Formación y obra conocida

Maltreatment type and response classifications

Information regarding the rural/urban status of families was available for 1689 of the 1714 notifications for the SIs in 2005. There were no apparent differences in the pattern of maltreatment types for infants residing in rural and urban areas. Nor were there any differences evident in the CP response classifications for rural and urban notifications. Table 4.6a presents numbers and percentages of notifications for the SIs by

maltreatment type and rural and urban status in the 2005 calendar year. (An overview of maltreatment type by region and Child Protection response classification is provided in Tables A4.6c and A4.6d in Appendix C.)

Table 4.6a: Notifications for the Subject Infants (<4) by maltreatment type and region in the 2005 calendar year (numbers and percentages of maltreatment types per region)

Numbers

Region Neglect Emotional Physical Sexual Unc TOTAL

Rural 166 139 45 21 9 380

Urban 580 498 147 55 29 1309

TOTAL 746 637 192 76 38 1689

Percentages of row totals

Region Neglect Emotional Physical Sexual Unc TOTAL

Rural 43.68 36.58 11.90 5.56 2.38 100.00

Urban 44.31 38.04 11.21 4.20 2.21 100.00

Table 4.6b: Notifications by age group and region Age Group Number

Rural Number Urban Proportion Rural Proportion Urban 0–1 90 400 0.237 0.306 1–2 86 291 0.226 0.222 2–3 86 301 0.226 0.230 3–4 118 317 0.311 0.242 Total 380 1309 1.000 1.000

Age group by region

When the SI sample was divided into four age groupings, there was evidence of rural- urban differences in distributions across age groups of notification proportions. Table 4.6b provides numbers in each age group and corresponding age-group profiles for urban and rural areas. A chi-squared test of the 4 x 2 contingency table on the left half of Table 4.6b yielded a p-value of 0.017, constituting evidence that, for at least one of the age groups, there is a significant difference between rural and urban notification distributions across age groups. Equivalently, from a contingency table viewpoint, there is (also) at least one significant difference between proportions of rural or urban

notifications among the four different pairs of age groups.

In order to detect which age groups had significantly different rural and urban proportions, stand-alone p-values for each difference between rural and urban

proportions for each age group were established with likelihood ratio tests. The p-values for each individual test are set out in the ‘pval’ column of Table 4.6e below. There were two age groups (0-1 and 3-4) whose p-values indicated significant differences in rural- urban proportions; therefore, it was necessary to consider simultaneous testing. The ‘pvadj’ column of the table gives p-values adjusted for simultaneous testing according to Holm’s method. Those same age groups still displayed differences in their respective rural/urban proportions, which were significant at the 5% level with a two-tailed test. (In this case, the slightly less powerful Bonferroni type adjustments also would have implied the same significances.)

The last two columns in Table 4.6e show the lower (L) and upper (U) boundaries of the simultaneous 95% confidence intervals for the differences, calculated according to the

method of Goodman. It is concluded that the proportion of rural notifications is an estimated 6.7 percentage points less on the average than the urban proportion for the 0-1 age group, and an estimated 6.7 percent more on the average for the 3–4 years old group.

Table 4.6e: Differences in rural and urban proportions for each age group Age Group Propn.

Rural

Propn Urban

Diff (R-U)

pval pvadj (R-U) L (R-U) U 0–1 0.237 0.306 -0.069 0.010 0.037 -0.132 -0.006 1–2 0.226 0.223 0.004 0.889 1.000 -0.057 0.065 2–3 0.226 0.230 -0.004 0.945 1.000 -0.065 0.057 3–4 0.310 0.242 0.068 0.009 0.037 0.002 0.135

Age group and maltreatment type by region

Notifications for the SIs by region, age and maltreatment type are presented in Table 4.6f below. The proportions of notifications by age group for each maltreatment type are provided for rural and urban regions in Table 4.6g.

Because there are some significant differences between the rural and urban profiles of proportions of notifications over the age groups, the same might be true for rural and urban age group profiles for one or more maltreatment types. While there is some indication of lower proportions of neglect and emotional abuse being reported in rural areas for 0–1-year-olds (and higher proportions of neglect and physical abuse for 3–4- year-olds), contingency tests (Fisher’s exact test) did not detect significant levels of difference.

Table 4.6f: Total notifications by region, age group and Maltreatment Type

Age Grp Region Neglect Emotional Physical Sexual Unc TOTAL

0–1 R 46 28 10 3 3 90 U 202 142 42 5 9 400 N/A 3 2 1 6 0–1 Total 251 172 52 8 13 496 1–2 R 37 37 8 2 2 85 U 133 117 29 6 6 292 N/A 5 2 1 8 1–2 Total 175 156 38 8 8 385 2–3 R 37 32 12 3 2 86 U 124 109 37 21 10 301 N/A 1 1 1 3 2–3 Total 162 141 50 25 12 390 3–4 R 46 42 15 13 2 117 U 121 130 39 23 4 318 N/A 3 1 3 1 8 3–4 Total 170 173 57 36 7 443 Total 758 642 197 77 40 1714

Table 4.6g: Proportions of notifications by age group for each maltreatment type and region (percentages)

Rural (% of column totals)

Age Group Neglect Emotional Physical Sexual Unc TOTAL

0-1 27.71 20.14 22.22 14.29 33.33 23.68

1-2 22.29 26.62 17.78 9.52 22.22 22.63

2-3 22.29 23..02 26.67 14.29 22.22 22.63

3 + 27.71 30.22 33.33 61.90 22.22 31.05

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Urban (% of column totals)

Age Group Neglect Emotional Physical Sexual Unc TOTAL

0-1 34.83 28.51 28.57 9.09 31.03 30.56 1-2 22.93 23.49 19.73 10.91 20.69 22.23 2-3 21.38 21.89 25.17 38.18 34.48 22.99 3 + 20.86 26.10 26.53 41.82 13.79 24.22 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source of notifications

No differences were found between the proportion of mandated and non-mandated reporters in rural and urban regions – approximately one third of notifications from

either urban or rural areas will be from non-mandated sources and approximately two thirds will be from mandated sources. Table 4.6h shows the source of notifications according to the rural and urban status of the SIs in numbers and percentages of total notifications recorded (N=1305).

Table 4.6h: Source of notifications according to rural and urban status (numbers and percentages of column totals)

Number Percent

Rural Urban

Rural + Urban

Notifier

Group Rural Urban

Rural + Urban 89 333 421 DPPS 31.34 33.27 32.84 41 104 145 PARENT 14.44 10.39 11.28 13 98 111 NGO 4.58 9.79 8.64 22 86 108 GRANDP 7.75 8.59 8.40 27 78 105 CM 9.51 7.79 8.17 16 41 57 DO 5.63 4.10 4.44 17 37 54 DEd 5.99 3.70 4.20 13 41 54 REL 4.58 4.10 4.20 11 42 53 HOP 3.87 4.20 4.12 13 25 38 CHN 4.58 2.50 2.96 2 14 16 CSW 0.70 1.40 1.25 2 14 16 GP 0.70 1.40 1.25 5 10 15 ANON 1.76 1.00 1.17 1 16 17 COURT 0.35 1.60 1.32 1 13 14 DO-H 0.35 1.30 1.09 4 10 14 HMO 1.41 1.00 1.09 0 11 11 CCSP 0.00 1.10 0.86 3 5 8 AHP 1.06 0.50 0.62 1 7 8 DO-IS 0.35 .0.70 0.62 1 4 5 CL 0.35 0.40 0.39 2 12 14 Other 0.70 1.20 1.09 283 1002 1285 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00

Note: ‘Other’ is merging of SASS, DO-FV, DO-PC, DC, DO-DS.

There was reason to suspect some differences in proportions of rural and urban notifications per notifier group. A simulation version of Pearson’ chi-squared test33 yielded a p-value of 0.030, which indicated that the proportion of rural and urban notifiers differs overall, and that there must be significantly different rural/urban proportions for at least one of the notifier groups. Each group of notifiers’ rural/urban proportions were tested individually as one row of a 2 x 2 contingency table using

33 _{A simulation version of the test had to be used because some cell counts are too small for the usual}

Fisher’s exact test. The only test to uncover significance was that for the NGO group of notifiers (p = 0.006). (Because an overall difference had been detected, simultaneous testing was not necessary to conclude that there is a significant difference between rural and urban proportions for this group). The observed rural–urban difference is 4.59% − 9.78% = −5.19 percentage points, and is the best estimate of the mean difference in those proportions. The associated 95% confidence interval, using normal

approximations to the binomial, is (−8.24% to −2.13%); alternatively, the 21-test simultaneous confidence interval (by the method of Goodman) is (−9.92% to −0.45%).

The grouping of notifier classifications might camouflage some rural-urban differences. The only obvious one found was a two-way difference in the parents grouping, which when dissected into two groups – of biological ‘Mothers’ and ‘Fathers’ – revealed that for Fathers, there were 74 urban notifications and 19 rural notifications (66% of all parent notifications, 20% of notifications by F were rural), while in the Mothers group, there were 29 urban notifications and 18 rural notifications (34% of total parent

notifications, 38% of notifications by M were rural). (The total number of biological parents (N=140) is less than the total number of parents (N=145) as there were three notifiers categorised as ‘parents’ whose gender was unknown and two were step- parents)

It would be reasonable to suggest that the difference between the number of

notifications made by fathers and the number made by mothers would be primarily due to the likelihood that a relatively large number of mothers in this population would be single and would be more likely to have primary care of the children in this age group. While the proportion of rural notifications (20%) by ‘Fathers’ was closer to the

proportion of rural notifications overall, the proportion (38%) of rural notifications made by the mothers is relatively high. There was some evidence in the informal reading of the case files, that there were high levels of homelessness and transience for single mothers, especially those removing themselves from DV relationships, who were more likely to find cheaper accommodation in rural areas, but who may have had

ongoing disputes regarding custody arrangements for the children and/or concerns about children when they are in their father’s care.