Skip Navigation
Administration for Children and Families  
ACF
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™  |  Print      


Children's Bureau Safety, Permanency, Well-being  Advanced
 Search

Home > Statistics & Research > Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress > Chapter One: Keeping Children Safe

Chapter I: Keeping Children Safe

Child protection is the primary obligation of public child welfare agencies, particularly with regard to preventing the recurrence of child maltreatment for those children who already have been identified as victims.28 Child welfare agencies may meet this obligation by removing children from their homes and placing them in safe out-of-home care environments or by providing services to the children and their families to ensure children's safety while the children remain in their homes.

To promote understanding of State performance with regard to child protection, the Child Welfare Outcomes Report provides the following data for each State: (1) the number and characteristics of child victims, (2) the percentage of child victims who experience a recurrence of maltreatment within a 6-month period, and (3) the percentage of child victims whose perpetrators were foster care providers or facility staff members. This chapter presents key findings of the analyses of these data across States.29

THE NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD VICTIMS

The rate of child victims varies considerably across States, from 1.6 victims per 1,000 children to 32.1 victims per 1,000 children.

According to Child Maltreatment 2005, 899,000 children were estimated to be victims of maltreatment in 2005, and the national child victim rate was 12.1 child victims per 1,000 children in the population. The rate of child victims, however, varies considerably across States.30 In 2005, States with the lowest child victim rates were Pennsylvania (1.6 child victims per 1,000 children), New Hampshire (3.1 child victims per 1,000 children), and Virginia (3.6 child victims per 1,000 children). States with the highest child victim rates were Florida (32.1 child victims per 1,000 children), the District of Columbia (25.2 child victims per 1,000 children), and West Virginia (24.9 child victims per 1,000 children). In 2005, the median child victim rate across all States was 10.4 child victims per 1,000 children.

There are multiple possible explanations for differences in child victim rates across States. One explanation concerns State definitions of child maltreatment. States with broader definitions of child maltreatment may have higher victim rates than States with narrower definitions. Also, States, such as Florida, that have "indicated" as a possible disposition option may be more likely to have higher victim rates than States that do not have this option. Another possible explanation pertains to variations in the level of evidence required for substantiation that either the maltreatment occurred or that the child was at risk. In addition, child victim rates may be lower in States that have implemented "alternative response" approaches to maltreatment allegations than they are in States that do not have this type of response. In alternative response approaches, child welfare agencies respond to a maltreatment allegation that is considered to involve minimal risk of harm to a child with a referral for a family assessment rather than with a formal investigation to determine the validity of the allegation. Because alternative response approaches usually do not involve a finding (i.e., a disposition) regarding the validity of the allegation, many children who are the subject of an allegation referred for an alternative response may not be reported to the NCANDS Child File and thus are not counted as victims in the NCANDS data.31

Table I-1 presents 2005 information pertaining to the age, type of maltreatment experienced, and race/ethnicity of child maltreatment victims. As shown in the table, there was considerable variation across States with respect to these characteristics.

Table I-1. Age, type of maltreatment experienced, and race/ethnicity of child maltreatment victims in 2005

* Variations in types of maltreatment experienced may be attributed to differences in State definitions of maltreatment. For example, in some States, psychological or emotional abuse is incorporated into the State definition of child abuse and neglect. As another example, allegations of child neglect in Pennsylvania are addressed by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families agency, and the State does not report an allegation of neglect to the NCANDS Child File unless it is determined to be "severe neglect." Consequently, Pennsylvania has the lowest percentage of children reported as victims of neglect and the highest percentage of victims reported as victims of sexual abuse.
Characteristics of Child Maltreatment Victims Range Across States Median Across States
Age of Children at Time of Maltreatment Report
    Not yet 1 year old 5.0% – 18.4% 11.0%
    At least 1 year old, but not yet 6 years old 19.5 – 40.4 31.6
    At least 6 years old, but not yet 11 years old 22.7 – 29.2 26.6
    At least 11 years old, but not yet 16 years old 16.3 – 36.7 23.8
    At least 16 years old 3.2 – 12.3 5.2
Type of Maltreatment Experienced*
    Neglect (not medical neglect) 3.5 – 91.5 68.1
    Physical abuse 3.5 – 48.4 17.6
    Psychological/emotional abuse 0.1 – 53.3 2.2
    Sexual abuse 2.7 – 62.5 7.6
    Medical neglect 0 – 9.4 2.4
    Other 0 – 89.6 2.6
Children's Race/Ethnicity
    Alaska Native/American Indian 0 – 49.7 0.4
    Asian 0 – 10.8 0.4
    Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 – 18.0 0.1
    Black (Non Hispanic) 0.4 – 62.0 14.0
    Hispanic (of any race) 0.7 – 50.5 6.5
    White (Non Hispanic) 0.4 – 94.8 53.0
    Multiple Races 0.1 – 40.4 2.7

With regard to race/ethnicity, in many States, the percentage of Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native child victims in 2005 exceeded the percentage of these children in the State's population.32 There was no State in which the percentage of White (non-Hispanic) child victims exceeded the percentage of these children in the State's child population. The following key findings pertain to the disproportionate representation of Black (non-Hispanic) children among State child victims:


In many States, the percentage of Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native child victims in 2005 exceeded the percentage of these children in the State's population.

Key findings with regard to the disproportionate representation of Hispanic child victims (of any race) are the following:

The following findings pertain to the disproportionate representation of American Indian/Alaska Native child victims:

INCIDENCE OF MALTREATMENT RECURRENCE AND MALTREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

State performance with regard to children's safety is addressed through outcome 1: reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect, and outcome 2: reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care. Table I-2 summarizes State performance in 2005 on the measures pertaining to these outcomes.

Table I-2. Summary of State performance in 2005 on measures pertaining to outcome 1: Reduce recurrence of child abuse and neglect, and outcome 2: Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care*

*The number of States (N) identified for each measure represents those States that provided sufficient data to NCANDS to calculate the measure.
Outcome Measures 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Range
Measure 1.1: Percentage of child victims experiencing a recurrence of child maltreatment within a 6-month period. (N=49) 4.6% 6.6% 8.4% 1.9 – 13.4%
Measure 2.1: Percentage of children in foster care who were victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. (N=46) 0.23 0.42 0.59 0.00 – 1.55

Recurrence of maltreatment

There are a number of potential explanations for the range in performance across States (i.e., 1.9 percent to 13.4 percent) with respect to maltreatment recurrence (measure 1.1). One explanation may be that the range reflects the variation in child victim rates across States. A key finding of the data analyses was that, in 2005, many States that had relatively high victim rates also had relatively high percentages of maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period (Pearson's r = 0.63).

Many States that had relatively high victim rates in 2005 also had relatively high percentages of maltreatment recurrence.

Another possible explanation for the range in State performance with regard to maltreatment recurrence may be differences in agency policies or practices regarding allegations of child maltreatment involving children who currently are being served by the child protective services (CPS) system (i.e., the agency has an open case involving the child). During the first round of the CFSRs, the Department learned that, in many States, when a maltreatment allegation is received on a family currently being served by the CPS system, the allegation frequently is referred to the current caseworker and/or supervisor for follow up rather than referred for a formal investigation or assessment. Without a formal investigation or assessment of the allegation, there often is no formal disposition, and the information regarding the child who is the subject of the allegation is not reported to the NCANDS Child File. Consequently, the allegation does not get counted as a possible incident of maltreatment recurrence.

The range in performance with regard to maltreatment recurrence also appears to be related in part to differences across States with regard to the types of maltreatment experienced by children. Several relationships were found between types of maltreatment and maltreatment recurrence:


The recurrence of child maltreatment is more likely to involve neglect than either physical or sexual abuse.

These correlations are consistent with research indicating that child maltreatment recurrence is more likely to involve neglect than either physical or sexual abuse.33 The relationships between recurrence and types of maltreatment may be due to the fact that substantiated allegations of sexual or physical abuse often are followed by legal actions against the perpetrators as well as actions designed to ensure that the perpetrator is prevented from further unsupervised contact with the victim until identified problems have been resolved. In contrast, substantiated allegations of neglect often are not followed by these actions unless the neglect is considered extremely severe.

Maltreatment of children in foster care

Variations in State performance regarding maltreatment of children in foster care (range = 0-1.55 percent) can be influenced by the fact that some children who are not under the care or supervision of the State child welfare agency are reported to the NCANDS Child File as victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. This is because the only way to currently identify a child as "maltreated in foster care" is through the use of the perpetrator code. When this code indicates that the perpetrator is a facility staff member, the maltreatment incident is categorized as maltreatment in foster care. However, a fraction of these cases may include children who are not in foster care but instead are in facilities operated by the public mental health system, juvenile justice system, or in a private mental health or substance abuse treatment facility. Although the number of these children who are the victims of maltreatment while in a residential facility is probably small, it can affect the calculation of the outcome measure somewhat because these children will appear in the numerator for the measure, but not in the denominator.

The Department recently addressed this issue by instituting a different system for identifying which children are maltreated in foster care. States are being asked to include an AFCARS ID in the NCANDS Child File so the two files can be linked and it can be determined whether a child is in foster care at the time of the maltreatment. However, participation in the NCANDS Child File is voluntary on the part of States and was not implemented consistently by States as of 2005. Current efforts to encourage States to supply the AFCARS identification number should provide greater clarity regarding this measure in the future.

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE ON MEASURES OF MALTREATMENT RECURRENCE AND MALTREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

The change in State performance over time was assessed by calculating a percent change in performance.34 Using a percent change calculation permits an assessment of the extent of change occurring over time by taking into account the size of the percentages being compared. For example, a change from 6.0 percent to 7.0 percent represents a change of only 1 percentage point; however, it reflects a +16.7 percent change. In contrast, a change from 75.0 percent to 80.0 percent represents a change of 5 percentage points, but only a +6.7 percent change. Consistent with the approach used in prior Child Welfare Outcomes Reports, a percent change of 5.0 or greater was used as an indicator that meaningful change occurred. That is, for purposes of the analyses presented in this chapter, if the percent change in performance from 2002 to 2005 was not at least 5.0 in either direction (i.e., positive or negative), a determination was made that there was "no change" in performance.

For the measure of maltreatment recurrence (measure 1.1), performance in 2005 was compared to performance in 2002. For the measure of maltreatment in foster care, performance in 2005 was compared to performance in 2003.35 Table I-3 presents key findings regarding the change in State performance on these measures.

Table I-3. Change in performance over time for outcome measures 1.1 and 2.1

Outcome Measures Change in Performance: Number and Percentage of States
Improved performance Declined in performance No change in performance
Measure 1.1: Change from 2002 to 2005 in the percentage of child victims experiencing a recurrence of child maltreatment within a 6-month period. (N=42) 27 (64%) 11 (26%) 4 (10%)
Measure 2.1: Change from 2003 to 2005 in the percentage of children in foster care who were victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. (N=41) 19 (46%) 19 (46%) 3 (7%)

The majority of States demonstrated improved performance from 2002 to 2005 with regard to maltreatment recurrence.

The number of States shown in the table (N) reflects the number that provided data for all years. As shown in table I-3, 64 percent of the applicable States demonstrated improved performance with regard to the measure of recurrence of child maltreatment (measure 1.1). In addition, the median across States for this measure changed from 7.5 percent in 2002 to 6.6 percent in 2005, demonstrating improvement in performance (a 12 percent change).

With regard to performance on the measure of maltreatment of children in foster care (measure 2.1), there were no noteworthy patterns of change from 2003 to 2005 for individual States. In addition, the median across States for this measure changed minimally from 0.41 percent in 2003 to 0.42 percent in 2005.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS REGARDING KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE

The data for the two safety measures indicate that fairly small percentages of child victims reported to NCANDS experienced another maltreatment incident within a 6-month period, and even smaller percentages of children in foster care were reported to be victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. However, because these events have serious implications for children's safety and their immediate and future well-being, even small percentages are to be viewed with concern. Performance comparisons across States on these measures are difficult to interpret due to variations in State policies and practices that affect the measures. Nonetheless, many States improved their performance from 2002 to 2005 with regard to achieving outcome 1: reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect.

28 For purposes of this report, a victim of child abuse or neglect is defined as a child for whom an allegation of abuse or neglect has been substantiated or indicated by an investigation or assessment. This definition is from Child Maltreatment 2005. Back

29 Unless otherwise noted, the data presented in the chapter come from NCANDS. Back

30 A States rate of child victims is defined as the number of child victims reported to NCANDS per 1,000 children in the State's population. Children with more than one report of substantiated or indicated maltreatment may be counted more than once. Back

31 Two States report "alternative response victims" to NCANDS, and 10 States use the "alternative response non-victims" category. Back

32 The analysis of disproportionate representation was conducted for Black (non-Hispanic), White (non-Hispanic), American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic), and Hispanic children. Other races were not included in the analysis because of their very small representation in the population of the majority of States. Back

33 See the following for examples: (1) Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 248-260; (2) Lipien, L., & Forthofer, M. S. (2004). An event history analysis of recurrent child maltreatment reports in Florida. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(9), 947 – 966; and (3) Fluke, J. D., Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D,, & Yuan, Y-Y.T. (2005). Rereporting and recurrence of child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Retrieved 2004, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/child-maltreat-rereporting/index.htm Back

34 Percent change is calculated by subtracting "old" data from "new" data, dividing by old data and multiplying by 100. For example, if maltreatment recurrence was 9.2 in 2002 and 7.6 in 2005, the percent change would be [(7.6-9.2)/9.2] x 100 = -17.4 percent change. Back

35 This is because measure 2.1 changed in 2003. In 2002, because NCANDS and AFCARS were on different reporting periods, the numerator and denominator for measure 2.1 included only children served in foster care from January 1 to September 30. In 2003, the NCANDS reporting period shifted from a calendar year to a fiscal year. As a result, the numerator and denominator for measure 2.1 include children served in foster care for the entire 12-month fiscal year. Back

 


Return to Table of Contents

 << Introduction | Chapter II >>