Mental health professionals in children's advocacy centers: is there role conflict?

Two recent chapters in professional books have criticized children's advocacy centers for creating role conflict for mental health professionals because of their work with criminal justice and child protection professionals in children's advocacy centers as part of a coordinated response to child abuse. This article argues that these critiques misunderstand children's advocacy center practice and overestimate the risk of role conflict. Children's advocacy center standards set a boundary between forensic interviewing and therapy, which in most children's advocacy centers are done by separate professionals and never by the same professional for a given child. Many mental health professionals serve children's advocacy centers as consultants with no treatment role. Children's advocacy center therapists are rarely involved in investigation, and their participation in multidisciplinary teams focuses on children's interests and well-being.     

Comment on Cross,Fine, Jones,and Walsh (2012): Do Mental Health Professionals Who Serve on/with Child Advocacy Centers Experience Role Conflict?

Cross, Fine, Jones, and Walsh's (2012 Cross, T. P., Fine, J. E., Jones, L. M. and Walsh, W. A. 2012. Mental health professionals in children's advocacy centers: Is there role conflict?. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(1): 91–108. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) article “Mental Health Professionals in Children's Advocacy Centers: Is There Role Conflict?” challenges two recent publications' criticisms that child advocacy centers create role conflict for mental health professionals and explains how child advocacy centers actually work, describing the different roles for mental health professionals who participate in them. This commentary points out that more precise data would have helped to specifically address the critics' concerns. Furthermore, professional ethics and licensure issues may have served as an additional but unacknowledged check on the “spillover effect” that the critics have alleged comes with being associated with prosecution. This commentary also highlights three main strengths of the Cross and colleagues' article.     

Comment on Cross,Fine, Jones,and Walsh (2012): Good Therapeutic Services— Therapeutic Advocacy and Forensic Neutrality

Cross, Fine, Jones, and Walsh (2012 Cross, T. P., Fine, J. E., Jones, L. M. and Walsh, W. A. 2012. Mental health professionals in children's advocacy centers: Is there role conflict?. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(1): 91–108. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) provided a thoughtful review and critique of a book chapter describing the interview process at Child Advocacy Centers. They observed some of the ways that concerns raised in that chapter are being addressed and described revised guidelines that further clarify issues. Ongoing research and examination of the important processes carried on by child advocacy centers and the role fulfilled by mental health professionals in the investigation of child sexual abuse contributes positively to service delivery.     

Do religiosity and spirituality really matter for social,mental, and physical health?: A tale of two samples

ABSTRACT

Some prior research has found that religiosity and spirituality can be related to health. However, the relationships are inconsistent, measures of religiosity and spirituality are often problematic and conflated with the health outcomes they are supposed to predict, and very little research on this topic specifies which aspects of health supposedly benefit from religiosity and spirituality. Using two sets of survey data (Sample 1 N = 347; Sample 2 N = 404), we examined whether religiosity and spirituality had direct or indirect effects on physical, mental, and/or social health. We found that spirituality, when conceptualized as belief and experience of the supernatural, had no direct or indirect effect on physical, mental, or social health. Religiosity had a small but significant direct effect on social health in one sample but not the other. We consider our findings in relation to religious privileging in the United States and how proreligious biases can lead to health inequalities.