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

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