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.