National Center For Policy Research (CPR) For Women & Families

Violence


News You Can Use on Kids and Violence

By Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.

    There is a lot of research on violence and kids, and this information has important implications for parents, youth workers, and policy makers. Here are summaries of recent research findings, with information about how you can obtain copies of the original articles describing the research. All are written by Diana Zuckerman, president of CPR for Women & Families, and are based on her Research Watch column in Youth Today, unless a different citation is noted.


Child Abuse and Domestic Violence
. When Relatives Care for Kin
. Father Figures are the Answer, But What is the Question?
. Linking Spouse and Child Abuse
. Witnessing Violence at Home



Teen Suicide
. How Childhood and Youth Experiences Link to Suicide
. Research on Teen Suicide
. Smoking, Drinking, Marijuana, Family Problems, and Suicide

Child Abuse and Domestic Violence:


When Relatives Care for Kin

Family members have always stepped in when parents cannot care for children. But this time-honored tradition has become more and more of an official arrangement in abuse and neglect cases, and has raised important questions. Are family members likely to perpetuate the same problems that resulted in the child being removed from the home in the first place? Are family members like other foster families? The Child Welfare League of America conducted focus groups as a "first look" at what kind of services were needed to enhance these arrangements.

Groups ranging in size from four to 14 were used to gather information from 37 kinship care providers in Baltimore. Because studies indicate that kinship caregivers tend to be older, less educated, less healthy and less financially secure than unrelated foster parents, their needs might be quite different.

The children entered kinship care for many reasons, but the most typical were substance abuse, incarceration, HIV/AIDS, or housing instability. Circumstances varied widely: Some had cared for the child since birth; others had made multiple complaints to Child Protective Services (CPS) to have the child removed from their parent(s); and some were suddenly and unexpectedly contacted by CPS to care for a child they barely knew. The researchers report that what they all had in common was the desire to "keep the family together" and keep the child "out of the system."

Most family members described major adjustments resulting from caring for the child, sometimes "starting over" at a time when they were retired or thought they were finished raising children. Several had to find a second or third job or give up retirement plans to support the new child or children in their care. Many experienced a loss of freedom, because now they had to plan their time very carefully, or a loss of intimacy with their spouses because of the demands of once again fulfilling the role of parent. Biological mothers often resent when another relative takes over the mothering role, and kinship care was sometimes described as causing a rift in the family. On the other hand, some kinship caregivers complained that they had all the responsibilities for the child while the birthparents had all the legal rights.

Most kinship caregivers described themselves as offering a safer, better home than the child had before. They felt they were protecting the child and offering a better chance in life. Although grandparents may have also raised the parent who had turned out to be inadequate, most grandparents in the focus groups repeatedly stated that the birthparent "was not brought up to live their lives the way they do" and pointed out that their other children had done well. In some cases, the grandparent or other kinship caregiver was afraid to let the birthparent care for the child without supervision.

Contrary to the CPS agency's view, kinship caregivers felt that they should be part of the decision-making about when the child could return to the birthparent. Many did not understand that the children they were caring for were officially in the custody of CPS. Although they did not understand the official meaning of "permanency planning," they understood the need for predictability and permanency in the children's lives. While some hoped the birthparents would eventually be able to raise their own children, others wanted to raise the children and found the rewards well worth the effort. Most did not understand the legal terms "custody," "guardianship" or "independent living."

Many did not feel appreciated by CPS, which they felt treated them like temporary babysitters and issued too many orders. Not surprisingly, they found that the frequent turnover of case workers made their lives especially difficult. Some caregivers were so suspicious of "the system" that they did not take advantage of subsidized adoption opportunities, even though they wanted to adopt and would have benefited from the financial help.

The authors concluded that kinship caregivers need more information and a better relationship with CPS. Author Sharon McKinley told Research Watch that kinship caregivers wanted written information about how to seek support services, so that they wouldn't have to go through case workers for assistance.

The findings are based entirely on focus groups, which have become an increasingly popular, even trendy, research tool. They have substantial shortcomings, however, because they evaluate relatively few people, and there is a risk that one or two opinionated individuals can sway an entire focus group.

In this study, can we assume that the 37 individuals who consented to participate are representative of all the people in Baltimore who provide kinship care? In addition, in describing the results of the group, the authors made many subjective statements about the patterns that emerged, with little or no information about how many individuals fit the description of "many" or "most," or whether specific examples given even applied to more than one individual. Focus groups provide interesting information, but more objective measures and individual interviews are necessary to draw conclusions.

Reference:
A First Look at the Need for Enhanced Support Services for Kinship Care
Amy L. Gordon, Sharon McKinley, Mattie Satterfield and Patrick A. Curtis
Child Welfare, January/February 2003, Vol. 82, No. 1, pgs. 77-96.


Father Figures are the Answer, But What is the Question?

In fairy tales the stepmother is the enemy, but father surrogates are usually considered a great addition to a family. The conventional wisdom is that children of single mothers, especially boys, need a man in the home to provide a role model. News stories, on the other hand, provide many examples where a stepfather or boyfriend is the villain. Unfortunately, a new report supports that stereotype: children with a father surrogate living at home are twice as likely to be reported for maltreatment after his entry into the home than those with either a biological father at home or no father figure at all.

The study focused on North Carolina newborns from hospitals in 37 counties, most from families where the risk of abuse or neglect seemed high. Of the 644 mother-infant pairs interviewed as part of the study, one-third (221) were reported for abuse or neglect during the next four years. This study is based on 70 of these families and 140 other families matched for age, race, sex and income that were not reported for abuse or neglect.

Of the almost 200 children who were living with their biological mothers, approximately 15 percent were reported for abuse or neglect between the fourth and sixth years and an additional 15% between the sixth and the eighth year. In any of these time periods, maltreatment was most likely in homes with a stepfather (20% between the fourth and sixth year and 27% between the sixth and eighth year). Maltreatment was lowest among children who lived with two biological parents, but the difference I maltreatment between kids living with both paernts and kids living with only the biological mother was not statistically significant.

It is important to note that most of the father surrogates were not stepfathers; most were boyfriends rather than husbands. The researchers reported anecdotally that when a report was filed against the abusive man, he often disappeared from the Child Protective Services system, while the mother is accused of neglect because she failed to protect her child.

The implications are clear: programs and services are needed to reduce the risk that father substitutes will harm children, and children in homes with an unrelated adult male may need special attention to keep them safe.


Reference:
Are Father Surrogates a Risk Factor for Child Maltreatment?
Aruna Radhakrishna, Ingrid Bou-Saada, Wanda Hunter, Diane Catellier, Jonathan Koch
Child Maltreatment, Vol 6, No 4, November 2001
Available from radhakri@email.unc.edu



Linking Spouse and Child Abuse

There has been a growing interest in the relationship between spouse abuse and child abuse and a growing consensus that if a woman is abused by her husband, the children are likely to also be abused. Of course, being in a family where a mother is abused is, in itself, traumatic for most children. However, two new studies show that the likelihood of direct abuse, although significant, is not as great for children as many have assumed.

Emiko Tajima analyzed data based on a representative sample of more than 6,000 households who were interviewed by telephone. They used the Conflict Tactics Scale, which is designed to obtain honest responses to sensitive questions about family violence.

Sixty-one percent of the adults interviewed reported using physical punishment, but only 4 percent reported child abuse. When other traits, such as race, parents' age, social class, and drug use, were statistically controlled, wife abuse explained less than 1 percent of the variance for child abuse (in other words, it could not predict whether a child would be abused or not). However, wife abuse increased the likelihood of physical abuse or punishment by more than 150 percent. Tajima concluded that although wife abuse increased the risk of child abuse, it was not a very strong influence by itself.

Tajima also found few racial differences: Latinos were least likely to be violent toward their children, but the other racial and ethnic groups did not differ from one another. Important predictors of child abuse included whether the parent had been physically abused as a child, and higher stress in the family. Boys were more likely to be abused than girls.

In a separate study published in the same journal, Peter Rumm and his colleagues studied the same question, using data from the US Army Medical Command Central Registry. In the Army, as in most of the U.S., reports of abuse depend on doctors and reports to child protective services.

There were 21,643 Army families with children who had been identified as abused. The rate of child abuse among families with identified spouse abuse was 32 episodes per 1,000 family years, compared to 7 episodes per 1000 family years for families without identified spouse abuse. (The rate of 1,000 family years equals either 1,000 families for one year, 500 families for two years, etc.) On average, 21 months elapsed between the report of spouse abuse to the report of child abuse.

Although child abuse was more than four times as likely in homes where the spouse was abused, the parent's military rank and age also predicted both types of abuse. After adjusting for parent's military rank and age, families with identified spouse abuse were (only) twice as likely to also abuse a child. This means that some of the apparent impact of spouse abuse was actually due to parents' age and rank. Moreover, spouse abuse did not predict child neglect.

Both studies indicate that spouse abuse increases the risk of child abuse, and so relatives, neighbors, police, teachers, and others need to be sensitive to this possibility in homes where they know spousal abuse occurs. However, doubling a relatively small risk is not as strong association as was expected. Of course, the accuracy of these reports is always a shortcoming of studies of abuse, but that is more likely to decrease the reporting of both kinds of abuse, but not the statistical relationship between the two kinds of abuse. The findings clearly suggest that there are many factors that increase the risk of child abuse, and spouse abuse is just one of them. We have a long way to go before we can predict abuse, and that makes it difficult to prevent.


References:
The Relative Importance of Wife Abuse As a Risk Factor for Violence Against Children
Emiko Tajima, Ph.D.
Child Abuse & Neglect, November 2000, Vol 24, pages 1383-98

Identified Spouse Abuse as a Risk Factor for Child Abuse
Peter Rumm, Peter Cummings, Margot Krasuss, Michelle Bell, and Frederick Rivara
Child Abuse & Neglect, November 2000, Vol 24, pages 1375-81



Witnessing Violence at Home

This issue provides an excellent overview of what is known and not known about how domestic violence (defined as violence between intimate adults) affects children who are exposed to it. The articles summarize research on the psychological impact, an analysis of federal and state laws, a description of case law, a comparison of the differing philosophies of domestic violence services and child protective services, as well as the responses of the health care and mental health care systems. The final chapter is on prevention programs.

Like all the books in this series, this report is free. It is an overview, with few details regarding the studies and no complicated statistics. For those who just want a summary of the information, the Executive summary is also available for free.


Reference:
Domestic Violence and Children
The Future of Children, Vol 9, No. 3, Winter 1999
The David and Lucille Packard Foundation
Order free from circulation@futureofchildren.org,
or FAX 650-948-6498,
or from the foundation at 300 Second St., Suite 200, Los Altos, CA 94022
or online at www.futureofchildren.org.

These articles are based on Diana Zuckerman's monthly Research Watch columns that appeared in Youth Today in issues from November 1999 through November 2004, and were reprinted with permission. Youth Today is a publication of the American Youth Work Center, 1200 17th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (800) 599-2455. E-mail: youthtoday@aol.com.

 

Top of Page
Top

 






National Research Center for Women & Families
1701 K St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. (202) 223-4000



Design by: MoonLight Enterprises
© NRC & MoonLight Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Contents are copyrighted by their respective owners.