Elsevier

Child Abuse & Neglect

Volume 45, July 2015, Pages 35-45
Child Abuse & Neglect

Research article
Parenting and proximity to social services: Lessons from Los Angeles County in the community context of child neglect

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.020Get rights and content

Abstract

Using a sample of 438 parents in Los Angeles County, CA, this study examines the role of proximity to social services in child neglect. In an extension of social disorganization theory, it seeks to understand the potential sources of support in neighborhoods for families. It uses ordinary least squares regression to examine driving distance from parents’ residences to four types of services (child care, domestic violence, mental health/substance abuse, and poverty). The results show an association between proximity to mental health and substance abuse services and parents’ self-reported neglectful behaviors. Additionally, higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage (poverty, unemployment, and low education), having older children, respondents being male, and respondents being older parents are associated with higher levels of child neglect, while being white is associated with lower levels. Overall, the findings suggest a potentially protective role of geographic access to mental health and substance abuse services in child maltreatment. Additional research on the pathways through which proximity to services influences child neglect is needed.

Introduction

The neighborhoods in which we live may have profound influences on our health, well-being, and ability to function in many realms, including our ability to parent (Coulton et al., 2007, Diez-Roux and Mair, 2010, Freisthler et al., 2006, Maguire-Jack, 2014a). According to social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942), neighborhoods that are characterized by layers of disadvantage related to poverty, unemployment, crime, and population turnover can affect the residents in a myriad of ways that are harmful, including increasing risk of child maltreatment. Social disorganization theory contends that neighborhoods are “disorganized” when they lack a structure to help maintain social controls that allow their residents to realize shared values (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Put differently, when neighborhood residents hold common goals for their community, such as a safe and healthy environment for children, they are more likely to work together to achieve these goals. When residents cannot agree on shared principles and community expectations, however, deviant behaviors have room to flourish because community members cannot effectively organize against them.

The current study focuses on the potentially protective role that geographic access to social services play in child maltreatment. Extensions of social disorganization theory suggest that the local availability of institutional resources, like social services, both reflect and contribute to neighborhood (dis)organization (Sampson, 2001). It is posited that local institutions help community members establish agreement around common values and goals, and participation in these institutions can also give residents the confidence and tools to act, not only on their personal goals for themselves and their families, but also on their shared vision for their community. For this reason, Sampson and Groves (1989) identify limited participation in local organizations as one of three primary pathways by which neighborhood social disorganization affects residents’ outcomes.

Section snippets

Literature Review

Child maltreatment researchers have applied social disorganization theory to understand community variation in child abuse and neglect. These researchers suggest that disorganized neighborhoods put parents at additional risk for maltreatment because of the multiple stressors they provide, the lack of shared social norms among residents regarding child rearing, and an absence of supportive services for parents (Ben-Arieh, 2010, Coulton et al., 1999, Ernst, 2001, Freisthler, 2004, Freisthler et

Poverty Services

Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage has been repeatedly linked to increased child maltreatment risk (Coulton et al., 2007, Freisthler et al., 2006). Moreover, the frequently co-occurring poverty-related concerns of unemployment, residential instability and housing stress (often measured by the concentration of vacant housing units and crowded dwellings) have also been associated with higher rates of children maltreatment within neighborhoods (Coulton et al., 2007, Freisthler et al., 2006,

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

Findings regarding children maltreatment and geographic access to mental health and substance abuse services are mixed. Children of parents who have mental health and/or substance abuse problems are substantially more likely to experience maltreatment and child welfare system involvement than those who do not (Besinger et al., 1999, Kotch et al., 1999, Westad and McConnell, 2012). This suggests that the accessibility of community services designed to promote mental health and manage drug and

Study Hypotheses

Thus, based on social disorganization theory and the empirical literature summarized above, our study hypotheses are that:

  • 1.

    Parents in closer proximity to child care services will report less child neglect;

  • 2.

    Parents in closer proximity to domestic violence services will report less child neglect;

  • 3.

    Parents in closer proximity to poverty services will report less child neglect; and

  • 4.

    Parents in closer proximity to mental health and substance abuse services will report less child neglect.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 includes the descriptive statistics for the sample. There were no statistically significant differences in these statistics between the imputed and unimputed samples. In our sample of 438 parents in Los Angeles County, nearly 14% of families fell below 100% of the 2009 FPL. The average number of days using any alcohol or drugs in the past year was about 100, and 20% of respondents reported some level of depression or anxiety. In terms of child demographics, the average number of

Discussion

This study attempts to deepen our understanding of how the geographic availability of social services within communities influences child maltreatment. While there is now a robust literature supporting the premise of social disorganization theory that residents of neighborhoods characterized by structural challenges like concentrated impoverishment and high rates of population turnover have an elevated risk of experiencing child maltreatment (Coulton et al., 2007, Freisthler et al., 2006,

Limitations

These findings must be interpreted with caution, due to several limitations. Of particular note, the current study was unable to control for neighborhood characteristics that have been previously found to be associated with child maltreatment behaviors. As previously mentioned, it is possible that after taking into account neighborhood disadvantage, access to poverty services might have a protective effect. However, we were unable to conduct a multi-level study that would allow for the

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insight regarding how the geographic accessibility of social services affects parenting and child maltreatment risk. Results suggest that the proximity of mental health and substance abuse services plays a protective role in child maltreatment. Thus, embedding these types of services in communities with high rates of child protective services involvement may be a strategic way to reduce rates of child neglect. Future research should seek

References (55)

  • J. Spearly et al.

    Community characteristics and ethnicity in the prediction of child maltreatment rates

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1983)
  • S. Stith et al.

    Risk factors in child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review of the literature

    Aggression and Violent Behavior

    (2009)
  • M. Straus et al.

    Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1998)
  • J. Waldfogel

    Child welfare research: How adequate are the data?

    Children and Youth Services Review

    (2000)
  • F. Zhai et al.

    Estimating the effects of Head Start on parenting and child maltreatment

    Children & Youth Services, Review

    (2013)
  • P.D. Allison

    Missing data

    (2002)
  • B.A. Besinger et al.

    Caregiver substance abuse among maltreated children placed in out-of-home care

    Child Welfare

    (1999)
  • H.L. Bragg

    Child protection in families experiencing domestic violence

    (2003)
  • J. Brick et al.

    Bias in list-assisted telephone samples

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1995)
  • A. Diez-Roux et al.

    Neighborhoods and health

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, The Biology of Disadvantage

    (2010)
  • E. Dorch et al.

    Social service availability and proximity and the overrepresentation of minority children in child welfare

    Journal of Health and Human Services Administration

    (2010)
  • Environmental Services Research Institute

    ArcGIS

    (2014)
  • J.S. Ernst

    Community-level factors and child maltreatment in a suburban county

    Social Work Research

    (2001)
  • B. Freisthler

    Need for and access to supportive services in the child welfare system

    GeoJournal

    (2013)
  • B. Freisthler et al.

    Exploring the spatial dynamics of alcohol outlets and child protective services referrals, substantiations, and foster care entries

    Child Maltreatment

    (2007)
  • B. Freisthler et al.

    An ecological assessment of the population and environmental correlates of childhood accident, assault, and child abuse injuries

    Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

    (2008)
  • B. Freisthler et al.

    Inadequate child supervision: The role of alcohol outlet density, parent drinking behaviors, and social support

    Children and Youth Services Review

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    This project was supported by Grant Number P60-AA-006282 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism or the National Institutes of Health.

    View full text