| |
If
you prefer to read this article separately from the other
articles listed in this section, please |
|
| |
 |
Perspectives
on CASA Programs
Court
Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs):
A Review of Their Effectiveness*
By Pat Litzelfelner, Ph.D.**
This review summarizes empirical research findings about the
impact that Court Appointed Special Advocates (hereinafter,
CASAs) have on child outcomes, foster care processes, and
court processes. This body of research describes the positive
role that CASAs have played in the lives of children caught
in the child welfare system. Research on CASA effectiveness
is relevant to the field of juvenile justice, as children
exposed to the juvenile justice system have often had earlier
exposure to the child welfare system. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the American Bar Association
have long been supporters of CASA programs.(1)
Since
1974, the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
has mandated that children involved in judicial proceedings
as a result of abuse or neglect be appointed a Guardian Ad
Litem (hereinafter, GAL) to represent them in court proceedings.(2)
Dissatisfied with the work of the attorney GALs, a Seattle
judge conceived the idea of using trained community volunteers
as GALs.(3) These citizen
volunteers later became known as CASAs.(4)
Since
this 1977 decision by the Washington state court, CASA programs
have spread nationwide. In the year 2000, 898 CASA programs
with approximately 58,600 volunteers represented 229,000 children.(5)
This represented a major increase from 1977 when there was
only one program in place with 110 volunteers serving 498
children.(6)
CASAs
are trained community volunteers who make a commitment for
the duration of a child's involvement with the child welfare
system. Because CASA volunteers are usually assigned only
one case at a time, they are able to give more time and attention
to a case than attorney GALs who commonly have large caseloads.
Furthermore, volunteer CASA or volunteer CASA/GALs act as
an impartial influence in judicial proceedings because they
advocate only for the child and do not side with either the
state or the parent. Consequently, children involved in judicial
matters benefit from the advocacy efforts of a neutral party.
There
are four CASA program models used across the United States.
The first model, used by approximately half of the CASA programs
nationwide, is the GAL model in which the CASA volunteer is
appointed as the child's GAL.(7)
Under the second model, the Friend of the Court model, the
CASA volunteer serves as an impartial observer, conducts investigations,
and makes recommendations to the court.(8)
Approximately 25 percent of all CASA programs use this model.(9)
The third model is the Team model, which is used by approximately
15 percent of the programs.(10)
Under the Team model, the court appoints a CASA volunteer
and an attorney to perform the functions of the GAL.(11)
Finally, under the fourth model, the Monitor model, the CASA
volunteer monitors court orders for compliance and alerts
the court about failures to comply.(12)
This model is used least, and the Monitor-type CASAs
have little, if any, contact with the children and families
and are seldom engaged in advocacy activities.(13)
Since
the inception of the CASA movement, only a handful of studies
have been conducted on how CASAs effect the lives of the children
they serve. This article reviews this research, specifically
focusing on the effectiveness of CASAs in helping achieve
positive outcomes for children.
I.
Description of the CASA Studies
The
results of eleven empirical studies utilizing quantitative
methodology are described in this article.
Litzelfelner
conducted a quasi-experimental longitudinal study in Kansas
from 1994 through 1996 using information on two groups of
children in foster care in two counties.(14)
Specifically, 119 children with CASAs were compared to 81
children without CASAs by taking into account several variables.(15)
The study examined case closure rates, final placements, length
of time in the system, placement stability, services, court
processing times, court continuances, and types of placement.(16)
All children in the study had attorney GAL representation.(17)
A
study by McRoy examined case records of two groups of children
from two counties in east Texas whose cases had reached closure
the previous year.(18)
Specifically, eleven children who had a CASA volunteer assigned
to them were compared to eleven children who did not.(19)
The two groups were matched according to gender and ethnicity
in order to examine group differences in outcome and process
variables.(20) The variables
examined included length of time in the system and placement
stability.(21)
A
study by the Oregon Governor's Task Force on Juvenile Justice
collected data retrospectively from statewide records and
also conducted informal surveys about effective representation
for children.(22) The
Task Force compared the length of time in the system and the
types of placement for children who had been represented by
a team model to outcomes of children without any representation.(23)
Smith
conducted a study which utilized Texas state database records
for 1991 and 1992 to evaluate CASA effectiveness.(24)
Two groups of children, 307 children who had been assigned
a CASA volunteer and 306 children who had attorney representation
only, were compared as to outcome and process measures.(25)
Of relevance were the findings on the children's final placements,
their length of time spent in the system, and their placement
stability.(26)
Another
study, by Abramson, was conducted in Fresno, California.(27)
Twenty eight children who entered the court system during
the course of the study were randomly assigned to the program
and assigned a volunteer.(28)
The same number of children who entered the court system but
were not assigned to the program were considered the control
group.(29) Some of the
variables compared for the two groups included the types of
final placement, rates of re-entry into the system, and case
plan goals.(30)
Leung conducted a quasi-experimental study using data from
the Denver Juvenile Court system for 1990, in which 66 children
with CASA volunteers were compared to 131 children without
CASA volunteers.(31)
Specifically, the outcomes considered included placement types
and placement stability.(32)
Poertner
and Press also conducted a quasi-experimental study in Kansas
City using information from case records.(33)
They compared 61 children who had a CASA volunteer as their
GAL to 148 children who had a staff-appointed attorney as
their GAL.(34) The children
were compared as to whether they received a final placement
and the types of placement, the rate of re-entry into foster
care, the length of time spent in the system, the court processing
time, the case plan reviews, court continuances, and services
ordered or provided.(35)
Condelli
conducted a two-year nationwide study that compared the following
five models of representation for children: a private attorney,
a staff attorney, a law student, a CASA volunteer teamed with
a staff attorney, and a CASA volunteer independently representing
the child.(36) Condelli
selected nine sites and chose twenty-five cases at each of
the study sites.(37)
The data was collected retrospectively from case file information
and the following variables were analyzed for group differences:
length of time in the system, court processing time, case
plan goals, case plan reviews, type of placement, placement
stability, and services provided or ordered.(38)
A
study by CSR, Inc. provided a follow-up study to Condelli's
1988 study.(39) This
1990 study compared three models of representation for children:
staff attorney, private attorney and volunteer CASA.(40)
The follow-up study focused on describing the roles and activities
of the different models of child representation.(41)
The
Connecticut Study by Wert, Fein and Haller examined outcomes
for children in a county served by community volunteers (not
a sanctioned CASA program) to outcomes for children in a county
where volunteers were not utilized.(42)
Some of the outcome variables considered were case closure
and resolution, length of time in the system, court processing
time, and case planning goals.(43)
The
last study reviewed was conducted in Flint, Michigan by Duquette
and Ramsey.(44) They
compared the effectiveness of three models of representation:
citizen volunteers teamed with court appointed attorneys (not
a sanctioned CASA program), law students, and private attorneys.(45)
II.
CASA Study Findings on Child Outcomes
Congress,
in enacting the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
of 1980, recognized the importance of placing children in
safe, permanent homes and the detrimental effects of multiple
placements and long-term foster care on the lives of children.(46)
This review, in part, describes the extent to which CASAs
have been instrumental in addressing these concerns. Specifically,
the studies examined here describe whether and how CASAs are
helping to realize some of the objectives of the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.(47)
For
the purpose of comparison, the child outcomes reviewed include
case closure and resolution, types of final placement, re-entry
rates into the system, and the length of time children are
under court jurisdiction. Presented below are the studies'
findings regarding the effect of CASAs on each of these outcomes.
A.
Case closure and resolution
Case closure is achieved when a final placement is made for
a child. Three of the CASA studies examined case closure rates
as an outcome measure.(48)
One found no difference for children with or without CASA
volunteers.(49) A second
found that case closure with the court was quicker for children
with citizen volunteers than children without volunteers.(50)
And the third found that children with a community volunteer
took less time to reach case closure than children without
a volunteer.(51)
B.
Final placement
According to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and
current child welfare practices, a permanent placement for
a child involved with the child welfare system is defined
as the reunification of the child with his/her biological
family, placement with relatives or legal guardians, or adoption.(52)
Long-term foster care is not considered a permanent placement.
Five
of the studies reviewed specifically examined final placement
as an outcome measure.(53)
While three of the studies discovered that children with CASAs
were more likely to be adopted or to achieve a final placement
than children without CASAs,(54)
one of the studies found no differences in final placements
for children with or without CASAs.(55)
The fifth study found no difference in the number of children
placed with relatives based on three models of representation.(56)
C.
Child re-entry
Data regarding re-abuse rates are difficult to obtain because
the re-abuse of children after discharge from the child welfare
system often goes unreported. Due to this difficulty, re-entry
rates are often used as the best obtainable measure regarding
child safety and permanency.(57)
Although
three of the studies reviewed here considered re-entry rates
as an outcome measure, the results of these studies are inconclusive
as to whether CASAs have any effect on re-entry rates.(58)
For example, on the one hand, Abramson's study found that
petitions alleging new incidents of abuse or neglect were
more frequently filed in the control group cases than in cases
with CASAs and that children with CASAs were less likely to
re-enter the foster care system than children without CASA
volunteers.(59) In contast,
the Duquette and Ramsey study demonstrated that when the child's
GAL had special training in child abuse and neglect, the child
was actually more likely to re-enter foster care at a later
date than children whose GALs did not have special training.(60)
Furthermore, the Poertner & Press study found no difference
in the re-entry rates for children assigned CASAs versus court
appointed attorneys as GALs.(61)
Therefore, the researchers concluded that children with CASA
representation did as well as children with attorney representation
in terms of re-entry rates.(62)
These disparate findings suggest that more research is needed
to determine whether CASAs have any effect on reentry rates.
D. Timely achievement of permanence
The timely achievement of permanence for children is also
considered an important outcome in child welfare practices
because it is believed to be in the best interest of the child
to move through the system quickly and establish permanency
in a family home. Seven of the studies considered the length
of time children with and without CASAs spent in the system
(Litzelfelner; Condelli; Poertner & Press; Smith; Wert,
et al; McRoy and the Oregon Governor's Task Force on Juvenile
Justice).(63) However,
like the re-entry rate results, these studies also were inconclusive
as to whether CASAs positively affected the length of time
children spent in the system.
Two
of the studies found that the children with CASAs spent less
time in the system than children without CASAs.(64)
While this suggests a positive effect on this child outcome,
three other studies contradicted this result. Specifically,
the three studies found that children with CASAs spent longer
time in the system than children without CASAs.(65)
In addition, two other studies found few or no differences
between lengths of time in the system.(66)
III.
CASA Study Findings on Foster Care and Court Processes
This section presents the findings on foster care and court
process activities. Specifically, the outcomes that are reviewed
include: court processing time, case plan goals, case plan
reviews, court continuances, placement in the least restrictive
setting, placement stability, and the number and types of
services provided to children and families.
A.
Court processing time
Court
processing time is the time from the initial protective custody
order to the initial court hearing. Court processing time
affects the amount of time children are involved in the child
welfare system and the time it takes to achieve permanency.
Five of the studies examined whether CASAs made a difference
with respect to this process outcome.(67)
Four of the five found no differences in court processing
time based on the model of representation or the appointment
of a CASA volunteer.(68)
The fifth study found that children with assigned volunteers
moved through the court process more quickly than those who
did not have a volunteer.(69)
B.
Case plan goals
Under
the Adoption and Safe Families Act, child welfare agencies
are instructed to write case plans which reflect permanency
goals.(70) Three of
the studies reviewed here indicated that CASAs positively
affect permanency planning. For example, the first of these
studies found fewer children with CASAs, compared to children
without CASAs, that had long-term foster care as their case
plan goals, and that children with CASAs were more likely
to have case goals of placement with parents or relatives,
or adoption.(71) The
second study discovered that children with CASAs had a higher
number of case goals changed from reunification to adoption
than children with other types of representation.(72)
And the third study determined that children with a community
volunteer were "freed up" for adoption faster than
children who did not have a volunteer.(73)
C.
Case reviews
The Adoption and Safe Families Act mandated that case reviews
be held at least every six months by the child welfare agency,
as well as by the judicial system.(74)
Only two of the studies examined this process outcome. The
first of these found that for children with CASA representation,
there was less time between court reviews than for those under
other GAL models.(75)
The Poertner and Press study discovered no difference between
CASA and comparison cases on the number of case reviews.(76)
Thus, while these studies indicate that CASAs may speed up
the process by which case reviews take place, they do not
indicate that CASAs lead to a greater total number of case
reviews.
D.
Court continuances
Court
continuances also were included as an outcome measure because
they delay movement and decisions for children and because
they affect the amount of time children are under court jurisdiction.
Court continuances may occur when a judge needs to reschedule
a hearing due to an overloaded docket, a scheduling conflict
or by the request of one of the parties. Although two of the
studies measured the number of court continuances children
experienced, neither study found a difference between CASA
and comparison cases for the total number of court continuances.(77)
E.
Placement in the least restrictive setting while in care
Another process measure considered was placement. This outcome
is important because children should be placed in the least
restrictive setting consistent with their needs while involved
in the child welfare system. Litzelfelner's study found no
differences in the type of placement for children with CASAs
and children without CASAs throughout the course of the study.(78)
Litzelfelner, along with one other study, discovered no differences
in the amount of time children spent in the home of a biological
parent or relative based on the model of representation or
the assignment of a CASA volunteer.(79)
Three
of the studies reported positive findings for children with
CASAs compared to their counterparts. Condelli reported that
children who had CASAs were more likely to be placed with
siblings while in care than were children without CASA representation.(80)
The two other studies showed that children with CASAs spent
less time in out-of-home placements.(81)
Notwithstanding these positive findings, Poertner and Press
discovered that children with CASAs spent less time in their
own home than children with attorney representation.(82)
F.
Placement stability
When
it is necessary to remove a child from the home of a biological
parent for safety reasons, it is desirable that the child
not experience multiple foster care placements — what is
commonly known as "foster care drift."(83)
Five studies examined whether children with CASAs experienced
fewer placements after their removal. Of the five studies
reviewed, only one concluded that children with CASAs experienced
fewer placements than children without CASAs.(84)
Three of the studies actually found that children with CASAs
had more placements after removal than children without CASAs.(85)
The fifth study found no difference, however, in the number
of placements based on the model of representation.(86)
G.
Services
Another
foster care process associated with positive case outcomes
is the number and types of services families and children
receive while involved with the child welfare system. Five
studies examined whether children with CASAs received more
services than other children. Litzelfelner found more services
were provided to children and families with a CASA volunteer
compared to children and families who did not have a CASA
volunteer.(87) Poertner
and Press also showed that more services were ordered for
children with CASAs, but found no difference in the number
of services ordered for the family for those with CASAs than
those without CASAs.(88)
C.S.R., Inc. and Condelli found that children with CASAs had
more treatment, evaluation, and services ordered per court
hearing than children with other types of representation.(89)
This research also showed that CASAs were more likely to recommend
appropriate services than attorneys.(90)
Lastly, Duquette and Ramsey demonstrated that children with
trained GALs had more orders for treatment and services than
children whose GALs did not have special training.(91)
IV. Discussion of Findings
The number of children involved with the child welfare system
continues to rise and there are growing indications, for example,
high re-entry rates, lengthy time in foster care, frequent
placement changes and the number of class action lawsuits
filed against child welfare systems, that the system is failing
children. In addition, at least twenty-one states have operated
under consent decrees or court orders that mandate improving
services for children.(92)
Despite these trends, CASA programs hold promise for helping
children who have been abused or neglected. For example, CASAs
can serve to monitor this system and perhaps improve case
outcomes as well as foster care processes. Because CASAs are
being used to address some of the weaknesses of the child
welfare system, it is important to have a better understanding
and measure of the effect that these programs are having on
child outcomes as well as foster care and court processes.
There
have been some quantitative examinations of the influence
that CASAs and GALs have on various child outcomes and process
variables. These studies, while inconclusive, have shown promising
results. For example, with respect to child outcome measures,
one study demonstrated that children with court-assigned volunteers
were more likely to experience case resolution than children
without assigned volunteers. Another study demonstrated that
children with CASA volunteers were less likely to re-enter
the foster care system than children without volunteers. Three
studies indicated that children served by CASA volunteers
were more likely to be adopted. This strongly suggests that
case advocacy by CASAs may affect permanency planning for
children. However, results regarding the length of time children
spend in care are mixed when children with CASAs are compared
to children without CASAs. While some of these studies show
the positive impact that CASAs can have on child outcomes,
there are also studies that show no difference in these outcomes
for children with CASAs.
With
respect to foster care and court processes, the research more
strongly suggests that CASAs significantly influence these
activities. One study demonstrated that children with community
volunteers moved through the court process more quickly than
children without volunteers. Two studies demonstrated that
children with CASAs were more likely to have case goals which
reflected permanency than children not served by CASA volunteers.
However, the studies examining placement types were inconclusive,
as were the studies regarding the number of placements children
experienced while in care. Three studies demonstrated that
children and families served by CASA volunteers had more services
ordered by the court and more services provided by the child
welfare agency than children without volunteers.
Although
some studies reported no differences in outcomes between children
with CASAs as GALs and attorneys as GALs, this result is often
interpreted as a positive finding for CASA programs because
of the cost differential between CASA volunteers and attorneys.
Several researchers have remarked on the cost-effective nature
of the volunteer programs compared to attorney representation,
and report that volunteers perform as well, if not better,
than the attorneys with respect to creating positive outcomes
for children.
There
are several limitations to the studies. Of the ten studies
located, only seven were CASA studies (versus GAL or attorney
studies) and five of those date back to almost ten years.
Seven studies attempted to make group comparisons with only
three reporting the equivalency of the comparison groups and
one utilizing true random assignment. In addition, most of
the studies relied primarily on retrospective data collection
using court or child welfare agency records. Several of the
researchers noted difficulties in obtaining permission to
access court and child welfare records as well as the amount
of missing data in the records they were able to access.
As
a whole, these studies indicate that children with CASA volunteers
do as well or better on various key outcome and process variables
than children without CASAs or children with attorney GALs
only. Consequently, given the status of the child welfare
system in the United States and the cost effectiveness of
the CASA volunteer program, these volunteer programs should
be supported and encouraged to continue. In addition, more
research should be conducted to better understand the effect
that these volunteers have on the lives of the children they
serve.(93)
V.
Conclusion
There is an indication that the CASA movement will continue
to grow, such as the yearly increase in the number of new
volunteers and programs, the reauthorization in 1996 for volunteer
CASAs to serve as GALs for children in judicial proceedings,
the increase of federal funding to CASA programs through the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the increase in the number of participants at the National
CASA conferences. Perhaps what is needed to strengthen the
CASA movement is training and supervision that emphasizes
the outcomes for children, as well as an emphasis on advocacy
strategies that assist volunteers in moving children through
the system. Moreover, child welfare workers, CASAs and attorneys
should be collaborative partners rather than adversaries,
all working together to assure that children have safe and
permanent homes.
*This
article originally appeared in the Children's Legal Rights
Journal. For information on the Journal, please see www.luc.edu/schools/law/centers/childlaw/journal/child_journal.html
**The
author is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky
College of Social Work, Lexington, KY.
1
NAT'L CASA ASSOC.,
ABOUT NATIONAL CASA,
at http://www.nationalcasa.org/casa/about.htm
(last visited Apr. 8, 2002).
2 42 U.S.C. § 5103 (b)(2)(G) (1976).
3 NAT'L CASA ASSOC.,
CASA HISTORY,
at http://www.nationalcasa.org.newsroom/history.htm
(last visited Apr. 8, 2002).
4 Id.
5 NAT'L CASA ASSOC.,
ANNUAL LOCAL
PROGRAM SURVEY 5
(2000) at http://www.casanet.org,
(last visited June 25, 2002).
6 Supra note 3.
7 LARRY CONDELLI,
DEPT. OF HEALTH
& HUMAN SERVICES,
ADMIN. FOR CHILDREN,
YOUTH & FAMILIES,
NAT'L EVALUATION
OF THE IMPACT OF GUARDIAN
AD LITEMS IN CHILD
ABUSE OR NEGLECT
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS,
A-7 (1988).
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Pat Litzelfelner, The Effectiveness of CASAs in Achieving
Positive Outcomes for Children, 79 CHILD WELFARE 180,
182 (1999).
15 Id. at 183.
16 Id. at 186-90.
17 Id. at 183.
18 Ruth G. McRoy, East Texas CASA: A Program Evaluation 3
(Apr. 30, 1998) (unpublished research paper, Center for Social
Work Research, University of Texas at Austin (on file with
author).
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 McRoy, supra note 18 at 3.
22 Oregon Task Force on Juvenile Justice, Effective Advocacy
for Dependent Children: A Systems Approach (1995) (unpublished
report) (on file with author).
23 Id.
24 Stephanie Smith, The Effects of CASA Volunteers on Case
Duration and Outcome 2 (1992) (unpublished report, Texas Dept.
of Protective and Regulatory Services )(on file with author).
25 Id. at 3.
26 Id. at 5-6.
27 Shareen Abramson, Use of Court-Appointed Advocates to
Assist in Permanency Planning for Minority Children, 70
CHILD WELFARE
477, 479 (1991).
28 Id. at 484.
29 Id. at 480.
30 Id. at 483-85.
31 Patrick Leung, An Evaluation of the Court Appointed Special
Advocate Program (CASA) in Denver Juvenile Court 9 (June 11,
1990) (unpublished research paper, University of Hawaii at
Manoa) (on file with author).
32 Id. at 1.
33 John Poertner & Allan Press, Who Best Represents
the Interests of the Child in Court?, 69 CHILD
WELFARE 537, 537 (1980).
34 Id.
35 Id. at 541.
36 Condelli, supra note 13.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 CSR Inc., Nat'l Study of Guardian Ad Litem Representation
(unpublished report) (1990).
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 E. Sue Wert et al., Children in Placement (CIP): A Model
for Citizen-Judicial Review, 65 CHILD
WELFARE 199, 199 (1986).
43 Id. at 200.
44 Donald N. Duquette & Sarah H. Ramsey, Representation
of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: An Empirical
Look at What Constitutes Effective Representation, 20
U. MICH. J.L. REFORM
341, 341(1987).
45 Id. at 341-42.
46 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.
§ 671.
47 Id.
48 Litzelfelner, supra note 14; Duquette & Ramsey,
supra note 44; Wert et al, supra note 42.
49 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 186.
50 Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44, at 385.
51 Wert et al, supra note 42, at 200-01.
52 Adoption and Safe Families Act, Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111
Stat. 2115 (codified in various sections of 42 U.S.C.).
53 Abramson, supra note 27, at 483; Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 541; Smith, supra note 24,
at 6; Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 186; Duquette
& Ramsey, supra note 44, at 378.
54 Abramson, supra note 27, at 485 (demonstrated that
adoption was more likely a planned or achieved objective for
children with CASAs that for children without); Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 545 (reported that children
with CASAs were more likely to be adopted than children with
attorney representation only); Smith, supra note 24,
at 6 (Children with CASAs were more likely to be adopted or
emancipated at case closure).
55 Litzelfelner, supra note 14 at 188 (no difference
for children assigned CASAs and those assigned attorney GALs
only).
56 Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44, at 380.
57 R.P. Barth & M. Berry, Outcomes of Child Welfare
Services Under Permanency Planning, 61 SOCIAL
SERVICES REV.
69 (1987).
58 Abramson, supra note 27, at 485; Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 545; Duquette & Ramsey,
supra note 44, at 388.
59 Abramson, supra note 27, at 485.
60 Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44, at 388.
61 Poertner & Press, supra note 33, at 545.
62 Id. at 548.
63 Litzelfelner, supra note 14; Condelli, supra
note 13; Poertner & Press, supra note 33; Smith,
supra note 24; Wert et al, supra note 42; McRoy,
supra note 18; Oregon Task Force on Juvenile Justice,
supra note 22.
64 Oregon Task Force on Juvenile Justice, supra note 22 (children
without any representation were in the system longer than
children with a CASA and an attorney); Wert et al, supra
note 42, at 200 (children with a community volunteer were
in the system nine weeks less than children without volunteer).
65 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 188 (children with
CASAs were under court jurisdiction for 26 months on average
which is longer than the 23 month average for children without
CASAs); McRoy, supra note 18, at 3 (children with CASAs
were in system on average 2.5 years compared to the 2 years
children without CASAs spent in the system); Smith, supra
note 24, at 5 (children with CASAs spent 36.4 months in systems
compared to the 25.7 months spent by children without CASAs).
66 Condelli, supra note 13, at 26 (showed few differences
among the five models of representation); Poertner & Press,
supra note 33, at 545 (showed no difference between
children with CASAs and children with attorneys as GALs).
67 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 186; Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 545; Condelli, supra
note 13, at 26; Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44,
at 385; Wert et al., supra note 42, at 200.
68 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 186; Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 545; Condelli, supra
note 13, at 26; Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44,
at 385.
69 Wert et al., supra note 42, at 200.
70 42 U.S.C §671(a)(16).
71 Abramson, supra note 27, at 484.
72 Condelli, supra note 13, at 6.
73 Wert et al., supra note 42, at 200.
74 42 U.S.C §675(5)(B).
75 Condelli, supra note 13, at 18.
76 Poertner & Press, supra note 33, at 542.
77 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 189; Poertner &
Press, supra note 33, at 544.
78 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 188.
79 Id.; Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 34, at 378.
80 Condelli, supra note 13, at 12.
81 Leung, supra note 31, at 15 (demonstrated that children
with CASA volunteers spent less time in out-of-home placements
than children without volunteers); Oregon Task Force on Juvenile
Justice, supra note 22 (reported children without any
representation spent 11 months longer in out-of-home care
than children with representation, i.e., 37 months compared
to 26 months).
82 Poertner & Press, supra note 33, at 544.
83 H.S. MAAS & R.E.
ENGLER, CHILDREN
IN NEED OF PARENTS
(Columbia University Press 1959).
84 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 188 (found that
children with CASAs experienced fewer moves while in care,
2.5 versus 5.25 moves for children without CASA volunteers).
85 McRoy, supra note 18, at 3 (found that children
with CASAs experienced an average of four moves compared to
the average three moves experienced by children without);
Smith, supra note 24, at 7 (demonstrated that children
with CASA volunteers had more placements than children
without CASAs); Leung, supra note 31, at 15 (found
that children with CASA volunteers spent less time in their
3rd and 4th placements than children without CASAs).
86 Condelli, supra note 13, at 8.
87 Litzelfelner, supra note 14, at 190.
88 Poertner & Press, supra note 25, at 544.
89 CSR, Inc., supra note 39; Condelli, supra
note 13, at 8.
90 CSR, Inc., supra note 39; Condelli, supra
note 13.
91 Duquette & Ramsey, supra note 44, at 390.
92 Robert Pear, Many States Fail to Fulfill Child Welfare,
N.Y. TIMES, March 17, 1996, at A1; C.G. PETR,
SOCIAL WORK WITH
CHILDREN AND THEIR
FAMILIES: PRAGMATIC
FOUNDATIONS, 172 (1998).
93 There are several limitations to the studies. Of the ten
studies located, only seven were CASA studies (versus GAL
or attorney studies) and five of those date back almost ten
years. Seven studies attempted to make group comparisons with
only three reporting the equivalency of the comparison groups
and one utilizing true random assignment. In addition, most
of the studies relied primarily on retrospective data collection
using court or child welfare agency records. Several of the
researchers noted difficulties in obtaining permission to
access court and child welfare records as well as noting the
amount of missing data in the records they were able to access.
|
