Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
3. Characteristics, Living Situations, and Maltreatment of Children Involved with the Child Welfare System
This chapter begins the presentation of the findings from our analyses of the characteristics of children who are in families investigated by CWS following reports of child abuse and neglect.4 These children may continue to reside at home with their families or may reside in out-of-home care. If they are residing at home, their families may be receiving no formal child welfare services; that is, their case was closed at intake or their family may be receiving in-home services. If they are in out-of-home care, the children may be living with relatives in “kinship care,” with nonrelatives in nonkinship care, or in group or residential care. If children were placed with relatives following the investigation, but the placement was not identified as a foster care placement in the caseworker or caregiver interview, these children fall into the group designated the in-home group.
The demographic distribution of cases that comes to the attention of CWS has received substantial analysis, based on administrative data records reported as part of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). While not all state data are included in these national-level statistics, evidence about the race, age, type of maltreatment, and gender of children who are reported for abuse and neglect, and whose cases are subsequently substantiated, is now available at a level not previously attained (DHHS, 2003). The emphasis of this report is on describing the NSCAW sample to provide a basis for understanding subsequent, and more unique, analyses related to children’s development and service use and the relationship between these two. We will make some comparisons to the NCANDS and AFCARS data, although these comparisons are limited by the differing methods used by each data system.
Child welfare personnel have a fundamental responsibility to make fair decisions that respect the rights of children for protection from harm and the rights of families to experience minimum levels of intrusion. Much discussion has followed the findings that a modest proportion of all cases reported for child maltreatment will go on to be substantiated and receive services (see, e.g., Besharov, 1985) and a very small proportion of those cases will be considered serious enough to require out-of-home care (Berrick et al., 1998). This pattern of service provision is one of the reasons that some child welfare agencies are endeavoring to find other ways to address the needs of the many children and families who are investigated by CPS but do not proceed on to CWS (Schene, 1998; Waldfogel, 2000). Yet little is known about the families and children who have their cases closed following an investigation (Wolock et al., 2001).
The decision about whether to serve children at home or to place them into out-of-home care is a complex one. The analyses in this chapter bring to bear a few basic child characteristics to describe which services were provided and where. First, basic demographics of the children involved with CWS (age, gender, race, and ethnicity) are discussed, as well as the settings in which these children are currently living (i.e., in-home vs. out-of-home). For children remaining at home, the report also discusses whether they have received services from child welfare services. (It is assumed that all children in out-of-home placements have received services from the agency.) The discussion includes a definition of receipt of child welfare services.
Next, this chapter introduces the types of maltreatment that brought the children to the attention of the child welfare agencies for the “current” investigation (i.e., the investigation that led them to be included in this study). Distributions of the most serious abuse type for each child, as identified by the child welfare worker, are presented overall and by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and setting. Data on the subtypes of abuse, multiple types of abuse, and severity and time since onset of abuse are also presented. The maltreatment discussion is followed by a section on substantiation of CWS reports.
In addition, children’s exposure to violence in the home is discussed, as measured by the VEX-R for children aged 5 and older. Results of the child report version of the Parent Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-PC) are then presented for children aged 11 and older. The CTS-PC elicits the children’s report of exposure to parental discipline and maltreatment, including nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and physical assault. The chapter concludes with the in-home caregiver’s self-report of discipline and child maltreatment, as measured by the corresponding Parent-to-Child version of the CTS-PC, which includes the aforementioned dimensions, in addition to neglect and sexual maltreatment.
3.1 Characteristics of Children Involved with the Child Welfare System
Knowing the demographic characteristics of children involved with CWS is an important foundation for interpreting subsequent analyses of these children. Whether they tend to be younger or older or of a particular gender or racial/ethnic group provides a basis for understanding the more complex details of the lives of these children and their families. Eventually, this knowledge could help focus policies and programs to address more precisely the needs of subgroups of children and families.
At the time of the baseline interviews, the children in this sample range in age from 1 month to 15 years.5 The average age of the children is 7, as is the median age (mode ≤ 1 year) (first column of Table 3-1). Children age 6 to 10 years old make up the largest portion of children involved with CWS (36%). Another 25% are 11 years of age or older. Twenty-one percent of the children are age 3 to 5, and 19% are age 2 or younger. The children involved with CWS are evenly divided between males and females (first column of Table 3-2a).
| Age | TOTAL | Setting | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | |||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Out-of-Home Kinship Foster Care | GroupCare | TOTALOut-of-Home ^ | ||
| Mean | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 12 | 7 |
| Median | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 7 |
| Mode | <1 | <1 | <1 | <1 | <1 | <1 | 14 | <1 |
| Range | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 | <1-15 |
| ^ Includes children in other out-of-home placement settings. (back) |
To classify children for this analysis, we used a blend of race and ethnicity, considering ethnicity before race, such that those children identified as Hispanic/Latino were classified as such regardless of their race6. Those who were identified as non-Hispanic/Latino were classified by their race (i.e., African American, White, or other). Using these classifications, we find that 47% of children are White/non-Hispanic, 28% are African American/non-Hispanic, 18% are Hispanic/Latino,7 and 7% are classified as other races (first column of Table 3-2a). Differences in child characteristics across service settings are discussed in Section 3.4.
For the reader’s reference in this and subsequent chapters, Table 3-2b presents the same data as in Table 3-2a, but unweighted. These unweighted data are presented to give the reader perspective on the sample sizes involved and their power to answer questions of concern; all other tables in the report present weighted data.
Also for the reader’s reference, Table 3-2c presents the weighted Ns overall and broken down by the various child characteristics. These Ns are national estimates of children involved with the child welfare system produced by applying the weights (as described in Chapter 2) to the sample. They are presented to give the reader perspective on the population sizes involved in each of the categories.
| Characteristic | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | |||
| Percent ^/ (SE) | |||||||||
| Age | 0-2 | 18.8 (1.0) |
17.3 (1.3) |
18.5 (1.5) |
17.6 (1.2) |
36.5(a) (3.4) |
28.8 (4.7) |
2.3 (1.4) |
27.7(b) (2.8) |
| 3-5 | 20.3 (1.1) |
21.0 (1.5) |
22.8 (1.9) |
21.5 (1.2) |
8.3 (1.9) |
15.1 (3.1) |
2.3 (1.6) |
11.0 (1.5) |
|
| 6-10 | 36.3 (1.4) |
38.7 (2.2) |
31.7 (1.9) |
36.8 (1.7) |
34.2 (3.7) |
34.3 (4.4) |
22.8 (11.2) |
32.3(c) (2.7) |
|
| 11+ | 24.6 (1.1) |
22.9 (1.9) |
27.0 (2.5) |
24.0 (1.3) |
21.0 (3.1) |
21.8 (4.5) |
72.6(d, e) (11.0) |
29.1(f) (2.9) |
|
| Gender | Male | 49.8 (1.8) |
49.5 (2.4) |
52.2 (2.2) |
50.2 (1.9) |
52.0 (3.9) |
39.4 (5.1) |
57.8 (10.8) |
46.9 (2.8) |
| Female | 50.2 (1.8) |
50.5 (2.4) |
47.8 (2.2) |
49.8 (1.9) |
48.0 (3.9) |
60.6 (5.1) |
42.2 (10.8) |
53.2 (2.8) |
|
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 28.1 (2.5) |
26.0 (2.6) |
30.9 (3.1) |
27.3 (2.6) |
38.4 (5.6) |
33.7 (4.3) |
18.0 (5.9) |
34.6 (3.8) |
| White | 46.9 (3.7) |
47.9 (4.1) |
45.4 (3.8) |
47.2 (3.7) |
38.9 (6.9) |
47.7 (5.1) |
61.9 (9.5) |
44.8 (4.1) |
|
| Hispanic | 18.0 (2.9) |
19.3 (3.4) |
16.6 (3.1) |
18.6 (3.1) |
14.9 (4.5) |
13.1 (3.2) |
12.0 (4.5) |
14.0 (2.8) |
|
| Other | 6.9 (0.8) |
6.8 (1.0) |
7.2 (1.3) |
6.9 (0.8) |
7.8 (2.2) |
5.6 (1.8) |
8.1 (3.9) |
6.7 (1.4) |
|
| TOTAL | 100 | 64.7 (1.6) |
24.0 (1.5) |
88.6 (1.2) |
4.4 (0.6) |
5.1 (0.6) |
1.0 (0.2) |
11.4 (1.2) |
|
|
a Children 0-2, out-of-home are more likely than children 11+, out-of-home, to be in nonkinship foster care (X2 = 7.3, p < .01). (back) b Children 0-2 are more likely than children 3-5 to be in an out-of-home placement (X2 = 14.7, p < .001). (back) c Children 6-10 are more likely than children 3-5 to be in an out-of-home placement (X2 = 7.6, p < .01). (back) d Children 11+, out-of-home are more likely than children 0-2, out-of-home, to be in a group home (X2 = 12.6, p < .001). (back) e Children 11+, out-of-home are more likely than children 3-5, out-of-home, to be in a group home (X2 = 9.3, p < .01). (back) |
| Characteristic | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | |||
| Percent^/ n | |||||||||
| Age | 0-2 | 36.3 (n=1998) |
32.9 (n=569) |
34.4 (n=796) |
33.8 (n=1365) |
49.5 (n=364) |
43.2 (n=247) |
8.7 (n=9) |
43.2 (n=633) |
| 3-5 | 15.2 (n=834) |
17.6 (n=304) |
16.2 (n=375) |
16.8 (n=679) |
9.7 (n=71) |
13.5 (n=77) |
2.9 (n=3) |
10.6 (n=155) |
|
| 6-10 | 27.1 (n=1492) |
29.8 (n=514) |
27.3 (n=630) |
28.3 (n=1144) |
24.1 (n=177) |
24.8 (n=142) |
15.3 (n=16) |
23.7 (n=348) |
|
| 11+ | 21.4 (n=1180) |
19.6 (n=338) |
22.1 (n=511) |
21.0 (n=849) |
16.9 (n=124) |
18.5 (n=106) |
73.1 (n=76) |
22.6 (n=331) |
|
| Gender | Male | 49.6 (n=2729) |
50.1 (n=865) |
50.4 (n=1164) |
50.3 (n=2029) |
49.3 (n=363) |
44.2 (n=253) |
51.0 (n=53) |
47.7 (n=700) |
| Female | 50.4 (n=2775) |
49.9 (n=860) |
49.7 (n=1148) |
49.7 (n=2008) |
50.7 (n=373) |
55.8 (n=319) |
49.0 (n=51) |
52.3 (n=767) |
|
| Race/Ethnicity^^^ | African American | 32.2 (n=1767) |
26.9 (n=463) |
31.1 (n=718) |
29.3 (n=1181) |
40.4 (n=295) |
39.8 (n=227) |
36.9 (n=38) |
40.2 (n=586) |
| White | 43.1 (n=2364) |
48.5 (n=834) |
42.9 (n=991) |
45.3 (n=1825) |
37.8 (n=276) |
36.3 (n=207) |
39.8 (n=41) |
37.0 (n=539) |
|
| Hispanic | 17.4 (n=956) |
17.2 (n=296) |
18.5 (n=427) |
17.9 (n=723) |
14.5 (n=106) |
18.4 (n=105) |
12.6 (n=13) |
16.0 (n=233) |
|
| Other | 7.3 (n=400) |
7.4 (n=127) |
7.5 (n=173) |
7.5 (n=300) |
7.4 (n=54) |
5.4 (n=31) |
10.7 (n=11) |
6.9 (n=100) |
|
| TOTAL | 100.0 (n=5504) |
31.3 (n=1725) |
42.0 (n=2312) |
73.4 (n=4037) |
13.4 (n=736) |
10.4 (n=572) |
1.9 (n=104) |
26.7 (n=1467) |
|
|
|
| Characteristic | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^ | |||
| n /(SE) | |||||||||
| Age | 0-2 | 450,297 (37,231) |
268,802 (27,124) |
106,249 (10,482) |
375,051 (32,578) |
38,864 (7,428) |
34,918 (8,448) |
546 |
75,246 (14,178) |
| 3-5 | 487,410 (48,669) |
326,141 (37,296) |
131,403 (15,474) |
457,545 (46,619) |
8,802 (1,775) |
18,234 (5,179) |
527 (357) |
29,865 (5,885) |
|
| 6-10 | 869,833 (85,468) |
599,500 (68,955) |
182,627 (19,338) |
782,127 (81,330) |
36,455 (7,938) |
41,519 (7,981) |
5,339 (3,261) |
87,706 (14,519) |
|
| 11+ | 589,964 (62,546) |
355,505 (49,071) |
155,341 (23,203) |
510,846 (57,128) |
22,377 (4,878) |
26,421 (5,512) |
17,009 (4,246) |
79,118 (10,811) |
|
| Gender | Male | 1,194,912 (108,527) |
767,194 (83,132) |
300,311 (28,897) |
1,067,506 (98,751) |
55,367 (10,990) |
47,753 (7,346) |
13,545 (4,449) |
127,407 (17,983) |
| Female | 1,202,592 (113,853) |
782,755 (82,334) |
275,309 (29,452) |
1,058,064 (102,677) |
51,131 (8,229) |
73,339 (14,567) |
9,877 (3,096) |
144,529 (21,909) |
|
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 672,248 (84,530) |
401,021 (57,487) |
177,511 (26,453) |
578,532 (75,070) |
40,790 (10,097) |
40,792 (6,541) |
4,194 (1,166) |
93,715 (16,073) |
| White | 1,121,468 (96,026) |
738,718 (74,064) |
261,157 (26,400) |
999,875 (90,321) |
41,347 (7,013) |
57,654 (10,816) |
14,461 (5,022) |
121,594 (17,002) |
|
| Hispanic | 431,074 (95,500) |
297,830 (70,665) |
95,317 (21,791) |
393,147 (87,922) |
15,828 (6,406) |
15,808 (5,602) |
2,802 (1,037) |
37,927 (11,434) |
|
| Other | 164,381 (23,226) |
104,831 (17,235) |
41,502 (8,162) |
146,333 (21,378) |
8,310 (2,542) |
6,710 (2,052) |
1,890 (979) |
18,048 (3,997) |
|
| TOTAL | 2,397,504 (205,682) |
1,549,949 (148,106) |
575,620 (52,925) |
2,125,569 (185,224) |
106,498 (17,402) |
121,092 (18,120) |
23,421 (5,562) |
271,935 (37,000) |
|
3.2 Discussion of Child Characteristics
In general, children who have become involved with CWS span all age groups, with the greatest proportion (see Table 3-2a) of children younger than 3 years old—more than 18% of all children are 1 or 2 years old at the time of investigation.8 (Almost half of all children in this population are White/non-Hispanic, with African American/non-Hispanic children making up over one-quarter (28%), and Hispanic children being less than one-fifth of this population. Although this means that African American/Non-Hispanic children are overrepresented among children who are investigated (as compared with children in the general American population), this underrepresentation is far lower than is seen in national statistics for foster care. The proportion of African American children in foster care at the end of 2000 was 43%; Whites were only 36% of the children in foster care, and Hispanics were 15% (AFCARS, 2003). Although the reasons for the difference in proportion of children taken into foster care and remaining there are complex, the significant finding here is that the numerical disproportionality is not as great at the entrance into child welfare services as it is among children in out-of-home care. We can observe these discrepancies in our data, as the proportion of children in out-of-home care who are African American is just under 35%. Our NSCAW-based findings are comparable to those in the 2000 NCANDS report, which indicate that about 25% of the victims of child maltreatment were African American/non-Hispanic, about 51% of victims were White/non-Hispanic, and about 14% were Hispanic. There is no predominance of males or females in the population of children involved with CWS in NSCAW, nor was there such a predominance in the NCANDS data although females are slightly more numerous. Among children in out-of-home care in NSCAW, 53% are female and 47% are male; this is the reverse of what we observe in AFCARS, which is explainable if females remain in foster care longer.
3.3 Living Situations
As with demographic characteristics, knowing the living situations of the children involved with CWS is critical to understanding subsequent analyses. Whether the child has ongoing contact with the child welfare agency and whether he or she is living apart from or together with a permanent caregiver has a multidimensional influence on the child. In this context, “living situation” means whether the child remained at home following the CWS investigation or was placed in out-of-home care, and for those remaining at home, whether the case was closed after investigation or there is ongoing receipt of services. The data presented reflect the living situation of the children at the time of the initial NSCAW interview.
Overall, 89% of the children are identified as living at home with their permanent primary caregiver, while 11% have been removed from the home and are living in an out-of-home placement at the time of the current caregiver interview (Table 3-2a). Of all children receiving services (35% of the total), 32% are in out-of-home care. Of the in-home group, 96% are living with at least one of their parents9 and 4% are living with relatives (i.e., the child’s parent is not their primary caregiver). Of the children in out-of-home care, the largest group (45%) is in kinship foster care, while another 39% of children are in a nonkin foster home. Nine percent of the children in out-of-home care are in group care and 8% are in other out-of-home placements.10 From the perspective of the total population of children involved with CWS, the proportion of children in each out-of-home placement type is as follows: kinship foster care (5%), nonkin foster home (4%), group care (1%), other (1%) (Table 3-2a). The vast majority of children whose families are investigated for child abuse and neglect will remain at home.
To further classify the “in-home” children, we looked at whether the child or his or her family had received services from the child welfare agency. Such services may include, but are not limited to, counseling (for caregiver and/or child); assistance in obtaining food, clothing, or other necessities; income support; substance abuse treatment (for caregiver and/or child); mental health treatment (for caregiver and/or child); parenting classes; family support services; domestic violence services; and legal services. There were three sources for determining whether or not the child or his or her family had received child welfare services: the NSCAW sampling frame, the child welfare worker, and the caregiver. These data were collected at different points in time.
The sampling frame from which this sample of children was selected included a variable indicating whether or not the child or his or her family had received services from the child welfare agency. In other words, subsequent to the investigation in question, was the child’s case opened for some period (as opposed to no action being taken on the case following the investigation)? If the case had been opened for any period (even if it was closed shortly after being opened), the sampling frame data reflect that the child or his or her family had received services. These data were typically provided to the sampling team via electronic data transfer, although in about 15% of cases this determination was made following manual entry of the data into a spreadsheet.
Child welfare workers were asked if “any services have been provided to or arranged for the family.” This item referred to services provided or arranged prior to the baseline interview, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. For each service indicated to have been provided to or arranged for the family, the child welfare worker was then asked if the services had been “provided by the agency, arranged, or referred.” We considered the child welfare worker’s response affirmative if they indicated that a service had been provided or arranged and paid for by the agency (i.e., a service that was referred out to another provider but not paid for by CWS did not qualify for a child welfare service received by the child or his or her family).
Caregivers were asked if “your caseworker or someone else from the child welfare agency met with you and your family to talk about how best to deal with your family’s needs, concerns, and/or problems.” We interpreted an affirmative answer to this question to mean that the family had received services from the child welfare agency. Although this is a fairly liberal interpretation of whether or not services were provided, we felt inclusion of data from the caregiver was valuable. Had this variable been excluded, the proportion of children classified as remaining at home and receiving services would have increased by 4%, indicating that inclusion of the caregiver variable made our estimate of service receipt more conservative.
While using the sampling frame, child welfare worker, and caregiver as information sources provided more data as well as the reassurance of having data confirmed by more than one respondent, there were also cases in which data from these various sources were in conflict. In fact, in 51% of the unweighted cases there was a discrepancy between two of the respondents. In order to resolve these discrepancies, we devised and applied the following set of rules to most of the discrepant cases:
-
If there were responses from all three sources, a similar response given by two of the three sources was used (n = 1586, 77% of discrepant cases).
-
If there were responses from only two sources:
– Data from the sampling frame were given precedence over data from the caregiver (n = 95, 5% of discrepant cases).
– Data from the child welfare worker were given precedence over data from the sampling frame (n = 240, 12% of discrepant cases).
An exception to the final bullet above was instituted for 7% (n = 146) of the discrepant cases, for which the sampling frame indicated that services were received and the child welfare worker indicated that services were provided or arranged for the family but did not identify specific services that were provided or arranged (e.g., they may have been referred out). In these cases, because there was one definite yes answer (sampling frame) and one partial yes answer (child welfare worker), we erred on the side of identifying the case as having received services.
After applying the above rules to the cases with conflicting services data (and what was used in our analyses), the resulting proportions indicate that 73% of in-home children have not received services, while 27% have received services. There are no significant differences in the proportion of children living with parents who received services (27%) versus the proportion of children living with relatives who received services (34%). From the perspective of the total population of children involved with CWS (including the children in out-of-home care), 65% of the children remain at home with no services, and 24% remain at home and have received services (Table 3-2a).
For the remainder of this report, the two in-home subgroups will be identified as “in-home, no services” and “in-home, services” to differentiate between those who did not receive child welfare services and those who did receive such services. Note that while the “in-home, no services” group was determined to have not received services from the child welfare agency, it is possible that they received and/or are receiving services from one or more outside agencies.
3.3.1 Discussion of Living Situations
The vast majority of children who become involved with CWS remain at home following an investigation by child welfare services, and almost three-quarters of these children are not receiving services from the child welfare agency while at home. The proportion of children placed in out-of-home care following an investigation is relatively small, a fact that may not be understood by the general public, that may identify child welfare services closely with the placement of children into foster care. Indeed, CWS is sometimes referred to as the “foster care system.” Still, these removals are not inconsequential for children and families, as almost all of these removals are court-ordered and begin a formal involvement with child welfare services that has the potential to markedly change the lives of all involved. At the same time, nearly half of all children in out-of-home care are in kinship foster homes, so they experience some significant level of continuity. About two-fifths of the children in out-of-home care are in nonkin foster homes and a small percentage, mostly older children, is in group care.
3.4 Setting and Services by Child Characteristics
The next step in interpreting the children’s living situations is assessing the impact of various demographic characteristics. Determining how the proportions of children in the various age, race/ethnicity, and gender groups vary across settings, and whether any differences are significant, can help to create a better profile of how cases are funneled through the system and inform programs and policies to enhance services.
In general, average age remains consistent across the setting categories. The mean, median, and modal age for the subgroups of all children remaining at home and all children in out-of-home care are the same as for the total population of children involved with CWS, as described earlier (mean age = 7, median age = 7, modal age ≤ 1 year) (Table 3-1). The largest deviation from these numbers is for the group-home subpopulation, which has a mean age of 12, a median age of 13, and a modal age of 14. Children in each of the setting subgroups span the entire age range (< 1 to 14).
Although bivariate associations were run between each of the child demographic variables (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and the setting variable, age is the only characteristic that appears to be associated with the setting in which the child is living. With regard to whether a child is living at home or in an out-of-home placement, those who are aged 3 to 5 years are the least likely to be in an out-of-home placement—children in all other age groups are more likely than those aged 3 to 5 years to be in an out-of-home placement (Table 3-2a).
Among children living in out-of-home placements, the oldest children are more likely than children in each of the two youngest age groups to be in a group home. In fact, almost three-quarters of the children in group care are aged 11 or older, while the 0- to 2-year-olds and 3- to 5-year-olds together make up only 4.6% of the group-care population. In addition, children aged 11 or older are less likely than children aged 0 to 2 to be in nonkinship foster care. As with gender and race/ethnicity, age does not appear to be associated with whether or not a child living at home has received services (Table 3-2a).
Logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood that a child was placed in out-of-home care, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and most serious abuse type. The results supported the bivariate analyses indicating that of these four variables only age is a predictor, with 3- to 5-year-olds being significantly less likely than 0- to 2-year-olds (OR = 2.90, p < .001), 6- to 10-year-olds (OR = 1.73, p = .01), and children 11 and older (OR = 2.30, p < .01) to be in out-of-home care.
Logistic regression was also used to establish whether or not a child still living at home was receiving services, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and most serious abuse type; the multivariate analyses again supported our previous analysis that there was a lack of association among these variables. That is, the finding of no bivariate differences between in-home services recipients and in-home no services recipients was maintained even when relationships between variables were mathematically controlled. In later chapters, we examine the case characteristics that are associated with the level of out-of-home care into which children are placed.
3.4.1 Discussion of Setting and Services by Child Characteristics
In summary, of the three demographic variables examined (age, gender, race/ethnicity), only age is a predictor of placement into out-of-home care (3- to 5-year-olds are the least likely to be in out-of-home care), while none of them predicts receipt of services among children remaining at home. Analyses presented later in this report examine what other factors may predict placement and/or service receipt. Regarding out-of-home placement type, the children in group care are most likely to be the oldest children, which is not surprising given the difficultbehavioral and emotional issues that older children are more likely to bring with them into care, while the children in nonkinship foster care are most likely to be the youngest children.
3.5 Types of Maltreatment
This section describes the types of abuse or neglect that brought the children to the attention of the child welfare agency for the current investigation. Although the children may have experienced other types of abuse prior to or since the current investigation, these data provide a benchmark to examine the most prevalent types of abuse and neglect, as well as child and case characteristics associated with various types of abuse and neglect. This section also discusses the frequency of children experiencing multiple types of abuse or neglect concurrently so as not to presume that the presence of these abuse and neglect types is mutually exclusive.
Types of maltreatment involved in the current investigation were classified using the modified coding scheme described by Manly, Cicchetti, and Barnett (1994) and used extensively by the LONGSCAN group (Runyan et al., 1988). The child welfare worker who was interviewed used information from the case record to report type, severity, and time since the onset of maltreatment. This approach has three major advantages over conventional means of gathering data on types of maltreatment from administrative records. First, it allows for more than one type of maltreatment to be indicated. Second, inclusion of the severity and duration of the maltreatment allows us to distinguish important differences among experiences of children with the same type of maltreatment. Third, the child welfare worker can describe the actual case characteristics rather than force the case to fit a category for court or administrative purposes. (For this reason, some cases were classified as “other.” When asked to choose one of the nine types of maltreatment in the instrument, some workers declined, indicating that they wanted to use this opportunity to describe the case as it occurred, not as paperwork dictated.) As a result, these maltreatment findings have more uniformity and specificity than would be found in administrative records.
Child welfare workers were asked to identify the most serious type of abuse and any other types that were reported present. The most serious type of abuse for almost half of the children involved with CWS is neglect, which encompasses both failure to supervise and failure to provide. Physical maltreatment is the most serious type of abuse for more than another quarter of the children (Table 3-3). The 4.5% of children in the other category were referred to CWS for reasons other than abuse or neglect (e.g., for mental health services or domestic violence). Even though these children had been classified as abused or neglected in the official CWS records—and, therefore, eligible for inclusion in the study—interviews with the child welfare workers indicated that other reasons were responsible for their involvement with the child welfare agency.
A direct comparison between the NSCAW maltreatment type proportions presented here and the proportions presented in NCANDS (2000) is imprecise, as the NCANDS proportions allow for multiple maltreatment types for each victim and are based on state-reported data. Whereas NSCAW also collected data on all reported maltreatment types (see discussions on number of main abuse types and most serious and additional types of abuse later in this section), we have generally limited our analyses to the most serious abuse type identified for each child.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sexual, emotional, and particularly physical abuse appear to be more common in NSCAW, with proportions of 11%, 7%, and 27%, respectively, than in NCANDS, with proportions of 10%, 8%, and 19%, respectively. The NSCAW proportions for each type would differ, however, if allowing for multiple maltreatment types per victim.
For the remainder of this report, we refer to five major categories of abuse and neglect when looking at abuse type and its relationship to other characteristics. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, failure to provide, and failure to supervise were retained, with the abandonment cases subsumed in the latter category. The less common types of abuse (i.e., emotional maltreatment, educational maltreatment, moral/legal maltreatment, and exploitation) were combined into a maltreated-other (types of abuse) category. However, the maltreated-other category was not included in most analyses that employ an abuse type because the interpretation for this group is too complex. These analyses also excluded cases with abuse types described as nonmaltreated-other (signifying other reasons for placement, as discussed above), as well as cases with don’t know, refused, or missing responses (don’t know, refused, and missing responses account for a weighted 7% of the total population). The distribution of the most serious abuse types following this recoding of the data is presented in the last row of Table 3-4, which also presents most serious type of abuse by age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
Bivariate analyses indicate that the most serious type of abuse suffered by children involved with CWS differs significantly depending on the child’s age. In general, the youngest children are the most likely to have a most serious abuse type of neglect (i.e., failure to provide or failure to supervise) and the least likely to have a most serious abuse type of physical or sexual maltreatment, or one of the other abuse types. The oldest children are the most likely to have a most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment (Table 3-4).
Gender also plays a significant role in the most serious abuse type, with males being significantly more likely to be victims of physical maltreatment, and females being significantly more likely to be victims of sexual maltreatment (p < .001) (Table 3-4). Our analyses did not reveal a bivariate association between race/ethnicity and most serious abuse type.
| Characteristic | Physical Maltreatment | Sexual Maltreatment | Failure to Provide | Failure to Supervise | Other | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent^/ (SE) | |||||||
| Age | 0-2 | 22.6 (2.2) |
6.1 (1.7) |
29.9 a b (2.5) |
36.6 c (3.0) |
4.8 (1.7) |
100 |
| 3-5 | 23.6 (2.9) |
12.8 (2.8) |
23.8 (3.8) |
30.3 (2.6) |
9.5 (2.3) |
100 | |
| 6-10 | 31.2 d (2.6) |
11.1 (2.4) |
18.9 (2.4) |
26.1 (2.4) |
12.7 e (2.1) |
100 | |
| 11+ | 32.7 (3.1) |
14.9 f (2.1) |
12.7 (2.3) |
29.7 (2.5) |
10.0 (1.8) |
100 | |
| Gender | Male | 32.3 g (2.0) |
5.9 (1.7) |
21.0 (2.0) |
32.1 (2.1) |
8.6 (1.3) |
100 |
| Female | 24.5 (1.8) |
17.0 h (1.7) |
19.8 (1.8) |
27.5 (2.4) |
11.2 (1.7) |
100 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 24.1 (3.0) |
9.2 (2.2) |
22.0 (2.4) |
36.4 (2.4) |
8.2 (1.9) |
100 |
| White | 29.2 (2.0) |
12.5 (1.7) |
21.2 (2.0) |
27.1 (2.2) |
10.1 (1.9) |
100 | |
| Hispanic | 33.3 (3.4) |
11.6 (2.7) |
15.2 (3.1) |
27.2 (4.9) |
12.7 (2.1) |
100 | |
| Other | 25.8 (3.9) |
13.5 (5.0) |
23.3 (5.6) |
29.9 (3.7) |
7.5 (2.5) |
100 | |
| TOTAL | 28.4 (1.5) |
11.5 (1.2) |
20.4 (1.5) |
29.8 (1.5) |
9.9 (1.2) |
100 | |
|
a Children 0-2 are more likely than children 6-10 to have a most serious abuse type of failure to provide (X2 = 7.4, p < .01). (back) b Children 0-2 are more likely than children 11+ to have a most serious abuse type of failure to provide (X2 = 25.9, p < .001). (back) c Children 0-2 are more likely than children 6-10 to have a most serious abuse type of failure to supervise (X2 = 8.7, p < .01). (back) d Children 6-10 are more likely than children 0-2 to have a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment (X2 = 6.9, p ≤ .01). (back) e Children 6-10 are more likely than children 0-2 to have a most serious abuse type of other (X2 = 7.4, p < .01). (back) f Children 11+ are more likely than children 0-2 to have a most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment (X2 = 11.9, p < .001). (back) g Males are more likely than females to have a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment (X2 = 9.5, p < .01). (back) |
Table 3-5 presents data on the most serious abuse type by child’s living situation. Bivariate tests of association indicate that the child’s setting and receipt of services do not differ significantly based on his or her most serious abuse type.
When the most serious type of abuse was reported to be physical maltreatment or neglect, the child welfare worker was asked about the subtypes of alleged abuse and the most serious of the subtypes that occurred. When the most serious type of abuse was reported to be sexual maltreatment, the child welfare worker was asked to indicate all types of sexual maltreatment that were reported. Although the child welfare worker was not asked to identify the most serious type of sexual maltreatment, we created a hierarchy of the types from least to most serious in order to select the most serious type for the purpose of these analyses. Table 3-6 presents the most serious subtypes of abuse overall and by child setting.
| Type of Abuse | TOTAL | Setting | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | |||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | ||
| Percent^ / (SE) | ||||||||
| Physical Maltreatment | 28.4 (1.5) |
30.0 (2.1) |
26.5 (1.8) |
29.1 (1.6) |
22.8 (4.2) |
16.3 (3.7) |
24.1 (11.1) |
22.4 (3.8) |
| Sexual Maltreatment | 11.5 (1.2) |
11.4 (1.7) |
12.4 (1.8) |
11.7 (1.4) |
7.0 (1.8) |
10.2 (2.5) |
23.9 (10.3) |
10.0 (2.2) |
| Failure to Provide | 20.4 (1.5) |
19.7 (2.0) |
21.4 (2.8) |
20.1 (1.7) |
24.9 (2.9) |
26.0 (5.7) |
7.7 (3.7) |
22.9 (2.7) |
| Failure to Supervise | 29.8 (1.5) |
28.4 (2.0) |
30.5 (2.1) |
29.0 (1.6) |
36.6 (4.7) |
40.5 (4.4) |
31.0 (11.9) |
36.6 (3.1) |
| Other | 9.9 (1.2) |
10.5 (1.5) |
9.2 (1.5) |
10.1 (1.3) |
8.7 (2.6) |
7.1 (2.1) |
13.3 (5.8) |
8.1 (1.7) |
|
|
For children with a most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment or failure to supervise, the most serious subtype of abuse differs significantly between children remaining at home and those in out-of-home care. With regard to sexual maltreatment, children remaining at home are over twice as likely to be in the least severe of the subtype categories (fondling or molestation without genital contact, or other less severe subtype such as exposure to sex or pornography) than children in out-of-home care (59% vs. 23%). With regard to failure to supervise, children remaining at home are twice as likely than children in out-of-home care to be in the “environment” (failure to ensure child is playing in safe area) category (31% vs. 15%), while children in out-of-home care are five times as likely to have been abandoned (20% vs. 4%; p < .001).
As noted above, child welfare workers were asked to identify all of the types of maltreatment inflicted on the child as alleged in the current report. For the following analysis, we looked specifically at the presence of more than one of the four main abuse types. As shown in Table 3-7, almost three-quarters of the children are victims of just one of these four types (most often physical maltreatment or failure to supervise), while one-fifth of the children experience more than one of these four types. There are differences in this variable based on child setting, with children remaining at home significantly more likely than those in out-of-home care to have experienced none of the main abuse types (7% vs. 3%) or just the main abuse type of physical maltreatment (26% vs. 17%) in the current report. Children in out-of-home care are significantly more likely than those remaining at home to have experienced two of the main abuse types in the current report (29% vs. 17%; p < .001).
| Type of Abuse | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | |||
| Percent^ (SE) | |||||||||
| Physical Maltreatment | Hit/ kick to face/ head/ neck | 27.8 (2.4) |
26.1 (3.0) |
31.2 (4.0) |
27.3 (2.5) |
16.6 (7.4) |
42.4 (10.0) |
62.3 (22.8) |
32.6 (6.0) |
| Violent handling of child | 19.6 (2.5) |
19.9 (2.9) |
20.9 (5.9) |
20.1 (2.8) |
10.5 (4.0) |
17.9 (6.3) |
20.2 (13.4) |
14.0 (2.4) |
|
| Hit/ kick to limbs/ extremities | 14.5 (1.9) |
14.8 (2.6) |
15.1 (4.0) |
14.9 (2.1) |
11.2 (6.9) |
9.7 (6.7) |
4.1 (4.4) |
10.5 (4.5) |
|
| Non-descript abuse | 11.0 (1.8) |
11.6 (2.5) |
7.8 (1.6) |
10.7 (1.9) |
8.4 (3.6) |
20.9 a (9.1) |
1.8 (2.1) |
14.0 (5.8) |
|
| Hit/kick to buttocks | 9.0 (1.6) |
8.2 (1.7) |
8.4 (1.8) |
8.2 (1.3) |
32.6 (20.4) |
1.2 (0.7) |
0 | 16.6 (8.2) |
|
| Hit/kick to torso | 8.4 (1.7) |
9.9 (2.3) |
4.8 (1.4) |
8.7 (1.8) |
9.4 (4.9) |
4.9 (2.7) |
4.9 (5.0) |
5.9 (2.4) |
|
| Burns | 4.0 (1.2) |
3.9 (1.6) |
5.3 (2.3) |
4.3 (1.3) |
1.3 (0.7) |
0.4 (0.4) |
0 | 0.7 (0.4) |
|
| Choking/smothering | 3.3 (1.0) |
3.3 (1.4) |
3.6 (1.3) |
3.4 (1.1) |
5.1 (4.4) |
1.5 (1.1) |
1.3 (1.5) |
2.7 (2.0) |
|
| Shaking | 1.7 (0.8) |
1.7 (1.0) |
1.4 (1.0) |
1.6 (0.8) |
4.8 (2.8) |
1.1 (0.8) |
4.0 (4.5) |
2.7 (1.4) |
|
| Other | 0.8 (0.5) |
0.6 (0.6) |
1.5 (1.0) |
0.8 (0.5) |
0.2 (0.2) |
0 | 1.3 (1.5) |
0.3 (0.2) |
|
| Sexual Maltreatment | Fondling/ molestation/ other less severe | 55.4 (4.7) |
59.5 (5.4) |
57.6 (8.3) |
58.9 b (4.8) |
30.6 (10.0) |
18.6 (8.4) |
25.8 (18.5) |
22.9 (6.5) |
| Vaginal/anal intercourse | 18.7 (4.1) |
16.2 (5.3) |
18.9 (5.3) |
17.0 (4.3) |
23.0 (7.8) |
59.3 (15.7) |
6.7 (5.3) |
34.4 (11.5) |
|
| Digital penetration | 11.4 (2.8) |
8.0 (3.9) |
15.3 (4.3) |
10.1 (3.0) |
18.3 (7.8) |
3.7 (2.8) |
53.7 (23.5) |
22.8 (9.7) |
|
| Oral copulation | 9.4 (2.8) |
10.4 (3.9) |
7.0 (2.3) |
9.5 (2.9) |
9.8 (5.1) |
6.7 (5.4) |
9.9 (6.9) |
8.3 (3.2) |
|
| Masturbation | 5.2 (1.9) |
5.9 (3.0) |
1.2 (0.4) |
4.5 (2.1) |
18.3 (9.2) |
11.7 (7.3) |
4.0 (2.6) |
11.6 (4.0) |
|
| Failure to Provide | Lacks adequate shelter | 27.4 (3.4) |
21.7 (4.1) |
43.0 (6.5) |
27.3 (3.8) |
27.0 (4.9) |
26.0 (7.6) |
54.4 (25.7) |
28.3 (4.1) |
| Lacks adequate medical/ dental/ mental health coverage | 25.0 (3.4) |
24.8 (4.8) |
26.4 (3.9) |
25.2 (3.8) |
26.4 (4.3) |
20.1 (6.6) |
42.1 (24.2) |
23.3 (4.4) |
|
| Lacks adequate food | 22.9 (3.6) |
21.8 (5.0) |
16.5 (5.0) |
20.4 (3.7) |
39.6 (6.2) |
47.2 (13.6) |
2.5 (2.7) |
41.6 (7.0) |
|
| Lacks adequate hygiene | 19.3 (6.4) |
24.7 (9.3) |
11.0 (2.5) |
21.1 (7.1) |
5.8 (2.6) |
5.5 (2.6) |
0 | 5.5 (1.5) |
|
| Lacks adequate clothing | 5.5 (1.5) |
7.1 (2.3) |
3.0 (1.2) |
6.0 (1.7) |
1.4 (0.9) |
1.2 (0.9) |
1.1 (1.2) |
1.3 (0.6) |
|
| Failure to Supervise | Supervision | 48.9 (3.0) |
49.1 (3.6) |
49.7 (5.7) |
49.3 (3.2) |
34.6 (4.3) |
48.8 (6.8) |
73.8 (14.6) |
46.3 (4.6) |
| Environment | 28.7 (2.6) |
30.7 (3.4) |
30.6 (4.9) |
30.6 c (2.9) |
23.2 (4.8) |
12.8 (3.9) |
0.5 (0.4) |
15.3 (3.0) |
|
| Substitute care arrangements unsafe | 16.6 (2.2) |
16.4 (3.2) |
16.1 (2.5) |
16.4 (2.5) |
24.1 (4.8) |
17.8 (5.0) |
4.8 (4.7) |
18.5 (3.2) |
|
| Abandonment | 5.8 (1.3) |
3.8 (1.9) |
3.6 (0.9) |
3.7 d (1.3) |
18.1 (3.9) |
20.5 (6.5) |
21.0 (12.2) |
19.9 (3.8) |
|
|
a Children in kinship foster care with the most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment are significantly more likely than children in group care with the most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment to have the most serious subtype of “nondescript” abuse (X2 = 6.3, p < .01). (back) b Children remaining at home with the most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with the most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment to have the most serious subtype of “fondling, molestation, or other less severe” (X2 = 8.3, p < .01). (back) c Children remaining at home with the most serious abuse type of failure to supervise are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with the most serious abuse type of failure to supervise to have the most serious subtype of “environment” (X2 = 8.1, p < .01). (back) |
| Number of Main Abuse Types | TOTAL | Setting | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | |||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | ||
| Percent^ / (SE) | ||||||||
| No main abuse types | 6.7 (0.9) |
7.0 (1.2) |
7.5 (1.5) |
7.2 a (1.0) |
4.2 (1.2) |
2.7 (0.7) |
3.3 (2.2) |
3.2 (0.6) |
| One main abuse type (physical) | 24.7 (1.5) |
27.0 (2.2) |
21.7 (1.8) |
25.6 b (1.6) |
12.7 (2.8) |
11.9 (3.6) |
29.1 (10.8) |
17.4 (2.1) |
| One main abuse type (sexual) | 8.5 (1.0) |
8.8 (1.3) |
8.6 (1.5) |
8.7 (1.1) |
3.9 (1.2) |
7.7 (3.2) |
19.4 (10.2) |
7.0 (1.9) |
| One main abuse type (failure to provide) | 15.4 (1.2) |
15.5 (1.4) |
16.6 (2.2) |
15.8 (1.4) |
16.2 (2.2) |
11.4 (2.7) |
5.5 (3.3) |
12.1 (1.2) |
| One main abuse type (failure to supervise) | 24.4 (1.4) |
24.4 (1.8) |
23.0 (2.1) |
24.1 (1.4) |
25.7 (4.2) |
32.4 (4.1) |
17.8 (5.9) |
26.9 (2.5) |
| Two main abuse types | 18.1 (1.5) |
15.8 (2.1) |
19.6 (2.1) |
16.8 c (1.6) |
29.1 (4.2) |
31.3 (5.3) |
23.8 (11.4) |
28.8 (2.4) |
| Three main abuse types | 2.1 (0.4) |
1.4 (0.5) |
3.1 (1.2) |
1.8 (0.4) |
7.1 (2.1) |
2.4 (0.9) |
0.8 (0.4) |
4.0 (0.9) |
| Four main abuse types | 0.1 (0.1) |
0.1 (0.1) |
0.01 (0.00) |
0.1 (0.1) |
1.2 (0.6) |
0.4 (0.2) |
0.3 (0.3) |
0.7 (0.3) |
|
a Children remaining at home are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care to have experienced none of the main abuse types in the current report (X2 = 10.7, p < .01). (back) b Children remaining at home are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care to have experienced the one main abuse type of physical maltreatment in the current report (X2 = 9.7, p < .01). (back) |
The data summarized in Table 3-8 pertain to children with one of the main abuse types as their most serious abuse type and indicate which additional main abuse types, if any, they experienced per the current report. Once again, the prominence of neglect—particularly failure to supervise—as a maltreatment type is exhibited, with this being the most common additional abuse type.
3.5.1 Discussion of Types of Maltreatment
Neglect (failure to provide or failure to supervise) accounts for the most serious abuse type of half of the children involved with CWS. It is more likely to be the most serious abuse type for infants than for older children. Physical maltreatment is also prominent, with this identified as the most serious abuse type for over one-quarter of the children and more likely for males. Sexual maltreatment is the least common, as it is the most serious abuse type for 12% of the children involved with CWS. Sexual maltreatment is more likely to be the most serious abuse type identified for older children and for females. The above analyses suggest that child welfare agencies take both the extent and severity of abuse into account when making case decisions, as children with less severe subtypes of sexual maltreatment or failure to supervise are more likely than those with more severe subtypes to remain at home following the investigation. Similarly, children with none of the “main” abuse types are more likely to remain at home, while children with two of the main abuse types are more likely to be in out-of-home care.
| Types of Abuse^ | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^^ | |||
| Percent^^/ (SE) | |||||||||
| Physical Maltreatment | Sexual Maltreatment | 1.0 (0.4) |
0.2 (0.1) |
0.7 (0.3) |
0.3 (0.1) |
18.7 (9.2) |
0.7 (0.5) |
1.2 (1.4) |
8.0 (3.9) |
| Failure to Provide | 5.8 (1.1) |
4.5 (1.5) |
9.5 (3.0) |
5.7 (1.3) |
11.3 (4.5) |
4.5 (2.3) |
5.0 (4.5) |
6.7 (2.4) |
|
| Failure to Supervise | 12.5 (1.6) |
10.9 (2.2) |
14.0 (3.6) |
11.6 (1.8) |
25.4 (9.4) |
26.8 (10.9) |
9.2 (6.5) |
22.1 (3.3) |
|
| Sexual Maltreatment | Physical Maltreatment | 7.7 (3.1) |
8.5 (4.7) |
5.1 (1.6) |
7.6 (3.4) |
20.9 (9.0) |
3.5 (2.5) |
2.0 (1.6) |
8.6 (3.3) |
| Failure to Provide | 4.4 (1.6) |
4.3 (2.2) |
4.1 (2.2) |
4.2 (1.8) |
18.3 (8.2) |
1.4 (0.9) |
3.4 (3.7) |
6.6 (2.8) |
|
| Failure to Supervise | 12.5 (3.6) |
8.1 (4.4) |
20.9 (8.9) |
11.7 (3.9) |
35.3 (8.2) |
16.3 (8.3) |
12.0 (8.2) |
20.6 (5.4) |
|
| Failure to Provide | Physical Maltreatment | 6.2 (1.4) |
5.1 (1.9) |
7.3 (2.0) |
5.7 (1.5) |
11.3 (4.8) |
4.9 (2.2) |
5.1 (5.4) |
9.7 (3.2) |
| Sexual Maltreatment | 0.5 (0.2) |
0.4 (0.2) |
0.1 (0.1) |
0.3 (0.2) |
4.1 (2.3) |
0.7 (0.6) |
0 | 2.2 (1.0) |
|
| Failure to Supervise | 21.3 (3.3) |
17.5 (4.6) |
20.1 (3.9) |
18.2 (3.7) |
32.3 (5.4) |
56.4 (10.1) |
31.1 (16.9) |
43.4 (7.0) |
|
| Failure to Supervise | Physical Maltreatment | 7.1 (1.6) |
6.0 (2.1) |
9.3 (3.1) |
6.9 (1.7) |
10.7 (5.5) |
7.4 (4.2) |
6.2 (6.5) |
8.3 (3.0) |
| Sexual Maltreatment | 2.0 (0.8) |
1.1 (0.6) |
3.0 (1.1) |
1.6 (0.5) |
1.6 (1.2) |
1.0 (0.6) |
45.2 (26.0) |
4.7 (3.6) |
|
| Failure to Provide | 11.4 (1.8) |
9.0 (2.4) |
14.3 (2.7) |
10.5 (1.9) |
19.5 (3.9) |
16.8 (5.0) |
0.2 (0.2) |
17.0 (3.2) |
|
|
^ Most serious abuse types are shown in bold print. The three additional types of abuse for each are in the following rows. (back) |
3.6 Severity of Maltreatment and Time Since Onset
This section expands on the maltreatment discussion above to describe the severity and time since onset of the maltreatment experienced by children involved with CWS, both of which are important to understand the extent of abuse and neglect. Because there is such a high degree of variability in both of these dimensions of maltreatment, not taking them into account would be ignoring a potentially valuable mitigating factor with regard to how the abuse or neglect has affected and will continue to affect the child (Manly et al., 2001).
The categories of severity differed depending on the type of abuse. For example, for physical abuse the categories ranged from “dangerous act, but no marks indicated” to “hospitalized more than 24 hours, permanent disability, or disfigurement”; for neglect the categories ranged from “mild” to “grave”; and for sexual abuse the categories varied from “fondling” to “genital penetration.” Table 3-9 presents the description of each severity level for each of the main abuse types. Table 3-10 presents, within each of the main abuse types, the proportion of children with each of the severity levels.
For over half of the children with the most serious abuse types of sexual maltreatment and neglect, the severity of the alleged abuse is rated in the least severe category. For children who experienced neglect, the proportion in each of the severity categories decreases with increasing severity levels. For children who experienced sexual maltreatment, however, the proportions fall and rise, with almost one-fifth in the most severe category, vaginal or anal intercourse. For children with the most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment, about two-fifths are rated in the least severe category (dangerous act, but no marks indicated) with another two-fifths in the next least severe category (minor marks).
There are significant differences in severity within each of the most serious abuse types between children remaining at home and those in out-of-home care, with children remaining at home more likely to be in less severe categories than children in out-of-home care. For those with the most serious abuse types, physical abuse and failure to provide, there are also significant differences between children remaining at home who received services, and those at home who did not receive services, with those receiving services more likely to be in more severe categories.
To examine whether or not there is disparity in the severity levels among children of various ages and races/ethnicities, we calculated and compared mean severity levels by these characteristics. Table 3-11 presents these results by most serious abuse type for children remaining at home, and Table 3-12 presents results for children in out-of-home care.
Among children living at home, those aged 3 to 5 have significantly higher physical maltreatment severity scores than those aged 11 and older. Children aged 3 to 5, however, have significantly lower failure to supervise severity scores than children aged 0 to 2 and children aged 6 to 10 (p < .001). Infants have significantly lower sexual maltreatment severity scores than both children 3 to 5 (p < .001) and children 11 and older. With regard to race/ethnicity among children remaining at home, Hispanic children have significantly lower physical maltreatment severity scores than African American children and significantly lower failure to provide severity scores than children of other races/ethnicities.
| Abuse Type | Severity Level | Description of Severity Level |
|---|---|---|
| Physical Abuse | 1 | Dangerous act, but no marks indicated |
| 2 | Minor marks | |
| 3 | Numerous or severe marks | |
| 4 | Medical/emergency treatment; hospitalized for < 24 hours | |
| 5 | Hospitalized more than 24 hours, permanent disability or disfigurement | |
| Sexual Abuse | 1 | Fondling/molestation (without genital contact) or other less severe type (e.g., exposure to sexor pornography) |
| 2 | Masturbation (requires genital contact) | |
| 3 | Digital penetration of vagina or anus | |
| 4 | Oral copulation (of adult or child) | |
| 5 | Vaginal/anal intercourse | |
| Failure to Provide^ (e.g., lack of adequate medical, dental, and mental health care) | 1 | Mild (e.g., miss several medical/dental appointments, does not attend to mild behavior problem) |
| 2 | Moderate (e.g., seeks medical attention for minor illness, but does not follow through-like not finishing needed medicine) | |
| 3 | Serious (e.g., does not seek medical attention, seeks treatment for nonminor illness but doesn’t follow through, uses inappropriate treatment without consulting doctor, expectant mother uses alcohol or drugs with no FAS or drug symptoms) | |
| 4 | Severe (e.g., does not seek or comply with medical treatment for potentially life-threatening illness or injury) | |
| 5 | Grave (e.g., alcohol/drug abuse during pregnancy causes FAS or drug-addicted baby, child permanently disabled from inattention, does not seek professional help for child’s life-threatening emotional problems like suicide/homicide) | |
| Failure to Supervise^^ (e.g., child left unsupervised for varying periods of time) | 1 | Mild (e.g., failure to provide adequate supervision for short periods, or less than 3 hours, with no immediate source of danger in environment) |
| 2 | Moderate (e.g., failure to provide adequate supervision for longer periods, or 3-8 hours, with no immediate source of danger in environment, or inadequate supervision) | |
| 3 | Serious (e.g., failure to provide adequate supervision for extended periods, or 8-10 hours) | |
| 4 | Severe (e.g., failure to provide adequate supervision for extended periods, overnight or 10-12 hours) | |
| 5 | Grave (e.g., failure to provide adequate supervision for more than 24 hours) |
|
^ The most commonly used severity scales for failure to provide and failure to supervise were included as examples in this table, although additional subtypes have their own specific definitions of the various severity levels. (back) |
| Abuse Type | Severity Level | TOTAL | Setting | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^^ | |||
| Percent^/ (SE) | |||||||||
| Physical Abuse (as most serious abuse type) | 1 | 41.3 (2.9) |
41.2 (3.7) |
41.1 (5.8) |
41.2 (3.0) |
40.8 (7.0) |
47.7 (18.4) |
9.2 (7.2) |
43.0 (7.0) |
| 2 | 41.1 (2.8) |
45.9 (3.6) |
36.5 (5.0) |
43.5 a (2.9) |
9.5 (4.1) |
16.0 (9.5) |
69.1 (20.2) |
16.7 (3.2) |
|
| 3 | 9.3 (1.4) |
5.5 b (1.8) |
14.9 (2.8) |
7.8 c (1.5) |
31.4 (9.1) |
27.6 (12.4) |
11.3 (9.3) |
24.2 (3.4) |
|
| 4 | 6.5 (1.5) |
6.9 (2.2) |
5.1 (1.0) |
6.5 (1.6) |
9.2 (4.0) |
5.3 (2.5) |
6.1 (5.8) |
6.7 (2.5) |
|
| 5 | 1.8 (0.5) |
0.6 (0.4) |
2.5 (0.9) |
1.1 (0.4) |
9.1 (3.8) |
3.5 (1.7) |
4.3 (5.0) |
9.5 (4.8) |
|
| Sexual Abuse (as most serious abuse type) | 1 | 55.4 (4.7) |
59.5 (5.4) |
57.6 (8.3) |
58.9 d (4.8) |
30.6 (10.0) |
18.6 (8.4) |
25.8 (18.5) |
22.9 (6.5) |
| 2 | 5.2 (1.9) |
5.9 (3.0) |
1.2 (0.4) |
4.5 (2.1) |
18.3 (9.2) |
11.7 (7.3) |
4.0 (2.6) |
11.6 (4.0) |
|
| 3 | 11.4 (2.8) |
8.0 (3.9) |
15.3 (4.3) |
10.1 (3.0) |
18.3 (7.8) |
3.7 (2.8) |
53.7 (23.5) |
22.8 (9.7) |
|
| 4 | 9.4 (2.8) |
10.4 (3.9) |
7.0 (2.3) |
9.5 (2.9) |
9.8 (5.1) |
6.7 (5.4) |
9.9 (6.9) |
8.3 (3.2) |
|
| 5 | 18.7 (4.1) |
16.2 (5.3) |
18.9 (5.3) |
17.0 (4.3) |
23.0 (7.8) |
59.3 (15.7) |
6.7 (5.3) |
34.4 (11.5) |
|
| Failure to Provide (as most serious abuse type) | 1 | 54.0 (3.8) |
65.4 e (5.2) |
37.4 (7.1) |
58.1 f (4.1) |
16.6 (6.5) |
30.1 (14.4) |
0.9 (0.9) |
21.8 (7.4) |
| 2 | 18.9 (2.8) |
18.7 (4.3) |
23.1 (3.8) |
19.8 (3.2) |
13.5 (4.8) |
8.6 (3.2) |
11.4 (11.0) |
11.6 (2.9) |
|
| 3 | 13.3 (1.9) |
8.0 g (2.3) |
20.3 (4.4) |
11.2 h (2.0) |
25.6 (5.1) |
35.4 (9.7) |
13.9 (10.3) |
30.0 (4.9) |
|
| 4 | 10.2 (2.0) |
5.7 (3.2) |
16.3 (3.9) |
8.5 i (2.3) |
27.3 (6.0) |
17.7 (5.1) |
54.4 (25.7) |
23.8 (3.8) |
|
| 5 | 3.5 (1.2) |
2.2 (1.7) |
3.0 (1.0) |
2.4 j (1.3) |
17.0 (2.9) |
8.2 (4.0) |
19.4 (16.2) |
12.8 (2.6) |
|
| Failure to Supervise (as most serious abuse type) | 1 | 55.5 (2.8) |
65.2 (4.3) |
47.1 (5.4) |
60.1 k (3.0) |
12.0 (3.2) |
25.9 (8.8) |
9.0 (8.0) |
18.5 (4.2) |
| 2 | 25.9 (2.3) |
24.0 (3.5) |
32.1 (5.2) |
26.3 (2.5) |
26.3 (7.3) |
21.5 (6.8) |
3.2 (3.7) |
22.3 (4.7) |
|
| 3 | 7.9 (1.2) |
4.2 (1.2) |
10.1 (2.2) |
5.8 l (1.1) |
25.3 (5.0) |
25.3 (9.7) |
17.0 (17.4) |
24.2 (5.7) |
|
| 4 | 6.8 (1.5) |
3.2 (1.0) |
7.1 (2.3) |
4.3 m (0.9) |
21.1 (5.4) |
25.3 (11.2) |
62.4 (24.9) |
27.3 (7.2) |
|
| 5 | 4.0 (1.2) |
3.5 (1.7) |
3.6 (1.0) |
3.5 (1.3) |
15.3 (6.3) |
2.1 (1.1) |
8.4 (7.0) |
7.8 (3.2) |
|
|
a Children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment to have level 2 severity (minor marks) (X2 = 10.2, p < .01). (back) b Children remaining at home receiving services with a most serious abuse type of physical abuse are significantly more likely than children remaining at home not receiving services with a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment to have level 3 severity (numerous or severe marks) (X2 = 9.0, p < .01). (back) c Children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of physical abuse are significantly more likely than children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of physical maltreatment to have level 3 severity (numerous or severe marks) (X2 = 7.3, p < .01). (back) d Children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of sexual maltreatment to have level 1 severity (fondling/molestation or other less severe type) (X2 = 8.3, p < .01). (back) e Children remaining at home not receiving services with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children remaining at home receiving services with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 1 severity (mild) (X2 = 10.7, p < .01). (back) f Children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 1 severity (mild) (X2 = 24.4, p < .001). (back) g Children remaining at home receiving services with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children remaining at home not receiving services with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 3 severity (serious) (X2 = 7.2, p < .01). (back) h Children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 3 severity (serious) (X2 = 13.3, p < .001). (back) i Children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 4 severity (severe) (X2 = 13.6, p < .001). (back) j Children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide are significantly more likely than children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to provide to have level 5 severity (grave) (X2 = 9.7, p < .01). (back) k Children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to supervise are significantly more likely than children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to supervise to have level 1 severity (mild) (X2 = 19.3, p < .001). (back) l Children in out-of-home care with a most serious abuse type of failure to supervise are significantly more likely than children remaining at home with a most serious abuse type of failure to supervise to have level 3 severity (serious) (X2 = 7.5, p < .01). (back) |
Among children in out-of-home care, significant differences are present for children with the most serious abuse types of physical and sexual maltreatment. Children aged 6 to 10 in out-of-home care have significantly lower physical maltreatment severity levels than children aged 0 to 2 in out-of-home care but significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity levels than children aged 3 to 5 in out-of-home care. White children in out-of-home care have significantly lower physical maltreatment severity levels than children of other races/ethnicities in out-of-home care but significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity levels than Hispanic children (p < .001) and children of other races/ethnicities in out-of-home care.
| Characteristic | Physical Maltreatment | Sexual Maltreatment | Failure to Provide | Failure to Supervise | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean^ /(SE) | |||||
| Age | 0-2 | 2.0 (0.1) |
1.4 c d (0.2) |
2.1 (0.2) |
1.9 f (0.2) |
| 3-5 | 2.0 a (0.1) |
2.5 (0.2) |
1.7 (0.3) |
1.4 g (0.1) |
|
| 6-10 | 1.8 (0.1) |
1.8 (0.3) |
1.7 (0.1) |
1.7 (0.1) |
|
| 11+ | 1.6 (0.1) |
2.6 (0.4) |
1.6 (0.1) |
1.7 (0.1) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 2.0 b (0.1) |
2.3 (0.5) |
1.8 (0.2) |
1.6 (0.1) |
| White | 1.9 (0.1) |
2.2 (0.2) |
1.8 (0.1) |
1.6 (0.1) |
|
| Hispanic | 1.6 (0.1) |
2.3 (0.5) |
1.4 e (0.2) |
1.8 (0.3) |
|
| Other | 1.7 (0.2) |
1.8 (0.4) |
2.3 (0.3) |
1.7 (0.2) |
|
|
a Children 3-5 remaining at home have significantly higher physical maltreatment severity scores than children 11+ remaining at home (t = 2.6, p < .01). (back) b African American children remaining at home have significantly higher physical maltreatment severity scores than Hispanic children remaining at home (t = 2.7, p < .01). (back) c Children 3-5 remaining at home have significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity scores than children 0-2 remaining at home (t = -4.0, p < .001). (back) d Children 11+ remaining at home have significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity scores than children 0-2 remaining at home (t = -3.1, p < .01). (back) e Children of other races/ethnicities remaining at home have significantly higher failure to provide severity scores than Hispanic children remaining at home (t = -2.8, p < .01). (back) f Children 0-2 remaining at home have significantly higher failure to supervise severity scores than children 3-5 remaining at home (t = 2.5, p ≤ .01). (back) |
The Maltreatment Classification System (MCS) indicates when the abuse of a child began. This is considered to be significant, in its own right, because earlier maltreatment is considered by many to be the most harmful (e.g., Cicchetti & Toth, 2000) and the continuation of adverse living conditions over time poses additional risks for long-term development (Egeland et al., 2002). Table 3-13 presents, by the current age of the child, the proportion of children in each age group at the time the maltreatment reportedly began.11 Overall, 22% of all the children had an onset before age 3. A higher proportion of adolescents than 6- to 10-year-olds have a late onset, an unexpected finding that contributes to the sense that the characteristics of adolescents entering CWS are different than that of younger children.
| Characteristic | Physical Maltreatment | Sexual Maltreatment | Failure to Provide | Failure to Supervise | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean^ / (SE) | |||||
| Age | 0-2 | 2.9 a (0.4) |
2.7 (0.8) |
3.0 (0.4) |
2.7 (0.2) |
| 3-5 | 2.5 (0.3) |
1.9 c (0.4) |
2.7 (0.2) |
3.0 (0.4) |
|
| 6-10 | 1.9 (0.2) |
3.7 (0.4) |
3.2 (0.2) |
2.8 (0.4) |
|
| 11+ | 2.2 (0.4) |
3.1 (0.3) |
2.6 (0.5) |
2.9 (0.3) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 2.4 (0.2) |
3.2 (0.6) |
2.9 (0.2) |
2.6 (0.2) |
| White | 1.9 b (0.2) |
3.5 d e (0.3) |
2.8 (0.4) |
3.0 (0.2) |
|
| Hispanic | 2.3 (1.0) |
1.7 (0.4) |
3.3 (0.1) |
2.9 (0.2) |
|
| Other | 2.9 (0.2) |
2.0 (0.5) |
3.4 (0.5) |
3.3 (0.3) |
|
|
a Children 0-2 in out-of-home care have significantly higher physical maltreatment severity scores than children 6-10 in out-of-home care (t = 2.7, p < .01). (back) b Children of other races/ethnicities in out-of-home care have significantly higher physical maltreatment severity scores than White children in out-of-home care (t = -2.7, p < .01). (back) c Children 6-10 in out-of-home care have significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity scores than children 3-5 in out-of-home care (t = -3.2, p < .01). (back) d White children in out-of-home care have significantly higher sexual maltreatment severity scores than Hispanic children in out-of-home care (t = 3.9, p < .001). (back) |
The extent to which the maltreatment continued between the onset and the current time is not captured by the MCS, and it is likely to have been interrupted by agency intervention, receipt of services, and/or placement into out-of-home care; however, it is possible to compute a score for the duration since the maltreatment began. To adjust for the fact that some children were quite young and that the duration since the maltreatment began was a major portion of their life, the duration was converted into a proportion of the child’s life by dividing the time in months, as reported by the child welfare worker, by the child’s age in months (these ranged from 0.02% to 100% of the child’s life). As with the severity of maltreatment, this analysis was conducted only for children with one of the four main abuse types as their most serious type of maltreatment.
| Current Age | Age at Onset of Maltreatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-2 | 3-5 | 6-10 | 11+ | |
| Percent^/ (SE) | ||||
| 0-2 | 100 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 3-5 | 11.6 (2.1) |
88.4 (2.1) |
N/A | N/A |
| 6-10 | 5.6 (1.7) |
14.5 (2.9) |
80.0 (3.0) |
N/A |
| 11+ | 0.2 (0.1) |
1.1 (0.4) |
12.6 (2.0) |
86.1 (2.0) |
| TOTAL | 22.3 (1.6) |
22.7 (1.7) |
32.5 (1.8) |
22.5 (1.6) |
Table 3-14 presents the mean proportion of child’s life since the onset of maltreatment by the child setting. The time since the onset of abuse is significantly longer for children in out-of-home care compared with children remaining at home (p < .001) and for children receiving services at home compared with children not receiving services at home (p < .001).
| TOTAL | Setting | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||
| No CWS | CWS | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home^ | |
| Mean/ (SE) | |||||||
| 0.11 (.01) |
0.07 a (0.01) |
0.14 (0.01) |
0.09 b (0.01) |
0.23 (0.02) |
0.28 (0.06) |
0.13 (0.04) |
0.23 (0.03) |
|
a Children remaining at home with services have significantly longer times since onset of abuse than children remaining at home without services (t = -5.1, p < .001). (back) |
3.6.1 Discussion of Severity of Maltreatment and Time Since Onset
Although the descriptions of each of the severity categories vary greatly depending on the maltreatment type, there are higher proportions of children in the least severe than in the more severe categories across all types of maltreatment. In addition, across all maltreatment types, children remaining at home are more likely to have their abuse classified in a less severe category than children in out-of-home care. For physical maltreatment and failure to provide, children remaining at home without services are more likely to have their abuse classified in a less severe category than those with services—this relationship does not hold across the other maltreatment types. With regard to time since onset of maltreatment, children in out-of-home care have experienced maltreatment for a greater proportion of their lives than have those remaining at home. Similarly, children remaining at home with services have longer times since onset of maltreatment than those remaining at home with no services. These findings again speak to the attention of child welfare agencies to multiple aspects of a child’s maltreatment experiences in making case decisions. A reasonable hypothesis is that the history of maltreatment contributes to the decision making about the extent of the protective intervention that should be provided.
3.7 Substantiation
We looked at whether or not the current report of maltreatment was substantiated and examined if substantiation appeared to be associated with the age or race/ethnicity of the child, as well as the child setting. This information can provide insight into what factors, in addition to those reported to the agency describing the situation of alleged abuse or neglect, may influence report outcomes and how report outcomes, in turn, may influence case decisions. When the designation of the case as substantiated or not was missing from the data or was unclear (e.g., classification was by level of risk rather than whether or not the case was substantiated), hot deck imputation12 was used to label the case “substantiated” or “not substantiated.” This was the situation for approximately 14% of the unweighted cases. Although our method resulted in discrete classification for all cases, it is important to note that the CWS investigation process that culminates in a designation of substantiated or not (or some other such label) is one that varies widely among states as well as agencies. These differences range from the categories that are used, as mentioned above, to the guidelines followed to assign these categories. Results of substantiation analyses should, thus, be interpreted with consideration of these factors.
Table 3-15 presents the proportion of substantiated cases overall and by child age, race/ethnicity, and setting. Overall, approximately one-third (32%) of CWS reports are substantiated. This differs significantly between children remaining at home and those placed in out-of-home care (29% vs. 59%; p ≤ .001). In addition, among children remaining at home, only about one-fifth (21%) of those with no services had substantiated reports, whereas over half (51%) of those receiving services had substantiated reports (p < .001). Children with substantiated reports of maltreatment (and thus, presumably, at higher risk) are receiving distinctly higher levels of service. There were no significant differences in substantiation rates by age or race/ethnicity.
| Characteristic | TOTAL | Setting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Out-of-Home | ||||||||
| No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | Foster Care | Kinship Foster Care | Group Care | TOTAL Out-of-Home | |||
| Percent^/ (SE) | |||||||||
| Age | 0-2 | 38.2 (2.7) |
23.5 (3.5) |
58.1 (3.9) |
33.3 (2.7) |
67.6 (8.9) |
56.0 (9.4) |
--- | 62.5 (6.1) |
| 3-5 | 26.9 (3.2) |
14.1 (2.8) |
50.4 (5.7) |
24.6 (3.1) |
66.7 (11.2) |
60.2 (12.3) |
--- | 62.3 (8.3) |
|
| 6-10 | 32.7 (2.6) |
23.6 (3.3) |
51.2 (5.0) |
30.0 (2.8) |
73.0 (8.7) |
48.8 (9.3) |
12.5 (8.7) |
56.7 (8.0) |
|
| 11+ | 31.9 (3.0) |
20.3 (3.1) |
45.6 (6.2) |
28.0 (2.9) |
69.5 (10.7) |
57.3 (10.8) |
64.4 (13.1) |
56.8 (6.2) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 33.1 (3.1) |
17.5 (3.0) |
49.7 (4.8) |
27.4 (2.9) |
69.7 (5.8) |
71.5 (6.3) |
86.3 (8.2) |
68.6 (4.5) |
| White | 32.7 (2.7) |
20.6 (2.7) |
57.2 (4.3) |
30.1 (2.7) |
70.6 (8.3) |
47.0 (8.4) |
42.3 (17.0) |
53.5 (6.2) |
|
| Hispanic | 32.7 (3.1) |
27.9 (3.9) |
39.0 (7.2) |
30.6 (3.1) |
68.3 (21.2) |
50.0 (11.8) |
58.2 (21.1) |
55.2 (8.7) |
|
| Other | 26.0 (3.7) |
15.1 (4.2) |
42.0 (7.3) |
22.7 (3.7) |
67.8 (7.9) |
24.6 (10.0) |
54.5 (27.8) |
52.4 (8.2) |
|
| TOTAL | 32.4 (2.1) |
20.8 a (2.0) |
50.8 (3.6) |
28.9 b (1.9) |
69.8 (5.6) |
54.5 (5.5) |
53.3 (12.8) |
59.0 (4.4) |
|
|
a Children remaining at home with services are more likely than children remaining at home with no services to have had their case substantiated (X2 = 64.8, p < .001). (back) |
Whereas the above analysis provides meaningful information as to the substantiation rates by various case characteristics, it also raises questions about how the decision to substantiate or not substantiate a report affects—or does not affect—the subsequent path of the child and his/her family through the child welfare system. For instance, why do 41% of the children in out-of-home care and 49% of the children receiving services at home have reports that were not substantiated? This may indicate that substantiation had not yet been determined and was in process, or that opening of an in-home services case or placing children into out-of-home care are judged appropriate for cases in which developing a legal determination of harm is not central to the delivery of such services. Or, perhaps these are cases in which the report was the mechanism by which the child and his/her family was introduced (or re-introduced) to CWS and, although the report in question was not substantiated, the investigation brought to light other family issues that the agency had the responsibility and ability to address. Additional analyses, beyond the scope of this report, that examine such variables as previous CWS history of and the services that were provided to these children and families may contribute to a better understanding of these cases.
3.7.1 Discussion of Substantiation
The 32% substantiation rate of investigated cases is similar to the rates reported in previous NCANDS reports, although those rates tend to be less than 30% (27% in 1999; 28% in 2000). Not surprisingly, whether or not a case is substantiated does appear to affect service and placement decisions, with children with closed cases least likely to have had their abuse or neglect reports substantiated. However, the proportions in out-of-home care (41%) and at home receiving services (49%) are surprising, as this has not been previously reported in the literature. This finding is thought-provoking and warrants further consideration. Again, more in-depth analyses of these cases could be helpful in describing the role played by substantiation in the broader picture of CWS.
3.8 Exposure to Violence in the Home
Exposure to violence, whether between two adults, between an adult and the child, or between an adult and another child, can have both short- and long-term effects on a child (Hurt et al., 2001; Kitzman et al., 2003). Much evidence (reviewed in Margolin & Gordis, 2000) indicates that a child who has been introduced to CWS has had more opportunity to experience and/or witness violent events than a child in the general population. Awareness of the levels at which these children have been exposed to such violence not only increases our knowledge of the environments in which they live, but also provides a starting point to understand what types of events may be influencing a child’s behavior and development.
The VEX-R is a 23-item instrument13 that utilizes cartoon pictures depicting events and response categories as a thermometer, which the child uses to report frequency of exposure at home (for a description of the measure and alpha reliabilities see Appendix B). We used 19 of these items to delineate violent events which are classified into the domains identified by Raviv et al. (2001): witnessing of “mild violence,” being a victim of “mild violence,” and witnessing “severe violence;” and one item designated as a measure of severe victimization. (See Table 3-16 for incidence rates of the specific items.) Children aged 5 and older were queried about their exposure to lifetime violence with response categories of never, one time, a few times, or lots of times.
Table 3-16 summarizes the percentages of reported incidents of violence ever experienced by children aged 5 and older, as measured by the VEX-R (Stein et al., 2001). National norms are not available for this instrument. In NSCAW the highest prevalence rates are for somewhat more typical family experiences: seeing an adult yell at others (74%), being yelled at by an adult (71%), seeing a child get spanked (65%), and being spanked (57%). There are other more severe types of violence with strikingly high prevalence rates, including seeing adults shove (34%) or slap each other (30%), seeing adults throw things at each other (29%), having an adult slap you (27%), seeing an adult steal something at home (26%), seeing an adult beat up another (23%), and having an adult throw something at you (21%). Less common is exposure to such severe events as having an adult beat you up (15%), seeing a person deal drugs at home (15%), seeing an adult point a gun at others (13%), and seeing an adult stab (8%) or shoot (6%) another adult. Bivariate comparisons were conducted on the average intensity of the 19 items by the age, race/ethnicity, and service setting of the child. Summary scores of the individual items were subsequently analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, gender, and service setting in multivariate models that endeavored to distinguish between children in different service settings.
Generally, children of different age groups do not differ significantly in their exposure to specific events, although there are four exceptions. (See footnotes to Table 3-16.) Children aged 6 to 10 report significantly more incidents both of experiencing adults yelling at other adults and adults throwing things at each other than do children aged 11 and older. Also, children aged 6 to 10 report more incidents of seeing someone arrested than do children aged 5. Finally, children aged 11 and older report more incidents of seeing someone arrested than do the 5-year-olds. These age differences hold true for children remaining at home but not for children in out-of-home care. Overall, the 6 to 10 age group appears to be at the most risk for experiencing adult-to-adult violence and police actions against adults.
| Type of Incident | Number of Incidents | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never | One time | A few times | Lots of times | |
| Percent^/ (SE) | ||||
| 1. You saw adult yell at others a_i | 26 (1.8) |
17 (1.6) |
25 (1.9) |
32 (1.9) |
| 2. You saw kid getting spanked | 35 (2.7) |
18 (1.9) |
24 (1.9) |
23 (2.1) |
| 3. You saw adult shove others | 66 (2.0) |
14 (1.7) |
9 (0.9) |
11 (1.1) |
| 4. You saw adult slap other adult | 70 (1.8) |
13 (1.3) |
8 (1.2) |
9 (0.9) |
| 5. You saw adult throw at other a_ii b_i | 71 (1.6) |
11 (1.2) |
8 (0.8) |
10 (1.3) |
| 6. You saw adult beat up other b_ii | 76 (1.6) |
9 (1.3) |
6 (0.9) |
8 (0.8) |
| 7. You were yelled at by adult | 29 (1.6) |
15 (1.2) |
30 (2.0) |
27 (1.8) |
| 8. You were spanked | 43 (2.3) |
15 (1.4) |
25 (1.5) |
17 (1.8) |
| 9. Adult slapped you really hard | 73 (2.1) |
12 (1.1) |
7 (1.0) |
9 (1.3) |
| 10. Adult shoved you really hard b_iii | 77 (1.6) |
10 (1.1) |
6 (0.7) |
7 (1.0) |
| 11. Adult threw something at you | 79 (1.5) |
9 (1.1) |
5 (0.8) |
7 (1.0) |
| 12. Adult beat you up c_i | 85 (1.1) |
5 (0.7) |
5 (0.6) |
5 (0.8) |
| 13. You saw person arrested at home a_iii b_iv c_ii | 63 (2.1) |
21 (1.4) |
7 (1.1) |
9 (1.3) |
| 14. You saw adult steal in home c_iii | 74 (1.4) |
12 (1.2) |
6 (0.7) |
8 (1.0) |
| 15. You saw person deal drugs at home c_iv | 85 (1.3) |
5 (0.8) |
4 (0.7) |
5 (0.9) |
| 16. You saw adult point gun at other | 87 (1.2) |
7 (0.9) |
3 (0.7) |
3 (0.6) |
| 17. You saw adult stab other adult | 92 (1.1) |
4 (0.8) |
1 (0.3) |
3 (0.8) |
| 18. You saw adult shoot another | 94 (0.9) |
3 (0.6) |
1 (0.4) |
2 (0.6) |
| 19. Adult pointed gun or knife at you | 94 (0.8) |
3 (0.6) |
1 (0.4) |
2 (0.4) |
|
a t-test comparisons for age groups significant at p ≤ .01 Children 6-10 report higher frequencies of ever experiencing adults yelling at other adults than children 11+ (t = 4.1, p < .001). Children 6-10 remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever experiencing adults yelling at other adults than children 11+ remaining at home (t = 3.6, p < .001). Children ages 6-10 report higher frequencies than children 11+ for seeing an adult throw something at another adult (t = 3.0, p < .01). Children 6-10 remaining at home report higher frequencies than children 11+ remaining at home for seeing an adult throw something at another adult (t = 2.7, p < .01). Children ages 6-10 report higher frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested at home than children age 5 (t = -2.8, p < .01). Children 6-10 remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested at home than 5-year-olds remaining at home (t = -2.7, p < .01). Children 11+ report higher frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested at home than 5-year-olds (t = -2.8, p < .01). Children 11+ remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested at home than 5-year-olds remaining at home (t = -2.9, p < .01). (back: a_i, a_ii, a_iii) b t-test comparisons for race/ethnicity groups significant at p ≤ .01 White children in out-of-home care report higher frequencies of ever seeing an adult throw something at another adult than African American children in out-of-home care (t = -2.8, p < .01). African American children report higher frequencies of ever seeing an adult beat up another adult than White children (t = 2.6, p < .01). African American children remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever seeing an adult beat up another than White children remaining at home (t = 2.6, p ≤ .01). African American children report higher frequencies of ever being shoved by an adult than do Hispanic children (t = 3.0, p < .01). African American children remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever being shoved than do Hispanic children remaining at home (t = 3.0, p < .01). Hispanic children remaining at home report higher frequencies of ever seeing an adult steal than White children remaining at home (t = -2.7, p < .01). White children report higher frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested than African American children (t = -2.9, p < .01). (back: b_i, b_ii, b_iii, b_iv) c t-test comparisons for placement type significant at p ≤ .01 Frequencies of ever seeing a person arrested are higher for children in out-of-home care than for children remaining at home (t = -3.5, p < .001). Frequencies of ever seeing a person deal drugs are higher for children in out-of-home care than for children remaining at home (t = -3.3, p < .01). Frequencies of ever reporting being beat up are higher for children in out-of-home care than for children remaining at home (t = -2.8, p < .01). (back: c_i, c_ii, c_iii, c_iv) |
Children of different racial/ethnic groups have similar types of exposure to violence. African American children report experiencing more incidents of being shoved than do Hispanic children. Also, African American children report more incidents of experiencing adults beating up others than do White children. White children report higher intensities of seeing an adult arrested than do African American children. White children in out-of-home care report higher intensities of seeing an adult throw something at another person than do African American children in out-of-home care. An additional finding is that Hispanic children remaining at home report higher rates of seeing an adult steal than do White children remaining at home. No other significant differences regarding race/ethnicity were found among the 19 types of violence derived from the VEX-R.
Children in out-of-home care, as a whole, report significantly higher lifetime prevalence for being beaten up by an adult, seeing someone arrested, and seeing a person deal drugs than children remaining at home. These events are likely to have occurred since the child’s placement, because the evidence on the recent experience of violence indicates that significantly more of the recent events were experienced for in-home children (Table 3-17).
3.8.1 Recent Exposure to Violence
Understanding the children’s recent exposure to violence is important for questions of continued victimization or amelioration of the violence. Therefore, once it was established that the children had experienced one of the items in Table 3-16 at least once, they were further queried about their exposure to the same events for more recent exposure. These recent exposure items are intended to assess more recent exposure to violence and were supplemental to the original VEX-R items. These items are scored dichotomously (yes/no) and consist of asking the child if he or she had experienced each event in the prior month, and at the place they were living at the time of the interview. As noted above, two of the items inquired further about the prior 3 months and whether or not it was someone that was responsible for taking care of the child. Bivariate analyses were conducted between in-home recent exposure and out-of-home recent exposure on these additional items. The 21 items with significant differences or trends pertaining to recent violence for the VEX-R are shown in Table 3-17. Forty-three additional comparisons of these basic recency items (e.g., past month, with current caregiver, past week) were not significantly different.
The recent exposure percentage, shown in Table 3-17, is the proportion of those in-home and out-of-home children who have experienced the event at least once who report experiencing it recently (in the past month, at current residence, and in the past week). Nearly 22% of children remaining in the home report being shoved by an adult at least once. Almost 38% of these children report being shoved by an adult within the past month. A significant difference was found between this group and children in out-of-home placement who report being shoved by an adult in the past month ( (2) = 14.3, p < .001). In-home totals are higher for all of the significantly different recent violence items. Children remaining at home who responded that they had experienced an event at least one time are experiencing significantly more recent violence than children in out-of-home care.
Children involved with CWS appear to have high rates of lifetime exposure to violence, although no national norms are available. Children aged 6 to 10 report ever witnessing adults yell and throw things at other adults at higher average rates than do children aged 11 and older, and as children get older they are more likely to report seeing a person arrested at home. Children remaining at home are more likely to have experienced recent violent events than those in out-of-home care.
3.9 Child’s Report of Parental Discipline and Maltreatment
In order to gather information on parental discipline and maltreatment from the child’s point of view, as these events (both violent and nonviolent) presumably have an even more direct effect on the child than the exposure to violence described above, the child version of the Parent Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-PC) (Straus et al., 1998) was administered to children aged 11 and older. This instrument uses an 8-point scaling system that measures the child’s number of reported occurrences ranging from 0 to more than 20 times. The instrument measures five dimensions of disciplinary and maltreatment acts: nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical assault (corporal punishment), severe physical assault, and very severe physical assault (for alpha reliabilities see Chapter 2). For an analysis of total physical assault, the last three scales can be aggregated into one summary scale. The focus of this section is on the child’s report of lifetime prevalence of dimensions mentioned above. Two supplementary scales of neglect and sexual maltreatment were not included for the children, but are included in the final section of this chapter as reported by the caregivers.
| Recency or Place of Exposure | In-home | Out-of-home | X2 for Comparison of Recent Exposure (in- vs. out-of-home) | p-valuefor X2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ever | Recent (% of those indicating “ever”) | Ever | Recent (% of those indicating “ever”) | ||||
| Percent/ (SE) | |||||||
| In the past month | Adult shoved child | 21.9 (1.9) |
37.7 (4.2) |
33.1 (5.0) |
17.0 (3.5) |
14.3 | < .001 |
| Child saw adult slap other | 29.5 (2.1) |
42.3 (3.7) |
33.8 (4.1) |
24.5 (3.9) |
10.0 | < .01 | |
| Adult slapped child | 26.9 (2.3) |
31.7 (3.9) |
29.7 (3.2) |
16.3 (4.6) |
5.8 | < .02 | |
| Saw child getting spanked | 64.8 (2.5) |
44.8 (3.1) |
63.3 (5.7) |
29.1 (5.0) |
6.4 | ≤.01 | |
| Child was spanked | 57.5 (2.4) |
29.9 (3.0) |
55.9 (4.3) |
15.9 (2.9) |
8.3 | < .01 | |
| Child saw adult beat other | 23.5 (1.6) |
33.7 (3.9) |
23.8 (3.7) |
16.9 (4.7) |
5.9 | < .02 | |
| Child saw adult push or shove someone really hard | 33.9 (2.2) |
39.2 (4.4) |
38.2 (4.2) |
23.8 (4.5) |
5.9 | < .02 | |
| At current residence | Child saw person arrested | 35.0 (2.2) |
23.9 (2.8) |
49.1 (3.9) |
8.4 (2.5) |
13.0 | < .001 |
| Child beat-up | 13.5 (1.2) |
43.4 (4.6) |
26.8 (4.1) |
15.7 (6.2) |
11.3 | ≤.001 | |
| Child saw person steal from another person | 25.5 (1.5) |
46.1 (3.7) |
30.3 (4.4) |
21.7 (5.3) |
10.7 | ≤.001 | |
| Child saw adult point gun at other | 12.6 (1.2) |
40.8 (6.7) |
15.1 (2.1) |
14.6 (4.5) |
9.2 | < .01 | |
| Child saw person deal drugs | 13.4 (1.4) |
35.4 (5.8) |
25.4 (3.9) |
8.9 (2.8) |
8.4 | < .01 | |
| Adult slapped child | 26.9 (2.3) |
37.4 (3.2) |
29.7 (3.2) |
18.4 (5.6) |
7.3 | < .01 | |
| Child saw kid getting spanked | 64.8 (2.5) |
44.9 (2.6) |
63.3 (5.7) |
28.0 (5.7) |
6.7 | ≤.01 | |
| Child was spanked | 57.5 (2.4) |
49.7 (2.9) |
55.9 (4.3) |
31.1 (7.1) |
5.7 | < .02 | |
| Adult shoved child | 21.9 (1.9) |
42.1 (6.0) |
33.1 (5.0) |
23.5 (6.5) |
5.6 | < .02 | |
| Child saw adult push or shove another really hard | 33.9 (2.2) |
41.7 (4.1) |
38.2 (4.2) |
24.6 (7.4) |
4.8 | ≤.03 | |
| Child saw adult beat other | 23.5 (1.6) |
30.9 (3.7) |
23.8 (3.7) |
15.4 (5.8) |
4.2 | < .05 | |
| In past week | Child beat up | 13.5 (1.2) |
27.6 (8.4) |
26.8 (4.1) |
5.1 (2.1) |
5.3 | ≤.02 |
| Adult pointed knife or gun at child | 5.7(.82) | 37.9 (8.2) |
11.0 (2.5) |
11.7 (5.5) |
4.3 | ≤.04 | |
3.9.1 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Nonviolent Discipline
The CTS-PC uses four items to measure nonviolent discipline: explaining why something was wrong, putting the child in time out, taking away privileges or grounding, and redirecting the child by giving him or her something else to do. Nonviolent discipline rates are quite high, indicating that maltreating parents do have experience using nonviolent discipline. Nearly 90% of the children 11 and older report experiencing some form of nonviolent discipline as measured by the CTS-PC. Table 3-18 presents the lifetime percentages and standard errors for children aged 11 and older for service setting by race/ethnicity. Bivariate analyses do not indicate any significant differences between race/ethnicity and service setting. Multivariate analyses were then performed to substantiate these findings.
| Race/Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 90.4 (3.1) |
88.3 (5.0) |
92.9 (3.1) |
89.8 (3.6) |
93.3 (3.5) |
| White | 92.7 (2.0) |
91.9 (2.6) |
94.7 (1.6) |
92.7 (2.0) |
92.5 (5.0) |
| Hispanic | 86.7 (6.7) |
87.5 (8.8) |
91.5 (5.7) |
88.5 (6.8) |
64.9 (20.1) |
| Other | 68.6 (11.6) |
42.3 (17.3) |
84.6 (9.3) |
62.1 (13.0) |
100.0 (0) |
| TOTAL | 89.6 (1.8) |
88.0 (2.5) |
92.8 (1.6) |
89.5 (2.0) |
90.8 (3.7) |
A logistic regression analysis was performed on the prevalence of lifetime nonviolent discipline and four predictor variables: gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting. Hispanic children are less than half as likely to report nonviolent discipline prevalence. No other significant differences exist between race/ethnicity, gender, and child setting (Table 3-19).
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/ Ethnicity | White | (reference group). | |
| African American | .69 | .41, 1.16 | |
| Hispanic | .41* | .24, .72 | |
| Other | .82 | .32, 2.06 | |
| Child Setting/ Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.34 | .80, 2.23 | |
| Foster home | 1.56 | .70, 3.48 | |
| Kinship care | 1.29 | .54, 3.07 | |
| Group home care | 1.07 | .40, 2.88 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .66 | .42, 1.05 | |
|
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .01 |
3.9.2 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression
Psychological aggression rates are quite high. Over 74% of the children aged 11 and older report experienced some form of psychological aggression as measured by the CTS-PC, which uses five items to measure psychological aggression: threatening to spank or hit the child but not actually doing it; shouting, yelling, or screaming at the child; swearing or cursing at the child; calling the child dumb, lazy, or some other name; and saying the child will be sent away or kicked out of the house. Table 3-20 presents the lifetime percentages and standard errors for children aged 11 and older for service setting by race/ethnicity. Bivariate analyses indicated that White children remaining at home tend to report higher prevalence (p = .05) than African American children remaining at home. No other significant differences between race/ethnicity and service setting were indicated by the analysis.
| Race/ Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 67.5 (5.8) |
59.0 (8.1) |
75.5 (6.0) |
64.4 (6.1) |
82.6 (6.3) |
| White | 80.0 (3.3) |
78.7 (4.8) |
81.3 (3.8) |
79.4 (3.6) |
84.4 (5.8) |
| Hispanic | 71.4 (6.1) |
67.2 (10.7) |
83.6 (7.7) |
71.3 (6.3) |
71.8 (10.5) |
| Other | 62.8 (11.2) |
41.3 (17.0) |
78.4 (10.2) |
58.3 (12.6) |
85.1 (7.4) |
| TOTAL | 74.1 (2.6) |
69.8 (4.0) |
79.7 (3.3) |
72.8 (2.8) |
82.7 (3.7) |
A logistic regression analysis was carried out modeling the total number of violence exposures and controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting. Hispanic children report significantly lower rates of psychological aggression than White children, and males report significantly lower rates than females. A trend is for children from the other racial/ethnic group to report less psychological aggression than White children (p = .05). A second trend is that children aged 11 and older living in a group home are more than twice as likely to report psychological aggression than children remaining in the home without child welfare services (p = .05). No other significant differences exist between race/ethnicity, gender, and child setting (Table 3-21).
3.9.3 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Minor Physical Assault (Corporal Punishment)
The CTS-PC uses six items to measure minor physical assault: spanking the child on the bottom with the bare hand; hitting the child on the bottom with something like a belt, hairbrush, stick, or some other hard object; slapping the child on the hand, arm, or leg; pinching the child; shaking the child if over 2 years old; and slapping the child on the face, head, or ears. Over half of the children (55%) report lifetime prevalence of minor physical assault or corporal punishment (Table 3-22). Bivariate analyses did not indicate any significant differences between corporal punishment exposure for children of different races/ethnicities or service settings. However, Hispanic children remaining at home tend to report higher prevalence (p = .04) than African American children remaining at home.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/Ethnicity | White | (reference group). | |
| African American | .60 | .42, .97 | |
| Hispanic | .45** | .30, .67 | |
| Other | .56 | .31, 1.01 | |
| Child Setting/ Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.00 | .68, 1.49 | |
| Foster home | .94 | .53, 1.65 | |
| Kinship care | 1.00 | .54, 1.85 | |
| Group home care | 2.17 | .99, 4.79 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .58* | .40, .83 | |
|
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .04 |
The logistic regression model for predicting the prevalence of minor physical assault exposures and controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting supported the bivariate finding of no race/ethnicity effect (Table 3-23). Males report significantly less corporal punishment than females. No other significant findings were indicated by the analysis. Overall, gender, race/ethnicity, and child service setting account for a small portion of lifetime prevalence of minor physical assault.
3.9.4 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Severe Physical Assault
The CTS-PC uses three items to measure severe physical assault: hitting the child on some other part of the body besides the bottom with something like a belt, throwing or knocking the child down, and hitting the child with a fist or kicking him or her. As expected, children report lower levels of lifetime prevalence of severe physical assault (29%) as compared with minor physical assault (55%). Although no national norms are available for child report of severe physical assault on the CTS-PC, these rates are much higher than parent report of severe violence toward children in the general population. Findings from the Second National Family Violence Survey, which used the parent report version of the CTS-PC, indicate that about 10% of all children experience severe violence (Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Children in out-of-home care report higher rates (44%) than children remaining at home (27%). Bivariate analyses indicated that children in out-of-home care have higher rates of lifetime exposure to severe physical assault (Table 3-24). No other significant differences were found for race/ethnicity and service setting. Multivariate analyses were carried out to corroborate these findings.
| Race/ Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 46.4 (4.5) |
40.9 (5.5) |
49.8 (10.2) |
43.9 (4.9) |
59.2 (11.1) |
| White | 55.5 (3.9) |
51.0 (5.9) |
59.9 (5.7) |
53.5 (4.4) |
69.7 (7.2) |
| Hispanic | 66.7 (6.4) |
67.4 (7.5) |
75.2 (7.6) |
69.4 (6.5) |
33.5 (14.0) |
| Other | 56.7 (10.4) |
40.6 (16.9) |
69.8 (10.5) |
53.9 (11.9) |
71.2 (12.7) |
| TOTAL | 54.8 (3.0) |
50.9 (4.3) |
60.0 (3.8) |
53.7 (3.2) |
62.7 (6.2) |
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/Ethnicity | White | (reference group) | |
| African American | .84 | .62, 1.15 | |
| Hispanic | .70 | .49, 1.02 | |
| Other | 1.11 | .64, 1.91 | |
| Child Setting/ Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.08 | .78, 1.50 | |
| Foster home | .71 | .44, 1.16 | |
| Kinship care | .75 | .41, 1.36 | |
| Group home care | 1.68 | .93, 3.05 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .63 * | .46, .85 | |
|
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .03 |
| Race/Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home ^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 29.9 (5.0) |
24.2 (6.7) |
31.3 (9.5) |
26.5 (5.1) |
46.3 (7.9) |
| White | 27.5 (4.7) |
20.2 (5.9) |
36.0 (7.0) |
24.8 (5.0) |
46.6 (9.1) |
| Hispanic | 24.8 (6.8) |
26.4 (7.9) |
20.6 (9.4) |
24.9 (7.3) |
23.5 (12.3) |
| Other | 33.3 (8.9) |
23.9 (13.4) |
42.9 (12.3) |
32.6 (10.2) |
37.2 (15.2) |
| TOTAL | 28.1 (3.3) |
22.5 (3.8) |
33.1 (5.4) |
25.7 a_i (3.4) |
43.7 a_ii (6.1) |
|
^ Out-of-home placement type was not used for analysis because movement across placement types makes it impossible to determine the setting in which the events occurred and because the small sample size for children aged 11 and older reduces the number of break outs that the analysis can accommodate. Other out-of-home placement is included in total. (back) |
A logistic regression analysis was undertaken to model the prevalence of severe physical assault exposures with gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting as predictors in the model (Table 3-25). Living in a group home is significantly associated with a higher likelihood of children aged 11 and older being exposed to lifetime severe physical assault, as measured by the CTS-PC. Children in group care are nearly 3.5 times more likely to report severe physical assault than children remaining in the home without child welfare services (p < .001). No other significant differences exist between race/ethnicity, gender, and child setting for this analysis.
This analysis indicates that the children who are currently residing in group care report far higher rates of ever having been exposed to severe physical assault than children who are remaining at home, and tend to have higher rates than children living in kinship care settings. Their exposure to severe physical assault is not statistically greater than it is for children living in foster care. The race and ethnicity of the children is not associated with lifetime exposure to severe physical assault.
3.9.5 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Very Severe Physical Assault
The CTS-PC uses four items to measure very severe physical assault: beating the child up by hitting the child hard over and over, grabbing the child around the neck and choking the child, burning or scalding the child on purpose, and threatening the child with a gun or knife. Children report lower levels of lifetime prevalence of very severe physical assault (21%) as compared with severe physical assault (29%) and mild physical assault (55%); however, rates are still rather high (Table 3-26). The difference between the prevalence of severe assault and of very severe assault is relatively modest (about 8%), given the much greater severity of the items used to measure very severe physical assault. Bivariate analyses did not indicate any significant differences for child setting and race/ethnicity.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/ Ethnicity | White | (reference group) | |
| African American | .94 | .62, 1.43 | |
| Hispanic | .77 | .53, 1.13 | |
| Other | .71 | .41, 1.23 | |
| Child Setting/ Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.25 | .87, 1.80 | |
| Foster home | 1.45 | .82, 2.56 | |
| Kinship care | 1.12 | .62, 2.02 | |
| Group home care | 3.47 ** | 1.98, 6.06 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .74 | .53, 1.03 | |
|
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .03 |
A logistic regression analysis was undertaken to model the prevalence of very severe physical assault exposures controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting. Consistent with the findings about severe violence, children residing in group homes report significantly higher rates of lifetime prevalence of very severe physical assault than do children remaining at home without services when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and service setting. They are over five times more likely to report a lifetime prevalence of very severe physical assault than children in the in-home setting without services (Table 3-27). Children living in other service settings do not have statistically greater exposure to severe physical assault than children in-home without CWS. No other significant differences exist between race/ethnicity, gender, and child setting.
3.9.6 Child’s Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Total Physical Assault
The previously described minor, severe, and very severe assault scales were combined to create a total physical assault summary measure. Lifetime prevalence rates were obtained and are presented in Table 3-28. The lifetime prevalence rate of total physical assault is 60% for children aged 11 and older. Bivariate analyses found a significant association between service setting and total physical assault for African Americans. Nearly 77% of African American children in out-of-home care report lifetime prevalence of total physical assault compared with 46% of African American children remaining in the home. The analysis did not reveal any additional significant differences between race/ethnicity and service setting.
| Race/ Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 24.0 (4.5) |
20.9 (5.2) |
20.9 (6.4) |
20.9 (4.1) |
39.5 (11.1) |
| White | 20.1 (4.4) |
15.8 (5.8) |
22.8 (7.6) |
17.8 (4.9) |
36.4 (9.3) |
| Hispanic | 12.8 (5.9) |
9.8 (7.1) |
17.3 (8.7) |
11.7 (5.9) |
27.0 (12.7) |
| Other | 18.6 (6.2) |
13.9 (8.7) |
18.2 (9.3) |
15.8 (6.5) |
33.1 (15.2) |
| TOTAL | 19.9 (3.0) |
15.9 (3.4) |
21.1 (4.8) |
17.5 (3.2) |
36.4 (6.8) |
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/Ethnicity | White | (reference group) | |
| African American | 1.01 | .68, 1.49 | |
| Hispanic | .94 | .59, 1.48 | |
| Other | .84 | .43, 1.64 | |
| Child Setting/Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.62 | .98, 2.66 | |
| Foster home | 1.86 | .82, 4.20 | |
| Kinship care | 1.80 | .88, 3.65 | |
| Group home care | 5.03** | 2.45, 10.33 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .92 | .63, 1.33 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .03
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | TOTAL | No Services | Services | TOTAL In-Home | TOTAL Out-of-Home^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | |||||
| African American | 51.3 (4.4) |
44.1 (5.2) |
49.9 (10.2) |
46.0 (4.7) |
76.9 a (6.0) |
| White | 61.3 (4.4) |
59.1 (6.3) |
62.4 (5.7) |
60.0 (4.8) |
70.5 (7.3) |
| Hispanic | 67.3 (6.3) |
68.3 (7.4) |
75.2 (7.6) |
70.1 (6.5) |
33.5 (14.0) |
| Other | 56.7 (10.4) |
40.6 (16.9) |
69.8 (10.5) |
53.9 (11.9) |
71.2 (12.7) |
| TOTAL | 59.2 (3.1) |
56.0 (4.5) |
61.2 (3.9) |
57.6 (3.4) |
69.5 (5.0) |
|
^ Out-of-home placement type was not used for analysis due to movement across placement types and small sample size for children aged 11 and older. Other out-of-home placement is included in the total. (back) |
A logistic regression analysis was conducted to model the prevalence of total physical assault controlling for the influence of gender, race/ethnicity, and child setting. The results are shown in Table 3-29. The model indicates that males are significantly less likely to report prevalence of total physical assault than females when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and service setting. There is also a trend for Hispanic children to report a lower lifetime prevalence of total physical assault than White children (p = .02). There were no significant differences between child setting when controlling for other case characteristics.
3.9.7 Discussion of Child’s Report of Parental Discipline and Maltreatment
Children aged 11 and older involved with CWS report high levels of parental discipline and maltreatment via the CTS-PC. Proportions reporting lifetime exposure are about one in five with regard to very severe physical assault and approximately one in four for severe violence. Children in out-of-home care are significantly more likely than those remaining at home to have been exposed to severe or very severe physical assault in their lifetime, as described by the CTS-PC. This difference is also present with regard to each of three less severe discipline and maltreatment categories. These findings indicate that children in need of protection from severe violent behavior inflicted on them by their caregivers are being provided that protection by removal from the perpetrator’s care. It is notable, however, that about a quarter of children remaining at home report having experienced this level of physical assault.
3.10 In-Home Caregiver Self-Report of Discipline and Child Maltreatment
The CTS-PC, Parent-to-Child version, was used to record the use of different disciplinary actions as reported by permanent caregivers with their study child. These data supplement that collected from the child and allow for comparison between the perspectives of the two parties involved in the discipline and maltreatment. In addition, as it was administered to all in-home caregivers, it provides data on a broader age group of children than the Child-to-Parent version, which was only administered to children aged 11 and older. In addition to reporting on nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and physical assault, caregivers also reported on lifetime prevalence of neglect and sexual maltreatment.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/ Ethnicity | White | (reference group) | |
| African American | .80 | .58, 1.12 | |
| Hispanic | .64 | .44, .94 | |
| Other | .96 | .57, 1.62 | |
| Child Setting/ Service | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | .97 | .70, 1.36 | |
| Foster home | .63 | .37, 1.08 | |
| Kinship care | .67 | .37, 1.21 | |
| Group home care | 2.00 | .97, 4.12 | |
| Gender | Female | (reference group) | |
| Male | .67* | .49, .91 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .03
|
3.10.1 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Nonviolent Discipline
Almost all parents report the use of nonviolent discipline (96%)—a percentage comparable to the children’s reports (90%) described previously. This percentage was also comparable to the original study using the CTS-PC, which found that over 99% of parents in a Gallup poll survey reported lifetime prevalence of nonviolent discipline (Straus et al., 1998). The CTS-PC uses four items to measure nonviolent discipline: (1) explaining why something was wrong, (2) putting the child in time out, (3) taking away privileges or grounding, and (4) redirecting the child by giving him or her something else to do. Table 3-30 presents the lifetime percentages for parental reports of nonviolent discipline and provides comparisons between cases that are opened at home to services and those that were closed following the investigation.
Bivariate analyses using age, in-home service setting, and race/ethnicity for comparison indicate that caregivers ages 25–34, 35–44, and 45–54 all report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 years of age. Furthermore, between-group comparisons indicate that caregivers ages 25–34 and 45–54 with children with closed cases report higher rates than their respective under-25 age cohort. Caregivers ages 35–44 with children residing in-home with ongoing services report higher rates than their respective under-25 and 25–34 cohorts. This indicates that being an older caregiver is associated with greater usage of nonviolent disciplinary practices. White caregivers and caregivers in the other racial/ethnic group report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than Hispanic caregivers. This finding held true for the caregivers with children with closed cases but not for those cases with ongoing services. Additional analyses between groups with respect to race/ethnicity reveal that caregivers of other races/ethnicities with children with closed cases report higher rates of nonviolent discipline than their respective White cohort. When the total scores for the in-home no CWS and in-home CWS groups were compared, there were no differences.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 92.6 f i (1.5) |
90.7 g (1.6) |
92.1 a b c (1.1) |
| 25-34 | 96.9 (.9) |
94.7 h (1.0) |
96.4 (.7) |
|
| 35-44 | 97.1 (1.9) |
97.6 (.6) |
97.2 (1.3) |
|
| 45-54 | 96.7 (1.7) |
95.2 (2.7) |
96.3 (1.4) |
|
| >54 | 95.4 (2.9) |
85.6 (9.5) |
92.1 (4.0) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 97.4 j (.5) |
94.4 (1.3) |
96.4 (0.5) |
| White | 96.8 k (.5) |
95.7 (.7) |
96.5 d (0.4) |
|
| Hispanic | 91.3 l (2.0) |
93.0 (1.7) |
91.7 e (1.6) |
|
| Other | 98.7 (.6) |
92.2 (1.8) |
97.5 (0.7) |
|
| TOTAL | 96.1 (.6) |
94.7 (.6) |
95.7 (0.4) |
|
|
a Caregivers aged 25-34 report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 9.1, p < .01). (back)
b Caregivers aged 35-44 report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 7.4, p < .01). (back)
c Caregivers aged 45-54 report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 8.9, p < .01). (back)
d White caregivers report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do Hispanic caregivers (X2 = 5.9, p ≤ .01). (back)
e Caregivers in the other racial/ethnic group report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do Hispanic caregivers (X2 = 6.6, p = .01). (back)
f Caregivers aged 25-34 with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 5.8, p ≤ .01). (back)
g Caregivers aged 35-44 with children in the in-home ongoing services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 13.5, p < .001). (back)
h Caregivers aged 35-44 with children in the in-home ongoing services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers 25-34 (X2 = 6.0, p ≤ .01). (back)
i Caregivers aged 45-54 with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 6.0, p ≤ .01). (back)
j African American caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than Hispanic caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 5. 7, p ≤ .01). (back)
k Caregivers in the other racial/ethnic group with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in nonviolent discipline than do White caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 6.1, p ≤ .01). (back)
|
A logistic regression analysis was undertaken to model the prevalence of lifetime nonviolent discipline controlling for caregiver age, caregiver race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting (Table 3-31). The analysis confirmed the bivariate findings in that caregivers under age 25 are less likely than those in the 25–34 age group (p < .001) and the 45–54 age group to report use of nonviolent discipline.14 Hispanic caregivers are significantly less (2.5 times) likely than White caregivers, about 4 times less likely than caregivers from the other racial/ethnic group (p ≤ .001), and approximately 3 times less likely than African American caregivers (p < .001) to report use of nonviolent discipline. No other significant findings were indicated by the analyses.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 | .31 | .12, .81 |
| 25-34 | .82 | .26, 2.59 | |
| 35-44 | (reference group) | ||
| 45-54 | .74 | .22, 2.51 | |
| >54 | .29 | .08, 1.05 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 1.06 | .70, 1.61 |
| White | (reference group) | ||
| Hispanic | .37* | .23, .60 | |
| Other | 1.47 | .81, 2.68 | |
| Setting | In-home, No Services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | .72 | .47, 1.09 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .02
|
Although rates are within the normative range of the CTS-PC, as indicated by Straus et al. (1998), young caregivers and Hispanic caregivers are less likely to report engaging in nonviolent disciplinary acts as compared with their respective reference groups. Overall, race/ethnicity, age, and in-home setting only account for a small portion of the variation in lifetime prevalence of parental nonviolent discipline.
3.10.2 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression
Caregiver reports of psychological aggression are also very common among the responding parents and children. The percentages of parents reporting the use of psychological aggression (85%) are comparable to the children’s report (74%) and comparable to the estimated rate in the U.S. population of over 89% for lifetime prevalence of psychological aggression for the CTS-PC (Straus et al., 1998). The CTS-PC uses five items to measure psychological aggression. These consist of having ever engaged in (1) threatening to spank or hit the child but not actually doing it; (2) shouting, yelling, or screaming at the child; (3) swearing or cursing at the child; (4) calling the child dumb, lazy, or some other name; and (5) saying the child will be sent away or kicked out of the house. Table 3-32 presents the lifetime percentages for parental reports of psychological aggression.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 76.5 d |
76.5 c (4.8) |
76.5 a b (2.8) |
| 25-34 | 85.7 (2.9) |
88.6 (1.4) |
86.4 (2.2) |
|
| 35-44 | 90.6 (2.1) |
86.6 (3.4) |
89.4 (2.3) |
|
| 45-54 | 79.6 (9.7) |
74.8 (8.8) |
78.3 (7.3) |
|
| >54 | 97.0 (2.4) |
68.9 (12.7) |
87.5 (5.2) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 91.7 (1.6) |
81.8 (3.2) |
88.6 (1.5) |
| White | 86.1 (1.6) |
87.6 (1.6) |
86.5 (1.2) |
|
| Hispanic | 72.4 (6.2) |
79.1 (5.3) |
74.1 (5.7) |
|
| Other | 86.4 (5.4) |
80.0 (4.3) |
85.2 (4.5) |
|
| TOTAL | 85.0 (1.9) |
84.3 (1.5) |
84.8 (1.5) |
|
|
a Caregivers aged 25-34 report engaging in higher rates of psychological aggression than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 7.4, p < .01). (back)
b Caregivers aged 35-44 report engaging in higher rates of psychological aggression than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 9.7, p < .01). (back)
c Caregivers aged 25-34 with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in psychological aggressive discipline than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home services setting (X2 = 5.9, p ≤ .01). (back)
|
Bivariate analyses indicate that caregivers in the 25–34 and 35–44 age groups report engaging in higher rates of psychological aggression than those in the under-25 age group. Further analyses indicate that caregivers ages 25–34 with children with closed cases report higher rates of psychological aggression than their under-25 age cohort, and caregivers ages 35–44 with children in-home with ongoing services report higher rates than their comparable under-25 cohort. No other significant differences in parental report of psychological aggression were found between age, race/ethnicity, and open or closed in-home service case status.
Logistic regression analysis was used to predict the prevalence of lifetime parental psychological aggression from age, race/ethnicity, and child’s service setting (Table 3-33). Permanent caregivers under age 25 and Hispanic permanent caregivers were found to be significantly less likely to report engaging in psychological aggression than their respective reference groups. Caregivers under age 25 are about 3.3 times less likely than the age 25–34 cohort (p < .001) and 4.7 times less likely than the age 35–44 reference group (p < .001) to report engaging in psychological aggression. Hispanic caregivers are less than 2.3 times as likely as the White reference group and less than 3 times as likely as African American caregivers to report such behavior. No other significant findings were generated. Once again, there are no differences between the in-home group receiving services and the in-home group not receiving services from the child welfare agency.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 | .37** | .21, .64 |
| 25-34 | .82 | .55, 1.21 | |
| 35-44 | (reference group) | ||
| 45-54 | .42 | .15, 1.22 | |
| >54 | .73 | .26, 2.03 | |
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 1.29 | .89, 1.87 |
| White | (reference group) | ||
| Hispanic | .42* | .22, .81 | |
| Other | .94 | .43, 2.05 | |
| Setting | In-home, No Services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | .91 | .70, 1.19 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .04
|
Although rates are within the norm of the CTS-PC, as indicated by Straus et al. (1998), caregivers under age 25 and Hispanic caregivers are less likely to report engaging in psychologically aggressive disciplinary acts as compared with those in the other age and racial/ethnic groups. Overall, race/ethnicity, age, and child’s in-home setting only account for a small portion of lifetime prevalence of parental psychological aggression variance.
3.10.3 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Minor Physical Assault (Corporal Punishment)
The percentage of caregivers reporting the use of minor physically assaultive disciplinary practices against the study child is higher (73%) than the percentage of children who reported experiencing corporal punishment (55%), as described previously. The Parent CTS-PC uses six items to measure mild physical assault: (1) spanking the child on the bottom with the bare hand; (2) hitting the child on the bottom with something like a belt, a hairbrush, a stick, or some other hard object; (3) slapping the child on the hand, arm, or leg; (4) pinching the child; (5) shaking the child if over 2 years old; and (6) slapping the child on the face, head, or ears. Table 3-34 presents the lifetime percentages for parental reports of mild physical assault or corporal punishment. Bivariate analyses indicate that African American caregivers with children with closed cases report higher rates than their respective Hispanic cohort. No other significant differences between age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting for parental report of minor physical assault were indicated by the analyses. However, Hispanics tend to report less use of minor physical assault than their respective African American (p = .02), White (p < .04), and other racial/ethnic group (p = .04) cohorts.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 73.2 (2.8) |
68.7 (4.8) |
72.0 (2.4) |
| 25-34 | 73.2 (2.6) |
78.6 (2.4) |
74.6 (2.0) |
|
| 35-44 | 72.6 (3.1) |
70.6 (4.1) |
72.0 (2.9) |
|
| 45-54 | 64.6 (10.3) |
60.1 (8.0) |
63.4 (7.3) |
|
| >54 | 76.2 (12.8) |
49.8 (14.4) |
67.3 (10.5) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 81.5 a (2.4) |
69.0 (4.0) |
77.5 (2.2) |
| White | 72.8 (2.7) |
76.5 (2.8) |
73.8 (2.0) |
|
| Hispanic | 58.5 (10.3) |
66.5 (4.5) |
60.5 (4.3) |
|
| Other | 75.5 (5.9) |
66.6 (4.7) |
73.8 (4.9) |
|
| TOTAL | 72.6 (2.2) |
72.4 (2.1) |
72.5 (1.7) |
|
A logistic regression analysis was carried out in order to model the prevalence of lifetime minor physical assault controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting (Table 3-35). The analysis did not confirm the bivariate findings in that Hispanic parents are significantly less likely to report use of minor physically assaultive disciplinary practices than White and African American caregivers. Hispanics are about 2.8 times less likely to report engaging in mild physical assault as compared with the White reference group, and the same is true for African American caregivers (p < .001) when controlling for all other variables. Hispanics tend to be less likely to report engaging in mild physical assault than caregivers from the other racial/ethnic group as well (p < .02). One trend with regard to age was for the group aged 45–54 to be 1.8 times less likely to report use of corporal punishment (p = .05) than the age 25–34 cohort. No other significant findings were indicated by the multivariate analyses. Overall, race/ethnicity, age, and type of in-home setting only account for a small portion of lifetime minor physically assaultive disciplinary variance.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 | .98 | .67, 1.43 |
| 25-34 | 1.22 | .87, 1.72 | |
| 35-44 | (reference group) | ||
| 45-54 | .67 | .37, 1.20 | |
| >54 | .73 | .27, 1.96 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 1.26 | .89, 1.79 |
| White | (reference group) | ||
| Hispanic | .53* | .36, .77 | |
| Other | 1.02 | .58, 1.79 | |
| Setting | In-home, No Services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | .98 | .74, 1.30 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .02
|
3.10.4 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Severe Physical Assault
Caregiver reports of severe physically assaultive disciplinary practices are much lower (12%) than the previously described children’s report (29%). The CTS-PC uses three items to measure severe physical assault: (1) hitting the child on some other part of the body besides the bottom with something like a belt; (2) throwing or knocking the child down; and (3) hitting the child with a fist or kicking him or her.
Bivariate analyses, shown in Table 3-36, indicate that caregivers aged 25–34 and 35–44 report higher severe physically assaultive maltreatment rates than the under-25 age group. This finding is further supported by findings that indicate that caregivers aged 25–34 with children with closed cases report higher rates than the respective under-25 age group, and caregivers 35–44 with children residing in-home with ongoing services report higher rates than the respective under-25 age group. African American caregivers report higher rates of severe physical maltreatment than White caregivers and caregivers from the other racial/ethnic group. Hispanic families fell in the middle. Further analyses indicate that African American caregivers with children with closed cases report higher rates of severe physical assault than their respective White, Hispanic, and other racial/ethnic cohorts; however, no racial/ethnic differences are indicated for the caregivers with children in the home with ongoing child welfare services. For these analyses (because of the proportions shown in the bivariate analysis and the face validity of this indicator in child abuse cases), we also tested for differences in the use of severe physical assault between in-home no services and in-home services cases for each age and racial/ethnic group.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 6.1 a (2.0) |
4.9 b (1.3) |
5.8 c d (1.5) |
| 25-34 | 11.2 (2.1) |
12.3 (1.9) |
11.5 (1.7) |
|
| 35-44 | 14.9 (2.7) |
13.8 (3.3) |
14.5 (2.2) |
|
| 45-54 | 15.6 (6.4) |
9.4 (3.5) |
14.0 (4.8) |
|
| >54 | 29.2 (21.1) |
15.1 (6.4) |
24.4 (14.6) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 24.7 e f g (3.5) |
14.2 (2.7) |
21.4 h i (2.7) |
| White | 7.2 (1.2) |
9.1 (1.5) |
7.7 (1.0) |
|
| Hispanic | 10.6 (4.3) |
13.1 (3.4) |
11.2 (3.5) |
|
| Other | 6.7 (3.0) |
8.7 (2.5) |
7.1 (2.4) |
|
| TOTAL | 11.8 (1.4) |
11.2 (1.3) |
11.6 (1.1) |
|
|
a Caregivers aged 35-44 with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of engaging in severe physical assault than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 6.9, p < .01). (back) b Caregivers aged 25-34 with children in the in-home services setting report higher rates of engaging in severe physical assault than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home services setting (X2 = 7.9, p < .01). (back) c Caregivers aged 25-34 report higher rates of engaging in severe violent assault than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 5.9, p ≤ .01). (back) d Caregivers aged 35-44 report higher rates of engaging in severe violent assault than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 9.9, p < .01). (back) e African American caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of severe physical assault than do White caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 17.0, p < .001). (back) f African American caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of severe physical assault than do Hispanic caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 6.3, p ≤ .01). (back) g African American caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting report higher rates of severe physical assault than caregivers in the other race/ethnicity group with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 8.6, p < .01). (back) h African American caregivers report higher rates of engaging in severe physical assault than do White caregivers (X2 = 19.7, p < .001). (back) |
Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the model of prevalence of lifetime severe physically assaultive maltreatment controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting. The analysis confirmed the bivariate findings in that caregivers under age 25 are well under half as likely to report severe physical maltreatment as those in the age 35–44 reference group (OR = .33, p < .001). Furthermore, African American caregivers are more than three times as likely to report use of severe physically assaultive maltreatment practices as those in the White reference group (OR = 3.39, p < .001) and the other racial/ethnic group. No other significant findings were indicated by the analyses.
The multivariate analysis showed that African American caregivers are significantly more likely to report engaging in severe physically assaultive maltreatment acts as compared with the other racial/ethnic group and tend to be more likely (p < .03) than Hispanic caregivers. Consistent with the findings for the other less severe forms of punishment, caregivers younger than age 25 report being less likely to engage in severe physical maltreatment than the caregivers aged 25–44. Although there were some significant differences in the bivariate analysis between in-home cases that receive child welfare services and those that do not receive services, this was not confirmed in the multivariate analysis.
3.10.5 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Very Severe Physical Assault
Caregiver report of very severe, physically assaultive maltreatment of the study child is much lower (3%) than their children’s report (21%). The Parent CTS-PC uses four items to measure very severe physical assault: (1) beating the child up by hitting the child hard over and over; (2) grabbing the child around the neck and choking the child; (3) burning or scalding the child on purpose; and (4) threatening the child with a gun or knife.
Bivariate analyses indicate that caregivers aged 35–44 with children with closed cases report higher rates of very severe physical assault than those in the under-25 age group. African American caregivers with children with ongoing services report higher rates of very severe physical assault than their respective Hispanic cohort. No other differences were found between age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home service status for caregiver’s report of very severe physical assault (Table 3-37).
African American respondents receiving in-home child welfare services report lower use of very severe physical assault than those not receiving services, whereas White respondents report the opposite; but comparisons did not indicate significant differences. Because of this apparent interaction, we also compared the rates of very severe discipline for the in-home, no services and in-home, services groups by race/ethnicity. Among the caregivers of children with closed cases, African Americans tend to be more likely to self-report engaging in very severe assault (p = .02) than White caregivers. Among the families receiving in-home child welfare services, rates for African Americans are higher than for Hispanics but not for Whites, and rates for Whites tend to be higher (p = .03) than for Hispanics as well. Overall, African American caregivers tend to report higher rates of very severe physical assault use than White caregivers (p < .04), but not Hispanic or the other racial/ethnic group caregivers.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home,Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 1.5 (.9) |
1.7 a (.8) |
1.5 (.7) |
| 25-34 | 4.4 (1.4) |
3.4 (1.5) |
4.1 (1.1) |
|
| 35-44 | 2.2 (.8) |
4.2 (.9) |
2.8 (.7) |
|
| 45-54 | 1.6 (1.2) |
9.4 (4.2) |
3.7 (1.5) |
|
| >54 | 7.9 (7.9) |
2.4 (1.7) |
6.1 (5.2) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 6.5 (1.7) |
3.7 b (.8) |
5.6 (1.2) |
| White | 1.5 (.9) |
4.7 (1.4) |
2.4 (.7) |
|
| Hispanic | 2.3 (1.7) |
1.0 (.4) |
1.9 (1.3) |
|
| Other | 5.5 (3.7) |
2.1 (1.3) |
4.9 (3.0) |
|
| TOTAL | 3.1 (.7) |
3.7 (.8) |
3.3 (.6) |
|
|
a Caregivers aged 35-44 with children in the in-home services setting report higher rates of engaging in very severe physical assault than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home services setting (X2 = 5.7, p ≤ .01). (back) |
A logistic regression analysis explored the prevalence of lifetime very severe physical assault controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting. The analysis confirmed the bivariate findings regarding no significant differences even when controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home setting. Although African Americans had higher rates than Whites, differences are not significant. A trend (p = .02), though potentially noteworthy because of the severity of the assaults described, is that African American caregivers are more than 2.5 times more likely than White caregivers to report committing acts classified as very severe physical assault. An age trend is for the age 25–34 cohort to be over 3.1 times more likely to report use of very severe physical assault acts (p = .02) than the under-25 cohort.
3.10.6 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Total Physical Assault
A summary measure of all kinds of physical assault was constructed. Total physical assault is an aggregate variable of the three previously described physical assault types. All items from the minor, severe, and very severe physical assault scales were totaled to obtain lifetime prevalence rates (Strauss et al., 1998). Caregiver report of total physical assaults is considerably higher (73%) than the children’s report (60%). The caregiver rate is comparable to the norm rate found by Straus et al. (1998) of 77% among 1,000 participants in a Gallup poll telephone survey who responded to the CTS-PC. Table 3-38 presents the lifetime percentages for parental reports of total physical assault. Bivariate analyses indicate no significant differences between age, race/ethnicity, and child’s service receipt for parental report of total physical assault.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 73.3 (2.8) |
70.1 (4.8) |
72.4 (2.5) |
| 25-34 | 73.9 (2.6) |
78.6 (2.4) |
75.1 (2.0) |
|
| 35-44 | 73.5 (3.2) |
71.2 (4.1) |
72.8 (3.0) |
|
| 45-54 | 64.6 (10.3) |
60.1 (8.0) |
63.4 (7.3) |
|
| >54 | 76.2 (12.8) |
49.8 (14.4) |
67.3 (10.5) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 81.7 (2.4) |
69.8 (3.9) |
78.0 (2.2) |
| White | 72.8 (2.7) |
76.6 (2.7) |
73.9 (2.0) |
|
| Hispanic | 60.6 (5.1) |
67.5 (4.3) |
62.3 (4.2) |
|
| Other | 77.5 (4.8) |
66.6 (4.7) |
75.4 (4.2) |
|
| TOTAL | 73.1 (2.1) |
72.8 (2.1) |
73.0 (1.6) |
|
A logistic regression analysis was used to model the prevalence of total lifetime physical assault controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and child’s in-home services receipt. The results are presented in Table 3-39. The analysis found that White and African American (p = .001) caregivers are from 2.5 to 3.7 times more likely than Hispanic caregivers to report engaging in physical assault. Caregivers in the other racial/ethnic group tend to be higher than Hispanics (p < .02) as well. One age trend was indicated in that caregivers in the age 25–34 cohort tend to be over 1.8 times more likely (p = .05) than their respective age 45–54 cohort to report physically assaultive tactics. No other significant findings were indicated by the analyses. Overall, race/ethnicity, age, and child’s in-home setting only account for a small portion of lifetime total physical assault variance.
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 | .96 | .64, 1.42 |
| 25-34 | 1.20 | .85, 1.69 | |
| 35-44 | (reference group) | ||
| 45-54 | .64 | .35, 1.18 | |
| >54 | .71 | .26, 1.91 | |
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 1.29 | .90, 1.84 |
| White | (reference group) | ||
| Hispanic | .57* | .39, .83 | |
| Other | 1.11 | .67, 1.85 | |
| Setting | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | .97 | .74, 1.28 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .02
|
3.10.7 Caregiver Report of Lifetime Prevalence of Neglect
Caregivers also reported on items that could be readily interpreted to signal the neglect of their children. The Parent CTS-PC uses five items to measure neglect: (1) leaving the child at home alone when the caregiver thought an adult should be with them; (2) being so caught up with his or her own problems that caregiver was unable to tell the child that he or she loved the child; (3) not being able to make sure the child got the food he or she needed; (4) not being able to make sure the child got to a doctor or hospital when he or she needed it; and (5) being so drunk or high that the caregiver had a problem taking care of his or her child. The percentage of caregivers reporting neglect (39%) is substantially higher than the CTS-PC norm rate of 31% generated by research on Gallup poll data. Table 3-40 presents the lifetime percentages for parental reports of neglect.
Bivariate analyses indicate that caregivers aged 25–34, 35–44, and 45–54 all report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers under age 25. This finding was further substantiated for caregivers with children residing at home with no child welfare services, but not for caregivers with children receiving ongoing services. Caregivers with children in the in-home ongoing services group do, however, report higher rates of neglect overall than do caregivers in the in-home, no services group.
A logistic regression analysis modeled the prevalence of lifetime neglect controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and receipt of child welfare services (Table 3-41). Findings support the bivariate analyses in that caregivers under age 25 are about half as likely as those in the age 25–34, 35–44, and 45–54 groups to report neglect (p < .001 for comparisons with those aged 25–34 and 35–44).15 Further, caregivers with children in the in-home, ongoing services setting report 1.3 times the rate of neglect as do the caregivers with children in the in-home, no services group. African American caregivers report higher lifetime prevalence of engaging in neglectful behaviors than do White caregivers. Also, caregivers over age 54 report significantly less neglect than their respective cohorts aged 35–44 and 45–54. These findings imply that caregivers who are middle-aged may be more at risk for (or more willing to report) engaging in neglectful behaviors than their comparable younger and older cohorts.
| Characteristic | In-home, No Services | In-home, Services | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent / (SE) | ||||
| Age | <25 | 24.9 a b c (3.3) |
34.3 (5.3) |
27.5 d e f (3.0) |
| 25-34 | 35.6 (2.3) |
45.6 (3.7) |
38.1 (2.0) |
|
| 35-44 | 44.8 (3.8) |
53.2 (6.0) |
47.4 (2.9) |
|
| 45-54 | 47.8 (9.4) |
52.0 (7.9) |
48.9 (6.4) |
|
| >54 | 17.7 (10.3) |
33.3 (12.3) |
23.0 (8.8) |
|
| Race/ Ethnicity | African American | 39.7 (4.6) |
50.6 (4.6) |
43.1 (3.2) |
| White | 33.7 (2.2) |
42.4 (3.2) |
36.1 (1.9) |
|
| Hispanic | 40.3 (2.6) |
48.3 (5.6) |
42.3 (2.7) |
|
| Other | 38.4 (7.3) |
50.4 (6.1) |
40.7 (6.3) |
|
| TOTAL | 36.6 (1.7) |
46.0 g (2.3) |
39.2 (1.3) |
|
|
a Caregivers with children in the in-home services setting report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 8.0, p < .01). (back) b Caregivers aged 25-34 with children in the in-home, no CWS setting report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 9.4, p < .01). (back) c Caregivers aged 35-44 with children in the in-home, no CWS setting report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 12.0, p < .001). (back) d Caregivers aged 45-54 with children in the in-home, no CWS setting report higher rates neglect than do caregivers under 25 with children in the in-home, no services setting (X2 = 5.7, p ≤ .01). (back) e Caregivers aged 25-34 report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 11.6, p < .001). (back) f Caregivers aged 35-44 report higher rates of neglect than do caregivers under 25 (X2 = 14.9, p < .001). (back) |
| OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 | .52** | .41, .65 |
| 25-34 | .90 | .74, 1.10 | |
| 35-44 | (reference group) | ||
| 45-54 | 1.09 | .80, 1.48 | |
| >54 | .35*_i | .15, .73 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | African American | 1.38*_ii | 1.14, 1.68 |
| White | (reference group) | ||
| Hispanic | 1.34 | 1.05, 1.69 | |
| Other | 1.39 | 1.03, 1.88 | |
| Setting | In-home, no services | (reference group) | |
| In-home, services | 1.29*_iii | 1.11, 1.50 | |
Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square is .02
|