The Effect of CASA on Child Welfare Permanency Outcomes

Abstract

The present study is the largest and most rigorous study to date on the effects of being appointed a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) on permanency outcomes of children in foster care. The intent-to-treat study accounts for selection bias by applying inverse probability weighting to logistic and sequential logistic regressions in a large sample of children in foster care in the state of Texas (N = 31,754). Overall, children appointed a CASA have significantly lower odds than children without a CASA of achieving permanency. They have lower odds of being reunified, greater odds of being adopted (if not reunified), and lower odds of being placed in permanent kin guardianship (if not reunified or adopted) than children who are not appointed CASA. This study makes an additional contribution by looking beyond the aggregate effect of CASA on permanency by examining the effect of CASA for different age groups and different types of first placement after removal.

Keywords

child welfare foster care adoption kinship care intervention studies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramson

(1991). Use of court-appointed advocates to assist in permanency planning for minority children. Child Welfare, 70, 477–487.

Administration for Children and Families. (2017, November 30). The AFCARS report. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport24.pdf

Austin

P. C.

Stuart

E. A.

(2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34, 3661–3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607

Bell

Romano

(2015). Permanency and safety among children in foster family and kinship care: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 268–286.

Caliber Associates. (2004). Evaluation of CASA representation: Final report. Fairfax, VA: Author.

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(2)(B)(ii). (2017).

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012, February). Supporting reunification and preventing reentry into out-of-home care. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.690.2516&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Condelli

(1988). National evaluation of the impact of guardians ad litem in child abuse and neglect judicial proceedings. Washington, DC: CSR,

Courtney

Wong

Y. I.

(1996). Comparing the timing of exits from substitute care. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 307–334. doi:10.1016/0190-7409(96)00008-4

10.

Font

S. A.

Berger

L. M.

Cancian

Noyes

J. L.

(2018). Permanency and the educational and economic attainment of former foster children in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 83, 716–743. doi:10.1177/0003122418781791

11.

Heflinger

C. A.

Simpkins

C. G.

Combs-Orme

(2000). Using the CBCL to determine the clinical status of children in state custody. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 55–73.

12.

Hernán

M. A.

Robins

J. M.

(2019). Causal inference. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

13.

Knorth

E. J.

Harder

A. T.

Zandberg

Kendrick

A. J.

(2008). Under one roof: A review and selective meta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 123–140.

14.

Lawson

Berrick

J. D.

(2013). Establishing CASA as an evidence-based practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10, 321–337. doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.663674

15.

Litzelfelner

(2000). The effectiveness of CASAs in achieving positive outcomes for children. Child Welfare, 79, 179–193.

16.

Litzelfelner

(2008). Consumer satisfaction with CASAs (Court Appointed Special Advocates). Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 173–186. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.004

17.

National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association. (2017). Anything is possible when someone cares. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/site/communications/Annual%20Report%20and%20Financials/NCASA_2017_AnnualReport.pdf

18.

Osborne

Warner-Doe

Lawson

(2018). Who gets a casa? selective characteristics of children appointed a casa advocate. Children and Youth Service Review, 98, 65–71.

19.

Pilkay

Lee

(2015). Effects of court appointed special advocate intervention on permanency outcomes of children in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, 41, 445–453.

20.

Piraino

M. S.

(1999). Lay representation of abused and neglected children: Variations of court appointed special advocate programs and their relationship to quality advocacy. Journal of the Center for Children and the Courts, 1, 63–71.

21.

Poertner

Press

(1990). Representation of children in child abuse and neglect cases. A comparison of court appointed special advocates with staff attorney models: Who best represents the interest of child in court? Child Welfare, 69, 537–549.

22.

Siegel

G. C.

Halemba

G. J.

Gunn

R. D.

Zawacki

Bozynski

Black

M. S.

(2001). Arizona CASA effectiveness study. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

23.

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15). (2006).

24.

Tarren-Sweeney

Hazell

(2006). Mental health of children in foster and kinship care in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 42, 89–97.

25.

Texas Court Appointed Special Advocate. (2018). The CASA eVOLution. Retrieve from https://35xs6u1zhs1u1p3cy926rkn4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CASA-eVOLution_Final.pdf

26.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (2017a). CPS policy handbook. Section 6234: Prioritizing permanency goals. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_6200.asp#CPS_6234

27.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (2017b). CPS policy handbook. Section 10200 preparation for adult living (PAL). Retrieved from http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_x10200.asp

28.

Waxman

H. C.

Houston

W. R.

Profilet

S. M.

Sanchez

(2009). The long-term effects of the Houston child advocates, Inc., program on children and family outcomes. Child Welfare, 88, 25–48.

29.

Youngclarke

Dyer Ramos

Granger-Merkle

(2004). A systematic review of the impact of court appointed special advocates. Journal of the Center for Families, Children, & the Courts, 5, 109–126.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB