Complete

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest November 20 2014 00:23 _______________________________________________________________

20 November 2014 ProQuest

Table of contents

1. A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers' Clinical and Professional Relationships when Reporting Child Maltreatment........................................................................................................................................... 1

20 November 2014 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1 A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers' Clinical and Professional Relationships when Reporting Child Maltreatment Author: Chanmugam, Amy ProQuest document link Abstract: This qualitative study explored school social workers' relationships during instances of abuse and neglect reporting, focusing on reports made for children and adolescents already receiving school social work services. Although school social workers frequently file abuse and neglect reports, little is known about how they manage clinical and professional relationships in the complex school environment when reporting. This study obtained rich descriptions of their reporting experiences. In-depth interviews and a focus group were conducted with 10 participants from Texas, Florida, and Colorado, representing all school levels. Findings describe complex clinical and professional relationship networks involved in reporting and school social workers' perspectives on case management during disclosure and reporting. Thematic analysis of interviews identified several themes pertaining, for example, to communications with caregivers and children about Child Protective Services reports, interprofessional collaboration, and management of dilemmas regarding trust and confidentiality with families and professionals. Participants sought to mitigate harm through their practices, yet practices varied. Further research on the effects of practices such as involving children in reporting is warranted. Implications for practice and education are discussed.The author recommends that discussions of legal and ethical aspects of reporting be augmented with discussion of interpersonal dynamics that come into play. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Links: Linking Service Full text: Headnote This qualitative study explored school social workers' relationships during instances of abuse and neglect reporting, focusing on reports made for children and adolescents already receiving school social work services. Although school social workers frequently file abuse and neglect reports, little is known about how they manage clinical and professional relationships in the complex school environment when reporting. This study obtained rich descriptions of their reporting experiences. In-depth interviews and a focus group were conducted with 10 participants from Texas, Florida, and Colorado, representing all school levels. Findings describe complex clinical and professional relationship networks involved in reporting and school social workers' perspectives on case management during disclosure and reporting. Thematic analysis of interviews identified several themes pertaining, for example, to communications with caregivers and children about Child Protective Services reports, interprofessional collaboration, and management of dilemmas regarding trust and confidentiality with families and professionals. Participants sought to mitigate harm through their practices, yet practices varied. Further research on the effects of practices such as involving children in reporting is warranted. Implications for practice and education are discussed.The author recommends that discussions of legal and ethical aspects of reporting be augmented with discussion of interpersonal dynamics that come into play. KEY WORDS: abuse; child maltreatment; interprofessional collaboration; reporting; school social work In 2005, state child protection agencies received more than 3 million reports alleging child maltreatment, involving 6 million children, with large percentages of reports made by educational personnel and social services personnel (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2007). Educational personnel made a higher percentage (24.3 percent) of physical abuse reports than any other group of professionals or nonprofessionals. Research on the perceptions and behavior of school personnel related to abuse and neglect reporting has focused on reporting by teachers (Hinson &Fossey, 2000; Kenny, 2004) and counselors (Bryant

20 November 2014 Page 1 of 17 ProQuest

&Milsom, 2005; James &DeVaney, 1994). Reporting among school social workers has only been studied recently Qonson-Reid et al., 2007). Jonson-Reid and colleagues studied the caseloads of school social workers in two suburban districts and found that maltreatment-related cases constituted approximately 20 percent of their caseloads. Overall, literature on school personnel and child maltreatment focuses on prevention, identificaation, and reporting rather than on how schools can support children who have been maltreated (Faller, 2006). Although school social workers are ethically and legally mandated reporters, little is known about how they perceive and manage clinical and professional relationships in the complex school environment when they become aware of an abuse or neglect case and initiate a report. In a review of clinical issues raised by reporting maltreatment, Kenny (1998) noted that professionals may feel torn between issues of confidentiality and child protection laws. This article presents a qualitative study that sought to shed light on this underresearched practice area by exploring clinical and professional relationship dynamics of school social workers initiating reports of child abuse or neglect within the context of ongoing cUent relationship. The study was prompted by the dearth of research on school social workers' perceptions and actions related to reporting, by existing research on the mitigating effects of supportive adult responses to abuse disclosures (Alaggia, 2004; Lovett, 2004; Palmer, Brown, Rae- Grant, &Loughlin, 1999; Rosenthal, Feiring, &Taska, 2003), and by observations that I made as a school social worker and clinical supervisor. I observed school personnel and social work interns struggle at times with reporting and how it influenced relationships with cUents and other professionals. Schools may be the most promising avenue for serving children who have been the subject of abuse and neglect reports, because many reported cases do not reach the investigation stage, maltreatment is not substantiated, or maltreatment does not rise to a level that would result in Child Protective Services (CPS) intervention (Jonson-Reid et al., 2007). In 2005, approximately 38 percent of reports made in the United States did not result in investigation or an alternative response from CPS, and abuse or neglect was substantiated in just 28.5 percent of investigated cases (HHS, 2007). Depending on whether he or she works in an elementary, middle, or high school, a school social worker may be serving a population more at risk of a particular type of maltreatment. Children of different ages have different developmental vulnerabilities and face different types of victimization risks (Finkelhor, 1995). Although higher percentages of younger children are neglected, higher percentages of adolescents are physically and sexually abused (HHS, 2007). In 2005, 21 percent of substantiated physical abuse cases involved middleschool-age victims (12 to 15 years old), and 23 percent involved adolescents age 16 and older. Young adolescents (ages 12 to 15) were the subjects of 17 percent of substantiated sexual abuse cases, a higher percentage than for any other age group. This article presents school social workers' perspectives on four research questions: (1) What significant people or entities influence the development of a strong working alliance between a school social worker and a child? (2) How are these relationships affected when the school social worker initiates a report of abuse or neglect within the context of an ongoing relationship with the child? (3) How do school social workers think about relationships in these situations? (4) What does the school social worker do during this process? BACKGROUND All social workers in the United States are legally mandated to report suspected abuse and neglect (Kopels, 2006). The clinical and professional relationship dynamics that occur when a school social worker initiates a report have not been explored empirically. However, a number of closely related research studies and practice recommendations are available to inform research and practice. Two resources were identified that provide recommendations for school social workers during abuse disclosure and reporting, based on research in other settings (Faller, 2006; Graham, 1993). Faller (2006) drew on a variety of empirical studies and best practice recommendations from school personnel to provide strategies for supporting maltreated children, taking in the need to role model concern for the child, the need for school

20 November 2014 Page 2 of 17 ProQuest

personnel to believe the child's disclosure, and the need for service coordination among professionals involved with the child. Graham (1993) recommended that school social workers take a holistic approach to intervening with maltreated children by providing a range of services at multiple levels and in multiple roles. He noted that school social workers can help directly in their interactions with the child by working with various systems to integrate responses to maltreatment disclosures and by making school procedures related to CPS investigations more responsive to children's needs. A number of maltreatment-related resources are available to school social workers. The Uterature covers topics such as identifying abuse and neglect (VanBergeijk, 2006) and making decisions regarding the conflicting ethical duties of confidentiality and reporting (Kopels, 2006; Reamer, 2005). Literature is available to inform collaborative efforts with child welfare personnel (Altshuler, 2006; Scannapieco, 2006) and service provision to children already involved in the foster care system (Altshuler, 2006; Traube &McKay, 2006). Resources describing the dynamics of effective interprofessional practice, which is key in supporting maltreated children, are also available to school personnel (Casto &Julia, 1994; Tourse &Mooney, 1999). The relationship between a practitioner and a client takes on special importance in instances of trauma (Gil, 1991; Herman, 1992).Trauma may damage trust and intimacy. When a child discloses maltreatment to a school social worker, the school social worker is in a paradoxical situation. She or he may be in a therapeutic relationship with a child, for which trust is essential; yet to ensure the safety of the child and follow legal mandates, she or he must breach confidentiality to report the victimization. It may be apparent to an adult that trust is compatible with initiating a report to ensure the child's safety, but for a vulnerable child or youth, the report may jeopardize the sense of trust in the confidential relationship. In addition.Webb (2003) noted that the report can be seen as a challenge to the family's autonomy. Kenny (1998) summarized the relational aspect of reporting as follows: "The report of abuse is just the beginning" (p. 12). Studies of adolescent and adult survivors of childhood abuse suggest that the initial responses victims receive to disclosures of the abuse may influence their long-term adjustment (Alaggia, 2004; Lovett, 2004; Palmer et al., 1999; Rosenthal et al., 2003). Supportive responses to children and adolescents during the disclosure process may mitigate harm. METHOD In-depth, semistructured interviews and one focus group were conducted with school social workers (N = 10) in Texas, Florida, and Colorado. All study participants were female. Three were Latina/Hispanic, and seven were white.The mean length of experience in school social work was five years. Eight participants had MSWs, one had a BSW, and one worked under the supervision of someone with an MSW but did not have a social work degree. The mean approximate number of abuse and neglect reports participants had made in the past 12 months was eight. Participant Work Setting and Prior Experience At the time of participation, five participants worked in elementary schools, four worked in middle schools, and one worked in a high school. One participant split her time between two schools, and nine served one school fulltime. Two worked in rural schools, two worked in suburban schools, and six worked in urban schools. Seven were employed by a nonprofit agency, two were employed by school districts, and one was employed by the local government. Eight worked in Texas. Seven participants had prior work experience at other schools; five of these had worked at multiple levels, and three had experience both as an agency-employed school social worker and as a nonagency school social worker. Participants' total work history (past and current employment) represented experience at 17 schools (four high schools, five middle schools, and eight elementary schools) and five districts in Texas, Colorado, and Florida. Sampling Procedures Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas at Austin. Participants were recruited with convenience, maximum-variation, and snowball sampling techniques (Creswell,

20 November 2014 Page 3 of 17 ProQuest

1998). First, I recruited from a nonprofit school social work agency. So as to have maximum variation of experiences in the study, participants were recruited to ensure representation of all school levels and of urban and rural schools.The agency also allowed me to hold a focus group. A focus group format was used to augment individual interview data collection by providing an opportunity for reporting issues that I had not considered asking about to emerge through participants' dialogue. Three agency employees, all working in elementary schools, elected to attend. Finally, I used snowball sampling techniques to identify additional school social workers not employed by nonprofit agencies. Three participants were identified in this manner. The seven participants who were not part of the focus group were invited to participate via e-mail, with a follow-up phone call. Group participants were invited via a flyer e-mailed to all agency employees. Data Collection Texas participants were interviewed in person in locations they identified as confidential and most convenient. Colorado and Florida participants were interviewed by phone. Seven were interviewed individually, and three were interviewed in a focus group format. A semistructured interview guide was created on the basis of a literature review and expert consultation. It contained three sections. The first section concerned the participant's working environment and professional relationships. The second section asked each participant to describe in detail a recent deidentified case in which she had initiated a report of abuse or neglect regarding a cUent on her caseload-that is, with whom she had a preexisting relationship. Most chose to report their most recent case. The participant was then asked whether that case was typical and in what ways it differed from other reporting cases. The final interview section explored participants' general perceptions about school social work practices and their "rules of thumb" related to relationships and maltreatment disclosure and reporting. An iterative approach was used for ongoing development of the guide to use emerging data to refine questions. The focus group format was similar, with minor differences. I served as a facilitator rather than interviewer. The guide followed the same topic sequence. During the second section of the interview guide, participants were not asked to describe a particular case aloud in the group. Instead, they were instructed to recall details of a recent reporting case during a minute of silent reflection to guide their comments in the ensuing discussion. Participants were able to ask one another questions and compare experiences.The focus group and the individual interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. DATA ANALYSIS The initial analysis plan was to conduct thematic analyses (Miles &Huberman, 1994), beginning with Une-by- Une coding of each transcript, followed by identification of patterns across cases. It was soon apparent, however, that understanding of the number and tenor of the relationships participants described would require graphic representation to organize the details. Analysis plans were adjusted, with each case's coding beginning with development of two relationship diagrams inspired by ecomapping (Hartman, 1995) .The first diagram illustrated relationships that the participant described as influential in developing a working alliance with her cUent. The second illustrated her clinical and professional relationships during a specific case of maltreatment disclosure and reporting. Both had the social worker and the primary cUent in the center. (No diagrams were created from the focus group transcript because it did not provide the same level of detail.) As the researcher coded each transcript Une by line, the role title of each person or group named (for example, mother, CPS) was added to the diagram. Each time the participant subsequently named that person in a new context, a Une was drawn to represent the relationship interaction. Thus, some pairings on the diagram began to have three or more Unes connecting them to each other, indicating frequent interactions. These relationships were then characterized as"intense" and represented with one bold Une. Two other types of relationships were characterized as intense and are denoted with a bold Une: those described as playing a prominent role and those about which the school social worker made strong affective statements. Some relationship comments described communications, actions, or emotions that were reciprocated, whereas others did not. These

20 November 2014 Page 4 of 17 ProQuest

relationship exchanges were depicted with arrows. Relationships described as "unpredictable," "ambiguous," or "conflicted" were diagrammed with dashed lines. When the participant mentioned a person or group as influential but that person was not an actor in the situation, their role title (for example, father) was included but no lines were connected to it. Taken as a whole, each diagram provided a vivid snapshot of the number of players influencing the situation and the tenor of the relationship interactions. After creation of the diagrams for each case, interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun &Clark, 2006; Miles &Huberman, 1994). Each transcript was coded in a second line-by-line reading, with each discrete concept noted in the margin. The concepts were assigned code labels, and codes recurring in a transcript indicated emerging within-case themes, which were summarized in coder notes at the end of the transcript. After all cases were coded, the within-case themes and diagrams were reviewed across cases to identity patterns in the data set. This entailed seeking support or disconfirmation for each within-case theme by looking at whether and how it recurred in other cases. Disconfirming data led me to either eliminate an emerging theme or expand the evolving theme definition to better encapsulate the concepts. The final themes presented here are those that appeared across three or more cases. A senior qualitative researcher acted as a consultant and reviewed analysis procedures and emerging codes and patterns. Trustworthiness Qualitative research cannot be evaluated in terms of validity and reliability in the same way that quantitative research can (Miles &Huberman, 1994). A number of methods exist, however, to increase the rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative findings. In this study, several methods were used to increase rigor, such as attention to potentially disconfirming cases and ongoing review with the senior consultant. Maximum-variation sampling also represented an effort to increase the likelihood of identifying negative evidence to refine development of emerging patterns. Member checking was done with two school social workers. One had participated in the study. The other was unfamiliar with it and did not work in Texas, Florida, or Colorado. Both read a summary and provided feedback. The participant expressed overall agreement with findings, whereas the nonparticipant thought one aspect of reporting was not emphasized enough. Specifically, she stated that the neutral research language did not adequately capture the intensity of emotions experienced by children. She perceived children as yearning to disclose maltreatment and "be believed" but also ambivalent about reporting and family intervention. RESULTS Research Questions 1 and Z The first two research questions were as follows: (1) What significant people or entities influence the development of a strong working alliance between a school social worker and a child? (2) How are these relationships affected when the school social worker initiates a report of abuse or neglect within the context of the ongoing relationship with the child? Most participants reported that a large number of people or other groups (such as a student support team) influence the school social worker's working alliance with a client.Their relationship networks are complex and change during times of maltreatment disclosure and reporting. Both clinical and professional relationships may become more intense in terms of frequency of communication or emotionally charged communication. For example, extended family members and siblings may become part of the network, or routine communications with the school counselor may diverge into urgent and frequent communications with the principal. One high school social worker described her relationships as follows: It's a whole system. You've gotta have good relationships with everyone in the system for it to run right. And you can certainly tell when you have a bad, or no, relationship with maybe one part of that system, whether that be the student or a teacher . . . everything kind of comes to a halt. If you're trying to help a student with academics and they just were absent for a very valid reason, like they were raped the night before, you certainly with confidentiality can't necessarily share that with the teachers. But if you have a good trusting relationship, when you go to the teacher and say, "You know, this student's going to be out and can you give me some of their

20 November 2014 Page 5 of 17 ProQuest

work? I'm helping them with this or that," they just trust you and do it.Whereas if they don't really know you, they may be like, "Well, no, if she's absent, she still fails. I don't care." Or they may just see you as someone who is trying to enable the student to not take responsibility. There can be lots of different reasons. Certainly everyone that you interact with on the campus can have an impact on the working relationship. Notably, the majority of cases described by participants in this study were reporting cases that did not result in CPS services. Participants reported that they generally attempt to maintain supportive involvement with the child when reporting, and the majority stated that they increase their support of the family at this time. Contact with school and outside agency personnel also increases, in terms of both frequency and scope of information exchanged. Figures 1 and 2 depict relationships described by a middle school social worker, Lori (a pseudonym). Lori is employed by a nonprofit agency. She supervises other on-site social services staff, such as interns and caseworkers. When siblings receive individual counseling services, they are assigned to different on-site agency personnel. A small number of family characteristics have been altered for this article to ensure that families are not identifiable, but the number and professional roles of those involved and the reported intensities of relationships were not altered. Although each participant's diagrams were unique, the majority were similar to Lori's in the number and complexity of the relationships depicted. Lori described her most recent report, initiated three weeks prior to her interview. The case involved the sexual assault of her primary client's older sibling, a high school student, by a family member living in their home. At the time that Lori's client told her about the assault, Lori had already been considering filing a CPS report and was taking steps to link the client's mother to community services, because a recent suicide attempt by the mother had caused Lori concern about child supervision and the family's emotional climate. At the time of Lori's interview for this study, personnel at other schools interacting with the family had also made CPS reports, and CPS had not yet interviewed any children in the family. PoUce were investigating the mother because she had attempted to assault the alleged perpetrator. Lori worked with the mother, unsuccessfully, to obtain emergency mental health services and assistance with child care. Over the three weeks, Lori's cUent had escalating behavior problems at school and was suspended. As part of her management of this case, Lori intervened at numerous levels, in various roles, with the many people shown in Figure 2. For example, she shared more information with the principal when the client was disciplined for her school behavior. She enlisted the help of other personnel working for her agency on the same campus to provide services for her cUent's sibUngs. She continued efforts to link the mother with community service providers. She coordinated services with personnel at elementary and high schools who were serving other children in the family. She became frustrated with what she perceived to be a slow response by the assigned CPS investigator and sought help from her supervisor, who called the investigator's supervisor to advocate that the children be interviewed without delay. All other participants but two described similar numbers of people involved and similar types and increases in intensity of relationships related to disclosure and reporting. The two who differed from others reported involvement of fewer people and less intense relationships. One was a district-employed middle school social worker, and one was a nonprofit-employed elementary school social worker. These outlying cases were closely examined to determine whether they were different from the others in additional ways. Other differences were identified. The district employee was the only one in this sample whose district required training on abuse and neglect reporting for all personnel, and she shared that her colleagues typically complied with reporting protocol. Several others had shared that other school personnel, especially teachers, often asked the social worker to report on their behalf, including when the social worker did not have direct knowledge of the child. The nonprofit agency employee was the only participant in this sample whose terminal degree was a BSW and one of only two who never informed children when she was initiating a report. The interview schedule included questions about the participant's physical work area. This school social worker had a completely private work space and few student "drop-ins," whereas the majority of participants described some level of challenges with

20 November 2014 Page 6 of 17 ProQuest

confidentiality because of room layouts, close proximity to other personnel, or the high volume of students passing through their offices each day. In fact, several mentioned using alternative spaces in moments when they quickly needed to be able to speak confidentially with a student (for example, janitor's closet, gym bleachers, cafeteria stage, small electrical utility room, library audiovisual room). In several cases shared by participants, the maltreatment disclosure and subsequent report changed which professional colleagues within the school the social worker collaborated with most closely. In Lori's case, for example, the support team and assistant principals were influential in her ability to develop relationships with children in general, but they were not involved in the maltreatment reporting case she described. Research Question 3 Several overarching themes emerged prominently in analysis of the interviews regarding the third research question (How do school social workers think about relationships in disclosure and reporting situations?), including themes related to trust, boundaries, and the dynamic, interactive nature of relationships. Participants described assessing and managing their relationships on an ongoing basis, especially in relation to confidentiality with professionals and openness about the reporting with clients. Analysis of participant perceptions and interpretations about relationships when reporting abuse or neglect fell into the following categories: overall salience of issues related to reporting, consultation, school social worker relationships with the child, school social worker relationships with the caregiver and caregiver support, professional collaborations within the school, CPS, social workers' personal stress, school level and age differences, and differences in perceptions related to the school social worker's career experiences. The nature of the participant's physical workspace seemed closely related to clinical themes, especially confidentiality and trust. Several participants worked in challenging space configurations that were not always private. Also, focus group participants emphasized that many of the dynamics that marked reporting within ongoing relationships were not typical of issues arising in reports of children they did not have a relationship with.They perceived the latter type of reporting situations to be less complex. Overall Salience of Issues Related to Reporting. Eight participants expressed strong feelings about the importance of this topic, with several expressing the wish that there were a regular forum in which they could explore clinical issues around disclosure and reporting. This research topic had less salience for two participants. These are the two previously described as reporting a smaller relationship network and less intensity in relationships when reporting. Consultation. Consultation with peers and supervisors was important to school social workers for informing their intervention. All consulted others regularly, with most participants stating they consulted a peer or supervisor every time they prepared to make a CPS report. These consultations went beyond discussions related to decision making on whether to report. Most participants expressed the fact that every case has unique nuances and benefits from a second opinion. Participants sought to exchange ideas on case management and cUnical and professional relationship issues. School Social Worker Relationship with the Child. Participants stated that this relationship changes during the process of disclosure and reporting. The relationship may grow closer or be hurt. Several participants described their communication and actions as being guided by the desire to "empower" the child. They described wanting to restore power to the child because of the child's experience of abuse or neglect, and they named elements of their intervention that were aimed at such empowerment. Several stated their belief that their response to the child could mitigate effects of the abuse. School Social Worker Relationships with the Caregiver and Caregiver Support. Participant interviews included empathic statements about the challenges famines faced, particularly related to poverty, mental illness, and inadequate services. In their assessment of family situations, participants used words like "overstressed," "overwhelmed," and "overworked" to describe caregivers. The instances in which these descriptors were used included cases in which the caregiver was the presumed perpetrator of physical abuse, emotional abuse, or

20 November 2014 Page 7 of 17 ProQuest

neglect. A minority of participants made negative comments about caregivers. One participant who did not make empathic statements about the caregiver was one of two in this sample to focus on a case of intrafamilial sexual abuse. (Others who mentioned sexual abuse in passing noted that these cases typically receive a quick CPS response.) In that case, which involved a ninthgrader Uving alone with a single-parent father, the participant did not discuss the caregiver in detail. Her comments focused instead on her dismay that the CPS investigator described the young adolescent as lying, particularly because a subsequent medical exam (not arranged by CPS) confirmed that the client had the same sexually transmitted disease as her father. Professional Collaborations within the School. Formal teams were generally influential for most participants, but not necessarily in instances of CPS reporting. There was wide variation in how school social workers perceived the utility of formal support teams, with some describing benefits and two elementary school social workers describing negative team cultures.The latter included accounts of a "sensationalizing" team that had asked the school social worker to make abuse and neglect reports on the basis of gossip about parents and, conversely, a team that another participant perceived as minimizing student needs. Informal collaborations, however, were cited by most school social workers as essential. Most participants cited the relationship between the school social worker and the principal as key to facilitating relationships with students and also cited the principal as influential during reporting, especially in terms of influencing school norms. Participants described similar decisionmaking processes regarding the extent of communication with teachers about reports. Most described involvement of the teacher as a case-by-case decision that depended on the situation, the teacher, and the school level, with more elementary-level social workers in this sample sharing case specifics with teachers. The paramount consideration discussed by most participants regarding teacher communication was balancing confidentiaUty with the best intervention for the child, which in some cases involved increased sharing of case details. One elementary school social worker described her thoughts on communicating with teachers about abuse and neglect reports and her efforts to reiterate the importance of confidentiality as follows: Just making sure that the people that need to be involved are involved . . . and the ones that really understand about confidentiality are there. ... I convey to the teacher reiterating how important it is to keep this information of what's going on with their particular student confidential. And just to bring that up again to the teacher, on the importance . . . they understand, but sometimes I think it needs to be reviewed . . . with all these people going in and out of break rooms and mail areas and coffee areas and work areas, it's real easy for that confidentiality to be broken . . . closed doors are important. CPS. School social workers described strategic thinking and a wide range of feelings about CPS interactions. Several made empathic statements about the challenging nature of CPS work. Others expressed negative feelings about their relationships with CPS staff and investigative responses. Negative expressions were related to CPS judgments made during referral and investigation and lack of follow-up communication. Several participants stated that children and families would be better served if school social workers received timely updates about the disposition of a case and if school personnel were consulted by CPS for information about the child's daily presentation. Most participants expressed understanding of CPS priorities and caseloads, sometimes coupled with frustration that their clients were maltreated at a level that would not result in CPS intervention. For example, one school social worker with elementary and high school work experience (who was one of three participants in the sample with prior experience working in the child welfare system) said, The nature of the system is that it tries to reduce a very complex situation into check boxes and it misses so much . . . it's so hit or miss. I can call the CPS hotline and I can just tell from the way they answer the phone if I've got a worker with an attitude or not, and I'll hang up and wait and call back and get a different worker [laughs] - 1 wish CPS had more support to be able to do their job better. So many people there are really jaded. . . .You'll call and say," I have a such and such child who made an outcry that her uncle rubbed her breasts last night." And they'll be like, "Well, was it over the clothes or under the clothes?" And you're like, well, if it was over

20 November 2014 Page 8 of 17 ProQuest

the clothes then it doesn't really count. . . . I know that's all part of their risk assessment and they have to get to the high-priority risk to be able to take a report, but it's really challenging to hear someone on the other line say, "Well ,you know, that's just not bad enough. This kid's needs and transgressions do not rise to the level of care or concern that we can address." When they say, "We won't even send it to the field, we'll just keep it as a note," you know, I totally understand their situation, why they have to do that, but that's frustrating. That's the hard part. Social Workers' Personal Stress. Most participants reported experiencing stress related to reporting and identified a variety of reasons. They described stress related to concern for the child's well-being, cases involving poverty and parental mental illness, and lack of social services (especially when abuse or neglect was not likely to be substantiated but the school social worker assessed the child as being at risk in the family). Professional relationship dynamics contributed to stress, and sources included other professionals not honoring confidentiality, not complying with reporting mandates, and asking school social workers to report secondhand suspicions. Workload-related stress included documentation requirements and the workload impact of reporting, including tensions between the desire to do preventive work and the need to manage crises immediately. One school social worker talked about the balance between her work and parenting commitments and how working late to catch up after a CPS report affects her schedule, noting that even as she begins to hear an abuse disclosure, she sometimes thinks, "Who am 1 going to let down this time?" School Level and Age Differences. Elementary school social workers reported awareness of the swift impact their report might have on a family. In contrast, middle and high school social workers emphasized concerns about lack of response and lack of services for adolescent maltreatment victims. TWo participants with high school experience noted "discrimination" against adolescents related to responses to abuse disclosure, both within the school and by law enforcement and CPS.These same two described cases in which adolescents ended up running away. One participant with work experience in all three school levels called for a new word - "teenagerism" - to describe the preconceptions held by some adults about the truth of adolescents' statements: They almost assume that the parent is the person who knew what they were doing. And that confuses me . . . the report is about the parent. ... I have found that it is almost like teenagers have become looked at as, "Oh, they are always lying and manipulating." And true, some of them do do that a lot. But it always amazed me, the cynicism of the adult working with that age group . . . when they have a younger sibling living in the home, I always mention that, because it means maybe the teenager will get help now. . . . It's almost like, what are all the "isms"? Racism, adultism, it's almost a teenagerism. People assuming that the teenager is the bad one. Participants who had worked at multiple school levels and could compare experiences at different levels confirmed the theme of elementary school social workers approaching reporting with a sense that it was likely to set a chain of events in motion with repercussions for the family, whereas middle and high school social workers did not anticipate intervention from CPS. In some cases this was not a concern, but in other cases participants approached reporting with a sense of futiUty, particularly because it had the potential to change their relationship with the adolescent without changing his or her circumstances. Elementary school social workers reported more challenges dealing with cases in which there were behavioral indicators of maltreatment in the absence of physical indicators or a verbal disclosure. Four elementary school social workers mentioned these types of cases, with the additional complicating factor of unavailable or refused parental permission to work with the child. These cases introduced extra compUcations for the workers in terms of clinical and professional relationships, often requiring them to repeat explanations to school personnel about their limited ability to maintain clinical relationships with children without parental consent.Two elementary school social workers also mentioned that even in cases in which there was no suspicion of maltreatment, they heard comments from parents reluctant for their child to receive services because of potential CPS involvement. One elementary school social worker said,"Sometimes I've had parents that say . . . 'I don't even want social work services because I know, y'all know too much about my situation that you're going to caU CPS.'" The fact

20 November 2014 Page 9 of 17 ProQuest

that all participants in this study who elected to attend the focus group worked in elementary schools may indicate greater salience of the topic in elementary settings. Differences in School Social Workers Related to Career Experience. School social workers reported an increase in their comfort managing relationships and responsibilities related to reporting as they gained work experience. One with experience working at all three school levels described how her comfort with reporting changed: I was scared to death when I first got hired. . . . Of course, the first report was so scary. I had already had to make one when I was an intern. So at least I had that under my belt. But that first one was scary. I felt all alone - That didn't last too long. Certainly it has changed. My comfort level is . . . well it is just something that has to be done. . . . It's more logical and less emotion based. Although there was not agreement on best clinical practices in this sample, several of the participants acknowledged that they developed practices they believed to be most effective over the course of their experience, often through consultation and supervision. Several described going through the teaching process each year with interns, noting that reporting is often stressful for social work interns. The initial contact with a thent, when the limits of confidentiaUty are explained, was cited as key; several participants noted the novice mistake of omitting or rushing through the process of informed consent, which greatly complicates relationships when reporting. Research Question 4 Regarding the fourth research question (What does the school social worker do during the disclosure and reporting process?) each participant described typical actions and their views of best practices. Analyses of the actions they described yielded eight specific categories: consultation, formal procedures and documentation, interaction with other school personnel, increased family support, efforts to have ongoing CPS contact, clinical preparation, child involvement in reporting, and caregiver notification of report. School social workers performed multiple roles at multiple system levels during disclosure and reporting: consultant, clinical interventionist, facilitator, collaborator, advocate, and case manager (Franklin &Harris, 2007). One participant had been involved as an educator and manager in planning schoolwide training and procedures related to child abuse. Consultation. All participants sought peer or supervisor consultation - often both, and often multiple times for one reporting case. Most participants used consultation to review case details to double-check that ethical and legal requirements were being met. Consultation also provided an opportunity to discuss plans for appropriate intervention with the child within the school and strategies for increasing the likelihood that the family would receive appropriate services, whether from CPS or community agencies. Formal Procedures and Documentation. School social workers described wide variation in what was required of them in their schools. The school generally requested some form of notification that a CPS report had been made, but this notification ranged from leaving a voice mail message for the principal to completing detailed forms that were circulated among staff and then filed. Interaction with Other School Personnel. In addition to required formal procedures, most participants described always communicating that they had filed a CPS report with at least one other on-site school administrator or counselor. The form of this communication varied. This middle school social worker's statement illustrates a typical description: [I inform] both the principals and the counselor. I let all three of them know that I have made a report for CPS on this student. But I don't give them the details because sometimes the parents call, angry and wanting to know who did it. And I'm willing to field that, you know, but I want them to know I did it so that they then direct the parent towards me. It's just not a surprise to them. So they're not going, who wrote a report? And I don't tell the teachers. But sometimes they ask - And sometimes their friends ask. And it just, it varies. And I don't tell the friends, the kids do. Increased Family Support. In most cases, reporting was only one of several actions taken by participants to

20 November 2014 Page 10 of 17 ProQuest

address concerns about the family.They typically attempted to link families with community services, and the disclosure initiated greater attempts at involvement with caregivers. Several participants described the strengths-focused language used in their efforts to build alliances with caregivers. Several also expressed that they considered many of the cases they reported to be abusive or neglectful yet not at a severe enough level to warrant CPS substantiation or even investigation. The increased family support was based on multiple factors, including new awareness of maltreatment because of the disclosure; threats to the therapeutic alliance because of the confidentiality breach; and the recognition that other service providers, including CPS, were unlikely to be able to follow up to the extent that a school professional would. Efforts to Have Ongoing CPS Contact. The majority of school social workers attempted to establish and maintain contact with CPS after reporting, sometimes making frequent efforts. In Lori's case, for example, her supervisor contacted the assigned CPS investigator's supervisor to advocate for speedier interviews with the children. Clinical Preparation. Several participants described the communication efforts they typically make prior to reporting. Some said they give information about the reporting and investigation process to the child. Some seek to ease the CPS interview process for the child by arranging with the school office to be the person called to pull the child from class when CPS comes to campus and sharing this plan with the child. Some prepare for the distancing the family may initiate because of a report and make referrals for additional services in advance. Several reported taking specific actions in the belief that their intervention could mitigate the impact of the abuse. Child Involvement in Reporting. Every participant stated that she thoroughly reviews the limits of confidentiality with students at the beginning of services. Most shared this unprompted when discussing their process with a child when they are preparing to report. Several typically remind children of that initial conversation as an introduction to informing them that they need to file a CPS report. Two school social workers who were interviewed said they never inform children that they are filing a CPS report. Three participants, all at the elementary school level, inform children and involve them in reporting on a case-by-case basis. Five others expressed that they feel strongly that involving children is the best practice for clinical reasons, if circumstances allow. These five represented elementary, middle, and high school social workers. Their examples of involving older children included assisting them in calling CPS themselves, allowing them to be in the room while the school social worker called, or keeping them informed of CPS communication. The eight who involve children in reporting presented these actions as being guided by careful deliberations, including attention to not saying or doing anything that might interfere with an investigation. The focus group, which comprised three elementary- level participants with varying views on child involvement, had a lively discussion on the nuances of and best practices for child involvement. Several of the eight participants who tell children when they are making a CPS report noted that children showed a range of feelings about the report, including fear, anxiety, relief, hope, hopelessness, and indifference. Participants stated that one child may often have mixed feelings, perhaps originating from wanting things to change in the family but not necessarily wanting to be the agent of change. Lori said this about her efforts to be responsive to the child's feelings regarding her family situation and about the report in ensuing interactions with the child (and the child's sibling at her school): It was pretty much open talk about all of it . . . the hard part was I didn't have much to go with. 'Cause I haven't gotten much information from CPS. I couldn't really give them much more, but they were told a report was made, and my reasoning behind the report was, "I think the Mom needs help, I think y'all are just, you know just really overworked right now as a family. And y'all need somebody to come in and help ... we have to since your sister was raped." And, just talking about feelings about CPS and reaction to that. And it was very shut down from there, and just really,"Can we play? Let's play a game." Caregiver Notification of Report. Some of the school social workers thought notifying the caregiver that they had made a report was important for building or maintaining an alliance that would serve the needs of the child. The

20 November 2014 Page 11 of 17 ProQuest

majority stated that they do not routinely do this, but they will acknowledge initiating a CPS report if asked and will discuss their concerns if the caregiver raises the issue. Several described strategic, strengths-focused approaches to communicating concerns and telling caregivers about their reasoning and the legal requirement for a report. Two of the school social workers reported that they usually deny making a report if asked directly. Of these two, one stated that her district forbids acknowledgment because of liability concerns, and the other believed, on the basis of past experience, that acknowledging making a report would damage her relationship with the caregiver. DISCUSSION Study findings indicate that reporting maltreatment goes beyond following ethical and legal procedures and includes a large interpersonal component for school social workers. When reporting abuse or neglect of a child on his or her caseload, a school social workers' clinical and professional relationship networks may change in terms of frequency and intensity of contact and scope of information exchanged. Reporting is not a discrete event that resolves client issues and concludes the intervention. The act of reporting introduces relationship changes. Thematic analysis of the interviews found similarities and difference in perspectives and experiences of school social workers. Themes of trust were prominent for both clinical and professional relationships. Reporting increased participants' interactions across professions, including interactions with educators, law enforcement personnel, and medical personnel. Increased interprofessional coUaboration introduces increased complexity and need for trust among the professionals involved (KUne &Brabeck, 1999), which was vaUdated in this study's findings. Practices and perspectives differed in several areas. There was variation in reporting-related procedures within schools, in views about the effectiveness of formal student support teams, and in decision making and actions related to notifying children and caregivers about the report itself. Similarities were found in consultation and caregiver practices and in beliefs about the school social worker's ability to have a positive influence during reporting. An overarching theme for eight participants was the ongoing balancing of the child's best interests with obligations to other people, procedures, and laws. The majority of the school social workers in this study described practices with caregivers that were consistent with recommendations to increase cUnical and instrumental support of families when reporting abuse or neglect (Crosson-Tower, 2002; Kenny, 1998; Staudt, 2001; Webb, 2003). This study raises questions about specific practices. For example, is it beneficial to talk to the child about the report? And if so, how? (I could locate no studies on cUnical practices with children related to reporting.) Most participants expressed the beUef that their actions at the time of disclosure and reporting could mitigate negative effects of the maltreatment and the breach in confidentiaUty caused by the need to report. Several participants in this study described the need to empower children during the process of disclosure and reporting, and some mentioned sharing information with the child about the report and CPS actions as one aspect of empowerment. This may be a fruitful area for further exploration, given the wide range of strongly held beUefs and typical actions related to this practice found in this smaU sample. A school social worker talking with a child about a report that she or he initiated is a qualitatively different dynamic than a social worker talking about the maltreatment itself, because it concerns the practitioner-child relationship, and the report makes the practitioner an actor in the child's family life. Given that most participants beUeved that their actions could mitigate harm, and given the variation in practices, further research should identify which responses to disclosure and reporting practices are most common and whether these have the intended effect. Several participants, especially those who had worked at multiple school levels, highlighted challenges faced by adolescents, including adult skepticism when they disclose maltreatment. Such nonsupportive responses should concern social workers, because relatively higher percentages of adolescents are physically and sexually abused in comparison with younger children (HHS, 2007) , reports concerning young adolescents may

20 November 2014 Page 12 of 17 ProQuest

be less likely to be investigated than reports involving younger children (Jonson-Reid, 2002), and responses to disclosures have implications for adjustment (Alaggia, 2004; Lovett, 2004; Palmer et al., 1999; Rosenthal et al., 2003). Furthermore, some adolescents are involved in sexual relationships with adults that appear to be voluntary but, according to their state's definitions, are illegal (Hines &Finkelhor, 2007). There is controversy about how to conceptualize and respond to these cases in practice, and research in this area is not well developed. The notion of the "compliant victim" may play a role in the types of negative responses to adolescent abuse described by participants. School social workers must be aware of the vulnerabilities of the age group they work with in terms of developmental needs, types of victimizations and stereotypes likely to be faced, and system responses that may vary on the basis of the victim's age. LIMITATIONS This qualitative study used a small, nonprobability, convenience sample. Results are not generalizable to other school social workers. Findings provide preliminary information on school social workers' perspectives and experiences related to their clinical and professional relationships when initiating abuse and neglect reports. It is not possible to rule out researcher effects (Miles &Huberman, 1994) as an explanation for the high level of salience many participants expressed related to relationship issues arising as a result of abuse and neglect reporting. Participants describing strengths-focused interventions may have been framing actions in a socially desirable manner in terms of practices recommended in the clinical literature. Efforts were made to reduce potential researcher effects and social desirability through, for example, member checking and asking neutral, nonleading questions in the interview.When I asked participants to describe a recent case in detail, it is possible that they recalled especially complex cases.The majority stated they were focusing on their most recent reporting case, and a follow-up question asked how it was similar to and different from other reporting experiences. It is not possible to be certain that the detailed cases reported are representative.The majority of participants were based in Texas. Lewis (1998) noted that school social work has evolved more slowly in Texas than elsewhere and that the state's general privatization of social services has applied to schools as well. The present findings may be colored by regional idiosyncrasies. Seven participants worked for a nonprofit agency, and three did not. These differing employment models may have influenced areas such as professional networks and supervisory structures in ways that affected relationships and reporting. However, two of the nonagency school social workers reported dynamics similar to those shared by agency school social workers. The overrepresentation of the nonprofit model and one geographic region, the high level of salience expressed by most participants, and the variability in this small sample underscore the need for further study of school social workers' experiences and perceptions related to CPS reporting, especially because maltreated children form a large proportion of school social workers' caseloads (Allen-Meares, 1994; Jonson-Reid et al., 2007). This small exploratory study deliberately recruited participants for maximum variation in experiences, developmental ages served, and employment settings. Future studies may benefit from fielding more homogenous samples or samples large enough to allow for examination of differences between subgroups. Given that this study focused on reports concerning children already on the school social workers' caseloads, future studies of dynamics when a child is not yet receiving service would further develop the knowledge base on reporting practices. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The results illustrate the need for school social workers to be mindful of the relationship dynamics involved in reporting abuse and neglect within the context of an existing client relationship. The findings also have implications for social work roles and self-care and the need for additional adolescent services. Study participants expressed ideas for system improvements in the school, school district, community, and CPS that would lay the groundwork for there being fewer relationship challenges related to reporting. Few participants, however, had addressed the issue of child maltreatment in the roles of manager, educator, or policy initiator and developer (Franklin &Harris, 2007). School social workers have ideal training to intervene at the system level to initiate development of reporting policies and to assist in the education of personnel on reporting procedures,

20 November 2014 Page 13 of 17 ProQuest

which is a part of sound ethical practice (Reamer, 2005). Also, participants described the importance of a strong collegial foundation with school personnel in navigating the relationship dynamics of reporting. Ongoing interprofessional trainings assist with the maintenance of such a foundation. Cross-disciplinary discussions of topics like consent requirements and confidentiality values would foster the understanding that reduces complexity in handling cases of suspected maltreatment. School social workers may also train school personnel on practices that ease the challenges of reporting, such as discretion in the front office when CPS personnel visit campus. Many participants talked about personal stress reactions that arose for a variety of reportingrelated reasons. The importance of self-care for social workers cannot be emphasized enough, as these perspectives illustrate. Regular peer support with other school social workers at the same school level may be especially valuable. One stressor frequently mentioned was the lack of services for troubled families, especially for adolescents. Several participants commented on the lack of services for adolescents who are being hurt in their families at a level that does not lead to CPS intervention. These findings suggest both a major unmet need for adolescents and a role being played by school social workers that they feel they cannot adequately fulfill. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING The findings support the emphasis in social work training on fully informing clients of the limits of confidentiality at the outset of the relationship. Participants cited this as an essential practice that eased the process of informing a client that an abuse or neglect report would be made. Furthermore, findings indicate that school social workers will benefit when curriculums on ethical and legal aspects of confidentiality, client self- determination, and maltreatment reporting are augmented by discussion of clinical and systemic aspects. As Saxon, Jacinto, and Dziegielewski (2006) noted, ethical decision making involving confidentiality and client self- determination is often ambiguous. In most professional relationships in this sample, participants were continually assessing the balance between client confidentiality and the need to share information. Both served at times to benefit clients, but at times information sharing served to build trust with professionals but did not necessarily help clients. The ongoing balance of these processes is a valuable discussion area for social work students. Participants in this sample consulted with peers and supervisors on clinical and interprofessional dimensions of maltreatment reporting and became increasingly comfortable with these issues over time. Earlier training on these dimensions, with case examples, may be beneficial. Despite the value of consultation, it must be reiterated for novice social workers that consultation does not eliminate the legal obligation to report suspected maltreatment. Training targeted to specific school levels is also suggested. The case diagrams presented in this article provide a vivid snapshot of the school social worker's ecology in reporting instances of suspected abuse or neglect.These diagrams may be valuable tools for educating school stakeholders about the pivotal role of the school social worker and for educating practitioners and students unfamiliar with school social work about practice in school settings. The diagrams have generated useful discussion in, for example, an undergraduate generalist social work practice course. Learning more about CPS may be useful for school social workers, particularly regarding their common goals and different approaches. Future child welfare workers would also benefit from learning about school social workers as potential collaborators. They have the potential to work on behalf of children as allies. Three school social workers in this sample had prior child welfare work experience. They expressed frustrations about communication access with CPS, but when they were in contact with CPS personnel, they described more confidence than others in their ability to collaborate and use language that would achieve the goals they thought best for the child. References REFERENCES Alaggia, R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse &Neglect, 28, 1213-1227.

20 November 2014 Page 14 of 17 ProQuest

Allen-Meares, P. (1994). Social work services in schools: A national study of entry-level tasks. Social Work, 39, 560-565. Altshuler, S.J. (2006). School social work collaboration with the child welfare system. In R. Constable, C. R. Massat, S. McDonald, &J. P. Flynn (Eds.), School social work (6th ed., pp. 544-558). Chicago: Lyceum Books. Braun, V., &Clark.V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77- 101. Bryant J., &Milsom, A. (2005). Child abuse reporting by school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9;(1),63-71. Casto, R. M., &Julia, M. C. (Eds.). (1994). Interprofessional care and collaborative practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crosson-Tower, C. (2002). When children are abused: An educator's guide to intervention. Boston: Allyn &Bacon. Faller, K. C. (2006). Helping students who have been physically or sexually abused: Strategies and interventions. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &R Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionals (pp. 377-382). New York: Oxford University Press. Finkelhor.D. (1995).The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 177-193. Franklin, C, &Harris, M. B. (2007).The delivery of school social work services. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.), Social work services in schools (5th ed., pp. 317-356). Boston: Allyn &Bacon. Gil, E. (1991). The healing power of play: Working with abused children. New York: Guilford Press. Graham, T. L. (1993). Beyond detection: Education and the abused student. Social Work in Education, 15, 197- 206. Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Families in Society, 76, 111-122. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books. Hines, D. A., &Finkelhor, D. (2007). Statutory sex crime relationships between juveniles and adults: A review of social science research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 300-312. Hinson, J., &Fossey, R. (2000). Child abuse: What teachers in the '90s know, think, and do. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 251-266. James, S. H., &DeVaney, S. B. (1994). Reporting suspected sexual abuse: A study of counselor and counselor trainee responses. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 28, 257-264. Jonson-Reid, M. (2002). After a child abuse report: Early adolescents and the child welfare system. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 24-48. Jonson-Reid, M., Kim, J., Barolak, M., Citerman, B., Laudel, C, Essma, A., et al. (2007). Maltreated children in schools: The interface of school social work and child welfare. Children &Schools, 29, 182-191. Kenny, M. C. (1998). Child abuse reporting: The clinician's dilemma. Journal for the Professional Counselor, 13, 7-16. Kenny, M. C. (2004). Teachers' attitude towards and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse &Neglect, 28, 1311-1319. Kline, P. M., &Brabeck, M. M. (1999). Ethics and collaborative practice in public schools. In R.W.C. Tourse &J. F. Mooney (Eds.), Collaborative practice: School and human service partnerships (pp. 285-297). Westport, CT: Praeger. Kopels, S. (2006). Laws and procedures for reporting child abuse: An overview. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionals (pp. 369-376). New York: Oxford University Press.

20 November 2014 Page 15 of 17 ProQuest

Lewis, M. R. (1998).The many faces of social work practice: Results from a research partnership. Social Work in Education, 20, 177-190. Lovett, B. B. (2004). Child sexual abuse disclosure: Maternal response and other variables impacting the victim. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 355-371. Miles, M. B., &Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Palmer, S. E., Brown, R. A., Rae-Grant, N. I., &Loughlin, M.J. (1999). Responding to children's disclosure of familial abuse: What survivors tell us. Child Welfare, 78, 259-282. Reamer, F. G. (2005). Update on confidentiality issues in practice with children: Ethics risk management [Trends &Issues]. Children &Schools, 17, 117-120. Rosenthal, S., Feiring, C, &Taska, L. (2003). Emotional support and adjustment over a year's time following sexual abuse discovery. Child Abuse &Neglect, 27, 641-661. Saxon, C, Jacinto, GA., &Dziegielewski, S. F. (2006). Self-determination and confidentiality: The ambiguous nature of decision-making in social work practice. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 13(4), 55-72. Scannapieco, M. (2006). Building effective alliances with Child Protective Services and other child welfare agencies. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionals (pp. 383-387). New York: Oxford University Press. Staudt, M. M. (2001). Psychopathology, peer relations, and school functioning of maltreated children: A literature review. Children &Schools, 23, 85-100. Tourse, R.W.C., &Mooney, J. F. (Eds.). (1999). Collaborative practice: School and human service partnerships. Westport, CT: Praeger. Traube, D. E., &McKay, M. M. (2006). Helping children in foster care and other residential placements succeed in school. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionak (pp. 389-396). New York: Oxford University Press. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Child maltreatment 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. VanBergeijk, E. (2006). Identifying child abuse or neglect strategies in a school setting. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionals (pp. 361-368). New York: Oxford University Press. Webb, N. B. (2003). Social work practice with children (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. AuthorAffiliation Amy Chanmugam, AfSSWf LCSHi is a doctoral candidate, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, D 3510, Austin, TX 78712-0358; e-mail: achanmugam@mail. utexas.edu. The author gratefully acknowledges study participants for sharing their perspectives and Laura Lein, PhD, for her mentorship. She extends many thanks abo to two colleagues who made valuable comments-Beth GeAach, MSSW, LCSW, and Kathy Amenta, MSW, LCSW-and to the anonymous reviewers. Accepted February 26, 2009 Subject: Social workers; Social work; Child abuse & neglect; Children & youth; Publication title: Children & Schools Volume: 31 Issue: 3 Pages: 145-161

20 November 2014 Page 16 of 17 ProQuest

Number of pages: 17 Publication year: 2009 Publication date: Jul 2009 Year: 2009 Publisher: Oxford University Press Place of publication: Washington Country of publication: United States Publication subject: Social Services And Welfare, Education ISSN: 15328759 Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature Document feature: Diagrams References ProQuest document ID: 210949565 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/210949565?accountid=27965 Copyright: Copyright National Association of Social Workers, Incorporated Jul 2009 Last updated: 2012-04-05 Database: ProQuest Education Journals,ProQuest Psychology Journals

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright  2014 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

20 November 2014 Page 17 of 17 ProQuest