title: Establishing CASA as an evidence-based practice.
abstract: In this article the authors examine the evidentiary status of the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program through a review of current research findings and a critical analysis of the study methodologies used to produce those findings. Due to the equivocal research findings and widespread methodological weaknesses (most notably selection bias) in the literature base, it is determined that there is not currently enough evidence to establish CASA as an evidence-based practice. In spite of the challenges to the feasibility of such research, a future research agenda is suggested that calls for the execution of large randomized controlled trials in order to produce findings that will inform a deeper understanding of CASA effectiveness in improving child outcomes.
authors.affiliation: School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. jennlawson@berkeley.edu
authors.forename: Jennifer
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lawson
authors.forename: Jill Duerr
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Berrick
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D002649:Child Abuse / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D002651:Child Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D002669:Child Welfare / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005581:Foster Home Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D009939:Organizations, Nonprofit / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012107:Research Design; D012947:Social Work / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States; D014838:Volunteers / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*