1 / 22

Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents ’ Perspective

Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents ’ Perspective. Dr. Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz School of Social Work and Social Welfare The Hebrew University of Jerusalem shalhevet@mscc.huji.ac.il ISCI 3 rd International Conference July, 2011, York, UK.

armina
Download Presentation

Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents ’ Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents’ Perspective Dr. Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz School of Social Work and Social Welfare The Hebrew University of Jerusalem shalhevet@mscc.huji.ac.il ISCI 3rd International Conference July, 2011, York, UK

  2. Research Purpose To study examines the prevalence and multi-level correlates of staff physical and verbal maltreatment of 1,324 Israeli adolescents in 32 residential care settings.

  3. Background:Institutional Care in Israel • Every year between 7,000-8,000 young people live in out-of-home care • Due to historical and ideological reasons about 80% placed in RCSs.

  4. Child Welfare Placement: Levels of Intensity of Care

  5. Maltreatment of Children in Care:Existing Knowledge • No hard data to indicate the extent of maltreatment • Few existing studies revealing a worrying picture: compared to the general population, children in care are significantly more involved in official child maltreatment reports and police investigations (e.g., Benedict, Zuravin, Brandt, & Abbey, 1994; Bolton, Laner, & Gai, 1982; Hobbs, Hobbs, & Wynne, 1999; Rindfleisch & Rabb, 1984).

  6. Limitations of Existing Literature • Small-scale, unrepresentative, and retrospective samples • Based mostly on inquiry reported cases of alleged incidents of maltreatment assessed and reported by professionals • Based on adult reports • Focus on severe abuse

  7. Research Questions • What is the prevalence of physical and verbal maltreatment of Israeli adolescents in residential care by their setting’s staff? • What are the adolescent and the institutionalcorrelates of staff maltreatment?

  8. Methods Sample 1,324 young people aged 11-19 residing in 32 rehabilitative and therapeutic RCSs Study design Cross-sectional

  9. Data Collection • Anonymous structured self-report questionnaire, completed by the adolescents in a the care setting • Organizational details of the settings provided by the directors

  10. Dependent Variables: Staff Maltreatment • Verbal maltreatment:two items related to being cursed at; humiliated, insulted or ridiculed by a staff member. A scale ranging from 0 to 2 (a = 0.62). • Physical maltreatment:four items related to being grabbed and shoved; pinched; slapped; and kicked or punched.A scale ranging from 0 to 4 (a = 0.74). (Benbenishty et al., 2002; Furlong et al., 2005)

  11. Independent Variables:Child-Level Correlates • Age and gender • Adjustment difficulties(SDQ; Goodman, 1997) • Hyperactivity (a = 0.64) • Emotional symptoms (a = 0.67) • Perceived social climate(Revised Social Climate Scale, Colton, 1989; Heal, Sinclair, & Troop, 1973) • Caretaker support (a = 0.79) • Strictness (a = 0.63) • RCS policy aimed at reducing violence(Benbenishty et al., 2000; Furlong et al., 2005; a = 0.85).

  12. Independent Variables:Setting-Level Correlates • Setting type(rehabilitative or therapeutic) • Structure(traditional group settings vs. RCSs with familial elements) • Size • Ethnic affiliation(Arab vs. Jewish settings)

  13. Data Analysis Method: Multilevel Analysis (HLM) • Enables the analysis of hierarchical data structure • Provides information regarding the unique contribution of each analysis level: • Level 1: Adolescents variables • Level 2: Institutional variables

  14. Sample Characteristics (N = 1,324 adolescents in 32 RCSs) • Average age: 14.06 (SD = 3.11) • 54% males • 62% are rehabilitative • 75% Jewish settings • The majority (60%) of the RCSs are group settings • Average number of children: 102 (SD = 24.18)

  15. Staff Verbal and Physical Maltreatment • Overall, 24.7% of the adolescents reported being victims of physical maltreatment by staff • One in three (29.1%)reported onverbal violence

  16. Variance between Settings in Maltreatment aThe interclass correlation (ICC) is calculated using the formula: variance between RCSs/(variance between + variance within).

  17. Findings: Adolescent-Level Correlates The most vulnerable adolescents: • Boys (physical maltreatment) • Adolescents reporting on higher levels of emotional symptoms and hyperactivity • Adolescents perceiving staff as stricter and less supportive • Adolescents reporting on negative perception of the RCS policy against violence

  18. Explained-Variance by Child-Level Characteristics • Child-level variables explained 16% of the variance within RCSs in physical and 15% in verbal maltreatment • Social climate of the setting explained the highest share of variance in verbal (11%) and physical (8%) maltreatment between the adolescents

  19. Setting-Level Correlates The most “at-risk” institutions: • Therapeutic settings (vs. rehabilitative) • Arab RCS (physical maltreatment) • Settings with larger numbers of children (physical maltreatment)

  20. Explained-Variance between RCSs in Staff Maltreatment • Setting-level variables explained 66.32% of the variance between RCSs in physical and 31.88% in verbal maltreatment • The largest share of variance between settings in physical maltreatment was explained by the cultural affiliation (45.01%) • The average perception of the RCS climate explained the highest share (31.88%) of variance between settings in verbal maltreatment

  21. Discussion • A need for an ecological perspective • Worrying rates of staff maltreatment in RCSs • Identifying adolescent at-risk and “settings at-risk” • Adjustment difficulties • Social climate and policy • Arab RCSs

  22. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research • Cross-sectional design • Adolescents as sole informants • Explanatory variables not included • Additional aspects of maltreatment • A need for theoretical developments explaining staff abuse in substitute care

More Related