Are children safer with kin? A comparison of maltreatment risk in out-of-home care

Font, Sarah A.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.04.012

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Font (2014) found that the lifetime risk of a substantiated claim against a caregiver perpetrator was significantly higher in informal kinship care than in either formal kinship or nonrelative foster care. Investigated claims of neglect were highest in informal kinship care followed by formal kinship care whereas investigated claims of physical abuse were lowest in informal kinship care (Font, 2015a). Conversely, Winokur et al (2008) found that allegations of abuse or neglect were significantly higher (18.5% compared with 2.2%) in paid than unpaid kinship care.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship Care and Child Protection in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Hallett

Garstang

Taylor

2021

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinship care is a global phenomenon with a long history, which in high-income countries (HICs) at least, is being increasingly formalized through legislation and policy. There are many benefits to kinship care, including improved child mental health and well-being when compared to other types of out-of-home care. Despite this, kinship care is not without its risks with a lack of support and training for kinship carers putting children at an increased risk of abuse and neglect. This scoping review was conducted across 11 databases to explore the breadth and depth of the literature about abuse and neglect within kinship care in HICs and to provide initial indications about the relationship between kinship care and abuse. Of the 2,308 studies initially identified, 26 met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies were from the United States, and most used case review methods. From the included studies, rates of re-abuse, and particularly rates of physical and sexual abuse, appear to be lower in kinship care settings when compared to other out-of-home care settings, but rates of neglect are often higher. This review has demonstrated that a small but significant number of children living in kinship care experience neglect or abuse.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship Care and Child Protection in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Hallett

Garstang

Taylor

2021

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Two US studies have reported higher rates of neglect in kinship care than other out of home placement, 16 although the highest levels were found in informal kinship care that was not subject to professional scrutiny prior to placement. 17 Conversely another US study concluded that kinship care provided higher quality care than unrelated foster care. 18 It is well recognised that child abuse may continue despite children being subject to CPP, 10%-17% of Serious Case Reviews between 2005 and 2017 were for children subject to CPP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child abuse in children living with special guardians, a service evaluation of child protection medical examinations

Garstang

Hallett

Cropp

et al. 2021

bmjpo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine difference in frequency of referral for child protection medical examination (CPME) in children subject to special guardianship order (SGO), subject to child protection plan (CPP) or neither.DesignService evaluation analysing data from CPME reports.SettingAcute and community healthcare providers in Birmingham UK, during 2018.PatientsAll children aged 0–18 years requiring CPME.Main outcome measuresDetails were obtained from CPME reports on: age, SGO status, CPP status, reason for CPME, injuries sustained, presence of non-accidental injury.Population data were obtained from the local children’s safeguarding board and national statistics.ResultsReports were available for 292/298 (98%) CPME, relating to 288 children. 5 children were subject to SGO, 39 were subject to CPP, none subject to both. Non-accidental injury was substantiated in 189/288 (66%). The child population was 288 000. 1665 children were subject to CPP and approximately 750 subject to SGO. The relative risk (RR) for children subject to SGO requiring a CPME compared with children not subject to SGO or CPP is 7.86, p<0.0001 with 95% CI (3.26 to 19.02). The RR for children subject to a CPP requiring CPME compared with children not subject to SGO or CPP is 27.65, p<0.0001 with 95% CI (19.78 to 38.63).ConclusionsThis is a small study and findings need interpreting cautiously. Children subject to SGO may potentially be at higher risk of abuse than the general population despite living with carers who have passed social care parenting assessments. There is no register of children subject to SGO so professionals may be unable to offer families additional support. SGO families should be offered enhanced support and monitoring routinely. Children subject to CPP are not being adequately protected from further abuse.

show abstract

“…• Comparison between rates of violence in alternative care and at home provides a relevant platform to capture the nature and extent of violence experienced by children living in alternative care. (Biehal et al, 2014;Font, 2015). Case reports or official data in general may result in bias findings in evaluating prevalence, while all incidents are not reported.…”

Section: Research On Violence In Alternative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of versatile risk factor research, inconsistency of findings, and huge variation in prevalence studies brings us to the second well‐known methodological challenge in studying violence in alternative care: limitations in data available. Violence in alternative care is typically analysed using administrative data and maltreatment reports (Biehal et al, 2014; Font, 2015). Case reports or official data in general may result in bias findings in evaluating prevalence, while all incidents are not reported.…”

Section: Research On Violence In Alternative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Using self‐report surveys in schools to study violence in alternative care: A methodological approach

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we explore a Finnish nationally representative self‐report survey (N = 155, 299) conducted in a school as a tool to advance the study of violence in alternative care. By analysing the survey, we were able to provide plausible prevalence and estimates of risk factors of violence in alternative care, suggesting that self‐report surveys conducted in schools are a useful and valid methodology for this type of research. Conducting the survey in a school setting enabled us to reach a nationally representative population of adolescents living in alternative care, which would be difficult to achieve in any other way. However, studying violence in alternative care with a school survey requires a large sample size. Even with quite a substantial dataset, detailed explanatory analyses were not possible due to the low number of observations. This emphasises the importance of other types of data in addition to survey data in explanatory analysis. Based on this study, we concluded that nationally representative self‐report surveys conducted in schools could provide a useful tool and possibilities for replicable research design, which could thereby develop the research field further.

show abstract

Are children safer with kin? A comparison of maltreatment risk in out-of-home care

Cited by 17 publications

References 58 publications

Kinship Care and Child Protection in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Kinship Care and Child Protection in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Child abuse in children living with special guardians, a service evaluation of child protection medical examinations

Using self‐report surveys in schools to study violence in alternative care: A methodological approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About