UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social workers' perceptions of child abuse and neglect Blakely, Samuel Elgin 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A5 B5.pdf [ 5.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104451.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104451-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104451-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104451-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104451-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104451-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104451-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104451-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104451.ris

Full Text

SOCIAL WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD ABUSE AND  NEGLECT  fey  Samuel E l g i n  Blakely  Nancy E l i z a b e t h Louis Joy  Elton  t h e Degree the  We a c c e p t t h i s  thesis  Reimer  Harcourt Vernon  Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l for  Chatwin  Fulfilment  of the Requirements  o f MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i n  S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work  as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d  S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work 1967 The  University  of B r i t i s h  Columbia  standard.  ABSTRACT  This  research  p r o j e c t concerns  w o r k e r and h i s p e r c e p t i o n s premise that a meaningful be  of c h i l d neglect study  preceded by s t u d i e s s e e k i n g  the  itself  of neglect  primarily with  and a b u s e .  I t i s b a s e d on t h e  and a b u s e on a w i d e r s c a l e  t o a r r i v e a t a more a c c u r a t e  should  d e f i n i t i o n of  problem. A comprehensive review  of the l i t e r a t u r e  identifies  t h e p r o b l e m and t h e i n i t i a l  protective  u n i t o r agency.  the  areas of d e f i n i t i o n s ,  family neglect  ing  This  referral  review  referral  and a b u s e , i n c i d e n c e  each o f these  on t h e s t a g e  and a b u s e t o a  i n chapter  families,  o f t h e same, and w o r k e r d e c i s i o n  becoming a p r o t e c t i v e case.  workers' perception  of neglect  and a b u s e .  h u n d r e d and t h i r t y - t w o s o c i a l w o r k e r s of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e  T h u s t h e d a t a was o b t a i n e d ly working i n the f i e l d  i n the C h i l d Welfare  geographical  from a wide cross  of Child  workers' perception  research  throughout  offices  i n the  l o c a t i o n s , as  the questionnaire.  s e c t i o n of s o c i a l workers  present  that there are differences i n  a n d a b u s e was f o u n d  t o be v a l i d .  p r o j e c t d i d p r o v e t o be f r u i t f u l  that gives  social  Welfare.  of the study,  of neglect  studies  t o one  field  Respondents from f o u r t e e n  - a l l i n different  main hypothesis  obtaining data  review-  to test  A p r e t e s t was g i v e n  as t h e V a n c o u v e r C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y , answered  This  After  was d e v e l o p e d , d r a w i n g f r o m p r i o r  and Young, i n t h e form o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The  covers  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of  done b y B i l l i n g s l e y  well  two and  a r e a s a c r i t i q u e was w r i t t e n .  A measuring instrument  the p r o v i n c e  which  i n f o r m a t i o n , agency w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,  and p r e v a l e n c e  i n a referral  focused  of neglect  i s found  f u n c t i o n i n g of n e g l e c t f u l or abusive  making that r e s u l t s  in  the s o c i a l  i n making a s t a r t  c l u e s a s t o how w o r k e r s i n t h e f i e l d  do  perceive  neglect  and a b u s e .  I t could  a l s o a c t as a s t i m u l u s  p r o j e c t s u s i n g some o f t h e d a t a included on  i n this  one a s p e c t  study  from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  and m o v i n g on t o new r e s e a r c h  of the present  f o r further  study  research  t h a t was n o t  p r o j e c t s which  and e x a m i n e i t i n more d e p t h .  focus  iv.  TABLE-OF CONTENTS P a g e No. CHAPTER I  PROBLEM OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT: P L A N OF RESEARCH Introduction F r a m e w o r k o f S t u d y and H y p o t h e s e s Test Instrument Sampling Intervening Variables Preliminary Test of Questionnaire Analysis Plan  CHAPTER I I  1 1 5 9 10 10 10  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT: I D E N T I F I C A T I O N AND REFERRAL STAGES. Introduction Definitions Neglect Abuse N e g l e c t and A b u s e Critique P r o t e c t i v e Case Critique. Community P e r c e p t i o n s Critique Referral Information Sources of R e f e r r a l Critique R e f e r r a l Process Critique C r i t e r i a of Referral Critique S p e c i a l Problems of R e f e r r a l Critique Agency Working. R e l a t i o n s h i p s Critique Family Functioning Critique C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f T y p e s o f C h i l d A b u s e and Neglect Critique I n c i d e n c e and P r e v a l e n c e o f C h i l d N e g l e c t . . . Critique C r i t e r i a i n Workers D e c i s i o n Making Critique  .  .  .  13 14 14 16 17 18 18 20 20 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 33 34 42 43 48 50 53 54 55  V .  CHAPTER I I I  D E S C R I P T I V E AND S T A T I S T I C A L INTERPRETATION : OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT STUDY Coding Procedure D e s c r i p t i v e Data The F i n d i n g s .  CHAPTER I V  59 61 65  .  SUMMARY, I M P L I C A T I O N S AND PROPOSALS FOR RESEARCH  57  FURTHER  Synopsis of Chapter I Synopsis o f Chapter I I Synopsis o f Chapter I I I I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Study Proposals f o rFurther Research  BIBLIOGRAPHY  76 78 80 81 82  84  APPENDIX A  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and R e l a t e d . C o r r e s p o n d e n c e .  APPENDIX B  C h i l d r e n i n Care r e l a t e d B.C. 1951 - 1 9 6 1  90  to Risk Population i n 109  vi.  L I S T OF TABLES Page TABLE I  Variables  TABLE I I  P e r c e n t a g e Agreements of P e r c e p t i o n s Model"  TABLE I I I  TABLE IV  incorporated  Perceived S i m i l a r i t y Worker Caseload  i n Case V i g n e t t e s  8  with  "Young 61  o f each Case V i g n e t t e  to 62  . Worker R a n k i n g of S i t u a t i o n s P r e c e d i n g Action  No.  Court  i n C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n Cases  64  TABLE V  P e r c e n t a g e o f Agreement  TABLE V I  Comparison of P e r c e p t i o n s of N e g l e c t between C.A.S. and D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e  67  TABLE V I I  P e r c e n t a g e o f Checks o f "Severe N e g l e c t " N i n e Cases f o r T h i r t e e n O f f i c e s  69  TABLE V I I I  TABLE IX  TABLE X  TABLE X I  o n A b u s e and N e g l e c t  Comparisons of P e r c e p t i o n s and D e p a r t m e n t W o r k e r s  65  ina l l  o f Abuse Between  C.A.S. 70  R e l a t i o n s h i p of T o t a l D e v i a t i o n i n P e r c e p t i o n of N e g l e c t and A b u s e t o S e l e c t e d I n d i v i d u a l S o c i a l Worker V a r i a b l e s  72  S i z e o f Community o f W o r k e r O r i g i n Compared w i t h Percentage of Workers Checking "Severe N e g l e c t "  73  Community o f W o r k e r O r i g i n Compared o f W o r k e r s C h e c k i n g "Abuse A b s e n t "  74  with  Percentage  vii.  L I S T OF  ILLUSTRATIONS Page  NO.  1  T h e e a r l y s t a g e o f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and R e f e r r a l o f C h i l d N e g l e c t and A b u s e  No. 79  viii.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  We w i s h t o t h a n k D r . J o h n A. C r a n e , t h e s i s a d v i s o r , expert  knowledge has been o f i n v a l u a b l e help  t o us.  g e n e r o u s l y o f h i s t i m e a n d g u i d e d us w i t h much Our and  appreciation  i s extended  the Vancouver C h i l d r e n ' s  He h a s g i v e n  patience.  t o t h e Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e  A i d Society.  B e c a u s e s o many p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h impossible  whose  project  t o a c k n o w l e d g e i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t t o a n y o n e who made a  c o n t r i b u t i o n we e x t e n d  our sincere  thanks.  i t is  SOCIAL WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT  CHAPTER I  PROBLEM OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PLAN OF RESEARCH  INTRODUCTION  The for  reasons  processes  leading  up t o t h e c u s t o d i a l  o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e , c a n b e e x a m i n e d  care of c h i l d r e n  i n terms o f a  framework w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e s a wide range o f f a c t o r s  related  conceptual  t o these  processes. Demographic v a r i a b l e s ethnic  composition,  within  t h e community, such  and m a r i t a l p r a c t i c e s ,  associated w i t h the care of c h i l d r e n . economic c o n d i t i o n s be and  found  within  a r e f a c t o r s which can be  Other  important v a r i a b l e s are:  t h e community; h i g h r a t e s  i n communities w i t h r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g  social  differentiation,  as age s t r u c t u r e s ,  as c h a r a c t e r i z e d  of social  c h a n g e as may  or decreasing populations;  by wide ranges  i n education,  income and o c c u p a t i o n . Among t h o s e are  factors which  community a t t i t u d e s  policies  about c h i l d  and r e f e r r a l p r o c e s s e s .  organizational With  identify  practices  c h i l d r e n as n e g l e c t e d  care, social Of i m p o r t a n c e  as w e l l  legislative  are social  agency  and norms.  respect to evaluative  research  i n social  work, t h e v a r i a b l e  of the s o c i a l worker  i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n a s n e g l e c t e d and  abused  i n t e r e s t and r a i s e d  i s of special  the question, are uniform  o f n e g l e c t and abuse employed by s o c i a l w o r k e r s ? to  We a r e s e e k i n g  criteria answers  t h i s question i n our study.  FRAMEWORK OF STUDY AND fv.  practices,  o r abused  This study  HYPOTHESES  concerns  i t s e l f p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r and  his  perceptions  a meaningful should  of c h i l d  study  n e g l e c t and abuse and i s based on t h e p r e m i s e  o f t h e p r o b l e m o f n e g l e c t and abuse on a w i d e r  be p r e c e d e d by s t u d i e s s e e k i n g  that  scale,  t o a r r i v e a t a more a c c u r a t e  definition  of the problem. If, tuberculosis  f o rexample, d e t a i l e d  s t u d i e s w e r e made o n t h e p r e v a l e n c e  i n a c o m m u n i t y , ;by m e d i c a l  p r a c t i o n e r s who w e r e n o t a g r e e d o n  the syjnptomatical d e f i n i t i o n o f t u b e r c u l o s i s the v a l i d i t y would of course, on  be o p e n t o q u e s t i o n .  the prevalence  Similarly,  of n e g l e c t and abuse. therefore a f i r s t  i nconducting  to individual  study  abuse be c o n s t r u c t e d  that  Some a g r e e m e n t o n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m i s  step  of this  of studies  as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s t h e p r o b l e m  further research  cases  by d i f f e r e n t  in  therefore i s :  and u t i l i z e d  this  area.  If  and a p p l i e d w i t h  s o c i a l workers,  o f t h e p r o b l e m w o u l d be p o s s i b l e o n a l a r g e r s c a l e . questions  studies  on t h e grounds  an a c c e p t a b l e model o f n e g l e c t and abuse c a n be d e v e l o p e d reliability  o f such  the v a l i d i t y  o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e c a n b e q u e s t i o n e d  t h e r e may be d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s  of  valid  studies  One o f t h e g e n e r a l  c a n a r e l i a b l e m o d e l o f n e g l e c t and  i n c a s e f i n d i n g and i n t h e s t u d y  of child  n e g l e c t and abuse? W h i l e no s i n g l e h y p o t h e s i s answer t h i s q u e s t i o n should  provide  formulated  the aggregate r e s u l t  at least  of the d e f i n i t i o n  abuse o f a c h i l d neglect,  used w i t h o u t  definition.  associated w i t h standards neglect  of neglect  out i n the review  specific  of i t s e l f  o f a number o f t e s t a b l e h y p o t h e s e s  be e x p l o r e d  of care  c a n be a n e m o t i o n a l  arises out of the  i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  has been d e f i n e d w i t h a l i m i t e d  as p o i n t e d  study w i l l  a t e n t a t i v e answer.  Another question which w i l l ambiguity  i n this  While physical  degree o f c e r t a i n t y (25)  of the l i t e r a t u r e ,  i s a term t h a t i s  Some w r i t e r s s t a t e t h a t n e g l e c t f o rc h i l d r e n (69i82) while others  c a n be say that  s t a t e which i s not n e c e s s a r i l y observable  (72).  Studies in  the  on  the  literature.  definition, It  actual  (1)  proposed  t o t e s t the  to the  as  used  in this  consistent  classification  of n e g l e c t  and  of  abuse.  greater  detail As  there  the  with  project  Further,  differences  be  One neglect  and  I t may  (2)  reference title  significant differences  abuse?  s t u d y has  r e l a t i v e l y more o r  f o r one  speculate  abuse/ the types  categories be  raised  described  is:  Are  of n e g l e c t  e x i s t , t o what v a r i a b l e s  that differences  a r i s e out  In  i n perceptions  o f community d i f f e r e n c e s  i n that  can  and  these  community.  can  be  this  child  It is possible,  detected,  a number o f  in a large  differ  rural setting. comparisons  urban c h i l d  offices in  hypotheses have been  the  for  i n a large urban area might  in public welfare  c o n n e c t i o n two  of  affecting  reason or another from those i n a s m a l l  s o c i a l workers employed  (2A)  fall  i n s o c i a l worker perceptions  made b e t w e e n s o c i a l w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d  communities.  It  b a s e d upon L e o n t i n e Young's  s u g g e s t s , the main q u e s t i o n  whether such d i f f e r e n c e s  a g e n c y , and  less  The  to s p e c i f i c hypotheses.  s o c i a l worker perceptions  be  a r e s t r i c t e d meaning.  will  instance,  will  than  i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s , and  s o c i a l workers  see  than i s abuse.  main  performance of  To  of  attributed?  abuse c o u l d  appreciably,  inconsistencies  i n t o two  i f such d i f f e r e n c e s  could  that  found  a l s o r e f e r t o agreement w i t h  the v i g n e t t e s ,  and  t o be  i s " s o c i a l worker perceptions".  Independent v a r i a b l e s  (1) d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s in  the  i s more ambiguous  tendency to see  i n case d e s c r i p t i o n s .  author's  despite  not  hypothesis.  dependent v a r i a b l e used  term p e r c e p t i o n s  neglect  that  however are  i s no m o r e a m b i g u o u s t o s o c i a l w o r k e r s  neglectful behaviour abusive behaviour  The  refers  It is possible  neglect  is therefore  a m b i g u i t y of n e g l e c t  welfare  smaller  formulated:  D i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of the s e v e r i t y of n e g l e c t e x i s t between s o c i a l workers i n d i f f e r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  settings. (2B)  D i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of the s e v e r i t y , of abuse e x i s t between s o c i a l w o r k e r s i n d i f f e r e n t administrative settings.  O t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h may heading of  a f f e c t perceptions  s o c i a l worker o r i e n t a t i o n s .  I n a s t u d y by  The  S o c i a l Worker i n a C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n Agency, the  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  o r i e n t a t i o n of this  cognitive  s o c i a l w o r k e r s and  type e x i s t , i t i s p o s s i b l e  in perceptions.  Hence the  (3A)  that  orientations  (3C)  be  corresponding  of  differences  o r i e n t a t i o n s are i n perceptions of  i n the  differences  in  moral-evaluative  (7)  The  possible  client,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s of  these  hypothesis:  i n job  s a t i s f a c t i o n was  also  considered  Thus i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d  as  a variable  that:  D i f f e r e n c e s i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n are unrelated to d i f f e r e n c e s i n perception of neglect and abuse. a more d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t of listed  Child Protection  the  i n H y p o t h e s e s 3A,ji3B,  r a t i o n a l e and  3C,  see  The  application  of  S o c i a l Worker i n a  Agency.  Some i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s also utilized.  Since differences  i n l o y a l t i e s v i z . agency,  standards.  which might a f f e c t perceptions.  the v a r i a b l e s  demonstrates  Differences in moral-evaluative o r i e n t a t i o n s are u n r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions of n e g l e c t and a b u s e .  Differences  For  Billingsley,  hypothesis:  i s , differences  i s expressed  (3B)  may  B i l l i n g s l e y describes  community, p r o f e s s i o n a l  the  psychological/environmental  there  Differences i n cognitive unrelated to differences n e g l e c t and a b u s e .  Similarly, orientations,  or  Andrew  author  agency s e t t i n g .  that  come u n d e r  The  r e q u i r i n g no  h y p o t h e s e s a r i s i n g out  That d i f f e r e n c e s  i n perceptions  of  f u r t h e r d e f i n i t i o n here  these v a r i a b l e s  of n e g l e c t  and  abuse  are:  are  5.  are unrelated  to:  (4A)  E x p e r i e n c e i n s o c i a l work: T h i s was u s e d i n two ways. F i r s t , the l e n g t h of time each s o c i a l worker had w o r k e d i n t h e o f f i c e w h e r e t h e y a r e p r e s e n t l y employed. Secondly, the l e n g t h of time each s o c i a l w o r k e r had w o r k e d i n t h e f i e l d o f s o c i a l w o r k r e g a r d l e s s of the p l a c e or the type of agency.  (4B)  S o c i a l Work T r a i n i n g : T h i s c o n s i d e r e d t h o s e who had M.S.W. o r e q u i v a l e n t ; B.S.W. o r e q u i v a l e n t ; d e g r e e o t h e r t h a n S.W., B.A., etc., In service t r a i n i n g ; and t r a i n i n g o t h e r t h a n s o c i a l w o r k .  (4C)  Sex:  self  (4D)  Age:  T h i s was  (4E)  explanatory. b r o k e n down i n t o f o u r c a t e g o r i e s .  M a r i t a l s t a t u s : T h i s was d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e g r o u p i n g s . ( 1 . ) m a r r i e d , ( 2 . ) d i v o r c e d or s e p a r a t e d , ( 3 . ) s i n g l e .  (4F)  U r b a n - r u r a l background of s o c i a l worker w h i l e growing w h i c h was b r o k e n down i n t o f o u r c o m m u n i t y p o p u l a t i o n sizes.  up,  TEST INSTRUMENT In order  to t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s  of n e g l e c t  and  case d e s c r i p t i o n s or v i g n e t t e s have been c o n s t r u c t e d , each of which sents  a combination  o f v a r i o u s d e g r e e s o f n e g l e c t and  v i g n e t t e s were d e s i g n e d a p p r o x i m a t e as a b u s e as as  they  closely  apply  t o s o c i a l w o r k e r s and  as p o s s i b l e t h e p a r t i c u l a r  absent,  n e g l e c t and a  The (2)  the  moderate,  The  (a) t h a t they  observations  (b) t h a t they  should  of n e g l e c t  should  (3)  severe.  Thus t h e  To  three degrees  accommodate a l l 9 p o s s i b l e c a s e s  and  9 v i g n e t t e s were  To m e e t r e q u i r e m e n t observations  as  they  apply  for  combination  constructed.  (a) t h a t each v i g n e t t e should  are,  of  possibilities or  and  approximate  degree of s e v e r i t y of n e g l e c t  t h r e e degrees f o r abuse c r e a t e 3 x 3 = 9  of degree of s e v e r i t y ,  and  i n mind  repre-  t h r e e degrees o f s e v e r i t y which have been d e f i n e d  case d e s c r i p t i o n .  reports  requirements  c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e , r e p o r t s and  abuse d e f i n e d . (1)  w i t h two  abuse.  abuse,  approximate  to s o c i a l workers, d e s c r i p t i v e  m a t e r i a l was h e l d a t a l o w l e v e l d i r e c t w o r d i n g was c h o s e n perception arising quirement  abstraction.  i n order to minimize  S i m p l e and  those d i f f e r e n c e s i n  o u t o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f words and p h r a s e s .  (b) r a i s e s  severity referred  of semantic  the question of the v a l i d i t y  t o above.  Re-  of t h e degrees of  One c o u l d l o g i c a l l y a s k , how i s i t . p o s s i b l e  t o d e f i n e n e g l e c t and a b u s e as b e i n g a b s e n t , m o d e r a t e o r s e v e r e w i t h respect to actual possible  to select  cases?  While  categorization  certain criteria  of parental  i s at best d i f f i c u l t , failure  as d e f i n i n g  i t is each  category. L e o n t i n e Y o u n g , i n a s t u d y o f 180 c a s e s o f n e g l e c t a n d a b u s e defines  the problems  children. neglect,  i n terms  o f p a r e n t a l performance  The d i v i s i o n o f t h e c a s e s  i n relation  i n t o f o u r groups,  s e v e r e a n d m o d e r a t e a b u s e was b a s e d  to their  s e v e r e and m o d e r a t e  on t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a and  rationale. " f o r s e v e r e n e g l e c t t h e c r i t e r i o n was i n a d e q u a t e f e e d i n g . To e a t i s t h e m o s t n e c e s s a r y a n d e l e m e n t a l o f a l l human needs. When p a r e n t s f a i l e d t o f e e d t h e i r c h i l d r e n , o f t e n l e a v i n g them t o s n a t c h w h a t f o o d t h e r e was i n t h e home, t h i s seemed t o d e n o t e a n e x t e n t o f n e g l e c t t h a t m i g h t p r o p e r l y be l a b e l l e d a s s e v e r e . T h i s was n o t a f a i l u r e t o f e e d t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e t h e r e was n o f o o d t o e a t b u t f a i l u r e t o s e c u r e t h e f o o d o r make i t e d i b l e . " ( 8 2 , p.9) " f o r moderate n e g l e c t t h e c r i t e r i a were l a c k o f c l e a n l i n e s s or f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e m e d i c a l c a r e . I f these conditions were t r u e of a f a m i l y , e i t h e r s i n g l y or i n c o m b i n a t i o n b u t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e u s u a l l y f e d t h e f a m i l y was l a b e l l e d as m o d e r a t e l y n e g l e c t f u l . While these are n o t d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r and w h i l e t h e y c a n c a u s e s u f f e r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n , t h e y a r e n o t as e l e m e n t a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e a s f a i l u r e t o f e e d a child. A m o t h e r m i g h t h a v e a d i r t y h o u s e and s t i l l care f o r her c h i l d r e n . She c a n n o t f a i l t o f e e d them and s t i l l c a r e f o r them". ( 8 2 , p p . 9-10) "when e i t h e r o r b o t h t h e p a r e n t s b e a t t h e c h i l d r e n v i o l e n t l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y s o t h a t t i m e a f t e r t i m e t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e b e a t i n g w e r e v i s i b l e , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was s e v e r e abuse." ( 8 2 , p.10)  "when p a r e n t s b e a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n o n l y now a n d t h e n , t h a t i s when t h e y w e r e d r u n k o r u n d e r some s t r e s s , and t h e b e a t i n g s tended t o be l e s s v i o l e n t , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m o d e r a t e a b u s e was u s e d . " ( 8 2 , p . 1 0 ) U s i n g t h e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d above, Young a p p l i e d list  o f 95 i t e m s  t o a s a m p l e o f 173 f a m i l i e s ;  be  supporting c r i t e r i a  be  significantly  four  i n n e g l e c t and a b u s e c a s e s  related  the chi-square t e s t .  to a category at a level  Young found  t o be r e l a t e d  shown i n t h e f o l l o w i n g i n more t h a n abuse.  table.  907 o f t h e c a s e s o  considered to  a s d e f i n e d , 37 p r o v e d  as s e l e c t e d  items  to the categories.  Unless i n each  to  o f .05 o r b e y o n d , u s i n g  I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , Young's b a s i c c r i t e r i a  c a t e g o r i e s w e r e e m p l o y e d , as w e l l  37 w h i c h  of the items  a tentative  from  t h e group o f  The i t e m s  otherwise specified  f o r the  used a r e  a l l items  appear  o f Y o u n g ' s c a t e g o r i e s o f n e g l e c t and  8.  TABLE I  No. 1.  Classification Severe Abuse  No '.2.  •:4.  5.  Characteristics C o n s i s t e n t v i o l e n t p h y s i c a l abuse, a b u s i v e l a n g u a g e , i n c o n s i s t e n t d i s c i p l i n e , no c o n s i s t e n t p l a c e i n group, p a r e n t a l q u a r r e l l i n g , no o u t s i d e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  Neglect  Moderate Abuse  .Severe N e g l e c t  3.  V A R I A B L E S INCORPORATED I N CASE VIGNETTES  Moderate Abuse  .No  Neglect  No No  Abuse Neglect  No A b u s e Severe Neglect  Moderate Abuse Moderate  Neglect  No A b u s e Moderate Neglect  Severe Abuse Moderate -Neglect  I n t e r m i t t e n t b e a t i n g under s t r e s s , f a i l u r e i n s c h o o l , i n c o n s i s t e n t d i s c i p l i n e , p a r e n t s have no c o m m u n i t y a c t i v i t i e s , no c o n s i s t e n t p l a c e i n group. I n a d e q u a t e f e e d i n g , l a c k o f c l e a n l i n e s s , no* community a f f i l i a t i o n , f a i l u r e i n school, inconsistent expectations, inconsistent discipline. I n t e r m i t t e n t b e a t i n g under s t r e s s , f a i l u r e i n s c h o o l , i n c o n s i s t e n t d i s c i p l i n e , no consistent p l a c e i n group.  Inadequate f e e d i n g , l a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s , w i t h drawn b e h a v i o u r , f a i l u r e i n s c h o o l , inconsistent d i s c i p l i n e , no c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p o u t s i d e f a m i l y , no i n i t i a t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b l e p l a n o f action. I n t e r m i t t e n t b e a t i n g under s t r e s s , withdrawn behaviour, f a i l u r e i n school. W i t h d r a w n b e h a v i o u r , p a r e n t s h a v e few common activities.  L a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s 69%, l a c k of adequate c l o t h i n g 637o, l a c k o f m e d i c a l c a r e , w i t h d r a w n b e h a v i o u r , p a r e n t s h a v e no common a c t i v i t i e s . C o n s i s t e n t v i o l e n t p h y s i c a l abuse. L a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s , 69%, i n a d e q u a t e  clothing  6.3%.  Severe Abuse  Severe  Neglect  C o n s i s t e n t v i o l e n t p h y s i c a l abuse, abusive language, p a r e n t a l q u a r r e l l i n g , f i g h t i n g i n f r o n t of c h i l d r e n . Inadequate feeding, l a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s , inadequate c l o t h i n g , f a i l u r e to g i v e m e d i c a l c a r e .  SAMPLING  ;.. :  I n an  e x p l o r a t o r y study  sample i s c l e a r . and  We  attempted  to capture  d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s w h i c h may  of the problem.  An  ideal  workers w i t h i n a defined Canada.  For  does n o t  workers  r e g i o n e.g.  150-was c h o s e n .  i n public welfare  British  agencies,  considered  important.  I t was  made up  d i d not  of  community.  between the years agency o f f i c e s , low  social  As  an  index of s o c i a l  1 9 6 1 - 6 5 was  using this  used  index,  change c o m m u n i t i e s .  Although  no  p o p u l a t i o n , areas in  the  initial  (14).  balance  of both  The  In a s i m i l a r low  i n the  rural  social  growing or a  was  h i g h and  and  a t t e m p t e d on  (1)  was  social  community. of  rapidly  from those  of a  increase  number o f s o c i a l w o r k e r s a balance  between high  fashion a balance  low  social  (4).  the b a s i s o f low  agency  was This  in  and struck was  assistance rates.  low p o p u l a t i o n c e n t r e s were  s e l e c t i o n of p u b l i c w e l f a r e  in  sample  (3) s i z e of  "dependency" r a t e s  selecting offices with high  numerical  a  change, s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n  represented  b e t w e e n c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h h i g h and d e t e r m i n e d by  (b)  of the  d e c l i n i n g p o p u l a t i o n produces c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r stable  sample  r e f e r s to m a j o r changes i n the p o p u l a t i o n  I t i s postulated that a rapidly  study  (a) a l l s o c i a l  i n t o account  (2) community "dependency"  used h e r e ,  community.  instead a  include a l l s o c i a l workers  Three f a c t o r s were taken  change i n the community  or  the p o p u l a t i o n chosen f o r t h i s  some m e t h o d o f p r e s e r v i n g h e t e r o g e n e i t y  c h a n g e as  Columbia,  t h e p a r t o f t h e s a m p l e composed o f  agencies  agency,  include a l l social  i n selected p u b l i c welfare agencies Since  of a l a r g e  individual,  p r o t e c t i o n a g e n c y i n a l a r g e u r b a n a r e a and  p a r t of the p r o v i n c e .  Social  a range of  sample s i z e would, of c o u r s e ,  geographical  number o f s o c i a l w o r k e r s  those  the d e s i r a b i l i t y  i n c l u d e a l l s o c i a l workers w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e ,  in a child  workers  type,  have a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s  reasons of p r a c t i c a b i l i t y  s i z e of approximately  the  of t h i s  offices.  and  high  represented  10.  Intervening Variables An  attempt  has  a f f e c t i n g responses.  b e e n made t o p r e v e n t  The  t e s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  w i t h i n a given p e r i o d of time. workers a t each o f f i c e  I t was  by  the o f f i c e  were asked  to r a t e each case v i g n e t t e  The to f u l l  a l s o requested  test of  f o r i t s completion.  scale distribution.  In addition,  time p e r i o d a l l respondents  independently.  c o m p l e t e d by  five  the respondents  v i g n e t t e s were d e s c r i p t i v e o f a l l cases  s o c i a l workers  on  their  c a s e l o a d s , was estimated  case  added.  a t \\  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix  prior  an  to i n d i c a t e whether  t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  guide  that a l l social  No m a j o r c h a n g e s w e r e made; h o w e v e r ,  a d d i t i o n a l question which allowed  A  to a l l o f f i c e s  Questionnaire  t e s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  Time e s t i m a t e d  sent  v a r i a b l e s from  complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d u r i n g the  designated  Preliminary  extraneous  to 2  hours.  A.  ANALYSIS PLAN In order received and  (1) a n e g l e c t s c o r e ,  abuse s c o r e , these  vignettes.  To  b o t h n e g l e c t and described  scores  (2) an abuse s c o r e and, r e p r e s e n t i n g the  sum  s c o r e e a c h v i g n e t t e " s e v e r e " was  "moderate" a weight  o f one,  abuse.  and  "absent"  a weight  each  (3) a combined  of the  s c o r e on  the  assigned  a weight  of  of zero.  "absent",  " D e v i a t i o n " s c o r e s were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d ,  to the Table  I there  "moderate" or "severe",  i s one  nine two,  as  and  " c o r r e c t " answer f o r abuse  a " c o r r e c t " answer f o r n e g l e c t ,  I f the respondent chose the degree of s e v e r i t y of  represented  the m o d e l , h i s d e v i a t i o n s c o r e  0,  neglect  T h i s ...applied t o  in vignette.  was  respondent  below. According  i.e.  t o compare p e r c e p t i o n s o f s o c i a l w o r k e r s ,  by  t h e same a p p l i e d t o a b u s e .  represented  "severe",  I f he  for neglect  chose "absent"  h i s d e v i a t i o n s c o r e was  2,  neglect  i n that vignette when t h e m o d e l  t h a t i s 2 u n i t s away  from  "severe". In 2 x 9 = to can  p r i n c i p l e , maximum s c o r e s  18, o r a combined s c o r e  f o r n e g l e c t o r abuse c o u l d be  o f 36.  H o w e v e r , s i n c e i t was n o t g o s s i b l e  d e v i a t e b y 1 i n a l l v i g n e t t e s t h e maximum s c o r e o n l y be 15, o r a combined s c o r e One o f t h e q u e s t i o n s  A high  the comparison of numerical  Hypothesis than p e r c e p t i o n s having  o f 30.  degree o f agreement suggests  of a v i g n e t t e i n f u r t h e r studies o f the problem.  facilitated  or abuse  we a r e a s k i n g h a s t o do w i t h t h e r e a l i a b i l i t y  or responses t o a case v i g n e t t e . utility  f o rneglect  Computer a n a l y s i s  agreement i n the d i f f e r e n t  one, t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s  the  cases.  o f n e g l e c t a r e more a m b i g u o u s  o f a b u s e was t e s t e d b y c o m p a r i n g t h e number o f r e s p o n d e n t s  neglect d e v i a t i o n scores with  abuse d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s .  Numerical  t h e number i n e a c h o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g measures o f agreement were a l s o used t o  c o m p a r e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n n e g l e c t and a b u s e r e s p o n s e s .  The c h i s q u a r e  t e s t was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d b e t w e e n individual and  o r a g e n c y v a r i a b l e s and p e r c e p t i o n s c o r e s .  2B, i n w h i c h a g e n c y s e t t i n g  scores  of respondents  obtained  i s related  i n the child welfare  by respondents  i n a public welfare  I n Hypothesis  t o . n e g l e c t and a b u s e  perceptions,  agency were compared w i t h setting.  2A  scores  Comparisons between  a g e n c y s e t t i n g s h a v e a l s o b e e n made, h o l d i n g s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s constant. Due t o l a c k o f t i m e ,  s o c i a l worker c o g n i t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s , moral-  e v a l u a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s , and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n not  (Hypothesis  3A, 3B, -3C) w e r e  tested. C h i square t e s t s were used  total  i n Hypothesis  d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s were h y p o t h e s i z e d  variables.  In addition total  lationship  between p e r c e p t i o n s  4A..4E.  t o be r e l a t e d  In this  series,  to individual  d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s were used  to test  the r e -  o f t h e s e v e r i t y o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e  combined  and  the s i m i l a r i t y Also  of vignettes to  tested using  s h i p between e x p e r i e n c e agency l o c a t i o n constant total  caseloads.  the c h i s q u a r e method, were  i n an o f f i c e  and t o t a l  (1) t h e r e l a t i o n -  deviation score,  holding  ( 2 ) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a r i t a l s t a t u s and  d e v i a t i o n score h o l d i n g sex  constant.  13.  CHAPTER I I  REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ON C H I L D ABUSE AND  NEGLECT  I D E N T I F I C A T I O N AND REFERRAL STAGES  INTRODUCTION  This  chapter  i s a review  neglect with particular and  its initial  the  chapter  focus  referral  definitions  on t h e s t a g e  which  of child  identifies  t o a p r o t e c t i v e u n i t o r agency.  follow a logical  subtitles:  of the l i t e r a t u r e  the problem The d i v i s i o n s o f  s e q u e n c e and a r e c a t e g o r i z e d  of abuse, n e g l e c t  abuse and  into the following  and p r o t e c t i v e c a s e ,  referral  i n f o r m a t i o n , agency w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g , c l a s s i f y ications  o f a b u s e and n e g l e c t ,  i n c i d e n c e and p r e v a l e n c e  criteria  i n workers' d e c i s i o n making. There a r e four main^considerations  divisions.  The f i r s t  one  areas?  of these  literature  is:  T h e s e c o n d one i s :  i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e same a r e a  The  as d e f i n e d stage.  empirical  one i s :  of c h i l d  What a r e t h e The f o u r t h of the  abuse o r n e g l e c t  as i t  reviewed  was v e r y w i d e and i n c l u d e d 7  Some o f t h e w r i t i n g was v e r y much r e l a t e d t o t h e  above w h i l e  the l a r g e r p o r t i o n of i tr e l a t e d only  The m o s t t y p i c a l  kind  a dozen r e s e a r c h  i n part  o f a r t i c l e was d e s c r i p t i v e a n d  f o r the purpose of s h a r i n g or s t i m u l a t i n g ideas.  however, approximately  i nthe  Columbia.  scope o f the l i t e r a t u r e  b o o k s and 57 a r t i c l e s .  to t h i s  The t h i r d  any p r o b l e m o r advantage i n t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y  e x i s t s i n the prov;ineieS|of B r i t i s h  stage  What i s o b v i o u s l y m i s s i n g  a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e a b o v e two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ?  I s there  identified  a p p l i e d t o each one o f t h e  What i s p r e s e n t l y a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n i n e a c h  i n each o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s .  limitations one  one i s :  o f t h e same, and  p r o j e c t s used  There were,  i n the review.  They  14.  w e r e e x p l o r a t o r y and of completion  pre-evaluative  as w e l l as  i n nature,  and  varied in their  in their direct applicability  to the  stages  stage  focused  on. There i s a u n i v e r s a l consensus of o p i n i o n that there unknown t h a n known f a c t o r s i n t h i s last  f i v e years  t h e r e has  a n s w e r as w e l l as information. and  the  i n order  i n f o r m a t i o n i s not  f a m i l i e s needing help i s not  a North  but  of c h i l d  n e g l e c t , but w i t h i n  the  i n c r e a s e of r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s s e e k i n g  to r a i s e questions  This  because there not  been an  area  a r e many m o r e  only  to f i n d v a l i d  important  and  to the  a l s o to each i n d i v i d u a l  to  reliable  practitioner  i n any  community  A m e r i c a n community i n w h i c h t h i s p r o b l e m does  exist.  DEFINITIONS An definitions they  be made i n t h i s  o f a p r o t e c t i v e c a s e and  are mentioned  these  i n the  variation  them. i n the  order:  and  approach taken The  three  n e g l e c t , a b u s e and  community p e r c e p t i o n  s e c t i o n to assess  Many o f t h e  are  f r o m one  not  explicit, author  concepts w i l l  p r o t e c t i v e case,  of the  the wide range  c o n c e p t s o f a b u s e and  t h e r e f o r e do  Where d e f i n i t i o n s  same c o n c e p t .  the  literature.  concepts are understood  when u s i n g  the  effort will  be  authors  neglect  assume  as  that  d e f i n e w h a t t h e y mean there  is a  great  to another to discussed  as w e l l as  articulate  i n the f o l l o w i n g  ideas  expressed  on  problem.  Neglect There are v a r i o u s states  that "neglect  omission  i s the  those  omission  failure  similar  cases where the p a r e n t  ( 1 , p.40)  to t h i s .  in his definition.  to define neglect.  Allen  of proper a t t e n t i o n to a c h i l d ,  t h a t undermines h i s w e l f a r e " .  have a d e f i n i t i o n v e r y parental  approaches used  He  S t r e s h i n s k y and  ( 7 4 , p.31) writes  i s u n a b l e t o be  Kaufman f o c u s e s  that neglect  a parent  an  Gordon on  represents  b e c a u s e he  either  the  of  15.  w i t h d r a w s p h y s i c a l l y by because of a l c o h o l i s m , disturbance. the  latter  their  cope.  (56)  overt depression  ( 4 3 , p.9)  one  desert  d e s e r t i n g t h e home, o r he w i t h d r a w s  Norman's i m p l i c i t  b e c a u s e he  t h e o t h e r h a n d Shames i n w r i t i n g an  of h i s a r t i c l e namely t h a t " n e g l e c t  welfare  t h a t one neglected  of  o n l y when t h e y a result  of care  b o n d o f l o v e and Smith takes "the  the  w h i c h may  be Two  producing the  not  provide  f e e l i n g s of being  l a c k of a b i l i t y  as  low  and  likely  and  the  one  or  "the  an  c h i l d r e n as  c h i l d r e n " . (18, f u r t h e r by  i n the  mother's  p.744)  suggesting  t o be  child's physical  deprevation  neglect.  behaviour  Mulford  s u f f e r e d by  and  experiences  suggesting  c o n d i t i o n i s not to their behavior,  sugg-  c h i l d r e n when  worthy which  n e g l e c t more o b l i q u e l y , b y  unrelated  that  p.36)  l o v e d , wanted, secure  child's  or  intensely strong  the v a r i a t i o n s i n c h i l d  (72,  cautions  to s u f f e r mentally  exists  step  health  Collins  consider  the  standards  the  t o form h e a l t h y o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s " . (54,  emotional  i s perceived  there  of  i n l i n e with  But  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the normal  i n s i t u a t i o n s where the  parents,  use  i n a home i n w h i c h  e x p l i c i t l y mention emotional defined  the  or  cannot  " I n many f a m i l i e s w h e r e t h e  to i d e n t i f y  of neglect.  on  ( 6 9 , p.12)  always i n outward s i g n s  authors  Gordon approached exists  of n e g l e c t .  indicative  supports  abuse  to s e r i o u s l y jeopardize  i d e a of p a r e n t a l n e g l e c t  do  exists  i n f a c t s u f f e r or are  g o e s on  neglect,  article  than t h e o r e t i c a l  a f f e c t i o n between her  He  emotional  defines neglect  family".  c l e a n l i n e s s are  t h a t i t m i g h t be  their parents  in  and  evidence i s not  appearance".  ests  c h i l d r e n i n the  m u s t be m o r e p r a c t i c a l  p h y s i c a l l y as standards  the  of  they have a p r o b l e m w i t h w h i c h they  o f h o u s e h o l d management w e r e so p o o r as and  types  d e f i n i t i o n of n e g l e c t  homemaker s e r v i c e s i n n e g l e c t f u l f a m i l i e s , focus  other  i m p l i e s t h a t p e o p l e do n o t  c h i l d r e n unless  On  and  emotionally  recognized and  result p.21) that i t by  the  stems from  the  parents unconscious motivations.  (31,  p.26)  Abuse The  most s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s are  concerned w i t h  physical  abuse of  i s m o r e c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n c r e t e and  neglect  of  which  include  the  following,  (1)  the  life  endangered  (3) w i l f u l ment o r  may  be  infliction  child  also  ( 1 , p.40)  includes  admits that abuse".  (83,  broader  the  likely  c r u e l or  "or  t o be  be  injured,  (14,  p.43)  Allen's  part with  "protracted  and  punish-  the  added  periodic  or  i s no  i s a parent or parent s u b s t i t u t e .  but  (83)  c l e a r d e m a r c a t i o n between severe punishment  He  and  p.5) the M a s s a c h u s e t t s ' s t u d y the  by  an  outside  the  and  damage may  adult  family  d e f i n i t i o n was  i s needed.  The  be  d o n e by  sexual  that  a c t i o n may  be  T h e r e i s one  define  serious  the  idea  child.  a l s o done.  is physically a  d e l i b e r a t e or  commission or o m i s s i o n . "  includes  was  c a r e o f p r o t e c t i o n by  of p r o t e c t i v e  (16,  source accidental  p.126)  Del-  intervention,  For, e x a m p l e , c a s e s o f  m i s u s e i n c h i l d r e n were not  b o d i l y damage was  "We  c l e a r and  s i t u a t i o n i n which a c h i l d  point  b o d i l y harm t o the  s t a r v a t i o n or  any  to the  sordo's d e f i n i t i o n a l s o stresses  (2)  inhuman c o r p o r a l  condition".  s t a t e s may  abuser  a b u s e o f c h i l d r e n as  mistreated  unless  i t s health o f any  aspects  i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which i t s  than those c i t e d i n the p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h .  physical  he  or  placed  pain",  of  Zalba's d e f i n i t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n agreement,  that  "there  In  the  t o be  upon a c h i l d  i d e a o f a t i m e f a c t o r w h i c h he  he  t h a n i s some a r e a s  i s synonymous i n c o n t e n t t o Broadman's t h i r d  persistent".  writings  s i t u a t i o n being  "unjustifiable physical  i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g i n a traumatic  definition  visible  i n the  I n d e f i n i n g a b u s e , Broadman m e n t i o n s t h r e e  w i l f u l l y permitting or limb  found  c h i l d r e n , where the  defined  children.  t o be  included  but  malnutrition,  (in his  study)  (21)  o t h e r common i d e a  found  i n d e f i n i t i o n s of abuse.  It  i s most f r e q u e n t l y found "abuse cases r e p r e s e n t directly parent,  i n medical  those  i n the p a r e n t s '  doctors  s i t u a t i o n s where the  pathology;  gratification  of  these  of the d i s o r d e r  i n the abuser.  writings  that  cruelty.  (59,  Neglect  there  treated may  be  Elmer  and  by  overlapping  Chesser a l s o supports  and  of  Oldum i n t i m a t e d  of her  an a d u l t a g a i n s t  the a d u l t to p r o t e c t  the d e f i n i t i o n s  i n a more g e n e r i c  in  knowledge  the  idea separate  of abuse  or  that "neglect  the  o f p r o b l e m s among p a r e n t s " .  i n (her)Vpaper,  (26, p.181)  Neglect  child  i s defined  as  term abuse w i l l  C h e s s e r t e n d s t o use  be  abuse,  c a s e s o f c r u e l t y t o c h i l d r e n . . . w h i l e n e g l e c t may  badly child  p.23)  chronic failure  used  the word  For  to cover  the  cruelty in a  ance." (17, p.130)  Odium w r o t e " c r u e l t y and  able  h i s a p p r o a c h i s much l i k e  c o n c e p t t h a t " p h y s i c a l c r u e l t y and  neglect  are  be  a form  extreme p o v e r t y  neglect  are not  Chesser's with  of  sake,  either generic  d i f f e r e n c e i n c h a r a c t e r between cases of  i t i s more o f t e n c a u s e d o r e x a g g e r a t e d b y  by  as p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t  the  lect  separately".and  (67,  from obvious p h y s i c a l danger. the  abuse  or abuse of a  p a p e r s w r o t e t h a t "abuse i s d e f i n e d a child.  and  sense to i n c l u d e  "There i s a r a d i c a l  cruelty,  p.9)  in their  of n e g l e c t  sense. and  those  (or c r u e l t y ) i s used t o i n c l u d e  Sandusky wrote  a symptom o f many t y p e s  situation".  He  Sometimes n e g l e c t  c h i l d r e n . (84)  of s i m p l i c i t y  (43,  the  Abuse  i n s t a n c e abuse i s used  i n one  b e a t e n by  p.17)  several w r i t e r s . i n one  (17)  up  (the b a t t e r e d - c h i l d syndrome), but  ( 4 5 , p.17)  that  of prime importance  a r e m e n t a l as w e l l as p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s  T h e r e i s an  and  child  i s h o p i n g t o c o n t r o l i n t h i s way".  factors is limited".  of pathology  i s caught  or t o d e a l w i t h  Kempe s t a t e s t h a t " p s y c h i a t r i c f a c t o r s a r e p r o b a b l y the pathogenesis  Kaufman w r o t e  child  f o r i n s t a n c e , the  perhaps f o r sado-masochistic  u n c o n s c i o u s c o n f l i c t s he  writings.  neg-  of or  ignor-  easily definthe a d d i t i o n a l  o f t e n a c c o m p a n i e d by  mental  18.  cruelty".  (59, p.738)  The l a t t e r  n e g l e c t a s i t was p r e v i o u s l y terms  i n h i s statement  abuse a r e d i s t i n c t clinical the  later  i sreally  commented u p o n .  synonymous w i t h  (54,31)  emotional  O t t combines t h e  t h a t "case o f n e g l e c t through s t a r v a t i o n or p h y s i c a l  entities  and p a t h o l o g i c a l  latter  term  and t h e d i a g n o s i s o f e a c h  f i n d i n g s " . (60, p.315)  i s based  upon p o s i t i v e  Young;';s r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t s  s t a t e m e n t and h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i l l  b e d i s c u s s e d more  fully  i n t h e c h a p t e r . (82) Critique There  a r e n o common d e f i n i t i o n s  that  include  t h e e m o t i o n a l and  physical  a s p e c t s o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e .  I t i s understood  problems  i n a r r i v i n g a t s u c h common d e f i n i t i o n s , b u t i t w o u l d  c o m p a r i s o n s ; b e i n g made b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a r t i c l e s well  as g i v i n g p e r s o n n e l i n t h e f i e l d One  problem  that  tant  i fthe reader i s t o f u l l y  b u t n o t a l w a y s , n e g l e c t i s used i n t e g r a t i o n and o f t e n and  a s h e i s u s i n g them.  I t a l s o appears  sometimes a f f e c t e d by t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l  Columbia  encountered  scene  Protective  i n defining  as t o any o t h e r  This i svery  There  terms  impor-  Often, is little  definitions  i n p r a c t i c e and i n  that  t h e term c r u e l t y i s  The f o c u s o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n  orientation o f the w r i t e r .  The  a r e as a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e B r i t i s h  locality.  case  There were o n l y t h r e e a u t h o r s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e some s u g g e s t i o n a s t o w h a t a p r o t e c t i v e "protective  for discussion.  o c c u r s when a n  t o cover a l l c a t e g o r i e s .  almost e x c l u s i v e l y by E n g l i s h w r i t e r s .  difficulties  enhance  c o m p r e h e n d w h a t t h e a u t h o r means.  l e g i s l a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s which p r e s e n t s problems  used is  from t h e l i t e r a t u r e  t i m e s t h e r e a r e gaps b e t w e e n l i t e r a r y  semantics f o rthe p r a c t i t i o n e r .  there are  and r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s as  a common s t a r t i n g g r o u n d  i s apparent  a u t h o r does n o t d e f i n e t h e terms  that  case was.  r e v i e w e d who made  Broadman w r o t e  that a  c a s e b y C a l i f o r n i a Law i n c l u d e s a n y m i n o r who i s i n n e e d o f p r o p e r  an  effective parental  willing no  to exercise  c a r e and c o n t r o l , and h a s no p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n  o r c a p a b l e o f e x e r c i s i n g s u c h c a r e and c o n t r o l o r h a s  p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n a c t u a l l y e x e r c i s i n g s u c h c a r e and c o n t r o l " ...  "whose home i s a n u n f i t p l a c e depravity  f o r him, by reason of neglect,  of e i t h e r of h i s parents or of h i s guardian or other person i n  whose c u s t o d y o r c a r e he i s " . ( 1 4 , p.43) case i s one i n w h i c h a c h i l d is  e x p l o i t e d , o r i s exposed  or  i s without proper  ally  deprived  neglect  protective  suggests  that  not  to find  the that  such a s e r v i c e  adult  symptoms". ( 6 8 , p.28)  i s some o f b o t h k i n d s  the concept o f p r o t e c t i v e  " s h o u l d be c o n c e r n e d w i t h  that  of mistreat-  I.,  services  Lazarus  p a r e n t s who...are  steps t o r e l i e v e t h e i r  difficul-  families "the  s o m e t h i n g be done, b o t h f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f  c h i l d r e n a n d f o r i t s own p r o t e c t i o n . "  p.3)...."Protective  they  case i s the broader  authors mentioned.  Because o f problems a r i s i n g from d i s o r g a n i z e d  "protective  or i s so emotion-  c a s e s t o b e b a s i c a l l y t h e same w h e t h e r  a way t o t a k e e v e n f i r s t  physical protection rather (56,  environment or a s s o c i a t i o n  from a r e s p o n s i b l e  s e r v i c e s which four  community t h e n i n s i s t s  "a p r o t e c t i v e  case. (43)  linked with  concept o f p r o t e c t i v e  that  care o f i s p h y s i c a l l y abused o r  t o an u n d e s i r a b l e  o r abuse cases because t h e r e  Closely  ties".  lacks physical  supervision  ment i n e v e r y p r o t e c t i v e  able  Scherer states  t h a t he has d e v e l o p e d b e h a v i o r a l  Kaufman c o n s i d e r e d are  cruelty or  (47, p.8)  Norman makes t h e p o i n t  when t h e y d o e x i s t , o f t e n  than long-range f a m i l y  service with  the c h i l d  emphasize  casework  emergency  protection".  i n h i s own home c l a r i f i e s t h e  c o m m u n i t y e g o i d e a l o f t h e home and r e h a b i l i t a t e s t h e p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n to whatever extent p o s s i b l e " . step  f u r t h e r by s u g g e s t i n g that  neglected wish  ( 4 3 , p . 13)  initiated  on t h e b a s i s  t o o r cannot ask f o r h e l p .  Gordon t a k e s h e r d e f i n i t i o n one  i ti s a service  f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e b e i n g  o f a c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e t h e p a r e n t does n o t But she c o n t i n u e s  that  this  isa valid  20.  d e f i n i t i o n only  i f t h e r e a r e community r e s o u r c e s  caring f o r their  c h i l d r e n and as a c a s e w o r k s e r v i c e must n o t o n l y  the c h i l d r e n b u t a l s o a s s i s t emotional service not  f o r helping parents i n  the parents.(32,  n e g l e c t Gordon takes  a stronger  p.l)  stand  I n another  alternative".  "then  article  on  and s t a t e s t h a t p r o t e c t i v e  i s o f f e r e d i n s i t u a t i o n s which cannot continue  u s e d o r eamnot.:be u s e d b y t h e p a r e n t s  protect  but that i f i t i s  court a c t i o n i s the only  ( 3 1 , p.24)  Critique Protective the user  case i s another  o f the term.  In the three  c o n c e p t t h a t needs t o be d e f i n e d by  I t i s not a prevalent  instances  i n which  concept i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  i t i s mentioned,  i t i s defined  from the  p o i n t of view of the c h i l d . What i s n o t i d e n t i f i e d becomes a p r o t e c t i v e c a s e . situations  i s the p o i n t at which a r e f e r r e d f a m i l y  I n some s i t u a t i o n s  and  i n other  ly,  i t i s n o t c l e a r when a c a s e i s no l o n g e r  T h i s may v a r y  will  f r o m one a g e n c y t o a n o t h e r  British  considered  related  i n v a r i o u s agencies  f r o m when t h e f a m i l y  situation  protective  t h a t have d i f f e r i n g f u n c t i o n s .  In a family  o f f i c e s may b e t h e same i n e s s e n c e t o a  case i n a C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y i n the p r o v i n c e .  Community  Perceptions  A number o f a u t h o r s the problem of c h i l d standards  Such  t o the concept o f p r o t e c t i v e case  C o l u m b i a , f o r example, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t what i s c a l l e d  s e r v i c e case i n p u b l i c w e l f a r e  Similar-  a p r o t e c t i v e case.  o r c h i l d r e n a r e r e m o v e d f r o m t h e home.  and p e r h a p s o t h e r s  be found  referral,  i t may b e when c o u r t a c t i o n i s i n i t i a t e d .  i m p r o v e s t o when t h e c h i l d variations  i t may b e u p o n  with  (23, p.287)  neglect.  discuss aspects  o f community p e r c e p t i o n s o f  Schweintz suggests  some c o m m u n i t i e s p o s e s q u e s t i o n s This  idea i s supported  by four  that  "differential  r a t h e r than o f f e r s  answers".  i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c community  21.  s u r v e y s w h i c h were seen t o have a r e p r e s s i v e o r a s u p p o r t i v e the  operations  of the welfare  found enough s i g n i f i c a n t  department.  i n this  (74)  a f f e c t on  Mass a n d E n g l e r  fact to categorize  also  c o m m u n i t i e s a s hom-  ogeneous, segmented o r h e t e r o g e n e o u s . ( 4 9 ) Related  t o t h e t o p i c o f community p e r c e p t i o n  community r e s p o n s i b i l i t y research  i n the area  of child  things  studied  to report  A community has t h e r i g h t  situations of neglect.  o p t i m i s m as t o t h e r e s u l t s o f e f f o r t s  for  i s also l i k e l y  social  or dealing with  control.(31)  there  survey which groups t o -  parents  ( 4 7 ) and t h e "A p e r s o n ' s  improve care o f  o f community  Gordon s t a t e s t h a t  responsibility  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s such as p o o r  extends  housing,  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , u n d e r e m p l o y m e n t and p o o r s c h o o l i n g w h i c h s h e c a l l s  'community n e g l e c t '  (78)  to help  (54,67,31)  to affect his perception  i n t e r v e n t i o n . " ( 1 9 , p.16)  to preventing  opinion  i n f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n s deemed h a z a r d o u s t o t h e  development o f the c h i l d r e n . ( 1 9 ) responsibility  One p h a s e o f Boehm's  the attitudes of selected leadership  wards community r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  children  neglect.  d i r e c t e d b y C r a n e was a c o m m u n i t y l e a d e r s h i p  among o t h e r  i s the aspect of  and a r e o f t e n p a r t  Toland  s t r o n g l y supports  Crane's r e s e a r c h  of child  neglect  beyond  individual  t h e p r o v i s i o n o f adequate s e r v i c e s .  found t h a t "the m a j o r i t y o f respondents see t h a t  i s a n e e d f o r e x p a n s i o n o f p r o t e c t i v e s e r v i c e s , a s w e l l a s number o f  services  t o c h i l d r e n w h i c h may b e c o n s i d e r e d  c l o s e l y related to or adjunctive  to p r o t e c t i v e s e r v i c e s " . ( 1 9 , p.92) The  community needs h e l p  the problem.(78,43) is  i n i t s perception  Some a r t i c l e s  suggest that  a t h r e a t t o t h e community.(43,47)  for acceptable,  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  the problem of c h i l d  "The c o m m u n i t y s e t s  of neglect  the standards  d e s i r a b l e and n e c e s s a r y p a r e n t - c h i l d b e h a v i o r . " ( 4 3 , p . 8 )  These s t a n d a r d s have been a f f e c t e d by t h e p a s t ( 6 6 , 1 7 ) and b y t h e p r e v a l e n t  value  focus  of t r a d i t i o n a l  of law enforcement,  parental  r i g h t s which  22.  results by  i n conservative decisions i n favor of the parents  social  ing  changes over  the value placed  selected less  t h e p a s t o n e h u n d r e d and f i f t y  on p a r e n t s ' r i g h t s  l e a d e r s h i p g r o u p s who w e r e t h e m s e l v e s  (19)  found  parents  (14)  is in legislation.  expressed  as t o w h e t h e r  Support-  t h a t members o f t h e were l i k e l y  found  neglect  t o be  survey".(19,  who  There are opposite  i n our f a s t  growing  opinions (82) t o i d e n t i f y  urban c e n t r e s .  But  " t h a t o n t h e i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s o f o p i n i o n on t h e n e e d  i n t e r v e n t i o n and s u p p o r t  urban - r u r a l  (66,83,19)  i t i s e a s i e r ( 1 7 ) o r more d i f f i c u l t  r e f e r problems of c h i l d  Crane's study  as  A n o t h e r a r e a where community p e r c e p t i o n s a r e  reflected  for  years.  i n f a v o r o f i n t e r v e n t i o n on a p r o t e c t i v e b a s i s t h a n r e s p o n d e n t s  were n o t p a r e n t s .  and  one s t u d y  ( 8 3 ) as w e l l  o f expansion  o f c h i l d w e l f a r e programs, the  d i f f e r e n c e s were c o m p a r a t i v e l y  small i n this  particular  p.95)  Critique There i s a r e a l consider different and  neglect  aspects  need f o r t h e development o f s y s t e m a t i c s t u d i e s t o o f community p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e p r o b l e m o f abuse  i n terms o f i t s s o u r c e ,  i t s pervasiveness,  terms o f t h e community's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y protective services, It  is similarly  i t s r e s o l u t i o n and i n  i n p r o v i s i o n o f p r e v e n t a t i v e and  u s e o f s e r v i c e s and a d e q u a t e up t o d a t e  important  community's p e r c e p t i o n s  f o r personnel  i n order  working  i n the f i e l d  legislation. t o know t h e  t o know w h e r e more i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t and  s t i m u l a t i o n o f t h e c o m m u n i t y i s n e e d e d and how t o i n v o l v e t h e c o m m u n i t y more effectively. is  t o be p r o v i d e d  emotional ing  I t i s a l s o important  support,  and u s e d f o r t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s h e l p fiscal  n e g l e c t i n g and a b u s i n g  i s needed  i n terms o f  r e s o u r c e s , and a c t i o n i n p r e v e n t i n g a n d f a m i l i e s who n e e d h e l p .  o f community p e r c e p t i o n can i d e n t i f y protective  i f an adequate network o f r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s  Furthermore,  common m i s c o n c e p t i o n s  s e r v i c e s and a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m s o f n e g l e c t e d  identifyknowledge  that exist  c h i l d r e n and  about their  23.  families.  V a r i a t i o n s do e x i s t  s p i t e of t h i s for  there  Community p e r c e p t i o n  REFERRAL  and a s a s t i m u l a t i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h  i s only  of child  one a s p e c t b u t an i m p o r t a n t  a b u s e and  projects.  aspect of the  neglect.  INFORMATION Some s o r t o f r e f e r r a l  identified taining  to another, but i n  i s a need t o s h a r e v a l i d a t e d o r s p e c u l a t i v e k n o w l e d g e  comparative studies  whole subject  f r o m one l o c a l i t y  takes  place  i n order  f o r a f a m i l y t o be  as n e e d i n g p o s s i b l e p r o t e c t i v e s e r v i c e s .  to this  categorized  subject  as i t  s p e c i a l problems.  out  a wide range o f a r t i c l e s  per-  p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e w i l l  under the f o l l o w i n g four  and  The i n f o r m a t i o n  subtitles:  sources,  T h e i n f o r m a t i o n was f o u n d as v e r y  be  process,  criteria  t o be s c a t t e r e d  through-  few a u t h o r s d e a l t w i t h  this  subject  specifically. Sources of R e f e r r a l One v i t a l  question  i n the area  of c h i l d  neglect  i s who r e f e r s a  f a m i l y t o an a g e n c y f o r p o s s i b l e p r o t e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n ? sources 17)(  imply  that self r e f e r r a l s  t o be t h e r a r e  S c h e r e r makes a f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n  He s t a t e s  t h a t some r e f e r r a l s  with h i s or her nuclear  exception.(67,68,82,  t h a t was n o t m e n t i o n e d  a r e made b y t h e p a r e n t who  f a m i l y group.(68)  consensus about the l i m i t e d intake  tend  A number o f  One e x c e p t i o n  self-referrals  elsewhere.  i s nb l o n g e r to this  living  general  came o u t o f t h e Ramsey C o u n t y  ( J u l y 1 9 5 2 ) i n w h i c h 47 o u t o f 215 r e f e r r a l s w e r e d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s  from a c h i l d  or parent.(11)  Relatives  are mentioned  fairly  c o n s i s t e n t l y as c o m p r i s i n g  proportion  of the r e f e r r a l s . ( 3 5 , 6 9 )  One n o t a b l e  proportion  of such r e f e r r a l s  a Massachusset s  included  four per cent of the r e f e r r a l s neighbours  exception 1  study  small  i n terms o f t h e i n which  f r o m r e l a t i v e s was a l m o s t e q u a l  ( t w e n t y - t w o p e r c e n t ) and l e g a l  a  twenty-  t o those  from  a u t h o r i t i e s s u c h as p o l i c e and  24.  probation  officers The  (twenty-three  other  per  cent).  (16)  c a t e g o r i e s o f p e o p l e who  r e f e r a f a m i l y or r e p o r t  d i s t u r b i n g s i t u a t i o n , mentioned are  other  citizens,  a u t h o r i t i e s and  as  school  doctors  tioned.  authorities,  or nurses.  neighbours,  health personnel  School  (68,69,10,17)  (82)  I n one  authorities received  study,  i t was  noted  that  considerable i n the  Warden most o f the r e f e r r a l s were r e c e i v e d  from schools mainly  emotional  issues  and  behavior  making r e f e r r a l s w i l l  such  N e i g h b o u r s w e r e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y s p e c i f i c a l l y men-  (10,35,69,68)  mention.  legal  s o c i a l workers,  a  problems.(49) be  The  d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y  involved  in  county  of  because  of  doctors  under r e f e r r a l  process.  Critique T h e r e i s no w e l l d o c u m e n t e d If  i n f o r m a t i o n on who  such were a v a i l a b l e , i t would p r o v i d e  facts  s u c h as  community p e r c e p t i o n s  community r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f r o m one  of  partial  t h e p r o b l e m and  locality  T h e r e a r e a number o f l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t does e x i s t .  One  study  c a n n o t be  and  categories  f o c u s , method, c r i t e r i a  clues  to  d o e s make  to other r e l a t e d the v a r y i n g l e v e l s  (16)  The  i n assessing  the  information  compared w i t h a n o t h e r b e c a u s e i t s differ  p r o j e c t which r e l a t e d s o l e l y  from each o t h e r .  r e l a t i v e s who al  I t i s not  not  study  b a s e d on  a  be n u m e r i c a l l y  known w h a t t h e k i n s h i p c o n n e c t i o n  this  ancy i n the  involvement of  of  to the predominant c a t e g o r y  c l e a r what p e r c e n t a g e o f the w r i t i n g s .  school  same f a m i l y .  There i s a great  a u t h o r i t i e s i n r e f e r r i n g from  the r e f e r r a l s  of r e f e r r a n t s . ( 4 9 )  the  is with  r e f e r a f a m i l y o r what d e g r e e of p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y o r  involvement they have w i t h  i t , (82)  The  to p h y s i c a l l y abused c h i l d r e n .  m o s t f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d r e f e r r a n t may  most p r e v a l e n t .  of  another.  w h i c h f o u n d s u c h a h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f n e i g h b o u r r e f e r r a l s was small research  referrals.  discrep-  avoidance  It is  become p r o t e c t i v e c a s e s  emotion-  not  i n any  of  25.  There  e x i s t s a very general picture  o f who  makes r e f e r r a l s ,  m o s t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n came f r o m d e s c r i p t i v e a r t i c l e s basis. one  I t i s obvious  r e f e r r a l w h i c h h a s much a p p l i c a b i l i t y  focus that  the channels  this  aspect  t o the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h  of  Columbia.  for protective  what t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r  s e c t i o n takes r e g a r d i n g the r e f e r r a l  and means w h e r e b y an a g e n c y , an  i n d i v i d u a l makes a r e f e r r a l responsible  k n o w l e d g e on t h i s  from  Process  The includes  w i t h no r e s e a r c h  that the sources of the r e f e r r a l v a r i e s w i d e l y  area to another, t h e r e f o r e there i s l i t t l e  Referral  but  to a social  a g e n c y whose f u n c t i o n  intervention.  may  institution  The  process or  an  i t i s to  p r o c e s s does n o t  be  include  d e c i d e t o do w i t h t h e c a s e o n c e t h e r e f e r r a l  has  b e e n made. I n some l o c a l i t i e s r e f e r r a l s by centres  i t has  n e g l e c t i n g and  abusing families,  enable r e s p o n s i b l e c i t i z e n s  considered  u s u a l l y uses  One  agency r e p o r t e d t h a t  t h e " c l i e n t " and  (37)  i n most  t h e r o l e and  t h e i r p o l i c y was encouraged  that  is a rarity  to himself.  the complainant  t o have an  the l i m i t a t i o n s  Such a p r o c e s s  that  the r e s o u r c e most f a m i l i a r  t h a t he was  At  this  of the p r o t e c t i v e  a r e no  local  (82,50)  One  author even suggests  resources to which  A program  to r e f e r .  i n H a w a i i i s s e t up  time, service  among m o s t a g e n c i e s .  inhere a r e no s t a n d a r d and c l e a r c h a n n e l s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n  procedure.  was  interview with  c o l l a b o r a t i o n o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h d e f i n i t i o n s and  of  and w h e r e t o t a k e a c t i o n " . ( 8 2 , p. 137)  t o s h a r e as much i n f o r m a t i o n as p o s s i b l e .  interprets  But  centralize  community s t r u c t u r e f o r the r e p o r t i n g  t o know how  complainant  to the " c l i e n t " . ( 3 5 ) Generally  expedient to  d e f i n e d channels of communication  The  the s o c i a l worker the worker  t o be  establishing a Protective Services Unit.  " t h e r e n e e d s t o be a c l e a r  (82,19)  been found  that  of  i n some a r e a s  and purpose there  (17)  t o meet any  crisis  occurring during  26.  each  twenty-four hour p e r i o d .  personal police  Referrals  c o n t a c t w h i l e the S o c i a l worker  the s o c i a l workers  w e r e v e r y c o - o p e r a t i v e , and  ( s u c h as  summary b y  the p o l i c e ) were m i n i m i z e d . The  initial  office  r e f e r r a l process  is responsible for a child's  the  seek  the help  and  the t r a d i t i o n a l methods  i n t e r v i e w s by  appointment  or  and  referral  (53)  t o a p h y s i c i a n who  symptom i s a c r u c i a l  of a s o c i a l worker  c o n t a c t i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l  found  i s at the r e c e i v i n g desk of  the working r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p o l i c e  procedures  in  telephone, m a i l or  s t a t i o n on a r o u t i n e c h e c k . In this project  should  a r e made b y  suspects  t h a t the  issue.  "The p h y s i c i a n  in clarifying  or l e g a l  parent  the s i t u a t i o n  agency".(8, p.98)  One  ;  t h a t " c o n s u l t a t i o n s (by m e d i c a l d o c t o r s ) were r e q u e s t e d  and  f o r 22  o f t h e 50  ( a b u s e d ) c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d and m o s t o f them w e r e made s i n c e  (when t h e  i d e a o f a b u s e was  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these  injuries)".  study out 1957  (26, p.184)  Critique There i s a g l a r i n g p a u c i t y of m a t e r i a l i t has  been d e f i n e d .  criptively tion  Most o f i t has  reported special  t h e r e a r e no  other e x i s t i n g The  figures  that validate  process  have  des-  almost without  t h e i r p r o j e c t s as  as  excep-  improvements  over  procedures. channels  and  involvement v a r i e s  The  p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h  basic  agencies which  or unique procedures, but  and  procedure  because agency s t r u c t u r e , p o l i c y  just cited.  come f r o m  on t h e r e f e r r a l  and  and p u r p o s e  availability  Columbia  This r a d i c a l l y  framework i s developed T h e r e has  v a r y f r o m one  i n g i n v o l v e d i n the r e f e r r a l  varies,  community  o f r e s o u r c e s and  i s undoubtedly  not  l i m i t s ? , any w i d e s c a l e for collecting  been widespread  community t o  and  another understanding  services  immune t o t h e comparison  varies. variations  unless  s t u d y i n g the f a c t s  a  involved.  w r i t t e n c o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t d o c t o r s becom-  p r o c e s s , when and  i f they  i d e n t i f y and  abused  27 .  child. on  Probably  the reason  that this  i s t h a t the e x t e n t of the  cases  recently recognized  and  not p r o t e c t i n g such  c h i l d r e n as  i s s u e has  been so h i g h l y  of the b a t t e r e d c h i l d  our knowledge i s growing  has  focused  been  relatively  about the s e r i o u s n e s s  s o o n as p o s s i b l e .  I t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e r e a r e a number o f a d v a n t a g e s t o reported  f a m i l y , a g e n c y and  become m o r e i n v o l v e d t h a n  complainant  just  when t h e l a t t e r  t h e w o r k e r w i t h as much a c c u r a t e  provides  the complainant  and  limitations  w i t h an  as w e l l  exposure of p e t t y v e n d e t t a s . referral fact  area.  have not  their  and  similarities Criteria A  of  i d e n t i f y what c r i t e r i a  feuds  complainant's  referral.  ity  and  i s not  i s or  study  process.  referrals  giving  involving forty  to e i t h e r  the  a r e made b e c a u s e t h e c o m m u n i t y b e l i e v e s  the c h i l d  f o r not  (35,  vary  adequate care, t r a i n i n g or p r o t e c t i o n .  accepting a referral  or f a m i l y squabbles  I t may  acceptable  to t r y to  agency.  as  included  distinguishing  the predominent reason  for  the  82) i s wide i n terms o f the degree of  specific-  from a c c u s a t i o n s of n e g l e c t to r e p o r t s about  the c h i l d r e n f o r a g i n g i n the n e i g h b o u r h o o d one  i n any w r j t t e n f o r m  of r e f e r r a l  range of complaints  severity.  another  neglect literature  criterion  neighbourhood  The  w i t h one  the  In c o n c l u s i o n , i t appears  made i n t h e c h i l d  speaking,  that the f a m i l y i s not One  rare.  i n the  however, to support  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the area of the r e f e r r a l  r e f e r r a n t or to the r e c i p i e n t  ( 1 1 , 68)  agency's  referral  s e a r c h was  Broadly  It  I t p r o t e c t s the f a m i l y from  i n the l i t e r a t u r e ,  shared  procedure  I t a c t s as a s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s  i s anything but  t h a t most a g e n c i e s  to  i n f o r m a t i o n as p o s s i b l e .  as h i s own.  There i s n o t h i n g  that t h i s procedure  This  o p p o r t u n i t y to l e a r n about the  ( 3 5 , 82)  the  i s required  telephoning i n a complaint.  provides  roles  of  families  garbage cans f o r f o o d .  (69)  In  the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were documentated  28.  as b e i n g  largely influencial (1)  i n a referral  (2)  of the c h i l d r e n themselves.  I n 14 f a m i l i e s ,  the parents'  t h e community's a t t e n t i o n .  Supporting  primarily  made:  M o s t o f t h e f a m i l i e s were n o t i c e d by t h e community and i t s  caseworkers because o f the behavior  for  being  behavior  was l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e  e v i d e n c e h a d t o be s o u g h t  from the caseworker. (3)  neglect.  In 7 families,  a l c o h o l i s m was c i t e d  as t h e p r i m a r y cause o f  (69)  Critique There i s v e r y present  there  referral  little  a p p e a r s t o b e no e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h  i s very  may w e l l b e t h a t  there w i l l  e f f o r t s , b u t i t i s an a r e a  ledge that greater  aspect of r e f e r r a l i n this  processes,  that sadly lacks  encountered  workers  i n an agency.  of the problem  i n any  research  i s w i d e and t h a t t h e p r e v a l e n c e  information  i smostly stored  of the c r i t e r i a  compare  o f some a r e  up i n t h e m i n d s o  T h e r e i s no a v a i l a b l e  o f t h e r e f e r r a n t and t h e  F o r e x a m p l e , how many f a m i l i e s a r e r e f e r r e d  that  u p o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y t h e w o r k e r do n o t r e c e i v e f u r t h e r s e r v i c e s ? subjectivity criteria?  i s present  i n the r e f e r r a n t ' s c r i t e r i a  How c l o s e a r e t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ' s c r i t e r i a  and  s t a n d a r d s o f t h e community i n w h i c h t h e y r e s i d e ?  the  criteria differ  f r o m one l o c a l i t y  t o another?  o r known a t t h e p r e s e n t  time.  How much  and t h e a g e n c y ' s t o the prevalent  values  F o r w h a t r e a s o n s do T h e r e a r e many  such as t h e s e t h a t c a n n o t be answered b e c a u s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n able  It  We do h a v e some v a g u e know-  t h e w o r k e r s and h a s n o t b e e n e x a m i n e d m e t h o d i c a l l y . on t h e d i s c r e p a n c y  C r i t e r i a of  i n f o r m a t i o n , much l e s s  f r o m one c o m m u n i t y t o a n o t h e r .  than others, but t h i s  and a t  and e x i s t i n g a g e n c y s e r v i c e s .  be d i f f i c u l t i e s  the range o f c r i t e r i a  information  area.  c l o s e l y i n t e r r e l a t e d t o community p e r c e p t i o n  l e g i s l a t i v e measures, j u d i c i a l  ative studies  w r i t t e n about t h i s  questions  i s not a v a i l -  29.  S p e c i a l Problems of With criteria various  and  regard  process  to the concept  are attended  a r e a t h a t has  source,  by  r e c e i v e d a great d e a l of a t t e n t i o n over  r e v o l v e s around  doctors either  t h a t "Kempe ...  in  and  i t " . ( 8 3 , p.12)  i n medical  the  the p h y s i c a l l y abused c h i l d r e n  in their  offices  or  in hospitals.  o t h e r s h a v e p o i n t e d o u t , many o f t h e  a w a r e o f t h e phenomena and  recognize problem  i n terms o f  a number o f s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s h a v e b e e n m e n t i o n e d  few y e a r s p a r t i c u l a r l y  are not  of r e f e r r a l  writings. One  states  Referral  who  Zalba (the doctors)  some p r e f e r t o do n o t h i n g when t h e y  Elmer suggests  circles reflects  last  t h a t "tardy r e c o g n i t i o n of  society's discomfort i n facing  do  the it".  (26, p.181) There i s a l s o the r e s i s t a n c e to c o u r t appearances c a n be p a r t l y  e x p l a i n e d by  i n r e f e r r i n g such  cases.  channels  standing of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ing pressure fession  and  (76)  Boardman i d e n t i f i e s  dis-  other  diffi-  (14)  This p a r t i c u l a r problem the d o c t o r s need c l e a r  which  the danger of p r o s e c u t i o n f o r s l a n d e r or  c l o s i n g a p r i v e l e g e d communication. culties  (83,14)  i s not  i n s o l v a b l e as M a x w e l l  for centralized their  r e p o r t i n g and  legal position.  (51)  suggests clear  under-  There i s i n c r e a s -  f o r l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h makes i t m a n d a t o r y f o r t h e m e d i c a l  t o r e p o r t cases  of p h y s i c a l  abuse  ( 8 2 ) b e c a u s e we  i m p e r a t i v e n e c e s s i t y of immediate p r o t e c t i o n i n such also evidence At the present  t h a t such time  such  legislation a step  now  cases.  know (83)  the B r i t i s h  pro-  the There i s  i s i n c r e a s i n g l y being enacted.  i s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d by  that  (66) Columbia  Legislators. There i s a s i m i l a r a f a m i l y to a p r o t e c t i v e action  i s one  reason.  r e l u c t a n c e on  service.  (82)  Fear  of  t h e p a r t o f many p e o p l e involvement  Thus a c o m p l a i n t  to  i n subsequent  i s o f t e n n o t made u n t i l  refer court the  30.  problem  i s b l a t a n t and s e r i o u s .  t o be r e g a r d e d w i t h the  eomplaintant's  The mother o f t h e r e f e r r e d f a m i l y i s a p t  some p r e j u d i c e referral.  and t h i s  (41)  One s t u d y  al  comes f r o m a n o t h e r a g e n c y t h e n g r e a t e r  it  comes f r o m a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n .  ethical  responsibility  cpmplaint out  that  are real  attention i s paid  Scherer mentions  of r e c o g n i z i n g emotional or abuse.  neglect  (68)  i f the r e f e r r -  to i t than i f  that  i t i s the  i t s client  i n obtaining specific  neglectful families.  s e e n as p h y s i c a l n e g l e c t  that  i s n o t always c a r r i e d o u t .  difficulties  a t i o n on t h e i d e n t i f i e d difficulty  (10)  identified  of a r e f e r r i n g agency to inform  i s b e i n g made b u t t h i s there  a f f e c t s the s u b j e c t i v i t y of  that  He a l s o  a points  and v a l i d  inform-  There i s the a d d i t i o n a l  w h i c h i s o f t e n n o t as r e a d i l y  ( 5 4 , 31)  Critique The  above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  problems of r e f e r r a l them.  i n child  What i s e v i d e n t  neglect  i s that  of knowledge i n the whole area methodically valid  using  information  preventative  a r e t h e m a j o r and more common s p e c i a l  there  c a s e s as v a r i o u s  identified  i s a s c a t t e r e d and s u p e r f i c i a l  of r e f e r r a l  a v a r i e t y of research and s h o u l d  writers  t h a t n e e d s t o be p u l l e d  methods.  amount together  This would provide  r e s u l t i n more e f f e c t i v e c h i l d  more  p r o t e c t i v e and  services.  AGENCY WORKING R E L A T I O N S H I P S In t h i s bearing  s e c t i o n we a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h  finding information  on t h e  w h i c h a g e n c y w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a v e o n t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y  of p r o t e c t i v e r e f e r r a l s .  The q u e s t i o n  t o be a n s w e r e d  agency r e f e r a case t o t h e agency r e s p o n s i b l e have l i t t l e to deal w i t h  confidence  a  the s i t u a t i o n  social  p r o t e c t i o n i f they  i n t h e p r a c t i c e s o f t h a t a g e n c y , o r do t h e y  Maas and E n g l e r , interagency  for child  is, will  prefer  themselves. i n their  networks i n nine  study  communities.  on c h i l d r e n i n c a r e , They l o o k e d  examined  forpositive relation-  31.  ships, negative relationships, agencies  and  from t h i s  c o u l d be  said  "factors  conceived  t o be  (49, p.413)  or the  determined  the  t h e a g e n c y had  an a g e n c y , t h e e x t e n t  found  s i g n i f i c a n t was  and  finally  hypothesized  i n t h a t the agencies  t h e r e w o u l d be  adoption  largely  and  perspectives, resulting  foster  w h i c h had  with  each  r a t e among  family  r e t u r n home".(49, p.329)  specific  and  This  hypothesis  What was  quite  a p r o f e s s i o n a l e m p h a s i s and  t h e r e was  a tendency f o r those  agencies  and  a  agencies  with broadening  its  agencies.  327)  the e x t e n d  Young e x p r e s s e s  of  to "obscure  a g e n c y may  agencies  that a c l i e n t  h a v e much i n t e r n a l largely  o f one  adds t o the c o n f u s i o n f o r b o t h  This accentuates  and  tended  fact  several  contributes  s e r v i c e s has  to c h i l d  The  other  t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e I'patchwork  the problems" w i t h regard  (83, p.112)  turnover  cooperated  i n greater collaboration with other  approach of s u p p l y i n g s o c i a l  worker.  "system of  s u b s t a n t i a t e d . (49, pp.330-334)  that i n agencies  agencies.  "a h i g h a d o p t i o n  c a r e and m o r e movement f r o m b o t h  Leontine  and  c o n s u l t e d and  d e s i r o u s of communications w i t h other  (49, p.  to the other  t h a t where a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  l a r g e number o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , t o be  and  r e c e i v e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g ,  to both  t o be  network".  workers  in foster  institution  i n the  four  the  in planning for children,  children  There were  of the agency, the types  g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n o f an a g e n c y i n r e l a t i o n  other  network  to which  agencies'* e x i s t e d ,  own  collaborative.  These i n c l u d e d ; the h i s t o r y  I t was  was  o r non  between  interagency  an a g e n c y ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n  numbers o f s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by in  to what e x t e n t t h e  collaborative to affect  absence of r e l a t i o n s h i p s  the d i f f i c u l t i e s  family disorganization. to the f a c t  that uneasiness  and  both  n e g l e c t and a l s o be the  Young f e e l s  the  abuse.  and  of  the  already often  that this  that c h i l d welfare agencies  nature  a client  client  o f c l i e n t s who  quilt"  situation  have h i g h  u n c e r t a i n t y e x i s t s w i t h i n the  workers  staff  32.  employed  in child protection.  (83,  There have been s e v e r a l  p.114) a t t e m p t s made t o e s t a b l i s h b e t t e r  o r d i n a t i o n amorig a u t h o r i t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e with  regard  developed  to cases of  a complaint. was  with  This  at  new  situations being  the  the p o i n t  taken i n t o care  the p o l i c e are i n need of  and  of  apt  crisis  the  were g i v e n as  had  services  with  court.  and  B o a r d m a n , i n an ren's h o s p i t a l , t e l l s  immediate help  from increased  the h o s p i t a l . (8)  earlier  others  (16,  p.129)  plan  doctors,  rather  (53)  understanding their  of  grows  parents Such  more q u i c k l y successful services  treat-  they  abuse cases  in a  court,  the  social  out  that  protection  i n the to the  l i e entirely with  the  social  result-  agencies,  i n which  child that  and  there help  the  a g e n c y and  l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s must a l s o  and  children  community  They emphasize most e m p h a t i c a l l y  h o s p i t a l s , and  will  child-  improved p r o t e c t i o n f o r abused c h i l d r e n  to provide  iden-  (67)  In t h e i r review of Massachusetts' cases  f o r t h i s does not  s u c h as  "as  neglect  that  caseworker  situation.  that  stage.  been p h y s i c a l l y abused, Bryant p o i n t e d  ponsibility  the  child welfare  communication between the  a co-ordinated  information  i n t h e number o f  by  article discussing child  of the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  I n a d d i t i o n i t meant  i n the  social  family.  i n c r e a s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y  t o r e f e r a t an  the  f i r s t hand  prompt r e f e r r a l s r e s u l t i n f a m i l i e s b e i n g  I f the p o l i c e have c o n f i d e n c e  family".  the  of  f o r a v a r i e t y of r e a s o n s " . ( 6 7 )  ment.  the  initial  a g e n c y m o r e c h i l d r e n and  as n e e d i n g h e l p ,  not  the  Sandusky e x p l a i n s  tified  be m o r e l i k e l y  on  been the p r e v i o u s  to r e f e r to the  child welfare  cooperative  "was  of a program i n Hawaii,  s o c i a l worker obtained  brought before  I n a s i m i l a r way,.  had  report  program brought about a r e d u c t i o n  than s e v e r a l weeks l a t e r  ing  In the  the p o l i c e o f f i c e r s  I n t h i s way  involved  children  abuse.  protection, especially  to e s t a b l i s h b e t t e r p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s , Minn t e l l s  w o r k e r s g o i n g out  and  child  for child  co-  be  to  resthat  involved.  As  Bryant  s t a t e s i t , "We  i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h i s p l a n n i n g , the whole program".  ( 1 6 , p.  see  but  not  the  c a s e w o r k s e r v i c e as  assuming t o t a l  an  responsibility  for  129)  Critique The relating  main d i s c u s s i o n s of agency w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are  to the s p e c i f i c problem of c h i l d  or c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n i n g e n e r a l . recent and  i s o l a t i n g of the  c o n c e r n i t has  This  "Battered  created  abuse r a t h e r t h a t c h i l d  i s probably  due  C h i l d S y n d r o m e " and  among g r o u p s who  to the  found neglect  relatively  t h e amount o f  come i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h  interest these  children. The on  Maas and  children already  agency network  Engler  taken  the  how  o n l y by  of  One  may  in.:the P r o v i n c i a l  of the  two  upon c h i l d  c o u l d be  applied  s u c h as  t o t r y and  No  which provide  any  s e r v i c e s are  s h i p s h a v e on  the q u a l i t y  other  how  i n a community  i n N e t t l e r ' s study  (55), but  i f the average c i t i z e n in their  t o make r e f e r r a l s .  local  child  as  by  as welfare  Such a c o n c e p t needs  geographical  the p r o v i s i o n of c h i l d  to  locations.  protection services is  Department of S o c i a l W e l f a r e ,  with  the  s t u d i e s h a v e as y e t b e e n done i n t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n on  in  determine  exception  major c i t i e s where the p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s are p r o v i d e d  Aid Societies.  inter-  protection services.  projects in different  In this province vested  study  have c o n f i d e n c e  be m o r e l i k e l y  focuses  c o l l a b o r a t i v e or n o n - c o l l a b o r a t i v e -  postulate that  as p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l  be v a l i d a t e d i n r e s e a r c h  the  child welfare  community l e a d e r s  agency they w i l l  ren's  on  i t  T h e i r method o f e x a m i n i n g the  i n t e r e s t w o u l d be  adequate the  the average c i t i z e n . well  being  i t s affect  A f u r t h e r area  seen not  into care.  focus  n e s s o f t h e n e t w o r k and  and  i s q u i t e comprehensive but  i n a community t h r o u g h f i e l d  communities w i t h  effective  study  by  Child-  province  the b e a r i n g which agency w o r k i n g  and/or q u a n t i t y of p r o t e c t i v e r e f e r r a l s .  relationSuch  a  34.  study  o r s t u d i e s m i g h t be q u i t e  i l l u m i n a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y when we h e a r  so much a b o u t " c o o r d i n a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s " . c o o r d i n a t i o n may b e t h e p o o r p e r c e p t i o n other  One o f t h e o b s t a c l e s t o  o f one a g e n c y a n d i t s s e r v i c e s b y  agencies.  F A M I L Y FUNCTIONING When a r e f e r r a n t r e p o r t s b e c a u s e he f e e l s t h a t c h i l d  a family to child  abuse o r n e g l e c t  p r o t e c t i o n agency  e x i s t s he has a l r e a d y  made  some a p p r a i s a l o f t h e f a m i l y r e f e r r e d .  R e f e r r a l s may come f r o m many  sources as has a l r e a d y  Whoever r e f e r s t h e c a s e t o t h e  agency w i l l  been d i s c u s s e d .  b e c o n c e r n e d p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h w h a t he c o n s i d e r s  equate performance by t h e parents or n o t t h i s conscious  i n c a r i n g f o r • thei'ir c h i l d r e n .  of the parents  to the p e r s o n o r the agency making the r e f e r r a l .  neglect  o u t by Young.  (82)  to identify  focus  those  case h i s t o r i e s  separate  p r o t e c t i o n agencies.  child  exploratory  case records  sutdy  selected  of the United The  s e l e c t e d by q u a l i f i e d  consisted from.six  The f o l l o w - u p  charat o be  c h i l d r e n was  study  o f 120  supervisors study  i n three  o r second p a r t t o  o f a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f one h u n d r e d d i f f e r e n t p r o t e c t i o n agencies from  eighty  various  States.  agencies selected  were s i t u a t e d i n both r u r a l  included  t h o s e b o t h p u b l i c and p r i v a t e and  and u r b a n a r e a s .  order  t o ; " d e t e r m i n e any s i g n i f i c a n t  rural  a r e a s and s m a l l  This  on  occurred.  and abused  She c o m p l e t e d a n e x p l o r a t o r y  representative  parts  section w i l l  o r abuse has  One o f t h e m a j o r s t u d i e s o f n e g l e c t e d  the  concern  o f p a r e n t a l p e r f o r m a n c e and f u n c t i o n i n g w h i c h were found  m o s t common i n f a m i l i e s w h e r e c h i l d  carried  Whether  i t has caused  This  some o f t h e s t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e a t t e m p t e d  cteristics  inad-  inadequate performance i s i n t e n t i o n a l or u n i n t e n t i o n a l ,  o r u n c o n s c i o u s on t h e p a r t  reviewing  t o be  s e l e c t i o n was made i n  d i f f e r e n c e s between f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n  t o w n s , a n d t h o s e i n medium and l a r g e u r b a n  centres".  35.  (82,  p.149)  regional might  With  this  s e l e c t i o n of areas  i t was h o p e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e  f a c t o r s p r e v a l e n t and t h e p o s s i b l e e m p h a s i s o f a n a t t i t u d e  b e p r e v a l e n t i n one c o m m u n i t y b u t t o a l e s s e r  another  extent o r absent i n  community. A s c h e d u l e was d r a w n up and a l l b u t one o f t h e i t e m s  t h e s c h e d u l e c o u l d be r e s p o n d e d  t o as t r u e o r f a l s e .  statements".  t h e p r e t e s t showed a t e n d e n c y  on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t  to  "bias  judgment o f what happened  In  order to correct t h i s ,  or  q u a l i f y h i s responses. Of  the o r i g i n a l  the f i n a l  The s c h e d u l e was p r e t e s t e d and  i n terms  180 c a s e s , o n l y 173 w e r e u s e d  sponses havior  The f i n a l  drafted  to amplify  as s e v e n  cases  T h e s e 173 w e r e d i v i d e d  schedule  to these "described the presence specified  reader)  o f why i t h a p p e n e d " . ( 8 2 , p. 1 5 2 )  i n c l u d i n g severe abuse, moderate abuse,  erate neglect.  (case  schedule allowed the worker  showed no e x i s t e n c e o f n e g l e c t o r a b u s e . types  included i n  T h e e x c e p t i o n was  the item a s k i n g f o r "parental  four  which  into  s e v e r e n e g l e c t , and mod-  included  95 i t e m s a n d t h e r e -  o r absence i n t h e f a m i l y o f be-  by t h e i t e m " . ( 8 2 , p.153)  On e l e v e n i t e m s  the response  o b t a i n e d was "no i n f o r m a t i o n " s o t h e s e i t e m s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d  from t h e  schedule. "The  hypothesis that  i t e m were independent  o f t y p e was made.  and. o n l y t h o s e i t e m s f o r w h i c h The  purpose  was  a significant variable  test  c o u l d be r e j e c t e d were  related  relationship  retained.  type, as d e f i n e d by t h e c r i t e r i a  i n delineating specific behavioral patterns. (2 x 4 ) w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r e a c h  t e s t s w e r e made o n 53 i t e m s .  significantly this  this  t r u e and f a l s e o n a n y  T h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t was a p p l i e d  o f t h i s was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r  Chi-square tables square  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  Thirty  t o type a t a l e v e l  and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s  item.  seven of these proved  o f .05 o r b e l o w .  Chit o be  The n a t u r e o f  among t h e i t e m s a s a p p l i e d t o  b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s were a n a l y z e d by t h e i r consistency." The  e m p i r i c a l m e a n i n g and l o g i c a l  (82, p. 152) items were d i v i d e d  e m p i r i c a l meaning.  The f i r s t  into  three d i v i s i o n s  u s i n g as a b a s i s  d i v i s i o n was t h a t o f " P a r e n t a l B e h a v i o r T o -  w a r d C h i l d r e n " a n d i n c l u d e d 19 i t e m s w h i c h w e r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . t y p e , " s e v e r e a b u s e " two i t e m s r e c e i v e d a 907„ t r u e r e s p o n s e . severe b e a t i n g o f the c h i l d w i t h other than language,  94.9%,.  a true response  clothing  98 . 47°, a n d f a i l u r e  These  In the were  t h e hand, 1 0 0 % and a b u s i v e  I n t h e type "severe n e g l e c t " , inadequate  accorded  their  o f 100%,, l a c k o f c l e a n l i n e s s t o g i v e needed m e d i c a l  f e e d i n g was  95.2%,  inadequate  c a r e , 95.2%.. ( 8 2 , p p . 1 5 6 -  157) The  second d i v i s i o n o f items  "Marital Roles". a true response  I n none  of t h e items  of greater than  s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " was a c c o r d e d moderate n e g l e c t .  included those which  90%.  identified  i n t h i s d i v i s i o n was t h e r e r e c o r d e d The i t e m " p a r e n t s have d e f i n e d r e -  t r u e 19.47, f o r s e v e r e n e g l e c t a n d 67.7%, i n  T h i s and t h e f o l l o w i n g  items  indicated  a much h i g h e r  s t a t e o f d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s e v e r e n e g l e c t and i s a commentary ability  o f these f a m i l i e s  out normal d a i l y responsibility  t o a c c e p t and s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f u n c t i o n s i n t h e home.  An i n t e r e s t i n g  i n f i d e l i t y w h i c h was r e s p o n d e d t o 50%, t r u e i n b o t h neglect. 45.8%,. tended  I n s e v e r e n e g l e c t was m a r k e d I t was s t a t e d  division  standards of behavior family  t h a t " i n abusing f a m i l i e s ,  c a r e " . ( 8 2 , p.170)  i t e m was t h a t o f s e v e r e a b u s e and m o d e r a t e abuse  the aggressive partner  (82,, p . 1 7 0 )  included nine s i g n i f i c a n t  as t h e s e a p p l i e d  takes  f o r severe  6 8 . 8 % t r u e and i n m o d e r a t e  t o b e t h e one s e x u a l l y u n f a i t h f u l " . The t h i r d  f o r carrying  The i t e m " n e i t h e r p a r e n t  f o r d e c i s i o n s " r e c e i v e d an 87.8% t r u e response  a b u s e a n d 81.07° f o r s e v e r e n e g l e c t .  on t h e i n -  items  "concerned  with  t o p a r e n t a l b e h a v i o r and a t t i t u d e s t o  The i t e m . " f a m i l y r o u t i n g  i s p r e s e n t " was f o u n d t o  37 .  be  true i n only  to  21.97,  abuse.  o f the type severe n e g l e c t .  i n moderate abuse,  indicating  item which  the f a i l u r e  the s i t u a t i o n  asked  i f the parents  i n severe n e g l e c t , o f  90.77,  i n s e v e r e a b u s e and  they f i n d  was s e e n  i n the o t h e r t h r e e t y p e s .  pondents t o i n d i c a t e  "does n o t  on the p a r t o f these p a r e n t s  i n which  Religious A f f i l i a t i o n "  as  themselves  95.27o  true or false  tolink  b e e n . "No  T h i s was a n s w e r e d  on " p r o t e c t i v e " The true response  (82,  of  95.47,  p.  level  of  87.37,  res-  true of  t r u e f o r s e v e r e abuse and to indiciate i f For t h i s These  item  69.77»  responses  or lack  of i t i n  t o b r i n g about changes i n a t t i t u d e  t o keep the household  of parents  c l e a n brought a  i n s e v e r e n e g l e c t b u t was somewhat l e s s  65.67,  t r u e i n moderate abuse,  i n severe abuse.  (82,  63.67,  t r u e o f the  t r u e i n moderate  p.171)  a s e p a r a t e t a b l e Young i n c l u d e s 1 5 i t e m s o f t h e 4 7 w h i c h  t o show a n y  of>.05.  less  171)  o f q u e s t i o n s about the success  item respecting f a i l u r e  n e g l e c t and 52.57>  "failed  "no  caseloads.  types, being  In  children,  93.07,  t r u e f o r moderate n e g l e c t and 7 8 . 8 7 , f o r moderate abuse.  p r e v i o u s and c u r r e n t a t t e m p t s  own a c t i o n s  "does n o t r e l a t e p a r e n t a l  Change i n B e h a v i o r T o w a r d C h i l d r e n " .  i n t r o d u c e a whole s e r i e s  their  d i v i s i o n asked  f o r s e v e r e n e g l e c t when t h o s e q u e s t i o n e d w e r e a s k e d  t h e r e had  i n severe n e g l e c t ,  and t h e i r  t h a t the parent  T h e r e was r e c o r d e d r e s p o n s e s  express  i n s e v e r e n e g l e c t a n d somewhat  s e v e r e abuse and 8 8 . 9 7 , i n s e v e r e n e g l e c t .  other  house".  spontaneously  95.27o  One i t e m i n t h e t h i r d  behavior with behavior of children".  82.57o  i n severe  o  p.170)  r e m o r s e i n w o r d s " was t r u e  true  particularly  increased  a n d o r d e r l y ways o f c a r i n g f o r t h e f a m i l y members a n d t h e  The  with  The p e r c e n t a g e s  i n m o d e r a t e n e g l e c t and 4 0 . 5 7  39.47,  Once a g a i n we s e e t h e a b s e n c e ,  "habitual (82,  4.87°  significant  relationship  to type,"  (82,  These she a n a l y z e d because the percentage  p.153)  of true  ata responses  38.  was  high  profile  e n o u g h t o be of  the  total  t e c t i o n w o r k e r s and and  are  discussed The  of  a t i o n s of f r o n t of  will  be  found  here f o r that in this  i n the  d i c a t i n g again  the  group  For  the  e x c e e d 7 .97„  o f c h i l d r e n , no  two  relationship outside s h a r e no  or a c t i o n .  G e i s m a r and  l e a s t one  recorded  Ayres  i n g f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g and  tions  as  Share i n P l a n s "  as  i n the  low  Family  conno  the  four  t h a n 907», i n the  and of  "Parents the  four  share types  be  social  seen to c a r r y out  ancy between r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s  and  and did  Paul  f u n c t i o n i n g of  family  o b j e c t i v e method of  analys-  changes i n f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g f o l l o w i n g  family functioning.  ...socially  the v a r i o u s  Adequacy of the  func-  r o l e s that are  (28,  the  contingent  role expectations  nine  treatment.  assigned  functioning is  r o l e performance."  schedule of f u n c t i o n i n g i n c l u d e d  ( 1 ) home and  and  type of  J u d g m e n t o f f u n c t i o n i n g t h u s becomes a m a t t e r o f d e t e r m i n i n g  follows:  in  f a m i l y , no  Centered P r o j e c t of S t .  t o g i v e an  r o l e performance i n keeping with  The  expect-  as 3.47<>.  a r e s u l t o f a members p e r f o r m i n g  components of upon the  f a m i l y may  behavior  abused c h i l d r e n .  These s c a l e s were d e s i g n e d  "The  the  common a c t i v i t i e s  At  developed a s e t of s c a l e s f o r m e a s u r i n g the members.  assigned  magnitude of the problems e n g u l f i n g  items "Parents  was  pro-  fighting  accorded a t r u e response of g r e a t e r  and  for  consistent  quarreling verbally, parental  number and  and  clues  i n d i f f e r e n c e to  d i s c u s s P r o b l e m s T o g e t h e r " , t r u e r e s p o n s e s u n d e r any not  behavioral  cases which are  include parental  group, parents  of n e g l e c t e d  These items are  i n many o f t h e  continuing  a b o v e was  to the  reason.  of r e s p o n s i b l e p l a n  types l i s t e d  have " r e l e v a n c e  consistent discipline  c h i l d r e n , no  initiation  and  (82, p.176)  children, parental  sistent place  families  group".  items  c h i l d r e n , no  important  of  the  society.  discrep-  p.104)  areas which are  h o u s e h o l d p r a c t i c e s , (2) economic p r a c t i c e s ,  as  39.  (3)  social  training  activities,  children,  (4) h e a l t h  (6)  family  d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r and of  to r a t e ing.  the  .In  f a m i l i e s on  practices,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  adjustment,  community r e s o u r c e s .  p r o b l e m s and  (8)  (5)  care (7)  in-  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o w o r k e r and,  (9)  testing this  family unity,  and  schedule,  the  use  judges were asked  a c o n t i n u u m from i n a d e q u a t e to adequate  function-  (28) The  defined  as  general  c r i t e r i a used  for l e v e l s of  social  functioning  were  follows: " I n a d e q u a t e f u n c t i o n i n g (community, has a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e ) . Laws a n d / o r m o r e s c l e a r l y v i o l a t e d . B e h a v i o r o f f a m i l y members a t h r e a t t o t h e c o m m u n i t y . F a m i l y , l i f e characteri z e d by e x t r e m e c o n f l i c t , n e g l e c t , , s e v e r e d e p r i v a t i o n o r very, poor r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e s u l t i n g i n p h y s i c a l a n d / e m o t i o n a l s u f f e r i n g o f f a m i l y members; d i s r u p t i o n o f f a m i l y - l i f e i m minent, c h i l d r e n i n clear.and p r e s e n t danger because of cond i t i o n s above or o t h e r b e h a v i o r i n i m i c a l to t h e i r w e l f a r e . M a r g i n a l F u n c t i o n i n g ( B e h a v i o r not s u f f i c i e n t l y h a r m f u l to j u s t i f y i n t e r v e n t i o n ) . No v i o l a t i o n o f m a j o r l a w s a l t h o u g h b e h a v i o r o f f a m i l y members i n c o n t r a r y t o w h a t i s a c c e p t a b l e f o r s t a t u s g r o u p . F a m i l y l i f e m a r k e d by c o n f l i c t , apathy, or u n s t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are a p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t t o . w e l f a r e o f f a m i l y members and c o m m u n i t y . A d e q u a t e F u n c t i o n i n g ( B e h a v i o r i n . l i n e w i t h community expectations). Laws and m o r e s a r e o b s e r v e d ; b e h a v i o r i s a c c e p t a b l e t o s t a t u s g r o u p . F a m i l y l i f e i s s t a b l e , . members have a sense of b e l o n g i n g , f a m i l y i s a b l e to h a n d l e problems w i t h o u t f a c i n g d i s r u p t i o n , c h i l d r e n a r e b e i n g i n an a t m o s p h e r e c o n d u c i v e t o h e a l t h y p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l d e v e lopment." ( 2 9 , pp. 7 3 - 7 4 ) To  t e s t the  were o b t a i n e d .  Two  reliability  of  of  schedule three  these were g i v e n  a casework s u p e r v i s o r .  (29,  p.  22)  by  research  independent  judgments  w o r k e r s and  the  G e n e r a l r e l i a b i l i t y , was  third  seen to  be  present. With reference A y r e s s t a t e "The  question  to the v a l i d i t y , of of v a l i d i t y  answered s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h i n the  of  the  our  context of  measurement Geismar  evaluation the  and  procedure cannot  present study."  (29,  be 43)  40.  The  instrument o f measuring  Geismar and Ayres  f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g developed  has been w i d e l y c o p i e d and i s e x t r e m e l y  c i e s . • Some o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y will  be d i s c u s s e d In  to child  neglect  Chesser's  book, " C r u e l t y t o  cases  C h i l d r e n " , he d i s c u s s e s i n a  a b o u t " b a d homes" a n d " g o o d homes" a n d s a y s  of child  s u c h a s p o v e r t y , poor h o u s i n g , ;  (4) overburdened  e t c . , (2) low i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  motherhood.  "cruelty".  some o f t h e p r e c i p i -  t a t i n g . f a c t o r s w h i c h , may r e s u l t i n . a b a d home a r e ( 1 ) a d v e r s e  and,  t o agen-  later.  g e n e r a l way t h e i n f l u e n c e o f home a n d f a m i l y i n p r o b l e m He t a l k s  useful  by  circumstances  (3) ignorance  He i d e n t i f i e s b a d homes among h i g h e r i n -  come g r o u p s a n d s a y s w h a t may p r e c i p i t a t e homes i n t h e s e g r o u p s a s b e i n g "bad"  ones, a r e (1) i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,  emotional  immaturity. Chesser's  and is  c r u e l t y brought  (2) d e f i c i e n t maternal  i n s t i n c t and  ( 1 7 , p. 33)  c o n c l u s i o n s a r e d r a w n idfrom 600 c a s e s  of child  before a n a l y s i s o f the courts i n England.  neglect  His research  l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e a n d i t was n o t s u b j e c t e d t o s t a t i s t i c a l  tests f o r  r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y . Sandusky, i n d i s c u s s i n g c h i l d several  factors  i n contributing  p a r e n t s and r e f e r s and  neglect i n general,  to inadequate  to emotional problems,  marital difficulties.  performance on the p a r t o f  immaturity, excessive  She s t a t e s t h a t t h e i r  i s b l o c k e d by p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s  identifies  drinking,  c a p a c i t y f o r parenthood  and they have d i f f i c u l t y  in.asking f o r help  e v e n t h o u g h t h e y may w a n t s u c h h e l p . ( 6 7 ) M c F e r r a n makes somewhat s i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n s and sees tary p r i n c i p l e s prepare  n e g l e c t f u l p a r e n t s as l a c k i n g knowledge o f elemen-  of child  c a r e b e c a u s e t h e y g r e w u p i n homes w h i c h  them f o r p a r e n t h o o d  a n d b e c a u s e they, h a d l i t t l e  d i d not  formal or informal  education. As  a result,  these parents  f e l t overburdened  by c h i l d b e a r i n g and  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  o f day  t o day  intentionally neglect their  living,  c h i l d r e n and  a l t h o u g h "most o f them d i d  r e a l l y w a n t t o be  not  good p a r e n t s " .  (48) Jacobucci, n e g l e c t f u l mothers,  i n an a r t i c l e d i s c u s s i n g c a s e w o r k t r e a t m e n t refers  as do  the authors above, t o the p r o b a b i l i t y  the mother b e i n g e m o t i o n a l l y immature. f e e l i n g o f i s o l a t i o n as  He  Such a mother w i l l  feelings  of h o s t i l i t y p r e v i o u s l y d i r e c t e d  with The  her husband.  regard her  them f o r t h e a p p r o v a l and  toward  l o n e l i n e s s and  f a m i l i e s which degree of inadequate  to have a poor  demonstration project  unkempt.  i n which  h o l d p r a c t i c e s were such  household  as shown b y  the parents  s o c i a l problems.  and  c o n c e p t i o n had  displaced and the  compete caseworker  She  discusses  practices  their dirty  de-  and  a high  unkempt h o u s e s  b u d g e t i n g o f money and a descriptive  their  study based  on  a  a s e r i o u s hazard  to the h e a l t h  and  (69)  i n 907, o f t h e c a s e s w e r e f o u n d t o have u s u a l l y l i v e d  showed l i t t l e  integration  o t h e r c o m m u n i t y members.  time of marriage,  with  homemakers w e r e p l a c e d i n homes w h e r e h o u s e  They were found  s e v e r a l years but  a  s u f f e r i n g from  t h e s t u d y o f p h y s i c a l l y abused c h i l d r e n done by  Massachusetts,  a c c e p t e d by  T h i s was  t h a t t h e r e was  w e l f a r e of the c h i l d r e n . In  and  (41)  self-image.  care of p r e p a r a t i o n of food, poor and  her mother,  n e g l e c t f u l m o t h e r s t o be  disorganization,  children being d i r t y  inadequate,  a t t e n t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d and  were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p o o r  internal  loneliness  c h i l d r e n as s i b l i n g s  community o f t e n t r e a t s her w i t h h o s t i l i t y .  p r e s s i o n and  ital  commonly s e e h e r s e l f a s  She may  Shames a l s o f o u n d  for  identifies  of  the most r e v e a l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the n e g l e c t f u  mother.  toward  of  in just  occurred.  slightly  into  Bryant  in  t o have s e r i o u s  i n the  community  i t and w e r e  not  U s u a l l y these p a r e n t s were young a t less  than h a l f  the f a m i l i e s ,  Most of the f a m i l i e s were  premar  self-supporting  t h o u g h 227„ had  f i n a n c i a l problems.  p a r e n t s , based  on g e n e r a l c l i n i c a l  clusters.  was  One  t i n u o u s and who  p a r e n t s who  c h i l d r e n and  compulsive  and  often attributed  t h e i r a t t a c k s on  characteristics g r o u p was  generally  factors  The  c h i l d h o o d and y o u t h , and  had  been repeated  and  lived  f a m i l i e s are i s o l a t e d as a v i c t i m  c l u s t e r of  s a d , moody and  unresponsive.  inadequate i n her  o f s o c i a l and  i n Cleve  f a m i l y breakdown i n  and  the f a m i l i e s  housing.  suffered  striking  their  study of parents of abused c h i l d r e n  i n the community.  The  the p r o p o s i t i o n  T h e r e was  evidence  There  poverty  (50)  parents u s u a l l y As  indicated  not s u b j e c t e d to s t a t i s t i c a l  T h i s was  one  disorders. general  t h a t abuse i s p r o p o r -  purely a  analysis.  the  i n other  t h a t abuse r e f l e c t s  i n her study  i n a l l c l a s s e s of the p o p u l a t i o n .  that  select  support  was  (16)  children.  Her  s t u d y and  This  to Mount S i n a i H o s p i t a l  a high incidence of parents w i t h emotional  tional  and  personality  s t u d i e s , Nurse found  parental harshness.  They  dependent type of p a r e n t .  f o r displacement of h o s t i l i t y .  findings d i d not  the  severe n e u r o t i c or c h a r a c t e r d i s o r d e r s .  illegitimacy  Nurse found  third  con  parents  This group r e j e c t e d  common among p a r e n t s o f t h e a b u s e d  included a history  i n grossly  i n c l u d e d those  c o u l d n o t r e l a x w i t h them  cases admitted  own  child  children,  the c h i l d r e n .  o f twenty  land revealed f i v e  the  u n a g g r e s s i v e , d e p e n d e n t o n o t h e r s t o make d e c i s i o n s ,  i m m a t u r e , u n a s s u m i n g and A.study  of  with  t r o u b l e s to the c h i l d r e n .  i n c l u d e d t h e p a s s i v e and  r e t i c e n t and  These f a c t o r s  own  aggressive, f i l l e d  cluster  l a c k e d warmth. their  characteristics  i m p r e s s i o n s , , were grouped i n t h r e e  A second  made e x c e s s i v e demands o f t h e i r defended  personality  w e r e h o s t i l e and  u n c o n t r o l l e d anger.  were r i g i d ,  The  descriptive  (58)  Critique The  i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e on p a r e n t a l f u n c t i o n i n g o f f a m i l i e s  a b u s e d c h i l d r e n i s somewhat more c o m p l e t e  than t h a t f o r the t o t a l  area  of of  43. neglected The  children.  social  complete  Young's s t u d y , o f c o u r s e , c o v e r e d b o t h  f u n c t i o n i n g s c a l e s developed  and c a n b e a p p l i e d b y w o r k e r s  functioning.  b y G e i s m a r and A y r e s assessing families  i n the lowest  (socio-economic)  a d d i t i o n a r e meant t o measure a f a m i l i e s what i s needed  to  to clarify  total  social  cases  cluster-  ( 1 1 , p . 8 ) and i n  f u n c t i o n i n g whereas area of parental  rearing. b y Boehm t o m e a s u r e a d e q u a c y i s b e i n g  and improve  cases by i d e n t i f y i n g  ... p l a c e m e n t  protective  to child  r e s e a r c h design proposed  done i n an " a t t e m p t  making  social  i s an i n s t r u m e n t t o measure " t h e s p e c i f i c  adequacy", i n r e l a t i o n  protective  total  ratings"  areas.  are quite  Boehm p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e s e s c a l e s : " r e v e a l m a r k e d  ings o f f a m i l i e s  The  of these  the d e c i s i o n making process i n  the c r i t e r i a  decisions".  that s o c i a l workers  (11, p . l )  t o t r y and d e t e r m i n e  e i t h e r remove t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m  This study w i l l  now u s e i n  a n a l y s e 200  on w h a t b a s i s s o c i a l w o r k e r s  t h e home o r t o t r e a t  decided  the families  with  t h e c h i l d r e n r e m a i n i n g i n t h e home. Boehm f e e l s for  measuring  developed  that the Fels Parent Behavior Scales are inappropriate  f a m i l y adequacy i n c h i l d  through  analysis  of normal  upper m i d d l e c l a s s f a m i l i e s . Fels  (11)  families  and h y p o t h e s e s " .  by the workers  ( 1 1 , p.8)  by w o r k e r s  f r o m h i s home s h o u l d b e  being able to present s p e c i f i c a l l y  a r r i v i n g at that decision.  w i t h many  s c a l e as " i n v a l u a b l e s o u r c e s o f  • A d e c i s i o n made t o r e m o v e a c h i l d ified  and a r e w e i g h t e d  She d o e s r e c o g n i z e t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e  s c a l e s and t h e G e i s m a r and A y r e s  concepts  n e g l e c t because t h e s e s c a l e s were  Although  the c r i t e r i a  justused i n  t h e s e c r i t e r i a must e x i s t and be  they have n o t b e e n c c l e a r l y s p e l l e d  used  o u t and r e c o r d e d .  C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S OF TYPES OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT A s e a r c h was made t h r o u g h o u t classifications  had been d e v e l o p e d  the l i t e r a t u r e  and t e s t e d  t o d i s c o v e r i f any  f o r types of c h i l d  a b u s e and  44.  neglect.  The m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e  L e o n t i n e Young.  research i n this  T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , two o t h e r a u t h o r s who h a v e made  attempts  at classifications,  suggests  t h a t "one o f t h e major v a l u e s i n d e v i s i n g  b u t they have n o t been t e s t e d  that they can p r o v i d e guidance E a c h p e r s o n who h a s a t t e m p t e d definitely.what with  t o g e t h e r i n our laws classifications  i n t e r v e n t i o n should  systems i s ( 8 3 , p.8)  take i n working  tossed ( a l l  Young r a i s e s t h e  a b u s i n g and n e g l e c t i n g f a m i l i e s )  and o u r work w i t h them?"  ( 8 2 , p.10) abuse.  One o f t h e  Another  abuse and p h y s i c a l n e g l e c t and t h e t h i r d  the physical  Zalba  a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has i n t i m a t e d o r s t a t e d  has focused only on p h y s i c a l  only on p h y s i c a l  typological  o f abused and/or n e g l e c t e d c h i l d r e n .  q u e s t i o n , " h a v e we c a s u a l l y  as y e t .  f o r making i n t e r v e n t i o n d e c i s i o n s " .  focus of protective  the f a m i l i e s  of both  a r e a has b e e n done by  has focussed  one i s i n c l u s i v e  and e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e .  D e l s o r d o made a s t u d y o f e i g h t y c a s e s o f a b u s e d c h i l d r e n i n 1 9 6 2 . I t was a s a m p l e o f c a s e s  handled w i t h i n  t h e p r e v i o u s t h r e e y e a r s by t h e  P e n n s y l v a n i a S o c i e t y t o P r o t e c t C h i l d r e n from C r u e l t y . were c o n s i d e r e d i n c h o o s i n g probability parents  these cases  o f abuse r e c u r r i n g ,  to casework h e l p .  problems which or c h i l d r e n . (1)  and  - the degree o f i n j u r y  physical  were b e l i e v e d t o r e s u l t  factors  inflicted,  and p s y c h o l o g i c a l a v a i l a b i l i t y o f  H i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s were based i n the parents  on t h e p a r e n t a l  abusing  their  child  The c a t e g o r i e s w e r e as f o l l o w s : Abuse by m e n t a l l y i l l  included parents w i t h acute mental of s e r v i c e  Three main  parents  illness.  ( 4 o u t o f 80 c a s e s ) He s u g g e s t s  f o r t h i s g r o u p was o n how t o m o s t h e l p f u l l y  which  that the focus  separate the parents  child. (2)  o v e r f l o w from their  Overflow  abuse  ( 1 3 / o u t o f 80 c a s e s ) w h i c h  i s d e f i n e d as an  t h e p a r e n t s ' a i m l e s s way o f l i f e m a n i f e s t e d b y f a c t o r s  frustrations,  irresponsibility  or lack of belief  i n themselves.  s u c h as This  45.  group o f p a r e n t s were l e a s t  able t o connect  w i t h or use e x i s t i n g  sources  o f h e l p when t h e y w e r e c o n t a c t e d . (3)  Battered child  (8 o u t o f 80 c a s e s ) w h i c h  n o n s p e c i f i c disturbance i n the parent r e s u l t i n g child  by t w i s t i n g ,  ing".  t h r o w i n g , k n o c k i n g around  These p a r e n t s were d i f f i c u l t (4)  Disciplinary  as a h a r s h n e s s  abuse  i n disciplining  group b e n e f i t t e d  i n severe b a t t e r i n g of the  o r some o t h e r f o r m  (12 o u t o f 80 c a s e s ) w h i c h  some f o r b i d d e n a c t .  Parents  casework s e r v i c e s  i n near-term  o c c a s i o n a l l y was t h i s  help s a t i s f a c t o r y  f o r long-range  M i s p l a c e d abuses  was f o u n d  the c h i l d .  t o i d e n t i f y under each  f o r abuse, method o f abuse, c h i l d  r e c e i v e a b u s e , and t h e p h y s i c a l home c o n d i t i o n s . Elmer  made a s t u d y o f t h i r t y - t h r e e  the Children's Hospital  a d m i s s i o n appeared The bone i n j u r i e s  T h i s group o f p a r e n t s  o f t h e above f i v e  criteria  or a h i s t o r y  of the  ( 2 1 , pp.213-18)  c h i l d r e n who h a d b e e n p a t i e n t s  i n P i t t s b u r g h , whose p h y s i c a l  t o be caused  cat-  ( o r c h i l d r e n ) chosen f o r  symptoms u p o n  by c a r e t a k e r mistreatment.  (24,25,26)  f o r c h o o s i n g t h e s e c h i l d r e n was t h a t t h e y h a d m u l t i p l e  i n v a r i o u s h e a l i n g stages a t the time o f admission, t h a t they  were f r e e o f bone d i s e a s e and t h a t t h e y had a h i s t o r y  basis  i s d e s c r i b e d as  t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : p a r e n t a l w e a k n e s s and d e s c r i p t i o n s  parents, reason  in  protection.  t o be most amenable t o h e l p . Delsordo attempted  egories  i n this  protection but only  (43 o u t o f 80 c a s e s ) w h i c h  a p a r e n t s ' c o n f l i c t b e i n g p r o j e c t e d onto  i s described  t o comply w i t h a p a r e n t a l  from  (5)  of "batter-  to help.  c h i l d r e n who f a i l  e x p e c t a t i o n o r who h a v e c o m m i t t e d  i s d e s c r i b e d as a  inadequate  to explain  the i n j u r i e s .  of the nature of the i n j u r i e s p a r t i c u l a r l y  o f abuse o r n e g l e c t  I t was a s s u m e d , o n t h e as f i f t y  percent of the  sample i n c l u d e d c h i l d r e n under n i n e months o f age t h a t t h e y were abused children.  As t h e s t u d y p r o g r e s s e d  the assumption  d i d n o t h o l d and i t  became n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e o l d i n j u r i e s . T h e r e f o r e t h e s a m p l e was by  the r e s e a r c h  ied.  "The  staff  judgments  reclassified  into  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e j u d g m e n t s  three groups, abused, nonabused,  c o n c e r n i n g the abused  unanimous;  i n fact,  category.  N o n a b u s e d c h i l d r e n w e r e t h o s e whose e a r l i e r  a plausible  t h i s was  and n o n a b u s e d  e x p l a n a t i o n other than a d u l t a s s a u l t .  and  t h o s e c h i l d r e n whose i n j u r i e s  reasonable basis."  ( 2 5 , p.31)  her s t u d y o f abused culties  children.  and p u r p o s e s was  i n either  bone i n j u r i e s  had  unclassified  d i s a g r e e m e n t among t h e  article  to i l l u s t r a t e  t h a t w e r e e n c o u n t e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g who  for a l lintents  on  by E l m e r b a s e d some o f t h e  i s abused  any on  diffi-  i n a sample  comprised o f a group o f p h y s i c a l l y  which  abused  (25) Young used  as  written  were  c o u l d n o t be e x p l a i n e d  This p a r t i c u l a r  c h i l d r e n was  The  unclassif-  children  a requirement f o r placing a c h i l d  c a t e g o r y c o m p r i s e d c h i l d r e n a b o u t whom t h e r e was clinicians  and  made  four categories  i n h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w h i c h she  defined  follows: (1)  Severe neglect,  (2)  Moderate  t h e c r i t e r i o n o f w h i c h was  inadequate  feeding.  liness  neglect,  or l a c k of adequate  medical  the c r i t e r i a  clothing  o f w h i c h were l a c k o f  f o r the c h i l d r e n or f a i l u r e  clean-  to p r o v i d e  care. (3)  Severe abuse,  the c r i t e r i a  o f w h i c h were t h a t e i t h e r  of the p a r e n t s beat the c h i l d r e n v i o l e n t l y  and c o n s i s t e n t l y ,  after  visible.  time the r e s u l t s (4)  beat t h e i r  Moderate  o f the b e a t i n g were abuse,  c h i l d r e n o n l y now  some s t r e s s  and  the c r i t e r i a  and  so t h a t  o f which were t h a t  or both time  the p a r e n t s  t h e n , t h a t i s when t h e y w e r e d r u n k o r  t h e b e a t i n g s t e n d e d t o be  When a f a m i l y b o t h n e g l e c t e d  less  under  violent.  and a b u s e d  i t s children,  this  was  47.  classified  as  abuse.  The "consistent ( 8 2 , p.9)  research  actions  and  aimed a t e s t a b l i s h i n g i f a p r o f i l e ( i . e .  i n t e r a c t i o n s , the  Young s t a t e s  (82, p.154)  Her  have a l r e a d y  be  t h a t her  an  defined  i n g of body or mind  h i s e x a m i n a t i o n of  to a n o t h e r "  (17,  Active  that  Cruelty  the  p.22)  modified  of p r e c i p i t a t i n g  covers a l l the  f a c t o r " . (17,  the  groups:  part  of  the v e r y  characteristic the  as  that  influences.  i s i t u n l i k e l y that  of  (17,  This  t o be  he  classif-  writes  that  c r u e l t y a r i s e s from  adult  life;  p.115) and  plus  plus  The  of  Cruelty  the persons  main  Cruelty. or  category  (or p a t h o l o g i c a l i s o r has because of  concerned  can  causes are  and the  can  i s Passive  due  be  to  its  cruelty)  innate  e v e r be  be  sugg-  environmental  which  (17) is.more  u s u a l l y a r i s e s i n e i t h e r of c h i l d may  taught  emotional  treated.  Cnuelty  into  become a  f r o m some u n b a l a n c e d  cases the  namely; f i r s t  the  E p i s o d i c A c t i v e C r u e l t y w h i c h he  cause or  than e p i s o d i c  this  the  the  two  Passive  c o n c e r n e d and  second major c a t e g o r y  circumstances,  chapter.  unnecessary s u f f e r -  subdivideds  i s a l e s s h o p e l e s s m a t t e r and  consistent  He  such c r u e l t y that  p.24);  i n the m a j o r i t y  Chesser's likely  of  the persons  a r i s e f r o m some p h y s i c a l  s t a t e but  Cruelty  consistent Active  exercise  nature of  e r r o r s of h i s ways.  e s t s may  sets  the  this  cases where a c t u a l p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e  t o r t u r e i s e m p l o y e d and  defines  functioning  through generations;  Chesser found were A c t i v e  f o l l o w i n g two  to f a m i l y  made a r o u g h  that  cat-  behavior.  cases.  c i r c u m s t a n c e s of  d e l i b e r a t e mental  w h i c h he  and  above  to v i s i b l e  a course of a c t i o n causing  e a r l y home b a c k g r o u n d ; p l u s immediate pressure  600  the  s e c t i o n of  e a r l i e r E n g l i s h a u t h o r who  as  relationships")  found under each of  i n the p r e c e d i n g  i n d i v i d u a l make-up, i n h e r i t e d and  categories  be  items were c o n f i n e d  been h i g h l i g h t e d  s y s t e m b a s e d on  " c r u e l t y may  could  c o n n e c t i o n s and  f i n d i n g s r e l a t e more s i g n i f i c a n t l y  C h e s s e r was ication  was  of p a r e n t a l b e h a v i o r  egories.  and  (82)  u n w a n t e d by  two  father,  b y m o t h e r o r b y b o t h , o r s e c o n d l y " t h e p a r e n t s may nature of l i f e c h e r i s h him  and  the needs of the c h i l d  to the best of t h e i r  needs - the e x i s t e n c e o f w h i c h also of  includes in this  a l l , but which  covers a l l those  ability,  i g n o r a n t of  they s t a r v e him  n e g l e c t which  the c h i l d ' s development a r e e c o n c e r n e d . " r e g a r d i n g the t r e a t a b i l i t y  (17, p.25)  authority.  He group  "It  ( u s u a l l y w i t h the best of  inten-  the e m o t i o n a l needs  ( 1 7 , p.23)  and  of h i s emotional  i s the l a r g e s t  come t o t h e n o t i c e o f any  i n s t a n c e s where p a r e n t s  the  though they l o v e , want  t i o n s ) a c t i n t h e w o r s t p o s s i b l e m a n n e r so f a r as  statement  so  t h e y are not even aware".  group s p i r i t u a l  does not  that,  be  Chesser  makes  or p r o g n o s i s of the P a s s i v e  of  no  Cruelty  g r o u p as he d e f i n e s i t . Critique The  r e s e a r c h and  t y p e s o f a b u s e and broad  and  n e g l e c t are v e r y sparse.  philosophical  as he  because of the d i f f i c u l t y ledge of the background often,  empirical writings  a g a i n s t which  d e t a i l which  (17, p.54)  "this  i n many c a s e s  indeed, "the background  that f u l l  says  on t h e a r e a o f Chesser's  efforts  a n a l y s i s remains  tend  o f o b t a i n i n g p r e c i s e and  the o f f e n s e s o c c u r r e d .  t o any  e x a c t and  There i s a semantic q u e s t i o n which  to  an " a t t e m p t "  i s known o n l y t o t h e p e r s o n s  i s necessary  classifying  full  Only  be only  knowtoo  concerned,  in  scientific, analysis."  arises  from h i s w r i t i n g s .  For example, i s h i s d e f i n i t i o n  of  'spiritual  neglect  1  e q u i v a l e n t to  general North American  of  'emotional n e g l e c t  1  o r does i t embrace a  fuller  dimension?  generalized  concept  Can  one  equate  h i s d e f i n i t i o n of c r u e l t y w i t h  d e f i n i t i o n o f n e g l e c t as  t h e l e s s , h i s concepts  as he  expressed  i t i s used  i n North America?  them i n 1952  s k i l f u l l y woven h e r e h e r e d i t a r y ,  and  factors  a r e a s we  into his classifications.  h a v e g r e a t e r k n o w l e d g e t o d a y and  one  the Never-  s h o u l d n o t be„ignored  b e c a u s e i m p l i c i t l y he has immediate s i t u a t i o n a l  the  area cannot  be  environmental In a l l these emphasized  to  49.  t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t h e o t h e r two holistic  picture  of the  i n the l o n g run  i f we  h o w e v e r , t h a t "we uing collection thought  and  that w i l l study."  on  classifications.  She  We  a l l over  t h e many q u e s t i o n s Furthermore,  t h a t c a n o n l y be  but  t h a t cannot  in  the f i e l d  Elmer's is  research of  i s attempted  and  neglect w i l l  Delsordo's  which  s h e made no  be  danger t o the  from  encountered  guide  difficulties  shared  on p h y s i c a l  the study of e x i s t i n g  was  form  Not  until  i n the  face  more  classifying  cases.  he d o e s a t t e m p t  i f they remain  to the p r o g n o s i s  test"  (83, p.8)  and  was  Zalba suggests  At  to assess  that  this  in  the  i n t h e p a r e n t a l home and  f o r treatment  f o r the p r a c t i t i o n e r  area of r e l i a b l e  abuse  c o n s i s t e n c y i n the a b s t r a c t dimensions  p r o t e c t i v e m e a s u r e s s h o u l d a f a m i l y be The  neglect  o u r k n o w l e d g e be s u b s t a n t i a t e d .  children  i n v e s t i g a t i o n and  a definitive  this  c l a i m t h a t i t was)  abuse.  Z a l b a c a u t i o n s t h a t a t t h i s p o i n t i n time Delsordo's further  by  some o f t h e K n o t t y p r o b l e m s t h a t  (Delsordo's) c a t e g o r i e s are ordered  g i v e s h i s e s t i m a t e as  suggested  research  c o n t i n u e to evade r e s e a r c h  classifying physical  there i s a l a c k of l o g i c a l  physical  need  not y e t been p u b l i s h e d i n i t s f i n a l  work s p e c i f i c a l l y f o c u s e d  e m p i r i c a l l y developed "while  has  i n demonstrating  i n d e f i n i n g and  a b u s e and  contin-  Welfare.  study which  already f r u i t f u l  researchers  of the problem  of C h i l d  We  the whole area of emotional (and  aspect  works  need the s t e a d y ,  the n a t i o n .  not d i r e c t l y d e a l t w i t h i n h e r work i t i s one  t e s t e d o f any  observations that c h i l d welfare could with  purpose c o n t r i b u t e from  (82, p.148)  a  s t a t e s i n herobwn work,  n e e d much more k n o w l e d g e .  of d i s c i p l i n e d  pursue  to get  problem.  Young's work i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t l y presently available  are going  also  of the p a r e n t s . " ( 8 3 , c a t e g o r i e s "beg s t a g e , h i s work  for cannot  f a c e d w i t h d e c i s i o n s about what  offered.  validated  classifications  i s of  utmost  p.8)  50.  importance.  When t h e y  are  f o u n d , t h e y w i l l be  i n p r e d i c t i n g the danger to the levels  of s k i l l  to p a r t i c u l a r  t h e phenomena o f a b u s e and vention  of agencies'  cases,  neglect,  on  case  they  the most a p p r o p r i a t e  of  inter-  ( i . e . homemaker s e r v i c e s , c a s e w o r k , i n changing communities  perception  referrals  before  CHILD NEGLECT  T h e r e a r e many d i f f i c u l t i e s  other  various  severe.  PREVALANCE OF  i n any  personnel  understanding  work w h i c h m i g h t i n t u r n encourage e a r l i e r  INCIDENCE AND  most, i f not  gaining greater  i n using  intervention etc.),  the problems are  neglect  to a s s i s t  c h i l d r e n , i n a s s i g n i n g workers of  service for a particular  group work, c o u r t  used  specific  geographical  a l l cases are  i n determining area.  identified  and  the  There are dealt with  extent  of  communities  i n some way.  child i n which In  c o m m u n i t i e s many s i t u a t i o n s e x i s t w h i c h r e q u i r e i n t e r v e n t i o n , b u t are not  reported  to the agency r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o f f e r i n g c h i l d  protec-  tion service. Maas and examined, the welfare  two  Engler  found  w i t h the  s e r v i c e s a l s o had  other  hand, i n the  care,  t h e r e was  that of the nine  'best' the  and  most adequate p r e v e n t a t i v e  g r e a t e s t number o f  c o m m u n i t y w h i c h had  a tendency to ignore  c h i l d r e n ' s s e r v i c e s were not  communities which  the  the  offered.  they  child  c h i l d r e n i n care.  On  the  s m a l l e s t number o f c h i l d r e n i n  fact  that problems e x i s t e d  and  (49)  Young s a y s t h a t i t i s o n l y r e c e n t l y t h a t p r o t e c t i o n o f c h i l d r e n has  become a m a j o r  shrouded intervene behavior  in silence.  on  the  (82)  i n a f a m i l y and and  t h a t t h e p r o b l e m has  O n l y when e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n s a r i s e do t h e r e has  been l i t t l e  been workers  account kept of p a t t e r n s  of  incidence.  I t has is  c o n c e r n i n s o c i a l w o r k and  been s t a t e d t h a t c h i l d  increase.  (34,41)  neglect  and  abuse i s p r e v a l e n t  In d i s c u s s i n g emotional  neglect,  Mulford  and  speculates vation (54,  t h a t " t h e number  i s greater than  of c h i l d r e n s u f f e r i n g from emotional  the t o t a l  caseloads  of our p r o t e c t i v e  depri-  agencies."  p.24) C h e s s e r r e p o r t s t h a t i n B r i t a i n d u r i n g t h e t w e l v e months p r i o r  February the  2 8 , 1950 a t o t a l  age o f f i f t e e n w e r e r e p o r t e d  of C r u e l t y to C h i l d r e n . children  This  t h e number  one h u n d r e d w i l l  neglected  amounted t o one c h i l d  Chesser concluded  i n the course  tnat they w i l l  be r e p o r t e d  h i s survey  of the c h i l d  ren,. Z a l b a st  concludes  years  children  and p r o j e c t -  l i f e t i m e , be s o a b u s e d o r  12-15)  abuse p r o b l e m Z a l b a e s t i m a t e d  that  c h i l d r e n i n t h e U.S. i n o f abused t o n e g l e c t e d  reported  living  i n 1959 t h a t t h e r e w e r e a b o u t  in institutions  communities they  surveyed,  i n care would r e t u r n t o t h e i r  and f o s t e r homes.  they  felt  268,000 They s t a t e  f o r adoption.  t h a t 25 p e r c e n t  f a m i l y homes.  (49, p.381)  means t h a t 1 6 9 , 0 0 0 c h i l d r e n a t t h a t t i m e w e r e n o t w i t h  of the This  their parents,  because t h e y were orphaned, w h i c h would a c c o u n t f o r a s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e , because the parents uing to care  child-  ( 8 3 , p.8)  t h a t o f t h i s number, 2 2 4 , 0 0 0 c h i l d r e n w o u l d n o t be p l a c e d From t h e n i n e  year.  t h a t "30,000 t o 37,500 c h i l d r e n - need p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n -  Maas a n d E n g l e r i n t h e U.S.  t h a t one  to the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the  Applying Chesser's r a t i o  s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l abuse".  children  during  one h u n d r e d  that 6 or 7 c h i l d r e n out of  t h e r e a r e b e t w e e n 200,000 and 250,000 n e g l e c t e d need o f p r o t e c t i o n .  i n every  i n previous  of their  P r e v e n t i o n o f C r u e l t y t o C h i l d r e n . (17, pp. In  99,622 c h i l d r e n u n d e r  t o the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the P r e v e n t i o n  of children reported  f o r subsequent years,  every  involving  i n the c o u n t r y b e i n g abused or n e g l e c t e d  Calculating ing  o f 40,198 c a s e s  to  were inadequate  for their  or incapable  f o r some r e a s o n  either or  of contin-  children.  As a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d  n e g l e c t Boehm i n  52.  1960  t h a t "The r e q u e s t f o r p r o t e c t i v e  the l a s t  t e n y e a r s ; the cases  of neglect f i l e d  23 p e r c e n t b e t w e e n 1 9 5 0 and 1 9 5 7 " . Tennessee P u b l i c Welfare Record 2,551  children  s e r v i c e s has i n c r e a s e d markedly i n i n juvenile  (11, p.2)  which  indicated  i n t h a t s t a t e were i n f o s t e r  courts increased  She f u r t h e r r e f e r s  t o the  t h a t o n December 3 1 ,  f a m i l y homes.  Of t h i s  1959, total  44 p e r c e n t w e r e r e c e i v i n g  child welfare services  s i n g l e reason  f o r t h e s e s e r v i c e s w e r e due t o t h e c o m p l a i n t s  f o rr e f e r r a l  and t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t  r e g a r d i n g n e g l e c t and a b u s e . ( 1 1 ) Herre, w r i t i n g  i n Social  i n Milwaukee County a f t e r  Casework, gave an a c c o u n t i n g o f r e f e r r a l s  the establishment of a Protective Services Unit  to c e n t r a l i z e p r o t e c t i o n services  i n that area.  During  December 1, 1 9 6 2 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 6 3 , a t o t a l were r e f e r r e d doubled  to the unit.  and  of child  treatment  abuse.  than  s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n done i n t h e p a r t i c -  S t a t e w i d e s u r v e y s and h o s p i t a l  f i g u r e s a r e noted  Bryant reviewed  i n some  Massachusetts  and a n a l y s e d a l l  i n a one y e a r p e r i o d .  i n t h e 18 d i s t r i c t  In t h e second were asked  offices  cases  of physical  In the f i r s t  to Childreni n  i n v o l v i n g 200 c h i l d r e n .  was m o r e d e f i n i t i v e ,  the workers  a g a i n t o r e p o r t t h e number o f c a s e s o f a b u s e t o c h i l d r e n .  s t a g e o f t h e s t u d y saw t h e number d e c r e a s i n g t o 115 c a s e s children.  abuse r e p o r t e d  stage of the study the  r e p o r t e d 134 c a s e s  stage of thecstudy,. which  admittance  studies.  to the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the P r e v e n t i o n of C r u e l t y  child  h a d more  t h a t number. ( 3 7 )  sphere  workers  o f 1,005 c h i l d r e n  By 1 9 6 4 t h e v o l u m e o f r e f e r r a l s  Some o f t h e m o r e d e f i n i t i v e ular  the priod  This  i n v o l v i n g 180  T h e s t u d y c o m m i t t e e was o f t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e i n c i d e n c e o f  a b u s e was u n d e r - r e p o r t e d Young r e f e r s  A s s o c i a t i o n which  i n both  stages o f the study. (16)  i n h e r book t o t h e r e p o r t o f t h e A m e r i c a n  had t a b u l a t e d c h i l d  abuse i n c i d e n t s  Humane  reported i n American  53.  newspapers.  I n the year  557  (82)  families.  t h a t 302 c a s e s resulted  of severe  the t o t a l  British  o f A m e r i c a n h o s p i t a l s D r . Kempe d e t e r m i n e d  a b u s e o f c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e a g e o f one y e a r had of the c h i l d .  o f 40,198 c a s e s  i l ltreatment  (45)  r e f e r r e d t o above as h a v i n g  and a s s a u l t o f c h i l d r e n a c c o u n t e d  f i g u r e s showing the t o t a l  been  f o r 4,286  number o f c h i l d r e n i n c a r e i n  C o l u m b i a f o r 1951 and 1961 r e l a t e d  i n A p p e n d i x B.  Advisory  r i s k p o p u l a t i o n may b e  I n 1965 t h i s  Columbia  t h a t i n 1963 c h i l d r e n o f I n d i a n r a c i a l  36.27» o f t h e t o t a l  that year.  to total  T h e 1966 A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e B r i t i s h  Committee notes  constituted  number o f c h i l d r e n i n c a r e  percentage rose  c h i l d r e n make up o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y latter  involving  (17) The  found  o f 662 s u c h c a s e s  to the National Society f o r the Prevention of Cruelty to Children  in a single year, cases.  I n a survey  i n hospitalization Of  reported  1962 t h e r e was a t o t a l  comprises a l l the c h i l d r e n i n . B r i t i s h  origin.,  i n the province  to-39.4% even though  4% o f t h e t o t a l  Indian  Indian  risk population.  The  C o l u m b i a w i t h i n t h e age group  o f 0 t o 19 y e a r s . Critique What i s o b v i o u s l y m i s s i n g comprehensive accounting children there  i n the t o t a l  i s no r e l i a b l e  g e n e r a l l y agreed  from the l i t e r a t u r e  of the t o t a l  population.  and a b u s e d  and s p e c u l a t i o n s b u t  f i g u r e o f t h e i n c i d e n c e and p r e v a l e n c e .  that neglect  I tis  i s common and i s o n t h e i n c r e a s e , b u t t h e r e i s time  o f m a k i n g an a c c u r a t e  assessment  totals. With reference  it  number o f n e g l e c t e d  There a r e estimates  no m e t h o d i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e p r e s e n t of  i s a n a c c u r a t e and  i s more f r e q u e n t  recognized  than  specifically  now t h a n  i n the past.  to child  i n the past,  a b u s e , i t i s n o t known w h e t h e r  or whether  i t i s j u s t more  The c o i n i n g o f t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  easily  "Battered  54.  child  S y n d r o m e " has  resulted  i n much more a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m b y  t h e m e d i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s and are  b e c o m i n g more a l ' e r t t o  inflicted  The this  the  The  this  now  and  better  communities v a r y and  our  involve  abused w i l l  resulted  social  agencies  number- o f  remain with  i n w h a t t h e y deem t o be knowledge i n t h i s  i n more w r i t i n g a b o u t  t r a c k kept of  p r o b l e m of d e t e r m i n i n g the and  have been d e l i b e r a t e l y  more p r o n e t o  a w a r e n e s s has  child welfare  being neglected  increases  are  Hospitals  parents.  r e s u l t of  aspect of  c h i l d protection workers.  i n j u r i e s w h i c h may  u p o n c h i l d r e n and  in working with  the  both  us.  neglect,  Respect  its  c h i l d r e n i n the As  has  but  country  been pointed  as  increases,  a m o r e common i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s  incidence.  public  there  out  education  may  develop  neglect.  C R I T E R I A I N WORKERS D E C I S I O N MAKING This factors which family  section w i l l influence  s h o u l d be  be  a p r o t e c t i o n worker  t a k e n on  as  a protective  i n which agency i n t e r v e n t i o n concerned with ing with as for  to whether the  only  protective  services  analysis  revealed  accepted  as  receiving control  analysis  there  a protection  discipline.  A protective The  referred  case i s  section  t e c h n i q u e s used by  is  the worker  influence  whether there  made t o a p r o t e c t i o n of  the  were  one  not in  deal-  decision  grounds  a greater  care of  agency over a  t h o s e c a s e s t a k e n on by  those cases disposed  case i f the  inadequate medical  and  was  whether a  those  situation.  compared w i t h  that  case.  those f a c t o r s which  referrals  made an  in deciding  l e g i t i m a t e and  i n the  Boehm s t u d i e d and  with  r e f e r r a l was  agency i n t e r v e n t i o n  a t t e m p t i n g to determine  i s deemed n e c e s s a r y .  t r e a t m e n t m e t h o d s and  a f a m i l y , but  month p e r i o d  concerned w i t h  likelihood  referral  of  showed t h a t  i f t h e y were not  Cases l i k e l y  of at  to receive  the the  the  agency  intake. case  for The  being  c h i l d r e n were  being given  service  two  included  adequate those  in  .  which c h i l d r e n were absent from s c h o o l ; exhibiting frightened  and  withdrawn behaviour.  showed m a r k e d e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s agency would accept the A continued and  family  tective given or  The  then c l o s i n g the  differences  service.  i f the  was  i t for  first  f a m i l i e s w a r n e d and a. h i g h e r  way  m u s t make as  several  empirical  what w o r k e r s s h o u l d  look  T h e s e c o n c e n t r a t e on  to whether removal of  the  children's  drinking  the  r t r a r e l y t a k e n on. f o r was  w a r n i n g the  f a m i l i e s accepted  p r o b a b i l i t y that  family  for  pro-  s e r v i c e s would of f i n a n c i a l  be  assistance;  children.(10)  a r t i c l e s which discuss for in their i n i t i a l the  parents  f a c t o r s w h i c h showed s i g n i f i c a n t  the  m o r e t h a n a medium number o f  were  services.(10)  followed  There were t h r e e  t h e f t or  excessive  t i m e was  procedure usually  T h e r e was  of a complaint.  that  there  of  I f the  p a r e n t s were unemployed; were i n r e c e i p t  i f t h e y had  general  or  assign  f o r the  case.  between the  There are a  c a s e and  referred  service.  were s u s p e c t e d  55.  and  or  in  investigation  specific decision  child  describe  the  worker  children is indicated  at  time. Critique When a p r o t e c t i o n w o r k e r , w h e t h e r a t  point  of  initial  requires  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , makes a d e c i s i o n  protective  decision.  The  i n an  of  S i m i l a r l y , the  offer  service  implies  explored  i n any  article  reviewed  child  and  family"  that  some s e t  " c l e a r l y formulated  intake  of  level  a neglect criteria  criteria  or at  decision that  research in this  to  close  i n making  i n determining  ( 1 1 , p . l ) p r o m p t e d Boehm t o  some s e t  w h i c h we  of  a c a s e on criteria  initial i s used.  have examined w i t h  the  the  situation  a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e more s p e c i f i c a l l y what the  is.  The  s e r v i c e , he m u s t u s e  absence of  need f o r s e p a r a t i o n in research  the  the the  engage  criteria  i n v e s t i g a t i o n or I t has exception  not of  to  been the  section.  i m p o r t a n c e of  the  decision  to o f f e r s e r v i c e or  to close  a  case  on  first  contact  with  the r e f e r r e d  family wrongly deprived  family  of service  c a n n o t be o v e r - e m p h a s i z e d .  a t t h i s p o i n t may s u f f e r f u r t h e r  A psychol-  o g i c a l b r e a k d o w n and r e s u l t i n p h y s i c a l d a n g e r s t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The this but  establishment of s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a  d e c i s i o n would prove b e n e f i c i a l , not o n l y t o help  to eliminate  on w h i c h d e c i s i o n s  neglect  situations.  advantage t o b e i n g able  d e c i s i o n making i s that justification It difficult rigid and  workers  By s p e c i f y i n g t h e  should  to spell  when t h e s e a r e q u e s t i o n e d .  out the factors  a c a s e come b e f o r e  influencing  the court,  some c l e a r  f o r w h a t h a s b e e n done i s a v a i l a b l e f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n . i s r e a l i z e d that  this  goal  of w e l l defined  one t o a c h i e v e a n d when t h e y a r e e s t a b l i s h e d ,  and i n f l e x i b l e ,  but should  allow  c o n c e p t s a s t h e y a r e discovered'.:  research.  influence  a r e b a s e d , t h e agency c a n more e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t  t o t h e community t h e r e a s o n s f o r i t s d e c i s i o n s A further  i n making  as a g u i d e f o r new w o r k e r s ,  some o f t h e s u b j e c t i v i t y w h i c h may  i n making assessments of p o s s i b l e criteria  used by w o r k e r s  criteria  t h e y s h o u l d n o t be  f o r the incorporation  and r e f i n e d b o t h  is a  o f new  ideas  i n p r a c t i s e and by  57.  CHAPTER I I I  D E S C R I P T I V E AND S T A T I S T I C A L INTERPRETATION OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT  This respondents,  third  chapter  the coding  STUDY  i s a d i s c u s s i o n of the returns  p r o c e d u r e and t h e f i n d i n g s b o t h d e s c r i p t i v e and as  they p e r t a i n to the hypothesis  stated  i n chapter  one.  One h u n d r e d a n d e i g h t y - e i g h t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s s o c i a l workers throughout B r i t i s h to s o c i a l workers  eight questionnaires  or f i f t y - s i x  from.C.A.S. complete.  explanation  should  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e The w o r k e r s  i n this  i n w h i c h t o do t h e i r w r i t i n g .  assume t h a t o n l y assignment.  rather  throughout the Province.  required  The  o f f i c e s of returns  percent.  agency had v e r y  limited  They had t o f i l l  offices  physical  conditions  them o u t o n t h e i r  laps  A s a r e s u l t many o f  t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  took over a p e r i o d  We may  workers d i d a c t u a l l y complete the c o l l a b o r a t i o n between the respond-  o f s e v e r a l d a y s t o be c o m p l e t e d  d o n e i n one m o r n i n g a s p l a n n e d .  B u t t h i s was  probably  minimal. * *  Henceforth i n t h i s chapter d e s i g n a t e d b y C.A.S. Henceforth i n t h i s chapter d e s i g n a t e d by Department.  return  a t l e a s t one and a h a l f h o u r s t o  T h e r e may h a v e b e e n a l i t t l e  than being  returns  b e made a s t o why t h e r e was o n l y a 56%  the h i g h l y motivated  as t h e r e t u r n s  The  T h e r e w e r e one h u n d r e d and  t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f t a b l e s o r desks t o work on.  the w o r k e r s went t o t h e i r  ent  percent.  group amounted t o e i g h t y - s i x o r s e v e n t y - n i n e An  without  There were e i g h t y d i s t r i b u t e d  c i r c u l a t e d among s o c i a l w o r k e r s i n f o u r t e e n  the ^Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e from t h i s  Columbia.  were d i s t r i b u t e d t o  i n t h e '"Vancouver C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y .  amounted t o f o r t y - f i v e  from t h e  Vancouver C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y w i l l Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e w i l l  be  be  58.  In accordance with namely;  (1) s o c i a l  (3) s i z e  the sampling  c r i t e r i a mentioned  change i n t h e community,  i n C h a p t e r One  (2) "community dependency",  o f t h e community; t h e f o l l o w i n g Department o f f i c e s were s e l e c t e d ,  D u n c a n , C a m p b e l l R i v e r , New. W e s t m i n s t e r D i s t r i c t , K e l o w n a , V e r n o n , Nelson,  Cranbrook, Quesnel, P r i n c e George, C h i l l i w a c k , Smithers,  R u p e r t , Dawson C r e e k as w e l l a s t h e R e g i o n a l cross  from each  D i r e c t o r s and C.A.S.  out of the t o t a l  t h i r t y - t w o r e t u r n s w h i c h were n o t used f o r t h e d a t a  pertaining  t o the case v i g n e t t e s .  chapter  c a l c u l a t i o n s by t h e  Thus t h e f i n d i n g s d i s c u s s e d  a r e b a s e d o n a " n " o f one h u n d r e d  fourteen r e j e c t s f o r the purpose of t h i s the other  study  Department o f f i c e s  after  t h a t on t h e f i r s t  T h i s was a p a r t i c u l a r l y  Department o f f i c e s  meeting. analysis decided that the  important  the p a r t i c u l a r coding  error to rectify  A n e x t r a s h e e t was m a i l e d  because  v i g n e t t e was  "neglect  out immediately  to  and t h e e r r o r was v e r b a l l y c o r r e c t e d a t t h e C.A.S.  d i d not f i l l  questionnaires  used  i n an answer f o r b o t h n e g l e c t  i t e m w o u l d be c o d e d z e r o  procedure.  i n an  (see questionnaire i n  f o r t y - f o u r r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t make t h e c o r r e c t i o n . i f they  t o the  case v i g n e t t e , t h e space t o f i l l  O f t h e one h u n d r e d a n d e i g h t e e n  that  Half of the  w e r e f r o m C.A.S. r e s p o n d e n t s  t o t h e "Young M o d e l " t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t f i r s t  a b s e n t " and "abuse s e v e r e " . the  later in  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s e n t  a n s w e r a s t o t h e s e v e r i t y o f a b u s e was o m i t t e d .  according  and e i g h t e e n .  questions  h a l f were from t h e Department.  I t was a l s o d i s c o v e r e d  Appendix A)  per-  one h u n d r e d  computer because t h e repondents answered s i x o r l e s s o f t h e n i n e  and  This  place.  There were f o u r t e e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  this  Prince  s e c t i o n o f s e l e c t e d o f f i c e s m e e t t h e a b o v e c r i t e r i a a n d a good  centage r e t u r n s were r e c e i v e d  and  Trail,  i n the data I t was and abuse  f o r b o t h p a r t s o f t h e answer i n  T h u s t h e e r r o r was c o r r e c t e d b y e n o u g h o f t h e  r e s p o n d e n t s so t h a t r e s u l t s were n o t g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d .  Coding Procedure A t o be  used  total  of seventy-two items  i n computing the d a t a .  ended q u e s t i o n s  and  w i t h two  c o d i n g was  The  f i r s t exception pertained  the  t o the  t h o s e who  The  four coders  the r e s p o n d e n t s t o code t h i s ( 0 ) No no  few  answer;  items were from the up  t o i t e m number  f o u r and  i n the The  second  agreed  degree;  ( 8 ) B.A.  or o t h e r  of each v i g n e t t e .  answered out  of the n i n e ,  by  2/9.  If less  rejected coding  than  the  total  deemed n e c e s s a r y . total  neglect  year, training;  This  coding  n e g l e c t score based  I f a respondent answered e i g h t or  the  The  on  nine  I f seven v i g n e t t e s were  s c o r e was  adjusted  by m u l t i p l y i n g  seven v i g n e t t e s were answered the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  as p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d .  follows  replies.  i t e m number f i f t y - f o u r was  a d j u s t m e n t was  (6) I n s e r v i c e  degree p l u s In s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g .  a l l the v a r i a t i o n s of the respondents'  v i g n e t t e s no  pertained  ( 3 ) B.S.W.; ( 4 ) 1  (7) O t h e r ;  coding  exception  was  they  i t e m u n d e r e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h w e r e as  or o t h e r n o n - s o c i a l work d e g r e e ;  the  sheet.  upon l o o k i n g a t t h e answers o f a l l  ( 1 ) M.S.W.; ( 2 ) 2 y e a r s , no  coding  coding  i t e m number f o u r , s e c t i o n t h r e e o f  ( 5 ) B.A.  The  fifty-four  coding process,  degree;  covered  open-  r e s p o n d e n t s whose m a r i t a l s t a t u s  were m a r r i e d .  t r a i n i n g q u e s t i o n w h i c h was  questionnaire.  the  questionnaires  t r a n s f e r from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to the  There were a p p r o x i m a t e l y  were i n c l u d e d w i t h to  None o f  small exceptions,  the  widowed.  a straight  were coded from the  same p r o c e d u r e was  i t e m number f i f t y - s i x w h i c h r e p r e s e n t e d  total  followed for  abuse scores  was  the  f o r each  respondent. The deviation  coding  items  score of neglect^and  the "Young M o d e l " .  A  only seven v i g n e t t e s . was  made.  number f i f t y - f i v e  The  total  f i f t y - s e v e n were  the  abuse r e s p e c t i v e l y - t h a t i s d e v i a t i o n from  c o r r e c t i o n was For  and  those  who  made f o r t h o s e  r e s p o n d e n t s who  a n s w e r e d e i g h t o r n i n e no  number o f r e s p o n d e n t s who  answered  adjustment  answered a l l n i n e  vignettes  60.  was  59;  and  t h o s e who  a n s w e r e d o n l y e i g h t v i g n e t t e s was  a n s w e r e d o n l y s e v e n v i g n e t t e s was than seven study.  and  The  t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e j e c t e d  those  f o r the purposes the t o t a l  a total  t o the r e s p o n d e n t s '  caseload.  I f the respondent  o u t o f n i n e o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a c o r r e c t i o n was  The  of the  less  of  deviation  score of the s i m i l a r i t y  who  answered  n e g l e c t i g n o r i n g the d i r e c t i o n of the d e v i a t i o n .  i t e m number f i f t y - n i n e was  But  and  Fourteen respondents  c o d i n g i t e m s number f i f t y - e i g h t was  o f a b u s e and  vignettes  13.  46;  this score  coding case  o n l y answered  made b y m u l t i p l y i n g b y  i f m o r e t h a n s e v e n v i g n e t t e s w e r e a n s w e r e d no  c o r r e c t i o n was  seven  1/4.  deemed  nece-  ssary. The  n e x t s t e p l - i n t h e c o d i n g p r o c e d u r e was  c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s w h i c h were as f o l l o w s : r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r e s e n t o f f i c e w h i c h was and m o r e t h a n t h r e e y e a r s ; field had  years or l e s s  and  c a s e t h i s v a r i a b l e was (3) t r a i n i n g  ( o r e d u c a t i o n ) was  or i n s e r v i c e and  females;  y o u n g e r and  t h o s e who  were used  as  t r a i n i n g or l e s s ;  those older  than  i n the f i r s t  in  three years  divided  a degree  (4) sex which divided  than t h i r t y  had  four;  years;  M.S.W., B.S.W.  other than i n s o c i a l  work,  d i v i d e d n a t u r a l l y between males  (6) s i z e  g r e w up  who second  between those t h i r t y - f o u r years  i n ones o f o v e r 100,000.  control variables  In the  had m o r e t h a n f i v e  b e t w e e n t h o s e who  had  i n the  case between those  had m o r e t h a n two y e a r s .  d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h o s e who g r e w up  between l e s s  b e t w e e n t h o s e who  t h o s e who  ( 5 ) age w h i c h was  up w h i c h was and  and  (1) l e n g t h o f t i m e worked  divided  divided  t h o s e who  divided  or e q u i v a l e n t diplomas  seven  ( 2 ) l e n g t h o f t i m e r e s p o n d e n t s ' had w o r k e d  o f s o c i a l w o r k w h i c h was  two  to dichotomize  o f c o m m u n i t y when  i n communities  or  growing  10,000 t o 100,000  T h e s e diichtitxim'ized v a r i a b l e s  i n the f i n d i n g s d i s c u s s e d i n the l a t t e r  part  of the chapter. U s i n g a s a m p l e o f t h i r t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s we scores, f o r t o t a l n e g l e c t , t o t a l  abuse,  calculated  the median  deviation neglect score, deviation  61.  abuse s c o r e , t o t a l obvious  i n our coding procedure  questions. this be  d e v i a t i o n s c o r e and t o t a l  T h i s was m a i n l y  analyzed  Descriptive  to find  had  table  with  Thus i t i s  time  factor  that there i s a wealth  i n completing  o f raw d a t a t h a t c o u l d  o u t m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t b e i n g s t u d i e d .  Data  Descriptive data second  score.  we d i d n o t u s e a n y o f t h e o p e n e n d e d  due t o o u r l i m i t e d  study but i t a l s o suggests  further  similarity  i s i n c l u d e d i n t a b l e s t w o , t h r e e and f o u r .  shows t h e p e r c e n t a g e  o f agreement t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  t h e '.'Young M o d e l " t h a t was d e v e l o p e d  f o rthis  1  The answers  study.  TABLE I I PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT OF PERCEPTIONS WITH "YOUNG MODEL"  (n = 118)  NEGLECT Vignette number  ABUSE  Agreement Percentage  Agreement w i t h "Young M o d e l "  Agreement Percentage  Agreement w i t h "Young M o d e l "  1  25.42 Neglect absent  Neglect  Absent  1  50.85 Abuse severe  Abuse  2  76.27 Neglect moderate  Neglect  Severe  2  67 .80 Abuse moderate  Abuse Moderate  3  47 .46 Neglect moderate  Neglect  Absent  3  67.80 Abuse moderate  Abuse Moderate  4  75.42 Neglect absent  Neglect  absent  4  95.7 6 Abuse absent  Abuse Absent  5  55.93 Neglect moderate  Neglect  Severe  5  76.27 Abuse absent  Abuse Absent  6  44.92 Neglect moderate  Neglect  Moderate  6  79.66 Abuse moderate  Abuse Moderate  Vignette Number  Severe  62.  - -  NEGLECT  Vignette number  ABUSE  Agreement Percentage  Agreement w i t h "Young M o d e l "  7  61.02 Neglect moderate  Neglect Moderate  8  66.95 Neglect moderate  9  69.49  Agreement Percentage  Agreement w i t h "Young M o d e l "  7  88.14 Abuse absent  Abuse  Absent  Neglect Moderate  8  74.58 Abuse severe  Abuse  Severe  Neglect  9  47.46 Abuse moderate 47.46 Abuse severe  Abuse  severe  Vignette Number  Severe  Neglect severe  It agreed w i t h neglect  c a n be s e e n t h e model  that  i n s i xof the nine vignettes  the respondents  i n p e r c e i v i n g b o t h a b u s e and n e g l e c t and i n p e r c e i v i n g  i n c a s e v i g n e t t e number t w o .  I n t h a t c a s e 76.21%  o f the respondents  p e r c e i v e d n e g l e c t a s m o d e r a t e w h e r e a s t h e a n s w e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o d e l was severe.  I n case v i g n e t t e s  t h r e e and f i v e  the respondents  saw n e g l e c t a s  m o d e r a t e w h e r e a s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o d e l f o r t h e s e two v i g n e t t e s n e g l e c t was rated  as a b s e n t and s e v e r e r e s p e c t i v e l y .  perceived  i n accordance The t h i r d  to  with  t h e model  I tw i l l  be noted  i n a l l n i n e case  t a b l e shows t h e p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y  t h a t a b u s e was  vignettes. o f each  case  vignette  the respondents' caseload.  TABLE I I I P E R C E I V E D S I M I L A R I T Y OF EACH CASE VIGNETTE TO WORKER CASELOAD ( n = 1 1 8 )  • #  Similar to none  Type o f Vignette Neglect  Similar to >one h a l f  No  response  absent 24.58  1 Abuse  Similar to <one h a l f  severe  57 .63  7 .63  10.17  63.  #  . Type:; o f Vignette Neglect  Similar t o none  Similar to <one h a l f  Similar to >one h a l f  5.93  41.53  44.92  7 .63  8.47  -62.71  20.34  8.47  9.32  60.17  22.88  7 .63  7 .63  50.85  33.90  7.63  16.10  61.02  12.71  10.17  7 .63  51.69  30.51  10.17  27 .12  55.93  5.93  11.02  16.10  52.54  22.03  No  response  severe  2 Abuse moderate Neglect  absent  3 Abuse moderate Neglect  absent  4 Abuse  absent  Neglect  severe  5 Abuse  absent  Neglect moderate 6 Abuse moderate Neglect moderate 7 Abuse  absent  Neglect moderate 8 Abuse  severe  Neglect  severe  9 Abuse  In e i g h t of the nine v i g n e t t e s , the workers c a s e v i g n e t t e as s i m i l a r  t o one h a l f  of their  two was p e r c e i v e d b y t h e g r e a t e s t p e r c e n t a g e more t h a n h a l f as was n o t e d rather  than  of their  caseload.  above t h e i r p e r c e n t a g e severe.  The t a b l e  t h e v i g n e t t e s was m e a n i n g f u l broadly speaking, own  9.32  severe  caseloads.  This  saw t h e d e s c r i p t i v e  caseloads.  V i g n e t t e number  of respondents  is particularly  as s i m i l a r  to  i n t e r e s t i n g because  o f n e g l e c t i n t h i s v i g n e t t e was m o d e r a t e  illustrates  that the d e s c r i p t i v e  to the respondents  b e c a u s e i t was  t o many o f t h e t y p e s o f f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n s  content of  similar,  found  in their  64.  The  fourth  table  preceding court action  illustrates  how  the respondents ranked  i n cases of n e g l e c t and/or  situations  abuse.  . T A B L E IV WORKER RANKING OF  SITUATIONS PRECEDING COURT  ACTION I N CHILD PROTECTION CASES (n =  118)  Percentage Ranking Item F i r s t  Item  Percentage Ranking Item Second  Percentage Ranking Item T h i r d  Percentage Ranking Item F o u r t h  Taken to c o u r t emergency s i t u a t i o n  37.29  17.80  15.25  9.32  Taken t o Court a f t e r < 6 months casework s e r v i c e  23.73  24.58  15.25  15.25  5.93  22.88  42.37  5.93  11.86  6.78  47 .46  Taken t o Court f o l l o w i n g 6-12 m o n t h s protection service to family Taken t o Court a f t e r >12 months protection service  It column  12.71  c a n be s e e n t h a t  the l a r g e s t percentage of respondents  forms a d i a g n o n a l p r o g r e s s i o n .  s i t u a t i o n was  ranked f i r s t  Cases  t a k e n t o c o u r t as  b y 37.297» o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  c a s e s t a k e n t o c o u r t a f t e r t w e l v e months p r o t e c t i v e f o u r t h b y 47.467. o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .  i n each  emergency  through to those  s e r v i c e w h i c h were ranked  C o n t r a r y t o much o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  literature  on C h i l d W e l f a r e w h i c h a d v o c a t e s and d e s c r i b e s v a r i o u s k i n d s o f  protective  services,  workers period  i t would  appear  from t h i s  a r e u n a b l e o r do n o t o f f e r p r o t e c t i v e of time.  table that services  I t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t  f r o m one q u e s t i o n i n w h i c h  the worker  answered  in practice  o v e r an this  the  extended  table  i s made up  by m e r e l y a n u m e r i c a l r a n k i n g  65.  w i t h no o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n .  Therefore  no c o n c l u s i v e  c a n b e made a b o u t t h e t a b l e b u t i t d o e s show c l e a r l y followed by present The  workers  i n the f i e l d .  s e c t i o n o f chapter  findings of the research  they w i l l  s p e c i f i c a l l y with the  t o which these  be r e p r o d u c e d  Hypothesis  these  either con-  f o l l o w each o f these.  as t a b l e s b u t s e l e c t e d  i n d i s c u s s i o n form, where  to the preceding  f i n d i n g s support  Where t a b l e s h a v e b e e n  be i n c l u d e d and a d i s c u s s i o n w i l l  be i n t r o d u c e d  than abusive  deal  of the hypotheses.  Not a l l o f t h e f i n d i n g s w i l l  ically  three w i l l  and t h e e x t e n t  an a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n  will  trend  Findings This  structed  an e x i s t i n g  statements  information  findings relate specif-  hypothesis.  2A was t h a t  "neglected  behaviour  i s more  ambiguous  behaviour",  Findings: To t e s t  this hypothesis  a t a b l e was c o n s t r u c t e d  as f o l l o w s ;  TABLE V PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT ON:ABUSE AND NEGLECT Vignette  Sign  •k  Neglect  Abuse  C a s e #1  +  25.42  50.85  C a s e #2  -  76.27  67 .80  C a s e #3  +  47 .46  67 .80  C a s e #4  +  75.42  95.7 6  C a s e #5  +  55.93  76.27  C a s e #6  +  44.92  7 9.66  C a s e #7  +  61.02  88.14  C a s e #8  +  66.95  74.58  69.49  47.46  C a s e #9  * A l l c a s e s i n w h i c h agreement on abuse i s g r e a t e r t h a n agreement on n e g l e c t r e c e i v e a p l u s s i g n i n t h e " S i g n " column. p . <C.10 ( s i g n s T e s t ) f r o m S i e g e l  66.  From t h i s  table  i t c a n be s e e n t h a t  t h e r e was a t e n d e n c y on t h e p a r t o f t h e  r e s p o n d e n t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h more c l e a r l y which  and t o a g r e e a b o u t  those cases i n  a b u s e was p r e s e n t t h a n t h o s e i n w h i c h n e g l e c t was p r e s e n t .  significant  a t t h e .10 l e v e l  of confidence.  A c a l c u l a t i o n was made o f t h e t o t a l f o r b o t h n e g l e c t and a b u s e .  T h i s was  d e v i a t i o n from t h e "Young M o d e l "  The h i g h e s t t o t a l  d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e m o d e l was  seven b u t t h e d e v i a t i o n s were n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e s t f o r e i t h e r n e g l e c t o r abuse.  In four of the seven instances  b u t t h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t abuse.  tendency  In c a l c u l a t i n g the d e v i a t i o n  was n o t t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , see more o r l e s s  t h e d e v i a t i o n was h i g h e s t f o r n e g l e c t  t o d e v i a t e a n y m o r e on n e g l e c t score the d i r e c t i o n  that  than  of the deviations  i s , whether the respondent  tended t o  a b u s e / n e g l e c t i n t h e v i g n e t t e was i g n o r e d i n o b t a i n i n g t h e  score. The  findings  f r o m T a b l e #5 s u p p o r t a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t  i s more a m b i g u o u s l y p e r c e i v e d s c o r e s do n o t s u p p o r t e i t h e r hypothesis Table  than abuse.  The c o m p a r i s o n s  acceptance or r e j e c t i o n  of the hypothesis.  The  #5. "differences  of n e g l e c t e x i s t between s o c i a l workers In order t o t e s t  i n perceptions of the s e v e r i t y  i n different  variables,  settings".  selected  with  individual  s u c h as a g e o f w o r k e r , e x p e r i e n c e i n s o c i a l w o r k , and c o m m u n i t y o f  origin, #6.  administrative  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h e C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y was c o m p a r e d  the Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e O f f i c e s , h o l d i n g  Table  of the d e v i a t i o n  c a n b e a c c e p t e d a s b e i n g s u p p o r t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e f i n d i n g s i n  H y p o t h e s i s 2A was t h a t  worker  neglect  constant.  The r e s u l t s  of this  comparison are i l l u s t r a t e d i n  67.  TABLE V I COMPARISON OF PERCEPTIONS OF NEGLECT BETWEEN C.A.S. AND DEPARTMENT OF S O C I A L WELFARE 2 (df = 1)  Level of Significance  experience  2.326  .20 >  experience  0.638  .90 > p  X  Comparison  Group  CAS.* v s . D e p t . * *  ^ in  2 years office  CAS.  v s . Dept.  ^ 2 years in office  CAS.  v s . Dept.  CAS.  p >  .10  ;> .80  2 years experience f i e l d o f S o c i a l Work  1.462  inva'l i d  in  > 2 years experience f i e l d o f S o c i a l Work  1.183  .30 > p  >.20  in  >.10  v s . Dept.  CAS.  v s . Dept.  <T 3 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n S o c i a l Work f i e l d  2.187  .20 >- p  CAS.  v s . Dept.  >-3 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n S o c i a l Work f i e l d  0.518  .50 >  CAS.  v s . Dept.  <. 1 y e a r i n S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work  8.052  . O l j - . p i > .001  CAS.  v s . Dept.  1 year i n School S o c i a l Work  0.260  of  p >  *** invalid  CAS. v s . D e p t .  Age o f S o c i a l <T 35 y e a r s  Worker  3.119  .10 > p  CAS.  v s . Dept.  Age o f S o c i a l >35 years  Worker  0.168  .70>p  CAS.  v s . Dept.  :•<-,1-0,000 p o p . o f S o c i a l W o r k e r ' s c o m m u n i t y o f Family orientation  2.761  .10 ^  CAS.  v s . Dept.  >10,000 pop. of r e s p o n d e n t s community o f Family orientation  0.261  .70 > p  ***  .30  CAS. r e f e r s t o t h e V a n c o u v e r C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y Dept. r e f e r s t o the P r o v i n c i a l Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e T h e e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c y was n o t o b t a i n e d  >.05  >  .50  p y. .05  > .50  68.  These comparisons r e s u l t s i g n i f i c a n t a t the compared w i t h respondents  i n o n l y t h r e e f i n d i n g s which were  .10 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .  t h e Department respondents  who had n o t a t t e n d e d  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t  The C.A.S. respondents  were  i n c l u d i n g o n l y the group o f  a School o f S o c i a l Work.  The C.A.S. Group  from the Department group a t t h e p.<^.01  o f c o n f i d e n c e , the C.A.S. workers o b t a i n i n g h i g h e r n e g l e c t s c o r e s  level  than  the Department workers. The and  o t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the C.A.S.  the Department Workers was found where the two were compared examining  o n l y those workers who had grown up i n communities w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f l e s s than 10,000.  In t h i s comparison t h e d i f f e r e n c e  was  significant  at  . 1 0 ^ ? * p ^ . 0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e , w i t h t h e C.A.S. workers s c o r i n g h i g h e r on n e g l e c t than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed w i t h t h e Department. H o l d i n g c o n s t a n t the t o t a l number o f workers under the age o f 35 y e a r s and comparing C.A.S. and Department the d i f f e r e n c e i n n e g l e c t p e r c e p t i o n was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p ^ .10 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . C.A.S. workers i n t h i s age c a t e g o r y had h i g h e r n e g l e c t  scores  than  The the  Department Workers. A c a l c u l a t i o n was made o f t h e percentages  o f respondents  severe n e g l e c t i n a l l n i n e cases f o r t h i r t e e n d i f f e r e n t o f f i c e s i n the s t u d y and the r e s u l t s a r e t a b u l a t e d i n T a b l e V I I . assumption u n d e r l y i n g the d e c i s i o n t o compare C.A.S. w i t h  Our  who checked  participating original  the Department  o f f i c e s was t h a t the major d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n would be between r u r a l and  urban o f f i c e s .  T h i s assumption proved  the r e s u l t s shown i n T a b l e V I I .  i n a c c u r a t e ; however, as seen i n  Where t h i r t e e n o f f i c e s ,  i n c l u d i n g C.A.S.,  were compared a g a i n s t "severe n e g l e c t " checks the d i f f e r e n c e s among the  69. o f f i c e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant,  a t t h e p «<^.001 l e v e l  C.A.S., i t w i l l be s e e n r a n k e d a b o u t m i d w a y b e t w e e n lowest between  i n the t o t a l the r u r a l  group  of o f f i c e s .  of  confidence.  t h e h i g h e s t and  The m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e  the seen  offices.  TABLE V I I PERCENTAGE OF  CHECKS OF  NINE CASES FOR  L o c a t i o n of  "SEVERE NEGLECT" I N  THIRTEEN O F F I C E S *  Number o f Respondents  Office  ALL  Percentage of Checks o f "Severe N e g l e c t "  Cranbrook  5  55%  Trail  7  50%  New  8  45%  7  36%  7  26%  37  25%  10  20%  Chilliwack  7  20%  Vernon  4  1.9%  Quesnel  4  19%  Smithers  5  18%  Duncan  5  17%  8  16%  Westminster  Prince  Rupert  Nelson C • A. • S • Prince  Dawson  George  Creek  F r i e d m a n T e s t X* = d f = 12  35.8 p <d .001  * 2 o f f i c e s were n o t used because responses.  o f an  i n s u f f i c i e n t number o f  70.  The r e s u l t s are d i f f e r e n c e s tive  tend  t o support acceptance  of the hypotheses that there  i n perception of severity of neglect i n different administra-  settings. Hypothesis  2B was t h a t " d i f f e r e n c e s  s e v e r i t y o f abuse e x i s t between  i n s o c i a l worker perceptions of the  s o c i a l workers i n d i f f e r e n t  administrative  settings". T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o workers w h i l e h o l d i n g selected are seen i n Table  t e s t e d b y c o m p a r i n g C.A.S. and D e p a r t m e n t individual variables  constant.  The  results  VIII.  TABLE  VIII  COMPARISONS OF PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSE BETWEEN C.A.S. AND DEPARTMENT WORKERS  Comparison CAS.  Group  v s Dept.  X  2  ( d f = 1)  Level of Significance  years office  experience  1.706  inval id  CAS. v s D e p t .  >2 years in office  experience  0.098  .80 > p >  CAS. v s D e p t .  <C2 y e a r s s o c i a l experience  work  1.462  invalid  CAS. v s D e p t .  j>2 y e a r s s o c i a l experience  work  0.453  .70 > p >  CAS. v s D e p t .  C 3 years s o c i a l experience  work .  1.026  invalid  CAS. v s D e p t .  . "> 3 y e a r s experience  work  0.020  .90 > p > .80  CAS. v s D e p t .  < 1 year School of S o c i a l Work  0.239  .70>  CAS. v s D e p t .  ->1 y e a r a t S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work  0.175  invalid  CAS. v s D e p t .  <Age Worker  2.544  invalid  in  35  social  Social  p  .70  .50  P-.50  71.  Comparison  Group  CAS.  vs  Dept.  ;> Age 35 Worker  CAS.  vs  Dept.  <^ 1 0 , 0 0 0 p o p . C o m m u n i t y of Worker F a m i l y orientation  CAS.  vs  Dept.  > 1 0 , 0 0 0 pop. C o m m u n i t y _• 0.752 of worker's o r i g i n .  This differences  t h a t no  group of  f o r any  lends strong  c o m p a r i s o n s g a v e no the v a r i a b l e s  m a t t e r what v a r i a b l e  indicated  This,  that  concluded  from the  0.049  invalid  tested.  and  i s that  This  y  >.70  p >  .30  d e a r t h of  differences  What i t d o e s i n d i c a t e i s  is a strongly to the  s i m i l a r percep-  hypothesis,  than neglect.  t h e r e may  comparing o f f i c e s or  . ^.50  ,> p  statistically significant  more c l e a r l y p e r c e i v e d  be  What c a n  a b e t t e r method  g r o u p s t h a n was  which  devised  also  of in  the  chosen. Hypothesis 4 stated  and  ,80  i s examined there  findings  L e v e l of Significance  1)  0.081  then, lends f u r t h e r support  a b u s e was  combining v a r i a b l e s manner  of  Social  (df =  2  s u p p o r t t o r e j e c t i n g h y p o t h e s i s 2B.  t i o n of abuse.  be  X  abuse are  related  that  "differences  i n perception  a.  experience  l e v e l o r amount o f e d u c a t i o n i n s o c i a l w o r k sex age m a r i t a l s t a t u s of respondent s i z e of community,of o r i g i n of s o c i a l worker."  i n the  field  of  social  group of h y p o t h e s i s were t e s t e d  s c o r e f o r e a c h r e s p o n d e n t and worker v a r i a b l e s .  neglect  to:  b. c. d. e. f. This  of  comparing t h i s  These comparisons are  work  by  compiling  score with  shown i n T a b l e  a total  selected IX.  deviation  individual  72.  TABLE I X RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL D E V I A T I O N I N PERCEPTIONS OF  NEGLECT  AND ABUSE TO SELECTED I N D I V I D U A L SOCIAL WORKER V A R I A B L E S Level of Significance  Comparison  Group  x  Experience i n O f f i c e and t o t a l d e v i a t i o n  Dept. Wkrs. (N=81)  1.000  .50 > p >  Experience i n Office and t o t a l d e v i a t i o n  C.A.S. W k r s . (N=37)  0.222  .70 > p  M a r i t a l status vs total deviation  Male s o c i a l w o r k e r (N=43)  1.048  (df=2)  invalid  Marital status vs total deviation  Female worker  5.837  (df=2)  invalid  S i m i l a r i t y s c o r e and total deviation  N = 118  1.690  .20 > p  Urban-Rural Worker b a c k g r o u n d and t o t a l deviation  N = 118  0.517  .50^p  S o c i a l Work E d u c a t i o n and t o t a l d e v i a t i o n  N = 118.  0.037  .90>p  Experience i n Office and t o t a l d e v i a t i o n  N = 118  1.036  .50>  p >  .30  Experience i n F i e l d o f S o c i a l Work a n d total deviation  N = 118  0.183  .70 >  p  .50  M a r i t a l s t a t u s and total deviation  N = 118  4.661  invalid  Sex a n d t o t a l deviation  N = 118  3.739  .10^> p >• .05  The  findings  social (N=71)  i n d i c a t e only  b e t w e e n compared g r o u p s .  and a b u s e The  ( d f = 1)  one s t a t i s t i c a l  A t the .10p>p  was a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m a l e s and f e m a l e s neglect  2  significant  .05 l e v e l i n total  y.50  >.10  ^.30  -  >.80  difference  of confidence  deviation  .30  there  s c o r e s on  responses.  female  respondents  tended  to deviate  l e s s than male  respondents,  i n d i c a t i n g greater accuracy "Young M o d e l " .  This  i n p e r c e i v i n g n e g l e c t and a b u s e a c c o r d i n g  finding  supports  that d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions difference  of neglect  and a b u s e a r e n o t r e l a t e d  hypothesis to a  i n sex of the observer. Due t o t h e o b v i o u s  relating  rejection of the particular  tothe  these  inadequacies  of using  total  d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s and  t o i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s , some f u r t h e r t e s t s w e r e d e v i s e d a n d  computed.* One checking with are  o f these  "severe  t e s t s d o n e was t o c a l c u l a t e t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f w o r k e r s  n e g l e c t " as p r e s e n t e d  i n e a c h c a s e v i g n e t t e a n d compare  t h e s i z e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y i n w h i c h t h e w o r k e r was r a i s e d . seen i n Table  this  The r e s u l t s  X.  TABLE  X  S I Z E OF COMMUNITY OF WORKER O R I G I N COMPARED WITH PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS CHECKING "SEVERE NEGLECT".  S i z e o f Community  2500  2500-10,000  10,000-100,000  19%  20%  21%  Percentage of Workers checking Severe Neglect Friedman Test  Although ^>.10 l e v e l to see l e s s  26%  X = 4.83 df = 3 .20 > p > . 1 0 2  t h e d i f f e r e n c e h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t  o n l y a t t h e .20 ^>p  t h e r e was a t e n d e n c y f o r w o r k e r s r a i s e d i n s m a l l e r "severe  100,000  n e g l e c t " than  their  colleagues  communities  raised i n the larger  communities. A f u r t h e r t e s t was made c a l c u l a t i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f w o r k e r s checking  JL.  "By  "abuse absent"  and c o m p a r i n g t h i s w i t h  D r . J.A. Crane, T h e s i s  Advisor.  the size of their  community  74.  of  origin.  See T a b l e X I .  TABLE X I COMMUNITY OF WORKER O R I G I N COMPARED WITH PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS CHECKING "ABUSE ABSENT".  Community o f Worker O r i g i n  2500  7<> c h e c k i n g Abuse Absent  The larger  Test  26  19  2  raised  i n s m a l l and w o r k e r s  c e n t e r s s e e i n g " a b u s e a b s e n t " was s t a t i s t i c a l l y of confidence.  background i s that  One o f t h e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e g a i n e d of the  o f s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g  worker  i n each  i n d e t e r m i n i n g h i s assessment  o f the n i n e case v i g n e t t e s .  t h e same o b s e r v a t i o n s was 24.17.. this  reached  statistically  of a  "abuse". checking "severe  The mean p e r c e n t a g e  s e e i n g " s e v e r e n e g l e c t " was 22.27, and t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e  and  from  may b e m o r e i m p o r t a n t  A c a l c u l a t i o n was made o f m a l e s and f e m a l e s neglect"  significant at  i n p e r c e p t i o n o f abuse a r e u n r e l a t e d t o urban-  o f the worker.  as p o s s e s s i n g  raised  This f i n d i n g supports r e j e c t i o n of the  t h e community o f o r i g i n  than h i s l e v e l situation  23  X = 10.87 df = 3 .02 p .01  hypothesis that differences  this  100,000  d i f f e r e n c e between workers  the ^ . 0 2 l e v e l  rural  10,000 100.000.  40  Friedman  in  2500-10,000  o f males  of females  making  The C h i s q u a r e w i t h d . f . = 1 was 1.07  the confidence l e v e l  o f .50 >*p  ;>.30, t h u s  i t was n o t  significant.  A similar  c a l c u l a t i o n was made o f m a l e s and f e m a l e s  " n e g l e c t a b s e n t " i n each  of the nine cases.  checking  T h e mean p e r c e n t a g e  o f males  75.  p e r c e i v i n g " n e g l e c t a b s e n t " was 2 0 . 8 % a n d f e m a l e s n i n e cases  the males ranked  "neglect absent".  The r e s u l t i n g F r i e d m a n  4.00 and r e s u l t e d level  in a statistically  of confidence.  more o f t e n  ahead o f t h e females  This finding  test  20.1%.  I n eight of the. v  i n the percentage  checking  c a l c u l a t i o n w i t h d f = 1 was  s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the p c a n be s u m m a r i z e d b y s t a t i n g  t h a n m a l e s saw n e g l e c t as p r e s e n t w h i c h  <.05  that  females  lends support t o a  r e j e c t i o n o f h y p o t h e s i s 4C. A c o m p a r i s o n was d r a w n o f m a l e s a n d f e m a l e s in was  the nine vignettes. 4 1 % and f o r f e m a l e s  resulted  i n a level  c h e c k i n g "abuse  absent"  The mean p e r c e n t a g e o f m a l e s i n d i c a t i n g " a b u s e 35%.  The C h i s q u a r e was .44 w i t h d f = 1 .  o f c o n f i d e n c e o f 7 0 . > p ^».50 w h i c h h a s no  absent"  This  statistical  significance. In abuse"  c o m p a r i n g m a l e s and f e m a l e s  i n the case v i g n e t t e s ,  females 21.8%. proved  Females, do  of "severe  t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e o f m a l e s was 18.1%, a n d o f  The C h i s q u a r e  t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y  i n checking the presence  ( F r i e d m a n t e s t ) was 8,000 w i t h d f = 1.  significant  at the p ^ . 0 1 level  t h e n , tend t o see t h e abuse t h a t e x i s t s  This  of confidence.  i n a case as more s e v e r e  than  males. The  vance  findings  on t h i s  "abuse a b s e n t " and " s e v e r e a b u s e " have  f o r two o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s .  i n d i c a t i n g whether hypotheses  The a b s e n c e  of significant  The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e x e s  "severe abuse"  s u p p o r t s t h e r e j e c t i o n o f h y p o t h e s i s #4 C.  considered  examined. chapter.  findings discussed i n this  a l l inclusive or conclusive.  possibilities  difference:in  o r n o t abuse i s p r e s e n t i n a case s u p p o r t s acceptance o f  #1.  The  rele-  chapter are s e l e c t i v e They c l e a r l y  f o r v a r i o u s combinations of v a r i a b l e s  Further implications  i n the checking of  f o r extended  and c a n n o t be  indicate  t o be t e s t e d  t h e many and f u r t h e r  study are discussed i n the next  CHAPTER I V  SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND PROPOSALS  Synopsis The perceptions  FOR FURTHER  RESEARCH  of Chapter I focus  of this  of child  workers would d i f f e r abuse r e p r e s e n t e d  study  neglect  h a s b e e n on t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r and h i s  and a b u s e .  I t was s p e c u l a t e d  i n their perception  testing  social  o f t h e s e v e r i t y o f n e g l e c t and  i n case d e s c r i p t i o n s o r v i g n e t t e s , and t h a t t h e s e  e n c e s m i g h t b e r e l a t e d t o o n e o r a number o f v a r i a b l e s . and  that  o f these  differ-  The c o n s t r u c t i o n  c a s e v i g n e t t e s was a l s o s e e n t o b e a p r e l i m i n a r y  in assessing the usefulness  o f a model  step  i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s o f n e g l e c t and  abuse. Perception consistent  of neglect  social  gave r i s e  worker p e r c e p t i o n s .  Were p e r c e p t i o n s  differences  t o hypotheses about d i f f e r e n c e s o f n e g l e c t more a m b i g u o u s  s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g ,  t o do w i t h  were i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s s u c h as c o g n i t i v e  orientations, moral-evaluative  related  i n case d e s c r i p t i o n s  o f abuse, d i d agency s e t t i n g have a n y t h i n g  i n perceptions;  s t u d y was t h e  i n these d e s c r i p t i o n s .  A number o f q u e s t i o n s  than perceptions  sex,  i n this  t e n d e n c y t o s e e more o r l e s s n e g l e c t / a b u s e  t h a n was a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d  in  and a b u s e a s d e f i n e d  orientations, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , marital status,  age, u r b a n / r u r a l  background  of s o c i a l  workers,  to differences i n perceptions? In order  were c o n s t r u c t e d ,  to test differences i n perceptions, e a c h one r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n  neglect  and a b u s e .  The d e s c r i p t i o n s s i m u l a t e d  neglect  and a b u s e a s t h e y  apply  c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e , d e f i n e d C r i t e r i a used  case d e s c r i p t i o n s of various  degrees of  r e p o r t s and o b s e r v a t i o n s  of  t o s o c i a l w o r k e r s , and a p p r o x i m a t e d , as  degrees of s e v e r i t y of neglect  and a b u s e .  i n d e f i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s o f s e v e r i t y f o r n e g l e c t and  abuse were those cases. their  used by L e o n t i n e  o f n e g l e c t and abuse  S e v e r e n e g l e c t was d e f i n e d a s p a r e n t a l f a i l u r e  to adequately  physical  taken  care.  S e v e r e a b u s e was d e f i n e d a s c o n s i s t e n t and v i o l e n t  abuse o f t h e i r  under s t r e s s .  from L e o n t i n e  To  c h i l d r e n and m o d e r a t e a b u s e , as i n t e r m i t t e n t b e a t i n g  Supporting  which were found  d e s c r i p t i v e m a t e r i a l f o r e a c h v i g n e t t e was a l s o  Young's s t u d y  t o be r e l a t e d  compare p e r c e p t i o n s  abuse s c o r e ;  vignettes. different  these  scores  of neglect  hypothesis  concerning  a combined  by a s s i g n i n g weight values  t o the  f o r n e g l e c t and abuse were  numbers.  ambiguity  of neglect  as c o m p a r e d t o  C o m p a r i s o n s o f a g e n c y s e t t i n g w e r e made b e t w e e n s o c i a l w o r k e r s  offices  a g e n c y and s o c i a l w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d  throughout the province.of  British  as c o m p a r i s o n s between p e r c e p t i o n s  Columbia.  job  s t u d y were t h e hypotheses developed  concerning  i n a large  i n public welfare T h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s as  test.  Not tested i n  m o r a l e v a l u a t i v e , and  satisfaction variables. D a t a f o r t h e s t u d y was o b t a i n e d  sent  and a b u s e .  and a s e r i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s ,  w e r e made u s i n g c o m p u t e r a n a l y s i s a n d t h e c h i - s q u a r e this  neglect  on t h e n i n e  a b u s e , was t e s t e d b y c o m p a r i n g a g r e e m e n t o f r e s p o n s e s f o r n e g l e c t  urban c h i l d w e l f a r e  items  o f s e v e r i t y . (82)  t h e sum o f s c o r e s  Deviation scores  based on d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h e s e w e i g h t  using  respondents t othe  s c o r e , an abuse s c o r e ,  represented  degrees of s e v e r i t y .  category  of s o c i a l workers,  E a c h v i g n e t t e was s c o r e d  The  and a b u s e c a s e s ,  to the p a r t i c u l a r  questionnaire received a neglect  well  feed  c h i l d r e n , m o d e r a t e n e g l e c t , as l a c k o f c l e a n l i n e s s o r f a i l u r e t o  provide medical  and  Young i n h e r s t u d y  t o s o c i a l workers  welfare  agency.  social  i n a number o f p u b l i c w e l f a r e  Choice  f a c t o r s which could  from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which were  of the p u b l i c welfare  affect perceptions  change, p o p u l a t i o n s i z e ,  of  offices  offices  took  s o c i a l workers:  and community  "dependency".  and a into  child  account  indices of  78.  Synopsis  of Chapter  Chapter early  stage  two  of  II. this  s t u d y was  o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and  the a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l  agency.  a r t i c l e s were reviewed  after  on  the s u b j e c t .  were covered  The  in this  the  illustration  The  interpretation  covered  total  chapter.  i s as  By  follows:  identifying  (a)  the r e f e r r a l  source, process,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s which  neglecting families;  reviewed  any  summary, we of the  n e g l e c t and  literature  found  child  writing.  on  the  t h a t t h e r e was  w e l f a r e but  criteria,  fifty-seven  taken  and  neglect,  special  problems; the  of abusing  of c h i l d  on  chapter.  f u n c t i o n i n g which  of types  quality  included or  a b u s e and  neglect;  (g) Worker d e c i s i o n m a k i n g w h i c h a p r o t e c t i o n worker  decides  on as a p r o t e c t i v e c a s e .  relatively  t h e r e was  that  information  t h e b e a r i n g on  characteristics  s u b j e c t o f how  f a m i l y s h o u l d be  to  f o r the m a t e r i a l w r i t t e n  (b) R e f e r r a l  (d) F a m i l y  abuse;  the  the a l p h a b e t i c a l l e t t e r s  identified  (e) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  of c h i l d  whether a r e f e r r e d  to i d e n t i f y  on  abuse  D e f i n i t i o n s which covered  community p e r c e p t i o n s ;  of s t u d i e s t r y i n g  (f) Incidence  n e g l e c t and  o f s e v e n b o o k s and  a comprehensive search  q u a n t i t y of p r o t e c t i v e r e f e r r a l s ;  a review  ical  A  of c h i l d  i t i s p o s s i b l e to d e l i n e a t e the framework of the  (c) Agency working and  ceferral  of the l i t e r a t u r e  diagram g i v e s a g r a p h i c p i c t u r e of the areas  abuse, p r o t e c t i v e case, which  a review  little  In  r e s e a r c h done i n t h i s  a . l a r g e amount o f d e s c r i p t i v e and  area  theoret-  THE E A R L Y STAGE OF I D E N T I F I C A T I O N AND R E F E R R A L OF . . . C H I L D NEGLECT AND ABUSE f  S-  C H I L D  W E L F A R E  A G E N C Y  F o s t e r Home C a r e Wards Court  Action  Adoptions  The m a i n f o c u s o f t h i s study i s L I T E R A T U R E NOT REVIEWED I N THESE AREAS  workers perception of abuse and n e g l e c t 1  4  80.  S y n o p s i s o f Chapter I I I Chapter t h r e e d e a l t w i t h the problems was coded  (tabulated),  the method o f a n a l y s i s , and the f i n d i n g s .  Of 188 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d were r e t u r n e d o f which  118 were used  to s o c i a l workers  i n B. C , 132  i n o b t a i n i n g our f i n d i n g s .  two items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were coded The  o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , how i t  f o r the computer  Seventy-  tabulations.  seven c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s were d i c h o t o m i z e d t o f a c i l i t a t e d a t a p r o c e s s i n g .  As a r e s u l t e l e v e n t a b l e s were c o n s t r u c t e d . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , p . from t h i r t e e n o f f i c e s who checked  .001, among respondents  " s e v e r e n e g l e c t " as p r e s e n t i n a l l n i n e  vignettes. In comparing  C. A. S. and Department on p e r c e p t i o n s o f abuse t h e r e  were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s which it  i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l t h o u g h abuse e x i s t s  i s more e v e n l y p e r c e i v e d than n e g l e c t . When t o t a l d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s from the "Young Model" were c a l c u l a t e d ,  women tended  to a c h i e v e g r e a t e r a c c u r a c y than men i n t h e i r s c o r e s .  The those which action.  findings indicated  dominated  Ranked l a s t  t h a t workers  ranked emergency s i t u a t i o n s as  the number o f p r o t e c t i v e cases p r o c e e d i n g t o c o u r t i n g o i n g t o c o u r t were p r o t e c t i v e cases r e c e i v i n g more  than twelve months s e r v i c e . respondents were viewed  E i g h t o f the n i n e v i g n e t t e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e  as b e i n g s i m i l a r  to less  than o n e - h a l f o f t h e i r  present caseload. The respondents  tended t o agree more o f t e n about  abuse i n t h e v i g n e t t e s .than about  the e x i s t e n c e o f  the e x i s t e n c e o f n e g l e c t .  Those respondents from both t h e C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y and the Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e who (a) had n o t attended a S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work (b) were r a i s e d (c) were under  i n communities  o f l e s s than 10,000 p o p u l a t i o n and  t h i r t y - f i v e years o l d obtained higher t o t a l neglect s c o r e s .  81.  Respondents whose communities o f o r i g i n had a p o p u l a t i o n of 2,500 6r l e s s , l e s s o f t e n saw " s e v e r e n e g l e c t " than r e s p o n d e n t s who i n l a r g e r communities. the p . "^.02  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was  statistically  had been r a i s e d  s i g n i f i c a n t at  l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e where the two groups were compared  item o f "abuse a b s e n t " .  Workers  coming from s m a l l e r c e n t e r s saw  a b s e n t " more o f t e n than workers r a i s e d  on the  "abuse  i n more urban c e n t r e s .  In e i g h t o f n i n e v i g n e t t e s males more o f t e n than females checked " n e g l e c t absent", r e s u l t i n g i n a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t the p . <^.05 of  level  confidence. Male and female r e s p o n d e n t s tended t o agree on the p r e s e n c e o f  abuse i n a case b u t d i f f e r e d c o n t a i n i n g " s e v e r e abuse".  significantly  (p. ^ . 0 1 )  i n j u d g i n g cases  Females saw more " s e v e r e abuse" than m a l e s .  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Study One differences workers.  o f the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study has been t h a t  considerable  i n the p e r c e p t i o n of c h i l d n e g l e c t and abuse e x i s t among s o c i a l  T h i s f i n d i n g p o i n t s to the need f o r a more e x p l i c i t  definition  of the problem, n o t o n l y f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g methods o f s t u d y i n g n e g l e c t and abuse, but e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , to ensure the a p p l i c a t i o n o f c o n s i s t e n t c r i t e r i a i n c h i l d w e l f a r e work. evidence, there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y  A c c o r d i n g to the a v a i l a b l e  that a c h i l d  i s more l i k e l y  t o be appre-  hended by a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l worker than by another s o c i a l worker. i s so because s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s  i n perceptions  This  of n e g l e c t and abuse,  p a r t i c u l a r l y those a t the upper end o f the a b s e n t - s e v e r e continuum can determine the d i f f e r e n c e between a d e c i s i o n t o apprehend or n o t t o apprehend a child. D e s p i t e the u t i l i t y o f common c r i t e r i a however, i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c r i t e r i a may  be d i f f i c u l t due t o  82.  differences  i n c o m m u n i t y s t a n d a r d s and v a r y i n g  workers o f the model. genuity  C h a n g e s w h i c h a r e d e s i r a b l e , may r e q u i r e  social some i n -  i n their application. The  be  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by  a useful  development o f a model o f n e g l e c t  step  i n long  that data c o l l e c t i o n categorical criteria  should  of the problem.  be b a s e d n o t on l e g i s l a t i v e  definitions,but rather  on a s y s t e m a t i c  It is  considered  or other  convenient  a p p l i c a t i o n of defined  to i n d i v i d u a l cases. The  construct  term s t u d i e s  and a b u s e w o u l d a p p e a r t o  findings of this  and u s e t h e m o d e l  study  indicate that  i n further studies.  i t would be p o s s i b l e t o Before f u l l  scale  data  c o l l e c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d  however, d a t a c o l l e c t i o n  be v a l u a b l e  some i d e a o f t h e a d v a n t a g e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s  could  i n obtaining  on a l i m i t e d s c a l e w o u l d that  be e x p e c t e d . Proposals The  by m o d i f y i n g  f o r Further validity  Research  of the f i n d i n g s of t h i s  study could  and i m p r o v i n g v i g n e t t e s , and a d m i n i s t e r i n g  be s t r e n g t h e n e d  the revised  test  i n s t r u m e n t t o a new s e l e c t i o n o f o f f i c e s i n t h e p r o v i n c e  or i n other  of  the country.  were l e s s c l e a r  in  their presentation  Several  abuse than were o t h e r  vignettes  i n the questionnaire  o f a p a r t i c u l a r degree of s e v e r i t y of n e g l e c t  and  v i g n e t t e s , and t h i s was r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n c e s  p e r c e n t a g e s o f agreement on t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e g r e e s o f s e v e r i t y . improved s e t of v i g n e t t e s differences  parts  could  i n the  An  h a v e b e e n more e f f e c t i v e i n d e m o n s t r a t i n g  i n perceptions. N,  Several  a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t t h a t emerged  i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s o f s e x , and d i f f e r e n c e s among v a r i o u s  offices,  and d i f f e r e n c e s  i n the study  i n perceptions  r e l a t e d t o community  involved the  of neglect population.  F r o m t h e r e s u l t s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t women a r e m o r e c o n s i s t e n t i n their perceptions  of neglect  and a b u s e , and t e n d  t o s e e more s e v e r i t y o f  83.  neglect  and a b u s e i n c a s e s t h a n do men.  Since  the explanation  finding  i s not c l e a r , f u r t h e r t e s t s could  b e made w h i c h w o u l d  of t h i s indicate  whether such d i f f e r e n c e s were p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d t o t h e w o r k e r s ' s e x , or were r e l a t e d t o other of  variables  s u c h as r e c e n t  experience or d i f f e r e n t kinds  supervision. M o r e o v e r , t h e f i n d i n g t h a t women t e n d  men, r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n : neglect  i n c a s e s t h a n m i g h t be s e e n b y o t h e r  different  Differences  i n perceptions  o f f i c e s may  i n d i c a t e that  demographic f e a t u r e s workers and  than  s o c i a l w o r k e r s s e e more  observers?  of neglect  and a b u s e w i t h  such d i f f e r e n c e s  regard  to  are related to  o f t h e community, t o i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s o f s o c i a l  i n those o f f i c e s ,  o r t o some o t h e r  variable.  Further  tabulations  t e s t s m i g h t e x p l a i n some o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s . Of  of  Is i tdesirable that  t o s e e more n e g l e c t  i n t e r e s t too, i s the f i n d i n g that  the s o c i a l worker  possible  is significantly  that such d i f f e r e n c e s  educational  processes.  the urban/rural  related to perceptions.  background I ti s  a r e r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l i z a t i o n and  84.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1.  A l l e n , . A.F. " M a l t r e a t m e n t S y n d r o m e i n C h i l d r e n " , V o l . 62 ( A p r . 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 4 0 - 4 2 .  2.  A l l e r h a n d , M.E. " I n d i r e c t M e a s u r e m e n t i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h " , _in M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown in Child Welfare Research: An A p p r a i s a l . New.York: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1 9 6 5 . pp. 1 5 8 - 7 3 .  3.  A n g u s , A.M., Vancouver,  4.  Annual Report. Department of S o c i a l W e l f a r e - P r o v i n c e of Columbia, V i c t o r i a : 1956-66.  5.  A t k i n s o n , R.G. e t a l • The B a t t e r e d C h i l d S y n d r o m e . M a s t e r o f S o c i a l Work T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r , 1965. p p . 1 6 9  6.  B i l l i n g s l e y , Andrew. "The R o l e o f t h e S o c i a l W o r k e r i n a C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e A g e n c y " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . X L I I I (Nov. 1 9 6 4 ) , p p . 4 7 2 - 9 , 497  7.  . The National  Children's Aid Society 1951. pp.48  of Vancouver,  Canadian  B.C.  Nurse,  1901-1951.  British  Unpublished Columbia,  S o c i a l Worker i n a C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e Agency. A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1966. p p . 2 1 4  New  York:  8.  B o a r d m a n , H.E., "A P r o j e c t I n j u r i e s " , S o c i a l Work,  9.  Boehm, B e r n i c e . "An A s s e s s m e n t o f F a m i l y A d e q u a c y i n P r o t e c t i v e Cases", C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . X L I ( J a n . 1962), pp.10-6.  10.  . "The Welfare,  to Rescue C h i l d r e n from I n f l i c t e d V o l . 7 ( J u n . 1 9 6 2 ) , pp.43-51  C o m m u n i t y and t h e S o c i a l A g e n c y D e f i n e N e g l e c t " , C h i l d V o l . X L I I I (Nov. 1 9 6 4 ) , p p . 4 5 3 - 6 4 .  11.  :  . "A R e s e a r c h D e s i g n f o r an A s s e s s m e n t P r o t e c t i v e Cases", Mimeographed M a t e r i a l  12.  Braun, Vol.  13.  B r i e l a n d , D o n a l d . "An A s s e s s m e n t o f R e s o u r c e s i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h " , i n M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. pp. 188-96  14.  B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Economic's I n d e x o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 1966  15.  Brumbaugh, O l i v e . "Introduction to a D i s c u s s i o n Held at Eastern R e g i o n a l Conference of the C h i l d W e l f a r e League, Asbury P a r k , New J e r s e y , F e b . 1 9 5 3 " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . X X X I I ( A p r . 1 9 5 3 ) , pp. 13-4  I.G. e t a l • "The M i s t r e a t e d 99 ( A u g . 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 98-103  Child",  and  of F a m i l y Adequacy i n (May 1 9 6 0 ) , p p . 1 4 C a l i f o r n i a Medicine,  Statistics.  Regional  4  85.  16.  B r y a n t , H.D. e t a l . " P h y s i c a l A b u s e o f C h i l d r e n - An A g e n c y C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . 42 (Mar. 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 1 2 5 - 3 0 .  17.  Chesser, Eustace, C r u e l t y 1 9 5 . p p . 159  18.  C o l l i n s , Seymour, " N e g l e c t e d C h i l d r e n " , R o y a l V o l . 79 ( N o v . - D e c . 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 7 4 3 - 5 0 .  19.  C r a n e , J.D., " C o m m u n i t y L e a d e r s h i p O p i n i o n S u r v e y " , R e p o r t o f the Study, pp.110  20.  Study",  t o C h i l d r e n . London: V i c t o r G o l l a n c z L t d . ,  S t r a t e g y of E v a l u a t i v e Research pp.12  Society Health  Journal,  Mimeographed  i n the 1960's. Mimeographed,  21.  D e l s o r d o , James., " P r o t e c t i v e Casework f o r Abused V o l . 10 ( N o v . - D e c . 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 213-8  Children",  22.  D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e , P r o v i n c e o f B.C. 1965  23.  de  24.  Elmer, E l i z a b e t h . "Abused Young C h i l d r e n Seen i n H o s p i t a l s " , Work, V o l . 5 ( O c t . 1 9 6 0 ) , p p . 9 8 - 1 0 2  Statistical  1966.  Children ,  Summaries.  S c h w e i n i t z , K a r l and E l i z a b e t h cte S c h w e i n i t z . "The P l a c e o f A u t h o r i t y i n the P r o t e c t i v e F u n c t i o n of the P u b l i c W e l f a r e Agency", Child Welfare, V o l . X L I I I ( J u n . 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 286-91  25.  "Hazards i n Determining J a n . 1966), pp. 28-33.  26.  '.. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f A b u s e d C h i l d r e n " , Oct. 1963), pp.180-4.  Social  C h i l d Abuse", C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l .  Children,  V o l . 10  XLV  (Sept.-  27.  Fanshel, David. " O p p o r t u n i t y and C h a l l e n g e i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h " , M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : National A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1 9 6 5 . pp. 11-6  28.  G e i s m a r , L u d w i g and B e v e r l y A y r e s . "A M e t h o d f o r E v a l u a t i n g t h e S o c i a l F u n c t i o n i n g o f F a m i l i e s U n d e r T r e a t m e n t " , S o c i a l Work, V o l . 4 ( J a n . 1959), pp. 102-9  29.  . Measuring Family Functioning. C h e s t s and C o u n c i l s . 1 9 6 0 . p p . 1 2 4  St. P a u l , Minnesota:  Community  30.  Gershenson, C P . " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of C h i l d Welfare Research", i n M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. pp. 197-205  31.  G o r d o n , H.L. pp.24-7  32.  "Emotional  Neglect", C h i l d Welfare, V o l . XXXVIII  . "Protective Services for Children",  Child Welfare, Vol.  (Feb.1959)  XXV  86.  (May  1 9 4 6 ) , pp.  1-6  33.  G r i f f i t h s , D.L. and F . J . M o y r i i h a n . " M u l t i p l e E p i p h y s i a l I n j u r i e s i n B a b i e s ("Battered Baby" Syndrome)", B r i t i s h M e d i c a l J o u r n a l , V o l . 2 (Dec. 1 9 6 3 ) , pp.1558-61  34.  Hancock, C l a i r e . "IPSelective S e r v i c e V o l . 27 ( M a r . 1949)  35.  H a y e s , D.D. "A C o u n t y A g e n c y T a k e s O v e r P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e f o r C h i l d r e n " , The C h i l d , V o l . 14 ( J a n . 1 9 5 0 ) , p p . 1 0 1 - 3 , 107-9  36.  Henry, J u l e s . "An A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n t o M e t h o d and T h e o r y i n R e s e a r c h i n t h e Human S c i e n c e s " , i n M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, 1965. p p . 1 4 3 - 5 7  37.  H e r r e , . E.A. " A g g r e s s i v e C a s e w o r k i n a P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s S o c i a l Casework, V o l . X L V I ( J u n . 1965), pp.358-62  38.  H e r s t e i n , Norman. "A C r i t i q u e o f C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h i n C h i l d W e l f a r e " , _in M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New. Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. pp.82-104  39.  Hutchinson, Dorothy. "Basic P r i n c i p l e s i n Child Welfare", Selected P a p e r s i n C a s e w o r k , 1952. Columbus, Ohio: N a t i o n a l Conference of S o c i a l Work, 1 9 5 2 . pp. 121-8  40.  Hyde, L a u r i n . "How. Does t h e P r a c t i c e o f S o c i a l P l a n n i n g R e g a r d R e s e a r c h ? " _ i n M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. p p . 182-7  41.  Jacobucci, Louis. " C a s e w o r k T r e a t m e n t o f The N e g l e c t f u l S o c i a l Casework, V o l . X L V I ( A p r . 1 9 6 5 ) , pp. 221-6  42.  Kadushin, A l f r e d . " I n t r o d u c t i o n o f New O r i e n t a t i o n s i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h , " jLn M i r i a m N o r r i s and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : A n A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. pp. 28-39  43.  K a u f m a n , I r v i n g . "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e " , Welfare, V o l . 36 ( F e b . 1 9 5 7 ) , p p . 8-13  44.  Keith-Lucas Alan. " M o r e , N o t L e s s , E m p h a s i s on P a r e n t s C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . XL ( S e p t . 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 21-3  45.  Kempe, C.H. e t a l . "The B a t t e r e d C h i l d S y n d r o m e " , J o u r n a l o f Medical Association, V o l . 181 ( 7 J u l . 1 9 6 2 ) , p p . 17-21  for Children", Child  Welfare  Unit",  Mother",  Child  Rights",  American  87.  46.  K o g a n , L . S . " R o l e o f O b j e c t i v e T e s t s i n C h i l d W e l f a r e Research!:', i n * The Known and Unknown i n C h i l d W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1 9 6 5 . p p . 132-42  47.  Lazarus, Esther. "The P o s i t i v e A p p r o a c h t o P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . 27 (Nov. 1 9 4 9 ) , pp  48.  M c F e r r a n , Jane. " P a r e n t ' s Groups i n P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s " , C h i l d r e n , V o l . 5 (Nov. Dec. 1 9 5 8 ) p p . 223-8  49-.  M a a s , H e n r y and R i c h a r d E n g l e r . C h i l d r e n i n Need o f P a r e n t s . Y o r k and L o n d o n : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 9 . p p . 462  50.  Massing, Rose. "Neglected Children: A Challenge S o c i a l Work, V o l . 3 ( A p r . 1 9 5 8 ) , pp. 30-6  51.  M a x w e l l , I.D. " A s s a u l t and Sqotia Medical Bulletin ,  52.  M e i e r , E.G. " F o c u s s e d T r e a t m e n t f o r C h i l d r e n a t Home", V o l . . 9 ( J a n . - F e b . 1962), pp. 15-20.  53.  M i n n , P.K. " O p e r a t i o n H e l p : An A p p r o a c h t o C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n " , S o c i a l Work P r a c t i c e 1964, N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on S o c i a l W e l f a r e , New York: C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964. p p . 1 7 2 - 8 0  54.  M u l f o r d , R.M. "Emotional Neglect of Children: A Challenge t o - P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . X X X V I I ( O c t . 1 9 5 8 ) , pp. 19-24  55.  N e t t l e r , Gwynn. Houston Texas: p p . 98  56.  Norman, S h e r w o o d . "Emergency S e r v i c e i n C h i l d W e l f a r e " , C h i l d V o l . X X X I I I ( A p r . 1 9 5 4 ) , pp. 3-7  57.  N o r r i s , M i r i a m and B a r b a r a W a l l a c e , e d s . , The W e l f a r e R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l . New Y o r k : S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1965. pp. 214  58.  N u r s e , S.M., " F a m i l i a l P a t t e r n s o f P a r e n t s who A b u s e T h e i r C h i l d r e n " , S m i t h C o l l e g e S t u d i e s i n S o c i a l Work. N o r t h Hampton, M a s s a c h u s e t t s O c t . 1964, p p . 1 1 - 2 5  59.  O d i u m , D.M. "Neglected Children", Royal ( N o v . - D e c 195 9 ) , p p . 7 3 7 - 4 3  60.  O t t , J.F. "Neglected or P h y s i c a l l y Abused C h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l o f the South C a r o l i n a M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , V o l . 60 ( O c t . 1 9 6 4 ) , p p . 3 0 9 - 1 5  61.  O v e r t o n , A l i c e . " C a s e w o r k as a P a r t n e r s h i p " , C h i l d r e n , V o l . 3 Oct. 1956), pp.181-6  * Miriam Norris  and  New  t o t h e Community",  B a t t e r y o f C h i l d r e n and O t h e r s " , V o l . XLV ( A p r . 1 9 6 6 ) , pp.105-7  Nova  Children,  A S t u d y o f O p i n i o n s on C h i l d W e l f a r e i n H a r r i s C o u n t y . C o m m u n i t y C o u n c i l o f H o u s t o n and H a r r i s C o u n t y , 1958  Barbara Wallace,  eds.  Welfare,  Known and Unknown i n C h i l d N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of  Society Health Journal,  Vol.79  (Sept.-  88. 62.  P o l a n s k y , N.A. S o c i a l Work R e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1960. p p . 3 0 6  63.  P r i n g l e , M.L.K. and V i c t o r i a B o s s i o . "A S t u d y o f D e p r i v e d Children P a r t I - I n t e l l e c t u a l , E m o t i o n a l and S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t " , V i t a Humana, V o l . 1-2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) p p . 65-88  64.  P r o t e c t i o n of C h i l d r e n A c t . 1943  65.  R a i l , M.E. "The C a s e w o r k P r o c e s s i n Work w i t h t h e C h i l d and t h e F a m i l y i n t h e C h i l d ' s own Home", S o c i a l S e r v i c e R e v i e w , V o l . X X V I I I ( S e p t . 1 9 5 4 ) , p p . 270-8  66.  S a n d u s k y , A . L . ^ P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s " , _in H.L. L u r i e , e d . S o c i a l Work E n c y c l o p e d i a , New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l W o r k e r s , 1 9 6 5 . p p . 579-87  67 .  . "Services to Neglected 1960), pp. 23-8  Chicago:  The  Province of B r i t i s h  University  Columbia  Children", Children, Vol. 7  of  Statute,  (Jan.-Feb.  68.  Scherer, Lorna. "Protective ( F e b . 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 27-31  69.  Shames, M i r i a m . "Use o f Homemaker S e r v i c e i n F a m i l i e s T h a t N e g l e c t T h e i r C h i l d r e n " , S o c i a l Work, V o l . 9 ( J a n . 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 12-8  70.  S h e l d o n , E l e a n o r . " I n t a k e P r a c t i c e s - The C o r e o f t h e A g e n c y ' s S e r v i c e i n H e l p i n g C h i l d r e n and T h e i r P a r e n t s " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . 27 (Dec. 1949)  71.  S i e g e l , Sidney. Nonparametric New Y o r k : McGraw, 1956 p p .  72.  Smith, Barbara. "Helping N e g l e c t f u l Parents The C h i l d , V o l . 14 ( S e p t . 1 9 4 9 ) p p . 3 6 - 8 ,  73.  S m y s e r , M.M. P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s f o r C h i l d r e n . Unpublished Master of S o c i a l Work T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B.C. 1954. p p . 130  74.  S t r e s h i n s k y , N a o m i . e t a l • "A S t u d y o f S o c i a l Work P r a c t i c e i n P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s : I t s n o t What y o u Know, I t s Where y o u Work", C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . XLV ( O c t 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 4 4 4 - 4 5 0 , 4 7 1 .  75.  Ten H a v e , R a l p h . "A P r e v e n t i v e A p p r o a c h t o P r o b e m s o f C h i l d and N e g l e c t " , M i c h i g a n M e d i c i n e , V o l . 64 ( S e p t . 1 9 6 5 ) , p p .  Casework S e r v i c e " , . C h i l d r e n , V o l . 3  Statistics 312  For  the B e h a v i o u r a l Sciences.  t o Become R e s p o n s i b l e " , 45-6  Abuse 645-9  -76.  "The C h i l d A b u s e P r o b l e m i n I o w a . The e x t e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m , and P r o p o s a l f o r Remedying i t " , " " J o u r n a l o f Iowa M e d i c a l S o c i e t y , V o l . L I I I ( O c t . 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 692-4  77.  Thimm, J . L . "A Community P r o t e c t i v e P r o g r a m " , C h i l d W e l f a r e , V o l . X X X V I I I ( M a r . 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 28^32  A  89.  78.  Toland, Marjorie. " A b u s e o f C h i l d r e n - Whose R e p o n s i b i l i t y ? " , C o n n e c t i c u t M e d i c i n e , V o l . 28 ( J u n . 1 9 6 4 ) , p p . 438-42  79.  W e i n b e r g e r , P a u l and P e g g y S m i t h . "The D i s p o s i t i o n o f C h i l d N e g l e c t C a s e s r e f e r r e d by c a s e w o r k e r s t o J u v e n i l e C o u r t " , C h i l d W e l f a r e V o l . XLV ( O c t . 1 9 6 6 ) p p . 4 5 7 - 6 1 , 4 7 1 .  80.  V i c e l l i , L . J . The R e t u r n o f G u a r d i a n s h i p t o N a t u r a l P a r e n t s . U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r o f S o c i a l Work T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 1 9 6 1 . p p . 97  81.  Welsch, E x i e . " S u s t a i n i n g t h e C h i l d i n H i s I m p a i r e d Home", C h i l d Welfare, V o l . X X X I I ( J u l . 1 9 5 3 ) ; p p . 3-7  82.  Young, L e o n t i n e . and A b u s e . New  83.  Z a l b a , S.R. "The A b u s e d C h i l d - A S u r v e y o f The P r o b l e m " , V o l . I I ( O c t . 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 3-1.6.  Wednesday's C h i l d r e n - A S t u d y o f C h i l d York, M c G r a w - H i l l , 1964. pp.195  Neglect  Social  Work,  APPENDIX A  INSTRUCTIONS TO AGENCIES A D M I N I S T E R I N G T H E S I S QUESTIONNAIRE "SOCIAL WORKER PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD NEGLECT AND ABUSE", U.B.C. SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK  The e n c l o s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h o u l d approximately  1% h o u r s  Envelopes completed, and  t o complete.  have been p r o v i d e d .  q u e s t i o n n a i r e c a n be p l a c e d  s e a l e d by each S o c i a l As  indicated  take  When i n envelopes  Worker.  i n our l e t t e r  t o t h e Depart-  m e n t o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e , V i c t o r i a , we w o u l d l i k e much  t o have completed  the School  questionnaires returned to  o f S o c i a l Work b y F e b r u a r y  meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s  very  of the thesis  16, i n order t o schedule.  91.  MEMORANDUM FROM: TO  The D i r e c t o r DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE Parliament Buildings VICTORIA, B.C.  A L L REGIONAL DIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE  January 24th,  Re:  1967.  G r o u p S t u d y on C h i l d A b u s e and N e g l e c t .  M a s t e r s t u d e n t s o f t h e S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h w i l l b e c o n d u c t i n g a g r o u p s t u d y on c h i l d a b u s e and n e g l e c t . A s a means o f i n t r o d u c t i o n I q u o t e 19th, 1967 ..  from.Dr.  J . Crane's  letter  Columbia,  of January  "The s t u d y c o n c e r n s i t s e l f w i t h t h e r o l e o f t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r i n v o l v e d w i t h c a s e s o f c h i l d n e g l e c t and a b u s e i n v a r i o u s a g e n c i e s . Of s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t i s t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e . Demographic v a r i a b l e s w i l l be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . I t w o u l d be a p p r e c i a t e d i f t h e o f f i c e s c o n c e r n e d c o u l d r e c e i v e a d v a n c e n o t i c e of the a r r i v a l o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s e s s e n t i a l that a l l workers c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a t t h e same o f f i c e m e e t i n g , and i t w o u l d b e d e s i r a b l e i f a l l o f f i c e s c o m p l e t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h i n a few days o f each other. We h o p e t h a t no d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e t e s t w o u l d t a k e p l a c e b e t w e e n o f f i c e s p r i o r to February 15th. We e x p e c t t o m a i l t h e t e s t i n s t r u m e n t t o t h e v a r i o u s o f f i c e s on F e b r u a r y 1 s t and w o u l d l i k e t o h a v e a l l t e s t S c c o m p l e t e d by F e b r u a r y 1 5 t h . We w i l l a s k the o f f i c e s t o r e t u r n t h e c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i r e c t l y t o u s " . I n a d d i t i o n , I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r s and S u p e r v i s o r s o f t h e s e l e c t e d o f f i c e s w i l l be r e q u e s t e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A trial run o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i t t a k e s from.1% t o 2 hours f o r completion. The  offices  Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region  I 113III IV V VI VII VIII  Your k i n d cc  selected ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...  are: D u n c a n and C a m p b e l l R i v e r New W e s t m i n s t e r D i s t r i c t K e l o w n a and V e r n o n T r a i l , N e l s o n and C r a n b r o o k Q u e s n e l and P r i n c e G e o r g e Chilliwack S m i t h e r s and P r i n c e R u p e r t Dawson C r e e k  cooperation i s appreciated,  - to selected  District  Offices.  Director  J.A. SADLER of S o c i a l Welfare  92.  EXPLANATORY NOTES TO QUESTIONNAIRE  SCHEDULE  Section I Page  93  I n t r o d u c t i o n w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h e respondents about t h e s t u d y and an a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  Page  94  E x p l a n a t o r y p a g e r e g a r d i n g t h e c a s e v i g n e t t e s and w h a t i s required of the respondents i n answering the questions f o l l o w i n g each v i g n e t t e .  Page  95  Short d e s c r i p t i v e case v i g n e t t e f o l l o w e d by s i x q u e s t i o n s : I t e m No. 1. - p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f n e g l e c t and a b u s e a n d / or the s e v e r i t y o f each. I t e m No. 2 - 5. - q u e s t i o n s u s e d cognitive orientations.  to determine  respondents'  Item. No. 6. - q u a n t i t a t i v e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e p r e c e d i n g v i g n e t t e t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e w i t h p r o t e c t i v e cases. P a g e s 96 - 103  E a c h h a v e t h e i r own c a s e v i g n e t t e f o l l o w e d b y s i x q u e s t i o n s . Each o f t h e 6 i t e m s on t h e s e pages a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e d i s c u s s e d a b o v e a s f o u n d o n p a g e 95.  Page  I t e m No. 5 5 . - i n f o r m a t i v e q u e s t i o n s u p p o r t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g whether the v i g n e t t e s a r e a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e respondents' caseloads.  104  I t e m No. 5 6 - 6 1 . - q u e s t i o n s t o e s t a b l i s h p o s s i b l e explanations f o r differences i n workers' perceptions of a b u s e and n e g l e c t . Section I I Page  105  I t e m 1 - 6. - r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e u s e d t o determine s o c i a l workers' m o r a l - e v a l u a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s .  Section I I I Page  106  I t e m s 1 - 5. - r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e u s e d t o o b t a i n g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e s o c i a l workers ' p r e s e n t employment s i t u a t i o n , p r e v i o u s t r a i n i n g and p a s t s o c i a l w o r k a n d / or o t h e r f u l l time work e x p e r i e n c e .  Section IV Page  107  I t e m s 1 - 4. - r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e u s e d t o determine the s o c i a l workers' job s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Section V Page  108  Items 1 - 6 . - r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e used p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r s .  to obtain  I N T R O D U C T I O N  Our t h e s i s g r o u p i s u n d e r t a k i n g a n e x p l o r a t o r y study o f c h i l d n e g l e c t - abuse. We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e v i e w s o f s o c i a l w o r k e r s on selected aspects of t h i s problem. We a r e p l e a s e d t h a t y o u a r e a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a f i e l d o f r e s e a r c h w h i c h we h o p e w i l l eventually contribute to the effectiveness o f a l l t h o s e w o r k i n g w i t h f a m i l i e s and c h i l d r e n . We do n o t a s k y o u t o s i g n t h e q u e s t i o n naire. Y o u r r e s p o n s e s w i l l be s e e n o n l y b y t h e r e s e a r c h s t a f f o f t h i s p r o j e c t , and w i l l b e h e l d in s t r i c t confidence. When t h e s t u d y h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d , f i n d i n g s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e i n t h e f o r m of s t a t i s t i c a l summaries, b u t i t w i l l n o t be p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e s p o n s e s . We a s k t h e l o c a t i o n o f y o u r o f f i c e o n l y t o t a k e i n t o account s e l e c t e d demographic v a r i a b l e s . T h a n k y o u v e r y much f o r y o u r  co-operation  PART 1 Some R e p r e s e n t a t i v e In t h i s vignettes. the  Cases  s e c t i o n you w i l l  be p r e s e n t e d  For the purposes of t h i s Thesis  with  attack At  on a  we a r e d e f i n i n g n e g l e c t  as  questions answers.  child.  t h e e n d o f e a c h v i g n e t t e we w o u l d  degree o f n e g l e c t we w o u l d  like  y o u t o d e t e r m i n e what  and/or abuse you t h i n k i s d e s c r i b e d like  y o u t o answer w i t h b r i e f  i n each.  The  other  one - o r two - s e n t e n c e  T h e r e i s no c o r r e c t o r r i g h t a n s w e r t o a n y o f t h e q u e s t i o n s .  E a c h o f t h e c a s e s s t a n d s a l o n e and s h o u l d  be r a t e d  w a n t y o u r own v i e w s a b o u t t h e s i t u a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d  independently.  We  s o t h a t we may  describe  range o f these views. The  you  case  l a c k o f p r o v i s i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l needs o f c h i l d r e n and abuse as any  physical  the  several brief  case v i g n e t t e s  t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s  each v i g n e t t e  on t h e b a s i s  i t i s assumed t h a t  information. speculate  do n o t c o n t a i n  The p u r p o s e o f t h e c a s e v i g n e t t e s  your p a r t i c u l a r  n o t be l i m i t e d  In accurate  i s t o s t i m u l a t e you t o  and t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s  k n o w l e d g e o f human b e h a v i o u r a n d p e o p l e  Your r e s p o n s e s s h o u l d  t o enable  of the f a c t s presented..  the complainants are p r o v i d i n g  about the s i t u a t i o n s presented  your general  enough i n f o r m a t i o n  from  i n need o f h e l p .  by t h e f u n c t i o n o r t h e resources  agency.  0  of  95.  C a s e #1 The A g e n c y h a d r e c e i v e d c o m p l a i n t s f r o m two n e i g h b o u r s t h a t J o h n , aged 7, was m i s t r e a t e d b y h i s p a r e n t s . The f a m i l y c o u l d n o t m a i n t a i n c o n t i n u i n g f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h a n y o f t h e n e i g h b o u r s , saw l i t t l e o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s who l i v e d n e a r b y , d i d n o t a t t e n d PTA m e e t i n g s , c h u r c h e t c . One n e i g h b o u r h a d s e e n J o h n p l a y i n g i n t h e y a r d when h i s f a t h e r came home f r o m w o r k and f o r no a p p a r e n t r e a s o n t h e f a t h e r h a d p i c k e d up a b a s e b a l l b a t and b e a t e n J o h n n e a r l y u n c o n s c i o u s . The o t h e r n e i g h b o u r r e p o r t e d a s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t when M r . A. h a d t h r o w n J o h n a c r o s s t h e y a r d h i t t i n g h i m a g a i n s t the garage w a l l . He a l s o s a i d M r . and M r s . A. a r e c o n t i n u a l l y s w e a r i n g and s c r e a m i n g a t each o t h e r . John i s sometimes a l l o w e d t o p l a y o u t s i d e h i s y a r d , a t o t h e r t i m e s he m u s t s t a y i n s i d e . John's t e a c h e r s a i d h e o f t e n came t o s c h o o l w i t h b r u i s e s on h i s b o d y . 1.  In this  case n e g l e c t  *  In this  case abuse  i s absent  i s absent  moderate moderate  y o u s a y seems t o be t h e e s s e n t i a l  severe severe  2.  What w o u l d  3.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h p r o b a b l y l e d up t o t h i s problem?  4.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t d o e s t h i s  5.  Who  6.  How s i m i l a r i s t h e p a r e n t s t r e a t m e n t o f J o h n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i v e cases w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  situation  problem?  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should provide the necessary help or treatment?  T h i s l i n e was i n a d v e r t e n t l y o m i t t e d f r o m t h e t y p i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l questionnaire. The Department o f S o c i a l W e l f a r e Workers were asked b y l e t t e r t o make t h e c o r r e c t i o n b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g t h e f o r m s . The C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y o f V a n c o u v e r w o r k e r s w e r e t o l d when t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d .  96.  C a s e #2 M r . and M r s . M. h a v e b e e n i n r e c e i p t o f S o c i a l A l l o w a n c e f o r 3 years. He h a s g r a d e 8 e d u c a t i o n & h a s b e e n u n a b l e t o f i n d a n y w o r k o t h e r than t h e M u n i c i p a l w i n t e r works p r o j e c t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . The p r e s e n t S.A. w o r k e r i s c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e h o u s e & c h i l d r e n a r e a l w a y s d i r t y . In s p i t e o f h e l p f r o m s o c i a l w o r k e r s a n d p u b l i c h e a l t h n u r s e s , M r s . M seems u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e p r o p e r , m e a l s f o r t h e f a m i l y and sometimes t h e d a y s ' m e a l s consist of cold cereal. The c h i l d r e n , a g e d 6, 10 and 1 2 , a r e a l l i n s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r s l o w l e a r n e r s and d o h o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n s c h o o l o r community a c t i v i t i e s . T h e w o r k e r o f t e n n o t i c e s t h a t , when s h e v i s i t s , M r s . M. w i l l t e l l one o f t h e c h i l d r e n . n o t t o do s o m e t h i n g , b u t h e w i l l s o o n manage t o g e t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m h i s f a t h e r . O c c a s i o n a l l y t h e S.A. w o r k e r h a s s e e n b r u i s e s o n t h e c h i l d r e n and s h e o n c e saw M r s . M. s l a p t h e 6 y e a r o l d q u i t e h a r d when.he h a d s p o k e n o u t o f t u r n . 7 .  In this  case n e g l e c t i s absent abuse i s absent  moderate moderate  y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  _severe severe  8.  What w o u l d  9.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h p r o b a b l y l e d up t o this situation?  situation  problem?  10.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t d o e s t h i s  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  11.  Who  12.  How s i m i l a r i s t h e M's t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n cases w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h | n 1/2  should provide the necessary help or treatment?  97.  C a s e #3 A " F a m i l y S e r v i c e " w o r k e r was s e e i n g s e v e n y e a r o l d Bob's m o t h e r who was s e p a r a t e d f r o m h e r l e g a l h u s b a n d who was n o t h i s f a t h e r . H i s P u t a t i v e f a t h e r p r o v i d e d a s m a l l m o n t h l y sum, a t t h e o i d e r o f t h e c o u r t , on a f a i r l y r e g u l a r b a s i s . M r s . C h a d r e c e i v e d some S.A. b u t was u s u a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t and m a i n t a i n e d h e r s e l f a n d Bob c l e a n i n g o f f i c e s and d o i n g h o u s e w o r k . Bob was w i t h o u t f r i e n d s i n h i s own p e e r g r o u p , was n o t d o i n g w e l l i n s c h o o l , c r a v e d t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r and often d i s r u p t e d the c l a s s . He o f t e n d i d n o t come home f r o m s c h o o l and on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s s t a y e d o u t a l l n i g h t . He was s o m e t i m e s f o u n d w a n d e r i n g a r o u n d , o r h i d i n g i n d i t c h e s e t c . , b y t h e l o c a l p o l i c e when h i s a b s e n c e was r e p o r t e d b y h i s m o t h e r . A t t i m e s M r s . C. t r e a t e d Bob as an a d u l t and " t a l k e d t o h i m " , s o m e t i m e s s h e u s e d f o r c e f u l c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t a n d h e w o u l d h a v e b r u i s e s t o show f o r i t . 13.  In this  case n e g l e c t i s absent abuse i s absent  moderate moderate  severe severe  14.  What w o u l d y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  15.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h p r o b a b l y l e d up t o this situation?  16.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t  17.  Who  18.  How s i m i l a r i s M r s . C's t r e a t m e n t o f Bob t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n c a s e s w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  does t h i s  situation  problem?  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should provide the necessary help or treatment?  98.  Case  #4  Mr. & M r s . E. came t o t h e A g e n c y c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t c o n t r o l t h e i r 14 y e a r o l d d a u g h t e r J a n e . T h e y s a i d t h a t s h e was i m p a t i e n t and d e f i a n t and o f t e n had t e m p e r t a n t r u m s when t h e y t r i e d t o i m p o s e w h a t they considered reasonable l i m i t s . She was g o i n g s t e a d y , a g a i n s t h e r p a r e n t s w i s h e s , o f t e n s t a y e d o u t l a t e , and t h e y d i d n o t know w h e r e s h e was. She w o r e make-up e x c e s s i v e l y , s p e n t h o u r s f u s s i n g w i t h h e r h a i r , w h i c h h e r f a t h e r d e s c r i b e d "as a m e s s " , and i n s i s t e d on m i n i - s k i r t s and o t h e r c u r r e n t fads. J a n e showed l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n s c h o o l , o t h e r t h a n t h e s o c i a l c o n t a c t s and i t was u n l i k e l y s h e w o u l d p a s s i n t o t h e n e x t g r a d e , a l t h o u g h h e r p a r e n t s had b e e n t o l d s h e had t h e a b i l i t y t o do b e t t e r . Mr. & M r s . E. had t r i e d t o d e p r i v e h e r o f p r i v i l e g e s , had t a k e n away h e r a l l o w a n c e , d i d n o t l e t h e r w a t c h TV. f o r a week,, and had o n c e c o n f i s c a t e d h e r t r a n s i s t o r r a d i o , b u t none o f t h i s changed Jane's b e h a v i o u r . Jane i s uncommunicative w i t h her p a r e n t s and seems t o l i v e i n a h a z y d r e a m w o r l d . 19.  In t h i s  case n e g l e c t i s absent  moderate  abuse i s absent  severe  moderate  the e s s e n t i a l  severe  20.  What w o u l d y o u  s a y seems t o be  21.  What w o u l d y o u t h i s problem?  s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h  22.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t  23.  Who  24.  How s i m i l a r i s Mr. & M r s . E's t r e a t m e n t o f J a n e t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n c a s e s w i t h w h i c h y o u h a v e had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  does t h i s  problem?  p r o b a b l y l e d up  to  s i t u a t i o n seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should p r o v i d e the necessary h e l p or  treatment?  99.  Case  #5  A w o r k e r v i s i t e d t h e L. home a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h N u r s e who had known t h e f a m i l y f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . There are 5 c h i l d r e n 7 y e a r s o f age and y o u n g e r . M r s . L. h a s r e q u i r e d much h e l p and encouragement from t h e n u r s e t o t a k e t h e c h i l d r e n t o i m m u n i z a t i o n c l i n i c s , e t c . Mr. L. i s S t e a d i l y e m p l o y e d as a l a b o u r e r . The f a m i l y l i v e s i n a c r a m p e d 3-room apartment; w h i c h i s v e r y d i r t y and c o l d . Scraps of food - p o t a t o c h i p s , c o k e , c o o k i e s e t c . r e m a i n e d on a t a b l e o b v i o u s l y f r o m a " h e l p y o u r s e l f " m e a l - t h e r e w e r e n o t enough c h a i r s f o r a l l t h e f a m i l y t o s i t down together. B o t h p a r e n t s w e r e home. The f o u r y e a r o l d s t o o d k i c k i n g t h e c h e s t e r f i e l d f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h o f t i m e , and a l t h o u g h t h e p a r e n t s t o l d h i m t o s t o p , made no e f f o r t t o e n f o r c e t h i s . The o l d e s t g i r l was r e p e a t i n g h e r f i r s t g r a d e a t s c h o o l andyfche p a r e n t s s a i d s h e was r e a l l y s m a r t and t h e s c h o o l s h o u l d n ' t h a v e f a i l e d h e r . When s h e showed t h e w o r k e r some o f h e r w o r k and had d i f f i c u l t y w i t h some a d d i t i o n s , t h e f a t h e r y e l l e d , "See how dumb y o u a r e n o t iojknow;'. t H a t " .Mr. & M r s . L. s a i d t h e y s e l d o m w e n t o u t t o g e t h e r and had few f r i e n d s w i t h whom t h e y s h a r e d a c t i v ities. The c h i l d r e n seemed w i t h d r a w n , t h i n and h u n g r y . 25.  In t h i s  case n e g l e c t i s absent  moderate  abuse i s absent  severe  moderate  the e s s e n t i a l  severe  26.  What w o u l d y o u  s a y seems t o be  27.  What w o u l d y o u t h i s problem?  s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h  28.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t  29.  Who  30.  How s i m i l a r i s Mr. & M r s . L ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e t r e a t ment o f c h i l d r e n i n p r o t e c t i o n c a s e s w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  does t h i s  situation  should p r o v i d e the n e c e s s a r y h e l p or  problem?  p r o b a b l y l e d up  to  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  treatment?  100.  C a s e #6 The s c h o o l r e p o r t e d t o t h e A g e n c y t h a t t h e y w e r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t 10 y e a r o l d M a r y , who was v e r y w i t h d r a w n and a c a d e m i c a l l y was n o t a c h i e v i n g n e a r h e r maximum p o t e n t i a l . M a r y seemed a p a t h e t i c and d e p r e s s e d , h a d no f r i e n d s and was n o t a l l o w e d b y h e r p a r e n t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n e x t r a curricular activities. There had been i n c i d e n t s o f p e t t y s t e a l i n g . Mary had come t o s c h o o l w i t h a n a s t y b r u i s e on h e r f a c e one d a y and h a d t o l d t h e t e a c h e r , "Daddy h i t me l a s t n i g h t , b u t h e d i d n ' t know h e d i d i t " . When the t e a c h e r t a l k e d w i t h t h e p a r e n t s t h e i r a t t i t u d e had been one o f i n d i f f e r ence. When t h e w o r k e r v i s i t e d t h e p a r e n t s t h e y saw no n e e d f o r c o n c e r n . The p a r e n t s s h a r e d f e w a c t i v i t i e s , w i t h i n t h e a r e a o f w o r k o r r e c r e a t i o n . M a r y ' s m o t h e r s a i d s h e was a h a p p y and o b e d i e n t l i t t l e g i r l . Her f a t h e r s a i d s h e was s t u b b o r n , moody and h e h a d t o " g e t a f t e r h e r a l l t h e t i m e " . 31.  In this  case n e g l e c t i s absent abuse i s absent  moderate  severe  moderate  32.  What w o u l d y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  33-  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h t h i s problem?  34.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t d o e s t h i s  35.  Who  36.  How s i m i l a r i s t h e p a r e n t s children i n the protection I s i t s i m i l a r t o None M o r e t h a n 1/2  situation  severe  problem?  p r o b a b l y l e d up t o  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should provide the necessary help or treatment?  treatment o f Mary t o t h e treatment o f cases w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? L e s s t h a n 1/2  101.  C a s e #7 M r s . H. who h a s 3 c h i l d r e n a g e d 6, 8 & 9 h a s b e e n i n r e c e i p t o f S.A. f o r 5 y e a r s , s i n c e s h e was d e s e r t e d b y h e r h u s b a n d . Seven s o c i a l w o r k e r s h a v e v i s i t e d i n t h e home d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . A l l have observed M r s . H.'s d i r t y home, t h e * l a c k o f a d e q u a t e c l o t h i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a n d the mother's l a c k o f concern about m e d i c a l care f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d r e n a r e a l l s h y and t h e r e h a v e b e e n s t o r i e s o f s t e a l i n g , l y i n g , e t c . reported. M r . & M r s . H. m a r r i e d a f t e r k n o w i n g e a c h o t h e r 4 m o n t h s , when s h e became p r e g n a n t a t 17 and h e was 1 8 . M r . H., who h a d come t o C a n a d a f r o m H u n g a r y a f t e r t h e u p r i s i n g , h a d l e f t s c h o o l a t 16 a n d s t a r t e d t o w o r k as a c h e c k - o u t b o y i n a g r o c e r y s t o r e . He h a d d r i f t e d f r o m j o b t o j o b . M r . H. l i k e d t o a t t e n d s p o r t s a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e s h e p r e f e r r e d shows a n d dances. M r s . H. s u s p e c t s t h a t h e r h u s b a n d was c a r r y i n g o n w i t h a n o t h e r woman a n d l i k e l y l e f t w i t h h e r , b u t h a s n o t h e a r d f r o m h i m i n 5 y e a r s . 37.  In this  case n e g l e c t i s absent abuse i s absent  moderate moderate  y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  severe severe  38.  What w o u l d  problem?  39.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h p r o b a b l y l e d up t o t h i s problem?  40.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t d o e s t h i s  41.  Who  42.  How s i m i l a r i s M r s . H's t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n cases w i t h w h i c h y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None ; L e s s t h a n 1/2 More t h a n l / 2 _ _  s i t u a t i o n seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should p r o v i d e the necessary help or treatment?  102.  C a s e #8 D r . S. c o n t a c t e d t h e A g e n c y c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n o f t h e D. f a m i l y whom he had known f o r a number o f y e a r s seemed t o h a v e more a c c i d e n t s than u s u a l f o r c h i l d r e n t h e i r age. A t the time o f h i s telephone c a l l t h e 4 y e a r o l d b o y was i n t h e h o s p i t a l w i t h a compound f r a c t u r e o f a n arm, a l l e g e d t o h a v e h a p p e n e d i n a f a l l , b u t o n d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n i n g t h e D r . l e a r n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d t w i s t e d h i s arm when he r e f u s e d t o s t a y i n h i s bed the n i g h t p r e v i o u s t o t h e h o s p i t a l a d m i s s i o n . Although the father was s t e a d i l y e m p l o y e d and r e c e i v e d a n a v e r a g e wage, t h e y d i d n o t seem t o b e a b l e t o manage t h e i r f i n a n c e s v e r y w e l l , and t h e home was u s u a l l y d i r t y , and t h e c h i l d r e n n o t p r o p e r l y c l o t h e d . 43.  In this  case n e g l e c t i s absent abuse i s absent  moderate moderate  y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  severe severe  44.  What w o u l d  problem?  45.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h p r o b a b l y l e d up t o t h i s problem?  46.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t d o e s t h i s s i t u a t i o n  47.  Who  48.  How s i m i l a r i s t h e D's t r e a t m e n t o f t h e i r s o n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n cases w i t h which y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  should p r o v i d e the necessary help or treatment?  103.  C a s e #9 The p o l i c e r e p o r t e d t h e J o n e s f a m i l y t o t h e A g e n c y a f t e r t h e y w e r e c a l l e d a t 1 a.m. t o t h e home b y n e i g h b o u r s . The p a r e n t s were f i g h t i n g , u s i n g a b u s i v e l a n g u a g e , and a p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r a n s c r e a m i n g from t h e house. The p o l i c e s a i d t h e r e were 4 c h i l d r e n , t h e e l d e s t perhaps 6, who w e r e a l l awake when t h e y c a l l e d . When t h e w o r k e r v i s i t e d t h e same d a y s h e f o u n d t h e f a m i l y h a d r e c e n t l y moved t o t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d . The h o u s e , w h i c h was b a d l y i n n e e d o f r e p a i r s , was f i l t h y , t h e r e was l i t t l e f o o d i n t h e h o u s e , t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e p o o r l y d r e s s e d , l o o k e d s i c k and h u n g r y . Mr. J o n e s was t o s t a r t w o r k i n a l o c a l m i l l i n a f e w d a y s . The p a r e n t s q u a r r e l e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e worker - b l e s s i n g each o t h e r f o r t h e " w e l f a r e " coming. They y e l l e d a t t h e c h i l d r e n and f o r no o b v i o u s r e a s o n Mr. Jones s t r u c k one o f t h e c h i l d r e n q u i t e a s e v e r e b l o w on t h e h e a d . 49.  In this  case  i s n e g l e c t absent abuse absent  moderate  severe  moderate  severe  50.  What w o u l d y o u s a y seems t o b e t h e e s s e n t i a l  51.  What w o u l d y o u s a y a r e some o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h t h i s problem?  52.  What h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t  53.  Who s h o u l d p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y h e l p o r t r e a t m e n t ?  54.  How s i m i l a r i s t h e J o n e s s i t u a t i o n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n i n the p r o t e c t i o n cases w i t h which y o u have had e x p e r i e n c e ? I s i t s i m i l a r t o None L e s s t h a n 1/2 M o r e t h a n 1/2  does t h i s  situation  problem?  p r o b a b l y l e d up t o  seem t o r e q u i r e ?  104.  I n y o u r c a s e l o a d , do y o u h a v e c a s e s w h i c h y o u c o n s i d e r t o b e n e g l e c t o r a b u s e w h i c h a r e n o t r e p r e s e n t e d i n c a s e s 1-9? I f so, please define b r i e f l y .  Do y o u f e e l t h e r e i s a good understanding of c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n A g e n c i e s w i t h w h i c h y o u work?  , some n o t much s e r v i c e s amongst t h e community  I n t h e p a s t s i x m o n t h s i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y how many c a s e s h a v e y o u i n s t i g a t e d a c t i o n t o l a y a c o m p l a i n t under the P r o t e c t i o n o f C h i l d r e n Act? What s p e c i f i c r e s o u r c e s d o e s y o u r A g e n c y h a v e f o r h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n whose f a m i l i e s a r e f a i l i n g t o p e r f o r m t h e i r p a r e n t a l d u t i e s a d e q u a t e l y ?  What r e s o u r c e s a r e l a c k i n g t o he%> f a m i l i e s m e n t i o n e d 58 a b o v e ?  icy q u e s t i o n  I n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e r a n k ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s as t o t h e f r e q u e n c y p r o t e c t i o n c a s e s come t o c o u r t . ( a ) a s a r e s u l t o f a n e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n - no p r i o r s e r v i c e t o f a m i l y aimed a t i m p r o v i n g c a r e o f c h i l d . (b) l e s s t h a n 6 months s e r v i c e t o f a m i l y aimed a t i m p r o v i n g care of c h i l d . ( c ) 6 - 1 2 months s e r v i c e t o f a m i l y aimed a t i m p r o v i n g c a r e o f child. ( d ) m o r e t h a n 12 m o n t h s s e r v i c e t o f a m i l y a i m e d a t i m p r o v i n g care of c h i l d . What g e n e r a l f a c t o r s h a v e y o u f o u n d t h a t u s u a l l y l e a d up t o p r o t e c t i o n a c t i o n b e i n g taken? Usually Occasionally UnImportant Important Important 1. P e r s o n a l i t y p r o b l e m s o f p a r e n t s 2.  Lack  of family  finances  3.  Lack  o f day care c e n t r e s  4.  Lack o f community activities  5.  Physical  6.  2nd o r 3 r d g e n e r a t i o n " p r o b l e m " families  7.  Emotional  8.  Other  recreation  neglect of children  neglect of children  105.  SECTION I I 1.  A s o c i a l worker should client  even i f a p a r t i c u l a r  policies. not 2.  A b s o l u t e l y must  A s o c i a l worker^should  his  act differs  from e x p l i c i t l y  probably  should_  s t a t e d agency  probably  should  a b s o l u t e l y must n o t  client  a c t so as t o meet t h e needs o f h i s o r h e r  even though a p a r t i c u l a r  or her c o l l e a g u e s .  probably 3.  a c t s o as t o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f h i s o r h e r  A b s o l u t e l y must  should not  e v e n i f i t may  important  " u n p r o f e s s i o n a l " by  probably  should  a b s o l u t e l y must n o t  A s o c i a l worker should client  act i s considered  a c t s o as t o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f h i s o r h e r d i f f e r from what t h e r e f e r r i n g  source,  or other  s e g m e n t s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y t h i n k s he o r s h e m i g h t do.  A b s o l u t e l y must  probably  should  probably  should  not  a b s o l u t e l y must n o t 4.  A social  worker should  agency even i f d o i n g  a c t s o as t o c a r r y o u t t h e p o l i c i e s  so d i f f e r s  from what h i s o r h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l  j u d g m e n t l e a d s h i m o r h e r t o b e l i e v e w h a t w h o u l d be d o n e . must  probably  should  of the  probably  should not  Absolutely  a b s o l u t e l y must  not 5.  A s o c i a l worker should agency even i f d o i n g important must  a c t s o as t o c a r r y o u t t h e p o l i c i e s  so d i f f e r s  w i t h what t h e r e f e r r e d  segments o f the community t h i n k s s h o u l d probably  should  probably  should not  of the  source  be d o n e .  or other Absolutely  a b s o l u t e l y must  not 6.  A s o c i a l worker should  a c t so as t o f o l l o w a p r o f e s s i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f w h a t s h o u l d be d o n e , e v e n i f s o d o i n g source,  o r some o t h e r  done.  A b s o l u t e l y must  a b s o l u t e l y must n o t  important  differs  from what t h e r e f e r r a l  s e g m e n t o f t h e Community t h i n k s s h o u l d  probably  should  probably  should not  be  106.  SECTION I I I General  Information  P l e a s e c i r c l e number c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o y o u r a n s w e r , w h e r e appropriate, 1.  L o c a t i o n of  Length  office.  of time worked  in  1. 2. 3. 4.  3.  How  4.  Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years More t h a n 5 y e a r s  l o n g have you worked 1. 2. 3. 4.  What t r a i n i n g  have you  office.  i n the f i e l d  (a)  completed?  field  (b)  of  year  State year  1.  MSW 2 y e a r s no d e g r e e BSW 1 y e a r no d e g r e e d e g r e e o t h e r t h a n SW, in service training other (specify)  full  completed  completed  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  D i d you have any  Work?  Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years More than 5 y e a r s  appropriate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ^ ) :  5.  of S o c i a l  Year  BA  etc.  time work e x p e r i e n c e p r i o r  S.W.?  I f so, d e s c r i b e b r i e f l y  beside  to e n t e r i n g  the  SECTION I V Current  Job S i t u a t i o n  1.  What £ype o f c a s e l o a d  2.  What i s t h e number o f c l i e n t s  3.  How s a t i s f i e d a r e y o u w i t h  Quite  do y o u c a r r y ?  satisfied  Satisfied  4.  What w o u l d y o u c o n s i d e r your current  caseload?  i n your current  caseload?  t h a t number?  Somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d Quite  dissatisfied  t h e i d e a l number o f c l i e n t s  considering  108.  SECTION V , Personal  Information  1.  Sex  1. M a l e 2. F e m a l e  2.  Age  1. 2. 3. 4.  3.  Marital  Status  usual  Less 25 35 More  than 34 44 than  1. M a r r i e d 2. D i v o r c e d 3. S i n g l e  4.  Father's  occupation  5.  Occupation  6.  W h i l e g r o w i n g up, d i d y o u l i v e  45  or  separated  w h i l e y o u w e r e g r o w i n g up  o f husband or w i f e  1. 2. 3. 4.  25  i f married  i n communities w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s  L e s s t h a n 2,500 2,500 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 10,000 - 100,000 More t h a n 100,000  of  109.  APPENDIX.B  CHILDREN I N CARE RELATED TO R I S K POPULATION I N B.C. 1951 - 1961  1951  1961  Relative Increase  2,596  3,214  1.24  1,599  4,096  2.56  C.A.S.'s J u r i s d i c t i o n  117,949  160,048  1.36  Superintendent  256,668  461,748  1.80  C.A.S.'s J u r i s d i c t i o n  0.022  0.020  0.002  Superintendent  0.006  0.009  0.003  C h i l d r e n i n Care Cared  f o r d u r i n g year by C.A.S.'s  Jurisdiction  Superintendent of Child Welfare J u r i s d i c t i o n  R i s k P o p u l a t i o n (0-19 y e a r s )  Children  Jurisdiction  i n Care  Risk Population  It will  Jurisdiction  be n o t e d  here  three Children's A i d Societies decreased  b y 0.002 f r o m The  Welfare  Catholic  relative  i n care of the  to the r i s k population  actually  1951 t o 1 9 6 1 .  number o f c h i l d r e n  relative The  t h a t t h e number o f c h i l d r e n  i n care of the Superintendent  of  Child  t o t h e r i s k p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e d b y 0.003.  Children's Aid Societies  a r e t h e C.A.S. i n V a n c o u v e r , t h e  C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y i n V a n c o u v e r and The C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y  of  Victoria.  The a r e a n o t i n c l u d e d b y t h e s e C.A.S.'s i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  of  the Superintendent  of Child  Welfare.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104451/manifest

Comment

Related Items