바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.3

Citation Share

SThe Possibility of Application of the US CASA Program in Korea -Focusing on comparison of child protection service between USA and Korea

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues / Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, (P)1229-0661; (E)1229-0661
2018, v.24 no.3, pp.473-489
https://doi.org/10.20406/kjcs.2018.8.24.3.473

(2018). SThe Possibility of Application of the US CASA Program in Korea -Focusing on comparison of child protection service between USA and Korea. Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 24(3), 473-489, https://doi.org/10.20406/kjcs.2018.8.24.3.473

Abstract

Our society has an obligation and responsibility to respect and protect the character of the child. Recently, however, Korean society has been suffering from child abuse and abuse that is pouring out every day. In order to protect these children, the child protection system and the judicial system should be fundamentally child-friendly. The CASA(Court Appointed Special Advocates) volunteer program, which is being held in the United States with such a concern, is a continuing program of court attendance and emotional support services for abused children throughout the United States. In Korea, however, there are many similar programs such as mentoring projects, dream co-supporters project similar to the CASA program in various organizations of the region and the enactment of the Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse increases the involvement of the public system in child abuse. There is also an increased awareness of children's rights and strengthened government intervention through active monitoring to prevent recurrence of child abuse. These changes in the Korean society should be actively reviewed by the US CASA program and settled as a national project in the Korean society so that the system of protecting the safety and rights of the victims of child abuse will be established. It is anticipated to be a way to prevent social problems from occurring in advance.

keywords
CASA, child protection, child abuse, foster care, CASA(법원임명특별옹호자), 아동보호, 아동학대, 가정위탁

Reference

1.

강란혜 외 (2004). 아동학대 전문상담. 시그마프레스.

2.

김경래 (2014). 미국의 아동친화적 사업체계 사례-법원임명특별옹호자 프로그램을 중심으로. 한국아동권리학회 춘계학술대회 자료집: 대한민국 아동의 권리를 말하다, 91-115.

3.

김서현, 임혜림, 정익중 (2014). 중학생이 경험한 학대와 방임이 학교 내 대인관계에 미치는 영향 경로. 한국청소년연구, 25(4), 5-33.

4.

김수정, 정익중 (2013) 아동학대가 우울․불안과 공격성에 미치는 지속 효과와 최신 효과에 대한 종단 연구, 한국아동복지학, 43, 1-28.

5.

김은정 (2016). 아동학대 현황과 예방정책. 보건복지포럼, 31-43.

6.

김평화, 윤혜미 (2013). 아동학대가 아동의 정서결핍과 공격성에 미치는 영향. 한국아동복지학, 41, 217-239.

7.

김필두 (2016). 외국 지방자치단체의 아동학대방지대책. 한국지방행정연구원 웹사이트 http://www.krila.re.kr에서 2016년11월7일 인출.

8.

김형모, 이숙진, 서해정, 최은정, 김은정, 문순희 (2007). 가정폭력 노출이 청소년의 내재화 및 외현화 문제에 미치는 영향. 한국청소년연구, 18(1), 통권 45, 53-77.

9.

류이근, 임인택, 임지선, 최현준, 하어영 (2016). 아동학대에 관한 뒤늦은 기록: 별이 된 아이들 263명, 그 이름을 부르다. 시대의 창.

10.

박순조 (2012). 아동이 경험한 학대가 공격성에 미치는 영향: 인생 각본을 매개변인으로. 교류분석상담연구, 2(2), 1-21.

11.

보건복지부 (2015. 7. 31). 보도자료.

12.

보건복지부 (2017). 2016 전국아동학대 현황보고서. 중앙아동보호전문기관.

13.

보건복지부 (2017). 2016 가정위탁보호 현황보고서. 중앙가정위탁지원센터.

14.

브릿지경제신문 (2016. 3. 21). 보도자료.

15.

안동현 (2014). 체벌: 훈육인가 폭력/학대인가. 2014 훈육과 아동학대, 그 경계를 말하다. 국제아동권리포럼, 41-51.

16.

안지연, 손영은, 남석인 (2014). 부모의 학대 및 방임과 청소년의 학교생활적응과의 관계에서 공격성의 매개효과. 청소년학연구, 21(12), 261-284.

17.

원혜욱 (2015). 아동학대의 개념 및 실효적인 대책에 관한 검토. 인하대학교 법학연구, 18(4), 31-60.

18.

유연수 (2016). 학대 아동 보호를 위한 미국의 사회 감시망. NYPI 청소년 해외동향리포트. 한국청소년정책연구원 웹사이트 http:// www.nypi.re.kr에서 2016년11월7일 인출.

19.

이은주 (2014). 아동학대의 현황과 쟁점. 복지동향. 192, 16-21.

20.

Administration for Children and Familes(2013). Child welfare ourcome 2006-2011. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/ cwo08_11.pdf.

21.

Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental Pathways from Child Maltreatment to Peer Rejection. Child Development, 72(2), 549-568.

22.

Caliber Associates (2004). National CASA Association Evaluation Project. Caliber Associates; Fairfax, Virginia.

23.

Calkins, C., & Millar, M. (1999). The Effectiveness of Court Appointed Special Advocates to Assist in Permanency Planning. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16 (1), 37-45.

24.

Connell, C. M., Katz, K. H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J. K. (2006). Leaving foster care-the influence of child and case characteristics on foster care exit rates. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 780-798.

25.

Farineau, H. M., & McWey, L. M. (2011). The relationship between extracurricular activities and delinquency of adolescents in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 963-968.

26.

Gauthier, Y., Fortin, G., & Jéliu, G. (2004). Clinical application of attachment theory in permanency planning for children in foster care: The importance of continuity of care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25, 379-396.

27.

James, S., Monn, A. R., Palinkas, L. A., & Leslie, L. K. (2008). Maintaining sibling relationships for children in foster and adoptive placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 90-106.

28.

Jonson-Reid, M., & Barth, R. P. (2000). From placement to prison: The path to adolescent incarceration from child welfare supervised foster or group care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 493-516.

29.

Lawson, J., & Berrick, J. D. (2013). Establishing CASA as an evidence-based practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10, 321-337.

30.

Litzelfelner, P. (2000). The effectiveness of CASAs in achieving positive outcomes for children. Child Welfare, 79, 179-193.

31.

Litzelfelner, P. (2008). Consumer satisfaction with CASAs (Court Appointed Special Advocates). Children and Youth Services Review, 30, pp. 173-186.

32.

Litzelfelner, P., & Petr, C. G. (1997). Case advocacy in child welfare. Social Work, 42, 392-402.

33.

National CASA Association (2014). Annual Report. Retrievd November 7, 2016, from www.casaforchildren.org.

34.

Pilkay, S. & Lee. S. (2015). Effects of Court-Appointe Special Advocate Intervention on Permanency Outcomes of Children in Foster Care. Journal of Social Science Research, 41, 445-453.

35.

Piraino, M. S. (1999). Lay representation of abused and neglected children: Variations of court appointed special advocate programs and their relationship to quality advocacy. Journal of the Center for Children and the Courts, 1, 63-71.

36.

Poertner, J., & Press, A. (1990). Who best represents the interests of the child in court? Child Welfare, 69, 537-549.

37.

Rubin, D. M., Alessandrini, E. A., Feudtner, C., Mandell, D. S., Localio, A. R., & Hadley, T. (2004). Placement stability and mental health costs for children in foster care. Pediatrics, 113, 1336-1341.

38.

Siegel, G. C., Halemba, G. J., Gunn, R. D., Zawacki, S., Bozynski, M., & Black, M. S. (2001). Arizona CASA Effectiveness Study. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

39.

Waxman, H. C., Houston, W. R., Profilet, S. M., & Sanchez, B. (2009). The long-term effects of the Houston Child Advocates, Inc., program on children and family outcomes. Child Welfare, 88, 25-48.

40.

Weisz, V., & Thai, N. (2003). The Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program: Bringing information to child abuse & neglect cases. Child Maltreatment, 8, 204-210.

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues

e-Submission OA Policy