Child maltreatment dynamics among immigrant and U.S. born Latino ...

Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944Contents lists available at ScienceDirectChildren and Youth Services Reviewjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouthChild maltreatment dynamics among immigrant and U.S. born Latino children:Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW)Alan J. Dettlaff a, ⁎, Michelle A. Johnson ba University of Illinois at Chicago, Jane Addams College of Social Work, 1040 W. Harrison (MC 309), Chicago, IL 60607, United Statesb University of California Los Angeles, School of Public Affairs, Department of Social Welfare, 3250 Public Affairs Building, P.O. Box 951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656, United StatesarticleinfoabstractArticle history:Received 11 November 2010Accepted 20 December 2010Available online 11 January 2011Keywords:ImmigrantsLatinoChild welfareMaltreatmentNational Survey of Child and AdolescentWell-being (NSCAW)Latino children are the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority group in the United States, and theproportion of child maltreatment victims who are of Latino ethnicity has been growing since 2000. However,our knowledge of the characteristics, maltreatment patterns, and risk factors associated with maltreatmentamong immigrant and U.S. born Latino children and their families has been incomplete. The goals of this studyare to establish the national prevalence of immigrant and U.S. born Latino children who come to the attentionof child welfare systems in the United States; to expand our knowledge regarding the role of nativity in childmaltreatment patterns among Latinos; and to determine if disparities in child maltreatment patterns and risksexist among Latino families using data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being. Despiteconsiderable risks, data indicate that immigrant Latino children are slightly underrepresented among childrenwho present to child welfare systems when compared to the general population. Moreover, no significantdifferences were observed between immigrant children and U.S. born children with regard to substantiationpatterns. However, significant differences emerged between the two groups in risk factors and maltreatmenttype, warranting further investigation.© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionLatino children are the largest and fastest growing ethnic minoritygroup in the United States. In 2008, Latino children represented nearlyone quarter (22%) of all children under the age of 18 (Fry & Passel,2009). By 2035, it is expected that one-third of all youth living in theUnited States will be Latino (National Council of La Raza, 2010). Inconcert with this growth, the proportion of child maltreatmentvictims that are of Latino ethnicity has been growing since 2000, anddisparities in child welfare dynamics have been identified for Latinochildren when compared to other U.S. ethnic groups (U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2002, 2004, 2010).Disparities in child welfare dynamics have also been observed withinthe Latino population based on factors such as parental nativity andgeneration in the United States (Dettlaff, Earner, & Phillips, 2009;Vericker, Kuehn, & Capps, 2007).Whereas the family histories of some Latino children extend backas many as sixteen generations, others are crossing the U.S. bordertoday (Camarillo, 2007). Therefore, to effectively prevent and treatchild maltreatment in culturally competent ways, the study of childmaltreatment among Latino children requires special considerationwith regard to cultural differences based on factors such as nativity.⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 312 996 0044; fax: +1 312 996 2770.E-mail addresses: aland@uic.edu (A.J. Dettlaff), maj@ucla.edu (M.A. Johnson).Our understanding of the role that cultural difference plays in childmaltreatment dynamics among Latinos can be enhanced by examiningthe characteristics of diverse Latino children that come to theattention of the U.S. child welfare system. The goals of this study are toestablish the prevalence of child, caregiver, and household characteristicsof Latino children in the United States that come to the attentionof the child welfare system and to determine if disparities in childmaltreatment risks and patterns exist among Latino children based onthe child's nativity.2. Population dynamics among Latinos in the United StatesThe Latino population comprised 15.4% of U.S. residents in 2008 or46.8 million people (United States Census Bureau, 2009). A growingand diverse population, nearly 40% of the Latino population is foreignborn(Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). The Latino population is alsorelatively youthful compared to other major ethnic groups in theUnited States: 34.1% of Latinos were children under 18 years of age in2008 compared to 20.8% of Whites, 28.1% of Blacks, and 22.0% ofAsians (United States Census Bureau, 2009). Important differencesalso exist between native and foreign-born children with regard topopulation size and distribution. Whereas children comprise 50.3% ofthe native-born Latino population, only 7.9% of foreign-born Latinosare children (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). The age distributions ofnative and foreign-born children also differ. The age distribution ofnative-born Latino children is shaped like a pyramid, with younger0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.017

A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944937children represented among the largest age groupings. The pyramid isinverted for immigrant children; older children form the largest agegroupings while younger children represent a very small proportionof the total foreign-born Latino child population (Pew HispanicCenter, 2010). Older immigrant children tend to be disproportionallymale, reflecting the gendered nature of migration patterns from LatinAmerican countries to the United States (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010).In total, 9% of all Latino children living in the United States are foreignborn(National Council of La Raza, 2010).3. Sources of risk and strength for immigrant and U.S. born LatinochildrenImmigrant and U.S. born Latino children and families face multipleunique challenges that may place them at risk of involvement withchild welfare systems. Literature on family experiences followingimmigration cites several sources of risk, including poverty, loneliness,isolation, language difficulties, fear, and hopelessness (Earner,2007; Finno, Vidal de Haymes, & Mindell, 2006; Maiter, Stalker, &Alaggia, 2009). Additional pressures resulting from acculturation canlead to a variety of strains and difficulties on family systems, asparents and children experience changing cultural contexts alongwith the loss of previously established support systems (Roer-Strier,2001). Compounding these stressors are legislative initiatives thatrestrict immigrant families' access to many supportive services,affecting even those with legal status. The result is not only greatereconomic instability, but also fear that can drive families alreadyunder stress into deeper isolation, resulting in increased vulnerability(Capps, Fortuny, & Fix, 2007; Fortuny, Capps, Simms, & Chaudry,2009).Empirical evidence suggests that the adaptation process for U.S.born Latinos is qualitatively different from immigrants. Differences inadaptation have been attributed to a range of factors includingvulnerabilities associated with discrimination, segregation, andminority status in the United States and decreased adherence to thevalues and practices that serve as sources of strength and resilience inLatino families and communities (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). Whencompared to immigrant Latino youth, delinquency and substance usetend to be more prevalent for those born in the United States. Patternsincluding decreased academic performance, increased school dropoutrates, greater involvement in risky sexual behavior, and increasedtobacco use have also been observed among more acculturated Latinoyouth when compared to less acculturated Latino youth (Gonzales,Knight, Morgan-Lopez, Saenz, & Sirolli, 2002). These patterns areexplained in part by increased exposure and vulnerability to deviantpeer models in the United States (Gonzales et al., 2002). Differences inthe cultural orientations, values, and behaviors of less acculturatedLatino parents and their more acculturated children contributes tointergenerational–intercultural conflict, which may place certainfamilies at risk of child welfare involvement (Johnson, 2007).At the same time, immigrant families' cultural values andconnections to their countries of origin may serve as importantprotective factors. Although learning to function in a new culture mayserve as a source of stress for many immigrant families, researchsuggests that adherence to cultural values and beliefs is a significantsource of strength that allows individuals to maintain flexibility andcohesion in changing environments (Falicov, 2005; Hancock, 2005).Other studies have found that identification with core values andbeliefs rooted in their native culture may protect Latinos fromexperiencing many negative outcomes including substance use andmental health problems (De La Rosa, 2002; Holleran & Waller, 2003).Moreover, certain characteristics often found in immigrant familiesincluding strong parental supervision, extended family networks,religious beliefs, and social support from immigrant communities mayserve as additional protective factors (Dettlaff et al., 2009; Harker,2001; Mirsky, Baron-Draiman, & Kedem, 2002).4. Child maltreatment patterns and trendsAccording to national statistics, the proportion of child maltreatmentvictims that are of Latino origin has been growing over the lastdecade. In 2000, Latino children accounted for 14.2% of all victims ofchild maltreatment (USDHHS, 2002). In 2002, the proportion of victimsof Latino ethnicity fell to a low of 11%, but then steadily grew to 20.8% in2008 (USDHHS, 2004, 2010). In 2008, Latino children represented20.7% of all physical abuse victims, 20.2% of all sexual abuse victims;22.7% of all neglect victims; and 33.8% of all psychological maltreatmentvictims (USDHHS, 2010), suggesting a disproportional representationof Latino victims in these latter categories.National and local statistics also suggest disparities for Latinochildren in child maltreatment substantiation and foster care placement;however, findings suggest a great deal of local variation in casedynamics. While some studies have documented that Latino childrenare more likely to be substantiated for maltreatment than Whitechildren in certain states (Ards, Myers, Malkis, Sugrue, & Zhou, 2003;Church, Gross, & Baldwin, 2005), other studies have shown that they areless likely to be substantiated when compared to Whites (Fluke, Yuan,Hedderson, & Curtis, 2003; Hill, 2007). Further, although Latino childrenremain slightly underrepresented among children in foster care at thenational level (20% in foster care compared to 22% in the childpopulation as of 2008 [USDHHS, 2009]), current trends at the statelevel suggest an increasing overrepresentation of Latino children incertain states. In 2000, a state analysis revealed that Latino children wereoverrepresented in foster care in 10 states (Hill, 2005). A similar analysisusing data from 2006 revealed that the number of states in which Latinochildren were overrepresented nearly doubled from 10 states in 2000 to19 states in 2006 (Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare, 2010).A few studies have examined disparities in child welfare dynamicswithin the Latino population based on gender and age. Using nationaldata, Alzate and Rosenthal (2009) found a very high likelihood ofphysical abuse for Hispanic boys when compared to non-Hispanic boys.While young Hispanic children were at greater risk for out-of-homeplacement than non-Hispanic children, older Hispanic children were atlower placement risk. In another study, Church (2006) found that 15 to19 year old Hispanics spent the longest duration in out-of-homeplacement when compared to other age groups.Two studies have also examined disparities in child welfaredynamics within the Latino population based on birthplace. In a Texasstudy of children removed from their homes, Vericker et al. (2007)found immigrant Latin American children and children of LatinAmerican parents to be underrepresented in the child welfare systemwhile U.S. born Latino children were overrepresented. They also foundthat immigrant Latin American children were more often removedfrom home for sexual abuse when compared to other children in care.Additionally, Dettlaff et al. (2009) found Latino children of immigrantsto have a higher prevalence of substantiated cases of sexual abusewhen compared to children of native parents in a national, populationbased sample of Latino children in in-home settings. However, theyalso found Latino immigrant parents in the sample to possessstrengths and resources that distinguished them from native-bornLatino families.Studies exclusively focused on the experiences of immigrantfamilies in the child welfare system suggest that immigrants faceconsiderable challenges due to factors such as poverty and limitedaccess to benefits, fewer sources of social support, differing languageand cultural norms, distrust of government, and fear of deportation(Earner, 2007;2010). Immigrant families also experience differentservice paths depending on documentation status and languageabilities (Ayón, 2009), child's generation in the U.S. (Vericker et al.,2007), and race/ethnicity (Rajendran & Chemtob, 2010).This small body of research begins to shed light on the experiencesof diverse Latino children and families who come to the attention of thechild welfare system. However, our knowledge of the characteristics,

938 A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944maltreatment patterns, and risk factors associated with maltreatmentamong immigrant and U.S. born Latino children and their families hasbeen incomplete due to sampling and data limitations. The goals of thisstudy are to establish the national prevalence of immigrant and U.S.born Latino children who come to the attention of child welfaresystems in the United States, to expand our understanding of the role ofacculturation in child maltreatment patterns among Latinos, and todetermine if disparities in child maltreatment patterns and risks existamong Latino families based on the child's nativity. We achieve thesegoals by examining the child, caregiver, and household characteristicsof all Latino children included in the National Survey of Child andAdolescent Well-being (n=947).5. MethodsThe National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW)is a national probability study of children who were subjects of reportsof maltreatment to child welfare agencies. NSCAW was collectedunder contract from the Administration for Children and Families, andis the first national study to provide detailed information on theexperiences of children and families who come to the attention of thechild welfare system. Data were obtained through first-hand reportsfrom children and their associated caregivers and child protectiveservices (CPS) caseworkers between 1999 and 2001 (Dowd et al.,2002). Interviews were conducted in Spanish if respondents indicatedSpanish as their preferred language.The NSCAW sample was derived from a two-stage stratifiedsampling design developed to maximize the accuracy of estimates ofchildren involved with the child welfare system. In the first stage, theUnited States was divided into nine sampling strata. Eight of thesestrata corresponded to the states with the largest child welfarecaseloads. The ninth stratum consisted of the remaining states andthe District of Columbia. Primary sampling units, defined as thegeographic area containing the population served by a child welfareagency, were selected from within those nine strata. In the secondstage, 5501 children ages 0 to 14 were selected from lists of closedinvestigations or assessments from the sampled areas. Sampling withinprimary sampling units was stratified by age, type of maltreatment,receipt of child welfare services, and placement in out-of-home care.Weights are applied in the analysis to adjust the sample back to thecharacteristics of the national population of children involved with thechild welfare system. The current analyses are restricted to childrenidentified as being of a Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (n=947).5.1. Constructs and measures5.1.1. Child nativityChildren's nativity was established through primary caregiverreports of whether or not the child was born in the United States. Theterm primary caregiver refers to the person with whom children wereliving at the time of the NSCAW interview who had the majority ofresponsibility for their care.5.1.2. Child and caregiver characteristicsThe child characteristics examined in this study include (a) age,(b) gender, and (c) type of placement. Caregiver characteristicsinclude (a) age, (b) gender, (c) relationship to child, (d) maritalstatus, and (e) education level. Child and caregiver characteristicswere established through interviews with primary caregivers.5.1.3. Family and household characteristicsThe family and household characteristics examined include (a)household yearly income, (b) primary caregiver employment, (c) receiptof public assistance, (d) family composition (i.e., presence of other adultrelatives), (e) caregiver instability (i.e., change of primary caregiver withinthe past 12 months), and (f) language use within the home. Householdyearly income, primary caregiver employment, and receipt of publicassistance were established through interviews with primary caregivers.Family composition was established from household rosters developedthrough information obtained from children and their primary caregivers.To determine the stability of caregivers in children's lives, children'scaregivers were questioned to develop a chronology of changes incaregivers across time. Children were categorized as experiencingcaregiver instability if one or more changes of caregivers were reportedin the year prior to the NSCAW interview. Language used within the homewas established through primary caregiver reports of the use of languagesother than English and caregivers' comfort level speaking English.5.1.4. Alleged and substantiated maltreatmentInformation concerning maltreatment was obtained from children'sassociated CPS caseworker. Caseworkers first identified all maltreatmenttypes included in the investigation report. When multiple types ofmaltreatment were reported, the most serious type of maltreatment wasdetermined using a slight modification of the Maltreatment ClassificationSystem (Manly, Cicchetti, & Barnette, 1994). Maltreatment categoriesinclude physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect(failure to provide), failure to supervise, and abandonment. The outcomeof maltreatment investigations was determined from CPS caseworkerreports of the final disposition assigned to the maltreatment investigation.Outcomes were classified as either substantiated or not substantiated. Themost serious type of substantiated maltreatment was determined byanalyzing the maltreatment type associated with substantiated investigationsonly (n=391).5.1.5. Parent and family risk factorsCPS caseworkers identified parent and family risk factors presentat the time of the maltreatment investigation based on informationobtained in their assessment of the family. Questions identifying riskfactors were developed by the NSCAW investigators and based on riskassessment forms from the Michigan, New York, Washington, Illinois,and Colorado child welfare systems. Responses were dichotomous,with caseworkers responding yes or no indicating the presence orabsence of each risk factor. Risk factors included active alcohol abuse,active drug abuse, serious mental health or emotional problems,intellectual or cognitive impairments, physical impairments, poorparenting skills, active domestic violence, use of excessive discipline,caregiver history of maltreatment, recent history of arrest, low socialsupport, high family stress, and difficulty meeting basic needs.5.2. AnalysesData were analyzed in Stata 10.0 using survey commands to adjustfor the two-stage sampling design employed in NSCAW (StataCorp,2007). All prevalence rates and statistical tests were weighted to yieldnational estimates for the population of children involved with thechild welfare system. Full details of the NSCAW weight derivation areavailable in Dowd et al. (2002). In addition to reporting nationalpopulation estimates, between-group differences were tested usingtests of categorical independence. These tests are based on thePearson chi-square statistic converted to an F-statistic with nonintegerdegrees of freedom using a second-order Rao and Scott (1981)correction to account for the complex survey design.6. Results6.1. Child and caregiver characteristicsResults of the analyses indicate that among Latino children who cometo the attention of the child welfare system, 7.8% are foreign-bornimmigrants, while 92.2% are U.S. born. Table 1 displays differences in childand caregiver characteristics based on the child's nativity. Overall, fewsignificant differences were present in demographic characteristics.

A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944939Immigrant children tended to be older and a greater proportion weremale. Although placement situations did not differ significantly, a greaterproportion of immigrant children were living in in-home settings, while U.S.-born children were more likely to be in out-of-home placements.Caregivers of children differed significantly in their relationships tochildren, with immigrant children significantly more likely than U.S. bornchildren to be living with a biological parent. In contrast, U.S. born childrenwere more likely to be living with a foster/adoptive parent or other adultrelatives. This is likely a reflection of the differences found in children'splacement situations. Other demographic characteristics of caregivers,including age, gender, marital status, and education level, did not differsignificantly.6.2. Family and household characteristicsAnnual income did not differ significantly between householdsof immigrant Latino children and households of U.S. born Latinochildren. However, the majority of both groups were represented inthe two lowest income categories, with 78.7% of immigrant Latinochildren and 59.6% of U.S. born Latino children living in householdswith annual incomes less than $20,000. Although annual income didnot differ significantly between the two groups, significant differenceswere present in the receipt of public assistance. Households of U.S.born Latino children were more likely to be receiving public assistancein the form of housing support or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Overall, nearly two-thirds of the households of immigrant childrenwere not receiving any form of public assistance, compared to lessthan one-third of the households of U.S. born children.In other characteristics, immigrant Latino children were significantlymore likely than U.S. born Latino children to be living with theirbiological mothers (97.3% to 78.9%), while U.S. born Latino childrenwere significantly more likely to be living in households with agrandparent present (16.2% to 1.9%). Interestingly, households ofimmigrant children were significantly less likely to report speaking alanguage other than English in the home (17.0% to 44.0%), althoughthey were also slightly less likely to report being comfortable speakingEnglish (94.2% to 99.3%). A summary of family and householdcharacteristics is included in Table 2.6.3. Alleged and substantiated maltreatmentNo significant differences were present in the types of allegedmaltreatment that brought Latino children to the attention of thechild welfare system. Further, there was no significant difference inTable 1Child and caregiver characteristics (weighted population estimates).Child nativityTotal U.S.-born ImmigrantSample Children Children(N=947) (N=891) (N=56) F sigTotal 100.0 92.2 7.8Child characteristicsAge (%)0 to 2 19.8 21.3 0.83 to 5 22.2 22.5 18.76 to 10 36.6 35.7 46.811 and older 21.5 20.4 33.7Gender (%)Male 43.8 42.6 58.6Female 56.2 57.4 41.4Placement situationIn home 91.2 90.7 97.5Foster home 3.5 3.8 0.2Kinship home 3.8 4.1 0.9Group home/Other out of home 1.4 1.4 1.4nsnsnsCaregiver characteristicsAge (%)ns15 to 19 3.2 3.5 0.020 to 29 35.7 35.3 40.830 to 39 42.9 43.6 34.640 and older 18.2 17.7 24.6Gender (%)nsFemale 10.9 88.2 100.0Male 89.1 11.8 0.0Relationship to child F (1.92, 159.30) =3.62 ⁎Biological parent 88.7 87.9 97.3Foster/adoptive parent 3.7 4.0 0.2Other relative 6.7 7.2 1.2Other non-relative 0.9 0.9 1.4Marital status (%)nsMarried 31.4 30.1 47.1Separated 16.9 17.4 11.8Divorced 17.6 17.5 19.1Widowed 4.3 4.6 1.2Never married 29.7 30.5 20.8Education level (%)nsLess than high school 33.9 33.2 41.9High school diploma 43.0 42.2 52.7More than high school 23.1 24.6 5.4ns=not significant at pb0.05.⁎ pb0.05.

940 A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944Table 2Family and household characteristics (weighted population estimates).Child nativityTotal U.S.-born ImmigrantSample Children Children(N=947) (N=891) (N=56) F sigHousehold yearly incomensb$10,000 24.9 24.2 34.0$10,000–$19,999 36.1 35.4 44.7$20,000–$29,999 12.6 12.3 15.5$30,000–$39,999 14.3 15.5 0.2$40,000–$49,999 5.6 5.7 4.3$50,000 and higher 6.4 6.8 1.3Public assistanceWIC 38.9 39.7 29.4 nsFood stamps 35.2 36.5 19.9 nsTANF 25.4 26.6 10.9 nsHousing support 8.3 9.0 0.4 F (1, 83) =22.06 ⁎⁎⁎SSI (disability) 11.5 12.48 0.1 F (1, 83) =152.63 ⁎⁎⁎None 33.8 31.2 63.9 F (1, 83) =5.07 ⁎Family compositionBiological father present 31.6 30.3 46.9 nsBiological mother present 80.3 78.9 97.3 F (1, 83) =14.10 ⁎⁎⁎Grandparent present 15.1 16.2 1.9 F (1, 83) =11.00 ⁎⁎⁎Other adult relative present 27.4 28.3 16.2 nsInstabilityChange of primary caregiver in past 12 months 13.1 13.7 6.3 nsLanguage useLanguage other than English spoken in home 41.9 44.0 17.0 F (1, 83) =4.40 ⁎Comfortable speaking English 99.2 99.3 94.2 F (1, 83) =5.53 ⁎ns=not significant at pb0.05.⁎⁎⁎ pb0.001.⁎ pb0.05.the overall rate of substantiated maltreatment between immigrantchildren and U.S. born children. However, significant differences werepresent in the type of maltreatment that was substantiated.Immigrant Latino children were nearly three times as likely to bevictims of physical abuse than U.S. born Latino children (75.7% to27.8%). U.S. born Latino children were significantly more likely thanimmigrant Latino children to be victims of emotional abuse (24.2%to 0.2%). A summary of alleged and substantiated maltreatment isincluded in Table 3.6.4. Parent and family risk factorsSignificant differences were present in six risk factors identified byCPS caseworkers, with 5 of those 6 risk factors more likely to bepresent in families of U.S. born Latino children. Active alcohol abuseand active drug abuse were both significantly more likely to bepresent in families of U.S. born Latino children (15.8% to 1.4% and 8.7%to 0.3% respectively). Additionally, families with U.S. born childrenwere more than 5 times more likely to be experiencing activeTable 3Alleged and substantiated maltreatment (weighted population estimates).Child nativityTotal U.S.-born ImmigrantSample Children Children(N=947) (N=891) (N=56) F sigMost serious type of alleged maltreatmentPhysical abuse 32.4 30.9 50.0 nsSexual abuse 11.6 11.9 7.5 nsEmotional abuse 12.6 12.7 11.4 nsPhysical neglect (failure to provide) 14.6 15.4 5.0 nsLack of supervision 25.3 25.4 24.8 nsAbandonment 1.8 1.8 1.3 nsInvestigation outcomensSubstantiated 27.9 27.9 27.5Not substantiated 72.1 72.1 72.5Type of substantiated maltreatment (N=391) (N=370) (N=21)Physical abuse 31.5 27.8 75.7 F (1, 83) =5.76 ⁎⁎Sexual abuse 8.2 8.7 1.9 nsEmotional abuse 22.4 24.2 0.2 F (1, 83) =68.88 ⁎⁎⁎Physical neglect (failure to provide) 9.6 10.1 3.7 nsLack of supervision 23.1 24.0 13.4 nsAbandonment 1.8 1.6 4.6 nsns=not significant at pb0.05.⁎⁎ pb0.01.⁎⁎⁎ pb0.001.

A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944941domestic violence than families of immigrant children (12.8% to 2.3%).Parents of U.S. born children were also more likely to have a physicalimpairment (2.5% to 0.4%) and a recent history of arrest (8.1% to 1.4%).However, parents of immigrant Latino children were more than threetimes as likely to be identified by CPS caseworkers as using excessivediscipline (46.5% to 14.3%), with this risk factor identified in nearlyone-half of all families of immigrant Latino children. High familystress was the most prevalent risk factor for both groups, although theprevalence of this risk factor did not differ significantly betweengroups. A summary of parent and family risk factors is included inTable 4.7. DiscussionWith few exceptions, research examining Latino children in thechild welfare system has typically compared Latino children as ahomogenous group to children of other races. Yet, given theincreasing size and diversity of the Latino population in the UnitedStates, it is important to be aware of cultural differences within theLatino population and to be able to appropriately respond to thosedifferences. This is important not only to provide more effectiveservices when immigrant children come to the attention of thissystem, but also to better understand the specific risk factors facingLatino children in order to plan prevention efforts.Literature has suggested that immigrant children may face anumber of risk factors that make them vulnerable to contact with thechild welfare system. However, data in this study indicate thatimmigrant Latino children are slightly underrepresented amongchildren who present to child welfare systems, with foreign-bornchildren representing slightly less than 8% of Latino children involvedin child welfare, although they represent approximately 9% of Latinochildren in the general child population. Nevertheless, significantdifferences exist between immigrant and non-immigrant Latinochildren in the risk factors and type of maltreatment they experiencethat warrant further research and attention.In this study, a large proportion of families of immigrant childrenresided at the lowest tiers of the income ladder. However, thosefamilies were significantly less likely to receive any type of publicassistance when compared to their native-born counterparts. Thesedifferences partly reflect changes in program eligibility that resultedfrom the targeted immigrant provisions of the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. Before1996, most lawfully present immigrants were eligible for the samepublic benefits as U.S. citizens. However, PRWORA barred noncitizensfrom several key federal income supports (Dinan, 2005). Studiessuggest that PRWORA had a “chilling effect” on benefit participationamong both citizen and non-citizen children in low-income immigrantfamilies in the late 1990s (Fix & Passel, 2002). Although it is notpossible to determine whether PRWORA's immigrant provisionsaffected public assistance program participation in this sample givenlimitations of the data, the large number of families who are living atlow incomes and without public assistance highlights the economichardship faced by immigrant Latino families who come to theattention of child welfare systems.Although immigrant children may face risk factors such aseconomic vulnerability along with challenges resulting from theirfamilies' experiences with immigration and acculturation, the findingsfrom this study indicate that several risk factors stronglyassociated with child maltreatment are significantly more likely tobe present in families with U.S. born Latino children. Specifically, U.S.born Latino children are significantly more likely to live in homes withactive alcohol abuse, active drug abuse, and active domestic violence,each of which has considerable empirical links to child maltreatment.Multiple studies have documented that higher levels of acculturationare associated with higher incidence of family problems includingsubstance abuse (e.g., Ortega, Rosenheck, Alegría, & Desai, 2000; Vega,Sribney, & Achara-Abrahams, 2003) and domestic violence (e.g.,Garcia, Hurwitz, & Kraus, 2005; Jasinski, 1998). Therefore, significantdifferences in alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and domestic violencebetween U.S. born and foreign-born children are likely due in part todifferences in the acculturation levels of parents — families withforeign-born children are likely to have resided in the United Statesfor only a short amount of time and thus are among the leastacculturated. Additionally, for many immigrant families, the desire fora better life for their children that is often associated with theirreasons for migration may be a powerful strength and motivatingfactor that may serve as a buffer against many of the risk factorsassociated with maltreatment. Undertaking a long, expensive, anddangerous journey to a foreign country requires determination,strength, and a strong sense of personal and family responsibilitythat may serve as deterrents for engaging in illegal or otherwiseharmful activities.Concerning the incidence of maltreatment, no significant differenceswere present in the overall incidence of maltreatment betweenTable 4Parent and family risk factors (weighted population estimates).Child nativityTotal U.S.-born ImmigrantSample Children Children(N=947) (N=891) (N=56) F sigParent and family risk factorsActive alcohol abuse 14.8 15.8 1.4 F (1, 83) =40.30 ⁎⁎⁎Active drug abuse 7.9 8.7 0.3 F (1, 83) =44.30 ⁎⁎⁎Serious mental health or emotional problem 9.2 9.7 2.8 nsIntellectual or cognitive impairment 3.4 3.7 0.0 nsPhysical impairment 2.3 2.5 0.4 F (1, 83) =4.20 ⁎Poor parenting skills 26.8 27.6 16.9 nsActive domestic violence 12.0 12.8 2.3 F (1, 83) =12.31 ⁎⁎⁎Use of excessive discipline 16.5 14.3 46.5 F (1, 83) =5.94 ⁎History of maltreatment (of caregiver) 25.0 24.5 33.5 nsRecent history of arrest 7.7 8.1 1.4 F (1, 83) =4.61 ⁎Low social support 25.6 25.0 36.0 nsHigh family stress 52.3 52.8 46.8 nsDifficulty meeting basic needs 21.0 20.8 22.5 nsAny risk factor 85.3 85.6 80.0 nsns=not significant at pb0.05.⁎⁎⁎ pb0.001.⁎ pb0.05.

942 A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944immigrant and U.S. born Latino children. However, considerabledifferences were found in the type of substantiated maltreatment,with immigrant Latino children experiencing physical abuse at a ratenearly three times that of U.S. born Latino children. It is possible thatthe higher rates of substantiated physical abuse reflect a higherproportion of immigrant families that use excessive discipline whencompared to the families of U.S. born children. Traditionally orientedLatino families have been described as using an authoritarianparenting style that serves to instill the cultural values and norms ofparental obedience, family loyalty (i.e., familismo) and appropriatebehavior (Zayas, 1992; Fontes, 2002). It is not unusual for traditionallyoriented Latino parents to incorporate corporal punishment in theirchild rearing approach (Zayas & Solari, 1994), or to combine corporalpunishment with verbal reasoning, intimacy, and support (Buriel,Mercado, Rodriguez, & Chavez, 1991; Fontes, 2002). While statutorydefinitions of physical abuse vary across states, it is possible that theuse of corporal punishment by traditionally oriented parents may beinterpreted by some child welfare practitioners as excessive discipline.Moreover, traditionally oriented Latino parents who observetheir children behaving in a disobedient or disrespectful manner inpublic are likely to respond in public, thereby increasing thelikelihood of child maltreatment reporting (Fontes, 2002). The fewstudies that have examined group differences in Latino child rearingattitudes and behaviors suggest that less acculturated families aremore likely to use harsher disciplinary practices when compared totheir more acculturated counterparts (Rauh, Wasserman, & Brunelli,1990; Buriel et al., 1991). According to Fontes (2002), the moreacculturated and educated the family is, the closer their childdiscipline norms will be to those of U.S. culture. However, moreresearch is necessary regarding the specific behaviors that areassociated with physical abuse reports among immigrant familiesand how these reports are handled by child welfare practitioners.While immigrant Latino children were more likely to experiencephysical abuse, U.S. born Latino children were significantly morelikely to experience emotional abuse. Nearly one-quarter of all U.S.born Latino children involved in a substantiated case of maltreatmentwere victims of emotional abuse, compared to less than 1% ofimmigrant children who experienced this form of maltreatment. Thisfinding is difficult to interpret as statutory definitions of emotionalabuse vary widely across states (Hamarman, Pope, & Czaja, 2002), andthe data available do not provide information on the behaviorsassociated with these allegations. However, it is possible that some ofthis difference may be attributed to exposure to domestic violenceamong U.S. born Latino children, which is included in most statesdefinitions of emotional or psychological maltreatment (U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children'sBureau, 2010). According to caseworker reports of risk in this study,active domestic violence was present in 12.8% of families of U.S. bornLatino children, a rate more than five times that of immigrantchildren. This is consistent with other research, which documents thatrates of domestic violence are significantly higher among U.S. bornLatinos as compared to immigrant Latinos (Aldarondo, Kantor, &Jasinski, 2002; Jasinski, 1998; Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994).However, while exposure to domestic violence may account for someof the observed differences in emotional abuse, the extremedifferences in rates of emotional abuse as documented in this studywarrant additional research in order to fully understand the reasonsfor this difference.7.1. LimitationsAs data in NSCAW were not collected specifically for the purpose ofidentifying differences between immigrant and non-immigrantpopulations, the findings presented in this study have severalimportant limitations. First, we were unable to identify differenceswithin immigrant families related to immigration status (i.e., whethera parent or child has legal status in the U.S.) as this variable was notcollected. Families with undocumented members likely experienceeven greater stress than those with legal status, and differences in riskfactors and maltreatment between those with legal status and thosewithout legal status could not be determined. Moreover, we wereunable to examine indicators other than nativity that might provide amore detailed account of the acculturative status of children. Amongthe families of immigrant children, the relatively low self-report of alanguage other than English spoken in the home (17%) and the highlevel of comfort reported in speaking English (94%) suggests either ahigh level of acculturation among the immigrant group surveyed orraises questions regarding the reliability of those language indicators.Future research on the relationship between acculturation and childmaltreatment should seek to incorporate more sophisticated measuresthat assess the multidimensional nature of cultural change andpreference.Additionally, the reliability and validity of caseworker reports ofparent and family risk factors used in these analyses have not beenestablished, and the correspondence between parents' self-report onthese variables and caseworker assessments has not been examined.However, it is the caseworker's perceptions of risk that often guidecase decision-making, and as such, the measures of risk included inthis study provide valuable information for understanding immigrantfamilies' involvement with child welfare systems. Finally, as thesedata only include families who have already come to the attention ofchild welfare systems, no conclusions can be drawn regarding thepresence of risk or maltreatment in the general Latino population.7.2. Implications of findingsThe findings in this study represent the first national data availableconcerning the involvement of immigrant Latino children in the childwelfare system. The findings document important differencesbetween immigrant Latino children and U.S. born Latino childrenthat need to be considered by child welfare professionals whenassessing for risk and service needs. Although immigrant children areoften considered particularly vulnerable, these findings demonstratethat they are less likely to experience many of the risk factorsassociated with maltreatment than their native-born counterpartsamong those families who come to the attention of child welfaresystems.Although immigrant families may face a number of challengesupon entering the U.S., they also possess a number of strengths thatmay often be often overlooked by child welfare professionals. Theseinclude families' reasons for migration, their aspirations for theirchildren, and the challenges they have overcome as part of theirmigration experience. In addition, families' culture and connections totheir country of origin can be significant sources of strength that canbe built upon in practice to facilitate positive outcomes. Yet, althoughit is important to identify strengths that may be unique to immigrantfamilies, it is also important to identify unique risk factors that may beoverlooked, particularly among families with undocumented members,as they may be particularly vulnerable to stress due to fears ofdeportation and possible separation from their children. This stress islikely to be heightened in states with harsh immigration enforcementpolicies. Thus, child welfare practitioners need to be familiar with thelarger political context in which immigrant families live and function.In addition to understanding the consequences that may result fromdiscovery and deportation, child welfare practitioners need tounderstand how forms of immigration status affect benefit eligibilityand the resulting implications for service delivery.Given the differences in rates of physical abuse involvingimmigrant children, immigrant families may benefit from educationon cultural norms concerning discipline and the prevention ofmaltreatment. Child welfare agencies can partner with community-

A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944943based service providers in immigrant communities to facilitate thiseducation and to develop a sense of trust within the immigrantcommunity. In addition to providing education, child welfareprofessionals need to be culturally sensitive when responding toimmigrant families, recognizing and respecting the differences incultural norms that may have led to their involvement, while alsoeducating families on appropriate disciplinary practices. In all cases,child welfare staff need to be sensitive to the fear and confusionthat many immigrant families may have regarding child welfareintervention.Finally, although these findings indicate that foreign-born childrenrepresent just a small portion of Latino children who come to theattention of this system, it is important to acknowledge reasons thatmay lead to underreporting within this population. Families withundocumented members are likely to be particularly fearful of contactwith child welfare agencies and may underutilize other publicservices due to concerns over eligibility or immigration status. Thus,children in immigrant families may be less likely to come into contactwith many of the systems that serve as mandated reporters to childwelfare agencies. Members of immigrant communities may also behesitant to report cases of child abuse due to the potentialrepercussions to families if members are undocumented. Thus, lackof involvement with child welfare agencies is not necessarilyindicative of greater family functioning. Rather, it may be an indicatorof deepening social isolation, avoidance of social service systems, orlack of access to linguistically competent service providers.AcknowledgementsFunding for this research was provided by the American HumaneAssociation, Children's Division.ReferencesAldarondo, E., Kantor, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (2002). A risk marker analysis of wife assaultin Latino families. Violence Against Women, 8, 429−454.Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. (2010). How are our kids: State scorecards.http://www.policyforresults.org [Retrieved from].Alzate, M. M., & Rosenthal, J. (2009). Gender and ethnic differences for Hispanicchildren referred to child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 31,1−7.Ards, S. D., Myers, S. L., Malkis, A., Sugrue, E., & Zhou, L. (2003). Racial disproportionalityin reported and substantiated child abuse and neglect. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 25, 375−392.Ayón, C. (2009). Shorter time-lines, yet higher hurdles: Mexican families' access tochild welfare mandated services. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 609−616.Buriel, R., Mercado, R., Rodriguez, J., & Chavez, J. M. (1991). Mexican-Americandisciplinary practices and attitudes toward child maltreatment: A comparison offoreign- and native-born mothers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13,78−94.Camarillo, A. (2007). Mexico. In M. Waters, & R. Ueda (Eds.), The new Americans: A guideto immigration since 1965 (pp. 504−517). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Capps, R., Fortuny, K., & Fix, M. (2007). Trends in the low-wage immigrant labor force,2000–2005. http://www.urban.org/publications/411426.html [Retrieved fromUrban Institute website:].Church, W. T., Gross, E. R., & Baldwin, J. (2005). Maybe ignorance is not always bliss: Thedisparate treatment of Hispanics within the child welfare system. Children andYouth Services Review, 27, 1279−1292.Church, W. T. (2006). From start to finish: The duration of Hispanic children in out-ofhomeplacements. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1007−1023.De La Rosa, M. (2002). Acculturation and Latino adolescents' substance use: A researchagenda for the future. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 429−456.Dettlaff, A. J., Earner, I., & Phillips, S. D. (2009). Latino children of immigrants in the childwelfare system: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 31, 775−783.Dinan, K. (2005). Federal policies restrict immigrant children's access to key public benefits.New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia UniversityMailman School of Public Health.Dowd, K., Kinsey, S., Wheeless, S., Thissen, R., Richardson, J., & Mierzwa, F. (2002).National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW): Introduction to thewave 1 general and restricted use releases. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, NationalData Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.Earner, I. (2007). Immigrant families and public child welfare: Barriers to services andapproaches to change. Child Welfare, 86(4), 63−91.Earner, I. (2010). Double risk: Immigrant mothers, domestic violence and public childwelfare services in New York City. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 288−293.Falicov, C. J. (2005). Mexican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N. Garcia-Preto(Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 229−241). (3rd ed.). New York: GuilfordPress.Finno, M., Vidal de Haymes, M., & Mindell, R. (2006). Risk of affective disorders in themigration and acculturation experience of Mexican Americans. Protecting Children,21(2), 22−35.Fix, M., & Passel, J. (2002). The scope and impact of welfare reform's immigrant provisions.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionaterepresentation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation andvictimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359−373.Fontes, L. A. (2002). Child discipline and physical abuse in immigrant Latino families:Reducing violence and misunderstandings. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80,31−40.Fortuny, K., Capps, R., Simms, M., & Chaudry, A. (2009). Children of immigrants:National and state characteristics. http://www.urban.org/publications/411939.html [Retrieved from Urban Institute website:].Fry, R., & Passel, J. S. (2009). Latino children: A majority are U.S.-born offspring ofimmigrants. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., et al.(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies inminority children. Child Development, 67, 1891−1914.Garcia, L., Hurwitz, E. L., & Kraus, J. F. (2005). Acculturation and reported intimatepartner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20,569−590.Gonzales, N. A., Knight, G. P., Morgan-Lopez, A. A., Saenz, D., & Sirolli, A. (2002).Acculturation and the mental health of Latino youths: An integration and critique ofthe literature. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino childrenand families in the United States (pp. 45−74). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Hamarman, S., Pope, K. H., & Czaja, S. J. (2002). Emotional abuse in children: Variationsin legal definitions and rates across the United States. Child Maltreatment, 7,303−311.Hancock, T. U. (2005). Cultural competence in the assessment of poor Mexican familiesin the rural southeastern United States. Child Welfare, 84, 689−711.Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychologicalwell-being. Social Forces, 79, 969−1004.Hill, R. B. (2005). Overrepresentation of children of color in foster care in 2000. http://www.racemattersconsortium.org/docs/whopaper7.pdf [Retrieved from Race MattersConsortium website:].Hill, R. B. (2007). An analysis of racial/ethnic disproportionality and disparity at thenational, state, and county levels. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.Holleran, L. K., & Waller, M. A. (2003). Sources of resilience among Chicano/a youth:Forging identities in the borderlands. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 20, 335−350.Jasinski, J. L. (1998). The role of acculturation in wife assault. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 20, 175−191.Johnson, M. A. (2007). The social ecology of acculturation: Implications for child welfareservices to children of immigrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(11),1426−1438.Kantor, G. K., Jasinski, J. L., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence ofmarital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207−222.Maiter, S., Stalker, C. A., & Alaggia, R. (2009). The experiences of minority immigrantfamilies receiving child welfare services: Seeking to understand how to reduce riskand increase protective factors. Families in Society, 90, 28−36.Manly, J., Cicchetti, D., & Barnette, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency,chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behaviorproblems. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121−143.Mirsky, J., Baron-Draiman, J., & Kedem, P. (2002). Social support and psychologicaldistress among young immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel.International Social Work, 45, 83−97.National Council of La Raza (2010). America's future: Latino child well-being in numbersand trends. Washington DC: Author.Ortega, A. N., Rosenheck, R., Alegría, M., & Desai, R. A. (2000). Acculturation and thelifetime risk of psychiatric and substance use disorders among Hispanics. TheJournal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 728−735.Pew Hispanic Center (2010). Statistical profiles of the Hispanic and foreign-bornpopulations in the U.S. Washington, DC: Author.Rajendran, K., & Chemtob, C. M. (2010). Factors associated with service use amongimmigrants in the child welfare system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33,317−323.Rao, J. N. K., & Scott, A. J. (1981). The analysis of categorical data from complex samplesurveys: Chi-squared tests for goodness of fit and independence in two-way tables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 221−230.Rauh, V. A., Wasserman, G. A., & Brunelli, S. A. (1990). Determinants of maternal childrearingattitudes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,29, 375−381.Roer-Strier, D. (2001). Reducing risk for children in changing cultural contexts:Recommendations for intervention and training. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25,231−248.StataCorp (2007). Stata reference manual (release 10, volume 3, Q-Z). College Station,TX: Stata Press.United States Census Bureau (2009). 2008 American Community Survey [Data file].http://factfinder.census.gov [Retrieved from].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau.

944 A.J. Dettlaff, M.A. Johnson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 936–944(2002). Child maltreatment 2008. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm00/cm2000.pdf [Retrieved from].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau.(2004). Child maltreatment 2002. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/cm04.pdf [Retrieved from].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. (2009). TheAFCARS report: Preliminary FY2008 estimates as of October 2009 (16). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report16.pdf [Retrieved from].U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau.(2010). Child maltreatment 2008. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf [Retrieved from].Vega, W. A., Sribney, W. M., & Achara-Abrahams, I. (2003). Co-occurring alcohol, drug,and other psychiatric disorders among Mexican-origin people in the United States.American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1057−1064.Vericker, T., Kuehn, D., & Capps, R. (2007). Latino children of immigrants in the Texaschild welfare system. Protecting Children, 22(2), 20−40.Zayas, L. H. (1992). Childrearing, social stress, and child abuse: Clinical considerationswith Hispanic families. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 1, 291−309.Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families:Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology Research andPractice, 25, 200−206.