Defining and Classifying Supervisory Neglect

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop and test a classification system for different types of supervision problems. Several prominent child maltreatment typologies were reviewed to determine the level of definitional agreement between systems; identify strengths and weaknesses within systems; and derive a consensual definition of child neglect, its major subcategories (physical, supervisory, and emotional), and 10 types of supervisory neglect. Six hundred two substantiated child abuse and neglect reports were used to test the systems interrater reliability. The interrater reliability was excellent for most types of problems. Not watching a child closely enough (29.8% of the reports) made up the largest single type of supervisory neglect, followed by leaving a child alone without a caretaker (24.5%) and leaving a child with an unsuitable caretaker (19.7%). The article concludes with a discussion on how and in what context the system can be used.

Interactions Between Child Behavior Patterns and Parent Supervision: Implications for Children’s Risk of Unintentional Injury

“…Thus, whether or not children comply with their parents' requests to behave in safe ways is likely a complex interaction among these variables, which are interdependent. A related implication of the present findings has to do with how to define ''adequate'' supervision for purposes of denoting when low levels of supervision constitute neglectful parenting because children are at risk of injury (Budd, 2001;Coohey, 2003). Previous research reveals little agreement among parents, medical personnel, and Child Protection Service workers regarding how long children can reasonably be left unsupervised (Peterson et al, 1993).…”

“…When one considers how caregiver supervision may relate to childhood injury, this conceptualization suggests that efforts to develop ''standards'' for supervision (Peterson, Ewigman, & Kivlahan, 1993) or to define what constitutes ''adequate'' supervision (Coohey, 2003) are probably destined to fail because injury risk is a multidetermined outcome and caregiver supervision is only one of a number of determinants (see Morrongiello, 2005, for further discussion). The fact is that some children experience injuries even when caregivers are nearby and capable of supervising and other children do not experience injuries even though supervisors are only supervising intermittently (Morrongiello, Ondejko, & Littlejohn, 2004a, 2004b.…”

The role of supervision in child injury risk: definition, conceptual and measurement issues

“…Coohey discusses three types of child neglect: physical neglect, supervisory neglect and emotional neglect. 15 Supervisory neglect occurs when a parent fails to provide the child with adequate protection from harmful people or situations. Coohey categorizes 11 types of supervisory neglect; including: (1) did not watch closely enough, (2) allowed, encouraged, or forced child to engage in a harmful activity, (3) left alone, (4) left with suitable caretaker but without consent/adequate planning, (5) refused custody/abandoned, (6) left with unsuitable caretaker -not a child abuser, (7) left with unsuitable caretaker -child abuser, (8) exposed to child abuse, (9) exposed to domestic abuse, (10) exposed to person engaged in an illegal or inappropriate activity and (11) drove recklessly or while intoxicated.…”

‘If parents are punished for asking their children to feed goats’: Supervisory neglect in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Parents preoccupied by the domestic and productive activities of marginal livelihoods will inevitably exhibit less proximity, vigilance and frequency of attention in relation to their children than their American and British counterparts. But the culturally bounded definitions of supervisory neglect collated by Horwath (2007) and Coohey (2003) ignore key characteristics of family organisation among sub-Saharan peoples. The diffusion of responsibility for child care among kin and adults living in the vicinity is a widely observed norm which commonly obviates the necessity or expectation of negotiated substitute childcare arrangements (Mathambo & Gibbs, 2009).…”