Advertisement

Untangling Risk of Maltreatment from Events of Maltreatment: An Analysis of the 2008 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2008)

  • Barbara FallonEmail author
  • Nico Trocmé
  • Bruce MacLaurin
  • Vandna Sinha
  • Tara Black
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the methodological changes that occurred across cycles of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS), specifically outlining the rationale for tracking investigations of families with children at risk of maltreatment in the CIS-2008 cycle. This paper also presents analysis of data from the CIS-2008 examining the differences between those investigations focusing on risk of maltreatment and those investigations focusing on an incident of maltreatment. The CIS-2008 uses a multi-stage sampling design. The final sample selection stage involves identifying children for which (a) there was a concern of a specific incident of maltreatment, and (b) there was no specific concern of past maltreatment but the risk of future maltreatment was being assessed. The present analysis included 11,925 investigations based on specific inclusion criteria. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to better understand maltreatment and risk only investigations in the CIS-2008. Families investigated for alleged maltreatment, compared to those investigated for future risk, were more likely to live in a home that was overcrowded, live with the presence of at least one household hazard, and run out of money for basic necessities. Younger children were more likely to be the subject of a risk investigation. Caregiver alcohol abuse, household hazards, and certain child functioning issues were associated with an increased likelihood in a finding of substantiated maltreatment. Several primary caregiver functioning concerns were associated with the decision to substantiate risk, as well as household hazards and overcrowding. This study represents the first exploration of a national profile of risk only investigations. The analyses provided an opportunity to examine differences in the profile of children and families in risk only investigations and child maltreatment investigations, revealing several important differences.

Keywords

Risk Child maltreatment Epidemiology Child welfare 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest declared.

References

  1. Anselmo, S., Pickford, R., Goodman, P. (2003). Alberta response model: Transforming outcomes for children and youth. Ottawa, ON: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. http://www.mcdses.co.monterey.ca.us/reports/downloads/P2S PrgramandDataReview CombinedReport 6–20.pdf
  2. Baird, C., & Wagner, D. (2000). The relative validity of actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(11/12), 839–871.Google Scholar
  3. Bala, N. (2004). Child welfare law in Canada: An introduction. In N. Bala, M. K. Zapf, R. J. Williams, R. Vogl, & J. P. Hornick (Eds.), Canadian child welfare law (pp. 1–26). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, J. A., & Oliver, J. E. (1975). Epidemiology and family characteristics of severely abused children. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine, 29, 205–221.Google Scholar
  5. Barber, J. G., Shlonsky, A., Black, T., Goodman, D., & Trocmé, N. (2008). Reliability and predictive validity of a consensus-based risk assessment tool. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2(2), 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumann, D. J., Law, J. R., Sheets, J., Reid, G., & Graham, J. C. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of actuarial risk assessment models. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(5), 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2005). Socioeconomic status, parenting knowledge and behaviors, and perceived maltreatment of young low-birth-weight children. The Social Service Review, 79(2), 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browne, K. D., & Saqi, S. (1988). Approaches to screening for child abuse and neglect. In K. D. Browne, C. Davies, & P. Stratton (Eds.), Early prediction and prevention of child abuse (pp. 57–86). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cash, S. J. (2001). Risk assessment in child welfare: The art and science. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(1), 811–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CIS Research Team. (2007). Focus groups summary. Unpublished manuscript, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, S. D. (1989). Effects of transplacental exposure to cocaine and methamphetamine on the neonate. The Western Journal of Medicine, 150, 436–442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 248–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallon, B., Trocmé, N., & MacLaurin, B. (2011). Should child protection services respond differently to maltreatment, risk of maltreatment, and risk of harm? Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 236–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fluke, J. D., Parry, C., & Baumann, D. (2001). Dynamics of unsubstantiated reports of child abuse and neglect. Denver: Annual Research Conference, Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
  15. Fluke, J. D., Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D. M., & Yuan, Y. Y. T. (2005). Rereporting and recurrence of child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Washington: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  16. Fudge Schormans, A., & Brown, I. (2002). An investigation into the characteristics of maltreatment of children with developmental delays and the alleged perpetrators of this maltreatment. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 9(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  17. Greenland, C. (1987). Preventing CAN deaths. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  18. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton, C. E., & Browne, K. D. (2002). Predicting physical maltreatment. In K. D. Browne, C. Davies, & P. Stratton (Eds.), Early prediction and prevention of child abuse. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., & Browne, K. D. (2005). A retrospective study of risk to siblings in abusing families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 619–624.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hindley, N., Ramchandani, P. G., & Jones, D. P. H. (2006). Risk factors for recurrence of maltreatment: A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, 744–752.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaudes, P. K., & Mackey-Bilaver, L. (2008). Do chronic conditions increase young children’s risk of being maltreated? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahn, J. M., & Schwalbe, C. (2010). The timing to and risk factors associated with child welfare recidivism at two decision-making points. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1035–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohl, P. L., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2009). Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 17–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacMillan, H. (2010). Commentary: Child maltreatment and physical health: A call to action. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(5), 533–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDaniel, M., & Slack, K. (2005). Major life events and the risk of a child maltreatment investigation. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mullick, M., Miller, L. J., & Jacobsen, T. (2001). Insight into mental illness and child maltreatment risk among mothers with major psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 488–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. (2006). Eligibility spectrum. Toronto: Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.Google Scholar
  29. Portwood, S. (1999). Coming to terms with a consensual definition of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 4(1), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Public Health Agency of Canada. (2010). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect 2008 (CIS-2008): Major findings. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Scannapieco, M., & Connell Carrick, K. (2003). Families in poverty: Those who maltreat their infants and toddlers and those who do not. Journal of Family Social Work, 7(3), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgement into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2010a). Drug testing in child welfare: Practice and policy considerations. U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  34. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2010b). Substance abuse specialists in child welfare agencies and dependency courts: Considerations for program designers and evaluators. U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  35. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., Black, T., Felstiner, C., Parker, J., Singer, T. (2007). CIS validation study: Summary report. Unpublished manuscript, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  36. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T. et al. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect–2003: Major findings. Minister of Public Works and Government Services CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast, E., et al. (2010a). Rates of maltreatment-related investigations in the CIS-1998, CIS-2003, and CIS-2008. In PHAC (Ed.), Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect–2008: Major findings. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast, E., et al. (2010b). Methods. In PHAC (Ed.), Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect–2008: Major findings. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.Google Scholar
  39. Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2009). Differentiating between substantiated, suspected, and unsubstantiated maltreatment in Canada. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 4–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Daciuk, J., Billingsley, D., Tourigny, M., et al. (2001). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect 1998 (CIS-1998): Final report. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.Google Scholar
  41. Waldegrave, S., & Coy, F. (2005). A differential response model for child protection in New Zealand: Supporting more timely and effective responses to notification. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 25, 32–48.Google Scholar
  42. Waldfogel, J. (2004). Welfare reform and the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 919–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walsh, A., & Ollenburger, J. (2001). Essential statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  44. West, K. (1999). Overview: The drug endangered children’s project. Drugs and Endangered Children, 1, 4–5.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, R. F. (2004). Recognizing the threat posed by an incestuous parent to the victim’s siblings: Part I. Appraising the risk. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Fallon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nico Trocmé
    • 2
  • Bruce MacLaurin
    • 3
  • Vandna Sinha
    • 4
  • Tara Black
    • 1
  1. 1.Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.School of Social WorkMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Centre for Research on Children and FamiliesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations