffing Issues

39. What is the orientation process here at this CAC?

40. What would you add or delete from the orientation process?
D–43

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

41. What types of training are provided by this CAC?

42. How important is training to you on a scale of 1 to 10?

43. What types of training do you need to be more effective in your position? How

would they help you?

44. What would you suggest to ensure that training occurs on a regular basis?

45. Are financial resources available for you to receive the ongoing training you need to

be effective in your position?

46. What kind of support do you feel from your colleagues? Your supervisor? Office

staff? The Board of Directors?

47. What would you suggest be put in place to enhance the support you experience

from these entities?

48. How does the office staff (or medical staff) support you?

49. Do you think the office staff (or medical staff) understand your position and the

associated responsibilities? If not, why?

50. What could enhance your work if done differently by the office staff (or medical

staff)?

51. What are your perceptions of the office staff (or medical staff) positions?

52. How do you help the office staff (or medical staff) do their jobs? What could you do

differently to help them be more effective in their positions?

53. What impact do you think the office staff (or medical staff) has on a client? How

effective do you think the office staff (or medical staff) are in this area?

Assessing the Wishes—Developing a Wish List

54. What would you like to discuss that has not been already covered that you feel is

important to understanding service delivery and overall CAC functioning?
D–44

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Genital Examination Distress Scale

(Gully et al. 1999)

Instructions: Immediately at the end of the medical examination for possible sexual

abuse, rate the seven indices of behavioral distress for the child during the anogenital

phase of the procedure. If the behavior was not observed, assign 1 point. Score 2

points if the behavior was somewhat displayed. A rating of 3 points should be made if

the behavior was definitely displayed.

Not Displayed = 1 Somewhat Displayed = 2 Definitely Displayed = 3

Rating

_____ 1. Nervous behavior (e.g., repeated nail biting, lip chewing, leg fidgeting, 

rocking, or fingers in mouth, not attending, not listening).

_____ 2. Crying (e.g., crying sounds, tears, or the onset of tears).

_____ 3. Restraint (e.g., pressure is used to hold onto the child or physical attempts 

to keep the child from moving).

_____ 4. Muscular rigidity (e.g., tensing of muscles like clenched fists, facial contortions, or general body tightening).

_____ 5. Verbal fear (e.g., statement of apprehension or fear like “I’m scared” or 

“I’m worried”).

_____ 6. Verbal pain (e.g., statement of pain in any tense like “That hurt,” 

“Owwwh,” “You’re pinching me,” or “This will hurt”).

_____ 7. Flailing (e.g., random movement of arms, legs, or body weight without trying to be aggressive, like pounding fists, throwing arms, or kicking legs).
D–45

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child’s Perceptions of the Genital Examination for Child

Sexual Abuse

(Lazebnik et al. 1994)

Ask the child each question, followed by the three response options.

3-Point Scale

1. How much did the examination hurt?

❑ It didn’t hurt ❑ It sort of hurt ❑ It hurt a lot

2. Degree of fear associated with the examination?

❑ It wasn’t scary ❑ A little scary ❑ Very scary

3. Perceived kindness of the doctor.

❑ Very nice ❑ Kind of nice ❑ Not nice

4. How scared/fearful are you of doctors.

❑ Not scared ❑ A little scared ❑ Very scared

5. Fear of hypothetical second exam.

❑ Not scared ❑ Sort of scared ❑ Very scared
D–46

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Parents’ Perceptions of the Genital Examination of Their

Child for Child Sexual Abuse2

(Lazebnik et al. 1994)

For each of the following questions, please check one box.

1. Rate the doctor’s kindness.

❑ Very kind ❑ All right ❑ Terrible

2. Rate the doctor’s gentleness compared to other doctor visits.

❑ Better ❑ Same ❑ Worse

3. How well did your child do compared to other doctor visits?

❑ Better ❑ Same ❑ Worse

4. Would you choose this doctor for regular pediatric care?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Maybe

5. Has your child previously had a genital exam?

❑ Yes ❑ No

6. Did someone explain what was going to happen during the examination?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Please write your responses to the following questions:

How long did it take to get an appointment? ______________________________________ 

How far did the child have to travel for the medical examination? ____________________

2. For additional reading, see Steward, M.S., M. Schmitz, D.S. Steward, N.R. Joye, and M. Reinhart. 1995. Children’s anticipation of

and response to colposcopic examination. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(8), 997–1005.
D–47

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Physician’s Perceptions of the Medical Examination 

1. Was a medical exam conducted? ❑ Yes ❑ No

2. Do you do peer review of medical evaluations? ❑ Yes ❑ No

3. What was the outcome of the medical examination? ___________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Was a colposcope available for your use? ❑ Yes ❑ No

D–49

Court Process

Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaire

D–51

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Children’s Perceptions of Court-Related Stress3

(Saywitz and Nathanson 1993)

On a scale of 0 (not stressful) to 5 (very stressful), how do you [the child] rate the following items:

Not A Little Somewhat Very

Stressful Stressful Neutral Stressful Stressful Stressful

0 1 23 45

1. Crying in court.

0 1 23 45

2. Having people not believe you in court.

0 1 23 45

3. Answering questions in front of unfamiliar adults in court.

0 1 23 45

4. Answering embarrassing questions in court.

0 1 23 45

5. Not knowing the answers to questions you are asked in court.

0 1 23 45

6. Answering questions in court in front of a person who hurt you.

0 1 23 45

7. Going to court.

0 1 23 45

8. Answering questions in front of a judge in court.

0 1 23 45

9. Having an attorney ask you questions in court.

0 1 23 45

10. Being a witness in court.

0 1 23 45

3. For permission to use this scale, contact Karen Saywitz at UCLA (ksaywitz@ucla.edu).

D–53

Case Tracking Forms

D–55

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

CARES NW Statistics Sheet

Name: _________________ Date of Evaluation:________

Section A: INTAKE STAFF COMPLETE (If not done, Evaluation Team complete)

1. Concern that brought this child to CARES NW (you may check more than one

category):

___ Neglect ___ Physical abuse ___ Sexual abuse ___ Sibling of victim 

___ Witness to crime/abuse of others ___ Other______________________________

2a. How did concern first arise?

___Third-party report ___ Behavior problems ___ Disclosure (see next line)

___Other family member ___Friend ___Other______________________________

3. Who initially called CARES NW? (You may check more than one category):

___SCF ___LEA ___School ___Health care provider ___Therapist

___Parent ___Attorney ___Other_________________________________________

4. Who referred the family to CARES NW? (You may check more than one category):

___SCF ___LEA ___School ___Health care provider ___Therapist

___Parent ___Attorney ___Other_________________________________________

5. Child gender: ___Female ___Male

Section B: INTAKE STAFF COMPLETE (If not done, Evaluation Team complete)

6. Ethnic background: ___Asian ___Hispanic ___African American 

___Native American ___ Caucasian ___Other

7. Has this child been diagnosed with any disability? ___Yes ___No

8. Appointment type: ___E ___E/C ___E/I ___I ___Emer E ___Emer E/I

___Emer E/C ___F/U E ___F/U I ___F/U EI

9. Detective assigned? ___Yes ___No LEA agency/county___________________

10. Alleged perpetrator’s relationship to the child (if there are multiple perpetrators, you

may check more than one):

___Parent ___Step-parent ___Parent’s boyfriend/girlfriend ___Other relative

___Stranger ___Sibling ___Peer ___Known to child ___None identified

11. Age of alleged perpetrator at time of abuse___________________________________ 

(If unsure, check: ____<13 ____13–17 ____18+ ____DK)
D–56

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

12. Age of child when EVALUATED:______________________________________________ 

Age of child at TIME OF ABUSE (include range):________________________________

13. DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION (based on ALL DATA available at time of assessment):

Previous statement of abuse: 

____Clear ____Concerning/questionable ____None

At evaluation, statements of sexual abuse: 

____Clear ____Concerning/questionable ____None

At evaluation, statements of physical abuse: 

____Clear ____Concerning/questionable ____None

Previous exam abuse findings: 

____Evidence of abuse ____Possible abuse ____No physical abuse

At evaluation, sex abuse exam findings: 

____Evidence of abuse ____Possible abuse ____No physical abuse

At evaluation, physical abuse exam findings: 

____Evidence of abuse ____Possible abuse ____No physical abuse

At evaluation, other exam findings (e.g., ear infection, cold, malnourishment):

____Evidence of abuse ____Possible abuse ____No physical abuse

14. CONCLUSIONS (based on all data available at the time of assessment—What’s your

“working diagnosis”?):

Sexual abuse 

____Probable/definite abuse ____Possible abuse ____No indication of 

abuse/abuse

unlikely

Physical abuse 

____Probable/definite abuse ____Possible abuse ____No indication of 

abuse/abuse 

unlikely

Neglect 

____Probable/definite ____Possible ____No indication/ 

unlikely

15. Has domestic violence occurred in this child’s family? 

____Yes ____No
D–57

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

16. Is a custody or visitation dispute currently occurring in this child’s family?

____Yes ____No

17. Was this child referred for counseling? 

____Yes ____No

If no, why? 

____Tx not needed ____Child already in Tx ____Child developmentally not able 

or too young
D–58

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Case Tracking Questions 

(Adapted from Gene Siegel (Arizona) 520–615–7881)

Was the case reviewed? Yes_____ No_____

Which agency received the initial report?______________________________________

Type of report: Number of child victims Multiple incidents

____ Child sexual abuse _____ Yes____ No____

____ Child physical abuse _____ Yes____ No____

____ Child neglect _____ Yes____ No____

____ Child exploitation _____ Yes____ No____

____ Child death _____ Yes____ No____

____ Other_________________ _____ Yes____ No____

Source of report:

____ CPS ____ Medical ____ Neighbor/acquaintance ____ School

____ LE ____ Parent ____ Mental health professional Other_______

____ Relative ____ Social Services 

If CPS investigation, did CPS notify law enforcement? ____ Verbally ____ Written

If LE investigation, did LE notify CPS? ____ Verbally ____ Written

Was a joint CPS/LE investigation conducted? ____ Yes ____ No ____ Cannot determine

Who conducted the child interview:_________________________ ___________________

Name Agency

Total number of child interviews: ________

Total number of videotaped interviews: __________

Total number of other interviews:__________

Was a forensic medical examination of the child victim conducted? Yes ____ No ____

Who conducted the forensic medical exam: ___________________ __________________

Name Location

Were criminal charges filed by LE? Yes ____ No ____

Were criminal charges filed by the prosecutor’s office? Yes ____ No ____

Was the case prosecuted? Yes ____ No ____
D–59

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Was there a conviction in the case? ____ Yes ____ No Result:_________________

Were protocols followed? ____ Yes ____ No

Parents’ marital status: ____ Married ____ Divorced ____ Separated ____ Single

If parents are divorced or separated, visitation schedule:____________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Child lives with: 

____ Mother ____ Father ____ Other relative ____ Foster care 

____ Other__________________________________________________

History of child sexual abuse in mother’s family of origin: ____ Yes ____ No

If yes, Victim_____________________________ Alleged perpetrator___________________

History of child sexual abuse in father’s family of origin: ____ Yes ____ No

If yes, Victim_____________________________ Alleged perpetrator___________________

History of child sexual abuse of other siblings in the household: ____ Yes ____ No

If yes, Victim_____________________________ Alleged perpetrator___________________

History of mental illness in the family: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe_____________________________________________________________________

History of drug/alcohol use/abuse in the family: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe_____________________________________________________________________

History of domestic violence in the family: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe_____________________________________________________________________ 

History of previous child sexual abuse in the family ____ Yes ____ No

Describe_____________________________________________________________________

Physical abuse in the family: ____ Yes ____ No 

Describe_____________________________________________________________________

Previous involvement of Child Protective Services: ____ Yes ____ No 

Describe______________________________________________________________________

Police involvement: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________

Has the child been exposed to pornographic material? ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________
Child-Related Questions

Developmental level: ____ Age appropriate ____ Delayed

Language development: ____ Age appropriate ____ Delayed

Toilet trained ____ Yes ____ No Age trained ________

Stress-related behaviors: _______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Onset and length of behaviors:__________________________________________________

School/daycare: ____ Yes ____ No Name of daycare_________________________ 

Age began______

Academic performance: ____ Average ____ Above average ____ Below average

Special education: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________

History of chronic health problems: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________

History of genital injuries: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________

Current medications____________________________________________________________

Present sleeping arrangement in the household___________________________________

Family stressors in the family during the past year_________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Has the child disclosed past sexual abuse: ____ Yes ____ No

Describe______________________________________________________________________

D–60

APPENDIX D / JULY 04
D–61

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

AWAKE Intake Report

AWAKE Case #______________________

Report received by_____________________________________________________(Agency)

Date opened__________________ Social worker_____________ Officer________________

Site of interview: AWAKE______________ Other__________________ Date____________

Was interview videotaped? ____ Yes ____ No audiotape ____ Yes ____ No

Guardian ad litem requested? ____ Yes ____ No

Guardian ad litem______________________________________________________________

VICTIM INFORMATION

Child’s name_____________________________________ Phone #_____________________

DOB_____________________ Age___________ Sex____________ Race________________

Address______________________________________________________________________

Street/PO Box City State ZIP Code

Child is in custody of________________________________ Relationship________________

School victim attends________________________________________Grade_____________

Do you want to make an AWAKE mental health referral? ____ Yes ____ No

Medical scheduled/date___________________ Medical completed/date_______________

ALLEGED PERPETRATOR

Name_________________________________________ Phone #_______________________

DOB_____________________ Age___________ Sex____________ Race________________

Relationship to victim__________________________________________________________

Occupation_________________________________ Place of employment_______________

DESCRIPTION OF ABUSE

Date of report_________________________ Type of abuse______ Sexual ______ Physical

Is there also: Domestic violence _______ Custody dispute _________
D–62

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

CARES Program Intake Information Form

Date: ________________ Time:____________ Intake received by:_____________________

Intake Screening Criteria Requiring Immediate Evaluation by R.N. (Check if applies

or is of concern)

Referring agent: ________________ Agency: __________________ Phone: ________

❑ Alleged abuse to child occurred within the 72 hours (child is not to bathe, 

toilet, or eat; retain clothing from episode).

❑ Current complaints of pain, fever, drainage, pain, and/or burning with urination 

or defecation.

❑ Referring agency requests emergency assessment due to immediacy of 

danger to child.

❑ Alleged offender may have continued contact with the child.

❑ Referral attempt made by a private party—not H&W, LEA, Prosecutor’s office 

or court order—meeting abuse criteria.

NOTES:_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Child’s name: _________________________ Sex: M F DOB:__________ Age: _______

Legal guardian: _______________________ Relationship to child: _____________________

Address: _________________________ Home phone: _________ Work phone: _________

Who will bring child to CARES:__________________________________________________

Referring agent: ________________ Agency: __________________ Phone: _____________

Secondary agent: _______________ Agency: __________________ Phone: _____________

Describe alleged event or referral reason: ❑ Acting out ❑ Possible witness 

❑ Possible victim ❑ Disclosure (to whom) _____________________________________

Who (names/age/relationship to child):___________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What: ________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
When: _______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Where: ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Appointment: Date: ________ Time: _______ Exam: _______ 

Exam: Interview ______ Interview: _______

Agent ___________ notified of appointment ❑ Voice mail ❑ Phone 

❑ Message left with __________________________________________________________

Agent ___________ notified of appointment ❑ Voice mail ❑ Phone 

❑ Message left with __________________________________________________________

Is it safe per parent/guardian and intake information to mail out PDQ and health history?

❑ No/unknown ___________ ❑ Yes: Date mailed ___________ 

D–63

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
D–64

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Georgia Center for Children Intake Sheet

Written by: _______________________________________ Date: ______________________

Relationship to child: __________________________________________________________

INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHILD

Child’s name___________________________ DOB ________ Sex ____ 

Race ________ Age ______

Child’s address________________________________________________________________

ZIP Code____________________________ County__________________________________

INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARENT/GUARDIAN

Name (Mother)___________________________ (Father)______________________________

Address_________________________________ City/State/ZIP________________________

Phone (home)____________________________ (work)_______________________________

INFORMATION ABOUT THE ABUSE

Has child seen a doctor for this abuse? Yes _____ No _____ Date of visit _______

Name of doctor/hospital________________________________________________________

In what county/counties did the abuse take place ______________ 

Child’s age when abuse started __________

Where did the abuse take place? (In house, school, car, outside, etc.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Please tell exactly what happened to the child: ____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

How were you made aware of the abuse? ________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PERPETRATOR

Name____________________________ Age________ Sex_________ Race ______________

How does the child know the perpetrator?________________________________________

Has the case been reported? DFCS ______ Date ______ 

Caseworker___________________________________________________________________

Police ______ Date ______ Investigator___________________________________________

REFERRAL INFORMATION

Referred by: DFCS _____ Police _____ D.A. _____ Doctor _____ Other _____

D–65

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

D–67

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

COVER SHEET

Child Advocacy Center 

Evaluation/Case Tracking Forms

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS)

VICTIM INFORMATION

Last name ______________________________ First name _________________ M.I. ____

Street address ________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State _________ ZIP Code ____________

Telephone number ____________________________________________________________

Date of birth ______/______/_______

This cover sheet will be removed when the forms are submitted for data analysis.

D–69

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

6. Is English victim’s primary language?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

REFERRAL INFORMATION

7. Presenting problem: 

Sex abuse 1

Serious physical abuse 2

Other ________________________ 3

8. Date victim first disclosed abuse: 

(If known)

__________/__________/__________

Child Advocacy Center 

Evaluation/Case Tracking Worksheet

Victim Information

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS)

VICTIM’S DEMOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION

(Circle below)

1. Gender:

Male 1

Female 2

2. Date of birth: ______/______/______

3. Age:___________________________

4. Ethnicity:

White 1

Black 2

Hispanic 3

Asian 4

Native American 5

Other ________________________ 6

5. Does victim have a disability?

No 1

Physical 2

Mental 3

Other ________________________ 4

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Person completing the form:

_____________________________________

Today’s date:

___________/____________/_____________

Date incident reported to this agency:

___________/____________/_____________ 

Date of alleged offense:

___________/____________/_____________
D–70

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

9. Who referred this case to CPS?

Law enforcement 1

Parent/guardian 2

Victim 3

Offender 4

Other nonoffending adult 5

Human services agency_________ 6

Health care provider ____________7

School ________________________8

Other ________________________ 9

MEDICAL INFORMATION

10. Date of first exam:

__________/__________/__________

11. Conducted at:

Hospital emergency room 1

Other hospital/clinic setting 2 

Private physician’s office 3

Other ________________________ 4

12. Completed by:

Emergency room physician 1

Expert forensic child abuse 

examiner 2

Family physician 3

Other practitioner 4

13. Reason for exam: 

(circle all that apply)

Nature of abuse 1

Recency of abuse 2

Age of child 3

Requested by parent/guardian 4

Requested by physician 5

Investigative request 6

Other ________________________ 7

14. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were identified

and treated 3

(Specify_________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5

15. Date of second exam:

__________/__________/__________

16. Reason for exam: (circle all that apply)

Investigative request 1

Requested by physician 2

Requested by prosecutor 3

Requested by defense 4

Subsequent allegation 5

Other ________________________ 6

17. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were 

identified and treated 3

(Specify_________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5
D–71

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

18. Date of third exam:

__________/__________/__________

19. Reason for exam: 

(circle all that apply)

Investigative request 1

Requested by physician 2

Requested by prosecutor 3

Requested by defense 4

Subsequent allegation 5

Other ________________________ 6

20. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were 

identified and treated 3

(Specify_________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5
D–72

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/

Case Tracking Worksheet

Alleged Perpetrator Information

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS)

Complete one form for each alleged

perpetrator in this case.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Gender:

Male 1

Female 2

2. Date of birth: ______/______/______

3. Age:___________________________

4. Ethnicity:

White 1

Black 2

Hispanic 3

Asian 4

Native American 5

Other ________________________ 6

5. Relationship to victim:

Parent 1

Step-parent 2

Foster parent 3

Legal guardian 4

Partner of parent 5

Adult who is known to 

the victim 6

Adult who is a stranger 7

Sibling 8

Other ________________________ 9

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Person completing the form:

_____________________________________

Today’s date:

___________/____________/_____________

Date incident reported to this agency:

___________/____________/_____________ 

Date of alleged offense:

___________/____________/_____________
D–73

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

A. Other relative:

Who is also a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 10

Who is not a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 11

B. Other person known to victim:

Who is also a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 12

Who is not a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 13

ALLEGED OFFENSE

6. At the time of first law enforcement

interview with victim, had alleged

perpetrator been arrested?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

7. At time of alleged offense, had any

court issued a restraining order to protect victim from alleged perpetrator?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

8. At time of alleged offense, was

alleged perpetrator living with victim?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

9. Sexual activity: (circle all that apply)

Fondling 1

Oral copulation 2

Penetration 3

Sodomy 4

Physical abuse 5

(Define__________________________)

Pornography 6

Other ________________________ 7
D–74

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Victim Interview Information 

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER _______________________________

Date incident reported to this agency:

___________/____________/_____________ 

Note: If there were interviews conducted

prior to this agency conducting an interview, record those first. If more than five

interviews are conducted, attach an additional interview form to this sheet.

FIRST INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________ 

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

SECOND INTERVIEW

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5
D–75

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

THIRD INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

FOURTH INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5
D–76

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

FIFTH INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

21. How many interviews were 

conducted? _______

22. How many different people interviewed the child? _______

23. How many different people witnessed the child in interviews 

(not including the interviewer)?

_______

24. How many interviews were memorialized by written report? _______

25. How many interviews were memorialized by audiotape? _______

26. How many interviews were memorialized by videotape? _______
D–77

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Interview/Medical Exam Summary 

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Note: Use this form for totaling all interviews and medical examinations from all agencies for this case. 

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

1. How many interviews were conducted?____________

2. How many different people interviewed the child?____________

3. How many different people witnessed the child in interviews?____________

4. How many interviews were memorialized by written report?____________

5. How many interviews were memorialized by audiotape?____________

6. How many interviews were memorialized by videotape?____________

SUMMARY OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

1. How many medical examinations were conducted?____________

2. How many different people examined the child?____________

3. How many different locations was the child examined at?____________
D–78

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Services Provided 

For information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

SERVICES PROVIDED

(Circle below)

1. Services that victim was receiving

before referral (circle all that apply)

Ongoing CPS services 1

Mental health services 2

Victim-witness services 3

Other__________________________ 4

2. Services that nonoffending parent/

guardian was receiving before referral 

(circle all that apply)

Ongoing CPS services 1

Mental health services 2

Domestic violence services 3

Other__________________________ 4

3. Services that victim was referred to

after referral (circle all that apply)

Ongoing CPS services 1

Mental health services 2

Victim-witness services 3

Other__________________________ 4

4. Services that nonoffending

parent/guardian was receiving after

referral (circle all that apply)

Ongoing CPS services 1

Mental health services 2

Victim-witness services 3

Domestic violence services 4

Other__________________________ 5

OUTCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT

5. What was the outcome of the CPS

initial assessment?

Unfounded 1

Inconclusive 2

Court substantiated 3

Unable to locate 4

Other__________________________ 5

6. Where was the child living at the

conclusion of the initial assessment?

Remained in home 1

With relative of family known 

to victim 2

Foster care 3

Residential/institutional care 4

Other__________________________ 5
D–79

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

COVER SHEET

Child Advocacy Center 

Evaluation/Case Tracking Forms

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE)

VICTIM INFORMATION

Last name ______________________________ First name _________________ M.I. ____

Street address ________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State _________ ZIP Code ____________

Telephone number ____________________________________________________________

Date of birth ______/______/_______

Remove this cover sheet before submitting the enclosed forms for data analysis.

D–81

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Advocacy Center 

Evaluation Tracking Worksheet

Victim Information

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Person completing the form:

_____________________________________

Date incident reported to this agency:

___________/____________/_____________ 

VICTIM’S DEMOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION 

(Circle below)

1. Gender

Male 1

Female 2

2. Date of birth: ______/_____/_______

3. Age:________

4. Ethnicity:

White 1

Black 2

Hispanic 3

Asian 4

Native American 5

Other ________________________ 6

5. Does victim have a disability?

No 1 

Physical 2

Mental 3

Other ________________________ 4

6. Is English primary language?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t Know 3

REFERRAL INFORMATION

7. Presenting problem:

Sex abuse 1

Serious physical abuse 2

Other ________________________ 3

8. Date victim first disclosed abuse: 

(If known) _______/______/________
14. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were 

identified and treated 3

(Specify ________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5

15. Date of second exam: 

__________/__________/__________

16. Reason for exam: (circle all that 

apply)

Investigative request 1

Requested by physician 2

Requested by prosecutor 3

Requested by defense 4

Subsequent allegation 5

Other ________________________ 6

17. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were 

identified and treated 3

(Specify ________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5

D–82

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

9. Who referred this case to LE?

CPS 1

Parent/guardian 2

Victim 3

Offender 4

Other nonoffending adult 5

Human services agency

______________________________ 6

Health care provider

______________________________ 7

School ________________________8

Other ________________________ 9

MEDICAL INFORMATION

10. Date of first exam:

__________/__________/__________

11. Conducted at:

Hospital emergency room 1

Other hospital/clinic setting 2

Private physician’s office 3

Other ________________________ 4

12. Completed by:

Emergency room physician 1

Expert forensic child 

abuse examiner 2

Family physician 3

Other practitioner 4

13. Reason for exam: (circle all that 

apply)

Nature of abuse 1

Recency of abuse 2

Age of child 3

Requested by parent/guardian 4

Requested by physician 5

Investigative request 6

Other ________________________ 7
D–83

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

18. Date of third exam:

__________/__________/__________

19. Reason for exam: 

(circle all that apply)

Investigative request 1

Requested by physician 2

Requested by prosecutor 3

Requested by defense 4

Subsequent allegation 5

Other ________________________ 6

20. Physical findings:

Reason for exam was 

substantiated 1

Reason for exam was 

unsubstantiated 2

Other conditions were 

identified and treated 3

(Specify_________________________)

Unknown (at this time) 4

Other ________________________ 5
D–84

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Gender

Male 1

Female 2

2. Date of birth: ______/______/_______

3. Age:____________________________

4. Ethnicity:

White 1

Black 2

Hispanic 3

Asian 4

Native American 5

Other ________________________ 6

5. Relationship to victim:

Parent 1 

Step-parent 2

Foster parent 3

Legal guardian 4

Partner of parent 5

Adult who is known to 

the victim 6

Adult who is a stranger 7

Sibling 8

Other ________________________ 9

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Complete one form for each alleged

perpetrator in this case.

Alleged Perpetrator Information

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE)

A. Other relative:

Who is also a caretaker or in

a position of trust 10

Who is not a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 11

B. Other person known to victim:

Who is also a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 12

Who is not a caretaker or in 

a position of trust 13

ALLEGED OFFENSE

6. At time of first law enforcement

interview with victim, had alleged

perpetrator been arrested?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

7. At time of alleged offense, had any

court issued a restraining order to protect victim from alleged perpetrator?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3
D–85

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

8. At time of alleged offense, was alleged

perpetrator living with victim?

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3

9. Sexual activity: (circle all that apply)

Fondling 1 

Oral copulation 2

Penetration 3

Sodomy 4

Physical abuse 

(Define _______________________ 5

Pornography 6

Other ________________________ 7

10. Date of alleged abuse:

__________/__________/__________

11. Was the alleged perpetrator arrested?

Yes 1

No 2

12. What was the outcome of the

investigative process?

Unfounded 1

Unsubstantiated 2

Referred to an outside 

police service 3

Referred to the county attorney’s

office and: 

Filed 4

Declined 5

Other ________________________ 6
D–86

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Child Advocacy Center 

Evaluation/Case Tracking Worksheet

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. What was the outcome of the

investigation?

2. Where was the child living at the conclusion of the investigation?
D–87

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

FIRST INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (if known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

Victim Interview Information 

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Date incident reported to this agency:

___________/____________/_____________ 

Note: If there were interviews conducted

prior to this agency conducting an interview, record those first. If more than five

interviews are conducted, attach an additional interview form to this sheet.

SECOND INTERVIEW

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (if known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5
D–88

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

THIRD INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

FOURTH INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5

FIFTH INTERVIEW 

1. Date of interview:

__________/__________/__________

2. Position of interviewer:

Law enforcement employee 1

CPS employee 2

School counselor 3

Parent/guardian 4

Health care provider 5

Other ________________________ 6

3. Number of individuals who witnessed

this interview (If known):

______________________________

4. Was the interview:

Transcribed/written 1

Audiotaped 2

Videotaped 3

None of the above 4

Don’t know 5
D–89

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

1. How many interviews were conducted?____________

2. How many different people interviewed the child?____________

3. How many different people witnessed the child in interviews?____________

4. How many interviews were memorialized by written report?____________

5. How many interviews were memorialized by audiotape?____________

6. How many interviews were memorialized by videotape?____________

SUMMARY OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

1. How many medical examinations were conducted?____________

2. How many different people examined the child?____________

3. How many different locations was the child examined at?____________

Interview/Medical Exam Summary 

For information gathered by law enforcement (LE) 

FOR DATA ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY

CASE ID # _____________________________________

CASE NUMBER ________________________________

Note: Use this form for totaling all interviews and medical examinations from all

agencies for this case.
D–90

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

INVESTIGATION/ASSESSMENT

1. What was the outcome of the police

investigation?

NA/not police investigated 0

Unfounded 1

Unsubstantiated 2

Referred to an outside 

police service 3

Other ________________________ 4

2. What was the outcome of the CPS

investigation? (circle all that apply)

NA/not CPS investigated 0

Unfounded 1

Inconclusive 2

Court substantiated 3

Unable to locate 4

Child removed from the home 5

Other ________________________ 6

Child Advocacy Center Evaluation/Case Tracking

Worksheet Legal/Court Process 

For information gathered by county attorney

CIVIL (JUVENILE COURT) CASE

3. If juvenile case was not filed,

why not?

Insufficient evidence 1

Victim declined to participate 2

Victim unavailable 3

Perpetrator not identified 4

Victim inconsistencies 5

Concerns about victim’s 

credibility in investigation 6

Children are safe (perpetrator is

out of home) 7

Other ________________________ 8

4. Juvenile court outcome:

Adjudication of abuse/child 

in home 1

Adjudication of abuse/child not

in home 2

Still in proceedings 3

Case dismissed/outright 4

Case dismissed /voluntary 

supervision 5

Other ________________________ 6

5. Juvenile court appearance dates:

(please list)

_________________________________

ACTIVE ______________

ACTIVE ______________

ACTIVE ______________

CLOSED _____________

LPD CASE NUMBER____________________________

Date referred to county attorney:

___________/____________/_____________ 

Person completing form:

_____________________________________
D–91

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

CRIMINAL CASE

6. Type of criminal charges filed:

NA/charges not filed 0

1st degree sexual assault 

on child 1

1st degree SA on child; 

2nd offense 2

Attempted 1st degree SA 

on child 3

Sexual assault of a child 4

Attempted sexual assault of 

a child 5

1st degree SA on incompetent 6

3rd degree SA on incompetent 7

Attempted 1st degree forcible

sexual assault 8

Debauching a minor under 17 9

Attempted debauching 

of minor 10

Attempted sexual contact 

with child 11

Incest 12

Attempted incest 13

Other ________________________14

e.g., obscenity, generating child 

pornography 

7. If criminal case was not filed, 

why not?

Insufficient evidence 1

Victim declined to participate 2

Victim unavailable 3

Perpetrator not identified 4

Statute of limitations expired 5

Victim not qualifiable 

specify__________________ 6

Victim inconsistencies 7

Concerns about victim’s 

credibility

in investigation 8

Concerns about victim’s 

credibility in court 9

8. Criminal case outcome:

Dismissal 1

Acquittal 2

Diversion 3

Reduced to misdemeanor 4

Conviction by bench trial 5

Conviction by jury 6

Conviction by plea 7

Still in proceedings 8

9. If applicable, please specify sentence:

_________________________________

10. Criminal court appearance dates

(please list)

_________________________________ 
D–92

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

Georgia Center for Children Child Victim Fact Sheet

Date referred/opened:____________________ Referred by:__________________________ 

Name: _________________________________ Taken by ____________________________

Closed:________________________ __________________________ _________________

Agency(ies) Phone

CHILD VICTIM INFORMATION

Primary child:_____________________________________ DOB:______________________ 

Age_______________ Gender_______________________

Race (circle) Black White Latino/Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander

Native American Eskimo Aleut Other _____________

Address______________________________________________________________________

City____________________________________________ State_______ ZIP______________ 

Emergency contact_____________________________

(Caseworker, neighbor, relative, friend)

Does the child have a disability? If yes, identify:____________________________________

Prior Hx: DFCS ______ LE ______ U/K ______ 

Drug use: Yes ____ No ____ Susp. ____ U/K ____

NON-OFFENDING (NO)-CAREGIVER INFORMATION (Caregiver/custodian. Present

placement of child)

Parents_______________________________________________________________________

(Birth, adoptive, guardian)

Custodian (physical custody of child)_____________________________________________

(Complete NO–C information)

Address______________________________________________________________________ 

(Custodian)

City____________________________________________ State_______ ZIP______________

Phone_____________________ Employer__________________________________________ 

Address______________________________________________ Phone__________________

1. NO-caregiver:__________________________ G ____ R ____ DOB ___________________ 

Age_____ Relationship_________________________________________________________

2. NO-caregiver:__________________________ G ____ R ____ DOB __________________ 
D–93

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Age_____ Relationship_________________________________________________________

Prior Hx: (1) LE ____ DFCS _____ Unknown _____ 

Survivor: Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ U/K ___

Prior Hx: (2) LE ____ DFCS _____ Unknown _____ 

Survivor: Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ U/K ___

Drug use: (1) Yes ____ No ____ Susp. ____ U/K ____

DV: Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ U/K ___

Drug use: (2) Yes ____ No ____ Susp. ____ U/K ____ 

DV: Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ U/K ___

Custody issues: (1) Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ Unknown ___

(2) Yes ___ No ___ Suspected ___ Unknown ___

Secondary victims (List all names affected by primary child’s victimization: siblings,

other relatives, etc., recipient of direct services only; abuse type for secondary same

as primary; see links in computer):

3. _________________________________ G_____ R_____ DOB___________ Age________

Relationship___________________________ Abuse_________________________________

4. _________________________________ G_____ R_____ DOB___________ Age________

Relationship___________________________ Abuse_________________________________

5. _________________________________ G_____ R_____ DOB___________ Age________

Relationship___________________________ Abuse_________________________________

6. _________________________________ G_____ R_____ DOB___________ Age________

Relationship___________________________ Abuse_________________________________

Child referred to CAC for _____ Forensic interview _____ Forensic evaluation

_____ Forensic medical exam _____ CJ assistance _____ Court preparation 

_____ Prevention skills _____ Crisis intervention _____ Multidisciplinary staffing

_____ Other ____________________________

_____ Clinical:(1) Assessment: Yes No 

(2) Therapy: individual family group NO–C support/ed. group

Case situation (purpose of referral/action taken)____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
D–94

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

OFFENDER INFORMATION

Offender name_______________________________ Social security #__________________

(Alleged)

DOB____________ Age____ Gender____ Race (specify using list above)___________________

Relationship to victim __________________________________________________________

Offender’s address ______________________________________ County______________

Offense location: ________________________________________ County______________

Offender Hx 

(Check and list date(s)): ____ DFCS:________ ____ LE:________ ____Unknown 

Date Date

____ Juvenile court:______________ ____ Dept. of Juvenile Justice: _______________

Date Date

Drug abuse (circle): Yes No Susp. U/K Survivor: Yes No Susp. U/K 

DV: Yes No Susp. U/K

INTERVIEW INFORMATION

Date_____________ Onsite_____ Offsite______ Location____________________________

LE:__________________________________ DFACS Inv._____________________________

(Name/venue) (Name)

Interviewer 1 ______________________ Interviewer 2/observer______________________

Interview protocol Corner House: Yes _____ No _____

Assigned detective ____________________ DFACS (ongoing cw) ____________________

Type of interview ____ Video _____ Audio

Number __________ Previously interviewed (date) __________

Date abuse occurred ____________________ Date abuse disclosed__________________

Where and to whom was abuse first disclosed (list all names)?______________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Abuse type (circle and define using list on computer or from notebook):

Physical abuse (PA) (Primary; see abuse type list)__________________________________

Sexual abuse (SA) (Primary; see abuse type list)___________________________________ 

PA/SA detail (Primary victims only; see detail list)__________________________________
D–95

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Was coercion by force or secrecy involved in alleged abuse (see list)_________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Witness to homicide Yes _____ No _____ Suspected _____ Unknown _____

(Primary victims)

Other types of abuse ____________(specify) Details ________________________________

FORENSIC INTERVIEW OUTCOME

___ Occurred

___ Did not occur

___ Inconclusive

MULTIAGENCY OUTCOME

DFCS: Unsubstantiated _____ Substantiated _____ Not involved _____ Unknown _____

LE (list date): Warrant issued ______ Arrest date ______ No arrest ______

Exceptionally cleared________ Inactive_________ Not involved __________ U/K________

________ Referral for forensic evaluation: By whom ________________________________

Name(s)/agency(ies) Date

Evaluator ____________________ Report sent to __________________________________

Name Date

Forensic evaluation outcome:

Credible disclosure______ Credible nondisclosure_______ 

Noncredible disclosure______ Unclear______

________ Referral for forensic evaluation: By whom ________________________________

Name(s)/agency(ies) Date

Therapist _____________________________________________________________________

1) Assessment: Yes______ No______ Type______________________ Date_____________

2) Therapy: Individual______ Family______ Children’s group______ NO–C/group________

Ref/O______ _______________________________

Referred to

3) Closed out (specify and include contact dates):__________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
D–96

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAM

Was medical exam conducted? Yes_____ No_____ Date____________________________

Exam conducted by whom? MD_____ PNP_____ RN_____ Other____________________

(Please specify)

Exam conducted: Onsite_____ Offsite_____ Location_______________________________

____ Physical findings: Oral_____ Genital_____ Anal_____ Other____________________

Was the interview consistent with these findings? Yes_____ No_____

Explain_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____ No physical findings: Was the interview consistent with these findings? 

Yes_____ No_____

Explain_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____ Inconclusive findings: Was the interview consistent with these findings? 

Yes_____ No_____

Explain_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

TRIAL INFORMATION/CASE OUTCOME

Defendant _________________________ 

Victim(s) 1.___________ Case#_____________

2.___________ Case#_____________

3.___________ Case#_____________

Charges 1.____________ 3.____________

2.____________ 4.____________

Law enforcement______________________________________________________________

Officer/det.___________________________________________________________________

DFCS Inv.______________________________ Ongoing CW___________________________

Arrest date__________ Magistrate judge________________ Warrant #_________________
D–97

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Conditional bond: Yes_____ No_____ No bond_____ Copy in file______

Grand jury: TB/indictment________________________ No bill_________________________

Date Date

Court _______ State _______ Superior _______ Juvenile _______ Other ______________

Specify

Judge ___________________________ Asst. District Attorney_________________________

Phone

Victim witness contact _________________________________________________________

Date Advocate Name Phone

Court preparation: Yes, date___________________ Location_________________________

Arraignment date____________________________ Trial date_________________________

Plea_____ Trial by jury_____ Nonjury_____ 

Guilty_____ Not guilty_____ Mistrial_____ 

Hung jury_____ Dead docketed_____ 

Dismissed_____ By whom___________________

Reason_______________________________________________________________________

Disposition/sentence__________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Witnesses testifying at trial (check applicable witnesses and list names):

1. ____ Interviewer (name and agency) ________________________________; __________ 

2. ____ MD/PNP_______________________________________________________________

3. ____ SW___________________________________________________________________

4. ____ Child(ren)______________________________________________________________

5. ____ Expert witness_________________________________________________________

Was the child’s video/audio taped interview presented at trial? Yes___ No___

If yes, without the child’s personal testimony? Yes___ No___

Copy of final disposition received? Yes___ No___ 

Letter to Parole Board re case? Yes___ No___
D–98

APPENDIX D / JULY 04

St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center—

Prosecution Case Disposition Form

190 E. Bannock, Boise, ID

Prosecution Case Disposition

When a final disposition is made regarding this case, please return this form to the

CARES Program so we can complete our case file. This information may also be used

for grant reporting purposes. THANK YOU!

___________________________________ _____________ ___________________________

Child’s name DOB Interview date and time

___________________________________ ______ _____ ___________________________

Defendant’s name Age Sex Relationship to victim

Charges issued Court disposition

❑ No Reason _________________________ ❑ Dismissed Date _______________

❑ Plea Date _______________

❑ Yes Charge _________________________ ❑ Court trial Date _______________

❑ Not guilty ❑ Guilty

Sentencing

❑ Jury trial Date ____________________

❑ Not guilty

❑ Guilty

❑ Hung jury

Sentencing judge

Prison Terms ____________________________________________________________

Probation Terms ____________________________________________________________

This information will be used only for grant reporting purposes. It will be kept strictly confidential and will not

be a part of the child’s permanent record. Thank you!

Prosecutor: ___________________________________________________________________

Case number: ________________________________________________________________
E–1

Appendix E

Sample Measures for Conducting an

Impact Evaluation

Child Stress and Trauma Impact Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–3

The How I Feel Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–5

Child Anxiety Scale—Parent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–7

Family Stress Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–8

Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSC–C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–9

Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–10

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–11

Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–12

Coping Responses Inventory—Youth Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–13

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–14

Preschool Behavior Checklist (PBCL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–15

Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PBKS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–16

Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–17

Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–18

Influencing Factors Impact Evaluation 

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–19

Children’s Version of the Family Environment Scale (CVFES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–21

Parenting Stress Index (PSI)—Third Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–22

Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–23 

Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) and Catalogue of

Previous Experience With Infants (COPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–24

Conflict Tactics Scale—II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–25

Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–26
E–2

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Exposure to Violence and Trauma Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–27

Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–29

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES–III)—Family Version . . . . . . . .E–31

Family Environment Scale (FES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–32

Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E–33
E–3

Child Stress and Trauma

Impact Evaluation

Questionnaires

E–5

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

The How I Feel Questionnaire1

(Greenstock 1995)

My name is _______________ and I’d like to ask you a few questions about how you

feel. Is that ok? Just tell me which of these descriptions sounds most like how you

feel right now. 

Instructions for the recall: 

1. I’d like you to think about how you feel right now. Think about all the things you feel,

right now. How do you feel? 

2. Have a close look at these pictures here—look very carefully—can you point to

which one of these little boys/girls looks most like how you feel right now?

How do you feel? 

I feel

❑ Unhappy ❑ Happy ❑ Very happy

I feel

❑ Very worried ❑ Worried ❑ Not worried

I feel

❑ Very good ❑ Good ❑ Not good

I feel

❑ Not frightened ❑ Frightened ❑ Very frightened

I feel

❑ Not nice ❑ Nice ❑ Very nice

I feel

❑ Very upset ❑ Upset ❑ Not upset
E–6

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

1. Greenstock, J. 1995. Peer Support and Children’s Eyewitness Memory. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago.

I feel

❑ Very excited ❑ Excited ❑ Not excited

I feel

❑ Not scared ❑ Scared ❑ Very scared

I have a funny feeling in my stomach.

❑ Lots ❑ A little ❑ Not at all 

I am secretly afraid.

❑ Lots ❑ A little ❑ Not at all

I feel like smiling.

❑ Lots ❑ A little ❑ Not at all
E–7

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Anxiety Scale—Parent Form

(Beauchamp, Tewksbury, and Sanford 1997)

Please answer the following questions about how you think your child has been feeling

since he or she told you about the abuse. Remember, all your answers are confidential.

1. Since your child told you about the abuse, how often do you think he or she has felt:

Almost 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

a. Unhappy 1 2 3 4 5

b. Anxious 1 2 3 4 5

c. Afraid 1 2 3 4 5

d. Worried 1 2 3 4 5

e. Angry 1 2 3 4 5

f. Cheerful 1 2 3 4 5

g. Peaceful 1 2 3 4 5

Please answer the following questions about how your child has been acting since he

or she told you about the abuse.

Since my child told me about the abuse, he or she:

Neither 

Strongly Agree or Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

a. Has been crying a lot more than usual 1 2 3 4 5

b. Has been more demanding of my time 1 2 3 4 5

c. Has too much energy 1 2 3 4 5

d. Has changed his/her mood often 1 2 3 4 5

e. Has not been his/her regular self 1 2 3 4 5

f. Has had trouble getting along with friends 1 2 3 4 5

g. Has had trouble getting along with other 

family members 1 2 3 4 5

h. Spends a lot of time alone 1 2 3 4 5

i. Has had trouble falling asleep 1 2 3 4 5

j. Has had problems eating regularly 1 2 3 4 5

k. Has acted out sexual behaviors 1 2 3 4 5
E–8

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

2. Please contact Dr. Woodhouse at 717–422–3560 for permission to use this measure.

Family Stress Questionnaire2

For each of the following, please tell us whether it is currently a problem for your family:

Yes ___ No ___ 1. Money

Yes ___ No ___ 2. Housing

Yes ___ No ___ 3. Transportation

Yes ___ No ___ 4. Child care

Yes ___ No ___ 5. Health care

Yes ___ No ___ 6. Employment

Yes ___ No ___ 7. Problems in the neighborhood

Yes ___ No ___ 8. Legal problems

Yes ___ No ___ 9. Relationships with other family members (in-laws, 

extended family)

Yes ___ No ___ 10. Relationships with friends

Yes ___ No ___ 11. Problems with running a household (laundry, groceries, 

cooking, cleaning, other)

Yes ___ No ___ 12. Mental health problems

Yes ___ No ___ 13. Problems with school

Yes ___ No ___ 14. Problems with drugs and alcohol

Yes ___ No ___ 15. Other problems
E–9

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSC–C)

Author: John N. Briere (1996) 

Purpose: Evaluates psychological symptoms in children who have experienced traumatic events; evaluates acute and chronic posttraumatic symptomatology. Includes 54

items yielding 6 clinical scales: anxiety, depression, anger, posttraumatic stress, dissociation, and sexual concerns.

Ages: 8 to16 years

Administration: Individually or in groups to minors

Items: 54 items

Time: 15–20 minutes 

Cost: Approximately $125 for kit

Sample Items: Ask the respondent to indicate on a numeric scale from 0 (never) to 3

(almost all of the time) how often certain things happen to them.

1. I feel like I did something wrong.

2. I remember things that I don’t want to remember.

3. I feel sad or unhappy.

4. I wish bad things had never happened.

5. I want to yell and break things.

Alternatives: None specified 

Contact: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

16204 North Florida Avenue

Lutz, FL 33549

800–968–3003 or 813–968–3003

www.parinc.com
E–10

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI)

Author: Maria Kovacs (1992) 

Purpose: This self-report scale measures cognitive, affective, and behavioral signs of

depression in school-age children and adolescents. Includes 27 items, each having

three choices, yielding a Total Score plus scores for negative mood, interpersonal problems, ineffectiveness, anhedonia, and negative self-esteem.

Ages: 6 to 17 years

Administration: Individually (requires first-grade reading level) to minors

Items: 27 items

Time: Less than 15 minutes

Cost: Approximately $100

Sample Items: None specified 

Alternatives: Children’s Depression Inventory–Short Form (CDI–S), which has 10 items

and gives a general indication of depressive symptoms.

Contact: Western Psychological Services

Phone: 800–648–8857

Fax: 310–478–7838

Web Site: www.wpspublish.com

or pearsonassessments.com

800–627–7271
E–11

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children

Author: Charles D. Speilberger (1983)

Purpose: To measure anxiety in children. Self-administered questionnaire measures

state and trait anxiety in elementary school children. The A-State scale has 20 statements that ask children how they feel at a particular moment in time. The A-Trait scale

consists of 20 items that ask children how they generally feel.

Ages: 9 to 12 years

Administration: Individually or in groups to minors

Items: 20 items

Time: 8–20 minutes

Cost: Approximately $115

Sample Items: None provided 

Alternatives: None specified 

Contact: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

16204 North Florida Avenue

Lutz, FL 33549

800–968–3003 or 813–968–3003

www.parinc.com
E–12

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS)

Authors: S. Magura and B.S. Moses (1986)

Purpose: The CWBS consist of 43 scales and 3 subscales (child neglect, parenting

skills, and child functioning relative to school performance and juvenile delinquency) that

are used in the identification of family problems. The CWBS focuses on children, especially those children at risk or in placement situations. It is also appropriate for program

evaluation of child welfare services.

Ages: 1 to 45 years (most effective in identifying problems in families with adolescents)

Administration: Individually to all family members

Items: Unspecified (43 scales and 3 subscales)

Time: Unspecified (“Lengthy measure that lacks clinical cutoff scores”)

Cost: $10 

Sample: None specified

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Child Welfare League of America Fulfillment Center

P.O. Box 7816 

Edison, NJ 08818–7816 

www.cwla.org
E–13

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Coping Responses Inventory—Youth Version3

Author: Rudolf H. Moos (1997) 

Purpose: To identify and monitor coping strategies. This self-report inventory identifies

cognitive and behavioral responses the individual used to cope with a recent problem or

stressful situation. The eight scales include both approach coping styles and avoidant

coping styles. 

Ages: 12 to 18 years 

Administration: Individually or in groups to minors

Items: Unspecified

Time: 10–15 minutes

Cost: $119 for kit

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: CRI for over 18 years of age

Contact: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

16204 North Florida Avenue

Lutz, FL 33549

www.parinc.com 

3. Moos, R.H. 1997. Coping responses inventory: A measure of approach and avoidance coping skills. In Zalaquett, C.P., and Wood, R.J.

(eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 51–65.
E–14

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)4

Authors: T. Achenbach and C. Edelbrock (1983)

Purpose: The CBCL obtains parents’ reports of children’s competencies and behavioral/emotional problems in the past 6 months, yielding an Internalizing, Externalizing,

and Total Behavior Problems Scale, along with a number of narrow band scales.

Ages: Reports on children ages 2 to 3 years (CBCL/2–3), 4 to 18 years (CBCL/4–18), and

18 to 30 years (CBCL/18–30)

Administration: Individually or in groups to minors or adults (depending on the form)

Items: 118 items rated on a 3-point scale

Time: Unspecified

Cost: Approximately $57 ($250 for computerized scoring)

Sample Items: See www.aseba.org/products/cbcl6–18.html

Alternatives: There are three versions of the CBCL: Parent form, Teacher form, and

Youth form. The CBCL is also available in many languages, including a newly revised

Spanish form.

Contact: University Medical Education 

1 South Prospect Street 

Burlington, VT 05401–3456 

Dr. Thomas M. Achenbach (Author)

University Associates in Psychiatry (Publisher)

1 South Prospect Street

Burlington, VT 05401–3456

802–656–8313

Fax: 802–656–2602

Order online: www.aseba.org/ or http://www.uvm.edu/~cbcl/

4. Achenbach, T., and C. Edelbrock,1983. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. University of

Vermont Department of Psychiatry, Burlington, VT.
E–15

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Preschool Behavior Checklist (PBCL)

Authors: Jacqueline McGuire and Naomi Richmond (1988) 

Purpose: The PBCL provides easy, reliable screening of emotional and behavioral problems in children ages 2 to 5 years. The 22-item checklist covers feeding, sleeping, soiling, fears, and mood shifts.

Ages: 2 to 5 years

Administration: Individually to adults (typically clinicians complete the form)

Items: 22 items 

Cost: Approximately $130

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Western Psychological Services

Phone: 800–648–8857

Fax: 310–478–7838

Web Site: www.wpspublish.com or www.psychtest.com
E–16

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS)

Author: Kenneth W. Merrell (1994)

Purpose: The PKBS is a behavior rating scale designed to provide an integrated and

functional appraisal of the social skills and problem behaviors of young children. There

are 76 items on two separate scales: social skills and problem behaviors.

Age: 3 to 6 years

Administration: Individually to parents, teachers, and other caregivers

Items: 76 items 

Time: 12 minutes

Cost: Approximately $76 

Sample Items: None specified

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: PRO-ED

8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard 

Austin, TX 78757–6897

Tel: 512–451–3246; 800–897–3202

www.proedinc.com/

www.newassessment.org/public/assessments/SelectTool.cfm
E–17

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI)5

Author: William N. Friedrich et al. (1992)

Purpose: This brief scale measures sexual interest and activity in children between 2

and 12 years of age. It is intended for use with children who have been, or may have

been, sexually abused. There are 38 items (4-point response scale) covering 9 content

domains: boundary issues, sexual anxiety, sexual intrusiveness, self-stimulation, sexual

interest, voyeuristic behavior, exhibitionism, sexual knowledge, and gender role behavior. Yields three clinical scores: Total Scale Score, Developmentally Related Sexual

Behavior Score, and Sexual Abuse Specific Items Score.

Age: 2 to12 years

Administration: Individually to mother or female caregiver

Items: 38 items

Time: 10 minutes

Cost: Approximately $129 

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

16204 North Florida Avenue

Lutz, FL 33549

800–968–3003 or 813–968–3003

www.parinc.com/product.cfm?ProductID=174

5. Friedrich, W.N., et al. 1992. Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Normative and Clinical Comparisons, Psychological Assessment 4(3):

303–311.
E–18

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS)

Authors: Cecil R. Reynolds and Bert O. Richmond (1994) 

Purpose: This brief self-report measure helps pinpoint the problems in children’s lives

between ages 6 and 19 years so they can function more easily. There are 37 yes/no

items covering 4 content domains: worry/oversensitivity, physiological anxiety, social

concerns/concentration, and life scale. 

Age: 6 to 19 years

Administration: Individually or in groups to minors 

Items: 37 items

Time: 10 minutes

Cost: Approximately $100 

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: Spanish version

Contact: Western Psychological Services

Phone: 800–648–8857

Fax: 310–478–7838

Web Site: www.wpspublish.com
E–19

Influencing Factors

Impact Evaluation

Questionnaires

E–21

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Children’s Version of the Family Environment Scale (CVFES) 

Authors: Christopher J. Pino, Nancy Simons, and Mary Jane Slawinowski (1984)

Purpose: To measure children’s perceptions of their family environment and relationships. Children’s perceptions of 10 dimensions in 3 general areas of family functioning

are assessed: Relationship Dimensions (Cohesion, Expressiveness, and Conflict);

Personal Growth Dimensions (Independence, Achievement Orientation, IntellectualCultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, and Moral-Religious Emphasis);

and System Maintenance Dimensions (Organization and Control). 

Age: 5 to 12 years 

Administration: Individually

Items: 90 illustrations (pictorial) and 30 multiple-choice items

Time: 15–20 minutes 

Cost: $170 

Sample Items: None provided 

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: 800–624–1765

www.psychtest.com
E–22

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Parenting Stress Index (PSI)—Third Edition 

Author: R. Abidin (1995)

Purpose: To identify parent-child problem areas. Child characteristics subscales include

adaptability, acceptability, demandingness, mood, distractibility/hyperactivity, and reinforces parent. Parent characteristics include depression, isolation, attachment, role

restriction, competence, spouse, and health.

Age: Parents of children 1 to 12 years

Administration: Individually to parents

Time: 20–30 minutes for full length; 10 minutes for short form 

Items: 101

Cost: Approximately $131 

Sample Items:

I feel that my child is very moody and easily upset.

My child doesn’t seem comfortable when meeting strangers.

I feel alone and without friends.

As my child has grown older and become more independent, I find myself more worried

that my child will get hurt or into trouble.

I feel that I am:

1. A very good parent

2. A better than average parent

3. An average parent

4. A person who has some trouble being a parent

5. Not very good at being a parent

Alternatives: Short form

Contact: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

16204 North Florida Avenue

Lutz, FL 33549

800–968–3003 or 813–968–3003

www.parinc.com
E–23

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI)6 

Author: Anthony B. Gerard, Ph.D. (1994)

Purpose: This self-report inventory tells how parents view the task of parenting and

how they feel about their children. Subscales include parental support, satisfaction with

parenting, involvement, communication, limit setting, autonomy, and role orientation.

The instrument is useful for evaluating parenting skills and attitudes, child custody

arrangements, family interaction, and physical or sexual abuse of children.

Age: Parents of children 3 to 15 years

Administration: Individually to mothers and fathers of children ages 3 to 15 years

Time: 15–20 minutes

Items: 78

Cost: Approximately $104 

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: None specified 

Contact: Western Psychological Services

Phone: 800–648–8857

Fax: 310–478–7838

Web Site: www.wpspublish.com or www.psychtest.com

6. Gerard, A.B. 1994. Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. 
E–24

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) and

Catalogue of Previous Experience With Infants (COPE)

Author: David MacPhee (1981)

Purpose: The Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) was designed to

assess one’s knowledge of parental practices, developmental processes, and infant

norms of behavior. It has been used in research on what determines parent behavior

and to evaluate parent education programs. It is accompanied by a questionnaire that

assesses previous experience with infants to correlate with knowledge level assessed

by the KIDI. Subscores (not factor analyzed) are norms and milestones, principles, parenting, health, and safety. 

Ages: Not specified

Administration: Not specified

Items: 100 items

Time: Not specified

Cost: Not specified

Sample Items: None provided

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Educational Testing Service (ETS) Test Collection Library

Rosedale and Carter Roads

Princeton, NJ 08541

609–734–5689

www.ets.org/testcoll/pdflist.html (call # TC016431)
E–25

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Conflict Tactics Scale–II7

Authors: M. Straus (1996)

Purpose: The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS–II) measures the use of violent and

nonviolent strategies in a conflict. The instrument results in five scales: negotiation, psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury.

Ages: Adults

Administration: Individually to adults

Items: Unspecified 

Time: Unspecified 

Cost: Approximately $28 

Sample Items: 0 = Never

1 = Once that year

2 = Two or three times

3 = Often, but less than once a month

4 = About once a month

5 = More than once a month

Tried to discuss the issue relatively calmly 0 1 2 3 4 5

Argued heatedly but short of yelling 0 1 2 3 4 5

Stomped out of the room 0 1 2 3 4 5

Threatened to hit or throw something at him/her 0 1 2 3 4 5

Hit (or tried to hit) him/her with something hard 0 1 2 3 4 5

Alternatives: Spanish version available in the original form only

Contact: Family Research Laboratory 

University of New Hampshire 

126 Horton Social Science Center

Durham, NH 03824–3586 

Telephone: 603–862–1888

Fax: 603–862–1122 

www.unh.edu/frl/measure4.htm

7. Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D.B. 1996. The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and

preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues 17(3): 283–316.
E–26

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale8

Author: M. Straus (1997)

Purpose: The Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC) measures behavior of parents

toward their children. The scales measure nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, physical assault, weekly discipline, neglect, and sexual abuse. 

Ages: Parents of children 0 to 18 years

Administration: Individually to parents and caregivers 

Items: Unspecified 

Time: Unspecified 

Cost: Approximately $5 

Sample Items: None provided 

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Family Research Laboratory 

University of New Hampshire 

126 Horton Social Science Center

Durham, NH 03824–3586 

Telephone: 603–862–1888

Fax: 603–862–1122 

www.unh.edu/frl/measure4.htm

8. Straus, M.A. 1997. Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3): 283–316. Straus, M.A., Hamby,

S.L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D.W., and Runyon, D. 1998. Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale

(CTSPC): Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect 22(4):

249–270.
E–27

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exposure to Violence and Trauma Questionnaire9

Authors: Paramjit T. Joshi and Dianne G. Kaschak (1998)

Purpose: This questionnaire has five subsections: demographics (five questions), media

(six items), home and community (eight items), school (seven items), and psychological

and emotional help (two items).

Ages: None specified

Administration: None specified

Items: 28 items

Time: None specified

Cost: None

Sample Items:

Media

How often have you seen the following violence in the media?

Fighting Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Stabbing Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Someone getting shot Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Someone being killed Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Home and Community

Other teenagers in my community and neighborhood:

Carry weapons Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Have been in jail Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Have shot someone Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Have killed someone Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Use drugs Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Sell drugs Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

School

Other teenagers in school have:

Threatened me Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Threatened others Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Attacked or assaulted me Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot

Attacked or assaulted 

others Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often A lot
E–28

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Psychological and Emotional Help

Have you ever seen a psychologist or psychiatrist to help you deal with your feelings

because of exposure to violence and trauma? _____ Yes _____ No

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Journal article

9. Joshi, P.T. and D.G. Kaschak. 1998. Exposure to violence and trauma: Questionnaire for adolescents. International Review of

Psychiatry 10(3): 208–215.
Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire10 

Authors: Lisa A. Goodman, Carole Corcoran, Kiban Turner, Nicole Yuan, and Bonnie L.

Green (1998)

Ages: None specified

Administration: None specified

Items:

Time: None specified

Cost: None

Sample items:

Have you ever had a life-threatening illness? _____ No _____ Yes

If yes, at what age: __________________________________________________________

Duration of illness (in months): _______________________________________________ 

Describe specific illness: _____________________________________________________

Has an immediate family member, romantic partner, or very close friend died as a result

of accident, homicide, or suicide? _____ No _____ Yes

If yes, how old were you: ____________________________________________________ 

How did this person die: _____________________________________________________ 

Relationship to person lost: __________________________________________________ 

When you were a child or more recently, did anyone (parent, other family member,

romantic partner, stranger, or someone else) ever succeed in physically forcing you to

have intercourse, oral sex, or anal sex against your wishes or when you were in some

way helpless? _____ No _____ Yes

If yes, at what age:

If yes, how many times: _____ 1 _____ 2–4 _____ 5–10 _____ more than 10 

If repeated, over what period: _____ 6 mo or less _____7 mo–2 yrs 

_____ more than 2 yrs but less than 5 yrs 

_____ 5 yrs or more 

Who did this (specify stranger, parent, etc.): ____________________________________

Has anyone else ever done this to you: _____ No ______ Yes

Other than the experiences already covered, has anyone ever threatened you with a

weapon like a knife or gun? ______ No _____ Yes

If yes, at what age: ____________________________________________________________ 

If yes, how many times: _____ 1 _____ 2–4 _____ 5–10 _____ more than 10 

If repeated, over what period: _____ 6 mo or less _____ 7 mo–2 yrs 

_____ more than 2 yrs but less than 5 yrs 

_____ 5 yrs or more 

E–29

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
E–30

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Describe nature of threat: ______________________________________________________ 

Who did this? (Relationship to you): _____________________________________________

Has anyone else ever done this to you? _____ No _____ Yes

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: Journal article

10. Goodman, L.A., C. Corcoran, K. Turner, N. Yuan, and B.L. Green. 1998. General issues and preliminary findings for the stressful life

events screening questionnaire. Journal of Traumatic Stress 11(3): 521–542.
E–31

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales

(FACES–III) Family Version

Authors: D. Olson, L. Portner, and Y. Lavee (1985).

Purpose: This self-report scale is designed to measure how satisfied respondents are

with their family by obtaining a perceived-ideal discrepancy score. The questionnaire

yields two major dimensions of family functioning: family cohesion and family adaptability.

Age: 12 to 65 years

Administration: Unspecified

Items: 20 items

Time: Unspecified

Cost: Approximately $35 

Sample Items: None provided 

Alternatives: None specified

Contact: David Olson, L. Portner, and Y. Lavee 

Family Inventories Project 

Family Social Science 

University of Minnesota

290 McNeal Hall 

St. Paul, MN 55108
E–32

APPENDIX E / JULY 04

Family Environment Scale (FES)11

Authors: R.H. Moos and B.S. Moos (1986)

Purpose: The FES was developed to measure social and environmental characteristics

of families. FES is a 90-item, pencil and paper, true/false instrument. It employs three

major scales (relationship, personal growth, and system maintenance) to assess the

degree to which a family is in distress. The scale is based on a three-dimensional conceptualization of families. FES has three subscales (cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness), each consisting of nine true-false statements that constitute the relationship

domain of the FES. Family cohesion reflects the degree to which family members are

helpful and supportive of one another, and family conflict assesses the extent to which

the expression of anger and physical aggression are characteristic of the family. FES is

especially relevant for those social services professionals directly involved with families

with drug-using adolescents and those with adolescents at risk of placement. 

Ages: Unspecified

Administration: Individually to family members

Items: 27 items

Time: 15–20 minutes

Cost: Approximately $45

Sample Items (conflict scale):

We fight a lot in our family 

Family members sometimes hit each other

Alternatives: Three separate forms of the FES are available that correspondingly measure different aspects of these dimensions. The Real Form (Form R) measures people’s

perceptions of their actual family environments, the Ideal Form (Form I) rewords items

to assess individuals’ perceptions of their ideal family environment, and the Expectations

Form (Form E) instructs respondents to indicate what they expect a family environment

will be like under, for example, anticipated family changes. FES has been translated into

Spanish, Korean, and Chinese.

Contact: Consulting Psychologists Press

3803 East Bayshore Road

Palo Alto, CA 94303

11. Moos R.H. and B.S. Moos. 1986. Family Environment Scale Manual. 2d ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
E–33

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Additional References

Faces Pain Scale

Bieri, D., R.A. Reeve, G.D. Champion, L. Addicoat, and J. B. Ziegler. 1990. The faces

pain scale for the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children:

Development, initial validation, and preliminary investigation for ratio scale properties.

Pain 41: 139–150.

Perceived Social Support Questionnaire—Friends and Family

Procidano, M.E. and K. Heller. 1983. Measures of perceived social support from friends

and family. American Journal of Community Psychology 11: 1–24.

Presence of Caring—Individual Protective Factors Index 

Dahlberg, L.L., Toal, S.B., and Behrens, C.B. (eds.). 1998. Measuring violence-related

attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among youths: A compendium of assessment tools.

Atlanta,: GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control.

10-Feeling Thermometer

Steward, M.S., D.S. Steward, L. Farquhar, J.E.B. Myers, M. Reinhart, J. Welker, N. Joye,

J. Driskoll, and J. Morgan. 1996. Interviewing young children about body touch and

handling. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development 61, Ser.

no. 248, 4–5.

Traumatic Sexualization Survey

Matorin, A.I., and S.J. Lynn. 1998. The development of a measure of correlates of child

sexual abuse: The Traumatic Sexualization Survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress 11(2):

261–280.

F–1

Appendix F

Exhibits

Exhibit 3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Evaluation Leaders . . . . . .F–3

Exhibit 3.2 Distribution of Evaluation Team Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–4

Exhibit 3.3 Sample Concerns and Responses Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–5

Exhibit 4.1 Sample Flowchart for a Process Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–6

Exhibit 4.2 Sample Spreadsheet for Recording Staff Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–7

Exhibit 5.1 Goal Approximation Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–8

Exhibit 5.2 Logic Model for Child Advocacy Center Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–9

Exhibit 5.3 Outcome Measurement Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–11

Exhibit 6.1 Recruitment Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–12

Exhibit 7.1 Parent Recruitment Script at the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–13

Exhibit 7.2 Invitation to Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–13

Exhibit 7.3 Telephone Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–14

Exhibit 7.4 Permission-to-Recontact Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–14

Exhibit 7.5 Informed Consent—Contact in the Future Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–15

Exhibit 7.6 Followup Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–16

Exhibit 7.7 Informed Consent Form—Adult Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–16

Exhibit 7.8 Informed Consent Form—Child Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–17

Exhibit 7.9 Informed Consent Form—Youth Assent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–17

Exhibit 7.10 Sample Pledge of Confidentiality for Data Collectors . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–18

Exhibit 8.1 Evaluation Planning Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–19

Exhibit 8.2 When to Initiate the Evaluation: Advantages and Disadvantages . . . .F–22

Exhibit 8.3 Sample Timeline for Planning and Implementing the Evaluation . . . . .F–23

Exhibit 9.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Client Satisfaction 

Questionnaire Administration Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–24

Exhibit 9.2 Sample Data Tracking Form for Parent and Child Measures . . . . . . . . .F–25

Exhibit 9.3 Sample Data Tracking Form: Multidisciplinary Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–25

Exhibit 9.4 Sample Data Tracking Form: All Evaluation Participants . . . . . . . . . . . .F–26

Exhibit 9.5 Sample Data Tracking Form: Followup Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . .F–27

Exhibit 11.1 Description of Evaluation Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–28

Exhibit 11.2 Report Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–29

Exhibit 11.3 Sample Table: Outcome of Trauma Reported by Children, 

by Age of Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F–30

Exhibit 11.4 Sample Table: Comparison of Intervention and Comparison Groups . .F–30

Advantages Disadvantages

Internal Evaluator • Supported by internal staff. • May not be sufficiently knowledgeable about

• Promotes maximum involvement of evaluation methodology.

participants because parents are • Poorly functioning internal relationships may

comfortable with staff. hamper the evaluation.

• Ability to tailor the evaluation to meet each • Staff’s time commitment may be high.

center’s needs, e.g., different cultures.

• Expediency.

• Less expensive.

External Evaluator • Objectivity. • More expensive.

• Provides new perspectives. • May not understand the program sufficiently.

• Methodological expertise. • May not be familiar with staff and their

• Less burden for administrators. interrelationships.

• Participants might talk more openly to • Difficulty contracting the evaluator.

an external than an internal evaluator. • Conflicting philosophies between evaluator

• Complements the director’s program and administrators.

experience. • Timeliness in submitting reports.

• Unfamiliarity with the CAC’s culture.

• Educating external evaluators about the program

may be time consuming.

Combination Internal • Director has program knowledge and • Professional evaluators may be more expensive.

and External evaluator has evaluation expertise. • Conflicting philosophies between evaluator

• An external evaluator can design the and administrators.

evaluation and the center can keep the

evaluation going.

• Experts can write grant proposals for

funding and directors can provide the

program information.

F–3

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Evaluation Leaders 
Exhibit 3.2. Distribution of Evaluation Team Responsibilities 

CAC Evaluation Team Members

Victim/ Board of

Evaluation Evaluation External CAC Survivor Statistician Directors Data

Phase Activity Evaluator Administrator Advocate Member Member Community Collector

Planning General Design of Management Provide a voice Guidance with Ensure the Ensure the Provide

Responsibilities the evaluation of the for the victims/ measures and evaluation is evaluation is oversight

evaluation survivors analyses meeting the responsive of the data

CAC’s goals to the collection

community’s

needs

Expertise Evaluation Subject Perspective of Measurement The CAC’s How the Data 

research matter and the victims/ and statistical goals community collection,

the CAC survivors analysis perceives storage,

the CAC and entry

Initial Evaluation Become Arrange Become Become Approve the Provide Develop

Activities familiar weekly familiar familiar with the evaluation input into recruitment

with the team with the CAC, design; check on the design and data

CAC, its evaluation evaluation its goals, the face validity from the collection

goals, meetings; research; and how of the design community’s protocol;

and the enlist the assist with the goals perspective develop

evaluation team’s designing the might be informed

team; cooperation; recruitment measured; consent

develop approve protocol assist with forms

evaluation protocols selecting

design; appropriate

determine measures

appropriate 

sampling; 

select 

measures

F–4

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

F–4
F–5

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 3.3. Sample Concerns and Responses Letter

Date

Dear Colleague,

The purpose of this note is to respond to concerns raised by the Evaluation Team in recent meetings. Most of these concerns relate to the use of one element of the study design—[whatever the primary concern is]—to document the effectiveness of the CAC.

We consider this element of the evaluation to be necessary because ... [write your justification]. Previous evaluations have been suspect because of the failure to implement .... Our design will ....

We must also consider the fact that the CAC is an ongoing program. We recognize that our evaluation should do nothing to damage program operations and good will. Thus, we must work to identify a strategy that allows us to implement

a rigorous evaluation and accommodate the evaluation.

Five specific concerns have been raised about the evaluation:

Concern: [Write a one-sentence summary of the issue]

Response: [Provide as much narrative as possible in response to the concern]

We hope this addresses the concerns raised by the Evaluation Team. We will appreciate the opportunity to continue

these discussions with you at subsequent meetings. Please feel free to raise these issues again if you feel your concern

has not been adequately addressed.

Sincerely,
F–6

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 4.1. Sample Flowchart for a Process Evaluation

Referral, intake,

and scheduling

Introductions at

the CAC

Parent interview with

team

Initial team meeting Child interview Second team meeting

Schedule medical 

examination Family leaves the center Victim advocate conducts followup with family

Case review Case filed for prosecution Court preparation

Child testifies Case outcome/case closed Information entered into

a case tracking system
F–7

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 4.2. Sample Spreadsheet for Recording Staff Activity

Time With Time With Time With 

Purpose Client 001 Client 002 Client 003

Activity of Activity (in minutes) (in minutes) (in minutes)

Prepare for family

Greet family

Parent interview

Tour of center

Meet with MDT

Child interview

Meet with MDT 

and parent

Employee Name __________________________________________ Week of ___________________________________ 
F–8

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 5.1. Goal Approximation Rating Form

Program Most Unfavorable Less Than Expected Level More Than Best Anticipated 

Component Outcome Expected Success of Success Expected Success Success

Child-Friendly 

Facility

Multidisciplinary 

Team 

Case Review

Child Interview

Victim Advocate

Medical Services

Mental Health 

Services

Case Tracking
F–9

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 5.2. Logic Model for Child Advocacy Center Programs

Outcomes

Unintended

Background Program External Immediate Intermediate Long-Term or Negative Instruments

Factors Activities Inputs Outputs Factors Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes

Children’s Child-friendly Program Children Community Children Because Faster Children will Child-Friendly

reactions facility has a child- are able environment, feel more children recuperation not want to Program

to strange appropriate to wait donations, comfortable, enjoy the because leave the Monitoring

places waiting for their volunteers less anxiety CAC activities, the CAC playroom Questionnaire

room (toys, interview while waiting they will experience for the

colors, or medical be able to was positive interview Home 

child-size exam be more (positive or medical Observation 

chairs) comfortably, productive long-term exam; for the 

and child- distracted in the memories children will Measurement

monitoring with toys, investigative of the CAC not want to of the

adult an adult interview; because go home Environment

to play children it was a after having (HOME)

with them; will be less child-friendly such a great (adapted for

some resistant environment) place to play CAC facility)

centers returning to

serve food the center 

Degree of Medical Trained and Children are Funding for Acquiring Psychological Greater chance Child anxiety Children’s 

physical evaluation qualified seen by a an onsite medical benefits for of conviction realated to Reaction

damage medical caring and medical facility; evidence for children in with solid medical to Medical

to child; Variations: personnel trained trained medical prosecution; knowing their medical evidence procedures Exams

children’s onsite, offsite to conduct professional personnel greater medical status

fear of forensic available in the likelihood (e.g., healthy Medical

physicians; medical community case is bodies) Examination

degree of examination accepted for Questionnaire

physician prosecution

training in 

CSA

Degree of Therapeutic Onsite crisis Access to Availability of Immediate Psychological Reduction in Additional Mental Health

prior psycho- intervention intervention individual community- psychological growth revictimization issues Services

pathology; and subsequent or group based adjustment surface (not Questionnaire

family support; Variations: referral for psychological therapeutic to CSA; necessarily

attending onsite crisis onsite mental counseling interventions; acquiring a negative); Child Interview

therapy intervention, health services to deal with availability adequate stigma Questionnaire

sessions; onsite or community problems of trained coping skills of receiving

appropriate therapeutic mental health associated therapists; mental health Newman’s

therapeutic intervention, services with CSA community services Rating Scale

training referral resources for

services for mental health

therapeutic services

intervention 

Continued on next page
F–10

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 5.2. Logic Model for Child Advocacy Center Programs (continued)

Discussion: How far into the future should CACs be held accountable? Are they successful only if they reduce the prevalence of CSA in a community? 

The program should extend far enough to capture meaningful change, but not so far that the program‘s effects are washed out by other factors.

Outcomes

Unintended

Background Program External Immediate Intermediate Long-Term or Negative Instruments

Factors Activity Inputs Outputs Factors Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes

Complexity Victim advocacy Experienced Family has Degree of Immediate Immediate Greater family Victim Victim

of the case; victim advocate access to acceptance by needs are met ability to cope; adjustment advocate Advocate

needs of the Variations: links families needed the various better ability is too Questionnaire

family (degree onsite services, with needed services; agencies; to attend to intrusive

of family services services; acts families availability of child’s issues in families’

dysfunction); provided at as liaison have a services in lives

quality of a remote between team contact the community

previous location, or a members and person to

interactions combination the family whom they

with various of both can ask

service questions

providers

MDT’s past Case review Team members Sharing Supervisor Enhanced Efficient case Increased Team gets Case Review

experience review a case information support for information- processing; number of overwhelmed Questionnaire

with the Variations: and each team and case review gathering reduction in prosecutions, by the number 

other agencies; review some member reports requesting (e.g., time capacity; length of the pleas, and of cases to 

philosophy or all cases on the progress further to attend obtaining investigation; convictions review

regarding prospectively, of the case information the weekly high-quality quicker decision

teamwork retrospectively, from team meetings) information; whether to

or both members reduced prosecute

duplication 

of effort
F–11

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 5.3. Outcome Measurement Framework

Program and Outcomes Influencing Factors

Indicator(s)

(What does the Data Collection Data

outcome look like Method and Influencing Collection

Program and Outcome when it occurs?) Data Source Measure(s) Factors Data Source Method

Child-Friendly Facility Room is brightly Children, parents, Questionnaire Child’s age; degree Parents Questionnaire

Children feel more colored; child-sized and/or CAC staff of family stress

comfortable; less anxiety furniture; toys are 

waiting if they can play easily accessible

Multidisciplinary Team Informally sharing MDT Questionnaire Trust among the MDT Questionnaire

More efficient investigation information; greater team members

of CSA degree of team 

cohesion

Investigative Child One to three inter- Child interviewer Questionnaires, Interviewer training; Child interviewers, Questionnaires

Interview views; high-quality rating scales child’s language parents, and/or

Quality information is information obtained development children

obtained from children; from interviews

fewer child interviews

Medical Examination Results of medical Medical personnel; Questionnaire Physician experience Medical Questionnaire

Medical evidence for examinations; children with CSA examinations personnel

prosecution; psychological information provided

benefits for children who to the child during the 

know their medical status medical examination 

regarding the child’s 

health; forensic medical

evidence available

Mental Health Services Referral for therapy; Therapist; child Questionnaire Family support; Parents Questionnaire

Adequate coping skills; attending therapy transportation to

children attend therapy therapy

Victim Advocate Number and type of Parents Questionnaire Number of available Victim advocate Questionnaire

Family receives needed referrals for services services in the

services community

Case Review Specified degree of MDT Questionnaire Supervisor support for MDT member’s Questionnaire

Complete, timely, and information sharing workers attending supervisor

accurate information MDT meetings

relevant to the investigation 
F–12

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 6.1. Recruitment Script 

Hi. My name is __________________. I know this is a difficult time for you, but I wondered if we could talk for a few

minutes? I can assure you that (child’s name) is being well taken care of. 

I work with a Child Advocacy Center in __________________, about ______ minutes/miles away from here. Our

center serves families like yours. We are here today because we are trying to figure out whether the services our center provides are making a difference for the families we serve. One way we can determine this is to ask children who

are not receiving our services how they feel about the services they are receiving here. In essence, we are comparing

how children feel here with how children feel at our center. 

That’s why we are here today. We are asking families if they would be willing to assist us by allowing their children to

answer some questions about their experience at this agency. Officer/Supervisor __________________ supports our

work, although we are not involved in your case in any way and your case will not be influenced in any way by our talking together. 

Your child should be able to complete the questionnaire in several minutes. Our primary purpose is to help families like

your own. We want to be sure that we are doing the best possible job for the children and families in our community.

I’ve already talked to many families, and they have agreed to help us out. Would you be willing to do this? 
F–13

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 7.1. Parent Recruitment Script at the Center

Hi. My name is __________________. I work here at the CAC. I understand what a difficult time this is for you. I can

assure you that [child’s name] is being well cared for by [interviewer’s name]. 

As you know, we are here to help you and your family. We also want to help other families as well. My job is to talk to

parents about how we are doing. We want to make sure we are doing the best job possible for your family and families

like yours. To figure this out, I have some questions that I would like to ask you (or I have a questionnaire I would like

for you to fill out). We should be able to complete the interview (or you should be able to complete the questionnaire)

during the time it takes for your child to be interviewed, about 15 minutes [if applicable]. 

Because we are interested in how your family is doing in the future and in what you think about the center after you

have been gone for a little while, we would also like to contact you several times over the next 2 years. We would like

to contact families after 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after leaving our center. I can assure you that I have asked many

families to help us out, and most have been very willing. Would you be willing to help us out? [If completing questionnaires] I can either stay here with you if you would like or I can wait in the other room, whichever is more comfortable

for you.

Date

Dear Collaborative Partner,

You have been selected to take part in a survey of interagency collaboration among agencies involved in addressing

child sexual abuse in our community. Your participation is very important. As you know, working with families and victims of child sexual abuse can be demanding and exhausting. Many different agencies may be involved in any given

case and multiple contacts between professionals is common. However, coordination of service can result in more

effective interventions and positive outcomes for victims and families.

[Insert child advocacy center name] is conducting a survey to better understand how the collaborative system functions

in our community and your knowledge and input are vital to this process. Enclosed is a copy of the survey being used. It

asks your opinion regarding interagency communication, the referral process, interagency conflict and resolution,

agency roles and goals, teamwork, and your experience of interacting with [insert child advocacy center name].

Please take the time to complete the survey and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. It would be

helpful to have your completed survey returned to us by [insert date].

Your responses are confidential and anonymous. Do not include your name with the survey. If you have any questions or

concerns, please feel free to contact me at XXX–XXX–XXXX.

Sincerely,

Exhibit 7.2. Invitation to Participate (on Child Advocacy Center letterhead)
F–14

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 7.3. Telephone Protocol

Hello __________________. My name is __________________ with the Child Advocacy Center. Is this a good

time to talk?

You should have received a card with an attached questionnaire telling you that we would be calling. Did you receive

that card? (If no, thank the person for their time and do not proceed).

If you have a few minutes, I would like to ask you the questions that are on the questionnaire. Do you still have the

questionnaire? If you can easily find it we can go over the questions together. Before we begin the questions, I want to

let you know that you can end this interview at any time without affecting your case. Also, I want to let you know that

your name will not be associated with any of our findings or recommendations. We would greatly appreciate your participation in helping us to improve the Child Advocacy Center. Do you have any questions? If you have any questions

about the project you may call [evaluator’s name] at XXX–XXX–XXXX or the director, [director’s name], at

XXX–XXX–XXXX.

The questionnaire works like this. I will ask you a question and then you will respond by saying you strongly disagree,

disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree.

For example, if you agree with a statement, you would say “agree.” Do you have any questions?

OK, let’s begin. The first question is [read question]. Do you strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree,

agree, or strongly agree?

OK, question two is [read question]. [Repeat until all questions are completed.]

Do you have any questions about what we’ve just gone over?

[Parent’s name], thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. This information will be useful in helping us

know how we are doing during a difficult situation so that if there are any problems, we can identify them, and hopefully help other families like your own. We couldn’t do this without your help. 

Goodbye.

Exhibit 7.4. Permission-to-Recontact Script 

We are very interested in improving our services to children and families. To do this, it would be very helpful if we could

contact you at some future time to learn what has happened to your family, whether you think our efforts helped, and

what more we could have done to assist your family. Would you be willing to have us contact you again? [If yes] To

ensure that we can locate you, could you please tell us how it would be best to contact you in the future?
F–15

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 7.5. Informed Consent—Contact in the Future Form

To learn more about how well the Child Advocacy Center’s program is working, we routinely interview participants after

they leave the program to ask how they are doing.

If you agree to a telephone interview in ____ months, everything you say in the telephone interview will be confidential. The information you provide will be combined with the information from all other participants we interview. No one

will be able to tell which answers are yours. Be assured that other agencies working on your case will not have access

to this information and your answers will not affect your case in any way.

We also would like to obtain information about how well your child is doing. If you give us permission, we would also

like to talk to your child on the telephone. This information also will be confidential.

Participation in either of the followup studies is completely voluntary. Whether you participate or not will not affect

your eligibility for services at the Child Advocacy Center.

If you agree to participate in these followup studies, and we hope you will, please read (or have read to you) both

agreements below and then sign them.

I have read this form (or this form has been read to me), and I agree to participate in the Child Advocacy Center’s followup telephone interview. I understand that my participation is totally voluntary, that I can refuse to answer any question that is asked, and that I can stop the interview at any time.

Participant’s Signature

Printed Name

Date

I have read this form (or this form has been read to me), and I agree to have someone contact my child to conduct an

interview. I understand that my agreeing to this interview is totally voluntary, and that I can stop the interview at any

time by contacting the Child Advocacy Center’s Program Director [name] at [phone number].

Participant’s Signature

Printed Name

Date
F–16

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 7.6. Followup Interview Schedule

Family First Scheduled Scheduled

ID # Participant Interview Completed 2nd Interview Completed 3rd Interview Completed

001 Parent 12/5/2002 Week of Week of 

12/5/2003 12/5/2004

Child 12/5/2002 Week of Week of 

12/5/2003 12/5/2004

002 Parent 12/7/2002 Week of Week of 

12/7/2003 12/7/2004

Child 12/7/2002 Week of Week of 

12/7/2003 12/7/2004

Exhibit 7.7. Informed Consent Form—Adult Form

Please feel free to ask any questions you have now, or if you have questions later, call the researcher,

__________________ , at __________________.

The Child Advocacy Center would like to know how satisfied you are with its services. To that end, we are asking you to

respond to a set of questions about your experience at the Child Advocacy Center. We will ask you to complete the

questions while you are here at the center. Your participation is voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Your name will

at no time be on the questionnaire. The results of the answers to these questions from you and other participants will

be used to improve services at the Child Advocacy Center.

I understand that my participation is voluntary, confidential, and anonymous and has nothing to do with my or my child

receiving services of any kind.

I understand that I am being asked to answer a number of questions about my experience at the Child Advocacy Center

and that this will take about ___ minutes altogether, and should add about ___ minutes to my time at the Child

Advocacy Center.

I understand that I am free to stop participating at any time without harming my relationship with the Child Advocacy

Center or any other agency working on my case.

If you agree to participate, please sign below.

Signature

Date
F–17

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 7.8. Informed Consent Form—Child Form

The Child Advocacy Center would like to know how satisfied your child is with the services he/she received here. To

that end, we are asking a number of children to respond to [ ___ ] basic questions about their experience at the Child

Advocacy Center. Your child will be asked to answer these questions while here at the center. Agreement to participate

is voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Your or your child’s name at no time will be on the questionnaire. The results

of the answers to these questions from your child and other children will be used to improve services at the Child

Advocacy Center. 

I understand that my child’s participation is voluntary, confidential, and anonymous and has nothing to do with my child

receiving services.

I understand that my child first will be asked if she or he would be willing to answer a number of questions about his or

her experience at the Child Advocacy Center, and if she or he agrees, that this will take about ___ minutes.

I understand that I and my child are free to stop participating at any time without harming my or my child’s relationship

with the Child Advocacy Center or any other agency working on my case.

If you agree to allow your child to participate, please sign below.

Signature

Date

Exhibit 7.9. Informed Consent Form—Youth Assent Form

Please feel free to ask any questions you have now, or if you have questions later, call the researcher,

__________________ , at __________________.

The Child Advocacy Center would like to know how satisfied you are with its services. To that end, we are asking you to

respond to a set of questions about your experience at the Child Advocacy Center. We will ask you to complete the

questions while you are here at the center. Your participation is voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Your name at

no time will be on the questionnaire. The results of the answers to these questions from you and other participants will

be used to improve services at the Child Advocacy Center.

I understand that my participation is voluntary, confidential, and anonymous and has nothing to do with my receiving

services of any kind.

I understand that I am being asked to answer a number of questions about my experience at the Child Advocacy Center

and that this will take about ___ minutes altogether, and should add about ___ minutes to my time at the Child

Advocacy Center.

I understand that I am free to stop participating at any time without harming my relationship with the Child Advocacy

Center or any other agency working on my case.

If you agree to participate, please sign below.

Signature

Date
F–18

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 7.10. Sample Pledge of Confidentiality for Data Collectors

I understand that:

I may be collecting information of a personal and sensitive nature.

Individuals participating in this study have been assured that their names will not be disclosed and that all information

will be kept confidential.

The responsibility of fulfilling this assurance of confidentiality begins with me.

In recognition of this responsibility, I hereby give my personal pledge to:

1. Keep confidential the names of all respondents, all information and opinions collected during the data collection

process, and any information learned incidentally while collecting the data.

2. Refrain from discussing or disclosing, except privately with my data collection supervisor, information that might in

any way identify or be linked to a particular individual.

3. Terminate data collection immediately if I encounter a respondent or begin reviewing a record for an individual whom

I know personally, and contact my supervisor for further instructions.

4. Take precautions to prevent access by others to data in my possession.

5. Take all other actions within my power to safeguard the privacy of respondents and protect the confidentiality of

information I collect.

6. Devote my best efforts to ensure that there is compliance with the required procedures by persons whom I supervise.

Signed

Date
F–19

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 8.1. Evaluation Planning Form

Select the evaluation 

team members (chapter 3) Team Member’s Expertise and Name Team Member’s Responsibilities

❑ Subject-matter knowledge (e.g., director)

❑ Quantitative knowledge

❑ Multidisciplinary team representative

❑ Staff representative

❑ Data collection representative

❑ Victim representative

Purpose of this evaluation

Select the evaluation 

design (chapters 4–6) Program Monitoring Evaluation Outcome Evaluation Impact Evaluation

Determine which program(s) to evaluate. Determine goals. Determine objective.

Identify steps in the program. Develop objectives. Write evaluation questions.

Determine what should happen at Identify procedures Form predictions.

each step. and process.

Determine what actually happens Determine outcomes. Select comparison group.

at each step.

Compare what should have happened Develop logic model. Determine length of the evaluation.

with what actually happens.

Select instruments. Identify influencing factors.

Select instruments.

Select participant 

recruiter (chapter 7)

Determine who is ❑ CAC staff

participating ❑ Multidisciplinary team and agencies

❑ CAC families

❑ Non-CAC participants

Determine eligibility 

criteria

Determine number of ______ CAC staff

participants needed for ______ Multidisciplinary team and agencies

each group of participants ______ CAC families

______ Non-CAC participants

Continued on next page

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________
F–20

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 8.1. Evaluation Planning Form (continued)

Incentives and compensation

Note disincentives (if any)

Develop recruitment protocol Recruitment script

When to recruit

Where to recruit

Informed consent

Develop method to maintain 

contact with families 

Track why participants 

refuse to participate

Draft evaluation timeline 

(chapter 8) Start Date End Date

❑ Before the center opens

❑ Just as the center opens 

❑ After the center opens (e.g., 1 year)

Identify applicable evaluation

contexts (chapter 8) ❑ Evaluation context

❑ Staff context

❑ Participant context

❑ Social context

❑ Administrative context

Consider cultural issues 

(chapter 8)

Create a data collection

protocol (chapter 9) Select instruments

Who will administer instruments

When to administer instruments

How often to administer instruments

Where to administer instruments

Continued on next page
F–21

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 8.1. Evaluation Planning Form (continued)

Pilot test the evaluation 

protocol (chapter 9)

Create a management 

information system (chapter 9)

Create a data monitoring

protocol (chapter 9) Who will monitor the data

Data tracking system

Data storage

Create a data analysis protocol

(chapter 10) Who will enter data

Who will clean data

Who will analyze data

Analyses to conduct

Write and disseminate the

evaluation report (chapter 11) Author

Audience

Deadlines

Reviewers

Publications and presentations
F–22

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 8.2. When to Initiate the Evaluation: Advantages and Disadvantages

Start Date for Evaluation Advantages Disadvantages

Before the center opens An evaluation that begins before the center Programs are in considerable development

opens can collect baseline data, which allows and refinement during this period and it

comparison of operations before the center may be difficult to collect reliable data

opened with operations after the center opens. during this phase because there are so

many changes in program implementation.

As the center opens An evaluation that begins as the center opens During the first year, many programs

collects some baseline data with which to undergo considerable changes that may

compare future outcomes to determine whether make data collection and interpretation

the program is making a difference. during this phase problematic.

1 or more years after Data collection is easier (and possibly more valid) The opportunity is lost to collect baseline

the center opens in an evaluation that begins 1 or more years data. In addition, operations may be

after the center opens, when protocols are entrenched, making it difficult to

established. implement an evaluation.
F–23

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 8.3. Sample Timeline for Planning and Implementing the Evaluation

Month

Evaluation Activity 123456789 10–24 25–27 28–29

Determine goals and objectives. ✔

Select the evaluation design. ✔✔✔

Choose the outcomes. ✔

Specify indicators for outcomes. ✔

Pilot test the outcome measurement system. ✔

Prepare to collect data on indicators. ✔ ✔

Improve outcome measurement system. ✔

Launch full-scale implementation. ✔ ✔

Analyze and report initial findings. ✔ ✔

Analyze data. ✔

Write evaluation report. ✔

Type of Evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
F–24

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 9.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire Administration Options

Timing Advantages Disadvantages

Administer the survey when the family first • The agency is sure to obtain the data. • The family has no experience with the center

arrives at the center. before completing the questionnaire and may

not have sufficient information upon which 

to comment.

Administer the survey at some point between • The agency is sure to obtain the data. • The family may not have had a chance to assess

when the family first arrives and before the the program before completing the questionnaire

client leaves the center. and may not have sufficient information upon which

to comment.

• Variations in data collection times could affect

the results. That is, if some families participate

when they first arrive at the center and other

families participate as they leave, their responses

may reflect when the questionnaire was administered 

and not their experience of the program. 

Administer the survey just prior to the family • The agency is sure to obtain the data. • The family may be eager to leave the center

leaving the center. and thus less cooperative about completing a

questionnaire.

Give the family a questionnaire as they leave the • The family has experience with the center; • After leaving the center, the family may want to

center and ask them to return it in the mail. therefore, the results are more likely to move on with their lives and thus may not return

be valid. the questionnaire.

• The family can complete the questionnaire • Family members may forget the details of their

in the privacy of their home. experience at the center and may not provide

complete information.

Mail the survey to the family after the family • The agency cannot be sure the family has

has left the center. received the questionnaire (e.g., the family moved).

• When data collection is complete, the results

may be biased because the agency may have data

from more stable families who have not moved

and have no data from families who have moved.

• Family members may forget the details of their

experience at the center and may not provide

complete information.

Administer the survey over the telephone after • Contacting the family may be difficult because

the family has left the center. there may not be a telephone in the home,

or the family might move without leaving a

forwarding telephone number.

• When data collection is complete, the results

may be biased because the agency may have data

from stable families (whose phones are still in

service or who have not moved), but no data from 

less stable families.

• Family members may forget the details of their 

experience at the center and may not provide 

complete information. 

• The agency can be confident the family has 

received the questionnaire.

• The family has experience with the center;

therefore, the results are more likely to

be valid.

• The family can complete the questionnaire

in the privacy of their home.

• The family has experience with the center;

therefore, the results are more likely to

be valid.

• Participants may find it easier to answer

questions over the telephone.

• The family has experience with the center;

therefore, the results are more likely to

be valid.
F–25

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 9.2. Sample Data Tracking Form for Parent and Child Measures

Child Measures Parent Measures

Demographic Demographic Parent

Family # Information Child Trauma Information Satisfaction Parent Stress

001 Date collected: Date collected: Date collected: Date collected: Date collected:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:

Date entered: Date entered: Date entered: Date entered: Date entered:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:

002 Date collected: Date collected: Date collected: Date collected: Date collected:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:

Date entered: Date entered: Date entered: Date entered: Date entered:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:

Exhibit 9.3. Sample Data Tracking Form: Multidisciplinary Team

Child Protective Law Enforcement Mental Health

Services Workers Personnel Prosecution Staff Professionals Victim Advocates

Case Team Case Team Case Team Case Team Case Team

Family # Tracking Cohesion Tracking Cohesion Tracking Cohesion Tracking Cohesion Tracking Cohesion

001 Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date

collected: collected: collected: collected: collected: collected: collected: collected: collected: collected:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date

entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: entered: 

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom:
F–26

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 9.4. Sample Data Tracking Form: All Evaluation Participants

Contact and Administration of Questionnaires Tracking Form

Family # ______________________________________

Date of initial contact ____________________________

Recruitment method ❑ Personal ❑ Telephone ❑ Mail ❑ Other __________________________________________

Type of Evaluation (Check one) Measure(s) Administered Measure(s) Collected Data Entered

❑ Child-Friendly Facility ❑ Client satisfaction survey ❑ Client satisfaction survey ❑ Client satisfaction survey

❑ Multidisciplinary Team Administered by: Collected by: Entered by:

❑ Child Interview Date: Date: Date:

❑ Medical Examination ❑ Child behavior checklist ❑ Child behavior checklist ❑ Child behavior checklist

❑ Mental Health Services Administered by: Collected by: Entered by:

❑ Victim Advocate Date: Date: Date:

❑ Case Review ❑ Child trauma symptom checklist ❑ Child trauma symptom checklist ❑ Child trauma symptom checklist

❑ Other Administered by: Collected by: Entered by:

Date: Date: Date:

❑ MDT cohesion survey ❑ MDT cohesion survey ❑ MDT cohesion survey

Administered by: Collected by: Entered by:

Date: Date: Date
F–27

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Telephone Interview

Attempts to Contact Participant

Date

Consent Interview

Family ID# Given 1 2 3 4 Conducted Entered

001 Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: By whom: 

002

003

004

Exhibit 9.5. Sample Data Tracking Form: Followup Data Collection

Mail Survey

Family ID# Sent Received Entered

001 Date: Date: Date:

By whom: By whom: By whom:

002

003

004
F–28

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 11.1. Description of Evaluation Users

Name of Audience User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4

Member or Organization Name Name Name Name

Affiliation

Philosophy of evaluation

Relationship to the program

Personal characteristics 

and preferences

Preferred communication 

form and style

Primary areas of concern

Key dates in the decisionmaking process

Required report dates and 

type of report

Political affiliation
F–29

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Exhibit 11.2. Report Schedule

Month Report Is Due

Name of Report Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.

Evaluation Proposal

Provide copies to

First-Quarter Report

Provide copies to

Second-Quarter Report

Provide copies to

Third-Quarter Report

Provide copies to

Final Report

Provide copies to
F–30

APPENDIX F / JULY 04

Exhibit 11.3. Sample Table: Outcome of Trauma Reported by Children, by Age of Child

By Age All Participants

Trauma Symptom Checklist 0–6 7–12 13–18 Total Percent of All 

Cutoff or above Number

(experienced

trauma) Percent of age group 

Below cutoff Number

(did not experience 

trauma) Percent of age group

Totals

Exhibit 11.4. Sample Table: Comparison of Intervention and Comparison Groups

Score on Child Behavior Checklist Client Participants Comparison Participants

High on externalizing Average 74 Average 89

Low on externalizing Average 45 Average 54
G-1

Appendix G

Glossary

(Words in italics are defined elsewhere in the glossary.)

attrition. When participants in an evaluation are no longer available at subsequent data

collection points.

benefit. Net program outcome, usually translated into monetary terms.

collaborative (or participatory) evaluation. An evaluation organized as a team project

in which the evaluator and representatives of one or more stakeholder groups work

together to develop the evaluation plan, conduct the evaluation, and disseminate and use

the results.

comparison group. In a quasi-experimental design, a naturally occurring group of

untreated targets that is compared with the treatment group on outcome measures.

control group. The group that does not receive the treatment (or intervention). In an

experiment, the performance of this group is compared with the treatment group to

assess the effect of the treatment (or intervention). 

cost. The value of each resource that is consumed when the program implements a

service procedure.

cost-benefit analysis. Analytical procedures for determining the economic efficiency of

a program, expressed as the relationship between costs and outcomes, usually measured in monetary terms.

cost-effectiveness. The efficacy of a program in achieving given intervention outcomes

in relation to the program costs.

experimental method. Used to study a phenomenon in which one or more independent variables are manipulated and performance on one or more dependent variables is

measured.

external evaluation. An evaluation in which the evaluator who has primary responsibility

for developing the evaluation plan, conducting the evaluation, and disseminating the

results is not part of the program (e.g., the CAC).

extraneous variable. Any variable that masks the relationship between the independent

variable(s) and the dependent variable(s).

focus group. A small panel, whose members are selected for their knowledge or perspective on a given topic, that is convened to discuss the topic with the assistance of a

facilitator. The discussion is usually recorded and used to identify important themes or to

construct descriptive summaries of views and experiences.
formative evaluation. Evaluation activities undertaken to furnish information that will

guide program improvement. Formative evaluations are aimed specifically at improving

a program or performance based on information from a program monitoring evaluation,

and the information is reported back to program staff. Formative evaluations ensure

that program materials, strategies, and activities are of the highest possible quality and

that the program is feasible, appropriate, meaningful, and acceptable to the target population and users of the program.

generalizability. In experimental designs, being able to extend the results of an experiment beyond the sample tested to the population from which the sample was drawn. In

terms of evaluation, the extent to which results can be extrapolated to similar programs

or from the program as tested to the program as implemented.

impact. The net effect of a program.

incidence. The number of new cases of a particular problem or condition that are identified or arise in a specified area during a specified period of time.

independent variable. A variable systematically manipulated by the experimenter in

order to determine the effect of one variable on another (the dependent variable).

logic model. The assumptions about what the program must do to bring about the

transactions between the target population and the program to produce the intended

changes in social conditions.

outcome variable. A measurable result of services.

power analysis. A statistical analysis that estimates the likelihood of obtaining a statistically significant relation between variables, given various sample sizes and true relations of certain magnitude. Used as a method of determining how many subjects are

needed to ensure there is sufficient power to detect differences between groups (i.e.,

reject the null hypothesis).

pre-post design. A type of quasi-experimental design in which only one or more

before-intervention and after-intervention measures are taken and then compared. 

prevalence. The number of existing cases with a particular condition in a specified area

at a specified time.

process evaluation. A form of program monitoring designed to determine whether the

program is delivered as intended to the targeted recipients.

program evaluation. The use of social science procedures to systematically investigate

the effectiveness of social intervention programs that are adapted to their political and

organizational environments and designed to inform social action in ways that improve

social conditions. Program evaluation is the process of judging whether a program is

achieving or has achieved its intended goals.

program goal. A statement, usually general and abstract, of a desired state toward

which a program is directed.

G–2

APPENDIX G / JULY 04
G–3

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

program monitoring. The systematic documentation of aspects of program performance that indicate whether the program is functioning as intended or according to some

appropriate standard. Monitoring generally involves program performance related to

program process, program outcomes, or both.

program objectives. Specific statements detailing the desired accomplishments of a

program.

program theory. The set of assumptions about how the program is related to the social

benefits it is expected to produce and the strategy and tactics the program has adopted

to achieve its goals and objectives. Two subsets of program theory are impact theory,

relating to the nature of the change in social conditions brought about by program

action, and process theory, which depicts the program’s organizational plan and service

utilization plan.

quasi-experiment. A research design in which treatment and comparison groups are

formed by a procedure other than random assignment.

random assignment. Assignment of potential targets to treatment and control groups

on the basis of chance. Each participant has an equal opportunity of being assigned to

any one of the research conditions.

rate. The proportion of a population with a particular problem, or the occurrence or existence of a particular condition expressed as a proportion of units in the relevant population (e.g., deaths per 1,000 adults).

reliability. The extent to which scores obtained on a measure are reproducible in

repeated administrations, i.e., consistency (provided all relevant measurement conditions are the same).

sample. The group of participants selected from the population who are assumed to

be representative of the population about which an inference is being made.

selection bias. A confounding effect produced by preprogram differences between

program participants and eligible targets who do not participate in the program.

social research methods. Procedures for studying social behavior that are based

on systematic observations and logical rules for drawing inference from those

observations.

summative evaluation. Evaluation activities undertaken to render a summary judgment on certain critical aspects of the program’s performance (for instance, whether

specific goals and objectives were met). 

survey. Systematic collection of information from a defined population, usually by

means of interviews or questionnaires administered to a sample of the population.

target. The unit to which the program intervention is directed (e.g., the family, the multidisciplinary team).

theory. The concept and design of a program.
treatment group. The group that receives the treatment (or intervention).

validity. The extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure.

variable. A thing or event that can be measured or manipulated.

G–4

APPENDIX G / JULY 04
References

Achenbach, T.M. 1992. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3 and 1992 Profile.

Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M., and C. Edelbrock. 1983. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18

and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of

Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M., and C. Edelbrock. 1987. Manual for the Youth Self-Report and Profile.

Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Beauchamp, B., R. Tewksbury, and S. Sanford. 1997. The Final Touch: Effectively

Evaluating Child Advocacy Center Programming. Unpublished manuscript. Washington,

DC: National Children’s Alliance.

Beer, M. 1980. Organization Change and Development: A Systems View. Santa Monica,

CA: Goodyear.

Berliner, L., and D.M. Elliott. 1996. Sexual abuse of children. In J. Briere, L. Berliner, J.A.

Bulkley, C. Jenny, and T. Reid. The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, 51–71.

Boruch, R.F. 1997. Randomized Experiments for Planning and Evaluation: A Practical

Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braskamp, L.A., D.C. Brandenburg, and J.C. Ory. 1987. Lessons about clients’ expectations. In J. Novakowski, ed. The Client Perspective on Education. New Directions for

Program Evaluation 36: 63–74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Burt, M.R., A.V. Harrell, L.C. Newmark, L.Y. Aron, and L.K. Jacobs. 1997. Evaluation

Guidebook for Projects Funded by S.T.O.P. Formula Grants Under the Violence Against

Women Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Butler, E.W., M.A. Adams, G.T. Tsunokai, and M. Neiman. 1998. Evaluating Evaluations of

Anti-Violence Programs. Office of Community Research Projects, Department of

Sociology, University of California, Riverside.

Carnes, C.N. 2001. The National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC) Extended Forensic

Evaluation Model. University of Georgia Center for Continuing Education. Child Sexual

Abuse Investigations: Multidisciplinary Collaborations Web site.

http://childabuse.gactr.uga.edu/both/carnes/carnes1.phtml.

H–1

Appendix H

Other References
H–2

APPENDIX H / JULY 04

Carnes, C.N., C. Wilson, and D. Nelson-Gardell. 1999. Extended Forensic Evaluations

When Child Abuse is Suspected: A Model and Preliminary Data. Child Maltreatment

4(3): 242–254.

Chen, H., and P.H. Rossi. 1992. Using Theory to Improve Program and Policy

Evaluations. New York: Greenwood.

Cohen, J. 1992a. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.

Cohen, J. 1992b. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2d ed.

Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences. 2d ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, H. and L.V. Hedges, eds. 1994. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New

York: Sage.

Craig, J.R., and L.P. Metze. 1986. Methods of Psychological Research. 2d ed. Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Curtis, W.C. 1983. Statistical Concepts for Attorneys: A Reference Guide. Westport, CT:

Quorum.

Dahlberg, L.L., S.B. Toal, and C.B. Behrens, eds. 1998. Measuring Violence-Related

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors Among Youth: A Compendium of Assessment Tools.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control.1

Fine, M.A., and L.A. Kurdek. 1993. Reflections on determining authorship credit and

authorship order on faculty–student collaborations. American Psychologist 48(11):

1141–1147.

Greenstock, J. 1995. Peer Support and Children’s Eyewitness Memory. Dissertation.

Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago.

Groves, R.M. 1989. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: Wiley.

Gully, K.J., H. Britton, K. Hansen, K. Goodwill, and J.L. Nope. 1999. A new measure for

distress during child sexual abuse examinations: The genital examination distress scale.

Child Abuse & Neglect 23(1): 61–70.

Gunn, W.J. 1987. Client concerns and strategies in evaluation studies. In J. Nowakowski,

ed. The Client Perspective on Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation 36:

9–18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hinshaw, A.S. 1995. Toward achieving multidisciplinary professional collaboration.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 26(2): 115–116.

1

This is an excellent resource for instruments.
H–3

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

House, E.R., ed.1983. Philosophy of Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S.L. 2004. A USA national survey of program services provided by child advocacy centers. Child Abuse & Neglect 28: 411–421. 

Jensen, J.M., M. Jacobson, Y. Unrau, and R.L. Robinson. 1996. Intervention for victims

of child sexual abuse: An evaluation of the Children’s Advocacy Model. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal 13(2): 139–156.

Koocher, G.P. 1987. Children under law: The paradigm of consent. In G.B. Melton, ed.

Reforming the Law: Impact of Child Development Research. New York: Guilford Press,

3–26.

Krueger, R.A. 1988. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Lazebnik, R., G.D. Zimet, J. Ebert, T.M. Anglin, P. Williams, D.L. Bunch, and D.P.

Krowchuk. 1994. How children perceive the medical evaluation for suspected sexual

abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 18(9): 739–745.

Mark, M.M., D.A. Hofmann, and C.S. Reichardt. 1992. Testing theories in theory-driven

evaluations: (Tests of) moderation in all things. In H.T. Chen and P.H. Rossi, eds. Using

Theory to Improve Program and Policy Evaluations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,

71–84.

Mohr, L.B. 1995. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Morris, L.L., C.T. Fitz-Gibbon, and M.E. Freeman. 1987. How to Communicate Evaluation

Findings. Newbury Park: Sage.

Myers, J.E.B., K.J. Saywitz, and G.S. Goodman. 1996. Psychological Research on

Children as Witnesses: Practical Implications for Forensic Interviews and Courtroom

Testimony. Pacific Law Journal 28(3): 1–91. 

Newman, B. 1998. The Philadelphia Children’s Advocacy Center Evaluation, 1997.

Philadelphia Child Advocacy Center.

Nowakowski, J., ed. 1987. The Client Perspective on Evaluation. New Directions for

Program Evaluation 36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orwin, R.G. 1997. Twenty-one years old and counting: The interrupted time series

comes of age. In E. Chelimsky and W.R. Shadish, eds. Evaluation for the 21st Century:

A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 443–465.

Pawson, R., and N. Tilley. 1997. An introduction to scientific realist evaluation. In E.

Chelimsky and W.R. Shadish, eds. Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 405–418.
Rossi, P.H., and H.E. Freeman. 1993. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 5th ed.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Rossi, P.H., H.E. Freeman, and M. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th

ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Saywitz, K.J. and R. Nathanson. 1993. Children’s testimony and their perceptions of

stress in and out of the courtroom. Child Abuse & Neglect 17(4): 613–622.

Schuman, H., J.M. Converse, E. Singer, M.R. Frankel, M.B. Glassman, R.M. Groves, L.J.

Magilavy, P.V. Miller, and C.F. Cannell. 1989. The interviewer. In E. Singer and S. Presser,

eds. Survey Research Methods: A Reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

247–323. 

Schwarz, N. 1999. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American

Psychologist 54(2): 93–105.

Scriven, M. 1993. Hard-Won Lessons in Program Evaluation. New Directions for

Program Evaluation 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shapiro, J.Z., and D.L. Blackwell. 1987. Large-scale evaluation on a limited budget: The

partnership experience. In J. Nowakowski, ed. The Client Perspective on Evaluation.

New Directions for Program Evaluation 36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shortell, S.M., and W.C. Richardson. 1978. Health Program Evaluation. St. Louis, MO:

C.V. Mosby.

Siegel, G.C. 1997. Arizona Children’s Justice Project: Final Report. A Retrospective Study

of the Incidence of Coordinated Investigations and Protocol Compliance in Child

Physical and Sexual Abuse Cases in Arizona. Governor’s Division for Children and the

Arizona Children’s Justice Task Force.

Sinacore, J.M., and R.S. Turpin. 1991. Multiple sites in evaluation research: A survey of

organizational and methodological issues. In R.S. Turpin and J.M. Sinacore, eds.

Multisite Evaluations. New Directions for Program Evaluation 50. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 5–18.

Stecher, B.M., and W.A. Davis. 1987. How to Focus an Evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Stern Peck, J., M. Sheinberg, and N.N. Akamatsu. 1995. Forming a consortium: A

design for interagency collaboration in the delivery of services following the disclosure

of incest. Family Process 34: 287–302.

Steward, M.S., M. Schmitz, D.S. Steward, N.R. Joye, and M. Reinhart. 1995. Children’s

anticipation of and response to colposcopic examination. Child Abuse & Neglect 19(8):

997–1005.

Straus, M.A., S.L. Hamby, S. Boney-McCoy, and D.B. Sugarman. 1996. The revised

Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal

of Family Issues 17: 283–316.

H–4

APPENDIX H / JULY 04
H–5

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

The Listening Place. 1998. Evaluation of Services. Ellicott City, MD: Howard County

Child Advocacy Center, The Listening Place.

Thompson, N.J., and H.O. McClintock. 1998. Demonstrating Your Program’s Worth: A

Primer on Evaluation for Programs to Prevent Unintentional Injury. Atlanta, GA: Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Trochim, W.M.K., and J.A. Cook. 1992. Pattern matching in theory-driven evaluation:

A field example from psychiatric rehabilitation. In H. Chen and P.H. Rossi, eds. Using

Theory to Improve Program and Policy Evaluations. New York: Greenwood, 49–69.

Udinsky, B.F., S.J. Osterlind, and S.W. Lynch. 1981. Evaluation Resource Handbook:

Gathering, Analyzing, Reporting Data. San Diego, CA: EDITS Publishers.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. The Program Manager’s Guide

to Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

United Way of America. 1996. Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach.

Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

Weiner, B.A., and R.M. Wettstein. 1993. Legal Issues in Mental Health Care. New York:

Plenum.

Yates, B.T. 1996. Analyzing Costs, Procedures, Processes, and Outcomes in Human

Services. Applied Social Research Methods Series 42. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
H–6

APPENDIX H / JULY 04

Additional Evaluation Resources 

Child Advocacy Centers

Many CACs engage in evaluation and can serve as a source via their experience. Below

is a table of types of evaluations and the centers that are conducting or have conducted

those evaluations.

Type of Evaluation Instrument Center 

Children’s Perceptions of the Medical Feeling Faces Instrument Lakewood, CO

Examination or Medical Examination Louisville, KY

Questionnaire St. Paul, MN

Las Vegas, NV

Portland, OR

Children’s Perceptions of the Before-and-After Questionnaire Salt Lake City, UT 

Child Interview 

Parent’s Perceptions of the Medical Parent Survey Austin, TX 

Examination, the Child Interview, 

and Therapy

The Community’s Perceptions Community Survey Swainsboro, GA

of the CAC

Staff Satisfaction Staff Survey Newton, NJ

Youth Satisfaction Youth Questionnaire Colorado Springs, CO

Child Satisfaction Pictorial Child Satisfaction Boise, ID

Questionnaire Philadelphia, PA

Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit costs per hour Jackson, MS

Albuquerque, NM

Multisite Evaluation A 6-year multisite evaluation of CACs Coordinated by the Family 

Research Laboratory, NH
H–7

A RESOURCE FOR EVALUATING CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

Internet Resources

Evaluation Resources on the Internet

Organization Purpose Web Site

American Statistical Association (AMSTAT) The aim of AMSTAT Online is to be http://www.amstat.org/

“Statistics Central” for the United 

States of America.

American Evaluation Association Electronic lists and links of interest http://www.eval.org/ 

to evaluators. EvaluationLinks/links.htm

American Professional Society on the Professional reference source. http://www.apsac.org/ 

Abuse of Children abhistory.html

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Online resource guide for evaluating http://www.bja. 

Office of Justice Programs, criminal justice programs. evaluationwebsite.org

U.S. Department of Justice

The Center for Educational Program and policy development http://www.cerd.org/services/ 

Research and Development and evaluation.

The Center for Prevention Research CPRD designs needs assessment and pro- http://www.cprd.uiuc.edu/ 

and Development (CPRD) gram evaluation instruments. Staff can about.htm 

collect, analyze, and interpret your data.

Center for Program Evaluation, Evaluation and research center. http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu. 

Melbourne, Australia au/EPM/CPE/

Child Welfare League of America Conducts research and http://www.cwla.org/programs/

evaluation on child welfare. researchdata/default.htm

(CYFERNet) Children, Youth, and Families CYFERNet provides program, evaluation, http://www.cyfernet.org/ 

Education and Research Network and technology assistance for children, evaluation.html

youth, and family community-based 

programs. 

The Evaluation Center at To increase the use and improve the http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/ 

Western Michigan University quality of evaluations. Site includes ess.html

glossary of evaluation terminology, 

answer desk, directory of evaluators, 

professional development, instruments 

exchange, and resource links.

The Evaluators’ Institute Offers short-term professional http://www.evaluatorsinstitute.com/ 

development courses for practicing 

evaluators.

Gene Shackman’s List of Free This page lists free resources for methods http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/ 

Evaluation Resources on the Web in evaluation and social research. The focus 

is on how to do evaluation research and what 

methods are used.
Evaluation Resources on the Internet (continued)

Organization Purpose Web Site

Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) The Evaluation Exchange is an http://gseweb.harvard.edu/ 

interactive forum for the exchange ~hfrp/eval/

of ideas, lessons, and practices in 

the evaluation of family support and 

community development programs, 

promoting discussion among persons 

from a variety of organizational 

affiliations and viewpoints.

INNONET (Innovation Network) Resources for nonprofit organizations. http://www.innonet.org

Minority Issues in Evaluation (MIE) (part The mission of the MIE is (1) to raise http://www.winternet.com/ 

of the American Evaluation Association) the level of discourse on the role of ~octsys/aea/ 

people of color in the improvement of 

the theory, practice, and methods of 

evaluation, and (2) to increase the participation of members of racial and ethnic 

minority groups in the evaluation profession.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse Offers information related to key preven- http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov 

and Neglect Information tion topics, such as evaluation materials

to assess program and cost-effectiveness. 

National Coalition Against Domestic Information reference. http://www.ncadv.org/about.htm 

Violence (NCADV)

National Indian Child Welfare Information exchange. http://www.nicwa.org/index.asp 

Association (NICWA)

UNICEF Research and Evaluation The results of policy analysis, evaluations, http://www.unicef.org/ 

and research, as well as information on the evaldatabase

methodologies developed and used. 

Selected Books Available Through the Internet

Title Publisher Web Site

New Approaches to Evaluating Com- The Aspen Institute, Queenstown, MD http://www.aspenroundtable.org 

munity Initiatives, volume 1 (Concepts, 

methods, and contexts). J. Connell, 

A. Kubisch, L. Schorr, and C.H. Weiss. 

(1995); volume 2 (Theory, measurement, 

and analysis) K. Fulbright-Anderson, 

A. Kubisch, and J. Connell. (1998).

Outcome Measures for Child Child Welfare League of America, http://www.cwla.org/

Welfare Services. S. Magura Washington, DC.

and B.S. Moses. (1986).

Performance Measurement: The Urban Institute, Washington, DC http://www.urban.org/pubs/

Getting Results. H. Hatry. (1999). pm/index.htm

H–8

APPENDIX H / JULY 04
About the National Institute of Justice 

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Institute provides objective, independent, evidence-based knowledge and tools to enhance 

the administration of justice and public safety. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3723). 

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the 

U.S. Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. The Institute actively solicits the views of 

criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge 

and tools to guide policy and practice. 

Strategic Goals 

NIJ has seven strategic goals grouped into three categories: 

Creating relevant knowledge and tools 

1. Partner with State and local practitioners and policymakers to identify social science research 

and technology needs. 

2. Create scientific, relevant, and reliable knowledge—with a particular emphasis on terrorism, 

violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness, and community-based efforts—to enhance 

the administration of justice and public safety. 

3. Develop affordable and effective tools and technologies to enhance the administration of 

justice and public safety. 

Dissemination 

4. Disseminate relevant knowledge and information to practitioners and policymakers in an 

understandable, timely, and concise manner. 

5. Act as an honest broker to identify the information, tools, and technologies that respond to 

the needs of stakeholders. 

Agency management 

6. Practice fairness and openness in the research and development process. 

7. Ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, cost-effectiveness, and integrity in the 

management and conduct of NIJ activities and programs. 

Program Areas 

In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the following program areas: 

crime control and prevention, including policing; drugs and crime; justice systems and offender 

behavior, including corrections; violence and victimization; communications and information 

technologies; critical incident response; investigative and forensic sciences, including DNA; lessthan-lethal technologies; officer protection; education and training technologies; testing and 

standards; technology assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies; field testing of 

promising programs; and international crime control. 

In addition to sponsoring research and development and technology assistance, NIJ evaluates 

programs, policies, and technologies. NIJ communicates its research and evaluation findings 

through conferences and print and electronic media. 

To find out more about the National 

Institute of Justice, please visit: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

or contact: 

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org 
DOJ/NIJ *NCJ~192825* 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

JULY 04 

NCJ 192825 

MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”) 

DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA 

(INK NOR VARNISH) 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91