Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NISâ4)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Endangered. The estimated incidence of children who were endangered, butnot yet harmed, by abuse or neglect was significantly higher among children in thelargest families compared to those in families with three or fewer children. Theincidence of endangered children in the largest families (31.5 children per 1,000) is 2.6times the rate among “only” children (12.0 children per 1,000), 3.0 times that in familieswith two children (10.5 children per 1,000), and almost 2.0 times the rate in families withthree children (16.1 children per 1,000). Moreover, children in the mid-size families alsohad significantly different rates: the incidence of children endangered by theirmaltreatment in three-child families is more than 1.5 times the incidence of endangeredchildren in two-child families.Changes since the NIS–3 in the Distribution of Endangerment StandardMaltreatment Related to Family SizeChanges since the NIS–3 in the incidence of Endangerment Standardmaltreatment did not differ by family size.5.6Differences in the Incidence of Maltreatment Related toMetropolitan Status (Metrostatus) of County of ResidenceThe findings in this section apply a three-way classification of themetrostatus of children’s county of residence: large (major) urban counties, other urban(including suburban) counties, and rural counties. 88Although the NIS–3 used a similar classification, the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) recently revised metrostatus definitions. These definitional changes,along with updated population data from Census 2000, reclassified a number of countiesin the United States. 89 The NIS–4 analyses of metrostatus differences in maltreatment88Computations of incidence rates used the following population denominators, reflecting the number ofchildren (in thousands) in the general population: 40,161 in major urban counties, 21,768 in urbancounties and 11,706 in rural counties. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a; U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, 2003, 2004).89 In 2000, OMB published new standards for defining metropolitan areas. After applying these newstandards to Census 2000 data, OMB announced the new area definitions for U.S. counties (U.S.(Footnote continues on next page.)5–52
ates used these revised definitions and county classifications. However, the analysesregarding changes in metrostatus since the NIS–3 used the earlier metrostatus definitions.5.6.1 Differences in Harm Standard Maltreatment Related toMetropolitan Status (Metrostatus) of County of ResidenceSignificant and marginal differences related to county metrostatus emerged inseveral categories of Harm Standard maltreatment. 90 As detailed below, incidence rateswere consistently higher in rural counties.Harm Standard AbuseFigure 5–23 displays the incidence rates for Harm Standard abuse by themetrostatus of the child’s county of residence.Overall abuse. The incidence of overall Harm Standard abuse in ruralcounties was 1.7 times the rate in major urban counties (10.8 versus 6.4 children per1,000), a statistically significant difference.Sexual abuse. The rate of Harm Standard sexual abuse in rural counties (2.8per 1,000 children) was twice the rate in urban counties (1.4 children per 1,000), adifference that is significant. The rural rate is also 1.6 times the sexual abuse rate inmajor urban areas (1.8 children per 1,000), a difference that is statistically marginal.(Continued from previous page.)Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2003). The new system defines metropolitanareas for all urbanized areas regardless of total area population and it includes outlying counties if theymeet a commuting threshold of 25%, with no additional requirement. This affected the NIS classificationof urban versus rural. In addition, the Census Bureau, using updated population data, modified the Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which distinguished among counties based on population size (Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, 2004). This affected the NIS–4 classification of major urbanversus urban, the former being counties in the top tier of this system (i.e., those in metro areas withpopulations of 1 million or more).90 In each category of maltreatment or harm, decisions about the significance of differences relied on theBonferroni critical values for t. This adjusted for the multiplicity of the comparisons involved. AppendixD gives the details concerning the statistical tests for significance of metrostatus differences.5–53
Page 1 and 2:
Fourth National Incidence Studyof C
Page 3 and 4:
Fourth National Incidence Studyof C
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTSChapterPageEXECUTI
Page 7 and 8:
ChapterPage5.1.2 Differences in Mal
Page 9 and 10:
LIST OF TABLESTablePage2-1 NIS-4 60
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF FIGURESFigurePage2-1 Levels
Page 13 and 14:
Figure5-265-275-286-16-26-36-46-56-
Page 15 and 16:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis executive sum
Page 17 and 18:
In the NIS classifications, maltrea
Page 19 and 20:
3. The National Incidence of Child
Page 21 and 22:
(36%, or 302,600 children) were emo
Page 23 and 24:
maltreatment outcomes—rates of ch
Page 25 and 26:
details that would exclude legitima
Page 27 and 28:
Grandparents as caregivers. The NIS
Page 29 and 30:
males more often were abusers (62%
Page 31 and 32:
maltreated children to enter CPS in
Page 33 and 34:
with Harm Standard maltreatment and
Page 35 and 36:
differences in maltreatment rates r
Page 37 and 38:
1. INTRODUCTIONThis report presents
Page 39 and 40:
Incorporating the TAG input, DHHS d
Page 41 and 42:
• The NIS-4 Data Collection Repor
Page 43:
these with the percentages that rec
Page 46 and 47:
Rationale. Although CPS investigate
Page 48 and 49:
eveal the maltreatment to persons i
Page 50 and 51:
Figure 2-3.Schematic Summary of the
Page 52 and 53:
CPS recruitment. In order to undupl
Page 54 and 55:
format: the Sentinel data form desc
Page 56 and 57:
3. Purposive and Avoidable Acts/Omi
Page 58 and 59:
each child substantiated by CPS or
Page 60 and 61:
2.6 Weighting and Estimation 14The
Page 62 and 63:
the population. The estimated total
Page 64 and 65:
2.8 Supplementary StudiesThe NIS pr
Page 67 and 68:
3. INCIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEG
Page 69 and 70:
3.1.1 Overall Incidence of Harm Sta
Page 71 and 72:
3.1.2 Incidence of Harm Standard Ab
Page 73 and 74:
children represent 58% of all child
Page 75 and 76:
From inadequate supervision to the
Page 77 and 78:
3.1.5 Severity of Outcomes from Har
Page 79 and 80:
interpreted as less serious than mo
Page 81 and 82:
considered to be endangered by thei
Page 83 and 84:
totals represent national incidence
Page 85 and 86:
Changes since 1986 in the incidence
Page 87 and 88:
The NIS-3 found significant increas
Page 89 and 90:
Moderate harm. Moderate harm due to
Page 91 and 92:
4. DISTRIBUTION OF ABUSE AND NEGLEC
Page 93 and 94:
Sexual Abuse. Girls experienced Har
Page 95 and 96:
Table 4-2. Sex Differences in Incid
Page 97 and 98:
4.2 Age Differences in the Incidenc
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 4-4.Age Differences in Incid
Page 101 and 102:
graph shows, the incidence rate for
Page 103 and 104:
4.2.2 Age Differences in Endangerme
Page 105 and 106:
Physical abuse. The incidence of En
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 4-11.Age Differences in the
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 4-12.Percent Changes since t
Page 111 and 112:
Endangered. Chapter 3 reported that
Page 113 and 114:
significantly higher than that for
Page 115 and 116:
Changes since the NIS-3 in Rates of
Page 117 and 118:
Overall Endangerment Standard Maltr
Page 119 and 120:
Changes since the NIS-3 in Rates of
Page 121 and 122:
4.4.1 Differences in Harm Standard
Page 123 and 124:
Table 4-6. Differences Related to C
Page 125 and 126:
Thus, the incidence rate for childr
Page 127 and 128:
Overall Harm Standard MaltreatmentS
Page 129 and 130:
Table 4-8. Differences Related to C
Page 131:
Endangerment Standard maltreatment,
Page 134 and 135: 5.1 Differences in the Incidence of
Page 136 and 137: more than 2 times the rate for chil
Page 138 and 139: inferring that they were harmed. Th
Page 140 and 141: Specific Categories of Endangerment
Page 142 and 143: Endangered. The estimated incidence
Page 144 and 145: families. The incidence rate for ch
Page 146 and 147: Educational neglect. Children in fa
Page 148 and 149: The incidence rate of Endangerment
Page 150 and 151: Endangered. Children in families of
Page 152 and 153: Figure 5-1.Incidence of Harm Standa
Page 154 and 155: Figure 5-2.Incidence of Harm Standa
Page 156 and 157: higher, the rate for children whose
Page 158 and 159: maltreatment at a reliably higher r
Page 160 and 161: Figure 5-6.Percent Changes since NI
Page 162 and 163: 5.3.2 Differences in the Incidence
Page 164 and 165: Specific Categories of Endangerment
Page 166 and 167: Figure 5-11.Incidence of Endangerme
Page 168 and 169: living with a single parent who had
Page 170 and 171: oth parents showed much smaller cha
Page 172 and 173: child’s primary caregiver, when t
Page 174 and 175: Table 5-6. Differences in Incidence
Page 176 and 177: in households with two children), a
Page 178 and 179: per 1,000). Also, the rate of moder
Page 180 and 181: two children, 1.7 times the rate fo
Page 182 and 183: Emotional abuse. The incidence of E
Page 186 and 187: Figure 5-23.Incidence of Harm Stand
Page 188 and 189: 5.6.2 Differences in Endangerment S
Page 190 and 191: were 1.5 times more likely to be ph
Page 192 and 193: Moderate harm. Children residing in
Page 194 and 195: Second, because multiple persons so
Page 196 and 197: hierarchy comprises other adults kn
Page 198 and 199: Table 6-2 also reveals a marked dif
Page 200 and 201: with the fact that mothers tend to
Page 202 and 203: Table 6-4. Perpetrator's Sex by Sev
Page 204 and 205: perpetrator relationship, with the
Page 206 and 207: earlier (Chapter 4) and did not var
Page 208 and 209: perpetrator’s alcohol use was a f
Page 210 and 211: More of the moderately harmed child
Page 213 and 214: 7. RECOGNIZING ABUSED AND NEGLECTED
Page 215 and 216: classification hierarchy. If more t
Page 217 and 218: neglected. That is, when school sen
Page 219 and 220: NIS-4 estimates and rates per 1,000
Page 221 and 222: largest contributor in this sector,
Page 223 and 224: schools and social services agencie
Page 225 and 226: maltreatment situations only to CPS
Page 227: that influence sentinels’ respons
Page 230 and 231: 8.1 CPS Investigation of Abused and
Page 232 and 233: Figure 8-1.Changes in Rates of CPS
Page 234 and 235:
Figure 8-2.CPS Investigation of Mal
Page 236 and 237:
CPS investigated more than one-half
Page 238 and 239:
Figure 8-6. CPS Investigation of Ch
Page 240 and 241:
children recognized at shelters, al
Page 242 and 243:
Figure 8-8.Changes in Rates of CPS
Page 244 and 245:
Just as in the Harm Standard, the i
Page 246 and 247:
Figure 8-11.Changes in Investigatio
Page 248 and 249:
Figure 8-13.CPS Investigation of Ch
Page 250 and 251:
maltreated children. With these chi
Page 252 and 253:
during the extra month but were alr
Page 254 and 255:
Figure 8-15.Uninvestigated Maltreat
Page 256 and 257:
columns, providing the presumptive
Page 258 and 259:
determining whether the child would
Page 260 and 261:
Table 8-2 shows the actual and pres
Page 262 and 263:
8.4 Relationship between CPS Invest
Page 264 and 265:
investigation rates were lower for
Page 266 and 267:
Prioritizing recommended responses
Page 268 and 269:
maltreatment directly to CPS. Among
Page 270 and 271:
columns, the educational neglect pe
Page 273 and 274:
9. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSThe
Page 275 and 276:
sliding scales for the poorer child
Page 277 and 278:
REFERENCESAhlbom, A., & Norell, S.
Page 279 and 280:
Youth and Families, Administration
Page 281 and 282:
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Current
Page 283 and 284:
Appendix A Design and Methods Summa
Page 285 and 286:
weighted the records (so the sample
Page 287 and 288:
design. The measure of size was the
Page 289 and 290:
optimal sample sizes from law enfor
Page 291 and 292:
CPS RECRUITMENT In order to develop
Page 293 and 294:
SENTINEL AGENCY RECRUITMENT The sen
Page 295 and 296:
Table A-2.NIS-4 Agency Participatio
Page 297 and 298:
DATA COLLECTIONThe goals of the NIS
Page 299 and 300:
Table A-5. Participating Sentinel A
Page 301 and 302:
• The nature of harm (injuries to
Page 303 and 304:
The evaluative coders recorded thes
Page 305 and 306:
Table A-9. Agreement Rates for Over
Page 307 and 308:
probability-based matching software
Page 309 and 310:
WEIGHTING Sampling weights were dev
Page 311 and 312:
eport the child to CPS, which in tu
Page 313 and 314:
Table A-12. Topics Covered in the 4
Page 315 and 316:
CPS SCREENING POLICIES STUDY (SPS)
Page 317 and 318:
• 52 agencies provided their own
Page 319 and 320:
SENTINEL DEFINITIONS SURVEY (SDS) T
Page 321 and 322:
The first surveys were mailed in Ma
Page 323 and 324:
TABLE B-1.CATEGORIES OF MALTREATMEN
Page 325 and 326:
TABLE B-4.AGE BY CATEGORIES OF MALT
Page 327 and 328:
TABLE B-4. (Continued)AGE CLASS = 1
Page 329 and 330:
TABLE B-5. (Continued)RACE/ETHNICIT
Page 331 and 332:
TABLE B-6. (Continued) NCHILDR = 4
Page 333 and 334:
TABLE B-8.CHILDREN COUNTABLE UNDER
Page 335 and 336:
TABLE B-8. (Continued)CLASS = NOT I
Page 337 and 338:
TABLE B-10.FAMILY STRUCTURE AND PAR
Page 339 and 340:
TABLE B-10. (Continued)FAMILY STRUC
Page 341 and 342:
TABLE B-11. (Continued)FAMILY STRUC
Page 343 and 344:
TABLE B-13. (Continued)PARENTS' EMP
Page 345 and 346:
Appendix C Endangerment Standard Es
Page 347 and 348:
TABLE C-3.SEX BY CATEGORIES OF MALT
Page 349 and 350:
TABLE C-4. (Continued)AGE CLASS = 6
Page 351 and 352:
TABLE C-5.RACE/ETHNICITY BY CATEGOR
Page 353 and 354:
TABLE C-6. (Continued)NCHILDR = 2 C
Page 355 and 356:
TABLE C-7. (Continued)METROSTATUS =
Page 357 and 358:
TABLE C-8. (Continued)CLASS = INVES
Page 359 and 360:
TABLE C-9.PROPORTION OF ENDANGERMEN
Page 361 and 362:
TABLE C-10. (Continued)FAMILY STRUC
Page 363 and 364:
TABLE C-11.FAMILY STRUCTURE BY CATE
Page 365 and 366:
TABLE C-12. (Continued)SOCIOECONOMI
Page 367 and 368:
TABLE C-14.GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVE
Page 369 and 370:
APPENDIX DWITHIN STUDY ANALYSES Thi
Page 371 and 372:
Table D-3. T-statistics for age dif
Page 373 and 374:
Table D-3. ContinuedAge 6-8 vs 9-11
Page 375 and 376:
Table D-4. ContinuedAge 0-2 vs 12-1
Page 377 and 378:
Table D-4 ContinuedAge 9-11 vs 12-1
Page 379 and 380:
Table D-6. T-statistics for racial/
Page 381 and 382:
Table D-8. T-statistics for parent'
Page 383 and 384:
Table D-11. T-statistics for family
Page 385 and 386:
Table D-11. ContinuedUnmarried Pare
Page 387 and 388:
Table D-12. ContinuedMarried Parent
Page 389 and 390:
Table D-12. ContinuedSingle ParentW
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Table D-17. T-statistics for metros
Page 397 and 398:
Table D-19. Chi-squared Results for
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
APPENDIX E BETWEEN-STUDY ANALYSES T
Page 407 and 408:
Table E-1a. T-statistics for compar
Page 409 and 410:
Table E-3. Chi-squared tables for s
Page 411 and 412:
Table E-3. (Continued)Emotional Neg
Page 413 and 414:
Table E-4. (Continued)Sexual Abuse0
Page 415 and 416:
Table E-4. (Continued)Severity, Mod
Page 417 and 418:
Table E-5. (Continued)Physical Negl
Page 419 and 420:
Table E-6. Chi-squared tables for p
Page 421 and 422:
Table E-6. (Continued)Educational N
Page 423 and 424:
Table E-7. Chi-squared tables for f
Page 425 and 426:
Table E-7. (Continued)Emotional Neg
Page 427 and 428:
Table E-8. (Continued)Sexual AbuseL
Page 429 and 430:
Table E-8. (Continued)Severity, Mod
Page 431 and 432:
Table E-9. (Continued)Emotional Abu
Page 433 and 434:
Table E.9. (Continued)Severity, Inf
Page 435 and 436:
Table E-10. (Continued)Emotional Ab
Page 437 and 438:
Table E-10. (Continued)Severity, In
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455:
Table E-17. T-statistics for Source
show all

Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NISâ4)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NISâ4)