New Study: Married Biological Parents Best
Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
A new government study just came out that looks at child abuse.
Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?
Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).
All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.
The big gap is between the intact married biological family and every other family form. Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure.
http://nomblog.com/723/
Fourth National Incidence Study
of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4)
Report to Congress
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SubstanceAbuseandMental HealthServicesAdministration
CenterforMental Health Services
www.samhsa.gov
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE)
and the Children’s Bureau
Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010).
Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families.
The National Incidence Study (NIS) is a congressionally mandated, periodic
effort of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Disability. The NIS–4 is the first NIS cycle to examine the relationship
between the incidence of maltreatment and children’s disability status. Under the Harm Standard, children with confirmed disabilities had significantly lower rates of physical abuse and of moderate harm from maltreatment, but they had significantly higher rates of emotional neglect and of serious injury or harm.
Parents’ employment. Unemployed parents were those described as
unemployed or laid off but looking for work either currently (at the time of maltreatment) or at any time during the past year. Employed parents were those who had steady full-or part-time work, with no reported unemployment currently or in the previous year. Parents who were not in the labor force were not employed or actively looking for work. These included parents who were retired, disabled, homemakers, receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), on maternity leave, in the hospital, or in jail. Under both definitional standards, the incidence of maltreatment and of all severities of injury or harm was higher for children with no parent in the labor force and those with an unemployed parent and lowest for those with employed parents. Compared to children with employed parents, those with no parent in the labor force had 2 to 3 times the rate of maltreatment overall, about 2 times the rate of abuse, and 3 or more times the rate of neglect. Children with unemployed parents had 2 to 3 times higher rates of neglect than those with employed parents.
Socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status households were those in the bottom tier on any indicator: household income below $15,000 a year, parents’ highest education level less than high school, or any member of the household a participant in a poverty program, such as TANF, food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, or subsidized school meals. Children in low socioeconomic status households had significantly higher rates of maltreatment in all categories and across both definitional standards. They experienced some type of maltreatment at more than 5 times the rate of other children; they were more than 3 times as likely to be abused and about 7 times as likely to be neglected.
Family structure and living arrangement. Family structure reflects the
number of parents in the household and their relationship to the child; living arrangement reflects their marital or cohabitation status. Considering both factors, the NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living
with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children
living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.
Comparable data were available to assess changes since the NIS–3 in
maltreatment rates for two groups of children: those living with two parents and those living with one parent. In nearly all categories, the incidence of maltreatment and levels of harm increased since the NIS–3 for children living with one parent but decreased for those living with two parents. The largest rate increase for children with one parent was
in Endangerment Standard neglect (58% higher in NIS–4 than in NIS–3), especially the specific category of emotional neglect (a 194% increase). The largest decrease for children living with two parents occurred in the rate of Harm Standard sexual abuse, which declined by 61% from its level at the time of the NIS–3.
Family size. The incidence of maltreatment was related to the number of
dependent children in the family, in Harm Standard categories of overall maltreatment and all neglect and in Endangerment Standard maltreatment, abuse, neglect, and in physical and emotional maltreatment, both abuse and neglect. The general pattern was nonlinear: the incidence rates were highest for children in the largest families (those with 4 or more children), intermediate for “only” children and those in households with 3 children, and lowest for children in families with two children. The largest differences occurred in the Endangerment Standard maltreatment rates, especially for the neglect categories, where the incidence rates for children in the largest households were more than twice the rates for children in households with 2 children.
Perpetrator’s relationship to the child. The majority of all children
countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents). Biological parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 71% of physically abused children and for 73% of emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. More than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent (whether biological or
nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent. In addition, severity of harm from physical abuse varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent.
Perpetrator’s sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by
female perpetrators than by males: 68% of the maltreated children were maltreated by a female, whereas 48% were maltreated by a male. (Some children were maltreated by both.) Of children maltreated by biological parents, mothers maltreated the majority (75%) whereas fathers maltreated a sizable minority (43%). In contrast, male perpetrators were more common for children maltreated by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners (64%) or by other persons (75%). The predominant sex of perpetrators of abuse was different from that of neglect. Female perpetrators were more often responsible for neglect (86% of children neglected by females versus 38% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers (biological or other) tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast,
males more often were abusers (62% of children were abused by males versus 41% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 87% of children were abused by a male compared to only 11% by a female. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (51% and 54%, respectively), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners, or by other,
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (74% or more by males versus 26% or less by females).
Perpetrator’s alcohol use, drug use, and mental illness. CPS investigators
and NIS–4 sentinels indicated whether they considered these issues to be factors in the child’s maltreatment. Perpetrator’s alcohol use and drug use were approximately equivalent factors in Harm Standard maltreatment, each applying to 11% of the countable children, while mental illness was a factor in the maltreatment of 7% of the children. Perpetrator’s alcohol use was slightly more often implicated in abuse situations than drug
use (13% versus 10%), largely because alcohol was more frequently involved in physical abuse and emotional abuse. Alcohol use was most involved in emotional abuse (22% of the children), while drug use was most involved in emotional neglect (21% of the children). The perpetrator’s mental illness was most often cited as a factor in emotional abuse (17% of the children). All three factors were more often involved in maltreatment when the perpetrator was a biological parent.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/index.html
Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
A new government study just came out that looks at child abuse.
Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?
Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).
All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.
The big gap is between the intact married biological family and every other family form. Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure.
http://nomblog.com/723/
Fourth National Incidence Study
of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4)
Report to Congress
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SubstanceAbuseandMental HealthServicesAdministration
CenterforMental Health Services
www.samhsa.gov
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE)
and the Children’s Bureau
Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010).
Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families.
The National Incidence Study (NIS) is a congressionally mandated, periodic
effort of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Following are excerpts from the study. To read the study in it's entirety, please use the link provided at the end of this document.
Race/ethnicity. Unlike previous NIS cycles, the NIS–4 found strong and pervasive race differences in the incidence of maltreatment. In nearly all cases, the rates of maltreatment for Black children were significantly higher than those for White and Hispanic children.
Disability. The NIS–4 is the first NIS cycle to examine the relationship
between the incidence of maltreatment and children’s disability status. Under the Harm Standard, children with confirmed disabilities had significantly lower rates of physical abuse and of moderate harm from maltreatment, but they had significantly higher rates of emotional neglect and of serious injury or harm.
Parents’ employment. Unemployed parents were those described as
unemployed or laid off but looking for work either currently (at the time of maltreatment) or at any time during the past year. Employed parents were those who had steady full-or part-time work, with no reported unemployment currently or in the previous year. Parents who were not in the labor force were not employed or actively looking for work. These included parents who were retired, disabled, homemakers, receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), on maternity leave, in the hospital, or in jail. Under both definitional standards, the incidence of maltreatment and of all severities of injury or harm was higher for children with no parent in the labor force and those with an unemployed parent and lowest for those with employed parents. Compared to children with employed parents, those with no parent in the labor force had 2 to 3 times the rate of maltreatment overall, about 2 times the rate of abuse, and 3 or more times the rate of neglect. Children with unemployed parents had 2 to 3 times higher rates of neglect than those with employed parents.
Socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status households were those in the bottom tier on any indicator: household income below $15,000 a year, parents’ highest education level less than high school, or any member of the household a participant in a poverty program, such as TANF, food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, or subsidized school meals. Children in low socioeconomic status households had significantly higher rates of maltreatment in all categories and across both definitional standards. They experienced some type of maltreatment at more than 5 times the rate of other children; they were more than 3 times as likely to be abused and about 7 times as likely to be neglected.
Family structure and living arrangement. Family structure reflects the
number of parents in the household and their relationship to the child; living arrangement reflects their marital or cohabitation status. Considering both factors, the NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living
with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children
living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.
Comparable data were available to assess changes since the NIS–3 in
maltreatment rates for two groups of children: those living with two parents and those living with one parent. In nearly all categories, the incidence of maltreatment and levels of harm increased since the NIS–3 for children living with one parent but decreased for those living with two parents. The largest rate increase for children with one parent was
in Endangerment Standard neglect (58% higher in NIS–4 than in NIS–3), especially the specific category of emotional neglect (a 194% increase). The largest decrease for children living with two parents occurred in the rate of Harm Standard sexual abuse, which declined by 61% from its level at the time of the NIS–3.
Family size. The incidence of maltreatment was related to the number of
dependent children in the family, in Harm Standard categories of overall maltreatment and all neglect and in Endangerment Standard maltreatment, abuse, neglect, and in physical and emotional maltreatment, both abuse and neglect. The general pattern was nonlinear: the incidence rates were highest for children in the largest families (those with 4 or more children), intermediate for “only” children and those in households with 3 children, and lowest for children in families with two children. The largest differences occurred in the Endangerment Standard maltreatment rates, especially for the neglect categories, where the incidence rates for children in the largest households were more than twice the rates for children in households with 2 children.
Perpetrator’s relationship to the child. The majority of all children
countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents). Biological parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 71% of physically abused children and for 73% of emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. More than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent (whether biological or
nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent. In addition, severity of harm from physical abuse varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent.
Perpetrator’s sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by
female perpetrators than by males: 68% of the maltreated children were maltreated by a female, whereas 48% were maltreated by a male. (Some children were maltreated by both.) Of children maltreated by biological parents, mothers maltreated the majority (75%) whereas fathers maltreated a sizable minority (43%). In contrast, male perpetrators were more common for children maltreated by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners (64%) or by other persons (75%). The predominant sex of perpetrators of abuse was different from that of neglect. Female perpetrators were more often responsible for neglect (86% of children neglected by females versus 38% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers (biological or other) tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast,
males more often were abusers (62% of children were abused by males versus 41% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 87% of children were abused by a male compared to only 11% by a female. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (51% and 54%, respectively), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners, or by other,
perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (74% or more by males versus 26% or less by females).
Perpetrator’s alcohol use, drug use, and mental illness. CPS investigators
and NIS–4 sentinels indicated whether they considered these issues to be factors in the child’s maltreatment. Perpetrator’s alcohol use and drug use were approximately equivalent factors in Harm Standard maltreatment, each applying to 11% of the countable children, while mental illness was a factor in the maltreatment of 7% of the children. Perpetrator’s alcohol use was slightly more often implicated in abuse situations than drug
use (13% versus 10%), largely because alcohol was more frequently involved in physical abuse and emotional abuse. Alcohol use was most involved in emotional abuse (22% of the children), while drug use was most involved in emotional neglect (21% of the children). The perpetrator’s mental illness was most often cited as a factor in emotional abuse (17% of the children). All three factors were more often involved in maltreatment when the perpetrator was a biological parent.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/index.html
Comments