Responding to Basic and Complex Cases of Child Abuse: a Comparison Study of Recent and Current Child Advocacy Studies (CAST) Students with DSS Workers in the Field

Abstract

In an effort to improve the training of future child protection professionals, more than 70 universities and graduate schools in the United States have implemented Child Advocacy Studies (CAST) minors or graduate programs. In order to assess the efficacy of these programs, 46 current and recent graduates of a CAST minor and 43 child protection professionals currently employed by a Department of Social Services (DSS) were given two vignettes. The first vignette involved a clear case of sexual abuse and the second vignette involved a more complex case involving polyvictimization. The students were asked to identify various systems that needed to be involved, potential corroborating evidence, risk and protective factors, and types of victimization. In the case of sexual abuse, the current CAST students and CAST graduates performed at the same level as DSS caseworkers. On the more complex polyvictimization scenario, the current CAST students and CAST graduates performed significantly better than all levels of DSS caseworkers in identifying systems that respond to child maltreatment and in identifying psychological and emotional abuse. The results of this study suggests that undergraduate CAST minors may be an effective model for improving the knowledge and skills of future child protection professionals in responding to complex cases of maltreatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Adams, J., Starling, S. P., Frasier, L. D., Palusci, V. J., Shapiro, R. L., Finkel, M., & Botash, A. (2012). Diagnostic accuracy in child sexual abuse medical evaluation: Role of experience, training, and expert case review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 383–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartholomew, I., Knox, M., Dynes, M., Hunter, K., & Gnanasambanthan, Y. (2018). Impact of education about physical punishment of children on the attitudes of future physicians. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  3. Botash, A. S. (2003). From curriculum to practice: Implementation of the child abuse curriculum. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 239–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Champion, K. M., Shipman, K., Bonner, B. L., Hensley, L., & Howe, A. C. (2003). Child maltreatment training in doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology: Where do we go from here? Child Maltreatment, 8, 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dichter, M. E., Teitelman, A., Klusaritz, H., Maurer, D. M., Cronholm, P. F., & Doubeni, C. A. (2018). Trauma-informed care training in family medicine residency programs: Results from a CERA survey. Family Medicine, 50(8), 617–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2010). The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to adult medical disease, psychiatric disorders and sexual behavior: Implications for healthcare. In R. A. Lanius, E. Vermeten, & C. Pain (Eds.), The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden epidemic (p. 77). Cambridge: Cambridge Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flaherty, E. G., Sege, R., Price, L. L., Christoffel, K. K., Norton, D. P., & O’Conner, K. G. (2006). Pediatrician characteristics associated with child abuse identification and reporting: Results from a national survey of pediatricians. Child Maltreatment, 11(4), 361–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jenny, C., Hymel, K. P., Ritzen, A., Reinert, S. E., & Hay, T. C. (1999). Analysis of missed cases of abusive head trauma. JAMA, 281(7), 621–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson, L. (2015). An innovative approach to providing collaborative education to undergraduate students in the area of child maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Care, 29(3), 271–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kenny, M. C., & Abreu, R. L. (2015). Training mental health professionals in child sexual abuse: Curriculum guidelines. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 572–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Knox, M., Pelletier, H., & Vieth, V. (2013). Educating medical students about adolescent maltreatment. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(3), 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, J. (2016). Child sexual abuse images online: Implications for social work training and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Osgood, A. K. (2017). Lessons learned from student surveys in a child advocacy studies (cast) program. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 10, 261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pelletier, H. L., & Knox, M. (2017). Incorporating child maltreatment training into medical school curricula. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 10(3), 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders 2. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Omrod, R. (2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(3), 323–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (2012). Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence 5. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/. Last viewed February 18, 2019.

  18. Vieth, V. (2006). Unto the third generation: A call to end child abuse in the United States within 120 years. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 12, 5–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vieth, V. (2013). The view from the trenches: Recommendations for improving South Carolina’s response to child sexual abuse based on insight from frontline child protection professionals. Published as part of the “silent tears” assessment of the South Carolina child protection system. Retrieved from Gundersen health system: http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncptc/publications-resources/silent-tears. Last visited February 18, 2019.

  20. Vieth, V., Goulet, B., Knox, M., Parker, J., Johnson, L., Steckler-Tye, K., & Cross, T. (2019). Child advocacy studies (CAST): A national movement to improve the undergraduate and graduate training of child protection professionals. Mitchell Hamline Law Review (In press).

  21. Wood, J. N., French, B., Song, L., & Feudtner, C. (2015). Evaluation for occult fractures in injured children. Pediatrics, 136(2), 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Woodtli, A. M., & Breslin, E. T. (2002). Violence-related content in the nursing curriculum: A follow-up national survey. Journal of Nursing Education, 41, 340–359.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Parker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards and Informed Consent

The University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board (USC IRB) has determined that the referenced research study is not subject to the Protection of Human Subject Regulations.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Survey given for both CASE #1 and CASE #2

  1. I.

    System Response

    1. a.

      List all systems (agencies, organizations) currently involved in this case:

    2. b.

      List any additional systems likely to become involved as the case investigation progresses:

    3. c.

      Briefly state the role of each system responding to this case scenario:

  2. II.

    Corroborating Evidence

    1. a.

      List all potential evidence for the investigation of this case:

  3. III.

    Risk and Protective Factors

    1. a.

      List all factors in this case that contribute to risk of child maltreatment:

    2. b.

      List all factors in this case that may act as a buffer to protect children from maltreatment:

  4. IV.

    Victimization

    1. a.

      List all possible forms of victimization based on initial case information:

  5. V.

    Demographics

    1. a.

      I am a current CAST student and I have completed CAST 301, 401, 402 and 499 (internship).

    2. b.

      I graduated in _____________ (insert graduation year) with a minor in CAST.

    3. c.

      I am a child protection professional with ___ years of DSS experience. (insert # of years)

      1. i.

        I am a (circle one): supervisor; case worker

      2. ii.

        I work in (circle one): investigations; treatment; foster care; other_______________

Please circle gender option

  • My gender is: Male Female

Appendix 2

  1. I.

    System Response

    1. a.

      List all systems (agencies, organizations) currently involved in this case:

      (Categories from APSAC Handbook, Chapter 3 along with CAC and Family)

  1. 1.

    Child Protective Services

  2. 2.

    Law Enforcement

  3. 3.

    Health Care/Medical

  4. 4.

    Mental Health/Therapy

  5. 5.

    Legal (attorneys, courts, GALs)

  6. 6.

    Education/Child Care/Other Community-based providers

  7. 7.

    CACs

  8. 8.

    Family

    1. b.

      List any additional systems likely to become involved as the case investigation progresses:

(Categories from APSAC Handbook, Chapter 3 along with CAC and Family)

  1. 1.

    Child Protective Service.

  2. 2.

    Law Enforcement.

  3. 3.

    Health Care/Medical.

  4. 4.

    Mental Health/Therapy.

  5. 5.

    Legal (attorneys, courts, GALs).

  6. 6.

    Education/Child Care/Other Community-based providers.

  7. 7.

    CACs.

  8. 8.

    Family

    1. c.

      Briefly state the role of each system responding to this case scenario:

      (open coding)

  1. II.

    Corroborating Evidence

    1. a.

      List all potential evidence for the investigation of this case:

CASE Scenario (polyvictimization)

  1. 1.

    911 call tape

  2. 2.

    Photographs

  3. 3.

    Statements (neighbor, mother, father, 7yo child)

  4. 4.

    Reports (EMS, ER/other hospital/forensic medical, CAC)

  5. 5.

    Physical evidence at scene (list)

CASE Scenario (sexual abuse)

  1. 1.

    Registration records at campground

  2. 2.

    Witness who may have seen/heard something at campground

  3. 3.

    Incriminating statements grandfather made to others referencing the camping trip

  4. 4.

    Physical evidence (photos of weekend, fish in freezer, receipts for purchases, fishing license, fishing equipment, etc)

  5. 5.

    Semen stains on sleeping bag, tent, boy’s or grandfather’s clothing

  1. III.

    Risk and Protective Factors

    1. a.

      List all factors in this case that contribute to risk of child maltreatment:

      (Using Factors from CDC – code for total # identified)

Individual Risk Factors

  • Children younger than 4 years of age

  • Special needs that may increase caregiver burden (e.g., disabilities, mental retardation, mental health issues, and chronic physical illnesses)

  • Parents’ lack of understanding of children’s needs, child development and parenting skills

  • Parents’ history of child maltreatment in family of origin

  • Substance abuse and/or mental health issues including depression in the family

  • Parental characteristics such as young age, low education, single parenthood, large number of dependent children, and low income

  • Non-biological, transient caregivers in the home (e.g., mother’s male partner)

  • Parental thoughts and emotions that tend to support or justify maltreatment behaviors

Family Risk Factors

  • Social isolation

  • Family disorganization, dissolution, and violence, including intimate partner violence

  • Parenting stress, poor parent-child relationships, and negative interactions

Community Risk Factors

  • Community violence

  • Concentrated neighborhood disadvantage (e.g., high poverty, residential instability, high unemployment rates, high density of alcohol outlets), and poor social connections.

Risk and Protective Factors

  1. b.

    List all factors in this case that may act as a buffer to protect children from maltreatment:

Family Protective Factors

  • Supportive family environment and social networks (supported by research)

  • Nurturing parenting skills

  • Stable family relationships

  • Household rules and child monitoring

  • Parental employment

  • Adequate housing

  • Access to health care and social services

  • Caring adults outside the family who can serve as role models or mentors

Community Protective Factors

  • Communities that support parents and take responsibility for preventing abuse

  1. IV.

    Victimization

    1. a.

      List all possible forms of victimization based on initial case information:

      (# of victimizations identified)

CASE Scenario (poly-victimization)

  1. 1.

    Child neglect by caregiver

  2. 2.

    Child physical abuse by caregiver

  3. 3.

    Child sexual abuse by caregiver

  4. 4.

    Child psychological/emotional abuse

  5. 5.

    Child witness to violent crime

  6. 6.

    Child exposure to pornography

  7. 7.

    Intimate partner violence

  8. 8.

    Adult psychological/emotional abuse

  9. 9.

    Animal abuse

CASE Scenario (sexual abuse)

  1. 1.

    Child sexual abuse.

  2. 2.

    Child exposure to pornography.

  3. 3.

    Child psychological/emotional abuse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parker, J., McMillan, L., Olson, S. et al. Responding to Basic and Complex Cases of Child Abuse: a Comparison Study of Recent and Current Child Advocacy Studies (CAST) Students with DSS Workers in the Field. Journ Child Adol Trauma 13, 357–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-019-00297-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Child abuse
  • Child welfare training
  • Child advocacy studies