Community Level Factors and Child Maltreatment Rates

Abstract

Using census and administrative agency data for 177 urban census tracts, variation in rates of officially reported child maltreatment is found to be related to structural determinants of community social organization: economic and family resources, residential instability, household and age structure, and geographic proximity of neighborhoods to concentrated poverty. Furthermore, child maltreatment rates are found to be intercorrelated with other indicators of the breakdown of community social control and organization. These other indicators are similarly affected by the structural dimensions of neighborhood context. Children who live in neighborhoods that are characterized by poverty, excessive numbers of children per adult resident, populations turnover, and the concentration of female-headed families are at highest risk of maltreatment. This analysis suggests that child maltreatment is but one manifestation of community social organization and that its occurrence is related to some of the same underlying macro-social conditions that foster other urban problems.

The Influence of Community Violence on the Functioning of Women Experiencing Domestic Violence

“…Using the census map of the target Midwestern city, participants were assigned a neighborhood based on the block group in which the participant lived. Although most researchers define neighborhoods as census tracts (e.g., Coulton et al, 1995;Ernst, 2000;MilesDoan, 1998;Queralt & Witte, 1998), critics suggest that census tracts are too socially disjointed and heterogeneous to represent a reasonable approximation of a neighborhood (Tienda, 1991). Thus, we chose census block groups, a smaller spatial unit equivalent to about four city blocks as a more realistic estimate of naturally occurring neighborhoods.…”

Community Social Organization, Parents, and Peers as Mediators of Perceived Neighborhood Block Characteristics on Delinquent and Prosocial Activities

“…Community social organization refers to the density, quantity, and quality of relations among local neighborhood residents and organizations and the ability of these relationships, organizations and institutions to create and maintain safe and supportive neighborhood environments (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993;Cantillon, Davidson, & Schweitzer, 2003;Coulton, Korbin, Su, & Chow, 1995). Although there is debate about whether the quantity or quality of these relations and networks are most important (Bellair, 1997;Fischer, 1982;Granovetter, 1973;Sampson, 2002;Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), by and large, adequate levels of both weak and intimate social ties and networks appear to be integral to the development of cohesive neighborhoods (Bellair, 1997;Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).…”

“…Thus, neighborhood advantage refers to neighborhoods with higher levels of neighborhood residential stability and neighborhood income. By conceptualizing and measuring neighborhoods in a positive manner, it is argued that the discourse can change from one focused on deficits to one focused on investigating and explaining the various strengths of these neighborhoods and the people who live within them (Coulton et al, 1995;McKnight, 1996).…”

The Future of Research on Intimate Partner Violence: Person-Oriented and Variable-Oriented Perspectives

“…However, community factors can be important when conceptualizing violence within families as well as within communities. For example, lower neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is related to higher rates of both violent (e.g., assaults, robbery, and rape) and nonviolent (e.g., drug offenses, truancy, and disorderliness) criminal behavior among adolescents and adults (Boardman, Finch, Ellison, Williams, & Jackson, 2001;Coulton, Korbin, Su, & Chow, 1995;Craglia, Haining, & Signoretta, 2001;Johnson, Bowers, & Hirschfield, 1997;Ludwig, Duncan, & Hirschfield, 1998;Sampson & Groves, 1989). In addition, research suggests that living in neighborhoods with greater ethnic heterogeneity is positively associated with criminal activity (Sampson & Groves, 1989).…”

“…In addition, research suggests that living in neighborhoods with greater ethnic heterogeneity is positively associated with criminal activity (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Studies have also linked residential instability to violent and nonviolent crime, such that higher rates of population turnover are associated with higher rates of criminal activity (Coulton et al, 1995;Craglia et al, 2001;Sampson & Groves, 1989). O'Campo et al (1995) used data from three ecological levels to predict the risk of IPV (a microsystem variable).…”