Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Yafit Sulimani-Aidan
PhD. candidate, Bar Ilan University, Israel
Presenter:
Dr. Rami BenbenishtyBar Ilan University, Israel
Haruv Institute, Israel
Funded by: the Haruv Institute
In collaboration with: Ministry of Welfare and Social Services
Local child maltreatment rates and protective service responses:
The role of ethnicity and community socio-economic characteristics
AN OVERVIEW
A methodological noteA brief review of the literature on
community characteristics and maltreatment
Child maltreatment and ethnicityA brief description of the situation in
IsraelMethodsFindingsDiscussion, limitations, conclusions &
implications
AN INTRODUCTORY METHODOLOGICAL NOTE
Child indicators as a form of monitoring on national and regional level
Commonly discussed in terms of policy implications A powerful scientific method, which has many
strengths, and of course some weaknesses as well Need to be further developed to take advantage of
the power in secondary analyses and data mining of large (either representative or ‘census-like’ data bases.
The importance of replication over time and caution in interpretation
INTRODUCTION I
Child maltreatment is viewed as resulting from complex factors, across multiple ecological levels
The rates of maltreatment are influenced. Among other ecological factors by family and community characteristics (e.g. poverty)
INTRODUCTION II
Ethnic minority groups and maltreatment In many cases are more vulnerable when they are
associated with poverty and stressful life eventsMay have cultural approaches that either protect
children or increase maltreatment (as defined in Western cultures).
Separate maltreatment from maltreatment reportingLower report to protect groupAre more vulnerable to intrusion by state
authorities
THE SITUATION IN ISRAELIsraeli Arabs have lower socio-
economic status, hence Arabs are expected to have higher rates of maltreatment
Cultural values (e.g., physical punishment of children, Ben-Arieh & Haj-Yhaia, 2006; Benbenishty et al., 2002)- hence Arabs are expected to have higher levels of maltreatment
CURRENT FINDINGS IN ISRAEL
Still, findings regarding differences in child maltreatment reports between Arabs and Jews are inconsistent
Potentially, offsetting cultural strengths Potentially, issues of reporting Practitioners in Arab localities are social workers
who may have conflicts reporting maltreatment because of their National/ethnic/minority identity Community connectedness Extended family loyality
More research is required to disentangle these issues
EXPLORING LOCAL RESPONSES TO MALTREATMENT
Responses of the child welfare system may vary on the continuum between family support and interventions and punitive/legal responses.
Responses to maltreatment vary by: Child welfare regimes Countries Localities
Sources for variance: Cultural values Child Welfare regimes and organizational structures Historical developments Resources
Little/no research on local variations
STUDY AIMS
Examine the contribution of the
community's socio economic and ethnic
characteristics to child maltreatment in
Israel.
Examine local responses to maltreatment
Examine differences between mainly
Jewish and mainly Arab localities
STUDY VARIABLES
Child maltreatment• Rates• Types
Protective services responses
• reports to police• Court orders• Family interventions
Demographic factors• Locality Size• Age Distribution
Economic factors• Income• Unemployment
Education level• % of Students• % of high school diploma
Dependent variables
Independent variables
METHOD
Sample 231 localities out of a total of 256 2,133,376 number of children (97.9% of
the total population of children)
Data sources Annual reporting system on all local
maltreatment reports in Israel Census information provided by Israel's
Central Bureau of Statistics on each locality.
RATES PER THOUSAND CHILDREN
3.871.59
5.75
4.58
6.97
6.05
-1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
25.00
Jewish (N = 28,498) Arab (N = 5253)
Neglect
Physical
Sexual
14.8%
33.5%
51.5%
21.8%
35.1%
43.1%
PROTECTIVE SERVICE RESPONSES (AS PERCENT OF ALL REPORTS IN
LOCALITY) Jews
N=78-147Arabs
N=52-75
MSDMSD
Family intervention (no legal intervention)
63.48241.5361.6397.69
Declare child in need 29.47100.5137.66122.95
Reports to police 22.8317.5019.4523.63
Request to override report
11.3831.035.9315.39
Intermediate order 7.2914.895.297.92
Order to remove6.5418.152.254.46
Supervision Order 6.4125.124.0011.98
Emergency Order 2.737.645.0113.97
Protective Order 0.804.074.1215.82
PROTECTIVE SERVICE RESPONSES (AS PERCENT OF ALL REPORTS IN
LOCALITY
PEARSON CORRELATIONS - JEWISH AND ARAB LOCALITIES
VariablePhysicalSexualNeglectTotalLocality population-.34**
-.20
-.31**
.02
-.31**
-.33
-.26**
-.27Age 0-4
-.16*
.37*
-.23**
.11
-.03
.56**
-.32**
.56**Rate of 75)%( +
-.26**
-.26
-.32**
-.17
-.05
-.35*
-.37**
-.38**Unemployment
.51**
.04
.51**
.06
.28**
.04
.49**
.03Socio-economic status.06
.15
.08
-.07
-.09
-.02
.19**
.01High school diploma.18**
.02
.07
-.10
.14*
.09
.13
-.08
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Rates of maltreatment reports are lower in Arab localities
Relative prevalence of different types of reports is different between Jewish and Arab localities
Socioeconomic factors, age factors and educational level correlate with child maltreatment, especially in Jewish localities
Fewer children are removed from home and fewer court orders are issued in Arab localities
CONCLUSIONS II
Variability among localities is very large Perhaps there is a conceptual mismatch between
community and locality; There may be different mechanisms operating on
these two conceptually different units of analyses
POTENTIAL INTERPRETATIONS
Differences in values and cultural perceptions regarding physical punishment
• Willingness to use social services and involvement of the community in family problems
• Differential access to social services
THE SOCIAL SERVICES ROLE
Differences in reaction of the social services to maltreatment
Resources
Cultural differences as to what is considered appropriate response
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Availability of social workers
Cultural sensitivity
Strengthening the community
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaboration of Israel’s Ministry of Welfare and Social Services and of Child Protective Services staff
Funding was provided by:
Haruv Institute, Jerusalem, Israel
THANK YOU!RAMI BENBENISHTY – [email protected] YAFIT SULIMANI-AIDAN - [email protected]
