Community Informant Explanations for Unusual Neighborhood Rates of Child Maltreatment Reports

Background and Purpose: Whereas much research on child maltreatment has examined individual and family level predictors of abuse and neglect, less emphasis has been placed on understanding social contextual factors that shape its occurrence. A growing body of work within neighborhoods adds to knowledge of community-level factors that influence local maltreatment prevalence rates. Neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic characteristics often have very different rates of child maltreatment, suggesting that other community factors may contribute to maltreatment risk and protection.  Drawing from social disorganization theory and the ecological-transactional model, this study elicited perceptions of key community informants regarding contextual factors that may account for unusual differences in child maltreatment report rates between demographically similar neighborhoods.

Methods: In Los Angeles and San Diego counties, neighborhoods were selected that had atypical rates of maltreatment reports (either very high or very low), after accounting for population demographic characteristics. A purposive snowball sampling strategy was then used to identify social services professionals and other community members with in-depth knowledge of selected neighborhoods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in person with 30 key informants. Interviews enabled participants to discuss neighborhood factors they believed contributed to unusual maltreatment report rates in a specific neighborhood area familiar to them. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Core themes in the data were identified through content analysis using NVivo 10.

 Findings: Two overarching themes emerged regarding neighborhood contributors to unusually low or high rates of child maltreatment reports. The first theme was community norms and values. In neighborhoods with unusually low maltreatment report rates, participants described community norms related to parenting values and high levels of trust and interaction between neighbors as protective factors. On the other hand, participants discussed how lower than expected reports of maltreatment could also be indicative of a neighborhood norm of non-reporting, for reasons related to mistrust and fear of officials, or a lack of understanding or knowledge of how to report. The second theme emphasized community resources and mandated reporting. In conversations about neighborhoods with usually low maltreatment rates, participants perceived that the presence of neighborhood resources (e.g. churches, schools, and other opportunities for positive parent/child interaction) likely influenced local levels of maltreatment.  In contrast, participants discussing neighborhoods with relatively high rates of reporting often described them as having more services. For example, participants explained how an abundance of professionals interacting with families may result in families having greater contact with mandated reporters. Findings highlight contextual dynamics that may result in lower and higher rates of maltreatment reports, including, in some cases, factors that may affect the likelihood that reports occur.

Conclusions and Implications: This research addresses relationships between neighborhood social processes and geographical “hot spots” of child abuse and neglect. Findings suggest that multiple aspects of the social environment may serve as entry points for community intervention to protect children from maltreatment. Ongoing extensions of the present research utilize resident perceptions to further test hypotheses emerging from this work, with the goal of informing strategies to strengthen neighborhood capacity to prevent child maltreatment.