4.5 Article

Accessing Alternative Response Payways: A Multi-Level Examination of Family and Community Factors on Race Equity

期刊

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104640

关键词

Racial equity; child abuse and neglect; child maltreatment; poverty; alternative response pathways; differential response

资金

  1. Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families [HHS-2014-ACF-ACYF-CA-0803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although research has identified factors associated with child welfare involvement, less attention has been paid to how Black families are assigned to types of child welfare responses. The advent of alternative response pathways allows child protection workers to assign child abuse and neglect responses to families based on the type and seriousness of the maltreatment, history of prior reports and age of the child. Objective: The effects of family and community characteristics on alternative response pathways are examined by exploring decision-making at two points in the child welfare system: access to an alternative response child welfare system and assignment to either an investigative or alternative response pathway. Participants and Setting: Black and White families reported for child abuse and neglect (N = 31,802) in New York State were studied. Methods: Using data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System matched with New York State county socioeconomic indicators, logistic and multi-level analyses examined the effect of county-level variables on family characteristics. Results: The analysis determined that Black children and families were not assigned to alternative response pathways similarly to White families especially in counties where indication rates were higher. Conclusion: Findings imply that Black families involved in the child welfare system may benefit from increased access to culturally responsive interventions that target neighborhoods with high indication rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据