TY - JOUR
T1 - Child Protection Investigations in Out-of-Home Care
T2 - Perpetrators, Victims, and Contexts
AU - Font, Sarah A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study suggests several points of interest for child maltreatment policy and practice. First, maltreatment investigations in out-of-home care are not rare. Nearly 9% of all placements had an investigation. Although some of those investigations may reflect delayed disclosure of preplacement maltreatment, even after excluding investigations that include allegations against a biological, step, or adoptive parent, nearly 6% of placements were investigated. Maltreatment by an out-of-home caregiver is likely to compound the negative impacts of maltreatment by children’s family of origin (which often precipitates out-of-home care), as chronic maltreatment is believed to result in greater adverse effects on children as compared with single occurrences ( Éthier, Lemelin, & Lacharité, 2004 ; Jaffee & Maikovich-Fong, 2011 ). The rate of investigated maltreatment in IKC is particularly notable. Although Wisconsin does not appear to have a formal policy on the use of informal kinship placements to avoid taking custody of maltreated children ( Casey Family Programs, 2007 ), it is likely that it occurs in practice. Children who have been maltreated may exhibit behavioral problems or have other issues that make the provision of care more difficult; indeed behavioral problems can both result from and increase the risk of maltreatment ( Font & Berger, 2015 ). Yet, whereas foster parents typically receive training intended to prepare them to care for children who have experienced trauma, informal kinship caregivers receive no such preparation. Second, investigations of maltreatment in out-of-home care were rarely substantiated. About 9% of investigated maltreatment by out-of-home caregivers was substantiated. This is notably lower than the overall substantiation rate for the state, which was 20% in 2005 and 13% in 2012 ( Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, 2013 ). When 90% of allegations of maltreatment by out-of-home caregivers cannot be confirmed, two scenarios warrant consideration: (1) false allegations against out-of-home caregivers are quite prevalent or (2) the standard of evidence for substantiation, perhaps, should be reconsidered. If the former is true, fear of false allegations may deter prospective foster parents or result in increased attrition. An inadequate supply of foster parents, due to both low recruitment and high attrition, has been an ongoing concern ( Chipungu & Bent-Goodley, 2004 ) although it is unknown whether false allegations have played a role. At the same time, a case review study has documented erroneous decision making in investigations of maltreatment in out-of-home care, wherein cases with sufficient evidence of maltreatment are not being substantiated ( DePanfilis & Girvin, 2005 ). In the child welfare system at large, however, research has called into question the extent to which substantiation is a meaningful indicator of maltreatment. That is, the association between CPS-investigated maltreatment and adverse child outcomes is the same irrespective of whether the maltreatment was substantiated ( Hussey et al., 2005 ; Leiter, Myers, & Zingraff, 1994 ), and agency-level characteristics are strongly predictive of the probability a case will be substantiated, net of family and child characteristics, and risk factors ( Font & Maguire-Jack, 2015 ). This issue has not been studied specifically in the context of maltreatment in foster care. Third, neglect is the most common maltreatment risk for children in IKC and second most common for FKC. Yet, neglect allegations in nonrelative care and CC are comparably infrequent. Neglect is significantly more common in families experiencing poverty or forms of economic hardship ( Berger & Waldfogel, 2011 ; Slack et al, 2011 ; Slack, Holl, McDaniel, Yoo, & Bolger, 2004 ), and although it is not firmly established that poverty has a causal impact on neglect, there is some emerging evidence of causality ( Berger, Font, Slack, & Waldfogel, 2015 ). In addition, both formal and informal kinship caregivers experience, on average, greater socioeconomic disadvantage than nonrelative foster parents ( Dolan, Casanueva, Smith, & Bradley, 2009 ; Ehrle & Geen, 2002 ; Harden, Clyman, Kriebel, & Lyons, 2004 ; Strozier & Krisman, 2007 ). In part, this is because kinship caregivers are not always held to the same income standards as are nonrelative foster parents, and nonrelative foster parents receive greater economic support from the child welfare system. Accordingly, addressing income differentials across placement types may—though, again, this area requires greater research—reduce neglect in kinship care. Minimum income requirements for kinship caregivers, or greater financial supports, may reduce the risk of child neglect. While some informal and formal kinship foster parents receive financial support through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families system, this amount is typically less than foster care reimbursement payments, and many caregivers receive no assistance at all ( Murray, Ehrle, & Geen, 2004 ). Finally, the risk of maltreatment, particularly for sexual abuse, by a peer or other noncaregiver adult in nonrelative care and CC suggests that foster care workers may need to more carefully consider not only the compatibility of children and prospective foster parents but also the risk presented by others present in the home or facility. However, CC placements, where allegations against other children are most prevalent, are often already a last resort and thus alternative placement options may not exist for some children. Nevertheless, CC staff should minimally provide adequate supervision to diminish risks. Overall, findings suggest that allegations of maltreatment in out-of-home care are not uncommon. However, efforts at preventing maltreatment in out-of-home care must consider how risks differ across placement setting. Adherence to income requirements or increased economic supports may reduce physical neglect risk in kinship placements. Parent training, respite care, or other supportive services may reduce risk of physical abuse, which is the most common maltreatment type in most out-of-home care settings. Sexual abuse, which is most common in nonrelative and CC, may be prevented through enhanced screening of employees at care facilities and prospective nonrelative and kinship foster parents. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Training Program in Population Studies, Grant No. 5 T32 HD007081 and the Population Research Center, Grant No. 5 R24 HD042849, both awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, The Author(s) 2015.
PY - 2015/11/1
Y1 - 2015/11/1
N2 - Keeping children safe in out-of-home care requires an understanding of the contexts under which maltreatment occurs. This study examines how maltreatment investigations differ across four settings (nonrelative foster, informal kinship, formal kinship, and congregate care). I focus on four elements of maltreatment: the perpetrator’s role (e.g., out-of-home caregiver and peer), maltreatment type, probability of substantiation, and victim characteristics. I use statewide Wisconsin administrative data in years 2005–2012, which has an analytic sample of over 96,000 placements. Data are analyzed using descriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression. Alleged maltreatment is not uncommon in out-of-home care—the total investigation rate ranged from 5% (congregate care) to 15% (informal kinship care). Four percent of all placements were investigated for maltreatment by an out-of-home caregiver, of which 9% were substantiated. Maltreatment by peers (siblings or other foster children) was investigated in 1% of all placements, of which 20% were substantiated. Neglect was the most commonly alleged maltreatment type in informal kinship care, whereas physical abuse was most commonly alleged in all other placement types. Children who were female, Black, or between ages 6 and 10 experienced heightened risk of maltreatment in out-of-home care.
AB - Keeping children safe in out-of-home care requires an understanding of the contexts under which maltreatment occurs. This study examines how maltreatment investigations differ across four settings (nonrelative foster, informal kinship, formal kinship, and congregate care). I focus on four elements of maltreatment: the perpetrator’s role (e.g., out-of-home caregiver and peer), maltreatment type, probability of substantiation, and victim characteristics. I use statewide Wisconsin administrative data in years 2005–2012, which has an analytic sample of over 96,000 placements. Data are analyzed using descriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression. Alleged maltreatment is not uncommon in out-of-home care—the total investigation rate ranged from 5% (congregate care) to 15% (informal kinship care). Four percent of all placements were investigated for maltreatment by an out-of-home caregiver, of which 9% were substantiated. Maltreatment by peers (siblings or other foster children) was investigated in 1% of all placements, of which 20% were substantiated. Neglect was the most commonly alleged maltreatment type in informal kinship care, whereas physical abuse was most commonly alleged in all other placement types. Children who were female, Black, or between ages 6 and 10 experienced heightened risk of maltreatment in out-of-home care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944673260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944673260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1077559515597064
DO - 10.1177/1077559515597064
M3 - Article
C2 - 26224743
AN - SCOPUS:84944673260
VL - 20
SP - 251
EP - 257
JO - Child Maltreatment
JF - Child Maltreatment
SN - 1077-5595
IS - 4
ER -