Is County-Level Social Support Associated with Child Maltreatment Report Rates?

Background and Purpose: Community-level social support and social capital (i.e., mechanisms to foster connections and bonds of social trust) operate as protective factors for a range of public health outcomes, including child safety (Greiner at al., 2004; Runyan et al., 1998).   Most efforts to explain the mechanisms through which social support and social capital promote child safety focus on characteristics of neighborhoods.   Although neighborhoods are undoubtedly important to children and families, higher levels of the social ecology may also warrant attention.   For example, when residents of counties take collective action to promote community well-being they can generate county-level policy changes and funded supports (Kim et al., 2006).   This study aims to assess whether county-level child maltreatment report rates are associated with two indicators of county-level social capital.    Based on theory and existing studies at the community level, we hypothesize that county child maltreatment report rates will be (1) positively associated with a county-level measure of inadequate social support and (2) negatively associated with county-level rates of social association.

Methods:  The study involves cross-sectional analysis of data from 42 states and 612 large counties.  Data sources included: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and the US Census.  Multi-level (HLM) regression models were conducted to account for the nested data.  The county-level child maltreatment report rate was the dependent variable.   In addition to indicators of social capital and social support, and demographic variables at both levels, the models included county-level covariates previously associated with maltreatment reports at the community level (poverty rate, unemployment rate, single parenthood rate, health insurance rate).  State-level covariates included an indicator of child welfare resources (the ratio of child welfare workers to children). 

Results:  All else equal, maltreatment report rates were higher in counties with higher levels of inadequate social support and in counties with higher levels of social association.  Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported, but not hypothesis 2.   At the county level, report rates were also higher in counties with higher rates of child poverty and single parenthood.  At the state level, report rates were higher in states with higher child welfare worker to child ratios. 

Conclusions and Implications:  As found in studies at the community level, county-level perceptions of social support seem related to child maltreatment report rates.   Why, however, might child maltreatment report rates be higher in counties with higher levels of social association?   Perhaps high-association counties also generate heightened awareness among neighbors about child maltreatment risks, or greater willingness to act to protect children.   Given the apparent potential of community networks and social connections to enhance public health, future studies should work to further clarify relationships among county-level social capital and public health outcomes.  Meanwhile, this study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating the complexities of informal social support and the importance of learning more about ways that informal supports and community social capital can work in tandem with formal services to promote child safety and family well-being.