Measuring impact of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres: Co-developing a theory of change and minimum dataset for Alberta Child and Youth Advocacy Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need to demonstrate the immediate and long-term outcomes for Child and Youth Advocacy Centres (CYACs) and the vulnerable children and youth they serve through ongoing evaluation and research. Collecting and using high-quality data helps CYACs improve services, strengthen program design, and make informed decisions about child abuse prevention, investigation, and response. When consistent data is collected across CYACs it reveals child abuse trends, highlights areas for program improvement, and identifies gaps in understanding of child abuse. CYACs can leverage outcome data to advocate for environmental change and influence policies to improve outcomes for children and youth impacted by child abuse. The Alberta Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres worked together to establish a minimum dataset for CYACs. This collaborative effort was born out of a shared vision that by strengthening and establishing consistent approaches to data collection, they could collectively impact the model to continue providing responsive services to the children and youth they serve. In this discussion article we present the co-developed theory of change, minimum dataset and core outcomes to support CYACs in robust impact measurement. • Using data helps Child and Youth Advocacy Centres improve services and advocate for better outcomes. By collecting and analyzing data, Child and Youth Advocacy Centres can spot trends, identify gaps, and make informed decisions that enhance support for children and youth affected by abuse. • Child and Youth Advocacy Centres rely on five key foundational enablers to deliver coordinated, multi-system response. These foundational enablers promote an integrated approach to essential services: that is, collaborative case review, child forensic interviews, medical care, mental health support, and victim supports and systems. • A shared framework helps Child and Youth Advocacy Centres measure impact and improve services. A co-developed theory of change, along with a core dataset and outcomes, enables Child and Youth Advocacy Centres to track progress and adapt to the needs of children and youth. • Rolling out the dataset requires thoughtful planning at all levels. Successfully using the minimum dataset depends on careful coordination across both provincial and local Child and Youth Advocacy Centres.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".