Three conceptual approaches to estimating local child abuse rates using conventional data
available at the local level are discussed and evaluated. The first approach assumes that local
abuse rates can be approximated by the national abuse rates. The second approach assumes
that known abuse rates must be decomposed into rates applicable to sub-groups in the
population, then used to estimate local levels of abuse. The third approach assumes that social
and demographic variations across counties must be accounted for before adequate estimates
can be obtained The National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect data set is used to
illustrate the alternative methods. The methods are then applied to obtain estimates of child
abuse cases in a single county outside of the sample. The conclusion is that estimates of actual
abuse cases far exceed the number of reported cases regardless of the method employed
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allegheny County Children and Youth Services ( 1986) 1986-1989 Annual Plan and Budget Estimates. Pittsburgh: Author.
2.
Ards, S. and L. Gordon (1988) Estimating Child Abuse: A Methodological Note. Working Paper Series, Carnegie-Mellon University.
3.
Belsley, D.A., E. Kuh, and R.E. Welsch, R.E. (1980) Regression Diagnostics. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Blau, D. (1973) "Morphology of decomposition," pp. 1-13 in Nato Institute on Decomposition (eds.) Decomposition of Large-Scale Problems. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
5.
Blumstein, A., J. Cohen, and H. Miller (1981) "Demographically disaggregated projections of prison populations." Public Policy Analysis and Management1: 3-37.
6.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1980) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
7.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1981) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
8.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1982) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Harrisburg, PA: Author.
9.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1983) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
10.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1984) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
11.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families (1985) Child Abuse Report. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
12.
Demos, J. (1986) "Child abuse in context: an historian's perspective ," pp. 68-91 in Past, Present and Personal. Oxford University Press.
13.
Duncan, G.T. (1978) "An empirical study of jackknife-constructed confidence regions in nonlinear regression," Technometrics20 (2): 123-129.
14.
Gelles, R. (1982) "Problems in defining and labeling child abuse ," pp. 1-30 in R H. Starr, Jr. (ed.) Child Abuse Prediction. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger .
15.
Gil, D. ( 1970) Violence Against Children: Physical Child Abuse in the United States, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
16.
Light, R. (1973) "Abused and neglected children in America: a study of alternative policies," Harvard Educ. Rev.43 (November): 556-598.
17.
Maddala, G.S. (1977) Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Steele, B. (1980) "Psychodynamic factors in child abuse," pp. 49-85 in H. Kempe and R. Helfer (eds.) The Battered Child (3rd ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
19.
Steele, B. and C. Pollock (1980) "A psychiatric study of parents who abuse infants and small children," in C. Kempe and R. Helfer (eds.) The Battered Child. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
20.
Strauss, M.A., R.J. Gelles, and S.K. Steinmetz (1980) Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family . New York: Doubleday/Anchor .
21.
Tukey, J.W. (1958) "Bias and confidence in not quite large samples " (abstract). Ann. Math. Statistics29: 614.
22.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980) Census of the Population 1980, Vol I : Characteristics of the Population. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office.
23.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983) County and City Data Book, 1982 (A Statistical Abstract Supplement. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
24.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987) Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 (107th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
25.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980a) National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Charleston, Horry and Clarendon Counties in South Carolina and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
26.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980b) Feed Back Reports. National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for DuPage, Rock Island and Ogle Counties in Illinois and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
27.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980c) Feed Back Reports. National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Placer Counties in California and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
28.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980d) Feed Back Reports. National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Dougherty, Laurens and Brantley Counties in Georgia and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980e) Feed Back Reports. National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Hillsborough, Merrimack and Belknap Counties in New Hampshire and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980f) Feed Back Reports. National Study of The Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Johnson, Montgomery and Linn Counties in Kansas and National Estimates (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980g) Feed Back Reports. National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Cuyahoga County in Ohio and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1980h) Feed Back Reports. National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Summary of Findings for Maricopa in Arizona and National Estimate (prepared by Development Associates and Westat, Inc.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
33.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1981 a) Study Findings: National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. DHHS Publication No. OHDS 81-30325. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1981b) Study Methodology. National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. DHHS Publication No. OHDS 81-30326. Washington, DC: Author.
