1 Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents ’ Perspective Dr. Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz School of Social Work and Social.

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

[email protected]

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.

Child Welfare Placement: Levels of Intensity of Care

25%

40%

30%

5%Educational

Rehabilatativ e

Therapeutic

Post-hospitalization

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 institutional correlates of staff maltreatment?

8

Methods

Sample1,324 young people aged 11-19 residing in 32

rehabilitative and therapeutic RCSs

Study designCross-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 (= 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 (= 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 ( = 0.64)

Emotional symptoms (= 0.67)

Perceived social climate (Revised Social Climate Scale, Colton,

1989; Heal, Sinclair, & Troop, 1973)

Caretaker support ( = 0.79)

Strictness ( = 0.63)

RCS policy aimed at reducing violence (Benbenishty et al.,

2000; Furlong et al., 2005; = 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 on verbal violence

Variance between Settings in Maltreatment

VariableProportion of variance between settings, ICC a

Physical maltreatment18.60%

Verbal maltreatment6.00%

a The 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