Crystal Mitchell, executive director of the Louisiana Alliance of Children's Advocacy Centers (LACAC), told the joint Senate and House Health and Welfare Committee on Oct. 13 that the state chapter supports 14 local child advocacy centers (CACs) with training, accreditation and technical assistance and that the centers served 7,563 children in 2024 and 5,714 children from January through June 2025.

Mitchell said LACAC administers state allocations to CACs under a funding formula that factors child population, National Children's Alliance accreditation status and the presence of satellite offices. She described LACAC's role as a state chapter that retains a portion of state appropriations for administrative support while passing the remainder to the local centers. "LACAC does retain a small portion of 10% for administrative fees," Mitchell said, adding that the 10% supports six staff who manage grants, training, finance and technical assistance to local CACs.

Committee members pressed LACAC on how funding flows and what happens when individual legislators seek to appropriate supplemental funds directly to a local CAC. Several lawmakers said the Legislature's long‑standing practice of line-item budgeting creates expectations that money appropriated for a named recipient be spent for that purpose and queried whether LACAC's central allocation model could conflict with that practice. Committee members also questioned LACAC's use of a reimbursement model for CAC payouts and whether that approach requires local centers to have working capital before they can draw down state funds.

Local CAC leaders and LACAC directors who testified described severe capacity and geographic access gaps in some regions. Kimberly Young, executive director of Hearts of Hope Children's Advocacy Center, said some of her service region's satellite offices are not staffed full time, forcing interviewers to travel long distances to serve children. Young described workforce shortages for forensic interviewers and clinicians and said some centers may struggle to interview all referred children in a timely way during staffing shortages.

Why it matters: Child advocacy centers perform forensic interviews, victim advocacy, medical exams and therapy for children who may have been abused. How the state distributes and administers funding affects whether centers can hire staff, keep satellite offices open and deliver forensic medical evaluations and evidence-based therapy, particularly in rural parishes.

Key numbers and disputes: Mitchell said LACAC has six state staff and that the 14 local centers together employ dozens of frontline staff (Mitchell stated there are 36 forensic interviewers, 32 on-site therapists and other personnel statewide). Mitchell said the state funding history began in 2020 with a $750,000 appropriation; slides shown to the committee included a 2025 total allocation figure that committee members cited during questioning (Mitchell provided figures during the presentation; committee members requested and discussed detailed line-item allocations during the hearing). LACAC explained that its model reimburses local centers monthly based on documented expenditures and that LACAC retains 10% of certain appropriations to fund statewide training and administrative oversight; committee members said that practice can reduce the amount available to a given center if supplemental or capital allocations are routed through House Bill 1.

Committee concerns and requests: Lawmakers asked LACAC to clarify (1) how supplemental member appropriations to individual CACs are treated in the state formula, (2) whether House Bill 1 allocations routed through LACAC are subject to the 10% retention and (3) whether reimbursement-based distributions impede centers that lack upfront funds. Mitchell said LACAC’s membership agreement and public policy attempt to define solicitation and receipt of funds and that the association is revising its membership agreement to address member concerns.

No formal votes were taken during the discussion. Several legislators said they would review LACAC’s membership agreement, audit records and the program's reimbursement process and would consider whether legislative changes or guidance are appropriate.

What LACAC asked for: Mitchell asked the committee to support continued state funding for CACs, to maintain LACAC’s ability to provide statewide training and quality assurance, and to consider statutory or budget guidance that would address the reimbursement and supplemental‑appropriation issues raised in the hearing.