Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 9–22 | Cite as

“Not in the Same Sandbox”: Cross-Systems Collaborations Between Early Intervention and Child Welfare Systems

  • Catherine Corr
  • Rosa Milagros Santos


Maltreatment and disability often coexist in the lives of young children, as children who are maltreated are at a higher risk for developing a disability, and, conversely, children with a disability are at a higher risk of being maltreated. Despite being supported by multiple service systems, young children with disabilities who have experienced maltreatment are often not optimally supported by these service systems. We utilized a mixed methods design to explore how early intervention and child welfare collaborate to support young children with disabilities who have experienced maltreatment. Implications and future directions for research, policy and practice are discussed.


Early intervention Child welfare Maltreatment Disability System collaboration 



This research was supported in part by funding from the Doris Duke Child Well-Being Fellowship from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education: Project Blend (H325D110037). The authors thank Dr. Susan Fowler, Dr. Headda Meaddan, Dr. Jennifer Greene and the Doris Duke Child Well-Being Fellowship at Chapin Hall for their support and assistance with this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. Corr and Santos declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Allen, A. D., Hyde, J., & Leslie, L. K. (2012). “I don’t know what they know”: Knowledge transfer in mandated referral from child welfare to early intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1050–1059. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azzi-Lessing, L. (2010). Growing together: Expanding roles for social work practice in early childhood settings. Social Work, 55, 255–263. Retrieved from
  3. Barth, R. P., Scarborough, A., Lloyd, E. C., Losby, J., Casanueva, C., & Mann, T. (2007). Developmental status and early intervention service needs of maltreated children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  4. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corr, C., & Danner, N. (2013). Court-appointed special advocate strong beginnings: Raising awareness across early childhood and child welfare systems. Early Child Development and Care, 9–10, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2013.845564.Google Scholar
  6. Corr, C., & Santos, R. M. (under review). Jocelin: A “best-case” scenario for young children with disabilities who have experienced abuse? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Derrington, T., & Lippitt, J. (2008). From science to policy to practice: The evolving implementation of federally mandated referrals from child welfare to Part C early intervention. Zero to Three, 28, 18–24.Google Scholar
  8. Dicker, S., & Gordon, E. (2006). Critical connections for children who are abused and neglected. Infants & Young Children, 19, 170–178. doi: 10.1097/00001163-200607000-00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gateway, Child Welfare Information. (2011). Supporting brain development in traumatized children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar
  10. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innoncenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13, 93–99.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Herman-Smith, R. L. (2009). CAPTA referrals for infants and toddlers: Measuring early interventionists’ perceptions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 181–191. doi: 10.1177/0271121408331259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hibbard, R. A., & Desch, L. W. (2007). Maltreatment of children with disabilities. Pediatrics, 119, 1018–1102. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). London, UK: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  16. Krathwol, D. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  17. Larson, S. A., & Anderson, L. (2006). Children with disabilities and the child welfare system: Prevalence data. Impact, 19, 6–7.Google Scholar
  18. Lightfoot, E. B., Hill, K., & LaLiberte, T. (2011). Prevalence of children with disabilities in the child welfare system and out of home placement: An examination of administrative records. Child and Youth Services Review, 33, 2069–2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Litzelfelner, P., & Petr, C. G. (1997). Case advocacy in child welfare. Social Work, 42, 392–402. Retrieved from
  20. Manders, J. E., & Stoneman, Z. (2009). Children with disabilities in the child protective services system: An analog study of investigation and case management. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 229–237. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.10.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mertens, D. M. (2005). The inauguration of the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Musheno, K. (2006). Children with disabilities and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Impact, 19, 13.Google Scholar
  24. Orelove, F. P., Hollahan, D. J., & Myles, K. T. (2000). Maltreatment of children with disabilities: Training needs for a collaborative response. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 185–194. Retrieved from
  25. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, C., & Rosenberg, S. (2004). Child welfare referrals to Part C. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress, executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.Google Scholar
  28. Sobsey, D. (2002). Exceptionality, education, and maltreatment. Exceptionality, 10, 29–46. doi: 10.1207/S15327035EX1001_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Suhr, D. (1999). Guidelines for reliability, confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis for the scale of athletic priorities. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.Google Scholar
  31. Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (1998). The association between child maltreatment and disabilities in a hospital-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 271–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Taylor, O. A. (2009). Identification of maltreatment type in children with disabilities using the national child abuse and neglect data system (NCANDS). Houston, TX: The University of Texas School of Public Health.Google Scholar
  33. Tomison, A. M. (1996). Child maltreatment and disability. Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, 7, 1–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations