Surveillance Bias in Child Maltreatment: A Tempest in a Teapot

Brett Drake, Melissa Jonson-Reid and Hyunil Kim
Additional contact information
Brett Drake: Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1196, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63130, USA
Melissa Jonson-Reid: Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1196, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63130, USA
Hyunil Kim: Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1196, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63130, USA

IJERPH, 2017, vol. 14, issue 9, 1-15

Abstract: Background: Children are believed to be more likely to be reported for maltreatment while they are working with mental health or social service professionals. This “surveillance bias” has been claimed to inflate reporting by fifty percent or more, and has been used to explain why interventions such as home visiting fail to reduce official maltreatment reporting rates. Methods: We use national child abuse reporting data ( n = 825,763), supplemented by more detailed regional data from a multi-agency administrative data study ( n = 7185). We determine the percentage of all re-reports made uniquely by mental health and social service providers within and across generations, the report sources which could be subject to surveillance bias. Results: At three years after the initial Child protective services (CPS) report, the total percentage of national reports uniquely made by mental health or social service providers is less than 10%, making it impossible that surveillance bias could massively inflate CPS reporting in this sample. Analysis of national data find evidence of a very small (+4.54%) initial surveillance bias “bump” among served cases which decays to +1.84% within three years. Our analysis of regional data showed similar or weaker effects. Conclusions : Surveillance bias effects appear to exist, but are very small.

Keywords: surveillance bias; child abuse and neglect; child maltreatment; nurse home visiting; visibility bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/971/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/971/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:971-:d:110086

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().