Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Results from the Virginia Multidisciplinary Team Knowledge and Functioning Survey: The importance of differentiating by groups affiliated with a child advocacy center

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jackson, Shelly L.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) are a child-centered, multidisciplinary response to child abuse. Two important components of a CAC model include the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and case review. The purpose of this study was to assess MDT members' perceptions of the MDT and case review and to test whether there were differences by profession, status, or CAC designation. MDT members (N=217) affiliated with a CAC in Virginia completed an online survey containing 35 items. CAC staff was more likely to identify problems associated with case review than other professional groups. Investigators perceived case review meetings as lasting too long, whereas service providers did not. Supervisors and frontline workers disagreed on the core function of a CAC, as did CAC staff and investigators/service providers. Accredited and associate CACs identified problems associated with case review, while developing CACs identified staffing issues as problematic. Research identifying the elements of “effective” MDTs and case review is needed to provide guidance to CAC directors who are most frequently in the role of managing, nurturing, and arranging training for the MDT and coordinating case review meetings. In addition, greater training for MDT members in the importance of case review and collective team identification is warranted.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074091200103X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Children and Youth Services Review.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 7 ()
    Pages: 1243-1250

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:34:y:2012:i:7:p:1243-1250

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

    Related research

    Keywords: Case review; Child advocacy centers; Child maltreatment; Multidisciplinary teams;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Jent, Jason F. & Merrick, Melissa T. & Dandes, Susan K. & Lambert, Walter F. & Haney, Mike L. & Cano, Nicole M., 2009. "Multidisciplinary assessment of child maltreatment: A multi-site pilot descriptive analysis of the Florida Child Protection Team model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 896-902, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:34:y:2012:i:7:p:1243-1250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.