A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers'

Clinical and Professional Relationships

when Reporting Child Maltreatment
Amy Chanmugam

This qualitative study explored school social workers' rehitionships 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 manaiic clinical and professional
relationships in the complex school environment vvlieii reporting.This study obtained rich
descriptions ot their reporting experiences. In-depth interviews and .1 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'penpectives on case management during disclosure
and reporting. Thematic analysis of interviews identified several themes percainiiig, for
example, to communications with caregivcrs inà children about Child Protective Services
R'ports, intfrprotessional collaboration, and management oí 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: ahusc; child malti'catmml; interprofessional

collaboration; reporting; school soäal work

I
n 2005, state child protection agencies
received more than 3 million reports alleg-
ing child maltreatment, involving 6 million
children,with large percentages of reports made
by educational personnel and social services per-
sonnel (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [HHSj, 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 person-
nel related to abuse and neglect reporting has
focused on reporting by teachers (Hinson S¿
Fossey,2000;Kenny,20()4) and counselors (Bry-
ant & Milsom. 2005; James & DeVaney. 1994).
Reporting among school social workers has only
been studied recently (fonson-Reid et al., 2007).
Jonson-Reid and colleagues studied the casel-
oads ot school social workers in two suburban
districts and found that mal treatment-related
cases constituted approximately 20 percent of
their caseloads.
Overall, literature on school personnel and
child maltreatment focuses on prevention,
identification, and reporting rather than on
how schools can support children who have
been maltreated (Faller,2O()6). Although school
social workers are ethically and legally man-
dated reporters, little is known about how they
perceive and manage clinical and professional
relationships in the coinple.x school environ-
ment when they become aware of an abuse or
neglect case and initiate a report. In a review of
chnical issues raised by reporting maltreatment,
Kenny (I99S) noted that professionals may feel
torn between issues of confidentiality and child
protection laws.
This article presents a qualitative study that
sought to shed hght on this underresearched
practice area by exploring clinical and profes-
sional relationship dynamics of school social
workers initiating reports of child abuse or
neglect within the context of ongoing client
relationships. The study was prompted by the

CCC Code: 1532-8759/09 Í3.00 ©J009 National Aííociation of Social Workers 145
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
(Maggia, 2004; Lovett, 2004; Palmer, Brown,
Rae-Grant.& Loughlin, 1999; Rosenthal, Feir-
ing, oí Taska, 2003), and by observations that I
made as a school social worker and clinical su-
pervisor. 1 observed school personnel and social
work interns struggle at times with reporting
and how it influenced relationships with clients
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 substanti-
ated, or maltreatment does not rise to a level that
would result in Child Protective Services (CPS)
intervention Qonson-Reid et al.,2007).In 2005,
approximately 3H 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 m 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 maltreat-
ment. 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 substan-
tiated physical abuse cases involved middlc-
school-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
146
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 le-
gally mandated to report suspected abuse and
neglect (Kopels, 2006).The clinical and profes-
sional 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 re-
search 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 recom-
mendations 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 personnel to
believe the child's disclosure, and the need
for service coordination among professionals
involved with the child. Graham (1993) recom-
mended that school social workers take a ho-
listic 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 childrens needs.
A number of maltreatment-related resources
are available to school social workers. The lit-
erature 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 person-
nel (Altshuler, 2006; Scannapieco, 2006) and
service provision to children already involved in
Chililren a-Schools VOLUME Í I , NUMBEK Î JULY 1009
the foster care system (Altshuler, 2006; Traube
& McKay, 2006). Resources describing the
dynamics of effective interprofessional practice,
which is key in supporting maltreated children,
arc also available to school personnel (Casto &
Julia, 1994;Tourse & Mooney, 1999).
The relationship between a practitioner and a
chent takes on special importance in instances of
trauma (Gil, 1991; Herman, 1992).Trauma may
damage trust and intimacy. When a child dis-
closes 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 initiat-
ing 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 tam-
ily'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;Loven,2004; Pahiier 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 so-
cial 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 tive 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.
CHANMUCAM / Smdy of School Social Workers' Cihiical and Professional Relationships when Reporting Child Mallreiument
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 full-
time.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. Par-
ticipants' 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 Insti-
tutional Review Board of the University of
Texas at Austin. Participants were recruited
with convenience, maximum-variation, and
snowball sampling techniques (Creswell, 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 tocus
group format was used to augment individual
interview data collection by providing an op-
portunity for reporting issues that 1 had not
considered asking about to emerge through
participants' dialogue. Three agency employ-
ees, 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 man-
ner. 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
147
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 inter-
viewed 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 contauied three sections. The
first section concerned the participant's work-
ing 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 client on her caseload—that
is, witii 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 percep-
tions 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 devel-
opment 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 conmients in the ensu-
ing discussion. Participants were able to ask one
another questions and compare experiences.The
focus group and the individual interviews were
aiidiotaped and transcribed verbatim.
DATA ANALYSIS
The initial analysis plan was to conduct thematic
analyses (Miles & Hubernian, 1994), beginning
with line-by-line coding of each transcript, fol-
148
lowed by identification of patterns across cases. It
was soon apparent, however, that understanding
ot 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 client.
The second illustrated her clinical and profes-
sional relationships during a specific case of
maltreatment disclosure and reporting. Both
had the social worker and the primary client 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 line
by line, the role title of each person or group
named (for example, mother. CPS) was added
to the diagram. Each time the participant sub-
sequently named that person in a new context,
a line was drawn to represent the relationship
interaction.Thus,some pairings on the diagram
began to have three or more lines connect-
ing them to each other, indicating frequent
interactions. These relationships were then
characterized as"intense"and represented with
one bold line. Two other types of relationships
were characterized as intense and are denoted
with a bold line: those described as playing
a prominent role and those about which the
school social worker made strong affective
statements. Some relationship comments de-
scribed communications, actions, or emotions
that were reciprocated, whereas others did
not. These relationship exchanges were de-
picted 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 tlie situation, their role title (for example,
father) was included but no lines were con-
nected to it. Taken as a whole, each diagram
provided a vivid snapshot oi' the number of
players influencing the situation and the tenor
ot the relationship interactions.
Children & Schools VOLKMF. }I. NUMBER } Jui.v Î009
 After creation ofthe diagrams tor each case,
interview transcripts were analyzed using the-
matic analysis (Braun & Cbrk, 2006; Miles &
Hubertnan, 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
tliemes, 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 identify 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 meto 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 vahdity 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 qualita-
tive fmdings.In this study,several methods were
used to increase rigor, such as attention to po-
tentially disconfirniing cases and ongoing review
with the senior consultant. Maximum-variation
sampling also represented an effort to increase
the likelihood lif 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
CHAN M ut; AM / Siiidy of Sehool Social Workers' Clinieûl and Professional Relationship! when Reporting ChiU Maltreaiment
maltreatment and "be believed" but also ambiva-
lent about reporting and family intervention.
RESULTS
Research Questions 1 and 2
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 disclo-
sure 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 princi-
pal. One high school social worker described
her relationships as follows:
It's a wliole system. You've gotta have yood
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 tliat
he the student or a teacher .,, everything kind
of comes to ¿l halt. If yoti're trying to help a
sttident 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 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 bv likc,"Wcll, no. if she's absent,
she still fails, 1 don't care," Or they mayjust see
you as someone who is trying to enable the
149
 Student to not take responsibility. There can
be lots of different reasons. Certainly everyone
that yoLi 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 cime.
Contact with school and outside agency person-
nel 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 pseud-
onym). Lori is employed by a nonprofit agency.
She supervises other on-site social services staff.
Figure 1: Influences on the Working Alliance between
a School Social Worker and a Child (Lori's Case)
Off-.site
agency
supervisor
Schon I
Support
Personnel
Team
Nofe: Haif line = a relationship; arrow = directionW in which (ornmunitation. actions, and emotion! (low bold line = ¡nlen« or espetially clow relationship: dashed line i
infrequent contact, afnhiguouî or conflicted relationship
150
such as interns and caseworkers. When siblings
receive individual counseling services, they are
assigned to different on-site agency personnel. A
small number oí tamily 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 intensi-
ties of relationships were not altered. Although
each participant's diagrams were unique, the
majority were similar to Lori's m the number
and complexity of the relationships depicted.
Lori described her most recent report, initi-
ated 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
Teachers
agency
sraff
Children &Schools VOLUME 31, N U M B E R J JULY 1 0 0 9
 Figure 2: Clinical and Professional Relationships during
a Specific Abuse Reporting Case (Lori's Case)

Counselors Law
(police
Mo die r & legal
Principal {single svsteml

Teachers
Perpeiraior
Child
\ 1'roteen vc
Set vie«

School Child Kx tended

soda]
worker
V family
mem bet

Direct
Father
supervisor
on another (not in
Siblings home)
campus at the
Siaff ai other Siblings at
Other schools other school
.School on-site (agency (including
Support agency & school ppLmary
Personne i staff employees) vienm)
Team

Mote: Hair line a a relationships arrow = dir«t>on(i) in which communiât ion, actions, and emotiuns flow; bold line ^ intense or especially close relationship; dashed line >
infrequent contact ambiguous or conflicted relationihip; bon with no line to tt = person mentioned as inf luentrjl but not actively involved; line with no arrow "^ one-time
contad, relationship not lerminaled.

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 mter-
view 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. Pohce 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 client 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 in-
formation 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 client's siblings. 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 simi-
lar numbers of people involved and similar types
and increases in intensity of relationships related
to disclosure and reporting. The two who dit-
fered from others reported involvement offewer
people and less intense relationships. One was a

CHANMLICAM / Study of School Social Workers' Clirjiail and Professional Relniiomhips when Reporting ChilA Malrreatmeni
 district-employed middle school social worker,
and one was a nonprofit-em ployed 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 t)'pically complied with reporting
protocol. Several others had shared that other
school personnel, e.specially 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 participants 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 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 cont'identially
with a student (for example, janitors 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 in-
fluential 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 promi-
nently in analysis of the interviews regarding
the third research question (How do school
social workers think about relationships in
152
disclosure and reporting situations?), including
themes related to trust, boundaries, and the
dynamic, interactive nature of relationships.
Participants described assessing and manag-
ing their relationships on an ongoing basis,
especially in relation to confidentiality with
protessionals and openness about the reporting
with chents. Analysis of participant percep-
tions 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 so-
cial worker relationships with the caregiver and
caregiver support, professional collaborations
within the school, CPS, social workers' personal
stress, school level and age differences,and dif-
ferences 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, focu.s group
participants emphasized that many of the dy-
namics that marked reporting within ongoing
relationships were not typical of issues arising
in reports of children they did not have a rela-
tionship with.They perceived the latter type of
reporting situations to be less complex.
Ot'erall Salience of Issues Related to Report-
ing. 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 su-
pervisors 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
Chi Uren & Schools VOLUME 51, NUMBER 3 Jtn.v 1009
has unique nuances and benefits from a second
opinion. Participants sought to exchange ideas
on case management and clinical and profes-
sional 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 com-
munication 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 ofthe abuse.
School Social Worker Relationships with the
Caregiver and Carcgiver Support. Participant
interviews included empathie statements about
the challenges families faced, particularly related
to poverty, mental illness, and inadequate ser-
vices. In their assessment of family situations,
participants used words like "overstressed,"
"overwhelmed," and "overworked" to describe
caregivers. The instances in which these de-
scriptors were used included cases in which
the caregiver was the presumed perpetrator of
physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect, A
minority of participants made negative com-
ments about caregivers. One participant who
did not make empathie 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 ninth-
grader living alone with a single-parent father,
the participant did not discuss the caregiver in
detail. Her comments tocused 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 Collahorations within the School.
Formal teams were generally influential for most
participants, but not necessarily in instances of
CPS reporting. There was wide variation in
CHANMUGAM / Study of School Social Workers' Clinical and Professional Relarionships when Reporting Child Maltreatment
how school social workers perceived the utility
of formal support teams, with some describ-
ing 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 mitiimizing
student needs. Informal collaborations, however,
were cited by most school social workers as
essential. Most participants cited the relation-
ship 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 influenc-
ing school norms.
Participants described similar decision-
making 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 par-
ticipants regarding teacher communication was
balancing confidentiality with the best interven-
tion 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 chiit
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 a^ain
to the teacher, on the importance . . , they
understand, but sometimes 1 think it needs to
be reviewed , , , with al! these people going
in and out of break rooms and mail areas and
coffee area.s and work areas, its real easy tor
that confidentiality to be broken . . . closed
doors are important.
153
 CPS. School social workers described strategic
thinking and a wide range of feelings about CPS
interactions. Several made empathie 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 foUow-up communi-
cation. 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 ex-
ample, 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 luiture of the system is that it tries to
reduce a ver\' 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
ttitTerent worker [laughs]..., I wish CPS had
more support to be able to do their job better.
So many people there ¿ire reallyjaded,.. .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?"
,'\nd you're tike, well, if it was over 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 tiie other line say/'Well,you know,
thiit's just not bad enough.This kid s needs and
transgressions do not rise to the level of care or
concern th;it we can address," When they say,
"We won't even send it to the field, we'll just
154
keep it as a note," you know, I totally understand
their situation, why they have to do thac, but
that's frustrating.That's the hard part.
Social Workers' Personal Stress. Most par-
ticipants 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 profession-
als not honoring confidentiality, not complying
with reporting mandates, and asking school
social workers to report secondhand suspicions.
Workload-related stress included documenta-
tion 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
enforcenient 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
—"teenagerisni"—to describe the preconcep-
tions held by some adults about the truth of
adolescents' statements:
They .ilmost assume that the parent is rhe
person who knew what they were doing.
Childrtn &Sehools VOLUME 31, NUMBER J JULY 2009
 And that contuses me . . . the report is <ibout
the parent. . . . I have found that it is almost
like teenagers have hecome looked at as,"Oh,
they are always lying and manipulating." And
true, some of them do do that a tot. But it
always amazed me, the cynicism of the adult
working with that age group . . . when they
have a younger sibling living in che home, I
always mention that, because it means maybe
the teenager will get help now.... It's almost
üke,what ¿lreall the"isnis"? Racism, adultism,
it's almost a tecnat^crism. 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 elemen-
tiiry 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 report-
ing with a sense of futility, 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 maltreat-
ment 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 complications for the workers in terms
of chnical and professional relationships, often
requiring them to repeat explanations to school
personnel about tlieir limited ability to main-
tain 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
CHANMUGAM / Study of School Soc/al Workers' Clinical and Professional Rflattonships wben Reporting Child Maltreatment
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
call CPS."* The fact 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 Socia! Workers Related
to Career Experience. School social workers
reported an increase in their comfort manag-
ing 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 report-
ing changed:
I was scared to death when I hrst got hired.
. . . Of course, the first report was so scary. 1
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. 1 felt all alone—That
didn't last too long. Certainly it has changed.
My comfort level is ... well it is just something
chat 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 beheved 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 client, when the limits of
confidentiality are explained, was cited as key;
several participants noted the novice mistake
of omitting or rushing througii 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 dis-
closure and reporting process?) each participant
described typical actions and their views of best
practices. Analyses of the actions they described
155
yielded eight specific categories: consultation,
formal procedures and documentation, inter-
action 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 man-
ager (Franklin ik Harris,2007).One participant
had been involved as an educator and manager
in planning schooiwide 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.
Formai Procedures and Documentation. School
social workers described wide variation in
what was required ot 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 tbrms chat were circulated among staff
and then filed.
Interaction with Other School Personnel. In
addition to required formal procedures, most
participants described always cisnimunicating
that they h.id filed a C'PS report with at least
one other on-site school administrator or coun-
selor. The torni of this conmiunication varied.
This middle school social worker's statement
illustrates a typical description:
|1 infortnl both the printipuls and the coun-
selor. I Ice .ill three of them know th^tt I have
made .1 report for CPS 011 this stiidcnt. But I
don't ^\vc them the details because sometimes
tlif piirents cilî. an£;ry and wanting to know
156
who did it. And Tin 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 •) report? And [ don't tell
the teachers. But sometimes they ask... .And
sometimes their friends a.sk. And itjust,it varies.
And I don't tell the friends, the kid.s do.
Increased Family Support. In most cases, re-
porting was only one of several actions taken
by participants to address concerns about the
faniily.They typically attempted to link ilimilies
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 neglect-
ful 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 thera-
peutic alliance because of the confidentiality
breach; and tlie recognition that other service
providers, including CPS, were unlikely to be
able to follow up to tlie extent that a school
professional would.
Efforts to Have Ongoing CPS Contact. T h e
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 supervi-
sor 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 <ïf a report and
Children &Schools VOLUME JI, NUMBER 3 JULY 2009
 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 par-
ticipant stated that she thoroughly reviews the
limits of confidentiality with students at the
beginning of services. Most shared this un-
prompted when discussing their process with a
child when they arc preparing to report. Several
typically remind children ofthat initial conver-
sation 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 keep-
ing 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 tor 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, rehef, hope, hopelessness,
and indifference. Participants stated that one
child may often have mixed feelings, perhaps
originating trom 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 regard-
ing her family situation and about the report
in ensuing interactions with the child (and the
child's sibhng at her school):
/ Study of School Social Worirers' Clinifal and Professional Relationships when Reporting Child Maltreûtment
It was pretty much open talk about all o f i t , , .
the hard part was I didn't liave tiuicli to i!;o with.
'Cause 1 h-iven't tiocten niudi inforinatioii from
CPS. I ctmldn't rt-ally give them nnich more,
but they were toid a report was made, mid my
reasoning behind the report was,"I chink the
Mom needs help, 1 think y'all are just, you
know just really overworked right now as a
family. And y'ati need somebody to come in
and help , .. we have to since your sister was
raped." And. just talking about feelings about
CPS and reaction co that.And it was very shut
down from there,andjust 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 im-
portant for building or maintaining an alliance
that would serve the needs of the child. The
majority stated that they do not routinely Jo
this,but they will acknowledge initiating a C]PS
report if asked and will discuss their concerns if
the caregiver raises the issue. Several described
strategic, strengths-focused approaches to com-
municating 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 maltreat-
ment 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'chnical and
professional relationship networks may change in
terms ot 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 relatioEiship changes.
157
 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 person-
nel. Increased interprofessional collaboration
introduces increased complexity and need for
trust among the professionals involved (Kline
fi; Bnibeck. 1999), which was validated 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 form;il 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 clinical and
instrumental support of families when reporting
abuse or neglect (Crosson-Tower, 2(X)2; 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 clinical practices
with children related to reporting.) Most par-
ticipants expressed the belief that their actions
at the time of disclosure and reporting could
mitigate negative effects of the maltreatment
and the breach in confidentiality 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
I5S
strongly held beliefs and typical actions related to
this practice found in this small sample. A school
social worker talking with a child about a report
that she or lie initiated is a qualitatively differ-
ent 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 childs
family life. Given that most participants believed
that their actions could mitigate harm, and
given the variation in practices, further research
should identifV' 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 percent-
ages of adolescents are physically and sexually
abused in comparison with younger children
{HHS, 2007), reports concerning young adoles-
cents may 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 ot negative
responses to adolescent abuse described by par-
ticipants. School social workers must be aware of
the vulnerabilities ofthe 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
ofthe victim's age.
LIMITATIONS
This qualitative study used a small, nonprob-
ability, convenience sample. Results are not
generalizable to other school social workers.
Childrrn &Sehooh VOLUME I I . N U M B E R 3 JULY 2009
 Findings provide preliminary information on
school social workers' perspectives and experi-
ences 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. Partici-
pants describing strengths-focused interventions
may have been framing actions in a socially
desirable manner in terms of practices recom-
mended in the clinical literature. EfForts were
made to reduce potential researcher effects and
social desirability through, for example, member
checking and asking neutral, nonleading ques-
tions 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 priva-
tization of social services has applied to schools
as well. The present fmdings 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 ove rre près en ta tion of the nonprofit
model and one geographic region, the high
level of salience expressed by most participants,
and the variability in this small sample under-
score the need for further study of school social
workers'experiences and perceptions related to
CPS reporting, especially because maltreated
children form a large proportion ofVhool social
workers'caseloads (AJIen-Meares. 1994; Jonson-
CHANMUGAM / Study of School Social Workers' Clinical and Profhsiona! Relationships wheri Reporting ChiU Maltreatment
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 con-
cerning children already on the school social
workers' caseloads, future studies of dynamics
when a child is not yet receiving service would
flirther develop the knowledge base on report-
ing practices.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The results illustrate the need for school social
workers to be mindful of the relationship dy-
namics involved in reporting abuse and neglect
within the context of an existing client rela-
tionship. The findings also have implications
for social work roles and self-care and the need
for additional adolescent services. Study partici-
pants expressed ideas for system improvements
in the school, school district, community, and
CPS that would lay the groundwork for there
being fewer relationship cliallenges related to
reporting. Few participants, however, had ad-
dressed 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, which is
a part of sound ethical practice (Reamer, 2005).
Also, participants described the importance of a
strong collégial foundation with school person-
nel in navigating the relationship dynamics of
reporting. Ongoing interprofessional trainings
assist with the maintenance of such a founda-
tion. Cross-disciplinary discussions of topics
like consent requirements and conf^ideutiality
values would foster the understanding that re-
duces 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.
159
 Many participants talked about personal stress
reactions that arose for a variety of reporting-
related 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 be-
ing hurt in their families at a level that does not
lead to CPS intervencion.These findings surest
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 re-
lationship. 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 clini-
cal 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, par-
ticipants 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 bal-
ance 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 increas-
ingly comfortable with these issues over time.
Earlier training on these dimensions, with case
examples, may be beneficial. Despite the value of
160
consultation, it must be reiterated for novice so-
cial workers that consultation does not eliminate
the legal obligation to report suspected maltreat-
ment.Training targeted to specific school levels
is also suggested.
The case diagrams presented in this article
provide a vivid snapshot of the school social
workers ecology in reporting instances of sus-
pected 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 un-
familiar with school social work about practice
in school settings.The diagrams have generated
useful discussion in, for example, an undergradu-
ate 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. Œ
REFERENCES
y. K. (2lHl4). Many ways of telling: Expanding
conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure.
OtiU.Mmsc & .W^lt-cl. 2S. 1213-1227.
Alkn-Mearcs, I'. {1W4). Social work services in schools:
A national midy of entry-level tasks. Social Work,
39, 56()-.S65.
AlLshuler, S. J. (2(K)f>). School social work collaboration
with the child welfare system. In R. Constable,
C. R. Massât, S. McDonald, & J.I'. Flynn (Eds.).
,SV/mi)/ social uvrk (6ch ed., pp. 544-.'i58). Chicago:
Lyceum Books.
Draun,V., S< Clark,V. (2(Hlfi). Using thematic analysi.s
in psychology. QuaUtati\'e Research In Psydiology, .Î,
77-10!.
Bryant,J., & Milsom. A. (2005). Child abuse reporting
by school counselors. Pn>fc.í.-:ioniil School Counsvlini;,
9(1),(>3-71.
Casto, R. M.,& Julia, M.C. (Eds.). (1994). Inlerprofcssional
cure anil íollíilioralive practice. Pacific Grove. C A :
IÏ rooks/Cole.
Cresweil.J.W. (19'iS). Qnalilatii'c inquiry and research
(ÍCJI^H; Choosing ainoiig fwc ITMHHOIIS. T h o u s a n d O a k s ,
CA: Sago I'ubhcatioiis.
Children & Schools VOLUME }I. NUMBER I JULY l
 c rosso n-Tower, C. (2(102). IVIii-ii chiUreii are abused:
An edut'ahir'sguide to inicrrfiilioti. Boston: AUyn &
liacon.
Faller, K. C. (2006). Helping students who have been
physically or sexually abused: Strategies and inter-
ventions. In C. Frünktiii. M. B. Harris, & I'. AIIL-Ü-
Meares (Eds.), llw school sctvices soimchooii:A \;¡uidc
¡or schooi-hascd [mfcssioiiiih (pp. 377-3H2). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Finkelhor, IX (ly'i.S).The victimization of children:
A developmental perspective. American Joiirtuil of
Onhopiyclnmy. 65. 177-193.
Franklin. C , & Harris. M. B. (2(l()7}.The deHver>' of
school social work services. In P. Allcn-Meares
(Ed,), Sociiii work scnriccs in .vliooh (5th ed., pp.
317-356).liostoniAlIyn & Bacon.
Gil. E. (iy'>l). 'llic lifdlin^ power oj play: H'brkin^ with
abused children. New York: Guilford Press.
Graham,T. L. (iy')3). Beyond detection: Education and
the abused student. Social Woik in Education, 15,
197-206.
Hartman.A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family
relationships. Rjniilics in Society. 76, 111-122.
I lerinjn,J. L. (19')2). Traiiiihi ,iud rcmwrj'. New York:
Basic Books.
HinL-s. 1). A.. &.• Finkelhor. IX (2(lt)7). Statutory sex crime
relationships between juveniles and adults: A review
of social science research, .dijurí'.íífcfi and Violent
Behavior. 12, 3(K)-3I2.
Hinson,J., & Fossey, R. (20(Hl). Child abuse: What
teachers in the '90s know, think, and <io. Joiirtuil of
Education for Siiiiifnts I'hiccd <if Risk', 5. 251-266.
James, S. H..& DeV.uioy, S. B. (ly'M). Reporting suspect-
ed sexual abuse: A study of counselor and counselor
trainee responses. Eletncnliiry School Guid¡¡na' and
GxHw/mi,'. 28. 257-264.
Jonson-Rcid, M. (2l)(l2). After a child .ihusf report: Early
adolescents and the child welfare system.Jimrfin/ of
Early Aiiotcsa-nce, 22, 24-4S.
joiison-Reid, M.. Kim,J., Barotak, M., Citerman, B.,
Laudel. C , Essma, A., et al. (2007). Maltreated chil-
dren in schools:The interface ot school social work
and child welfare. Children & Scliooh. 2'J. I82-19L
Kemiy.M. C, (1998). Ghild abuse reportiiig:Tlie tlini-
cian's dilennna. journal for llu- Profeísiomú Coiin.ielor.
/_i,7-l6.
Kenny, M. C. (2004).Teachers' attitude towards and
knowledge of child maltreatment. Child .'\lnisc &
Nc:t¡lixi.2H. 1311-1319.
Kline. P. M., & Braheck. M. M. (1999). Ethics and col-
laborative practice in public schools. In R.W.C.
Tourse & J. E Mooney (Eds.), Collaboraliiv prailiœ:
School and human seruice paritwrshipi (pp. 285—297).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kopeis. S. (200f>). Laws >uid puicedures for reporting
cliild abuse: An overview. In C. Franklin, M. IÏ.
Harris. & P. Allen-Me.ires (Eds.). 1 he school scri'ia'i
sounrlioohiA i^uidc tor school-hd.'sed prote.^sionnls (pp.
369-376). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. R. (194H).The many faces of social work prac-
tice: Results from a research partnership. Social IVorL-
in Education, 20. 177-190.
Lovetr, B. B. (2004). Child sexual abuse disdosure:
Maternal response and other variables impacting
the victim. Cliild and Adolciíeni Social Wori: ¡ourinjl.
21. 355-371.
Miles, M. B,, & Hubcrnun, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analy.m: All e.xpanded sourccl)ooi¿. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
I'almcr. S. E., Brown. R. A., Rae-Cîrant, N. !.. Ik
Loughlin, M.J. (1999). Responding to childrt-n's
CHANMUGAM / Study ofSchool Social Workers' Ciinicul und Professiuiuil kchuionsbips when Reporting Child Maltreatment
disclosure of familial abuse:What survivors tell us.
Child Welfare, 78, 259-282.
Reamer, F G. (21)05). Update on confidentiality issues
in practice witli children: Ethics risk nianagenieiu
[Trends & Wsucs]. Children & Schools. 17. 117-120.
Rosenthal. S.. Feiring, C:., & Taska, L. (2003). Emotional
support and adjustment over a years time following
sexual abuse discovery. Child Abuse i~ Ncí¡leíl. 27,
641-66!.
Saxon, C,Jacinto, G. A., & Dziegielewski, S. F. (2006).
Setf-determinacion and confidentiality:The am-
biguous nature of decision-making in social work
practice, fi'iif/iii/ of Human Beluivior in ihc Sociiil
Environment, ¡.i{4), 55-72.
Scannapieco. M. (2006). Building effective alliances with
Child Protective Services and other child welfare
agencies. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &: 1* Allen-
Mcart's (Eds.), The school scn'ices sourcel'ook:.'\ <^uide
for school-based professionals (pp. 3H3-3H7). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Staudt, M. M. (2001). Psythopathology, peer relations,
and school functioning of maltreated children: A
literature review. Children i- Sihoois, 2.t. 85-100.
Tourse. R.W.C.& Mooney.J. F. (Eds.). (1999). ColU-
oratire practice: Scliool and human sen-ite partnerships.
Wcstport, CT: Praeger.
Traube. I> E., & McKay, M. M. (2006). Helping children
in foster care and other residential pluements suc-
ceed in school. In C". Fninklin, M, [i. Harris. & P.
Allen-Meares (Eds.). Hie school seri-ices sourcebool!:A
í^uiiii- for school'lmscd pnofessionals (pp. 389—396). New
York: Oxford University' Press.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007).
Child maltrealmeni 2005. Washington, OC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
VanBergeijk. E. (2OO6). Identifying child abuse or neglect
strategies in a school setting. In [". Fraiikli[i. M. Ü.
Harris, & P Allen-Meares (Eds.). 'I'lie .school sen-ices
sourcebook: A ^¡uide for school-based professionals (pp.
36]-.V>H). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wehh. N, B. (2OO3). Social work practice with children (2nd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Amy Chanmugam, MSSH^ LCSW ii a doctoral candi-
date. School oj Social IVork, University of Texas at Austin,
I Unii'ersily Slalioii, D .Í5H), .4iiitin.TX 7S7 J2-035H;
e-mail: iichiiiiniuj^ainiapnail.utc.xa.i.cihi.llii'auihor \;nmfully
ackfioii'lcdf¡es study participants for shariu\¡ ¡heir perspectives
ami Liiura Lein, PhD, for her mentorsUip. She extends many
lltanks also to two colleagues ti'ho made valuable cotnmenii—
Beth Gerlach. MSSIV, LCSIVand Kathy Arineiiin. .MSIV.
LCSW-—ami to the anonyinoui rei'ifiivrs.
Accepted February 26, 2009
16