Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and child abuse and neglect in South Australia.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and child abuse and neglect in South Australia."— Presentation transcript:

1 Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and child abuse and neglect in South Australia

2 Background Neighbourhood characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES) have been shown to correlate with poorer health outcomes, mortality rates, childhood development, and education Previous studies suggested that the SES of a neighbourhood may be related to rates of childhood abuse and neglect – These did not answer our questions

3 This Study Exploration of the relationship between SES and rates of childhood abuse and neglect in South Australia (SA) CP Data from 3 one-year periods (2006/07 to 2008/09) Incidence data at population level (Statistical Local Area (SLA)) –Data aggregated to SLA level

4 This Study Research questions: –What is the relationship between socio- economic status and rates of childhood abuse and neglect in SA? –What areas of SA have observed rates of abuse and neglect which are above or below those expected based on their SES? –Which measurements of disadvantage indicate a relationship with rates of child abuse and neglect?

5 SEIFA SES represented by Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) SEFIA produced by the ABS from 2006 Census data Index of relative disadvantage used –17 items from Census indicate the level of disadvantage in the SLA

6 Population of areas Data from 121 SLA’s across SA included Large variation in number of children living in these SLA’s Population aged 0 to 17 years (from 2006 Census) –Total population 0 to 17 = 341,561 –Average = 2,823 (SD 2,119) –Range = 29 to 8,641

7 Rates of childhood abuse and neglect Childhood abuse and neglect data have been averaged over the three data periods and reported as per year Represents the incidence of children who have contact with the child protection system across SA per year CP data aggregated by SLA of where a child was living when the incident occurred

8 Statistical analysis Associations between SEIFA and rates of childhood abuse and neglect were estimated using Negative Binomial regression models Can account for a number of issues when analysing count data at a population level Models can estimate the relative difference in rates between and within predictors

9 Interpretation of results Cross-sectional study Can identify relationships between level of disadvantage characteristics and rates of childhood abuse and neglect However, causal links can not be established

10 Limitations Population at risk over the three data years take from 2006 Census (ie no population growth) Level of disadvantage may vary within a SLA

11 Distribution of rate of children subject to a notification across SLA’s Rate of 39.3 per 1,000 children per year across all SLAs

12 Distribution of rate of children to experience a substantiation across SLA’s Rate of 5.2 per 1,000 children per year across all SLAs

13 Rate of children subject to a notification

14 Rate of children subject to a notification by primary type

15 Rate of children to experience a substantiation

16 Rate of children to experience a substantiation by primary type

17 Cultural background Indigenous children were more likely to be subject to a notification –228 per 1000 Indigenous children per year –34 per 1000 non-Indigenous children per year And experience a substantiation –48 per 1000 Indigenous children per year –3.9 per 1000 non-Indigenous children per year

18 Cultural background Comparison of the association of the level of disadvantage and rate of childhood abuse and neglect within SLAs between Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children and non-Indigenous was explored

19 Rate of children subject to a notification by cultural background

20 Rate of children to experience a substantiation by cultural background

21 Expected rates based on SES The models can calculate expected rates of children subject to a notification or substantiation based on the level of disadvantage of where they live Comparison of the observed and expected rates can indicate the how well a rate for a SLA can be explained by the level of disadvantage within the SLA

22 Rate of children subject to a notification (per 1000 per year)

23 Rate of children to experience a substantiation (per 1000 per year)

24 SEIFA items The Index of Disadvantage contains 17 items Data on 16 of these items were collected for each SLA at population level –% of dwellings requiring one or more extra bedrooms not available The next section explored the association of these items individually with rates childhood abuse and neglect

25 SEIFA items Income low% people with stated annual household equivalised income between $13,000 and $20,799 No Qual% people aged 15 years and over with no post-school qualifications No School% people aged 15 years and over who did not go to school Unemployed% people (in the labour force) unemployed Occ Labour% employed people classified as Labourers Occ Drivers% employed people classified as Machinery Operators and Drivers Occ Service L% employed people classified as Low skill community and Personal service workers Rent Social% households renting from a Government or Community organisation

26 SEIFA items Low Rent% households paying rent who pay less than $120 per week One Parent% families that are one parent families with dependent offspring only No Car% occupied private dwelling with no car Divorced% people aged 15 years and over who are separated or divorced Indigenous% people who identified themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin English Poor% people who do not speak English well No Net% occupied private dwellings with no Internet connection Disability U70% people aged under 70 who need assistance with core activities

27 Associations with rate of children subject to a notification (121 SLAs) The following items were significantly associated with increased rates of children subject to a notification per year: –Income low, No Qual, Unemployed, Occ labour, Occ driver, Occ service L, Rent social, Low rent, One parent, No car, Divorced, Indigenous, English poor, No net, Disability U70 While, no significant association with –No school

28 % Indigenous by rate of children subject to a notification Size of circle represents size of population aged 0-17

29 Associations with rate of children to experience a substantiation (121 SLAs) The following items were significantly associated with increased rates of children to experience a substantiation per year: –No Qual, Occ labour, Occ driver, Occ service L, Rent social, Low rent, No car, Divorced, Indigenous, English poor, No net, Disability U70 While, no significant association with –Income low, No school, Unemployment, One parent

30 % Indigenous by rate of children to experience a substantiation Size of circle represents size of population aged 0-17

31 Summary Strong positive relationship between the level of disadvantage where children live and the reported rates of childhood abuse and neglect in that community at a population level Stronger relationships for emotional abuse and neglect (both alleged and confirmed abuse) Higher rates for Indigenous children regardless of level of disadvantage


Download ppt "Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and child abuse and neglect in South Australia."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google