Evaluations/Reviews of CASA and GAL Programs/Models with Process and/or Outcome Measures
(most have qualitative elements as well)

• Overall: does the use of trained court-appointed advocates enhance permanency planning efforts for abused and neglected minority children?
• Outcome measures:

1. placement of minority children (adoption versus long-term foster care)
2. recidivism

• Adoption more likely achieved or planned for CASA cases; long-term foster care more likely for children without CASAs.
• CASA families less likely to return to court after case dismissed (this finding was not statistically significant).

No problems mentioned.

Top

• Overall:
• provide a better understanding of CASA activities and program characteristics
• attempt to determine the impact of CASA intervention on its client population
• Opinion and program data (from interviews and surveys):
• program and volunteer descriptive information (including training)
• relationships with collaterals
• perceptions of program value, benefits, and problems
• satisfaction with the program
• Victim, family and abuser demographics (from case records review)
• Impact/outcome measures (from case records review) [note: no comparison group of cases were available - see comments/problems below]:
• case length: CASA, court, total
• placement: outcomes, type of household
• subsequent activity (recidivism)
• compliance with court orders
• CASA reports to the court
• number of
• incorporation into court orders
• CASA and social worker comparison
• contacts with collaterals
• contacts with children
• during investigation
• during monitoring
• focus of recommendations

• Opinion and program data:
• Overall, courtroom participants value the program and are largely satisfied with services it provides. Several areas identified where improvement may be made (e.g. role clarification, need for standardized court report, training for program directors and volunteers
• Impact/outcome measures and demographics:
• CASAs assigned to complicated cases (families had multiple problems besides abuse and neglect issues);
• CASAs contacted victims more while social workers contacted abusers and other family members more; but CASAs had contact with fewer groups than social workers (this is somewhat contradictory to their survey findings);
• CASAs made significantly more recommendations relating to the victims than social workers;
• CASA recommendations found to be fairly consistent with court orders;
• Almost one-quarter of closed cases returned to the system.

Original evaluation plan proposed to investigate impact of CASA involvement by comparing outcomes for children with CASAs and those without. Evaluators abandoned this approach for the following reasons: unavailability of accurate statewide data on individual cases; variability across CASA programs on key process variables (e.g. training); and, lack of CASA programs, courts, and social services file information on services provided or outcomes of cases. Because of these limitations, the focus of the study was shifted to a process evaluation of the state program coupled with an impact evaluation at three sites. Lack of comparison group "greatly limited" evaluators’ ability to draw conclusions about the impact of CASAs.

Top

• Overall: "impact of GALs in serving children’s best interests and to examine GAL activity and responsibilities under [5] different GAL program models" (law school clinic, staff attorney, paid private attorney, lay volunteer/paid attorney, and lay volunteer).
• Process measures (from judges and state attorneys’ assessments):

1. role and responsibilities

• during investigation
• in the court room
• during post disposition

2. selection and appointment

• which cases
• time of appointment
• matching cases with GAL
• stability of appointment

3. amount of required training and monetary compensation
4. level of independence from court and child welfare agency
5. judicial and mediation activity.

• Outcome (best interest) measures (from case record analysis):

1. legal activity

• % of hearings GAL attended
• % where motions filed
• # of motions filed
• # of exhibits entered

2. services

• total # ordered
• # ordered per hearing
• % appropriate

3. placements

• total # of
• time out of home
• per placement time
• % with relatives and siblings

4. case plan changes

• court ordered changes were in case plan
• # per case
• # hearings where changes made
• # of changes per hearing

5. timing

• of judicial action
• time to first dispositional hearing
• time between hearings
• time between court reviews
• under court jurisdiction

6. case goal

• initial goal of reunification maintained
• % changes to final goal of reunification
• % changed from reunification to adoption
• Qualitative data on GAL effectiveness (from case "network" interviews):

1. investigation
2. independence of viewpoint
3. contact with child
4. case monitoring
5. resolution of disagreement

• Process: most problems identified with private attorney model – poorly compensated; untrained; not likely to serve for duration of case; did not conduct thorough investigation; ineffective in obtaining services or placements for child, facilitating service delivery, and expediting court processing. "GALs under other models performed well on the process variables and CASAs appear to be particularly strong" – especially in contact with child and post-disposition monitoring of case.
• Outcomes: CASA models produced greater number of best interest outcomes for the child than other models. Most effective areas were services and placements.
• Qualitative effectiveness: CASAs excelled in each of 5 areas researched, and were especially strong in case monitoring. Private attorneys again did not fare well compared to other models.
• Overall: Private Attorney model was "weakest method" of providing GAL representation, due primarily to lack of adequate compensation and lack of training. CASA models "clearly excelled" as a method of GAL representation, due primarily to personal motivation and low caseloads.

• Generalizability of findings limited because:
• Evaluators did not attempt to identify all sites employing each of the GAL models (required too much time and too much money); instead, relied on selective listing of sites provided by ABA.
• Proved not to be possible to select cases in a truly random sample as GAL programs and local child welfare agencies were unable or unwilling to produce a full case listing. However, evaluators believe no systematic bias was introduced by the employment of their selection system, which was selection of the most recently closed cases.
• Differences in record keeping from agency to agency, program to program, model to model, and court to court; differences in GAL responsibilities; and the fact that court records leave much out that occurs verbally or prior to hearings, created the "most serious imitations" of the study. Would have required full transcripts of hearings and extensive interviews with GALs, which were both beyond evaluation budget.
• Case network interviews were an attempt to obtain some of the above missing information. These, too, have limited generalizability due primarily to the small number of cases (limited to one open and one closed case per site). Criteria for the selection of the actual case networks (child had to be old enough to be interviewed, and both parent (or caretaker) and child had to be available for, capable of, and agreeable to interviews) meant that the most difficult cases were excluded.

Top

• Overall: measure effectiveness of GAL representation and validate select findings of 1990 CSR study (see summary of qualitative CASA/GAL evaluations/reviews).
• Descriptive data various dimensions of the 5 roles of the GAL (as defined by Don Duquette): factfinder/investigator; legal representative; case monitor; mediator/negotiator; and resource broker
• Process effectiveness based on the following performance measures of the 5 roles:

1. Factfinder/Investigator

• contacts with child, others (e.g. parents, neighbors, education personnel)
• visits to the home, foster home or shelter
• review of various written sources of information (e.g. police reports, medical records)

2. Legal Representation

• court room activities
• recommendations to court
• disagreements between GALs and other parties
• child speaking in court

3. Negotiator/Mediator

• attempts to negotiate agreements or stipulations (both successful and unsuccessful)
• parties involved
• issues involved
• activities performed

4. Monitor

• contacts with child and other parties
• follow up on case plans and court orders
• recommendations made to change case plan
• time involved

5. Resource Broker

• identification of resources
• types of services assisted in obtaining
• time involved

• Factfinder/Investigator: CASAs contacted child and visited home in higher percentage of cases than either private or staff attorneys; CASAs received highest effectiveness rating
• Legal Representation: private and staff attorneys much more likely than CASAs to conduct legal representation activities; received higher effectiveness ratings than CASAs.
• Negotiator/Mediator: staff attorneys most likely to negotiate and CASAs least likely to; staff attorneys received higher effectiveness ratings than CASAs.
• Monitor: CASAs spent significantly more time monitoring case than attorney GALs; received higher effectiveness ratings than attorney GALs.
• Resource Broker: more often conducted by CASAs than either staff or private attorneys; received higher effectiveness ratings than attorney GALs. There is ambiguity concerning the extent to which GALs should be involved in "brokering."
• Overall: no single GAL model was consistently superior to the others across all 5 GAL roles. Optimal approach may involve having a GAL who possesses or has access to the expertise and resources of attorneys, lay volunteers, and caseworkers.

• "During the pretest period, considerable difficulties were encountered in obtaining the necessary clearances to access individuals and records." Resulted in elimination of parent/child interview. Also, courtroom observation was eliminated due to "inordinate amount of staff time" required for it.
• Differences between OBM and the ACYF over the design of the study caused almost a 2 year delay and a change in the focus of the study from outcomes for children to procedural effectiveness of GALs.
• Miscellaneous comments on sampling plan:
• California and Massachusetts were excluded from study because of reported problems in obtaining access to open child welfare agency records.
• Only counties with populations over 100,000 were included in sample
• "Lengthy clearance process" indicates that future studies should plan ample time and resources to obtain study approvals.
• Field data collection:
• Some individuals delayed or avoided participating.
• Difficult to find GALs with at least one new and one review case – had to broaden initial criteria for selection.
• Some organizations required special procedures for collecting data which made process "much more arduous."

Top

• Overall: to determine who should represent the child in civil protection proceedings, what their duties and responsibilities should be, and how effective representation can be accomplished.
• Process measures:

1. investigation/advocacy/mediation
2. GALs attitude toward role
3. GALs attitude toward child
4. GALs attitude toward others

• Outcome measures:

1. court processing time
2. type of placement (home, relative, other)
3. visitation orders
4. treatment, assessment and services
5. orders regarding formal court jurisdiction

• no contest pleas
• wards of the court
• dismissals
• other procedural orders

• No significant differences in cases as to the types of abuse and severity of the types of abuse. Also, no significant differences between demonstration and control groups on race, sex, and mean number of children per case.
• Processes:
• only significant differences among experimental (trained) groups were that the law students scored higher on the investigation-interaction scale, took significantly more actions to attempt mediation, and were more critical of the other actors in the process.
• many significant differences between trained groups and non trained group (e.g. trained groups spent more time on cases, took more steps to mediate)
• Outcomes:
• no significant differences among trained groups
• "good number of significant differences" found between trained groups and non trained group (e.g. court processes moved faster and more cases resolved at preliminary hearings with trained group)
• Overall:
• ". . . the demonstration model [trained group] of representation. . . was successful in improving the quality of representation and, as a consequence, ‘better’ case outcomes resulted.
• ". . . because all three demonstration groups provided similar high quality representation, the demonstration model implicitly provides policy makers with a choice from among the three types of representatives. Our study demonstrates the importance of training child representatives, regardless of who the representative may be. Nonlawyers carefully selected and trained and under lawyer supervision performed as well as trained lawyers in representing children, and certainly performed better than lawyers without special training."
• "Provided that the representatives are adequately trained and are committed to an active role, a flexible system of child advocacy drawing on several models would probably arrive at the most efficacious and cost-effective system of child representation."

No problems mentioned.

Top

• Overall: does the presence of an attorney representing the child’s interest make any difference in a court’s custodial disposition of the case? Are there specific sorts of lawyers who make a difference?
• Standards:
• removal of child from her/his parent(s) or guardian (immediate custody orders)
• return of the child to the parent(s) or guardian
• length of time child was away from home
• The study also investigated which factors such as race, sex, etc., influence the manner in which cases are handled by the courts. Characteristics included here were of:
• the petition
• the child
• the courts’ treatment of the case
• the parent(s) or guardian
• the attorney GALs
• the county in which the case was heard

". . . for the most part attorneys for children were not only ineffective but even tended to substantially delay a child’s return home. An encouraging finding, however, was that those attorneys who spent more hours on their cases did expedite return."

No problems mentioned

Top

• Overall:
• Do CASAs contribute to positive outcomes?
• At which point during the court process is CASA intervention most effective (before petition, pretrial, trial and dispositoin, review hearings, and permanency planning hearing)?
• Case variables:
• # of children and any handicaps
• primary caretaker: handicaps, age, deprived/abused as child, drug/alcohol history
• financial stability
• average # of moves
• average # of times child relinquished
• experienced death of a child
• type and severity of abuse/neglect
• Outcome variables:
• frequency of placement changes
• types of placement changes ("positive" change defined as: child remains at home; returns home; remains in one foster home; or remains in one relative’s home)
• # and length of out-of-home placements for child

• Overall, no significant differences found between experimental and two control groups in terms of characteristics.
• "The data tend to support the belief that CASA programs are effective in reducing the length of time in out-of-home placement of a child. The data also indicate that CASA intervention tends to minimize the number of placement changes - the percentage of CASA subjects involved in second and third placements was lower than that of the comparison group. In addition, the percentage of subjects returned home was higher in the experimental group than in the comparison group in the second, third, and fourth placement periods. The data also indicate that the subjects in the experimental group had experienced more positive changes than subjects in the comparison group."
• CASA intervention found to be most effective when volunteer is assigned between the pretrial and disposition period.

Experimental group consisted of those cases assigned to CASA (not random). First control group consisted of randomly selected juvenile court cases which were not involved with CASA. The second control involved randomly cases randomly selected from the juvenile court referral cases before volunteers were assigned.

Top

• Overall:
• what is the impact of CASA programs on achieving positive outcomes for children in foster care?
• what is the impact of CASA programs on foster care processes that are believed to lead to positive outcomes for children in foster care?
• what processes, program and CASA volunteer activities, and case characteristics can be said to predict the desired case outcomes?
• Process variables:
• amount of time spent and contacts
• number and appropriateness of services
• case reviews and continuances
• court processing time
• Outcome variables:
• recidivism and reabuse
• case disposition
• length of time under court jurisdiction and time spent out-of-home
• number of out-of-home placements

Preliminary results available in two areas:

• descriptive information on CASA volunteers (e.g. 89% female; 62% Caucasian; mean age of 40)
• ". . . no differences found between groups on the matching variables age, gender, race, or reason for court involvement. Statistically significant differences were found on the extraneous variables; number of previous removals from home (comparison cases had more), number of previous referrals to SRS (CASA cases had more) and presence of drug and alcohol problems by primary caretaker (CASA cases more likely). These findings suggest that CASA cases may be indeed more severe than the comparison cases."

Random assignment of cases to CASA or no CASA not approved by juvenile judge and court service workers at two sites.

Top

• Overall: evaluation of "process and product outcomes" for the project staff and relevant evaluative information for the Legislature to aid their determination of appropriate funding levels and possible statewide expansion.
• Specific evaluation areas:
• management procedures
• need for expansion
• cost estimates on alternative methods of administration of GAL program
• satisfaction with program
• impact on placement:
• comparison of GAL and caseworkers placement proposals
• comparison of GAL and caseworkers placement proposals with final court decision
• comparison of costs associated with placement recommendations

• In cases involving both volunteers and caseworkers, volunteer made more recommendations to court. Also, there is a stronger relationship between GAL final placement recommendations and court decisions than caseworker final recommendations and court decisions.
• Volunteers recommended typically less expensive alternative care settings while waiting court disposition. Court followed these 2/3rds of the time.
• Volunteers regularly recommend more supervised care by parents and relatives, and less foster care than caseworkers.

No problems mentioned.

Top

• Follow up to 1981 study
• sufficiency of financial and volunteer resources
• management practices of state office program
• impact on placement
• comparison of GAL and caseworker placement proposals
• comparison of GAL and caseworker placement proposals with court decisions
• comparison of costs associated with placement recommendations

• Slightly higher tendency for court actions to more often parallel placement recommendations made by GAL than by caseworkers.
• Substantially greater agreement among volunteers and caseworker recommendations and court decisions as compared to 1981 study. Change lies primarily with caseworkers. GAL volunteers final placement recommendations remained relatively stable.
• "Unique savings" that was attributed to volunteer GALs in 1981 is now limited since caseworker recommendations are more similar with GAL recommendations.

No problems mentioned.

Top

• Overall: how does Oregon best meet the advocacy needs of children involved in judicial dependency proceedings in a manner that insures the juvenile court judge makes decisions providing for the safety, well-being and best interests of the child based on all the necessary information and maximum use of resources for the child?
• Procedural and outcome measures:
• effects of representation on months in foster care
• types of representation
• volunteer efforts on behalf of child
• cost of representation
• attorney
• CASA
• cost of termination of parental rights

• Children without representation spent an average of 37 months in substitute care; those with an attorney and a CASA averaged 26 months.
• Four types of representation found in Oregon: private attorney; lay volunteer; team (lay volunteer and attorney); no representation.
• "The Task Force concluded that the best advocacy for abused and neglected children can be provided by an attorney and a lay volunteer team that works cooperatively. An effective state-wide coordinated system for the appointment of advocates should be patterned on this team model."

• Vastly incompatible records maintained by state and county agencies.
• Statewide statistics not available in several areas they would have liked to measure (e.g. use of existing services, incidence of re-abuse or neglect).

Top

• Overall: do lay volunteers do as well as trained attorneys in representing the interests of children?
• Case variables:
• child: age, sex, and # per family, # in family under court jurisdiction, # of maltreatments
• age of mother
• type of maltreatment
• who was abuser
• Process variables:

1. # of continuances
2. # of placement changes
3. amount of time child spent out of home
4. time in own home
5. time from case opening to initial disposition
6. # of voluntary dismissals
7. # of services for child
8. # of services for family

• Outcome variables:

1. time in court system
2. disposition of case (case closed with child living with parents, legal guardian, adopted or other)
3. disposition of case as to whether or not the child stayed with abuser
4. reentry into the juvenile system (recidivism)

• Case variables: staff attorneys had higher percentage of children per family as well as higher percentage of males. Both figures were statistically significant, but "on average they do not seem to be so disparate as to represent a major difference between caseloads." [See also comments/problems below.]
• Process variables: CASA volunteers performed as well as attorneys on 6 of 8 variables. For the two on which they differ, CASA cases have significantly more services for children and spent significantly less time on average placed in their own home.
• Outcome variables: no differences between CASA and staff attorney in regards to time to final disposition, reentry into the judicial system and the percentage of cases with final disposition to the abuser. In regards to general final disposition, CASA cases resulted in significantly more adoptions than did staff attorneys. Examination of these cases found that CASA adoptions in comparison to staff attorneys’ were more frequently nonwhite, did not involve physical abuse, were in the court system longer, required more court appearances to consummate the adoption, and required a longer period of time for the children to be out of their homes before the adoption disposition.
• Overall: CASA volunteers performed at least as well as specialized attorneys in representing children in juvenile court.

No differences found in two groups on most variables. CASA kids did spend more time in own home and had more services. CASA cases were more likely to end in adoption than attorney cases.

Initial groups were different in two ways: staff attorney cases were much more likely to involve sexual abuse and the percentage of children over the age of 12 was much higher. Consequently, staff attorney cases in which sexual abuse was involved were eliminated (so study was limited to all other types of abuse but sexual) and children were restricted to age 12 or under.

Top

• Overall: effectiveness of CASA volunteers in Texas
• Outcome:

1. length of time in system
2. number of placements
3. case outcomes

• Significant difference found in number of foster home placements: CASA children averaged 5.86 different foster homes while non CASA children averaged 4.76 foster homes.
• Significant difference found in length of time in the legal system: CASA children averaged 1,110 days while non CASA children averaged 784 days.
• No significant difference found in types of case outcomes (returned home, adopted, long term foster care); but CASA children were more likely to be adopted or emancipated than non CASA children.
• "On the surface, it would appear that CASA volunteers are associated with cases with worse outcomes, not better ones. It is important to avoid jumping to this conclusion, however. It is entirely possible that CASA volunteers are appointed to ‘worse’ cases, where the children have already been in multiple foster homes and have been in the system a long time." [See comments/problems below.]

No tests were run to compare homogeneity of groups, or when CASA appointed. Evaluators recommend that future research should consider both points to help eliminate "severity" effect.

Top

• Overall
• Do CASAs and private attorneys in Franklin County deal with comparable cases?
• If yes, do CASAs and private attorneys deal with the cases comparably?
• If not, what are the differences and what are the implications of those differences with regard to representing the best interests of children in court?
• Case variables
• type of complaint
• # of children: in the case, in the home, in the family
• gender and age of children
• marital status of parents
• age of father and mother
• type of initial placement
• initial case status
• initial role of FCCS
• whether mother and father was in the home
• parent’s drug, alcohol, and criminal history
• date of initial complaint
• Best interest/process variables
• "Factfinder and investigator: the thoroughness of collection of information relevant to the child’s case that the GAL could bring to the court’s attention.
• Courtroom representative: the amount and type of representation the child receives in the court.
• Mediator and negotiator: the ability of the GAL to work with agencies, particularly FCCS, outside of the courtroom to expedite the child’s placement outcomes.
• Case monitor: the amount of contact the GAL maintains with the child and his/her family. The extent to which a GAL stays "on top" of a case.
• Resource broker: the extent to which the GAL facilitates the provision of services for the child and his/her family."

• Phase I:
• "The judges and magistrates were pleased with the Franklin County CASA program because the CASAs provide in-depth information which, they feel, makes judicial decision making easier and better.
• Primarily due to the thoroughness of CASAs’ background investigation, the average CASA volunteer was seen by most of the people interviewed as being a better representative of the child in court than the average private attorney.
• There is a very strong, positive perception of CASA’s training program and its selection process for volunteers. In addition, the current CASA administration is viewed very highly by people in the court system.
• Many in the court system expressed concern that CASAs might show a cultural bias. Some believe this leads to CASA recommendations for placement outside the home too frequently."
• Phase II:
• Case variables: cases were found to be comparable.
• Best interest/process variables:
• "Factfinder and investigator: CASAs appear to be more thorough factfinders and investigators in that they are more likely to file for discovery and more likely to submit a written report to the family files.
• Courtroom representative: CASAs appear to be at least as good as or better than private attorneys in this role. They had fewer dismissals and fewer continuances due to GAL schedule conflicts. They were also more likely to appear at the court proceedings than the private attorneys . Furthermore, CASAs were more likely than private attorneys to participate in the court proceedings.
• Mediator and negotiator: CASAs appear to be just as good in this role as the private attorneys. It could be argued, in fact that they are better because they are significantly more likely to participate in case plans.
• Case monitor: Indirect evidence from court records suggests that CASAs are better case monitors than their private attorney counterparts. They are more likely to file a case summary report and have fewer dismissals without refilings than the private attorney cases. And, the mother was more likely to show up in court in CASA cases.
• Resource broker: these data are inconclusive with regard to the role of resource broker. Once set of quantitative data favors the private attorney GAL and another set favors the CASA GAL. On the other hand, our qualitative data from Phase I indicates the CASA GAL may be a better broker of resources."
• Overall: "both qualitative evidence and the quantitative evidence converge to suggest that the CASA program represents the best interest of the child in court better than or at least as well as the private attorney GAL program.

• Abuse cases in Ohio can only be assigned to a GAL who is a lawyer, so sample was restricted to neglect, dependency, or neglect and dependency cases.
• Cases were not randomly selected because of the short time the CASA GAL program had been in existence.
• Multiple children in same family sometimes were assigned to one case, sometimes to separate cases, so evauators chose to collapse cases across family units.

Top

• Overall: do CIP volunteers expedite the movement of children in foster care to more permanent placement?
• Outcome measure: length of time in court

Presence of CIP associated with a more rapid movement of cases through judicial system, and with freeing children for adoption in TPR cases in less time

No problems mentioned.

Top

Bibliography

Abramson, Shareen. "Use of Court-Appointed Advocates to Assist in Permanency Planning for Minority Children." Child Welfare LXX, no. 4 (July- August 1991): 477-87.

Bogle, Trina G., Katharine Browning and Stan Orchowsky. Evaluation of the Virginia Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program: Executive Summary. Richard, VA: Criminal Justice Research Center, April 1996.

Condelli, Larry. National Evaluation of the Impact of Guardians Ad Litem in Child Abuse or Neglect Judicial Proceedings. Volume II: Study Findings and Recommendations. WA, DC: CSR, Inc., 1988.

________. National Evaluation of the Impact of Guardians Ad Litem in Child Abuse or Neglect Judicial Proceedings. Volume I: Executive Summary. WA, DC: CSR, Inc., 1988.

________. National Evaluation of the Impact of Guardians Ad Litem in Child Abuse or Neglect Judicial Proceedings. Volume III: Technical Appendices. WA, DC: CSR, Inc., 1988.

CSR, Inc. Final Report on the Validation and Effectiveness Study of Legal Representation Through Guardian Ad Litem. WA, DC: United States. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995.

________. Final Report on the Validation and Effectiveness Study of Legal Representation through Guardian Ad Litem. Appendix A: National Study of Guardian ad Litem Representation (1990). WA, DC: United States. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1990.

________. Final Report on the Validation and Effectiveness Study of Legal Representation Through Guardian Ad Litem. Appendix B: Data Collection Instruments. WA, DC: United States. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995.

Duquette, Donald N. and Sarah H. Ramsey. "Using Lay Volunteers to Represent Children in Child Protection Court Proceedings (Appendix C)." Child Abuse & Neglect 10 (1986): 293 - 308.

________. "Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: An Empirical Look At What Constitutes Effective Representation." Journal of Law Reform 20, no. 2 (Winter 1987): 341 - 408.

Kelly, Robert F. and Sarah Ramsey. "Do Attorneys for Children in Protection Proceedings Make a Difference?--A Study of the Impact of Representation Under Conditions of High Judicial Intervention." Journal of Family Law 21, no. 1 (1982-83): 405-45.

_______. "Legal and Other Determinants of Effective Court Intervention in Child Protection Proceedings: A Policy Analysis." Journal of Social Service Research 8, no. 2 (Winter 1984/85): 25-48

_______. "The Legal Representation of Children in Protection Proceedings: Some Empirical Findings and a Reflectionon Public Policy." Family Relations 34 (1985): 27--283.

Leung, Patrick. "Is the Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program Effective? A Longitudinal Analysis of Time Involvement and Case Outcomes." Child Welfare LXXV, no. 3 (May-June 1995): 269-83.

________. An Evaluation of the Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) in the Denver Juvenile Court (Colorado). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Social Work, 1990.

Litzelfelner, Pat and John Poertner. Preliminary Report. CASA Program Evaluation. Lawrence, Ks.: University of Kansas, 1996.

MGT of America, Inc. An Evaluation of the Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Pilot Program. Tallahassee, FL: MGT of America, Inc., 1981.

________. An Evaluation of the Florida Guardian Ad Litem Program. Tallahassee, FL: MGT of America, Inc., 1983.

Oregon. Governor's Task Force on Juvenile Justice, Subcommittee No. 3. Effective Advocacy for Dependent Children: A Systems Approach. Salem, Or: Oregon. Governor's Task Force on Juvenile Justice, post 6/30/94.

Poertner, John and Allan Press. "Who Best Represents the Interests of the Child in Court?" Child Welfare LXIX, no. 6 (November-December 1990): 537 - 549.

Smith, Stephanie. The Effects of CASA Volunteers on Case Duration and Outcome. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Date Unknown.

Snyder, Karen C., John D. Downing and Jill A. Jacobson. A Report to the Ohio Children's Foundation on the Effectiveness of the CASA Program of Franklin County. Columbus, OH: The Strategy Team, March 1996.

Wert, E. Sue, Edith Fein and Wendy Haller. ""Children in Placement (CIP): A Model for Citizen-Judicial Review." Child Welfare LXV, no. 2 (March- April 1986): 199-201.

Top