Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1983 - Bureau of Justice ...

AppendicesJlPPENDIX 12Table 2 Distribution of reports across jurisdictions that submitted case data(N=420,216)National Analysis of Official Child Neglect and Abuse Reporting-­Study methodologyAbuse/Abuse Neglect neglect Olher a TotalNJTE: The following information was provided to SOURCEBOOK staff by the American HumaneAssociation.The National Study on Child Neglect and Abuse Reporting is aproject conducted by the American Humane Association and funded bythe National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect of the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services. It began as a grant awarded to theAmerican Humane Association in 1973 to determine the feasibility ofoperating a national clearinghouse for child abuse and neglect reportsin order to be able to describe the national status of the childmaltreatment problem. In 1976, detailed analyses of the data werefirst available. In 1978, the American Humane Association, inconjunction with the Denver Research Institute, was awarded acontract to continue the work of the clearinghouse, to more carefullydefine the data set, and to provide training and technical assistance toStates.The rosie objectives of the clearinghouse function of the NationalStudy are as follows: (I) determine the number of families, allegedperpetrators, and involved children on official reports of childmaltreatment; (2) determine the source of referral and the geographicdistribution of official reports; (3) describe the characteristics offamilies, peroetrators, and children involved in official reports and,where possible, compare then against the general population; (4)describe the response of the child protective services system to thereport; and (5) identify and describe trends in the reporting dataacross and within jurisdictions.Procedures for data collection and analysisThe data collected by the National Study are basically of twotypes: summary data, used to describe the extent of reportedmaltreatment on a national basis; and case information, used todescribe the dynamics of reporting and also the nature of what wasreported. Jurisdictions that submit case data do so voluntarily. Mostoften, participation in the National Study is integrated into thejurisdiction's child protective services management information system.During 1982, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and threeU.S. Territories participated in the National Study to some degree.The 37 fully participating jurisdictions submitted case data by means ofeither nonidentifying copies of official reparting forms or a data tapethat contained reporting data organized by case (Level I). Theremaining jurisdictions submitted sumnary statistics to the NationalStudy (Level 2). Table I shows the distribution of participation ateach level.Prior to inclusion, each record must meet certain minimumcriteria for completeness and must successfully pass a series of editspecifications to insure the integrity of the data base. Forms that failediting at any point are either corrected by the National Study staff orare returned to the originating participant jurisdiction for correctionand resubmittal.Potentially any jurisdictional reporting form is appropriate forcollection of National Study data. However, only those data items thatare compatible with the National Study's masterfile can be used.Jurisdictions can and do vary in terms of how milch of their data canbe actually included in the data base.Data compatability is determined through a mapping process,which essentially entails verifying with the jurisdiction that thepurpose and meaning of a particular data element on their form is thesame as that of a corresponding National Study data element. Hence,the total number of reports used in each data table varies. This is afunction of two types of data completeness: the actual number ofcampatible data elements and the combination of compatible dataelements that constitute a data category.Fully participatingAlaskaArizonaArkansasColoradoDelawareDistrict ofColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKentuckyLouisianaMaineMichiganMinnesotaMississippiTableLevelMissouriNebraskaNevadaNew HompshireNew MexicoNew YorkNarth CarolinaNcnh DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWisconsinGuamVirgin IslandsLevel 2Summary statisticsAlabamaCaliforniaConnecti cutIdahoKansasMarylandMassachusettsMontanaNew Jer5eyOklahomaOregonPuerto RicoSouth DakotaTennesseeWashingtonWest VirginiaWyomingTable 2 shows the distribution of reports across jurisdictions thatsubmitted case data. These reports constituted the data bank used inthe analyses of case information. It is important to remind the reader,however, that although the majority of reports represent the same setof data elements, some do not. In addition, there was variation in thecompleteness of each report's data set. For these reasons, all of thereports in the !'lational Study data base were not always used to derivea given statistical summary. The "N" fer each data table varies as afunction of data element compatibility and data set completeness.Interpretation of the dataReporting on a national level has increased by 106 percent since1976. This can be attributed to a number of factors. First, it must bepointed out that it may be impossible to determine if an increase inreporting is directly related to an increase in the number of childrenwho are maltreated. The main reason for this is that there is nonationally standardized definition of maltreatment. Further, individualjurisdictions continue to modify reporting legislation to encompass newreportable conditions, e.g., emotional maltreatment. Reporting"measures" different phenomena in each jurisdiction and, in addition,what is measured in each jUrisdiction may change each year.Compounding this situation is that it is known that not all occurrencesof maltreatment are reported. It is likely that the increase inreporting is due to improved accountability on the port of jurisdictionalsystems.In addition to reflecting broadened reportable conditions andimproved accountability, the increase in reporting also reflectsincreased public awareness of the child maltreatment problem, and acorresponding increase in willingness to report.It is interesting to note, however, that the magnitude of theincrease from one year to another has been steadily decreasing withtime. It is unlikely that this means that reported incidence isapproaching actual incidence for the reasons mentioned above. Rather,it probably reflects a steady approach to the limit in terms of whatchild protective services can handle.!i1\IiiIIILJII!I" I'hIiii"Alaska 0 0 0 2,649 2,649Arizona 1,452 1,530 148 4,58U 7,710Afkansas 3,073 4,607 1,074 0 8,754Colorado 0 0 0 5,446 5,446Delaware 450 698 190 928 2,266District of Columbia 0 0 0 1,878 1,878Florida 0 0 0 46,035 46,035Georgia 2,885 5,685 833 5,051 14,454Howaii 1,075 437 157 14 1,683Illinois 10,845 14,383 6,784 II 32,023Indiana 5,570 6,061 4 119 11,754Iowa 0 0 0 14,062 14,062Kentucky 3,110 4,589 0 80 7,779Louisiana 2,911 6,648 1,346 189 11,094Maine 778 1,141 851 II 2,781Michigan 4,341 8,527 298 19,153 32,319Minnesota 4,050 2,765 968 9 7,791Mississippi 0 0 0 2,813 2,813Missouri 4,181 9,858 819 13,574 28,432Nebraska 0 0 0 1,497 1,497Nevada 1,023 1,878 292 78 3,271New Hampshire 0 0 0 2,136 2,163New Mexico 1,225 1,937 384 32 3,57!lNew York 2,596 13,878 27,200 8,132 51,806Narth Carolina 0 0 0 15,830 15,830North Dakota 454 849 226 20 1,549Ohio 6,252 7,345 1,823 1,094 16,514Pennsylvania 0 0 0 13,653 13,6$:~Rhode Island 380 272 98 59 ;:'l!l"South Carolina 3,S02 7,162 728 298 II ,~~(jTexas 0 0 0 29,660 29,660Ulah 0 0 0 4,651 4,651Vermont 385 411 455 2 1,253Virginia 0 0 0 14,253 14,253Wisconsin 3,514 2,453 317 15 6,299Guam 2 3 I 0 6Virgin Islands 19 8 10 I 38Total 64,073 103,124 45,006 208,013 420,216a"Other" incudes all of those reports not clearly labelled as either "abuse""neglect," or "abuse/neglect," or those for which "type of repart" was missing ~rincompatible with National Study criteria.~659658