TPC Journal-Vol 9 Issue 3-FULL

The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 3 201 Professional school counselors play an important role in CSA prevention. They are federally mandated to report suspected cases of abuse (Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 2010), including CSA, and also provide counseling services to victims and organize advocacy efforts (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2015; Sikes, 2008). Furthermore, professional school counselors are in the position to address barriers and support the implementation of CSA prevention programs within their schools. These school-based prevention efforts are imperative; despite the high incidence of children who are sexually abused, research indicates that many parents do not educate their children about CSA at home (Kenny, Capri, Thakkar-Kolar, Ryan, & Runyon, 2008). Therefore, it is vital that evidence-based CSA prevention programs are provided within the schools so that children have an opportunity to gain knowledge and personal safety skills. In 1995, 67% of children ages 10–16 reported that they had participated in a school-based CSA prevention program (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1995). However, this percentage has significantly declined in recent years because of increased focus on other topics, such as bullying prevention, standardized testing, substance use, and intimate partner violence (Morris et al., 2017; Wurtele, 2009). Despite this shift, the implementation of CSA prevention programs within school systems remains ideal because of the ability to concurrently reach multiple children in that setting (Finkelhor, 2009; National Sexual Violence Resource Center [NSVRC], 2011; Tutty, 2000; Wurtele, 2009). However, in recent years, there has been resistance to establishing CSA prevention education within the schools, as some believe that talking about sexual abuse is not appropriate in a school setting (NSVRC, 2011; Wurtele, 2009). Additionally, according to Topping and Barron (2009), CSA prevention programs might be limited because of constraints on funds and time. Some CSA prevention education critics also argue that these types of programs place an unfair burden on the child to report or prevent CSA attempts and that it may not be appropriate to expect children to defend themselves against perpetrators (Finkelhor, 2007; Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2018). However, many opponents have “offered little evidence that support their claims of potential negative side-effects” (Kenny et al., 2008, p. 50). In fact, Walsh, Zwi, Woolfenden, and Shlonsky (2015) found in their meta-analysis of several school-based CSA prevention programs “evidence of improvements in protective behaviours and knowledge among children” (p. 2). Furthermore, this increase in knowledge and skill was seen in children regardless of the type of CSA prevention program that was implemented. A study conducted by Gibson and Leitenberg (2000) provided further evidence of the effectiveness of CSA prevention programs, as they found that 9% of participants who had participated in a school-based prevention program were sexually abused compared to 16% who had never participated in CSA prevention. In order to effectively implement CSA prevention programs within the schools, a better understanding of these challenges and barriers needs to be gained. Findings from this study may promote awareness, enhance programming, and contribute to prevention efforts for CSA. The purpose of this collective case study research was to explore the experiences of several key internal stakeholders who are currently involved with a CSA prevention program in a southeastern state in the United States. The primary research question answered by this study was: How do key internal stakeholders who are involved with a school-based CSA prevention program describe their experiences with program implementation? Method Collective case study research (Yin, 2003) was utilized to explore the experiences of internal stakeholders and their views of a school-based CSA prevention program. The case study tradition focuses upon the constructivist paradigm in which the truth is relative and reliant on one’s unique