Neighborhood and Cumulative Ecological Risk: Predicting Neglect in an Urban Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect

Background and Purpose: The “role of cultural processes, social stratification influences, [and] ecological variations” (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014, p. 12) in the etiology of child abuse and neglect remains elusive despite a proliferation of studies over the past 40 years. This study longitudinally models cumulative ecological risk for child neglect, with a specific focus on the additive contribution of neighborhood structure and process. The Ecological-Transactional Framework (Cicchetti and Lynch, 1993) is used to conceptualize and organize the place of risk markers where cumulative risk theory (Rutter, 1979) is used to guide the analysis. Study Aim: To examine how both neighborhood structure (social disorganization) and process (collective efficacy) at age 6 contribute to individual longitudinal risk for physical abuse and child neglect though age 18.

Methods: Two sources of secondary data (1) individual risk markers and parents’ perceptions of their neighborhood process from the LONGSCAN Eastern site and (2) contemporaneous (1990) census indicators of neighborhood social disorganization are combined for analysis. The risk markers and neighborhood structure and process at age six are used to predict child neglect from age 6 through 18. Hierarchical logistic regression models were built with child neglect of supervision and physical needs as determined by CPS in middle childhood (ages 6-12) and adolescence (ages 13-18) as a the dichotomized dependents variable using STATA 13 (StataCorp. 2013). Additionally, four hierarchal models were built for the child's self-report of neglect of supervision and physical needs as a continuous dependent variable in middle childhood (ages 6-12) and adolescence (ages 13-18).

Results: Participants (n=188) were experiencing elevated levels of ecological cumulative risk on the ontogenic and microsystem levels, per the sampling design of the Eastern study site. Further, the characteristics participants’ exosystem, or neighborhood level, indicated elevated social distress as measured by The Social Distress Scale (Hyde, 2002). Parent experiences of neighborhood process at age 6, specifically and child friendliness and tangible support, were associated with child reports of neglect in adolescence (ages 13-16).

Conclusions and Implications: As parent’s perception of child friendliness at 6 decreased, child ratings of neglect of physical needs in adolescence increased. Conversely, as parents’ perceptions of tangible support increased so did child ratings of neglect of physical needs in adolescence. Increased tangible support is a strength, however it may also reflect that the need was greater than the available neighboorhood resources. The evelvated level of social distress across the sample suggest the necessity for further study with neighborhood ecologies experiencing differing levels of social distress.