The Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program: Bringing Information to Child Abuse & Neglect Cases

Abstract

The Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program has been rapidly expanding in its 25-year history, although there has been little sound, empirical data assessing its value. The present study compared 21 judicial hearings regarding children who had a CASA with 20 hearings for children who were on a waiting list for a CASA. Judges, CASAs, and guardians ad litem provided the data for the study. The findings indicated that CASA involvement improves the breadth and quality of information provided to the courts. Unfortunately, CASA involvement also appears to decrease the involvement of the guardian ad litem. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Establishing CASA as an Evidence-Based Practice

“…Another survey of over 500 judges showed that the majority of judges use the input that CASA provides in their decision making, and find that CASA is useful and effective in monitoring cases and considering the best interests of children (ORS, 2005). This finding is echoed in other studies that have conducted survey research, with judges and other child welfare professionals reporting overall high satisfaction and regard for the performance of CASA volunteers in advocating for children (Berliner & Fitzgerald, 1998;Leung, 1996;Litzelfelner, 2008;Weisz & Thai, 2003).…”

“…In studies directly comparing the performance and activities of CASA volunteers and attorneys, researchers have concluded that CASA volunteers perform at least as well as paid attorneys in representing the best interests of children in court (Condelli, 1988;Duquette & Ramsay, 1986;Poertner & Press, 1990;Weisz & Thai, 2003;Youngclarke, Dyer Ramos, & Granger-Merkle, 2004). In the earliest study looking at the relative performance of volunteer advocates and attorneys, Duquette and Ramsey (1986) found that lay volunteers (similar to CASA) spent more time on cases than paid attorneys with no specialized child advocacy training, and that there were no significant differences between the lay volunteers and paid attorneys on a host of measures related to legal activities (such as court processing time, placement orders, visitation orders, treatment orders, pleas, ward of court orders, and dismissals).…”

“…Finally, and at least equally importantly, CASA volunteers have very low "caseloads," usually representing only one child at a time (NCASAA, 2011). In contrast to professionals such as attorneys and child welfare workers, who frequently have large caseloads, CASA volunteers have the time to develop meaningful relationships with the children they represent, and therefore can bring a breadth and depth of information to the court that may not otherwise be available for consideration in decision making (Litzelfelner & Petr, 1997;Piraino, 1999;Weisz & Thai, 2003).…”

“…Another benefit of CASA is the independence of the volunteers. Charged with the task of bringing relevant information on the children's interests and circumstances to judicial officials, CASA volunteers typically function as advocates who provide recommendations independent of judges, attorneys, social workers, therapists, family members, or others who might be involved with cases (Litzelfelner & Petr, 1997;Piraino, 1999;Weisz & Thai, 2003). Finally, and at least equally importantly, CASA volunteers have very low "caseloads," usually representing only one child at a time (NCASAA, 2011).…”

“…CASA is highly regarded among child welfare professionals and in the judiciary (Berliner & Fitzgerald, 1998;Collins-Camargo, Lemon, Ojha, Osborne, and Pieratt, 2005;Leung, 1996;Litzelfelner, 2008;ORS, 2005;Weisz & Thai, 2003). In one study (Collins-Camargo et al, 2005), the vast majority (88%) of judicial officers described CASA as helpful in securing additional services for children, and well over three-quarters indicated that they felt CASA volunteers have a positive impact on children's outcomes.…”