Randy Magen, PhD
The recognition of child abuse as a modern social problem occurred in the 1960s, while the acknowledgment of the problem of woman abuse emerged in the 1970s. For the most part, social activists, social scientists, and social workers have focused on either the problem of child abuse or the problem of woman abuse. Very little research or direct practice has centered on the coexistence o; the problems.
The literature on family violence illustrates what Martin (1983) calls, "an interesting division of labor." Men are described as perpetrators of woman abuse while women traditionally are viewed as responsible for child abuse. While clear evidence exists that a significant proportion of abusive parents are male (Martin, 1983), mothers often are treated as complicit in allowing children to be abused or witness their own abuse (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
The separate research traditions have failed to recognize that their focus often is on the same family member, the mother. Child abuse literature's focus on the mother as the abuser and the spouse abuse literature's examination of the woman as the survivor result in sets of separate studies purporting to explain the behavior of the same person. The focus of the collaborative study with the New York City Child Welfare Administration is on the intersection of child abuse and woman abuse within families.
Prevalence
A variety of research methods examine the extent of coexistence of child abuse and woman abuse. These approaches have included case studies, surveys of clinical populations, large-scale random population samples and crossnational comparisons. While the quality has waned, together they paint a vivid picture. Studies from the field of child abuse are consistent in finding a relationship between woman abuse and child abuse. They are found to coexist even though the studies involved different populations, settings and methodologies. But, estimates of the degree to which child abuse and woman abuse coexist vary from 11% of families reported for child maltreatment (Daro & Cohn, 1988) to 45% (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). In New York City, an investigation by the Child Welfare Administration Fatality Review Panel found that 1% of mothers of murdered children had been abused by a partner (Task Force on Family Violence, 1993). Literature from the field of woman abuse provides further evidence of coexistence. An early study on the experience of battered women found that 37_h had abused children while 54% of batterers had been abusive (Gayford, 1975). Fifty-six percent of Giles-Sims' (1985) sample of battered women recounted using violence against their children. These women reported that 63% of their abusive partners had engaged in child abuse. Significant in Giles-Sims ' study was that abuse toward the child was six times more frequent from abusive men than from battered women.
Straus and his colleagues (e.g., Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) are the only investigators who have conducted studies focused on the coexistence of woman abuse and child abuse in non clinical samples. Their national surveys show that in families where women are subjected to violence, child abuse is double that of families with no violence. When woman abuse becomes more severe and more frequent, the rate of child abuse also seems to double.
Services To
Victims
Some argue (e.g., Straus, 1983) that services to battered women should be separated from assistance to abused children. However, Cummings and Mooney (1988) point out that child protective service workers and battered women's advocates both ". . . share an interest in stopping the violence, their perspectives and approaches are frequently in conflict." Child protective service agencies typically adopt a family-centered approach and follow the principle of working "in the best interests of the child." Battered women's advocates adopt a woman-centered approach and follow the goal of empowering women. In spite of the commonalties of these two kinds of abuse, risk indices for child abuse do not screen parents for the presence of woman abuse (Nelson, 1984) and services to battered women often are developed without considering the needs of children (McKay, 1994). This traditional division of services may not be the most effective means of intervention.
New York City
Initiatives
Abused women in New York City are assisted through the Crisis Intervention Services of the Human Resources Administration and children are assisted through the Child Welfare Administration.
In April 1993 the Task Force on Family Violence published, " Behind Closed Doors: The City's Response to Family Violence." Subsequently, several members of the New York City Interagency Task Force on Domestic Violence joined with faculty affiliates of the Center to form a Program Work Group. With cooperation from the Child Welfare Administration, the Group developed a 15-item interview protocol to identify and serve battered women. The protocol was implemented in one service zone in Manhattan on a pilot basis to test effectiveness and examine questions about coexistence of child abuse/neglect and violence against women. The Center was invited to lead research development and evaluation.
The study's primary objective is to describe the incidence and characteristics of cases in which domestic violence and child abuse are found to coexist as well as the actions taken in those cases. It also will identify beneficial outcomes of the protocol, effectiveness and any obstacles to implementation.
At this writing, the study is in the final phases of pilot testing. Information is being collected from two sources. A volunteer sample of Child Welfare Administration staff, responsible for protocol implementation, is being interviewed. Case data from child protective service caseworkers and supervisors, which documents the process and outcome of all child abuse/neglect investigations, also is being collected.
Initial results of the pilot study, available in the Spring of 1995, will be used to design a subsequent study to examine the coexistence of child abuse and domestic violence. Results also will be used to design protocols for locating families in which the problems coexist. Such protocols will be useful for public and private social agencies to rapidly identify families in need of services for child abuse and domestic violence.
Co-lnvestigators: Kathryn Conroy, DSW; Peg Hess, PhD; Randy Magen, PhD and Barbara Simon, PhD (CUSSW). With the cooperation of the New York City Child Welfare Administration.
REFERENCES
1. Cummings, N. and Mooney, A. (1988). Child protective workers and battered women's advocates: a strategy for family violence intervention. Response, 11 (2), 4-9.
2. Daro, D. and Cohn, A.H. (1988). Child maltreatment evaluation efforts: what have we learned? In G T Hotaling, D Finkelhor, J T Kirkpatnck, & M A. Straus (Eds.). Coping with Family Violence: Research and Policy Perspectives, pp. 275- 287 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Gayford, JJ. (1975). Wife battering: a preliminary survey of 100 cases. Brit Med J, 25, 194-197.
4. Giles-Sims, J. (1985) A longitudinal study of battered children of battered wives. Family Relations, 34 (2), 205- 210.
. Martin, J. (1983). Maternal and paternal abuse of children: theoretical and research perspectives In D Finkelhor, R J. Gelles, G. T Hotaling, M. A Straus (Eds.). The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research, pp. 293-304 Beverly Hills, CA Sage.
6. McKay, M M. (1994) The lini between domestic violence and child abuse: assessment and treatment considerations. Child Welfare, 73 (1), 29-39.
7. Nelson, K G. (1984) The innocent bystander: the child as unintended victim of domestic violence involving deadly weapons Pediatrics, 73 (2), 251- 252.
8. Rosenberg, M S. and Rossman, s.s.R. (1990) The child witness to marital violence. in R Ammerman & M Hersen (Eds.). Treatment of Family Violence, pp. 183210 New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. Stark, E. and Flitcraft, A. (1988). Women and children at risk: a feminist perspective on child abuse. International Journal of Health Services, 18 (1), 97-118.
10. Straus, M A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse and wife- beating: what do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R J Gelles, G T Hotaling, M A. Straus (Eds.). The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research, pp. 213-234 Beverly Hills, CA Sage.
11. Straus, M A., Gelles, RJ. and Steinmetz, S K. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family New York: Doubleday/Anchor.
12 Task Force on Family Violence (1993) Behind Closed Doors: The City's Response to Family Violence. Office of New York Manhattan Borough President.