Predictors of early childhood neglect: A tri-study comparison

There is a dearth in research identifying predictors of child neglect during early childhood. Factors that are associated with neglect, either risk or protective, are important to understand, as this information can inform prevention and intervention efforts.

The authors conducted secondary analysis of three longitudinal studies of families with young children. The three studies are different in their sample size, variables and methodology. However, all three include families with children under the age of five years, involve predominantly low-income families, and measures of neglect. The studies (Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW), n=3033; Healthy Families New York (HFNY), n=1173; and Illinois Families Study-Child Wellbeing (IFS-CWB), n=583) distinguish neglect from other types of maltreatment and encompass more than one type of neglect (e.g., financial, emotional).

Within the FFCW, results indicated that several economic variables (e.g., receipt of financial assistance from family members, use of a food bank, inability to see a doctor) were significantly associated with child welfare involvement for concerns of neglect. The results of the FFCW also indicated that caregiver self-efficacy was inversely associated with child welfare contact (i.e., higher self-efficacy was associated with fewer contacts). The HFNY also established numerous economic predictors (e.g., receipt of public benefits, inability to see a doctor, difficulty paying rent) to be significantly associated with increased odds of a child welfare report of neglect. Similarly, the IFS-CWB study found economic variables (e.g., receipt of food stamps, food bank use, difficulty paying rent) were associated with increased odds of contact with child welfare for neglect concerns.

All variables measured amongst the three studies were statistically similar except for the measures of caregivers’ employment, receipt of food stamps, and involvement with children’s activities. Thus, associations between variables and investigated child welfare neglect were not strongly influenced by differences among the three studies.

Economic resource variables such as receiving financial assistance from family members, food bank use, housing subsidy and being unemployed predicted involvement with child welfare for concerns of neglect within all three studies (non-significantly in HFNY, p<.10). Economic hardship factors (e.g., reduced meal size, utility shut off, and difficulty paying rent) predicted child welfare neglect concerns within the FFCW and HFNY studies.

Authors suggest findings are important for prevention efforts. Child welfare organizations may focus too heavily on parental characteristics as the source of maltreatment and focus of interventions, whereas poverty-reduction efforts are likely more important.