DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02812
title: Evaluating the Virginia Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, 1991-1995
title: Archival Version

description: In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation
 that established the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program,
 a program providing child advocates in juvenile court proceedings,
 especially those involving abuse and neglect. The Virginia Department
 of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) administered this program. In this
 capacity, the DCJS coordinated services, provided funds, and
 participated in the development and dissemination of program
 information and regulations. Given these responsibilities, DCJS'
 Juvenile Services Section and the Criminal Justice Research Center
 Evaluation Section agreed that an assessment of the CASA program was
 needed. This study sought to evaluate the Virginia CASA program in
 order to provide a better understanding of CASA activities and program
 characteristics, and determine the impact of CASA intervention on its
 client population. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
 from three sources: (1) administrative records gathered for a sample
 of 78 cases (Part 1) involving 164 children (Part 2) taken from the
 files of local juvenile courts, social service agencies, and CASA
 programs, (2) telephone interviews administered to judges (Part 3)
 presiding in all operational CASA jurisdictions across Virginia,
 and (3) surveys distributed to CASA social workers (Part 4) and
 volunteers (Part 5). Variables common to both Part 1 and Part 2
 include the total number of abuse/neglect, custody, and Children in
 Need of Supervision/Services (CHINS) petitions, date of first
 petition, petition type, type of child abuse/neglect case, number and
 date of prior removals from home, number of out-of-home, group home,
 psychiatric, detention, and family/friend placements since the case
 opened, whether there was any alcohol or drug abuse involved, and the
 onset of these behaviors, whether there were any mental, intellectual,
 academic, or behavioral limitations or problems, dates of first and
 last court proceeding, date of finding (a social service agency
 determination of whether abuse/neglect occurred), permanency date,
 date of final placement, and the number of weeks a Court-Appointed
 Special Advocate (CASA) was on the case. Variables unique to Part 1
 include the age, sex, and date of birth for up to six victims and up
 to three abusers, as well as whether any adult or child sibling of the
 victim had been legally removed from the household, the relationship
 of each abuser to each victim, and whether any of the victim's
 siblings, mother, biological father, or caretaker had a criminal
 history, mental illness, disabilities, or abused drugs or
 alcohol. Other variables include the number of orders partially or
 fully complied with or not complied with, the number of services
 ordered for each victim and abuser, and whether there were any changes
 in the family structure. For Part 3, judges were surveyed to determine
 their perceptions regarding the role of CASAs, social workers, and
 Guardians ad Litem (GALs) in abuse/neglect cases, the benefits of the
 CASA program, how successful CASA case monitoring was, how useful CASA
 information was, and the impact CASA programs had on the court
 process. Judges also recommended changes or improvements they felt
 were needed by the CASA program that served their court. The percent
 of abuse/neglect, custody, and CHINS cases that each judge presided
 over is also included. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the
 age, sex, and race of each social worker. Other variables cover the
 length of time worked with CASAs, the number of sexual abuse, neglect,
 custody, and CHINS cases worked on, and the percent of time used to
 appear in court, write reports, review records, interview the family
 and child, and speak with CASAs and GALs. The respondents' perceptions
 of the role of CASA, social workers, and GALs, how the CASA program
 was beneficial or detrimental to a child, and suggestions for changes
 or improvements to the CASA program complete the file. Variables for
 Part 5 include the number of physical abuse, neglect, custody, and
 CHINS cases worked on by a CASA volunteer. Additional variables
 include the percent of time used to investigate and monitor the child,
 family, foster family, the GALs, the social worker, and other CASA
 staff, as well as the volunteer's relationship with social workers,
 GALs, and judges. The age, sex, race, and educational background of
each volunteer are also included.
description: In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly enacted
 legislation that established the Court-Appointed Special Advocate
 (CASA) Program. CASAs, who are appointed by a judge after a petition
 is brought to court, are volunteers who serve as child advocates in
 juvenile court proceedings, particularly in abuse and neglect
 situations, and less frequently, in custody and Children in Need of
 Supervision or Children in Need of Services (CHINS) cases. The
 Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) administered
 this program. In this capacity, the DCJS coordinated services,
 provided funds, and participated in the development and dissemination
 of program information and regulations. Given these responsibilities,
 DCJS' Juvenile Services Section and the Criminal Justice Research
 Center Evaluation Section agreed that an assessment of the CASA
 program was needed. This study sought to evaluate the Virginia CASA
 program in order to provide a better understanding of CASA activities
 and program characteristics, and determine the impact of CASA
intervention on its client population.
description: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
 from three sources: administrative records, telephone interviews, and
 surveys. A random sample of 78 cases (Part 1: Sibling Group Data)
 comprising 164 children (Part 2: Individual Child Data) were collected
 from three selected program sites: Lynchburg, Fairfax County, and
 Virginia Beach, Virginia. Data for Parts 1 and 2 were gathered from
 official records provided by CASA, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
 District Court, and the local Department of Social Services or
 Department of Human Development (Child Protective Services and Foster
 Care) files. Each chief judge, social services director, and CASA
 program director was contacted directly to gain access to the
 files. The information collected from these files included victim and
 abuser demographics, characteristics of the case, previous abuse
 history, family history, and court compliance information. Because
 record-keeping strategies varied considerably across the three sites,
 it was extremely difficult for researchers to obtain the same
 information for each case. For Part 3 (Judges Data), a list of all
 judges who were presiding in all operational CASA jurisdictions across
 Virginia was compiled. Each judge on the list was sent an introductory
 letter that explained the project and indicated that an evaluator
 would be calling to schedule a convenient time to interview him/her by
 phone. Interviewers subsequently called the judges to schedule
 appointments and conduct the interviews. Actual interviews lasted
 approximately 20-30 minutes. To encourage participation, judges were
 also given the option of returning the survey in a written form,
 which a small proportion of judges elected to do. For
 Part 4 (Social Worker Data), a survey was distributed to all CASA
 social workers in three sites who had worked or might have worked with
 CASA volunteers. The survey instrument was reviewed by supervisors in
 each site prior to distribution. Supervisors also distributed and
 collected the surveys, which were accompanied by a explanatory letter
 from the research and evaluation team. Because members of the
 evaluation team were often on-site collecting data from social service
 case files, respondents were able to speak with the evaluation team
 regarding any questions concerning the survey instrument. Attached to
 each survey was a sealable envelope to ensure respondent
 confidentiality. Supervisors prompted social workers on two separate
 occasions to complete and return their surveys, which were forwarded
 to the evaluation team upon completion. Social workers who had not
 worked with a CASA volunteer were asked to return the survey
 unanswered, but to indicate on the form that they had no experience
 with CASAs. Surveys returned unanswered were accounted for in the
 response rate, but not included in the data. For Part 5 (Volunteer
 Data), CASA program directors from all operational sites were
 contacted and asked to compile a list of current CASA volunteers and
 their addresses. The survey instrument (along with a stamped,
 addressed envelope) was mailed to every active volunteer in all
 operational program sites. Directors were asked to encourage all
 volunteers to complete and return the survey. After the due date, all
 directors were contacted on two separate occasions and informed of the
 response rate of volunteers for their respective program, and again
 encouraged to remind volunteers to complete and return their
 surveys. After the last prompt and a fairly low response rate, the
 Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) CASA program
 coordinator was contacted and asked to facilitate volunteer
participation.
description: Data were collected for a sample of 78 sibling
 groups (Part 1) involving 164 children (Part 2). Variables common to
 both Part 1 and Part 2 include the total number of abuse/neglect,
 custody, and Children in Need of Supervision/Services (CHINS)
 petitions, date of first petition, petition type, type of child
 abuse/neglect case, number and date of prior removals from home,
 number of out-of-home, group home, psychiatric, detention, and
 family/friend placements since the case opened, whether there was any
 alcohol or drug abuse involved, and the onset of these behaviors,
 whether there were any mental, intellectual, academic, or behavioral
 limitations or problems, dates of first and last court proceeding,
 date of finding (a social service agency determination of whether
 abuse/neglect occurred), permanency date, date of final placement, and
 the number of weeks a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was on
 the case. Variables unique to Part 1 include the age, sex, and date of
 birth for up to six victims and up to three abusers, as well as
 whether any adult or child sibling of the victim had been legally
 removed from the household, the relationship of each abuser to each
 victim, and whether any of the victim's siblings, mother, biological
 father, or caretaker had a criminal history, mental illness,
 disabilities, or abused drugs or alcohol. Other variables include the
 number of orders partially or fully complied with or not complied
 with, the number of services ordered for each victim and abuser, and
 whether there were any changes in the family structure. For Part 3,
 judges were surveyed to determine their perceptions regarding the role
 of CASAs, social workers, and Guardians ad Litem (GALs) in
 abuse/neglect cases, the benefits of the CASA program, how successful
 CASA case monitoring was, how useful CASA information was, and the
 impact CASA programs had on the court process. Judges also recommended
 changes or improvements they felt were needed by the CASA program that
 served their court. The percent of abuse/neglect, custody, and CHINS
 cases that each judge presided over is also included. Demographic
 variables for Part 4 include the age, sex, and race of each social
 worker. Other variables cover the length of time worked with CASAs,
 the number of sexual abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked
 on, and the percent of time used to appear in court, write reports,
 review records, interview the family and child, and speak with CASAs
 and GALs. The respondents' perceptions of the role of CASA, social
 workers, and GALs, how the CASA program was beneficial or detrimental
 to a child, and suggestions for changes or improvements to the CASA
 program complete the file. Variables for Part 5 include the number of
 physical abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked on by a CASA
 volunteer. Additional variables include the percent of time used to
 investigate and monitor the child, family, foster family, the GALs,
 the social worker, and other CASA staff, as well as the volunteer's
 relationship with social workers, GALs, and judges. The age, sex,
race, and educational background of each volunteer are also included.
description: Response Rates: Parts 1 and 2: Not applicable. The response
 rate for Part 3 was 88 percent. The response rate for Part 4 was 38
percent. The response rate for Part 5 was 41 percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 3 and 5.
description: Parts 1 and 2: Random sampling. Parts 3-5: Not
applicable.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Sibling Group Data
DS2: Individual Victim Data
DS3: Judges Data
DS4: Social Worker Data
DS5: Volunteer Data
description: Parts 1 and 2: Children from Fairfax County, Lynchburg, or
 Virginia Beach, Virginia, who had been appointed a Court-Appointed
 Special Advocate (CASA). Part 3: Judges from all operational CASA
 program jurisdictions in Virginia. Part 4: CASA social workers from
 three evaluation sites (Fairfax County, Lynchburg, and Virginia Beach,
 Virginia) who had worked or might have worked with CASA
 volunteers. Part 5: Volunteers from all operational CASA programs in
Virginia.
description: (1) ICPSR blanked variables in Parts 1-3 and 5 in
 order to protect respondent privacy. (2) The final report for this
 data collection, obtainable through the National Criminal Justice
 Reference Service, describes data collected from Court-Appointed
 Special Advocate (CASA) program directors and Guardians ad Litem. The
 principal investigators did not include these data in this collection.
 (3) The user guide and the codebook and data collection instruments
 are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF
 file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
 accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
 Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided on the ICPSR Web site.