Exploring the Community-Level Link between Poverty and Different Types of Child Maltreatment: Is Neglect the Most Pronounced?

Background/Purpose:

Despite the evident community-level relationship between poverty and child maltreatment, the precise nature of this relationship by distinct types of maltreatment remains complex and not fully understood. In light of the nuanced findings and methodological limitations in previous studies, this study aims to examine the zip code-level relationship between child poverty rates and child maltreatment report (CMR) rates by specific maltreatment types (neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse) in Illinois.

Methods:

Our analysis covers all 1,383 Illinois zip codes from 2014-2018. Child poverty rates were sourced from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey data, providing 5-year estimates of child poverty rates. To maintain consistency, CMR rates were also assessed as 5-year estimates based on all screened-in reports in Illinois from 2014-2018. Type-specific CMR rates were determined based on alleged maltreatment types. Unstandardized effect sizes were calculated using linear regression coefficients (b). Standardized effect sizes were estimated through Pearson’s r, the ratio of regression coefficient and dependent variable’s mean (b/Ȳ), and the negative binomial regression coefficient (incident rate ratio [IRR]). These effect sizes were estimated for total CMR rates (all children) as well as for race/ethnicity-specific CMR rates (White, Black, and Latino CMR rates) to assess the consistency within racial/ethnic groups.

Results:

All unstandardized and standardized effect sizes were statistically significant. The unstandardized effect sizes were substantially different by maltreatment type, with the largest effect size observed for neglect (b=0.83, indicating a 0.83-percentage-point increase in the neglect report rate per 1-percentage-point increase in the child poverty rate), followed by physical abuse (b=0.34) and sexual abuse (b=0.18). However, the standardized effect sizes were practically not different across maltreatment types. The Pearson’s r tests found strong to very strong associations between poverty and all maltreatment types, with slightly larger effect sizes observed for physical abuse (r=0.67), followed by neglect (r=0.61) and sexual abuse (r=0.59). Similarly, the b/Ȳ values were very similar across maltreatment types, with slightly higher values for neglect (b/Ȳ=0.036, indicating a 3.6% increase in the neglect report rate per 1-percentage-point increase in the child poverty rate), followed by sexual abuse (b/Ȳ=0.033) and physical abuse (b/Ȳ=0.031). Consistently, the IRR values were also very similar across maltreatment types, with slightly higher values for neglect (IRR=1.039, indicating a 3.9% increase in the neglect report rate per 1-percentage-point increase in the child poverty rate), followed by sexual abuse (IRR=1.038) and physical abuse (IRR=1.033). These trends were consistent in race/ethnicity-specific results as well.

Conclusions/Implications:

Our findings challenge the prevailing notion that community poverty is primarily linked to neglect more than other forms of maltreatment. This underscores the need to re-evaluate assumptions about how community poverty intersects with different types of child maltreatment. Essentially, community poverty emerges as a significant risk factor not only for neglect but also for physical and sexual abuse, indicating that community poverty may elevate the overall risk of child maltreatment regardless of its type. This emphasizes the importance of addressing all forms of child maltreatment within efforts aimed at poverty alleviation.