JournalChild Abuse and Neglect
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBackground: The neglect of children is a serious global problem. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was a major international achievement spurring national efforts to prevent and address neglect. However, the scope of neglect worldwide and progress in addressing it remain unclear. Objective: This analysis assessed the current state of child neglect through much of the world, including its prevalence and efforts to address it. Method: The scope of neglect was assessed through a literature review of recent peer-reviewed research and analysis of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) child protective services (CPS) and early childhood development data. National responses to neglect in 73 countries were described in the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect's World Perspectives 2016 data and through illustrative case studies of recent CRC country reports for Australia, China, India and Mozambique. Results: Neglect is prevalent throughout the world, although its extent and form vary. Most countries recognize neglect as a form of maltreatment and have basic CPS policies and some system in place, but implementation of prevention and intervention services remains inadequate even in high-income countries. Economic and other barriers inhibit progress to address the neglect of children. Conclusions: Progress has been made in establishing basic child protections and other safeguards for neglect in most countries, but significant barriers and inadequacies remain. Implementation of the CRC is uneven and there are large gaps in needed services. Much work remains to better assess and address this serious problem, in every country. Copyright 2019 Elsevier Ltd
KeywordChild maltreatment intervention
Child maltreatment prevalence
Child maltreatment prevention
Child protective services systems
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85076603854&doi=10.1016%2fj.chiabu.2019.104296&partnerID=40&md5=05b0471e5475025604081795ae4265c1; http://hdl.handle.net/10713/11809
- Describing maltreatment: do child protective service reports and research definitions agree?
- Authors: Runyan DK, Cox CE, Dubowitz H, Newton RR, Upadhyaya M, Kotch JB, Leeb RT, Everson MD, Knight ED
- Issue date: 2005 May
- Protecting children from violence and maltreatment: a qualitative comparative analysis assessing the implementation of U.N. CRC Article 19.
- Authors: Svevo-Cianci KA, Hart SN, Rubinson C
- Issue date: 2010 Jan
- Understanding the investigation-stage overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child welfare system: an analysis of the First Nations component of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008.
- Authors: Sinha V, Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B
- Issue date: 2013 Oct
- Defining child neglect based on child protective services data.
- Authors: Dubowitz H, Pitts SC, Litrownik AJ, Cox CE, Runyan D, Black MM
- Issue date: 2005 May
- Child abuse and neglect in Saudi Arabia: journey of recognition to implementation of national prevention strategies.
- Authors: Al Eissa M, Almuneef M
- Issue date: 2010 Jan
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland Child Welfare. 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportAhn, Haksoon; Esaki, Nina; Gregory, Gillian, M.S.W.; Melz, Heidi; O'Connor, Julia, M.S.W.; Shaw, Terry V. (2010-12)Executive Summary: The Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301-1311 inclusive) specified the development and implemntation of a proces to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of child welfare services in Maryland that addresses the safety, permanency and well-being of children in the care and custody [of] the Maryland Department of Human Resources/the Local Departments of Social Services. The Quality Assurance Process in Maryland Child Welfare does this through the evaluation of quality assurance and system implementation processes in Maryland's child welfare system. The state of Maryland made great strides in 2010 towards achieving the development of an integrated, comprehensive Quality Assurance system. Acknowledgements: This report was compiled by faculty and staff at the University of Maryland, School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children (RYC) in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Service Administration (DHR/SSA). Terry V. Shaw, Nina Esaki, Haksoon Ahn, and Diane DePanfilis co-managed the interagency agreement for the Quality Assurance process. Gillian Gregory and Julia O'Connor led the Local Supervisory Review process and Foster Parent Survey. Heidi Melz oversaw the Family Centered Practice evaluation component. Carnitra White, Richard Larson, David Ayer and Linda Carter at DHR/SSA guided the activities related to the Quality Assurance process. The Quality Assurance unit at DHR/SSA includes Linda Carter, Josephine Lambert, and Jewel Wilson-Crawford. A separate companion report, "Maryland Child Welfare performance Indicators: 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability Report," describes Maryland's performance on the outcome and performance measures outlined by the Child Welfare Accountability Act.
Maryland Child Welfare Performance Indicators. 4th Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportShaw, Terry V.; Ahn, Haksoon (2010-12)Executive Summary: The Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301-1311 inclusive) specified the development and implementation of a process to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of child welfare services in Maryland that addresses the safety, permanency and well-being of children in the care and custody of the state. A set of performance indicators were established that encompassed and expanded upon extant federal measures in four areas of child welfare practice: 1. Child abuse and neglect, 2. Protecting children in out-of-home care from abuse and neglect, 3. Permanency and stability of children in out-of-home care, and 4. Effectiveness of efforts to address the health, mental health, education, and well-being of children in out-of-home care. This report, the fourth report completed, describes and documents the performance indicators mandated in the Act for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 and compares the states progress in relation to outcomes from prior years. A separate companion report entitled "Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland Child Welfare" describes and evaluates Quality Assurance processes in calendar year 2010. Acknowledgements: This rport was prepared by faculty and staff at the University of Maryland, School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children (RYC) in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Services Administration (DHR/SSA). Diane DePanfilis, Terry V. Shaw and Haksoon Ahn co-manage the interagency agreement that supports the development of this report. Terry V. Shaw developed the performance indicators found in this report with the assistance of David Ayer from DHR/SSA. Carnitra White, Richard Larson, David Ayer and Linda Carter at DHR/SSA guided the activities of the outcomes measurment and performance indicators process.
Primary care pediatricians' experience, comfort and competence in the evaluation and management of child maltreatment: Do we need child abuse experts?Lane, W.G.; Dubowitz, H. (Elsevier, 2009)Objective: We assessed the self-reported experience, comfort and competence of primary care pediatricians in evaluating and managing child maltreatment (CM), in rendering opinions regarding the likelihood of CM, and in providing court testimony. We examined pediatricians' need for expert consultation when evaluating possible maltreatment. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 520 randomly selected AAP members. Pediatricians were asked how frequently they evaluated and reported children for suspected maltreatment, and whether child abuse pediatricians were available to and used by them. Pediatricians were asked to rate their knowledge, comfort and competence in the management of CM. Demographic information was also gathered. Pediatricians' experience with CM, their comfort, self-reported competence, and need for expert assistance is described. Logistic regression was used to assess factors that predicted pediatricians' sense of competence while controlling for covariates found to be significant in bivariate analyses. Results: One hundred forty-seven questionnaires were eligible for analysis. The majority of respondents had little experience evaluating and reporting suspected CM, and was interested in having expert consultation. While pediatricians often felt competent in conducting medical exams for suspected maltreatment, they felt less competent in rendering a definitive opinion, and did not generally feel competent to testify in court. Sense of competence was particularly low for sexual abuse. Increased practice experience and more courses in CM led to increased sense of competence in some areas. Conclusions: Pediatricians acknowledged many limitations to providing care to maltreated children, and expressed interest in subspecialist input. Practice implications: These findings add additional support to the American Board of Pediatrics' decision to create a Child Abuse Pediatrics subspecialty. The findings also indicate a need to ensure funding for fellowship training programs in this field. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.