Child Maltreatment Prevention Strategies and Needs
This secondary qualitative study explored local perceptions of the causes of child maltreatment and prevention needs in 12 counties in a midwestern state through focus groups with relevant stakeholders. The study further explored perspectives on if the existing programs were meeting local needs. A total of 107 individuals took part in 13 focus group sessions across 12 counties as part of a needs assessment process. In this qualitative secondary data analysis, constant comparative analysis—including open, axial, and selective coding—was used to examine perceptions of maltreatment prevention needs and how these coincided with available programs. Stakeholders identified several factors they believed to be causes of child maltreatment across the counties, including intergenerational issues (e.g., cycle of violence), poverty, social isolation, and behavioral health issues. Specific child maltreatment prevention programs were singled out as particularly beneficial, while other types of programs or services such as affordable housing, were noted as missing or inadequate. Participants also highlighted barriers to receiving services across their counties. Despite differences in terms of county characteristics, the findings suggest that causes of maltreatment and service needs are shared across geographic boundaries. While available programs tended to focus on parenting education, counties identified significant maltreatment prevention needs that also ameliorate poverty and substance use.
KeywordsMaltreatment Prevention Qualitative Focus groups
The authors thank Dr. Kristen Slack and Dr. Bridget Freisthler for assistance in conceptualizing this study.
K.M.J.: Conceptualized the study, collaborated to conduct secondary qualitative data analysis, and wrote paper. T.N.: Collaborated to conduct secondary qualitative data analysis and wrote paper. K.S.: Collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University deemed this study not human subjects research, as the data were collected for the purposes of program evaluation and the analyses for this study were conducted on completely de-identified transcribed focus group information.
- Appleyard, K., Berlin, L., Rosanbalm, K., & Dodge, K. (2011). Preventing early child maltreatment: Implications from a longitudinal study of maternal abuse history, substance use problems, and offspring victimization. Prevention Science, 12(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0193-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Community health assessment and group evaluation (CHANGE) action guide: Building a foundation of knowledge to prioritize community needs. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Cluxton-Keller, F., Burrell, L., Crowne, S. S., McFarlane, E., Tandon, S. D., Leaf, P. J., & Duggan, A. K. (2014). Maternal relationship insecurity and depressive symptoms as moderators of home visiting impacts on child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(8), 1430–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Daro, D., & Benedetti, G., (2013). Sustaining progress in preventing child malreatment. In: J. Korbin, R. D. Kurgman (eds.) Handbook of child maltreatment. (Vol. 2. pp. 281–300), New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Dauber, S., John, T., Hogue, A., Nugent, J., & Hernandez, G. (2017). Development and implementation of a screen-and-refer approach to addressing maternal depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence in home visiting clients. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2013). Poverty and child maltreatment. In: J. Korbin & R. D. Kurgman (eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment (Vol. 2, 131–148). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Institute of Medicine & National Research Council (2014). Consequences of child abuse and neglect. In A. C. Petersen, J. Joseph & M. Feit (Eds.), New directions in child abuse and neglect research (pp. 111–174). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., & Becker, A. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee, S., Aos, S., & Miller, M. (2008). Evidence-based programs to prevent children entering and remaining in the child welfare system (Document 08–07-3901). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality.. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Merritt, D., Maguire-Jack, K., & Negash, T. (2018). Effective program models for the prevention of child maltreatment. In J. B. Klika & J. R. Conte (Eds.), The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, 4th edn. (pp. 252–271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Sedlak, A., Metternburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Green, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study ofChild Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.Google Scholar
- Slack, K. (2009). Introduction. In K. S. Slack, K. Maguire-Jack & L. M. Gjertson (Eds.), Child Maltreatment Prevention: Toward an Evidence-Based Approach.. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar