Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
5. Distribution of Abuse and Neglect by Family Characteristics
This chapter examines how the incidence and severity of abuse and neglect vary by specific characteristics of the children’s families, including their parents’ employment, socioeconomic status, family structure and living arrangement, any grandparent caregiver, family size, and the metropolitan status of their county of residence. The ensuing sections address the following questions for both the Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard:
- Do children in families with different characteristics have systematically different incidence rates for the various types of maltreatment or for the different severities of outcomes due to maltreatment?
- (If applicable): Have there been any statistically significant changes since the NIS–3 in the distribution of child maltreatment by the family characteristic in question?55
Although the topics in this chapter are family characteristics, the units of measurement for all NIS estimates are the children. Thus, the incidence rates reflect the number of children per 1,000 in the general population who live in families with the characteristic of interest (e.g., children who live in families of low socioeconomic status, children in households with four or more children, etc.).
As in Chapter 4, the findings here reflect unduplicated estimates; that is, each estimate counts each child only once. Also, all differences between subgroups refer only to incidence rates.56 As mentioned earlier, the rate measures adjust for differences in the numbers of children in the general population who are in the different subgroups of interest, so all statistical comparisons use the rate measures.57
5.1 Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related to Parents’ Employment
Analyses distinguished three groups of children based on their parents’ employment: those with any parent who was unemployed, those with employed parents, and those with no parent in the labor force.58 In order to minimize the number of cases with missing information, the classification combined information about the parents’ employment at the time of maltreatment and during the past year.59 Parents who were unemployed were those described as unemployed or laid off but looking for work. Parents who were employed included those employed full– or part–time and those who were on active military duty. “Not in the labor force” included parents who were not employed and who were not technically in the active labor force (e.g., retired, homemaker, unemployed and not looking for work, disabled, receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), on maternity leave, in the hospital, or in jail).60
5.1.1 Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment related to Parents’ Employment
Table 5–1 shows that parents’ employment was related to the incidence of most Harm Standard maltreatment categories and severities.61 Unless noted otherwise, any differences described in the text are statistically significant. In all cases, children with employed parents had the lowest rate of maltreatment.
| Harm Standard Maltreatment Category | Parent(s) Unemployed | Parent(s) Employed | Parent(s) Not in the Labor Force | Significance of Differences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL MALTREATMENT | 15.9 | 7.6 | 22.6 | A, B | |
| ABUSE: | All Abuse | 4.8 | 3.9 | 9.6 | B |
| Emotional Abuse | 2.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | B | |
| NEGLECT: | ALL NEGLECT | 12.1 | 4.1 | 14.8 | A, B |
| Physical Neglect | 5.6 | 1.4 | 6.1 | A, B | |
| Emotional Neglect | 2.7‡ | 1.4 | 4.9‡ | a, B | |
| Educational Neglect † | 5.8‡ | 1.8 | 4.8‡ | B | |
| SEVERITY OF HARM: | Serious | 6.9 | 3.0 | 11.0 | A, B |
| Moderate | 8.2 | 4.2 | 9.3 | B | |
| Inferred | 0.7‡ | 0.3‡ | 2.2‡ | b | |
| A Difference between “Unemployed” and “Employed" is significant at the p<.05 level. a Difference between “Unemployed” and “Employed" is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). B Difference between “Employed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is significant at the p<.05 level. b Difference between “Employed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). † Educational neglect is identical under the Harm and Endangerment Standards. It is included in both tables because it is in the summary categories in both standards: All Neglect and All Maltreatment. ‡ This estimate is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. |
Overall Harm Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Children with no parent in the labor force and those with an unemployed parent were at significantly higher risk of Harm Standard maltreatment compared to those whose parents were employed. An estimated 15.9 per 1,000 children with an unemployed parent suffered some form of Harm Standard maltreatment. This rate is more than 2 times the rate for children with an employed parent (7.6 children per 1,000). The rate for children with no parent in the labor force (22.6 children per 1,000) is almost 3 times the rate for children an employed parent.
Children with no parent in the labor force were also more likely to suffer Harm Standard abuse than those with employed parents. The rate for children with no parent in the labor force is more than 2 times that of children with employed parents (9.6 per 1,000 versus 3.9 per 1,000).
The incidence of overall Harm Standard neglect is significantly higher among children with an unemployed parent and those with no parent in the labor force. Children with an unemployed parent had almost 3 times greater risk of suffering Harm Standard neglect compared to children with employed parents (12.1 versus 4.1 children per 1,000), and children with no parent in the labor force had more than 3 times greater risk than children with employed parents (14.8 versus 4.1 children per 1,000).
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Abuse
Rates of specific categories of Harm Standard physical and sexual abuse did not statistically differ in relation to parents’ employment. However, children with no parent in the labor force had a higher rate of emotional abuse than those with employed parents (2.9 versus 1.2 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Neglect
All three specific categories of Harm Standard neglect evidenced significant differences related to parents’ employment.
Physical neglect. Children with employed parents had a significantly lower rate of Harm Standard physical neglect (1.4 children per 1,000) compared to those in the other groups. The rate for children with no parent in the labor force is more than 4 times higher than the rate for children with employed parents (6.1 versus 1.4 children per 1,000), while the rate for children with unemployed parents (5.6 per 1,000) is exactly 4 times higher.
Emotional neglect. Children with no parent in the labor force had the highest risk of Harm Standard emotional neglect (4.9 per 1,000), almost 3.5 times higher than the rate for children with an employed parent (1.4 per 1,000), a statistically significant difference. Children with an unemployed parent had nearly 2 times the rate of Harm Standard emotional neglect compared to those with employed parents (2.7 versus 1.4 children per 1,000), which is a statistically marginal difference.
Educational neglect. The incidence of educational neglect was nearly 2.7 times higher for children with no parent in the labor force compared to those with working parents (4.8 versus 1.8 children per 1,000), a significant difference. No other differences in this category are statistically reliable.
Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment
As Table 5–1 indicates, the incidence of children who were seriously or moderately harmed by Harm Standard maltreatment or for whom harm could be inferred related to their parents’ employment status.
Serious harm. Children with an unemployed parent and those with no parent in the labor force suffered serious harm from Harm Standard maltreatment at significantly higher rates (6.9 and 11.0 per 1,000, respectively) compared to children with working parents (3.0 per 1,000.
Moderate harm. Children with no parent in the labor force had more than 2 times the risk of suffering moderate harm from Harm Standard abuse or neglect compared to children whose parents were steadily employed (9.3 versus 4.2 per 1,000). (Although the rate of moderate harm for children with unemployed parents appears almost as large, that estimate is too unreliable for the difference to be statistically meaningful.)
Inferred harm. The incidence of children with inferred harm due to maltreatment was statistically marginally higher for those with no parent in the labor force compared to children with working parents. An estimated 2.2 children per 1,000 with no parent in the labor force experienced maltreatment sufficiently severe to permit inferring that they were harmed. This was over 7 times the rate of inferred harm for children with employed parents (0.3 children per 1,000, respectively).
5.1.2 Differences in Maltreatment under the Endangerment Standard Related to Parents’ Employment Status
Table 5–2 indicates the statistically meaningful differences in incidence rates based on parental employment in all categories of maltreatment and outcome severity.
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Chapter 3 reported that an estimated 39.5 children per 1,000 nationwide experienced some form of Endangerment Standard maltreatment. That general result is qualified by significant differences in the incidence rates for children depending on their parents’ employment status.
Children with no parent in the labor force had the highest rate of Endangerment Standard maltreatment, an estimated 57.7 per 1,000 children. This rate is more than 3 times the rate for children whose parents were working (17.1 per 1,000). Children with an unemployed parent experienced Endangerment Standard maltreatment at more than 2 times that of children with employed parents (39.9 versus 17.1 per 1,000). Both of these differences are statistically significant. The Endangerment Standard maltreatment rate for children with no parent in the labor force was also higher than for children with an unemployed parent (57.7 versus 39.9 per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Children with no parent in the labor force had the highest the incidence of Endangerment Standard abuse (15.2 per 1,000), 2 or more times higher than the rates for children of working parents (5.8 per 1,000) or with an unemployed parent (7.5 per 1,000).
Rates of Endangerment Standard neglect were significantly higher for children whose parents did not have steady work. The estimated incidence of Endangerment Standard neglect was 46.4 per 1,000 children with parent in the labor force, which is 3.6 times the rate of 12.8 per 1,000 children with employed parents. The rate for children with an unemployed parent is 2.7 times the rate for children whose parents were consistently employed (35.0 versus 12.8 per 1,000).
| Harm Standard Maltreatment Category | Parent(s) Unemployed | Parent(s) Employed | Parent(s) Not in the Labor Force | Significance of Differences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL MALTREATMENT | 39.9 | 17.1 | 57.7 | A, B, c | |
| ABUSE: | All Abuse | 7.5 | 5.8 | 15.2 | B, C |
| Physical Abuse | 3.5 | 3.4 | 7.3 | B, c | |
| Sexual Abuse | 0.9 | 1.1 | 3.7 | b, c | |
| Emotional Abuse | 4.1 | 2.3 | 7.1 | B | |
| NEGLECT: | ALL NEGLECT | 35.0 | 12.8 | 46.4 | A, B |
| Physical Neglect | 23.0 | 6.0 | 25.5 | A, B | |
| Emotional Neglect | 19.1 | 7.4 | 25.3 | A, B | |
| Educational Neglect † | 5.8‡ | 1.8 | 4.8‡ | B | |
| SEVERITY OF HARM: | Serious | 7.3 | 3.2 | 11.3 | A, B |
| Moderate | 12.1 | 6.3 | 15.7 | A, B | |
| Inferred | 3.0‡ | 1.1 | 6.0‡ | B | |
| Endangered | 17.5 | 6.5 | 24.8 | A, B | |
| A Difference between “Unemployed” and “Employed" is significant at the p<.05 level. B Difference between “Employed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is significant at the p<.05 level. b Difference between “Employed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). C Difference between “Unemployed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is significant at the p<.05 level. c Difference between “Unemployed” and “Not in the Labor Force" is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). ‡ This estimate is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. † Educational neglect is identical under the Harm and Endangerment Standards. It is included in both tables because it is in the summary categories in both standards: All Neglect and All Maltreatment. |
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse
In the Endangerment Standard, all specific abuse categories revealed statistically meaningful differences in incidence related to parents’ employment status.
Physical abuse. Children with no parent in the labor force had the highest rate of Endangerment Standard physical abuse (7.3 per 1,000), more than 2 times the rates for other children. The difference is statistically significant in comparison to children with employed parents (3.4 per 1,000), but it is statistically marginal in comparison to children with an unemployed parent (3.5 per 1,000) because that estimate is slightly less reliable.
Sexual abuse. Children with no parent in the labor force have a notably higher rate of Endangerment Standard sexual abuse (3.7 per 1,000) compared to those with an unemployed parent (0.9 per 1,000) or steadily employed parents (1.1 per 1,000). Both these differences are statistically marginal.
Emotional abuse. Compared to children with employed parents, children with no parent in the labor force had more than 3 times the rate of Endangerment Standard emotional abuse (2.3 versus 7.1 per 1,000, respectively).
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect
Significant differences related to parents’ employment emerged in all specific categories of Endangerment Standard neglect.
Physical neglect. Children with an unemployed parent were physically neglected at a rate of 23.0 per 1,000, which is almost 4 times the rate of physical neglect for children with employed parents (6.0 children per 1,000). Children who had no parent in the labor force (25.5 per 1,000) were physically neglected at more than 4 times the rate of children with employed parents. Both of these differences are statistically significant.
Emotional Neglect. The differences in rates of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect follow the consistent pattern. Children with an unemployed parent and those with no parent in the labor force suffered maltreatment at the highest rates (19.1 and 25.5 per 1,000, respectively). Their rates are 2.6 and 3.4 times the rate for children with employed parents, respectively, who had lowest rate (7.4 per 1,000). Again, both of these differences are significant.
Educational neglect. The subgroup differences in rates of educational neglect are identical to those given earlier, so the discussion here does not reiterate them.
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
As Table 5–2 indicates, parents’ employment significantly related to the incidence of children with all levels of harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment.
Serious harm. Children with steadily employed parents suffered serious injury or harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment at a significantly lower rate (3.2 per 1,000) compared to children with an unemployed parent or with no parent in the labor force (7.3 and 11.3, respectively). Compared to children with employed parents, the rate of serious harm for children with an unemployed parent is 2.3 times higher, and the rate for children with no parent in the labor force is 3.5 times higher.
Moderate harm. The incidence of moderate harm from Endangerment Standard abuse or neglect was almost 2 times higher among children with an unemployed parent compared to the incidence among children whose parents were employed (12.1 versus 6.3 children per 1,000). Children with no parent in the labor force were 2.5 times more likely to be moderately harmed by Endangerment Standard maltreatment compared to those with employed parents (15.7 versus 6.3 children per 1,000). Again, both differences are significant.
Inferred harm. The incidence of children with inferred harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment was significantly greater for those with no parent in the labor force than for those with employed parents. An estimated 6.0 per 1,000 children with no parent in the labor force experienced maltreatment of a type sufficiently severe that harm could be inferred. This was almost 4.5 times the rate of 1.1 per 1,000 children with working parents.
Endangered. The estimated incidence of children endangered but not yet harmed by abuse or neglect differed significantly in relation to their parents’ employment. The rates of endangerment for children with an unemployed parent (17.5 per 1,000) and for children with no parent in the labor force (24.8 per 1,000) were both significantly higher than the rate for children with employed parents (6.5 children per 1,000); both of these differences are statistically significant.
5.2 Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related to Socioeconomic Status (SES)
The NIS–4 collected data on several indicators of economic well–being or socio–economic status: household income, household poverty–related program participation,62 and parents’ education. However, initial analyses revealed that majorities of the countable NIS–4 children were missing data on these measures.63 In order to minimize missing values, final analyses used a composite measure of family socioeconomic status (SES) that integrated any available information across these three measures.64 The composite measure defined children to be in families of low economic status (low SES) if they were in the bottom tier on any indicator: household income was below $15,000 a year, parents’ highest education level was less than high school, or any household member participated in a poverty–related program.65,66
Analyses of changes in this composite measure since the NIS–3 were not possible because the NIS–3 did not obtain information about household poverty program participation and parental education.
5.2.1 Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Socioeconomic Status (SES)
As Table 5–3 reveals, household SES was significantly related to incidence rates in all categories of Harm Standard maltreatment and levels of outcome severity.
Overall Harm Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Children in families of low SES were at significantly greater risk of Harm Standard maltreatment overall. An estimated 22.5 children per 1,000 children in low–SES families experienced Harm Standard maltreatment, which is more than 5 times the rate of 4.4 per 1,000 children in families that were not of low SES.
Children in families of low SES were also at significantly greater risk of Harm Standard abuse. An estimated 7.7 children per 1,000 children in low–SES families experienced Harm Standard abuse compared to 2.5 per 1,000 children not in low–SES families. The incidence rate for children in low-SES families is more than 3 times the rate for children not in low-SES families.
Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher rate of Harm Standard neglect than those not in low-SES families (16.1 versus 2.2 per 1,000 children, respectively). Thus, the risk of Harm Standard neglect for children in low–SES families was over 7 times the risk for children not in families of low SES.
| Harm Standard Maltreatment Category | Children not in low SES Families | Children in Low SES Families | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALL MALTREATMENT | 4.4 | 22.5 | |
| ABUSE: | All Abuse | 2.5 | 7.7 |
| Physical Abuse | 1.5 | 4.4 | |
| Sexual Abuse | 0.6 | 1.7 | |
| Emotional Abuse | 0.5 | 2.6 | |
| NEGLECT: | ALL NEGLECT | 2.2 | 16.1 |
| Physical Neglect | 0.8 | 6.9 | |
| Emotional Neglect | 0.8 | 3.8 | |
| Educational Neglect † | 1.0 | 7.1 | |
| SEVERITY OF HARM: | Serious | 1.7 | 9.9 |
| Moderate | 2.4 | 11.7 | |
| Inferred | 0.2‡ | 0.9 | |
| * All differences are significant at p<.05. † Educational neglect is identical under the Harm and Endangerment Standards. It is included in both tables because it is in the summary categories in both standards: All Neglect and All Maltreatment. ‡ This estimate is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. |
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Abuse
The NIS–4 found significant socioeconomic status differences in all categories of Harm Standard abuse: physical, sexual, and emotional.
Physical abuse. Children in families of low SES were at significantly higher risk of Harm Standard physical abuse compared to children not in low–SES families (4.4 versus 1.5 per 1,000, respectively). The incidence rate for children in low–SES families is almost 3 times the rate for children not in low–SES families.
Sexual abuse. Children in families of low socioeconomic status also experienced a significantly higher risk of Harm Standard sexual abuse. The estimated incidence rate for children in low–SES families was 1.7 per 1,000 children, which is more than 2 times the rate of 0.6 children per 1,000 children not in low–SES families.
Emotional abuse. The incidence of emotional abuse for children in low–SES families was more than 5 times the rate for children not in families of low SES (2.6 versus 0.5 children per 1,000, respectively).
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Neglect
The socioeconomic subgroups had significantly different incidence rates in all specific categories of Harm Standard neglect.
Physical neglect. Children in low–SES families had a significantly higher rate of Harm Standard physical neglect compared to those not in families of low SES. The risk of physical neglect for children in families of low SES is over 8 times the rate for children not in families of low SES (6.9 versus 0.8 per 1,000 children, respectively).
Emotional neglect. Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher risk of Harm Standard emotional neglect. The estimated incidence rate in families of low SES was 3.8 children per 1,000 compared to 0.8 per 1,000 children not in families of low SES. The incidence rate for children in low-SES families is more than 4 times the rate for children not in low-SES families.
Educational neglect. Children in families of low SES were over 7 times more likely to experience educational neglect than children not in families of low SES. The incidence of educational neglect was 7.1 per 1,000 children in low-SES families, whereas the rate was 1.0 per 1,000 children not in low-SES families.
Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment
Socioeconomic status was significantly related to incidence in three levels of outcomes due to Harm Standard maltreatment: serious, moderate, and inferred harm.
Serious harm. Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher rate of serious injury or harm from Harm Standard maltreatment compared to children not in low–SES families. The incidence rate for children in families of low SES was 9.9 per 1,000 children, which is more than 5 times the rate of 1.7 per 1,000 children not in low–SES families.
Moderate harm. The incidence of children moderately harmed by Harm Standard maltreatment was 11.7 per 1,000 children in low–SES families, compared to 2.4 per 1,000 children not in low–SES families. The incidence of moderate injury or harm for children in families of low SES is nearly 5 times the rate for children not in families of low socioeconomic status.
Inferred harm. Children in families of low SES were more than 4 times more likely than those in families not of low SES to experience maltreatment sufficiently severe that harm could be inferred (0.9 versus 0.2 per 1,000 children, respectively).
5.2.2 Differences in Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Socioeconomic Status (SES)
The two socioeconomic subgroups differed significantly in their risk of maltreatment under the less stringent Endangerment Standard, as Table 5–4 shows. Significant differences in incidence rates emerged for all Endangerment Standard categories of abuse and neglect and the four levels of outcome severity.
| Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Category | Children not in Low-SES Families | Children in Low-SES Families | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALL MALTREATMENT | 9.5 | 55.1 | |
| ABUSE: | All Abuse | 3.6 | 12.1 |
| Physical Abuse | 2.2 | 6.5 | |
| Sexual Abuse | 0.7 | 2.4 | |
| Emotional Abuse | 1.0 | 5.5 | |
| NEGLECT: | ALL NEGLECT | 6.7 | 46.5 |
| Physical Neglect | 3.1 | 27.0 | |
| Emotional Neglect | 4.0 | 23.5 | |
| Educational Neglect † | 1.0 | 7.1 | |
| SEVERITY OF HARM: | Serious | 1.8 | 10.3 |
| Moderate | 3.5 | 18.7 | |
| Inferred | 0.7 | 3.4 | |
| Endangered | 3.5 | 22.6 | |
| * All differences are significant at p<.05. † Educational neglect is identical under the Harm and Endangerment Standards. It is included in both tables because it is in the summary categories in both standards: All Neglect and All Maltreatment. |
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Children in low–SES families were at significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard maltreatment overall compared to children not in families of low SES. An estimated 55.1 children per 1,000 children in families of low SES experienced one or more categories of Endangerment Standard maltreatment, which is more than 5 times the rate of 9.5 per 1,000 children not in families of low SES.
The incidence rate of Endangerment Standard abuse for children in families of low SES is more than 3 times the rate for children not in families of low SES (12.1 versus 3.6 per 1,000 children, respectively).
Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher rate of Endangerment Standard neglect than children not in families of low SES. The estimated incidence rate for children in low–SES families was 46.5 children per 1,000 children, which is almost 7 times the rate of 6.7 per 1,000 children not in low–SES families.
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse
The NIS–4 found that children in families in the lowest socioeconomic tier had significantly higher risk in all three categories of Endangerment Standard abuse: physical, sexual, and emotional.
Physical abuse. Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard physical abuse. Their estimated incidence rate, 6.5 per 1,000 children, was 3 times the rate of 2.2 per 1,000 for children not in low–SES families.
Sexual abuse. Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher rate of Endangerment Standard sexual abuse (2.4 children per 1,000) compared to children not in families of low SES (0.7 per 1,000 children). Thus, the incidence rate for children in families of low SES is more than 3 times the rate for children not in families of low SES.
Emotional abuse. The incidence of Endangerment Standard emotional abuse for children in low–SES families was more than 5 times the rate for children not in families of low socioeconomic status (5.5 versus 1.0 per 1,000 children, respectively).
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect
Differences between the socioeconomic groups were significant in all three categories of Endangerment Standard neglect.
Physical neglect. Children in families of low SES were significantly more likely to experience Endangerment Standard physical neglect than children not in low–SES families. The risk of physical neglect for children in families of low SES was over 8 times that of children not in families of low socioeconomic status (27.0 per 1,000 children compared to 3.1 per 1,000 children not in families of low SES).
Emotional neglect. Children in families of low SES had a significantly higher rate of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect, 23.5 children per 1,000, compared to 4.0 children per 1,000 children not in families of low SES. Children in low–SES families were more than 5 times more likely to experience emotional neglect than children not in families of low SES.
Educational neglect. The subgroup differences in rates of educational neglect are identical to those given earlier, so information is not reiterated here.
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
The NIS–4 revealed significant differences related to family socioeconomic status in the incidence of four levels of outcomes from Endangerment Standard maltreatment: serious harm, moderate harm, inferred harm, and endangered.
Serious harm. An estimated 10.3 per 1,000 children in families of low SES experienced serious harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment, which is more than 5 times the rate for children not in families of low SES (1.8 children per 1,000).
Moderate harm. Children in families of low SES experienced a significantly higher risk of moderate harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment (18.7 versus 3.5 children per 1,000). Thus, children in families of low SES were more than 5 times more likely to experience moderate harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment than children not in low–SES families.
Inferred harm. The incidence of Endangerment Standard maltreatment for children in families of low SES was almost 5 times the rate for children not in families of low SES (3.4 versus 0.7 per 1,000 children, respectively).
Endangered. Children in families of low SES were significantly more likely to be endangered, but not yet harmed, by maltreatment. The incidence of endangerment for children in families of low SES was 22.6 per 1,000 children, which is more than 6 times the rate of 3.5 per 1,000 children whose families were not of low SES.
5.3 Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related to Family Structure and Living Arrangement
This section presents differences in the incidence of child maltreatment related to the combination of family structure and parents’ living arrangement, including the number of parents in the household, their relationship to the child, and their marital or cohabitating status.
The definition of parent follows that used by the U.S. Census Bureau, which includes birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents. Children may live with two parents, one parent, or neither parent. In two–parent households, parents can be both biologically related to the child or one or both may have another legal parental relationship to the child (e.g., adoptive parent, step–parent). A child may have two unmarried cohabiting parents, biological or with other relationships to the child. A single parent (of any relationship to the child) may or may not have a cohabiting partner. These variations in family structure and living arrangement classified children into six categories: (1) living with two married biological parents, (2) living with other married parents (not both biological but both having a legal parental relationship to the child), (3) living with two unmarried parents (biological or other), (4) living with one parent who had an unmarried partner (not the child’s parent) in the household, (5) living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and (6) living with no parent.67,68
5.3.1 Differences in the Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Structure and Living Arrangement
Overall Harm Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Figure 5–1 shows the incidence rates of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, abuse, and neglect for children in the six conditions of family structure and living arrangement.
All maltreatment. Children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, at 6.8 per 1,000 children. This rate differs significantly from the rates for all other family structure and living arrangement circumstances. Children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment (57.2 per 1,000). Their rate is more than 8 times greater than the rate for children living with two married biological parents.
The incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment also is significantly higher for children living with one parent and that parent’s unmarried partner than for children in three other conditions: children living with other married parents (24.4 children per 1,000), those living with two unmarried parents (23.5 children per 1,000), and those living with a single parent with no partner in the household (28.4 children per 1,000). The risk of Harm Standard maltreatment for children whose single parent has an unmarried partner is more than 2 times greater than the risk for children living in these other living arrangements.
| Figure 5-1. Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Abuse. The rate of Harm Standard abuse for children living with two married biological parents (2.9 children per 1,000) is significantly lower than the rate for children living in all other conditions of family structure and living arrangement (10.2 or more children per 1,000). Again, the highest rate was among children living with just one parent and that parent’s unmarried partner (33.6 per 1,000 children). The rates in the highest and lowest risk groups differ by more than a factor of 11.
The risk of Harm Standard abuse for children whose single parent has an unmarried partner is more than twice that of children in three other circumstances. Their risk is significantly higher than the risks for children living with a single parent who has no cohabiting partner (10.2 per 1,000 children), for children living with two unmarried parents (12.1 per 1,000 children), and for those who live with neither parent (15.3 per 1,000 children). The rate of Harm Standard abuse among children whose single parent lives with an unmarried partner is almost twice the rate for children living with other married parents (33.6 versus 17.4 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Children living with other married parents experienced Harm Standard abuse at a significantly higher rate than those living with a single parent with no partner (17.4 versus 10.2 children per 1,000).
Neglect. The pattern of group differences is somewhat different for the incidence of Harm Standard neglect. Children living with just one parent, under any living arrangement, had significantly higher rates of Harm Standard neglect (27.0 and 19.6 per 1,000 children) than those living with two married biological parents (4.2 per 1,000 children). The estimated rates in the single–parent conditions are more than 4 times the rate among children living with their married biological parents. Also, children whose single parent had no partner had a significantly higher Harm Standard neglect rate than children living with other married parents (19.6 versus 9.3 children per 1,000).
In addition, children living with their two married biological parents experienced Harm Standard neglect at a lower rate than children with other married legal parents, children with unmarried parents, and children living with neither parent (4.2 versus 9.3, 12.6, and 20.4 children per 1,000, respectively), although these differences are statistically marginal.
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Abuse
Physical abuse.69 As Figure 5–2 shows, the incidence of Harm Standard physical abuse was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents compared to children living in all other conditions. An estimated 1.9 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents suffered Harm Standard physical abuse, compared to 5.9 or more per 1,000 children in other circumstances. In addition, children whose single parent had an unmarried, live–in partner were at significantly higher risk of Harm Standard physical abuse (19.5 children per 1,000) compared to children in 4 other arrangements: children whose single parent had no partner in the home (5.9 children per 1,000), children with other married parents (9.8 children per 1,000), children with unmarried parents (8.2 children per 1,000), and children living with no parent (6.8 children per 1,000).
| Figure 5-2. Incidence of Harm Standard Abuse by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
The rate of Harm Standard physical abuse was also higher for children in homes with other married parents than for children living with a single parent who had no cohabiting partner (9.8 versus 5.9 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Sexual abuse.70 Children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused at a significantly lower rate (0.5 per 1,000) than children living in all but one of the other conditions. The exception is children living with unmarried parents whose incidence rate of sexual abuse does not differ from that of children living with married biological parents.
In addition, children living with a single parent who had no cohabiting partner had a lower sexual abuse rate than children living with other married parents and than children living with a single parent with a partner in the home (2.4 versus 4.3 and 9.9 children per 1,000, respectively), both statistically marginal differences.
Emotional abuse.71 Only three significant differences emerged in emotional abuse rates. Children living with other married parents and those living with a single parent, whether with or without a partner, were emotionally abused at significantly higher rates than those living with two married biological parents (2.9 or more children per 1,000 versus 0.8 children per 1,000, respectively). The rates differ by a factor of more than 3; the highest rate, for children whose single parent lived with a partner, is more than 10 times greater than the lowest rate, for children living with two married biological parents.
Specific Categories of Harm Standard Neglect
Physical neglect.72 Figure 5–3 indicates that the rate of Harm Standard physical neglect was 1.8 per 1,000 for children living with two married biological parents, compared to rates of 6.3 per 1,000 for children living with two unmarried parents, 6.5 or more per 1,000 for children living with one parent, and 9.1 per 1,000 for children with no parent. All these differences are statistically significant.
Emotional neglect.73 Children living with other married parents and those living with one parent (with or without a cohabiting partner) had significantly higher rates of emotional neglect than children living with two married biological parents. An estimated 3.9 per 1,000 children living with other married parents suffered Harm Standard emotional neglect, as did 10.9 per 1,000 children living with one parent with an unmarried partner and 4.9 per 1,000 children living with one parent without a partner, compared to just 0.9 per 1,000 children with two married biological parents. Compared to the Harm Standard emotional neglect rate for children with two married biological parents, the rate for children whose single parent had a cohabiting partner is 12 times higher, the rate for children whose single parent had no partner is more than 5 times higher, and the rate for children with other married parents is over 4 times higher.
| Figure 5-3. Incidence of Harm Standard Neglect by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Educational neglect.74 The incidence of educational neglect for children living with one parent without a partner was more than 6 times higher than the rate for children living with two married biological parents (11.9 versus 1.9 children per 1,000), a significant difference.
Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment
Figure 5–4 shows significant differences in three levels of severity of harm attributable to Harm Standard maltreatment.
| Figure 5-4. Incidence of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Serious harm. The incidence of children who suffered serious harm due to Harm Standard maltreatment was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents (2.6 per 1,000 children) compared to children living with parents under all other circumstances (9.1 or more children per 1,000).
Children living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner had more than 2 times the risk of suffering serious harm compared to children living with other married parents (20.8 versus 9.1 per 1,000 children), a statistically marginal difference.
Moderate harm. Children living with their married biological parents had a significantly lower rate of moderate harm from Harm Standard maltreatment compared to children in any other condition. The highest risk of moderate harm was among children who lived with one parent who had an unmarried partner (33.0 children per 1,000); their risk was 8 times higher than that of children who lived with their married biological parents, a considerable rate differential. Additionally, the rate of moderate harm for children whose single parent was cohabiting with a partner was significantly higher compared to the rates for children with other married parents and for children with unmarried parents (33.0 versus 11.1 or more children per 1,000). Children living with one parent with a cohabiting partner experienced moderate harm from Harm Standard maltreatment at a reliably higher rate than those living with one parent without a partner (33.0 versus 14.8 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Inferred harm.75 Although the rates of this outcome appear small, the relative differences across the subgroups are considerable and statistically reliable. Children living in any circumstance other than with their two married biological parents had significantly higher risks of inferred harm from Harm Standard maltreatment compared to children living with their two married biological parents. Consistent with the patterns for other categories of maltreatment and outcome, the highest risk was for children whose single parent had an unmarried partner (3.3 per 1,000). These children experienced maltreatment that warranted the inference they were harmed at 33 times the rate of children living with two married biological parents.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Structure
The NIS–3 did not obtain information about marital status or the presence of an unmarried partner, so analyses could only assess changes in the incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment in relation to whether one or two parents were present in the household. Further, because the NIS–3 included too few sample children who lived with neither parent to provide reliable estimates for most maltreatment categories,76 the between–study analyses compared changes in maltreatment rates for two categories of children: those living with two parents and those living with a single parent.77
Harm Standard maltreatment. Figure 5–5 shows significant changes since the NIS–3 in the overall incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment in relation to this binary family structure classification. Whereas incidence rates increased for children living with one parent, they decreased for children living with two parents. For children living with a single parent, the rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment increased by 30%, abuse increased by 22%, and neglect increased by 36%. At the same time, these rates decreased for children living with both parents, by 39%, 42%, and 33%, respectively.
| Figure 5-5. Percent Changes since NIS-3 in Rates of Harm Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
Abuse. Figure 5–6 presents the changes since the NIS–3 in specific categories of Harm Standard abuse that were related to family structure. Family structure was significantly related to the changes in rates of Harm Standard sexual abuse and emotional abuse, while for physical abuse the relationship is statistically marginal. Here again, the figure indicates increased incidence rates for children living with one parent and decreased rates for those living with two parents. Rates of maltreatment for children with one parent increased for Harm Standard physical abuse by 14%, for sexual abuse by 49%, and for emotional abuse by 43%. Rates in these same categories decreased for children living with two parents, by 24% in physical abuse, by 62% in sexual abuse, and by 48% in emotional abuse.
| Figure 5-6. Percent Changes since NIS-3 in Rates of Specific Categories of Harm Standard Abuse by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
Neglect. Figure 5–7 shows that rates of two specific categories of Harm Standard neglect changed since the NIS–3 in different ways for children living in different family structures. The relationship between family structure and the changes in incidence rates is significant for emotional neglect and statistically marginal physical neglect. Children with single parents had a 42% higher risk of Harm Standard physical neglect and a 48% higher risk of emotional neglect at the time of the NIS–4 compared to their levels of risk during the NIS–3. Rates in these same categories decreased for children living with both parents, by 28% in physical neglect and by 44% in emotional neglect.
Severity of outcomes from Harm Standard maltreatment. Figure 5–8 displays the changes since the NIS–3 in the incidence of children who suffered serious harm, moderate harm, or inferred harm that differed significantly by family structure. The incidence of children living with single parents who were seriously harmed by Harm Standard maltreatment increased 34%, those moderately harmed increased 25%,
| Figure 5-7. Percent Changes since NIS-3 in Rates of Specific Categories of Harm Standard Neglect by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
and those who were maltreated in ways that warranted the inference of harm increased by 65%. Opposite changes occurred for children living with both parents: the incidence of children seriously harmed decreased 37%, those moderately harmed decreased 33%, and those whose maltreatment warranted inferred harm decreased 77%.
| Figure 5-8. Percent Changes since NIS-3 in Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
5.3.2 Differences in the Incidence of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Structure and Living Arrangement
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
All Maltreatment. Figure 5–9 shows the incidence rates of Endangerment Standard maltreatment for the different family structure and living arrangement subgroups. The rate of overall Endangerment Standard maltreatment for children living with two married biological parents (15.8 children per 1,000) is significantly lower than the rates for children in all other circumstances (51.5 or more children per 1,000). Children living with one parent whose unmarried partner was in the household had the highest incidence of Endangerment Standard maltreatment (136.1 children per 1,000). This is equivalent to more than 13 per 100 children, or more than 1 child in 8 whose single parent has a cohabiting partner in the general child population. Their risk of Endangerment Standard maltreatment is more than 8 times higher than that of children living with two married biological parents.
| Figure 5-9. Incidence of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Children whose single parent cohabited with a partner had significantly higher rates of Endangerment Standard maltreatment compared to children living with other married parents, children with a single parent who had no partner in the home, and children who lived with neither parent. When children had a single parent living with an unmarried partner, their risk of experiencing Endangerment Standard maltreatment was more than twice their risk in these other conditions. In addition, children who lived with two unmarried parents had significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard maltreatment compared to those who lived with other married parents.
Abuse. Again, children living with two married biological parents had a significantly lower rate of this maltreatment (4.3 per 1,000 children) than those in all other conditions of family structure and living arrangement (15.9 or more per 1,000 children). The highest rate again occurred for children whose single parent had a live–in partner (45.8 per 1,000 children), which is more than 10 times higher than the rate for children with married biological parents. The Endangerment Standard abuse rate for children living with one parent who had a partner was also significantly higher than the rates for children in all the other living arrangements. Moreover, children living with other married parents had significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard abuse than children living with a single parent who had no partner.
Neglect. The incidence of Endangerment Standard neglect was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents (12.8 children per 1,000) compared to the risk for children living in all other family structure and living arrangement circumstances (34.0 children or more per 1,000). Children whose single parent had an unmarried partner experienced the highest risk of Endangerment Standard neglect (100.8 children per 1,000), which is nearly 8 times the rate in the lowest risk group.
Children living with one parent with a cohabiting partner had a significantly higher rate of Endangerment Standard neglect than children living with other married parents, children living with a single parent with no partner, and children living with neither parent (100.8 versus 34.0, 51.7, and 48.7 children per 1,000, respectively). The incidence of Endangerment Standard neglect for children living with two unmarried parents is significantly higher than the rate for children living with other married parents (74.4 versus 34.0 children per 1,000).
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse
As Figure 5–10 shows, significant differences related to family structure and living arrangement occurred in all specific categories of Endangerment Standard abuse.
| Figure 5-10. Incidence of Endangerment Standard Abuse by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Physical abuse. The incidence of Endangerment Standard physical abuse was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents (2.5 children per 1,000) than for those living in all the other family structures and living arrangements (9.0 or more children per 1,000). Children living with a single parent with an unmarried partner had the highest incidence of physical abuse by far, more than 10 times the lowest rate, and also significantly higher than the rates for children living with other married parents, with unmarried parents, with a single parent without a partner, or with neither parent. In addition, children living with other married parents experienced Endangerment Standard physical abuse at a significantly higher rate than those whose single parent had no live-in partner (15.4 versus 9.0 children per 1,000).
Sexual abuse.78 Sexual abuse rates also differed significantly for children living with two married biological parents compared to children living in all but one of the other conditions. The exception is the comparison with children living with unmarried parents, whose rate of sexual abuse does not statistically differ from the rate for children with married biological parents. Only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner and at least 3.4 per 1,000 children in the other living arrangements with different rates. In addition, children whose single parent lived with a cohabiting partner were at significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard sexual abuse than those living with two unmarried parents and than those whose single parent had no live-in partner (12.1 versus 3.2 and 3.4 children per 1,000, respectively). Children whose parent had a cohabiting partner were also sexually abused at a higher rate than those with other married parents (12.1 versus 5.5 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference.
Emotional abuse.79 The subgroups exhibit a similar profile in their rates of Endangerment Standard emotional abuse. This category of maltreatment occurred to 1.8 per 1,000 children who were living with two married biological parents, which is significantly lower than the rates for children living with other married legal parents and for those living with just one parent under any arrangement. The rate of 15.0 per 1,000 children living with a single parent with an unmarried partner is more than 8 times higher than the rate for children with two married biological parents. Children whose single parent had a cohabiting partner were also at significantly higher risk of emotional abuse than those whose single parent had no partner (15.0 versus 5.9 children per 1,000).
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect
Figure 5–11 displays the statistically meaningful differences in rates of specific categories of Endangerment Standard neglect related to family structure and living arrangement.
| Figure 5-11. Incidence of Endangerment Standard Neglect by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Physical neglect. The lowest incidence of Endangerment Standard physical neglect occurred for children living with two married biological parents (6.5 children per 1,000), which is significantly lower than the rates for children in all other living arrangements. The highest rate occurred for children living with a single parent with a cohabiting partner (47.4 children 1,000), which is over 7 times greater than the lowest rate. In addition, the rates of physical neglect for children living with two unmarried parents and for those living with a single parent, with or without an unmarried partner, are significantly higher than that for children living with other married parents.
Emotional neglect. The incidence of emotional neglect was 6.7 per 1,000 children with two married biological parents, which is significantly lower than the rates for children in any other living arrangements (20.3 or more per 1,000 children). Children whose single parent had an unmarried partner again had the highest rate, at 68.2 per 1,000 children, which is a factor of more than 10 times higher than the lowest rate. This rate is also significantly higher than the rates for children in all other conditions. Children whose single parent had a live–in partner also had a significantly higher rate than those with other married parents, those whose single parent had no partner, and those who lived with neither parent. Children living with two unmarried parents had the second–highest rate of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect (46.9 per 1,000 children), which is significantly higher than the rates in all conditions except that in the highest-risk group (i.e., children whose single parent had a live-in partner).
Educational neglect. Rates of educational neglect are identical under the Harm and Endangerment Standards, so the discussion here does not reiterate those findings.
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
Figure 5–12 shows the statistically meaningful differences related to the child's family structure and living arrangement that emerged in the incidence of different outcomes attributable to Endangerment Standard maltreatment.
| Figure 5-12. Incidence of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure and Living Arrangement. |
 |
| [D] |
Serious harm. The incidence of children who suffered serious harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment was significantly lower among those living with their married biological parents (2.8 children per 1,000), compared to the incidence rates for children living under any other conditions (9.5 children or more per 1,000). Children living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner were at the highest risk of serious harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment (21.5 children per 1,000). Children with a cohabiting single parent were also at higher risk of serious harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment than children with other married parents (9.5 children per 1,000), but this difference is statistically marginal.
Moderate harm. The incidence of children moderately harmed by Endangerment Standard maltreatment was significantly lower when they lived with married biological parents (6.0 children per 1,000) than under any other family arrangement (17.0 or more children per 1,000). Across these subgroups, the highest rate, for children whose single parent cohabited with a partner (49.3 children per 1,000) is more than 8 times higher than the lowest rate. Children whose single parent had a live–in partner were at significantly higher risk than those living with other married parents and than those living with unmarried parents (17.0 and 17.8 children per 1,000, respectively). Also, children whose single parent had a cohabiting partner had a higher rate of moderate harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment than those whose single parent had no partner, but this difference was statistically marginal.
Inferred harm.80 Risk of experiencing Endangerment Standard maltreatment that permitted the inference of harm was lower for children who lived with two married biological parents (0.9 children per 1,000) compared to those who lived in any other arrangement (5.2 or more children per 1,000). These differences are significant except for the comparison with children living with two unmarried parents (7.8 children per 1,000), where the difference is statistically marginal.
In addition, children living with a single parent who cohabited with a partner had a significantly higher rate of inferred harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment than those with other married parents, those with a single parent with no partner, and those living with neither parent (5.3, 5.2 and 5.5 children per 1,000, respectively).
Endangered. The rate of children who were endangered but not yet harmed by Endangerment Standard maltreatment was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents compared to children living in all other family arrangements (6.1 versus 17.5 or more children per 1,000). The highest rate, 55.0 per 1,000 children who lived with a single parent with partner, is over 9 times the lowest rate. The endangerment rate for children whose single parent had a cohabiting partner is significantly higher than the rate for all except those living with unmarried parents. Children with unmarried parents had a significantly higher rate of endangerment than children in all other conditions except those whose single parent had a cohabiting partner.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Structure
Changes in Endangerment Standard maltreatment since the NIS–3 significantly related to family structure in all summary categories of maltreatment, all specific categories of abuse, two categories of neglect, and four levels of outcome severity.
| Figure 5–13. Percent Changes since NIS–3 in Rates of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
Endangerment Standard maltreatment. As Figure 5–13 shows, the rates of overall maltreatment and of neglect increased substantially for children living with one parent (by 56% and 61%, respectively), whereas the rates for children who lived with both parents showed much smaller changes in those categories (a 15% decrease and 2% increase, respectively). The pattern for changes in rates of Endangerment Standard abuse is somewhat different, however. There, the rate for children in single-parent homes showed negligible change (just a 6% increase), whereas the rate for children living with two parents decreased substantially (by 46%).
Abuse. Figure 5–14, which gives the percent changes in rates for specific abuse categories, demonstrates that the pattern of smaller changes in rates for single parent children and large rate decreases for two-parent children carries through in all abuse categories. The rates for children in one-parent households increased by 11% in Endangerment Standard physical abuse and by 21% in sexual abuse. The rate of emotional abuse for single-parent children actually decreased by 17%. By contrast, the rates for children in two-parent homes decreased substantially in all abuse categories–physical abuse decreased by 34%, sexual abuse decreased by 60%, and emotional abuse decreased by 55%.
| Figure 5–14. Percent Changes since NIS–3 in Rates of Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
Neglect. Figure 5–15 shows that the overall neglect pattern, whereby single parent children showed a large rate increase and two-parent children showed a lesser increase, only applied to emotional neglect. The rate of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect increased 200% for single-parent children, whereas it increased 58% for two–parent children. The relationship between family structure and changes since NIS–3 in rates of physical neglect was less dramatic, although still statistically significant. Whereas the rate increased by 21% for single–parent children, it decreased by 18% for children living with two parents.
| Figure 5-15. Percent Changes since NIS–3 in Rates of Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
Severity of outcomes from Endangerment Standard maltreatment. As Figure 5–16 shows, the changes in the incidence of children with serious harm, moderate harm, and inferred harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment, and of children who were endangered by their maltreatment differed significantly by family structure. In all cases, the rates for children living with one parent increased. In contrast, the rates for children living with two parents decreased in three outcome categories (serious, moderate, and inferred harm). Although the incidence of endangered two–parent children increased, this rate increase was much smaller than the rate increase for single–parent children in this outcome category (6% versus 50%, respectively).
5.4 Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related to Grandparents as Caregivers
This section describes the relationship between whether or not children had grandparents as caregivers in their household and their incidence of abuse and neglect. The analyses classified children on the basis of whether the information identified a grandparent as a caregiver for the children in the household. The NIS–4 only identified a grandparent as a child’s caregiver under three conditions: when the grandparent was the child’s primary caregiver, when the primary caregiver did not have a spouse or partner and the grandparent was the secondary caregiver, and when the grandparent was a caregiver and maltreated the child.81 Because the NIS–4 did not exhaustively identify all cases where a maltreated child had a grandparent as caregiver, these findings provide minimum estimates of the rates of child maltreatment in grandparent–caregiver circumstances. Also note that grandparents who are caregivers in these analyses are not necessarily the primary caregivers in the households.
| Figure 5-16. Percent Changes since NIS–3 in Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by Family Structure. |
 |
| [D] |
5.4.1 Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Grandparents as Caregivers
Table 5–5 shows that two categories of Harm Standard maltreatment–overall abuse and physical abuse–revealed statistically meaningful differences related to whether or not the child had grandparents as caregivers in the household.82
Harm Standard abuse. The incidence of overall Harm Standard abuse for children who had a grandparent caregiver was lower than the rate for children with no identified grandparent caregiver (6.1 versus 7.6 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference. Children with no identified grandparent caregiver were 1.2 times more likely to experience Harm Standard abuse than children who had a grandparent caregiver.
| Harm Standard Maltreatment Category | Children With Grandparents as Caregivers | Children Without Grandparents as Caregivers | Significance of Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABUSE: | All Abuse | 6.1 | 7.6 | m |
| Physical Abuse | 3.0 | 4.5 | * | |
| * The difference is significant at p≤.05. m The difference is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). |
Physical abuse. Children whose grandparent cared for them were at significantly lower risk of Harm Standard physical abuse compared to children with no identified grandparent caregiver. An estimated 3.0 children per 1,000 who had a grandparent caregiver experienced Harm Standard physical abuse, whereas the rate was 4.5 per 1,000 children with no identified grandparent caregiver. Thus, the risk of Harm Standard physical abuse for children with no identified grandparent caregiver was 1.5 times the risk for children cared for by a grandparent.
5.4.2 Differences in Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Grandparents as Caregivers
Table 5–6 shows the relationship between incidence rates for Endangerment Standard maltreatment and the presence of a grandparent caregiver. Only three statistically meaningful differences emerged: for physical abuse and for inferred and endangered outcomes resulting from Endangerment Standard maltreatment.
| Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Category | Children With Grandparents as Caregivers | Children Without Grandparents as Caregivers | Significance of Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABUSE: | Physical Abuse | 5.2 | 6.6 | m |
| SEVERITY OF HARM: | Inferred | 2.3‡ | 3.2 | m |
| Endangered | 12.2 | 15.8 | * | |
| * The difference is significant at p≤.05. m The difference is statistically marginal (i.e., .10>p>.05). ‡ This estimate is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. |
Physical abuse. Children whose grandparent cared for them had a lower risk of Endangerment Standard physical abuse; this is a statistically marginal difference. An estimated 5.2 children per 1,000 with a grandparent caregiver experienced Endangerment Standard physical abuse compared to 6.6 per 1,000 for children with no identified grandparent caregiver. Children with no identified grandparent caregiver were 1.3 times as likely to experience Endangerment Standard physical abuse.
Inferred harm. Children with a grandparent caregiver had a lower risk of inferred harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment than children without a grandparent caregiver (2.3 versus 3.2 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference. Thus, children without a grandparent caregiver experienced maltreatment that warranted the inference they were harmed at 1.4 times the rate of children who lived with a grandparent caregiver.83
Endangerment. The incidence of children who were endangered, but not yet harmed, by maltreatment was significantly lower for those who had a grandparent caregiver, at 12.2 children per 1,000, compared to children with no identified grandparent caregiver, at 15.8 children per 1,000. Thus, children with no identified grandparent caregiver were 1.3 times more likely to experience endangerment compared with children with a grandparent caregiver.
5.5 Family Size Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment
Analyses examining the relationship between family size84 and the incidence of child abuse and neglect categorized children into one of four groups on the basis of the number of children in their family: those in families where they were the only child, those in families with two children, three children, and four or more children.85,86
5.5.1 Family Size Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment
The incidence of a few categories of Harm Standard maltreatment varied across the family–size groups. Figure 5–17 graphs these categories, showing that they have a consistent pattern: incidence rates are higher for children in the largest families, intermediate for “only” children, and lowest for children in families with two or three children.
Harm Standard Maltreatment Categories
Overall Harm Standard maltreatment. An estimated 21.2 children in households with four or more children suffered some form of Harm Standard maltreatment, which is equivalent to 2.1 children per 100, or 1 in 48 children in these larger families. This, the highest rate, is 1.8 times the lowest rate (11.9 per 1,000 children in households with two children), a significant difference. In addition, the incidence rate for “only” children (17.9 per 1,000 children) was 1.5 times the rate for children in households with two children, a statistically marginal difference.
Neglect. The incidence of overall Harm Standard neglect is significantly higher among children living in households with four or more children compared to those in households with two children. The rate was 13.8 per 1,000 children in the larger households, which is more than twice the rate of 6.4 per 1,000 children in two–child households.
Physical abuse. The rate of physical abuse in the largest families (5.0 per 1,000 children) is higher than the rate in two–child families (3.4 per 1,000 children), a statistically marginal difference.
Physical neglect. Children in households with four or more children suffered physical neglect at a higher rate than those in households with three children (5.9 versus 2.6 children per 1,000, respectively), a difference that is statistically marginal.
| Figure 5–17. Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatment by Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment
The incidence of children who suffered serious harm or moderate harm from Harm Standard maltreatment differed depending on the number of children in their households, as Figure 5–18 shows.
| Figure 5–18. Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment by Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
Serious harm. Children in the largest households (four or more children) had a greater risk of suffering serious harm as a result of their Harm Standard maltreatment than children in households with just two children. An estimated 8.4 per 1,000 children in the largest families were seriously harmed, which is nearly 1.8 times the rate for children in families with two children, where an estimated 4.8 children per 1,000 experienced serious harm from Harm Standard maltreatment. This difference is statistically marginal.
Moderate harm. An estimated 9.4 children per 1,000 “only” children had moderate injuries as a result of their Harm Standard maltreatment, which is 1.5 times the rate of children who had moderate injuries among those with in two–child families (6.2 per 1,000). Also, the rate of moderate harm in the largest families (11.7 per 1,000 children) is almost twice the rate in families with two children (6.2 per 1,000). Both differences are statistically marginal.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Size
Changes in maltreatment rates since the NIS–3 related to family size only for the incidence of children with inferred harm from Harm Standard maltreatment.87 Figure 5–19 displays this finding.
Inferred harm. The incidence of children with inferred harm as a result of their Harm Standard maltreatment decreased differentially across the three family size groups in the graph, eradicating their differences from the earlier study. The decline was greatest among children living in the largest households, where the rate of inferred harm decreased by 82% (from 6.0 children per 1,000 in the NIS–3 to 1.1 child per 1,000 in the NIS–4). Declines in the other subgroups, although noteworthy, were less dramatic. Among “only” children, the incidence of inferred harm declined by 52% (from 2.5 to 1.1 children per 1,000), and among children in households with two to three children, the rate declined by 47% (from 1.5 to 0.8 children per 1,000).
5.5.2 Family Size Differences in Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
Endangerment Standard incidence rates in several categories of maltreatment and levels of outcome severity differed significantly by family size. Specifically, significant family size differences emerged in the incidence of overall Endangerment Standard maltreatment, the main category of neglect, physical neglect, emotional neglect, moderate harm, inferred harm, and endangerment. Statistically marginal differences
| Figure 5–19. Changes since NIS–3 in the Incidence of Inferred Harm from Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
related to family size occurred in the incidence of overall abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and serious harm.
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
Chapter 3 indicated that an estimated 39.5 children per 1,000 nationwide experienced some form of Endangerment Standard maltreatment. Significant differences among the incidence rates for children living in families of different sizes qualify that general result. Figure 5–20 shows that the incidence is much higher for children in the largest families and that rates are lower for children in the other family–size groups.
Overall Endangerment Standard maltreatment. Children in families with four or more children have a significantly higher rate of overall Endangerment Standard maltreatment compared to children in all smaller family groups (62.9 versus 38.2 or fewer children per 1,000). The rate of Endangerment Standard maltreatment for children in households with four or more children is 2.3 times the rate for children in families with two children, 1.7 times the rate for “only” children, and 1.6 times the rate for children in three–child households. The difference in the incidence rates for children in two–child versus three–child households is statistically marginal.
| Figure 5–20. Incidence of Endangerment Standard Overall Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect by Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
Abuse. Children in families with four or more children had a higher rate of Endangerment Standard abuse compared to those in families with two children. The incidence rate for children in families with four or more children is 1.5 times the rate for children in families with two children (13.9 versus 9.4 children per 1,000). This difference is statistically marginal.
Neglect. In contrast to the small and statistically marginal family–size differences in rates of Endangerment Standard abuse, the differences in neglect rates are substantial and significant. Children in families with four or more children had an incidence rate of 52.2 per 1,000 children, which is significantly higher than the rate of neglect found among children in all smaller families. Children in the largest families have an incidence rate of neglect that is almost 2.7 times the lowest rate of neglect, an estimated 19.6 children in two-child families. The difference in rates of Endangerment Standard neglect for children in three–child families and those in two–child families is also significant.
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse and Neglect
The incidence rates in four specific categories of Endangerment Standard maltreatment varied significantly or marginally in relation to family size. Figure 5–21 displays these findings.
| Figure 5–21. Incidence of Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
Physical abuse. The pattern of family size differences observed above in rates of overall Endangerment Standard abuse emerged in the specific category of physical abuse. Children in larger families had a significantly higher rate of Endangerment Standard physical abuse compared to those in families with two children (7.8 versus 5.0 per 1,000 children). Children in families with four or more children had a more than 1.5 times higher rate of physical abuse than those in two–child families.
Emotional abuse. The incidence of Endangerment Standard emotional abuse among children in families with four or more children was significantly higher than among children who were the only child. Children in the larger families had twice the rate of emotional abuse observed for “only” children (5.8 versus 2.8 per 1,000 children).
Physical neglect. The rate of Endangerment Standard physical neglect was 31.1 per 1,000 children in families with four or more children, which is 2.3 times the rate for “only” children (13.3 children per 1,000), 3.1 times the rate for children in families with two children (10.0 children per 1,000), and 2.0 times the rate for those in families with three children (15.2 children per 1,000). All these differences are statistically significant. In addition, children in families with three children had a higher rate than those in two–child families, a statistically marginal difference.
Emotional neglect. The rate of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect was highest for children in the largest families (27.4 children per 1,000). This rate differs significantly from the rates for children in families with one child (13.9 children per 1,000) and families with two children (10.9 children per 1,000), and differs marginally from the rate for children in three-child families (17.7 children per 1,000). The rate of emotional neglect among children in the largest families is 2.0 times greater than the rate for “only” children, 2.5 times greater than the rate for children in two–child families, and 1.5 times greater than the rate for children in three–child families. In addition, the midsize family groups had significantly different rates of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect: children in three–child families had 1.6 times the rate of emotional neglect compared to children in two–child families.
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
The incidence of children who suffered moderate harm, inferred harm, and endangerment from Endangerment Standard maltreatment differed significantly depending on the number of children in their households. Differences in relation to the incidence of serious harm are statistically marginal. Figure 5–22 graphs these patterns.
Serious harm. The incidence of children who suffered serious harm from Endangerment Standard maltreatment was higher in the largest families compared to the incidence of seriously harmed children in families with two children (8.8 versus 5.0 children per 1,000). This is a statistically marginal difference.
| Figure 5–22. Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by Family Size. |
 |
| [D] |
Moderate harm. The rates of children moderately harmed by abuse or neglect were higher in families with four or more children (17.9 per 1,000 children) and in families with one child (13.8 per 1,000 children) than in families with two children (9.3 per 1,000 children). Compared to children in two–child households, those in the largest families had 1.9 times the incidence of moderate harm from their maltreatment (a significant difference) and “only” children had 1.3 times the rate of moderate harm (a statistically marginal difference).
Inferred harm. The incidence of children with inferred harm as a result of Endangerment Standard maltreatment was significantly greater in large families compared to the incidence in families with two children. The estimated rate of 4.7 per 1,000 children in families with four or more children is more than twice the rate of 2.3 per 1,000 children in two–child families.
Endangered. The estimated incidence of children who were endangered, but not yet harmed, by abuse or neglect was significantly higher among children in the largest families compared to those in families with three or fewer children. The incidence of endangered children in the largest families (31.5 children per 1,000) is 2.6 times the rate among “only” children (12.0 children per 1,000), 3.0 times that in families with two children (10.5 children per 1,000), and almost 2.0 times the rate in families with three children (16.1 children per 1,000). Moreover, children in the mid–size families also had significantly different rates: the incidence of children endangered by their maltreatment in three–child families is more than 1.5 times the incidence of endangered children in two–child families.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Family Size
Changes since the NIS–3 in the incidence of Endangerment Standard maltreatment did not differ by family size.
5.6 Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related to Metropolitan Status (Metrostatus) of County of Residence
The findings in this section apply a three–way classification of the metrostatus of children’s county of residence: large (major) urban counties, other urban (including suburban) counties, and rural counties.88
Although the NIS–3 used a similar classification, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently revised metrostatus definitions. These definitional changes, along with updated population data from Census 2000, reclassified a number of counties in the United States.89 The NIS–4 analyses of metrostatus differences in maltreatment rates used these revised definitions and county classifications. However, the analyses regarding changes in metrostatus since the NIS–3 used the earlier metrostatus definitions.
5.6.1 Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to Metropolitan Status (Metrostatus) of County of Residence
Significant and marginal differences related to county metrostatus emerged in several categories of Harm Standard maltreatment.90 As detailed below, incidence rates were consistently higher in rural counties.
Harm Standard Abuse
Figure 5–23 displays the incidence rates for Harm Standard abuse by the metrostatus of the child’s county of residence.
Overall abuse. The incidence of overall Harm Standard abuse in rural counties was 1.7 times the rate in major urban counties (10.8 versus 6.4 children per 1,000), a statistically significant difference.
Sexual abuse. The rate of Harm Standard sexual abuse in rural counties (2.8 per 1,000 children) was twice the rate in urban counties (1.4 children per 1,000), a difference that is significant. The rural rate is also 1.6 times the sexual abuse rate in major urban areas (1.8 children per 1,000), a difference that is statistically marginal.
| Figure 5–23. Incidence of Harm Standard Abuse by County Metrostatus |
 |
| [D] |
Emotional abuse. The pattern of significantly higher maltreatment rates for children in rural areas also applies to emotional abuse. The risk of emotional abuse for children in rural counties was 2.6 times that in major urban counties (3.4 versus 1.3 children per 1,000).
Harm Standard Neglect
Only the rate of emotional neglect differed by county metrostatus and this difference was statistically marginal. Figure 5–24 displays the pattern, which conforms to the differences in other categories.
The incidence of emotional neglect among children living in rural counties (4.7 children per 1,000) is higher than for children living in major urban counties (1.8 children per 1,000), a statistically marginal difference. Thus, the risk of Harm Standard emotional neglect for children in rural counties was 2.6 times that of children in major urban counties.
| Figure 5–24. Incidence of Harm Standard Neglect and of Serious Harm from Harm Standard Maltreatment by County Metrostatus |
 |
| [D] |
Severity of Outcomes from Harm Standard Maltreatment
Serious harm. Figure 5–24 also shows that the incidence of children who were seriously harmed by Harm Standard maltreatment in rural counties is 2.2 times the incidence in major urban counties (11.5 versus 5.3 children per 1,000). This difference is statistically marginal.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Harm Standard Maltreatment Related to County Metrostatus
None of the changes since the NIS–3 in the incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment categories or outcomes differed by county metrostatus.
5.6.2 Differences in Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to Metropolitan Status (Metrostatus) of County of Residence
Children in rural counties had higher incidence rates in all categories of Endangerment Standard maltreatment. In nearly every category of maltreatment and level of severity, children living in rural counties had higher rates than those in major urban counties. Also, in four maltreatment categories, children in rural counties had higher incidence rates than those in urban counties. Across all maltreatment categories and levels of outcome severity, the incidence of Endangerment Standard maltreatment in major urban counties did not differ from the incidence in urban counties.
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect
The rate of Endangerment Standard maltreatment overall was significantly higher in rural counties than in major urban areas, with children in rural counties 2.2 times as likely to experience Endangerment Standard maltreatment as children residing in major urban counties (68.1 versus 31.3 children per 1,000). Figure 5–25 shows this consistent pattern. The difference in incidence between the rural areas and (nonmajor) urban areas (where the rate was 39.1 children per 1,000) is statistically marginal.
| Figure 5–25. Incidence of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by County Metrostatus |
 |
| [D] |
The incidence of Endangerment Standard abuse among rural children is 1.7 times the incidence among children in major urban areas. This difference (16.5 versus 9.5 per 1,000 children) is statistically significant.
Endangerment Standard neglect revealed metrostatus differences similar to those observed for Endangerment Standard maltreatment overall, with a rural rate of 57.4 children per 1,000, an urban rate of 30.0 children per 1,000, and a major urban rate of 23.1 children per 1,000. Children in rural counties were 2.5 times more likely to be neglected than children in major urban counties, a significant difference, and they were 1.9 times as likely as children in urban counties, a statistically marginal difference.
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse
The same general pattern of higher incidence rates in rural counties is evident in Figure 5–26, which graphs the incidence of specific categories of Endangerment Standard abuse by county metrostatus.
| Figure 5–26. Incidence of Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Abuse by County Metrostatus. |
 |
| [D] |
Physical abuse. A statistically marginal difference emerged between the physical abuse rate for children in rural counties (8.5 children per 1,000) and the rate for children in major urban counties (5.6 children per 1,000). Children living in rural areas were 1.5 times more likely to be physically abused than children living in the major metropolitan areas.
Sexual abuse. The differences between the rate of sexual abuse in rural areas and the rates in major urban and urban areas are statistically marginal. Children in rural counties were about 1.5 times more likely to be sexually abused than children living in the large metropolitan areas or in urban areas.
Emotional abuse. The incidence of emotional abuse in rural counties was significantly higher, at 6.9 children per 1,000, than the rate in major urban counties, at 3.0 children per 1,000. Thus, the children in rural counties were 2.3 times as likely to be emotionally abused as the children in major metropolitan areas.
Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect
Figure 5–27 depicts the statistically meaningful differences in specific categories of Endangerment Standard neglect related to county metrostatus.
| Figure 5–27. Incidence of Specific Categories of Endangerment Standard Neglect by County Metrostatus. |
 |
| [D] |
Physical neglect. Children in rural counties were 2.8 times more likely to be physically neglected than children in major urban counties and 2.2 times more likely than urban children. Both differences are statistically significant.
Emotional neglect. Children who live in rural counties are also at significantly higher risk of Endangerment Standard emotional neglect compared to children living in major urban counties. The emotional neglect rate of 27.9 per 1,000 rural children is 2.3 times the rate of 11.9 per 1,000 children living in major metropolitan counties.
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment
Figure 5–28 shows the differences in incidence rates for outcomes from Endangerment Standard maltreatment.
| Figure 5–28. Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by County Metrostatus. |
 |
| [D] |
Figure 5–28. Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment by County Metrostatus
Serious harm. The incidence of children who were seriously harmed by Endangerment Standard maltreatment is higher in rural counties compared to major urban counties. In rural counties, children were 2.1 times as likely to suffer serious harm from maltreatment compared to children in major urban counties (11.8 versus 5.6 children per 1,000). This difference is statistically marginal.
Moderate harm. Children residing in rural counties had a 2.7 times greater rate of moderate harm from maltreatment compared to children in major urban counties (27.9 versus 10.4 children per 1,000), a significant difference.
Inferred harm. The incidence of children who experienced Endangerment Standard maltreatment sufficiently severe to permit the inference that they were harmed was significantly higher among children in rural areas than among those in major urban counties. An estimated 4.7 children per 1,000 living in rural counties experienced maltreatment that allowed inferred harm, which is twice the rate of 2.4 per 1,000 children living in large urban counties.
Endangered. The estimated incidence of children who had been endangered, but not yet harmed, by abuse and neglect was significantly higher for children living in rural areas compared to those living in large metropolitan areas. The rate of endangered rural children (23.8 per 1,000) was 1.8 times the rate for major urban area children (12.9 per 1,000).
No significant differences in severity of maltreatment outcomes occurred between children in rural and (nonmajor) urban counties or between children in major urban counties and other urban counties.
Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Endangerment Standard Maltreatment Related to County Metrostatus
Similar to the findings for the Harm Standard, no significant or marginal differences emerged in the analyses of changes in the rates of Endangerment Standard maltreatment by county metrostatus.
55 The measures available in the NIS–3 allowed analyses to address this question for three characteristics: family structure, family size, and metropolitan status of the county of residence. (back)
56Appendices B and C detail all NIS–4 estimates, including the estimated rates as well as totals, together with their standard errors of estimate. (back)
57Appendix D provides the detailed results of all within–NIS–4 statistical comparisons. Appendix E contains the details of all between–study comparisons. (back)
58These analyses excluded children who did not live with any parent (3% of children in the United States). (back)
59The classification applied employment information hierarchically: First, it assigned children who had any parent unemployed during these timeframes to the “Parent(s) Unemployed” category. Next, it assigned children with any parent employed to the “Parent(s) Employed category. Finally, it assigned children with parent(s) not in the labor force to that category. These analyses excluded 6% of the children countable under either definitional standard because they lived in households with no parents present. They also excluded children who lived with parents but who were missing information on parents’ labor force participation. Despite the effort to minimize the number of unknown cases by combining information across timeframes, parents’ employment remained unknown for 29% of the children countable under the Harm Standard and for 27% of those countable under the Endangerment Standard. (back)
60Incidence rate computations used the following population denominators, reflecting the number (in thousands) of children in the general population: 8,986 children with any parent currently unemployed or unemployed in the past year, 58,218 children with parent(s) employed and none unemployed currently or during the past year, and 3,982 children with no parent in the labor force during these time periods (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). (back)
61As noted in the previous chapter, analyses did not assess subgroup differences in fatality rates, because the total number of sample children who died as a result of their maltreatment was fewer than 100, too few to permit reliable subgroup estimates. (back)
62Study data forms asked whether anyone in the child’s household was participating in any poverty–related program. Instructions defined poverty–related programs to include subsidized school breakfasts or lunches, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, and public assistance. (back)
63Household income was missing for 68% of the children who experienced Harm Standard maltreatment and for 66% of those who experienced Endangerment Standard maltreatment. Household poverty program participation was missing for 58% of children who were countable under the Harm Standard and 54% of those countable under the Endangerment Standard. Information about parents’ education was missing for 76% of children who were countable under the Harm Standard and 77% of those whose maltreatment fit the Endangerment Standard. (back)
64This hybrid measure integrates information at the household and family levels. It is termed “family socioeconomic status” for purposes here, since a family level measure (parents’ education) is the lowest level in the combined index. The index assumes that if either household income or poverty–program participation indicates low socioeconomic status then this status applies to all families living in the household. (back)
65Although this strategy reduced the percentage of children with missing data to just under 50%, the composite low socioeconomic status measure was still missing for those children who were missing data on all three component measures: 48% of children who experienced Harm Standard maltreatment and 45% of those who suffered Endangerment Standard maltreatment. Missing data can bias NIS findings if the cases that are missing information are predominantly in a specific subgroup, since that would cause NIS to systematically underestimate the incidence of maltreatment in that subgroup. To gauge the robustness of the findings on socioeconomic status, hypothetical analyses examined the worst–case scenario regarding the potential bias of the missing data, by allocating all the children still missing values on this measure to the higher socioeconomic category (i.e., the subgroup with lower incidence rates across all maltreatment categories). Statistically significant differences remained for half of the maltreatment categories under both the Harm and Endangerment Standards. Specifically, the hypothetical subgroups still differed, under both definitional standards, in the incidence of all maltreatment, emotional abuse, all neglect, physical neglect, emotional neglect, and serious harm. In addition, the hypothetical subgroups differed significantly in their rates of experiencing moderate harm and endangerment from Endangerment Standard maltreatment. (back)
66Calculations of incidence rates used the following population denominators, in thousands: 19,750 children in families of low socioeconomic status and 53,885 children not in families of low socioeconomic status (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). (back)
67The incidence rate calculations used population denominators derived from the 2005 and 2006 Annual Estimates of the Population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a) and the 2007 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008d). Combined information from these three sources indicated that, during the NIS–4 reference periods, an average of 44,799,000 children were living with two married biological parents; 5,152,000 children were living with other married parents; 2,192,000 children were living with two unmarried parents; 2,081,000 children were living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, 16,962,000 children were living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and 2,449,000 children were living with no parent. These groups represent 61%, 7%, 3% 3%, 23% and 3% of the general child population in the United States, respectively. (back)
68In each category of maltreatment or level of harm, decisions about the significance of differences relied on the Bonferroni critical values for t . This adjusted for the multiplicity of the comparisons involved. Appendix D gives the details concerning the statistical tests for significance of differences in maltreatment incidence related to family structure and living arrangement. (back)
69The estimate for children who lived with neither parent is less reliable, as it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
70Estimates for children living with unmarried parents and for children living with neither parent are less reliable because each derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
71Estimates are less reliable for children living with unmarried parents, those whose single parent had a cohabiting partner, and those who lived with neither parent, as each derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
72Estimates are less reliable for children with other married parents, those whose single parent had no partner, and those who lived with neither parent, since each relies on fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
73Estimates are less reliable for children with other married parents, those living with unmarried parents, those whose single parent had a partner, and those who lived with neither parent, since each relies on fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
74Estimated rates of educational neglect and of Harm Standard emotional neglect are unreliable for the same family structure and living arrangement conditions. (back)
75Except for children who lived with a single parent who had no partner, estimates for children in all other conditions are less reliable because each derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
76NIS–3 data include fewer than 100 sample children who meet the Harm Standard requirements. Endangerment Standard estimates in the NIS–4 derive from fewer than 100 sample children in all but two categories: overall maltreatment and all abuse. (back)
77The definition of “parent” here includes step–parents and adoptive parents as well as all biological parents, regardless of their marital status. Appendix E provides the actual estimates and results of the statistical tests. (back)
78The estimate for children living with unmarried parents is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
79The estimate for children living with unmarried parents is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
80The estimate for children living with unmarried parents is less reliable because it derives from fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
81Incidence rate calculations used the following population denominators in thousands: 5,877 children with an identified grandparent as a caregiver and 67,759 children without an identified grandparent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). (back)
82Appendix D gives the details concerning the statistical tests for the differences in incidence of maltreatment that relate to whether a grandparent was a caregiver. (back)
83The estimate for children with a grandparent caregiver for Endangerment Standard inferred harm is less reliable because there are fewer than 100 sample children. (back)
84As in previous NIS reports, “family size” reflects the number of children in the household rather than the number of children within separate family units in a household. (back)
85Computations of incidence rates used the following population denominators, reflecting the number (in thousands) of children in the general population: 16,791 children in one–child households, 28,919 children in two–child households, 17,413 children in three–child households, 10,511 children in four–child households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). (back)
86In each category of maltreatment or level of harm, decisions about the significance of differences relied on the Bonferroni critical values for t. This adjusted for the multiplicity of the comparisons involved. Appendix D gives the details concerning the statistical tests for significance of family size differences. (back)
87Analyses of changes since the NIS–3 examined the three family size groups used in that earlier study: one child, 2 to 3 children, and 4 or more children. (back)
88Computations of incidence rates used the following population denominators, reflecting the number of children (in thousands) in the general population: 40,161 in major urban counties, 21,768 in urban counties and 11,706 in rural counties. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2003, 2004). (back)
89In 2000, OMB published new standards for defining metropolitan areas. After applying these new standards to Census 2000 data, OMB announced the new area definitions for U.S. counties (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2003). The new system defines metropolitan areas for all urbanized areas regardless of total area population and it includes outlying counties if they meet a commuting threshold of 25%, with no additional requirement. This affected the NIS classification of urban versus rural. In addition, the Census Bureau, using updated population data, modified the Rural–Urban Continuum Codes, which distinguished among counties based on population size (Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2004). This affected the NIS–4 classification of major urban versus urban, the former being counties in the top tier of this system (i.e., those in metro areas with populations of 1 million or more). (back)
90In each category of maltreatment or harm, decisions about the significance of differences relied on the Bonferroni critical values for t. This adjusted for the multiplicity of the comparisons involved. Appendix D gives the details concerning the statistical tests for significance of metrostatus differences. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |