ARCHIVED - Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008

 

We have archived this page and will not be updating it.

You can use it for research or reference.

 

References

1. Information about additional analyses is available on the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal: http://www.cwrp.ca and at Public Health Agency of Canada’s Injury and Child Maltreatment Section: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cm-vee/index-eng.php.
2. Worker is used to describe all individuals who conduct child protection investigations. These people may be social workers, social service workers or other persons with training in child protection. In some jurisdictions the terms social worker and social service worker are used for individuals who have met licensing requirements within those professions; however, not all individuals conducting child maltreatment investigations fall into these two categories.
3. In some jurisdictions, cases of physical or sexual abuse involving extra-familial perpetrators – for example a baby-sitter, a relative who does not live in the home, or a stranger – are investigated by the police and referred to child welfare organizations only if there are other concerns about the safety or well-being of children.
4. CFI project number 16579. Public Health Agency of Canada contract number 6D014-070001/001/SS.
5. For more detailed description of provincial, territorial and Aboriginal services go to the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal: http://www.cwrp.ca .

7. For example, there was not a statistically significant increase in the number of children sustaining severe injuries. However, because the CIS does not measure rates of unreported maltreatment (cases below the detection line), one cannot rule out increases in the number of victims as one of the factors leading to the overall increase in reports across the three cycles.
8. Due to later recruitment, two sites collected data from December 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009 and one site collected data from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2009. Cases from these three sites represent only 4% of all sampled cases. This different collection period is unlikely to bias the overall results.
9. Randomization was done in Québec by using the time stamp from the sites’ information systems: all odd-minute cases were included in the study.
10. Sites in Québec used a structured phone screening process whereby approximately half of all referrals were “retained” for evaluation. In Québec, the CIS-2008 sampled retained maltreatment-related reports that involved cases that were not already open.
11. Exposure to intimate partner violence is noted in child protection legislation in seven of the 13 Canadian jurisdictions. Five jurisdictions make no mention of exposure to intimate partner violence while one jurisdiction includes violence in the home as a reason for protection intervention but does not specify violence between intimate partners.
12. The CIS-2008 Guidebook, (Appendix G) defines a risk of future maltreatment investigation as “Indicate if the child was investigated because of risk of maltreatment only. Include situations in which no allegation of maltreatment was made and no specific incident of maltreatment was suspected at any point during the investigation.” A maltreatment investigation is defined as “Indicate if the child was investigated because of an allegation of maltreatment… include only those children where, in your clinical opinion, maltreatment was alleged or you investigated an incident or event of maltreatment.”
13. The CIS-2008 Guidebook and training sessions emphasized that workers should base their responses to these questions on their clinical expertise rather than simply transposing information collected on the basis of provincial or local investigation standards.
14. Two Child Information Sheets were included as a component of the CIS-2008 Maltreatment Assessment Form, and additional Child Information Sheets were available in every office.
15. The high item completion rate can be attributed both to the design of the case selection instrument and to the verification procedures. In designing the form, careful attention was given to maintaining a logical and efficient ordering to questions. The use of check boxes minimized completion time. An “unknown” category was included for many questions to help distinguish between missed responses and unknown responses.
16. Participation rate is the proportion of cases opened during the case selection period for which the data collection form was completed.
17. There were two sites with a participation rate of 30%, however, the number of outstanding forms was fewer than five investigations.
18. This average includes 20 sites where case sampling during the three months generated more than the CIS-2008 maximum of 250 cases as well as 18 sites in Québec where case sampling during the three months selected every other investigation. The average annualization weight for sites without a cap of 250 investigations and excluding Québec was 3.61.
19. Census subdivisions are the equivalent of municipalities (e.g., cities, towns, townships, villages).
20. This means that at a 95% confidence level, the true parameter lies within the calculated confidence interval. In other words, if the study were repeated 20 times, in 19 times the estimated confidence intervals would contain the true (unknown) parameter.
21. The coefficient of variation (CV) is the ratio of the standard error to its estimate. According to Statistics Canada guidelines, estimates with a CV under 16.60% are considered to be reliable, estimates with a CV between 16.60% and 33.30% should be treated with caution, and estimates with a CV above 33.30% are recommended not to be used.
22. These changes are described in Chapter 2. Study procedures, in particular the sample selection and weighting, have been kept consistent across studies. Some changes have been made to specific forms of maltreatment tracked by the study, but the major categories have not changed.
23. Information about additional analyses is available on the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal: http://www.cwrp.ca/cis-2008 and at Public Health Agency of Canada’s Injury and Child Maltreatment Section: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cm-vee/index-eng.php
24. The cut-off age of 15 (children under the age of 16) was selected because the mandate to investigate varies among provinces and territories in Canada. All calculations were based on the child population estimates from the 2006 census.
25. The CIS classification protocol was modified starting with the CIS-2003 to avoid confusion in cases wherein one form of maltreatment is substantiated and one is not. If the primary investigated form was not substantiated but a secondary form was, the substantiated form was recoded as the primary form. For example, if physical abuse was not substantiated in a case initially classified primarily as physical abuse, but neglect was substantiated, the substantiated neglect was recoded as the primary form of maltreatment.
26. Exposure to non-partner physical violence was analyzed as a form of emotional maltreatment. On the CIS-2008 data collection instrument, exposure to non-partner violence was listed separately from other maltreatment forms (Appendix F).
27. With the exception of Table 5-1 that includes all investigations in addition to substantiated maltreatment investigations.
28. A number of child functioning measures with established norms exist; however, these are not consistently used in child welfare settings and could not feasibly be used in the context of the CIS.
29. Although child welfare workers assess the safety of children, they do not routinely conduct a detailed assessment of child functioning. Items on the checklist included only issues that workers happened to become aware of during their investigation. A more systematic assessment would therefore likely lead to the identification of more issues than reported here.
30. The two-caregiver limit was required to accommodate the form length restrictions set for the Household Information Sheet.
31. Some distinct geographic areas are served by more than one child welfare agency/office.

Black, T., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2008). The Canadian child welfare system response to exposure to domestic violence investigations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(3), 393-404.

Blackstock, C. (2003). First Nations child and family services: Restoring peace and harmony in First Nations communities. In K. Kufeldt, & B. McKenzie (Eds.). Child welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 331–343). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Fluke, J., Shusterman, G.R., Hollinshead, D.M., & Yuan, Y.Y.T. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: Multistate analysis of associated factors. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 76–88.

Hélie, S. (2005). Fréquence et déterminants de la récurrence du signalement en protection de la jeunesse: Analyse de survie d’une cohorte montréalaise. [Frequency and determinants of the recurrence of reported maltreatment: Montréal cohort survival analysis]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) (2009). Terminology. Retrieved June 16, 2010 from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/tln-eng.asp

Knoke, D., Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., & Fallon, B. (2009). Reliability of the Canadian Incidence Study data collection instrument. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(1), 87–112.

Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

Portwood, S. G. (1999). Coming to terms with a consensual definition of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 4(1), 56–68.

Rust, K., & Kalton, G. (1987). Strategies for collapsing strata for variance estimation. Journal of Official Statistics, 3(1), 69-81.

Sedlak, A.J., & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996). Executive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., et al. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress, Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Statistics Canada (2007). Age and sex for the population of Canada, provinces, territories, census divisions and subdivisions, 2006 Census – 100% Data [Table]. In 2006 Census of Population (Catalogue no. 97-551-XCB2006011). Ottawa: Statistics Canada

Statistics Canada. (2008). Changing Patterns in Canadian Homeownership and Shelter Costs, 2006 Census: Findings (Catalogue no. 97-554-X). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-554/index-eng.cfm?CFID=378707&CFTOKEN=67379052

SPSS Statistics 15.0. (2007). Chicago, Illinois, IL: IBM Company.

SPSS Statistics 17.0. (2008). Chicago, Illinois, IL: IBM Company

Tonmyr, L. (2004). Missing data in the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: Relevance to mental health promotion. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6(4), 33–40.

Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., et al. (2005). Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2003: Major findings. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Chabot, M., et al. (2009). Reliability of the 2008 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2008) data collection instrument. Unpublished report. Ottawa, ON: Public Health Agency of Canada, Injury and Child Maltreatment Section.

Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., & Maclaurin, B. (in press). Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS): Changing patterns of reported maltreatment: 1998 and 2003. In K. Kufeldt, & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Child welfare: Connecting research, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2009). Differentiating between substantiated, suspected, and unsubstantiated maltreatment in Canada. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 4–16.

Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Daciuk, J., Billingsley, D., Tourigny, M., et al. (2001). Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Black, T., & Lajoie, J. (2005). Child abuse and neglect investigations in Canada: Comparing 1998 and 2003 data. [Information sheet]. Retrieved from Child abuse and neglect investigations in Canada: Comparing 1998 and 2003 data - Opens in a new window (120.55 KB – 3 pages)

Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Knoke, D., Pitman, L., & McCormack, M. (2006). Mesnmimk Wasatek: Understanding the overrepresentation of First Nations children in Canada’s child welfare system, an analysis of the CIS-2003. Toronto, ON: Centre of Excellence in Child Welfare.

Trocmé, N., McPhee, D., Kwan Tam, K., & Hay, T. (1994). Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect. Toronto, ON: Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse.

Turcotte, D., Trocmé, N., Dessureault, D., Hélie, S., Cloutier, R., Montambeault, E., et al. (2007). Étude sur l’incidence et les caractéristiques de la maltraitance signalée à la Direction de la protection de la jeunesse au Québec : La situation en 2003. [Study on the incidence and characteristics of maltreatment reported to the Director of Youth Protection in Québec: situation in 2003]. Unpublished report.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (2005). Child Maltreatment 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Westat (2008). WesVar Version 5.1.17 Rockville, MD, USA.