Neglect is the most common form of reported child maltreatment in the United States. Using official reports to Child Protective Services agencies collected through the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), more than 500,000 children were neglected, constituting 75.3% of confirmed child maltreatment victims in 2015 (USHHS, 2017). Neglect differs from other forms of maltreatment in that it is often concerned with acts of omission or failures to provide, whereas physical and sexual abuse are acts of commission against children (English, Thompson, Graham, & Briggs, 2005; Mennen, Kim, Sang & Trickett, 2010; Rose & Meezan, 1993). Further, there are indications that neglected children have more profound deficits developmentally (Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002) and psychologically (Gauthier, Stollak, Messe, & Aronoff, 1996) than abused children. The long-term effects of severe neglect include impacts on the developing brain that diminish a child’s ability to focus attention, regulate emotions, and learn (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2012). This makes neglect not only the most pervasive form of child maltreatment, but also the most detrimental.
Despite the majority of child maltreatment cases and victims, neglect is understudied and less understood than the other types of maltreatment (McSherry, 2007; Pecora et al., 2009). Neglect remains a phenomenon that has not garnered attention from researchers commensurate with its pervasiveness (Proctor & Dubowitz, 2014), which may at least be in part due to the lack of a standard definition (Zuravin, 1999). The aim of this paper is to address a portion of this gap, by examining how states construct their definitions of neglect. Before describing the present study, I review the extant literature on the role of law in child welfare and the challenges of defining neglect.
The Role of Law in Child Welfare
In a comparative analysis of child welfare systems across ten countries, the U.S. has been categorized as having a ‘child protection’ orientation (Gilbert, 1997). A ‘child protection’ orientation is identified by framing the problem of child maltreatment as the parent(s)’ personal issue that is met with initial interventions that are legalistic and investigatory. This contrasts with the ‘family service’ orientation, which frames the child maltreatment as “enmeshed in a web of problems” (Gilbert, 1997, p. 232) with a first intervention being a needs assessment. Thus, an essential feature of child welfare systems in the U.S. is the fundamental role of the law and the courts. Indeed, child welfare systems in the U.S. operate where the law and courts play a central role (Gupta-Kagan, 2016) and guide almost every decision regarding child welfare system-involved children (Vesneski, 2011). Further, the most important decisions in child welfare cases (removals, placement decisions, reunifications, and terminations of parental rights) are made by the courts (Gupta-Kagan, 2016; Pecora, Whittaker, Maluccio, & Barth, 2000; Russell, Milller, & Nash, 2014) that predicate their decisions on relevant laws.
Previous research has identified that states vary in their construction of child maltreatment laws. Vesneski (2011) compared state laws authorizing the termination of parental rights utilizing the federal law, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, as a baseline. This analysis identified all of the states’ statutes (except for one) contained more authorizations for termination than the federal law. Not only did states vary from the Federal law, but they were similarly disparate from one another.
Emotional abuse laws were systematically reviewed to better understand the 300-fold variation in the rate of emotional abuse rates across states (Hamarman, Pope, & Czaja, 2002). State laws provided reasons for the variation in rates of emotional abuse while sociodemographic factors of the states did not. The study found that states varied in how inclusive their statutes were and developed three categories: most inclusive, moderately inclusive, and least inclusive. The study found that states rated with the most inclusive civil statute scores had a mean of 21.1 victims per 10,000 children, moderately inclusive had a mean of 13.61 victims, and states with the least inclusive statutes had a mean of 3.58 victims. Based on their findings, the authors articulated the importance that policy, expressed through laws, has on practice.
Mandatory reporting laws have been found to vary across jurisdictions as well (Mathews & Kenny, 2008). Some states (18) were identified as mandating all citizens to report suspected maltreatment, while some states required that consequences of neglect be serious or substantial to warrant reporting. Additionally, the study identified new categories of maltreatment that were specifically identified in the mandated reporting laws: substance-exposed infants, exposure to drug-related activity, and exposure to domestic violence. This finding of new types of maltreatment is an indication of how the concepts of child maltreatment continue to evolve.
In the U.S., child welfare laws are sourced from a variety of authorities. Supreme Court case law provides parents wide discretion in how they raise their children but it also affords the government the ability to limit this discretion as described by Levesque (2008):
The state’s parens patriae power (translated literally “parent of the country”) refers to the traditional role that the state has played, much like a guardian or benevolent parent, in safeguarding and serving those who cannot protect their own interests because of incapacity or youth. When dealing with children, the state’s parens patriae power authorizes its regulation of children and their families, for the purposes of protecting the children’s welfare so as to guard society’s general interest in children’s well-being. (p. 25)
Definitions of neglect, then, are tasked with identifying situations that are injurious to the welfare of a child, permitting the state to limit parental authority. These legal definitions identify what the minimum standard of parenting care is for that state (Garbarino & Collins, 1999; Pecora et al., 2009) and are used by the courts to determine whether state intervention is authorized.
Defining Neglect
There is a lack of consensus on what constitutes neglect or how it should be defined (Proctor & Dubowitz, 2014; Rose & Meezen, 1993; Zuravin, 2001). Neglect has been described as heterogeneous, varying by type, severity, and chronicity (Dubowitz, Black, Starr, & Zuravin, 1993). Moreover, cultural differentiations of parenting expectations can lead to divergent definitions of what constitutes neglectful behavior (Elliott & Urquiza, 2006).
The points of definitional conflict are documented throughout the literature. Zuravin (2001) identified six issues with respect to defining neglect: 1) what should be included in failure to provide and whether failure to protect should be included; 2) whether actual harm needs to be apparent or just the evidence of a threat of harm; 3) locus of responsibility and intentionality, in other words, who/what is at fault? 4) should the age of the child be considered and if so, how? 5) the role of chronicity; and 6) the role of severity. Similarly, Rose and Meezan (1993) acknowledged two primary theoretical perspectives of how to define child neglect: the first focused on the parents’ behavior towards the child and the second from the perspective of the child, with an emphasis on the consequences of the parental behavior.
Advocates for the parental behavior positioning argue that parental behavior can be an indicator that neglect will occur and that the deleterious effects of neglect may not always be visible immediately; the support for a focus on the consequences for the child was the product of concerns of worker discretion overly emphasized in the assessment of risk (Rose & Meezan, 1993). The parental behavior orientation highlights the debate between potential and actual harm. The child-centered perspective raises the question of whether contributory factors, such as poverty, should be considered when assessing possibly neglectful situations (Dubowitz et al., 2005; Proctor & Dubowitz, 2014). Poverty is particularly salient because research has established a relationship between poverty and neglect (Berger & Waldfogel, 2011; Pelton, 2015). The mechanisms of this relationship, however, are not certain (Slack, Holl, Yoo, & Bolger, 2004) as large numbers of families who live in poverty never neglect their children and neglect can occur in families in all economic strata (Crittenden, 1999). Thus, while there is an association between poverty and neglect, it is by no means causal.
The federal government defines neglect as a form of child maltreatment in Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), but it is broad and provides no guidance of what negligent treatment actually entails. However, CAPTA requires each state to have its own definition of neglect; they do, with varying degrees of specificity. State statutes that were established just after the passage of CAPTA in 1974 “solidified the idea that lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and abandonment, were the cornerstones of a definition of neglect” (Rose & Meezan, 1993, p. 281). But state laws are not enacted in a vacuum. Instead, “public definitions of maltreatment determine and consequently are determined by the availability and allocation of government funding” (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993, p. 10) and “policymakers often enact laws as a solution to problems which demand a strong societal response. The presence of more legislation on the statute book, or the creation of more rules which professionals must follow, is one socially acceptable sign that the problem has been recognized by the government of the day and an appropriate response has been made” (Hoyano & Keenan, 2007, p. 5). Thus, laws defining neglect are frequently created by the government as a reaction to a society-identified problem (substandard parental care) to show constituents that their concerns have been heard, while simultaneously considering the ability to implement the laws (fiscal restrictions).
States differ in how they define neglect; this definitional variation has been attributed to the complexity of child maltreatment, a lack of policy uniformity in how to respond to child maltreatment, and the multitude of legal systems responding (Levesque, 2008). These discrepancies have potential implications at the practice, policy, and research levels. Indeed, a situation deemed to be neglectful in one state could possibly not meet the definition in another state (Mennen, Kim, Sang, & Trickett, 2010) impacting the system response, which can lead to problems assessing national incidence rates (McSherry, 2007).
The National Incidence Survey (NIS-4) attempts to tackle this problem by operationalizing child maltreatment with subcategories of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, educational neglect, emotional neglect, and other maltreatment for a total of 60 different subtypes. The NIS-4 assumes official reports to child welfare agencies are underestimates, as just the “tip of the iceberg,” and thus gathers information from multiple sources beyond child welfare agencies to estimate the number of children who are maltreated (Sedlak, et al., 2010a, p. 2–2). A nationally representative sample of 122 counties was used to estimate the rate of maltreatment for the U.S. using standardized definitions. As the primary source for child maltreatment estimates in the U.S., the NIS is also a “prime driver of policy” (Drake & Jonson-Reid, 2011, p. 16). Thus, while the NIS has been developed primarily for research, it plays a critical role beyond academia.
The Present Study
The present study builds upon this previous work that identifies the significant role law plays in child welfare. Further, this study heeds the call for increased empirical research on variation on state child welfare laws (Gupta-Kagan, 2016), examining the state civil statutes defining neglect as of July 2016.
Since the NIS-4 has made a “unique contribution” through its use of “a common definitional framework” (Pecora et al., 2009, p. 130) and its previous noted role in policymaking, I used the NIS-4 operationalized definitions of neglect as a baseline for comparing the content of state statutes. The statutes were also examined in terms of the focus of the definition, whether threat of harm was sufficient to be neglect, and the inclusion of exceptions and new forms of maltreatment.
This study has two primary research questions: 1). What aspects of the NIS-4 Typology for Classifying Maltreatment appear in each of the 50 states and Washington DC legal civil definitions of neglect? 2). Can the states be grouped based on what they include and exclude in their definitions of neglect?
Method
Data set
State statutes for all 50 states and Washington D.C. were obtained from the state legislative websites in July 2016 (for Massachusetts, neglect is defined in regulation, the administrative code that guides the practice of the Department of Children and Families). A list of the reviewed statutes can be found in Appendix A. Statutes were cross-referenced with the compilation of child maltreatment statutes by the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2014) as a cross-check for accuracy.
Analytic Approach
The analytic approach for this study was conducted in two phases: content analysis and cluster analysis.
Content analysis.
Content analysis is concerned with how texts communicate information. It is defined as “the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics” (Neundorf, 2002, p. 1). It is a useful tool to address these research questions because this study is fundamentally concerned with the message characteristics that state civil statutes contain. Each state statute was evaluated for the presence of NIS-4 components due to its operationalized definition of neglect. Additionally, based on the existing literature, the focus of the definition and the inclusion of new forms of maltreatment were also examined. The statutes were assessed in a binary fashion with the component either explicitly present (1) or not explicitly present (0) in the state’s statutory definition, utilizing the NIS-4 definitions of each component as described in the NIS-4 Analysis Report Appendix A (Sedlak et al., 2010b). Synopses of the definitions used for the content analysis is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Synopses of Definitions Used in Content Analysis
Definitional Aspect | Definition Synopsis |
---|---|
| |
NIS-4 Physical Neglect | |
| |
Medical Care Delay or Failure | Failure to obtain or seek medical care |
Inadequate Nutrition | Conspicuous inattention the child’s need for nutritious foods |
Inadequate Supervision | Child left unsupervised or inadequately supervised |
Abandonment/Refusal of Custody | Apparent unwillingness to retain custody, child permanently or indefinitely deserted |
Inadequate Shelter | Conspicuous inattention to child’s need for adequate and safe shelter |
Inadequate Clothing | Conspicuous inattention to the child’s need for adequate clothing |
Illegal Transfer of Custody | Buying/selling a child or placement for adoption in violation of the law |
Other Refusal of Custody (runaway) | Blatant refusal of custody other than abandonment such as expulsion of a child from home |
Inadequate Personal Hygiene | Conspicuous inattention to the child’s need for adequate personal hygiene. |
NIS-4 Educational Neglect | |
| |
Failure to Register/Enroll | Failure to register or enroll child in school in violation of state law |
Permitted Chronic Truancy | Cases where the parent knowingly permitted the child’s chronic absence (tardiness or truancy). |
NIS-4 Emotional Neglect | |
| |
Exposure to Maladaptive Environments | Exposing child to pornography, practicing prostitution, trafficking drugs, drug use, or criminal behavior |
Refusal to Seek Care for Emotional Problem | Failure to seek or provide needed treatment for a child’s emotional or behavior problem |
Refusal to Provide Care for Emotional Problem | Refusing to allow needed and available treatment for a child’s emotional or behavioral problem |
Knowingly Permitting Substance Abuse | Child exhibits drug/alcohol abuse, parents are aware of it, and do not exhibit effort to correct the behavior |
Domestic Violence | Spouse abuse or other domestic violence in child’s presence |
Inadequate Nurturance/affection | Marked inattention to child’s needs for affection, emotional support, attention, or competence or control |
Knowingly Permitting Maladaptive Behavior | Child exhibits pattern of maladaptive behavior (e.g., severe assaultiveness, chronic delinquency) and parents do not exhibit effort to correct |
Overprotectiveness | Overprotective treatment which fosters immaturity or emotional overdependence, isolating a child from ordinary social contact, or interfering with child’s social development |
Inadequate Structure | Failure to provide adequate attention to child’s needs for sensible rule structures. |
Inappropriately Advanced Expectations | Chronically applying clearly inappropriate age expectations to a child |
Exclusions | |
| |
General Religious Exemption | Exemptions for behavior consistent with religious beliefs, but no specific religion identified |
Involuntary Neglect | Child is not provided with needed care or services because of physical or financial inability by parents |
Specific Religious Exemption | Exemptions for behavior consistent with a specific, identified religion |
Categories from Literature | |
| |
Threat of Harm Enough | Threatened harm is included in the definition of neglect |
Child-Focused Definition | Definition is focused on the consequences for the child (as opposed to the behavior of the parents) |
Substance Exposed Infant | Prenatal exposure to substances |
Exposure to Drug Activity | Includes exposure to manufacturing and selling drugs |
|
Note: NIS-4 definitions and Involuntary Neglect exclusion are summarized from Sedlak et al., 2010b
I assembled the legal definitions into a single Word document and a coding sheet was developed through Google Forms that provided the coder with the full NIS-4 definitions for each definitional aspect. A pilot test with 19% of the states (chosen alphabetically) was conducted to assess the utility of the coding procedures and clarity of the concepts. For the final analysis, two coders both assessed more than 35% of the definitions, determined through the use of a random number generator. The coders consisted of the author and a licensed attorney trained in child welfare law. Inter-coder reliability using percent of agreement and Krippendorff’s Alphas were calculated for each of the definitional aspects using the online service ReCal (Freelon, 2013). All of the aspects reached at least 88% reliability; full results are presented in Appendix B.
The NIS-4 components are broken up into three neglect categories (physical, educational, and emotional) and include two exceptions (involuntary neglect [which includes poverty and a parent’s physical limitations] and chemically-dependent newborns) for a total of 27 different neglect components and two exemptions. Eleven of the 12 NIS-4 physical neglect forms were included for analysis with “other/unspecified disregard of child’s physical needs and physical safety” excluded because it was too broad to identify in statutes. Similarly, the two types of medical neglect were combined into one category, as they were very similar to each other. Two educational types of neglect were included (chronic truancy and failure to register/enroll) while the two ‘other’ categories were not due their lack of specificity. The emotional neglect section comprised of 11 codes and all but the ‘other’ category were included in the analysis.
The two NIS-4 exemptions of involuntary neglect (which include financial and physical inabilities of parents) and chemically dependent newborns were assessed. Two additional exclusions, specific and general religious exceptions, were also examined in the statutes. The religious exemptions exclude behaviors consistent with religious beliefs from exclusively being considered neglect (frequently related to medical treatment).
In addition to the NIS-4 components, the statutes were examined for four categories from the literature. These components were included due to their impacts on the definitions and how they may shape practice. First, the statutes were examined for the focus of the definition, as either focused on the parental behavior or the consequences for the child. For this aspect, coders assessed the definitions for its primary focus, either on the parental behavior or on the outcomes/consequences for the child. Second, statutes were assessed for whether threat of harm was included in the definition (in other words, whether harm had to have occurred to a child or whether a threat was sufficient). The third and fourth categories, also evaluated for their explicit presence in the statutes, are from the new forms of maltreatment as identified by Mathews and Kenny (2008): the inclusion of substance-exposed infants and exposure to drug-related activity. Mathews and Kenny (2008) also identified exposure to domestic violence, which is present in the NIS-4 under emotional neglect.
Cluster analysis.
Cluster analysis is a multivariate technique that allows for classification based on a diverse set of characteristics (Bartholomew, Steele, Moustaki, & Galbraith, 2008). The dataset of binary data created from the content analysis was used for the cluster analysis, using a symmetrical similarity measure, where the similarity () between two states ( and ) is:
A symmetrical similarity measure is appropriate for this study because it is concerned with both where different states match on the presence of an item () and where states match on the absence of an item (). The sum of and is then divided by the sum of all the possible items (). To compute this symmetrical similarity measure, the R package ‘cluster’ was used utilizing the command ‘daisy’ (Maechler, Rousseeuw, Struyf, Hubert, & Hornik, 2016). Eleven variables were removed from the cluster analysis because they had no variation in them (in other words, none or only one state included the variable in their definitions).
After creating the distance matrix from the symmetrical similarity measure, I used the hierarchical clustering method complete-linkage. This method is agglomerative, meaning it starts with each state in its own cluster and at each step the two clusters with the shortest distance are combined. This is also known as farthest neighbor where the distance between the clusters X, Y is:
Results
Content Analysis
The majority of states do not include many of the NIS-4 components in their definitions. This is particularly true in the subtypes of educational and emotional neglect. Overprotectiveness, inadequate structure, and unstable custody are not included in any of the definitional statutes for states. Similarly, inadequate affection, allowing maladaptive behavior, and inappropriate expectations are included in definitions for one state each.
The aspects most frequently found in state definitions were those identified as “cornerstones” by Rose and Meezan (1993): medical care (47), food/nutrition (43), abandonment (36), shelter (35), and clothing (31). The element present in most of the state definitions that was not identified as a cornerstone is supervision (37). Ultimately, beyond these foundational definitional elements, there is no consensus among states as a whole about what to include in defining neglect. Overall, states had a mean of 8.94 definitional elements in their definitions, a number that includes the exclusions and categories from the literature, and is far from the 24 NIS-4 aspects assessed. Table 2 contains the frequency of definitional elements.
Table 2.
Percent of Definitional Aspects By Cluster
State | Percent By Cluster |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Definitional Aspect | Count | Minimal | Cornerstones | Expanded |
|
|
|
|
|
NIS-4 Physical Neglect |
||||
Medical Care Delay or Failure | 47 | 80% | 100% | 80% |
Inadequate Nutrition | 43 | 53% | 100% | 80% |
Inadequate Supervision | 37 | 87% | 71% | 40% |
Abandonment/Refusal of Custody | 36 | 67% | 74% | 60% |
Inadequate Shelter | 35 | 100% | 40% | |
Inadequate Clothing | 31 | 90% | 40% | |
Illegal Transfer of Custody | 8 | 20% | 40% | |
Other Refusal of Custody (runaway) | 2 | |||
Inadequate Personal Hygiene | 2 | |||
NIS-4 Educational Neglect |
||||
Failure to Register/Enroll | 6 | 20% | 20% | |
Permitted Chronic Truancy | 2 | |||
NIS-4 Emotional Neglect |
||||
Exposure to Maladaptive Environments | 19 | 20% | 48% | 20% |
Refusal to Seek Care for Emotional Problem | 8 | 80% | ||
Refusal to Provide Care for Emotional Problem | 5 | 80% | ||
Knowingly Permitting Substance Abuse | 3 | 40% | ||
Domestic Violence | 2 | |||
Exclusions |
||||
General Religious Exemption | 33 | 80% | 61% | 40% |
Involuntary Neglect | 21 | 52% | 60% | |
Specific Religious Exemption | 2 | 20% | ||
Categories from Literature |
||||
Threat of Harm Enough | 34 | 20% | 87% | 80% |
Child-Focused Definition | 21 | 47% | 35% | 60% |
Substance Exposed Infant | 12 | 32% | 20% | |
Exposure to Drug Activity | 10 | 60% | ||
|
Note: Categories with fewer than 2 states’ endorsement were not included in the analysis.
Values less than 20% are not presented; Values above 80% are bolded for ease of interpretation.
Cluster Analysis
Despite the lack of consensus in how to define neglect across all states, the cluster analysis identified that there are distinguishable patterns of definitions within subgroups of states. The resulting dendrogram, a branch diagram, from the cluster analysis was examined for compact and well-separated clusters (presented in Appendix C). Though this process is subjective (Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011), based on branch distances, it was determined that three clusters was the best fit; this also provided the most utility for the data. The clusters are presented geographically in Figure 1. There does not appear to be strong geographical ties by cluster.
Figure 1.
Map of Clusters
Minimal Cluster.
This cluster was demarcated by having the smallest average number of definitional aspects of the three clusters at 5.4. With 15 states (29.4 %), it was the second largest cluster. The majority of states in this cluster included a lack of supervision (87%), a lack of medical care (80%), and abandonment (67%) in their definitions of neglect. This cluster had the fewest states endorse the new types of maltreatment identified by Mathews and Kenny (2008), with just seven percent including each of substance exposed infants and exposure to drug activity and 20% including exposure to maladaptive environments. Only 20% of states in this cluster indicated that threat of harm was enough to reach the threshold of neglect; put another way, the majority of states (80%) in this cluster required actual harm to be inflicted upon children for it to reach the definition of neglect. About half (47%) of these states had definitions that were focused on consequences for children, as opposed to a focus on parental behavior. The majority of states in this cluster (80%) included a general religious exemption, more than any other cluster, while involuntary neglect exemptions were not endorsed by many states (13%) in this cluster.
Cornerstones Cluster.
Comprised of 31 states (60.8%), this was the largest cluster. All of the states in this cluster included in their neglect definitions a lack medical care, inadequate food, and shelter. Other basic needs were also frequently included by states in this cluster including clothing (90%), supervision (71%), and abandonment (74%). Additionally, the majority of states also indicate that a threat of harm is sufficient to be neglect (87%). More than half of the states included an exclusion either for involuntary neglect (52%) or religion generally (61%). Incidentally, 87% of the states in this cluster included at least one of these exclusions. States in this cluster had the highest rate of inclusion of substance-exposed infants at 32%, but only 19% included exposure to drug activity. Of all the clusters, this cluster had the highest rate of inclusion of exposure to maladaptive environments at 48%.
Expanded Definition Cluster.
The smallest cluster, at just 5 states (9.8%), had the highest inclusion rate for the emotional neglect aspects of failure to treat or seek treatment for an emotional problem at 80% each, and knowingly permitting substance abuse at 40%. Of the physical neglect aspects, medical care and inadequate nutrition were both endorsed by 80% of the states, while 60% included abandonment. Further, this cluster had the highest rate of the new maltreatment category of exposure to drug activity at 60%. The majority of states in this cluster had definitions that were child focused (60%) and indicated that a threat of harm was sufficient to be considered neglect (80%). The full distribution of inclusion of definitional elements is presented in Table 2, first with the total number of states including each subtype and then with the percentage of states in each cluster.
Discussion
The results indicate some important findings for the field of child welfare. This is the first study, to my knowledge, to identify patterns in which states legally define neglect. The discussion will first briefly discuss the comparison between the state definitions and the NIS-4. It will then move to the more pertinent examination of how the three distinct constructions of state neglect definitions relate to three critical aspects of child welfare practice: system orientation, the threshold for state intervention (parens patriae), and discretion for practitioners.
First, as a whole, the states define neglect quite differently than the NIS-4. Primarily this is seen through the NIS-4’s inclusion of categories not included by the states, including some that no states specify (such as overprotectiveness and inadequate structure). If one subscribes to the NIS-4 definitions of neglect, then these findings support the argument that official maltreatment reports are an underestimate of the true maltreatment rate in the U.S. However, with the caveat that these definitions have different purposes, these results also raise the question if the NIS-4 estimates are an overestimate due to its inclusion of categories (and thus, cases) that are minimally proscribed by law, such as overprotectiveness and inadequate structure. In other words, the NIS-4 may have included cases of neglect that the states do not recognize are below the minimal standards of parenting or are societal problems (Hoyano & Keenan, 2007).
An important difference between the states and the NIS-4 is the treatment of infants exposed prenatally to substances, or substance-exposed infants. The NIS-4 specifically excludes these children from their estimates of maltreatment, citing that these are events that occurred prior to birth (Sedlak et al., 2010b). This is a stark contrast to the 12 states that specifically identify prenatal substance exposure as a form of neglect. The states’ inclusion of this substance exposure during pregnancy in their definitions is likely a result of a provision incorporated into CAPTA through the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 that required states to have policies and procedures to address these infants in order to remain eligible for federal funding (Mathews & Kenny, 2008).
System Orientations
While U.S. child welfare systems were found to have a ‘child protection’ orientation when compared to ten other countries (Gilbert, 1997), an update to this study completed in 2011 the clear delineations of the 1997 study were no longer as plainly defined (Gilbert, Parton, & Skivenes, 2011). In particular, the authors noted how states with a prior child protection orientation had since been incorporating features of the family service orientation. The current definitions of neglect may be reflections of these changes. Indeed, it is possible to see states in the Minimal Cluster as maintaining a child protection orientation with a narrow scope, not considering additional factors, and limiting the amount of discretion that front-line workers may employ. The states in the Expanded Cluster take a different tack; the neglect definitions for these states indicate that their child welfare system may be including more aspects of a family service orientation, which, at least in part, is characterized by expanded discretion for workers and an understanding that the problem may be related outside of the individual failings of the parent.
System orientations are also related to the allocation of funds for child welfare systems. Barnett, Manly, and Cicchetti (1993) identified that maltreatment definitions are tied to the financial resources available. Initial indications provide support for this argument. Using the Child Trends 2014 Child Welfare total funds (Rosinsky & Connelly, 2016) and dividing the total funds spent on child welfare for each state by the total population of children in the state (not just children interacting with the child welfare system), provides the amount of dollars spent on child welfare per child by state. The means for the neglect definition clusters are $324.53 for the Minimal Cluster, $472.54 for the Cornerstones Cluster, and $407.78 for the Expanded Cluster. While this is very preliminary, it does appear that the Minimal Cluster, whose states have set up a limited role for child welfare systems through their definition of neglect, are also spending less money on their child welfare system than the other two clusters, possible evidence of the reciprocal relationship between maltreatment definitions and government funding.
Thresholds for Intervention (Parens Patriae)
Parental sovereignty is protected by the U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, except when the state has a compelling interest, such as the well-being of a child (Levesque, 2008). This power to intervene, parens patriae, is guided by state definitions of maltreatment, indicating to both parents and the courts overseeing the state power, where the limit of parental discretion lies. The cluster analysis in this study identified that there are three distinct approaches states take to establish these minimal standards of parenting.
The states in the Minimal Cluster establish a narrow and strict standard of state intervention. In these states, neglect is limited in the types of circumstances considered neglectful; this reduces the opportunities for the state to interfere with parental control. Additionally, by limiting neglect to actualized, demonstrated harm, the state’s ability to intrude into the familial sphere is curtailed by the exclusion of the threat of harm from the state definition. General religious exemptions by the majority of states in this cluster serve to further limit the states’ authority to intercede. Thus, based on how these states define neglect, it appears that these states are more likely to support a limited government role. However, for the families that do come to the state’s attention, the lack of consideration of extenuating circumstances implies that the states’ reactions to assessed cases of substandard parental care in the Minimal Cluster may be more harsh and severe, likely in the form of removals, than states in other clusters.
The standards for state interference are broadened for states in the Cornerstones Cluster. The aspects are relatively similar, in that both clusters focus on the components found in physical neglect, but are differentiated by the Cornerstone Cluster’s inclusion of a threat of harm. This enlarges the scope of state intervention beyond children who have experienced actual harm to children who are under a threat of harm. This expansion adds an ability for states in this cluster to act preventively in addition to reactively. Yet, states in this cluster still include exemptions, including involuntary exemptions, which constrain the state’s own power to intervene. The presence of an exclusion for involuntary neglect is a signal of a more ecological perspective (Dubowitz, Black, Starr, & Zuravin, 1993) and a state’s recognition of the complicated relationship between poverty or other involuntary considerations and neglect. Thus, states in this cluster have a more tempered approach to intervention that is simultaneously broadened by the inclusion of a threat of harm and limited by the inclusion of involuntary exemptions.
The standards for state intervention are the most expansive for the states in the Expanded Cluster. States in this cluster included the aspects covered in the Cornerstones Cluster, with the addition of aspects beyond physical neglect, most prominently in the form of emotional neglect. Thus, state intervention is acceptable in these states when either a child’s basic needs are not met or emotional problems are not addressed. Further, as in the Cornerstones Cluster, states in the Expanded Cluster concurrently have their power to intervene moderated by exclusions.
Discretion
For practitioners interacting with these laws regularly, the differential definitions of neglect are consequential to the amounts of discretion provided to them. These front-line workers, sometimes referred to as “street-level bureaucrats”, have been identified as having critical roles in the implementation of public policy, interpreting the rules and regulations set forth by administrators and legislators (Lipsky, 2010). In child welfare practice, the street-level bureaucrats who implement these legal definitions include judicial officers, law enforcement, and caseworkers.
The definitions of neglect for states in the Minimal Cluster reduce the amount of discretion child welfare street-level bureaucrats have in their decision-making process. To justify state intervention, actual harm to children must be demonstrated, a concept much more concrete than threat of harm to a child. Further, the only explicit exemption allowed by states in this cluster is a religious exemption, preventing consideration of other contributory factors, such as poverty or a parent’s physical limitation. Berrick, Peckover, Poso, and Skivenes (2015) identified a critical aspect of the discretionary space for front-line child welfare workers as the inclusion of all pertinent information. Definitions of neglect for states in the Minimal Cluster reduce the amount of information that practitioners can consider and, therefore, the discretion they can employ.
The states in the Cornerstones Cluster provide increased discretion to those interpreting the state definitions of neglect. More than half of the states include each of a general religious exemption and an exemption for involuntary neglect, with 26% including both. This would allow a judicial officer to include more information when making their determination, in particular the related factors that may be impacting the actions of a parent. Further, the inclusion of a threat of harm empowers the practitioner to appraise the situation and evaluate what the risk is to the child. The combined effect of the inclusion of a threat of harm with the consideration of exclusions results in greater discretion in determining neglect in the Cornerstone Cluster states.
The definitions for the states in the Expanded Cluster further increase the discretion permitted in assessing neglect. Like the Cornerstones Cluster, these states allow for the threat of harm to be included in the definition of neglect, and they utilize both the involuntary and religious exemptions. Yet, the states in the Expanded Cluster are differentiated by having a definition focused on the consequences and needs of the child. Dubowitz et al. (2005) argued that “the broader child-focused definition encourages a more comprehensive approach to assessing, understanding, and addressing neglect” which conceptualizes neglect beyond parental behavior (p. 174). Thus, the discretion of the assessor is not only permissible but also necessary to determine if neglect has occurred for states in the Expanded Cluster.
It is critical to note that increased levels of discretion are also dependent on the level of training, education, and reasonability of practitioner caseloads. If well-trained child welfare judicial officers and workers have manageable caseloads, increased discretion makes sense as those practitioners can tailor system responses to the needs and circumstances of the families they encounter. However, if practitioners are given discretion without reasonable caseloads and/or sufficient training, then they may not have the resources necessary to utilize that discretion well, potentially resulting in unnecessary removals of children or not engaging with families who need the state’s services.
Limitations
Despite the advances that this study brings to the understanding of how states structure their child welfare systems legally, this study does have some limitations. This point-in-time study does not take into consideration when the statutes examined were passed into law. Future research should examine who, how, and when states are revising their child welfare laws, in particular the definitions of child maltreatment. Understanding these dynamics may shed light on the drivers of these laws, something beyond the scope of this study. Other drivers of legal definitions of neglect should also be examined including the resources states allocate to their child welfare systems from direct funding to the number of workers and their training. Finally, this study did not study the quantitative outcomes that may result from these different approaches to defining neglect such as child safety, permanency and other indicators, an area to explore in future research.
Conclusion
There continues to be a lack of consensus in the United States regarding what constitutes neglect. States legally define child neglect in very different ways and typically without many of the elements used by the NIS-4 study. However, this analysis identified three trends in defining neglect as represented by the clusters, which have implications for practice, policy, and research. Some states identified minimal aspects in their definitions, a few included aspects such as emotional neglect, while the majority focused on the cornerstone components of physical neglect. The manner in which states choose to construct their definitions of neglect provides judicial officers and caseworkers with varying levels of discretion in the forms of considering exceptions to the definition, whether the focus should be on parental behavior or child outcomes, and whether a threat of harm is sufficient to indicate neglect. These components form constellations in the establishment of each state’s child welfare system and how the state can limit parental autonomy.
Supplementary Material
References
- Barnett D, Manly JT, & Cicchetti D (1993). Defining child maltreatment: the interface between policy and research. In Child Abuse, Child Development, and Social Policy (Vol. 8, pp. 7–73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Google Scholar]
- Berger L and Waldfogel J (2011), ”Economic Determinants and Consequences of Child Maltreatment”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/5kgf09zj7h9t-en [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Berrick J, Peckover S, Pösö T, & Skivenes M (2015). The formalized framework for decision-making in child protection care orders: A cross-country analysis. Journal of European Social Policy, 25(4), 366–378. [Google Scholar]
- Crittenden P (1999). Child neglect: Causes and contributors. In Dubowitz H (Ed.), Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (p. 47–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Drake B & Jonson-Reid M (2011). NIS interpretations: Race and the National Incidence Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 16–20. [Google Scholar]
- Dubowitz H, Black M, Starr RH, & Zuravin S (1993). A conceptual definition of child neglect. (Special Issue: Child Neglect). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(1), 8–26. [Google Scholar]
- Dubowitz H, Newton R, Litrownik A, Lewis T, Briggs E, Thompson R, … Feerick M (2005). Examination of a conceptual model of child neglect. Child Maltreatment, 10(2), 173–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dubowitz H, Pitts SC, Litrownik AJ, Cox CE, Runyan D, & Black MM (2005). Defining child neglect based on child protective services data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(5), 493–511. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elliott K, & Urquiza A (2006). Ethnicity, culture, and child maltreatment. Journal of Social Issues, 62(4), 787–809. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00487.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- English D, Thompson R, Graham J, & Briggs E (2005). Toward a definition of neglect in young children. Child Maltreatment, 10(2), 190–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M, & Stahl D (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed., Wiley series in probability and statistics). Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Freelon D (2013). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 10–16. [Google Scholar]
- Garbarino J, & Collins CC (1999). Child neglect: The family with a hole in the middle. In Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Gauthier L, Stollak G, Messé L, & Aronoff J (1996). Recall of childhood neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(7), 549–559. 10.1016/0145-2134(96)00043-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert N (1997). Combatting Child Abuse: International Perspectives and Trends. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert N, Parton N, & Skivenes M (2011). Introduction. In Gilbert N, Parton N, & Skivenes M (Eds.), Child protection systems: international trends and orientations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hamarman S, Pope KH, & Czaja SJ (2002). Emotional abuse in children: Variations in legal definitions and rates across the United States. Child Maltreatment, 7(4), 303–311. 10.1177/107755902237261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hildyard KL & Wolfe DA (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6), 679–695. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00341-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jonson-Reid M, Drake B, Chung S, & Way I (2003). Cross-type recidivism among child maltreatment victims and perpetrators. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 27(8), 899–917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence-Karski R (1997). United States: California’s reporting system. In Gilbert N. (Ed.), Combatting child abuse: International perspectives and trend. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Levesque R (2008). Child maltreatment and the law: Returning to first principles. New York, N.Y.: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Lipsky M (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (Updated ed., Publications of Russell Sage Foundation). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
- Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2016). cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.0.5. [Google Scholar]
- Mathews B, & Kenny MC (2008). Mandatory Reporting legislation in the United States, Canada, and Australia: A cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences, and issues. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 50–63. 10.1177/1077559507310613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McSherry D (2007). Understanding and addressing the “neglect of neglect”: Why are we making a mole-hill out of a mountain? Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 607–614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mennen FE, Kim K, Sang J, & Trickett PK (2010). Child neglect: Definition and identification of youth’s experiences in official reports of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 34(9), 647–658. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2012). The science of neglect: The persistent absence of responsive care disrupts the developing brain: Working paper 12. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. [Google Scholar]
- Neuendorf K (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Pecora P, Whittaker JK, Maluccio AN, Barth RP, DePanfilis D, & Plotnick RD (2009). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (3rd ed.). New Brunswick: AldineTransaction. [Google Scholar]
- Pecora P, Whittaker JK, Maluccio AN, Barth RP, & Plotnick RD (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
- Pelton L (2015). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and placement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Proctor LJ & Dubowitz H (2014). Child neglect: Challenges and controversies. In Korbin J & Krugman RD (Eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 27–62). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Rose SJ, & Meezan W (1993). Defining child neglect: evolution, influences, and issues. Social Service Review, 67(2), 279. [Google Scholar]
- Rosinsky K & Connelly D (2016). Child welfare financing SYF 2014: A survey of federal, state, and local expenditures. Washington, DC: Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/child-welfare-financing-sfy-2014-state-level-data-table/ [Google Scholar]
- Russell JR, Miller N, & Nash M (2014). Judicial issues in child maltreatment. In Korbin J & Krugman RD (Eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 27–62). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Seldak AJ, Mettenburg J, Basena M, Petta I, McPherson K, Greene A, & Li S (2010a). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. [Google Scholar]
- Sedlak AJ, Mettenburg J, Winglee M, Ciarico J, and Basena M, with Rust K . . . Clark J (2010b). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4) technical report III: Analysis report. Prepared under contract to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Slack KS, Holl JI, Mcdaniel M, Yoo J, & Bolger K (2004). Understanding the risks of child neglect: An exploration of poverty and parenting characteristics. Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 395–408. doi: 10.1177/1077559504269193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thornberry TP, Knight KE, & Lovegrove PJ (2012). Does maltreatment beget maltreatment? A systematic review of the intergenerational literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 135–152. 10.1177/1524838012447697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2017). Child maltreatment 2015. Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment [Google Scholar]
- Vesneski W (2011). State law and the termination of parental rights. Family Court Review, 49(2), 364–378. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01377.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Widom CS, Czaja SJ, & DuMont KA (2015). Intergenerational transmission of child abuse and neglect: Real or detection bias? Science, 347(6229), 1480–1485. 10.1126/science.1259917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zuravin S (1999). Child neglect: causes and contributors. In Neglected children: research, practice, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Zuravin SJ (2001). Issues pertinent to defining child neglect. In The CPS response to child neglect: An administrators guide to theory, policy, program design and case practice. Duluth, GA: National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment. Retrieved from http://www.nrccps.org/PDF/CPSResponsetoChildNeglect.pdf [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.