1 Staff Maltreatment in Residential Care for Children At-Risk: The Adolescents ’ Perspective Dr. Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz School of Social Work and Social Welfare The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ISCI 3 rd International Conference July, 2011, York, UK

2 Research Purpose To study examines the prevalence and multi-level correlates of staff physical and verbal maltreatment of 1,324 Israeli adolescents in 32 residential care settings.

3 Background: Institutional Care in Israel Every year between 7,000-8,000 young people live in out-of-home care Due to historical and ideological reasons about 80% placed in RCSs.

Child Welfare Placement: Levels of Intensity of Care

5 Maltreatment of Children in Care: Existing Knowledge No hard data to indicate the extent of maltreatment Few existing studies revealing a worrying picture: compared to the general population, children in care are significantly more involved in official child maltreatment reports and police investigations (e.g., Benedict, Zuravin, Brandt, & Abbey, 1994; Bolton, Laner, & Gai, 1982; Hobbs, Hobbs, & Wynne, 1999; Rindfleisch & Rabb, 1984).

6 Limitations of Existing Literature Small-scale, unrepresentative, and retrospective samples Based mostly on inquiry reported cases of alleged incidents of maltreatment assessed and reported by professionals Based on adult reports Focus on severe abuse

7 Research Questions  What is the prevalence of physical and verbal maltreatment of Israeli adolescents in residential care by their setting ’ s staff?  What are the adolescent and the institutional correlates of staff maltreatment?

8 Methods Sample 1,324 young people aged residing in 32 rehabilitative and therapeutic RCSs Study design Cross-sectional

9 Data Collection Anonymous structured self-report questionnaire, completed by the adolescents in a the care setting Organizational details of the settings provided by the directors

10 Dependent Variables: Staff Maltreatment Verbal maltreatment: two items related to being cursed at; humiliated, insulted or ridiculed by a staff member. A scale ranging from 0 to 2 (  = 0.62 . Physical maltreatment: four items related to being grabbed and shoved; pinched; slapped; and kicked or punched. A scale ranging from 0 to 4 (  = 0.74 . (Benbenishty et al., 2002; Furlong et al., 2005)

11 Independent Variables: Child-Level Correlates Age and gender Adjustment difficulties (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) Hyperactivity (  = 0.64) Emotional symptoms (  = 0.67) Perceived social climate (Revised Social Climate Scale, Colton, 1989; Heal, Sinclair, & Troop, 1973) Caretaker support (  = 0.79) Strictness (  = 0.63) RCS policy aimed at reducing violence (Benbenishty et al., 2000; Furlong et al., 2005;  = 0.85).

12 Independent Variables: Setting-Level Correlates Setting type (rehabilitative or therapeutic) Structure (traditional group settings vs. RCSs with familial elements) Size Ethnic affiliation (Arab vs. Jewish settings)

13 Data Analysis Method: Multilevel Analysis (HLM) Enables the analysis of hierarchical data structure Provides information regarding the unique contribution of each analysis level:  Level 1: Adolescents variables  Level 2: Institutional variables

14 Sample Characteristics (N = 1,324 adolescents in 32 RCSs)  Average age: (SD = 3.11)  54% males  62% are rehabilitative  75% Jewish settings  The majority (60%) of the RCSs are group settings  Average number of children: 102 (SD = 24.18)

15 Staff Verbal and Physical Maltreatment  Overall, 24.7% of the adolescents reported being victims of physical maltreatment by staff  One in three (29.1%) reported on verbal violence

Variance between Settings in Maltreatment Proportion of variance between settings, ICC a Variable 18.60%Physical maltreatment 6.00%Verbal maltreatment a The interclass correlation (ICC) is calculated using the formula: variance between RCSs/(variance between + variance within).

17 Findings: Adolescent-Level Correlates The most vulnerable adolescents:  Boys (physical maltreatment)  Adolescents reporting on higher levels of emotional symptoms and hyperactivity  Adolescents perceiving staff as stricter and less supportive  Adolescents reporting on negative perception of the RCS policy against violence

18 Explained-Variance by Child-Level Characteristics Child-level variables explained 16% of the variance within RCSs in physical and 15% in verbal maltreatment Social climate of the setting explained the highest share of variance in verbal (11%) and physical (8%) maltreatment between the adolescents

19 Setting-Level Correlates The most “ at-risk ” institutions: Therapeutic settings (vs. rehabilitative) Arab RCS (physical maltreatment) Settings with larger numbers of children (physical maltreatment)

20 Explained-Variance between RCSs in Staff Maltreatment Setting-level variables explained 66.32% of the variance between RCSs in physical and 31.88% in verbal maltreatment The largest share of variance between settings in physical maltreatment was explained by the cultural affiliation (45.01%) The average perception of the RCS climate explained the highest share (31.88%) of variance between settings in verbal maltreatment

21 Discussion A need for an ecological perspective Worrying rates of staff maltreatment in RCSs Identifying adolescent at-risk and “ settings at-risk ” Adjustment difficulties Social climate and policy Arab RCSs

22 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Cross-sectional design Adolescents as sole informants Explanatory variables not included Additional aspects of maltreatment A need for theoretical developments explaining staff abuse in substitute care