Childrens Advocacy Center of Delaware, Inc. Joint Finance Committee - PDF document

Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware, Inc. Joint Finance Committee State Funding Request FY 2016 Contents • Budget Request • Outcome Measures Survey Response Summary • FY 2014 Caseload Summary Randall E. Williams Executive Director February 19, 2015

Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware Joint Finance Committee State Budget Request FY 2016 990,800.00 FY 2015 State Funding Allocation + 8,500.00 Requested Increase (1% Salary increase)* $ 999,300.00 Total FY 2016 Request * To provide funding for a general salary increase for CAC employees in the event that State employees receive a general salary increase in FY 2016.

Outcome Measurement Survey Highlights Caregiver Survey Outcome Measurement Statement: The Children’s Advocacy Center facilitates healing for the child and the caregivers. 98.6% of the respondents agreed that their child felt safe at the CAC. 100% of the respondents agreed that CAC staff made sure they understood the reason for his/her visit to the Center. 100% of the respondents agreed that he/she and the child were greeted and received attention in a timely manner. 98.6% of the respondents agreed that the process for the interview of his/her child at the CAC was clearly explained to him/her. Multidisciplinary Team Survey Outcome Measurement Statement: The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) approach results in more collaborative and efficient case investigations. 98.6% of the respondents agreed that team members share information relative to cases. 93% of the respondents agreed that team members demonstrate respect for the perspectives and informational needs of other team members throughout the process. 95.8% of the respondents agreed that the CAC/MDT Model fosters collaboration among MDT members/agencies. 97.3% of the respondents agreed that clients served through the CAC/MDT process benefit from the collaborative approach of our multidisciplinary team.

Caregiver Survey Response Summary October 2014 – January 2015 Outcome Measurement Statement: The Children’s Advocacy Center facilitates healing for the child and the Caregivers. Caregiver Responses Survey Statements Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly I don't Agree Agree Disagree Disagree know My child felt safe at the center. 63 85.1% 10 13.5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1.4% My child's questions were answered to our 54 76.1% 6 8.5% 2 2.8% 0 0% 9 12.7% satisfaction. The center staff made sure I understood the 71 94.7% 4 5.3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% reason for my visit to the center today. When I came to the center, my child and I were greeted and received attention in a 73 98.6% 1 1.4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% timely manner. I was given information about the various services and programs provided by the 66 89.2% 6 8.1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.7% center. My questions were answered to my 67 91.8% 3 4.1% 1 1.4% 0 0% 2 2.7% satisfaction. The process for the interview of my child at 69 94.5% 3 4.1% 0 0% 1 1.4% 0 0% the center was clearly explained to me. I was given information about possible behaviors I might expect from my child 55 74.3% 9 12.2% 4 5.4% 4 5.4% 2 2.7% after we leave the center today and in the days and weeks ahead. Overall, the staff members at the center 72 96.0% 3 4.0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% were friendly and pleasant. After our visit at the center today, I feel I know what to expect with the situation 59 78.7% 9 12.0% 3 4.0% 1 1.3% 3 4.0% facing my child and me. The center staff provided me with resources to support my child and respond 64 85.3% 7 9.3% 2 2.7% 0 0% 2 2.7% to his or her needs in the days and weeks ahead. Center staff were courteous, respectful and 71 94.7% 4 5.3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% helpful. The Center was comfortable and child 69 93.2% 3 4.0% 1 1.4% 0 0% 1 1.4% friendly. My overall experience at the Center was 59 84.3% 8 11.4% 2 2.9% 0 0% 1 1.4% excellent. Surve vey' y's I s Issu ssued 13 134 Sur urvey ey's R Ret etur urned ed 82 82 Res espons onse R Rat ate 61. 1.2%

CAC L Locat ation o n of Ser ervices es 23.9% Wilmington (17) Dover (18) 50.7% Georgetown (36) 25.4% Child's G Gender nder 28.4% Female (53) Male (21) 71.6% Chi hild's A Age ge 0% 19.5% 26.0% 0 - 5 (20) 6 - 12 (42) 13 - 17 (15) 18 and above (0) 54.5% Child ld's E Ethnic icit ity 6.7% 17.3% 6.7% African American (13) 1.3% Hispanic (8) White/Caucasian (43) 10.7% Native American or Alaska Native (1) Multi-racial (5) Other (please specify) (5) 57.3%

MDT Survey Response Summary – January 2014 Outcome Measurement Statement: The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) approach results in more collaborative and efficient case investigations. MDT Responses N/A Survey Statements Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly to my Agree Agree Disagree Disagree position Team members willingly share information 60 83.3% 11 15.3% 0 0% 1 1.4% relevant to our cases. I have the opportunity to provide input into the forensic interview process, thereby securing the 55 76.4% 13 18.1% 0 0% 2 2.8% 2 2.8% level of information needed to fulfill my area of responsibility. Members of the multidisciplinary team demonstrate respect for the perspectives and 53 73.6% 14 19.4% 4 5.6% 1 1.4% informational needs of other team members throughout the process. The Children's Advocacy Center/MDT model 52 72.2% 17 23.6% 3 4.2% 0 0% fosters collaboration among the MDT members/agencies. Case Review Team meetings are a productive 18 25.0% 14 19.4% 9 12.5% 5 6.9% 26 36.1% use of my time. Case Review Team meetings are useful during 16 22.2% 19 26.4% 9 12.5% 6 8.3% 22 30.6% the investigation process. Other team members demonstrate a clear understanding of my specific agency-related role 44 61.1% 24 33.3% 4 5.6% 0 0% and turn to me for information, expertise and direction as appropriate. I believe the clients served through the 57 79.2% 13 18.1% 2 2.8% 0 0% CAC/MDT process benefit from the collaborative approach of our multidisciplinary team. My supervisor/agency is supportive of the Children's Advocacy Center/MDT model and the 58 80.6% 12 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.8% work of the multidisciplinary team. All members of the multidisciplinary team, as 42 58.3% 23 31.9% 6 8.3% 1 1.4% defined by the needs of specific cases, are actively involved. The Children's Advocacy Center provides information and resources that assist me in my 45 62.5% 23 31.9% 2 2.8% 2 2.8% work with these cases. The Children's Advocacy Center provides an environment where I feel safe expressing my 51 70.8% 13 18.1% 5 6.9% 3 4.2% concerns or making suggestions about the functioning of the multidisciplinary team. I understand the rationale for employing a 64 88.9% 5 6.9% 3 4.2% 0 0% CAC/MDT model when responding to allegations of child abuse. Survey's Issued 428 Survey's Returned 74 Response Rate 17.3%

Respond onden ents b by P Profes essional onal Discipl pline 1.4% 8.1% Law Enforcement (45) Child Protective Services (22) 29.7% Prosecution (6) 60.8% Other (please specify) (1) Count ounty O Of The he MD MDT 8.1% 31.1% New Castle (23) 31.1% Kent (22) Sussex (23) Multiple Counties (6) 29.7% Res espo ponde dent nts Tenu enure W e With The MD he MDT 9.3% 25.3% 45.3% Less than 1 year (7) 1 to 3 years (19) 4 to 6 years (15) 7 years or more (34) 20.0%

Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware Caseload Summary FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/31/2014)

Cases Received FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) Cases Received FY 1998- FY 2014 (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 1800 1643 1551 1556 1520 1484 1600 1356 1287 1400 1274 1274 1205 1198 1100 1200 928 1000 833 813 743 Cases Received 800 600 314 400 200 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Forensic Interviews Conducted FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) Forensic Interviews Conducted 1996 - FY 2014 (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 1480 1478 1475 1600 1422 1404 1400 1194 1159 1079 1115 1200 1069 951 1007 1025 930 1000 840 843 800 638 581 600 310 400 135 200 34 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Calendar Year Total Fiscal Year Totals (July 1 - Jun 30)

Case Types FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) Case Types .2% FY 2014 1.3% .4% (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 1.8% .6% 1.0% Sexual (1,217) 8.5% Physical (339) Witness Interview (152) Sexual/Physical (18) 19.0% Neglect (11) Emotional (3) Physical/Emotional (23) Neglect/ Emotional (7) 68.2% Other (14) Gender of Child FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) Gender of Child FY 2014 (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 39.7% 60.3% Female (933) Male (614)

County of Alleged Abuse FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) County of Alleged Abuse FY2014 (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 1.9% 28.1% 31.9% Kent (504) New Castle (601) Sussex (444) Out-of-State (28) 38.1% Ethnicity of Child FY 2014 (7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014) Ethnicity of Child FY 2014 .3% 0% (7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014) 0% 5.2% White (770) 1.4% 8.1% African American (555) Hispanic (127) Other (17) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islandee (0) 49.4% Asian (6) Native American/Alaska Native (0) 35.6% Two or more races (81)