Re: re unrelated males in household - some data

[Ivan Brown <ivan.brown@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I have been following with interest the discussion about deaths from
maltreatment -- especially so since I had only recently finished some analysis
of perpetrators of maltreatment in a subsample (n=666) of children with
developmental delay of the full sample (n=7,672) from the Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (Trocme et al., 2001).  There were no
reported deaths in this data, collected between October and December 1998.
However, other physical harm was reported (broken bones, head trauma, scratches,
bruises, etc), and one question that we explored was the relationship between
perpetrators of maltreatment and the occurrence of physical harm.  The question
here was who was maltreating in such a way that it resulted in physical harm.
The discussions by this group really made me wonder about the role of males in
the home who are not related by blood.

So, I would like to share a few findings from our analysis.

For the primary reason for reporting maltreatment (from sub-types of physical
abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect), 135 of the 666 children (20.27%)
were recorded as having experienced physical harm.  The perpetrators of this
physical harm were 84 biological mothers (62.2% of all cases with physical
harm), 60 biological fathers (44.4% of all cases), 10 step-mothers/female
partners (7.4% of all cases), 3 step-fathers/male partners (2.2% of all cases),
and 8 other relatives (5.9% of all cases).  There were a few other categories
with very low numbers.  (The % add to more than 100% because more than one
person could be recorded as having perpetrated maltreatment of one child, and
this is a weakness in the analysis because, where 2 people were perpetrators and
physical harm was caused, we have no way of knowing which one caused the harm.)
However, even with this weakness, this analysis still suggests, for this sample,
that physical harm most frequnently occurs as a result of action by biological
parents, or perhaps, to a lesser degree step-mothers.

But this does not tell the whole story, because the number of step-parents is
much lower than biological parents.   So, the occurrence of harm also needs to
be looked at as a percentage of the parent category (i.e., what percentage of
all biological mothers, biological fathers, step-mothers, step-fathers
perpetrated maltreatment that resulted in physical harm?).  This question is
more relevant to risk of maltreatment and relationship to the child.   So, I did
this too.  The 84 biological mothers who were perpetrators and where physical
harm was recorded represented 15.12% of all biological mothers in maltreating
homes (n=556), the 60 biological fathers who were perpetrators and where harm
was recorded represented 22.81% of all biological fathers in maltreating homes
(n=263), the 10 step-mothers who were perpetrators and where harm was recorded
represented 55.56% of all step-mothers in maltreating homes (n=18), and the 3
step-fathers who were perpetrators and where harm was recorded represented 3.09%
of all step-fathers in maltreating homes (n=97).  The same weakness as described
in the above paragraph is again relevant, but this alanysis, again, by no means
implicates step-fathers in physical harm.

I also checked the age thing, since there was concern that young non-related
males might pose greater risk.  The frequencies did not suggest a trend here.

Well, I have obviously said nothing about reporting, substantiation, and other
factors that are very relevant to accurate maltreatment data.  However, this
analysis did make me wonder if we generally might be jumping to conclusions
about step-fathers/male partners and the risk they pose for physical harm, if
there was some major flaw in our data collection procedure, or, if there is
increased risk of harm at the hands of non-related males, the risk might be more
related to the closeness of the unrelated male (in our data all were listed as
caregivers, but not primary caregivers).  If, for example, there was a live-in
male who was not even considered a caregiver, and/or if that relationship were
new or temporary or on-and-off, the relationship between the male and the child
would presumably differ qualitatively and might influence risk negatively or
positively.  There may be other factors as well.  Other domestic violence was
suggested as one possibility.

Anyway, food for thought...


--
Ivan Brown, PhD
Manger, Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare
Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
246 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1

Telephone: 416-946-8845