Survey on national systems of statistics and registration on child abuse

1
Survey on national systems of statisticsand
registration on child abuse I Phase Donata
Bianchi
June, 2006
2
The aim of the I phase of the survey

• Study the different experiences and approaches to
  the collecting of data in the area of child
  abuse, in all the countries composing the
  European Network of National Observatories on
  Childhood.

3
Operative objectives

• to proceed to a state of the art of systems
• to identify available data
• to compare situations at European level
• to propose a structure or at least minimum
  criteria to collect data confronting the actual
  practices
• to define, if possible, European data collecting
  standards and indicators on child abuse
  phenomenon

4
Two major areas of interest

• 1. the institutional framework
• 2. the data systems on child abuse
• national system of data collection
• national system of registration

5

• Elements wanted to know
• The institutional framework of responsibilities
  on child policy
• The organization which provides data
• The way data are collected and their content
  (concepts behind, time schedule for updating,
  etc.)
• The limits of each data set
• The law in force in each country on child abuse

6
The following countries sent questionnaires or
other documents
Austria Belgium Czech Republic Cyprus Denmark Est
onia Finland France Greece Hungary Ireland
Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Poland
Portugal Spain Slovak Republic and United Kingdom
7
A. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
1. Some general points

• The responsibility for addressing the problem of
  violence against children is fragmented among
  several ministries, but the Social Sector is the
  more mentioned institutional context holding
  specific responsibilities for addressing the
  issue
• Almost the half of respondents dont identify a
  leading governmental authority for dealing with
  child abuse issue (focal point)
• There are specific Ombudsmen (or comparable
  Office) on childrens rights, at a national or
  regional level, in Poland, UK, Italy, Ireland,
  Hungary, Latvia, Luxemburg, Spain, Austria,
  Belgium, France.

8

• High fragmentation of the responsibilities
  regards to child prevention and protection
  policies
• Limited coordination among various sectors
• Differences in the structure of responsibilities
  between national and decentralized bodies
  according the the more or less federalist nature
  of each State
• Vulnerable framework for a continuous data
  collecting on child welfare

9
B. DATA ON CHILD ABUSE

• B.1. 1 National systems of statistics on child
  abuse
• Main sources of data on child abuse

10
B.1.2.Sectors of data collection territorial
organization of data sources
11

• From the information collected is evident that
  the statistical data must satisfy several needs
  expressed by local or national authorities, as
  well professionals and local organizations
• 1. administrative interests
• 2.political and institutional interests
• 3.scientific interests (clinical and social ones
• 4.professionals and organizational interests.

12
B.2.1 National system of registration of child
abuse
Countries with System of data recording similar
to a National Registration , and its articulation
13

• Seven countries declare the existence of a
  National Registration system, that is a system
  of recording each case of child abuse to be
  referred to a specific body or service or
  institution at a local level
• E.g. United Kingdom - national authority tasked
  with managing the system is the Department of
  Health and Personal Social Services, at a
  decentralized level the responsibility relies on
  local authority
• E.g. Ireland - national authority is the
  Department of Health and Children, at local level
  eight health boards at local level

14
The basic information registered

• - Sex and age of children
• - Nationality
• - Characterization of child/youth family
  environment
• - Type of situation reported (e.g.child sexual
  abuse or situation at risk)
• - Length of the interventions by service (de
  registration)
• - Primary Welfare Services Offered to support
  child/family
• - Typologies of other services and institutions
  involved in the case (entities responsible for
  signalling/participating the situation)

15
Common characteristics of Registration systems

• Strong decentralisation in gathering and
  assembling data
• Standard definition for each form of child abuse
• Interinstitutional agreement on the procedures
  for reporting
• Clear guidelines for reporting and registration
• Use of a standard form for the registration of
  each case
• Implementation of mechanisms for the control of
  duplications

16

• Netherlands A regional example
• Regional child and youth care services and
  provincial authorities collect systematically
  since 2001 data regarding the state of children,
  including the aspects connected to child abuse.
• The database is kept by the regional child and
  youth care services where the 15 the provincial
  Advice and Reporting Centres for Child Abuse and
  Neglect (ARCAN) resides.
• Each ARCAN uses the same system of registration
  with its guidelines for registration.
• Twice a year some of the data is collected for
  the provincial authorities, and once a year the
  NIZW reports some of the data on a national
  level.

17
England

• CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS
• A central register is maintained for each area
  covered by a local authority social services
  department. The register lists all the children
  resident in the area (including those who have
  been placed there by another local authority or
  agency) who are considered to be at continuing
  risk of significant harm, and for whom there is a
  child protection plan.
• Children are registered under one or more of the
  categories of physical, emotional, or sexual
  abuse or neglect, according to a decision by the
  chair. The category(ies) used for registration
  indicate to those consulting the register the
  nature of presenting concerns. Recording
  information in this way also allows for the
  collation and analysis of information locally and
  nationally. The category(ies) selected should
  reflect all the information obtained in the
  course of s.47 enquiries and subsequent analysis
  and should not just relate to one or more abusive
  incidents.
• Child Protection Registers covering each local
  authority area is managed within the social
  services department by an identified custodian,
  normally an experienced social worker from within
  the social services department. The register is
  kept up-to-date and its contents is confidential
  other than to legitimate enquirers. The register
  is accessible at all times to legitimate
  enquirers. The details of enquirers is always
  checked before information is provided. The
  Department of Education and Skills holds lists of
  custodians of child protection registers and
  should be notified of any changes in custodians.

18
National Registry of those convicted of sexual
offences against children

• Most European countries hold national archives of
  data on persons convicted for crimes for
  prevention objectives or other related to control
  the moral integrity of a person, e.g. in pre
  employment screening.
• Sex offender Register is a special part of that
  general archive. The Register is based on the
  duty of convicted sex offenders to communicate
  the place in which they go to live after being
  released from prison.
• Three countries answered positively to this
  question Ireland, Austria and United Kingdom.
• In Ireland, the Registry of sexual offenders is
  kept by the National Police Force ( Gardaí
  Siochana). It was set up under the Sex Offenders
  Act, 2001.
• In Austria the official statistics of judgments
  (Gerichtsstatistik) is kept by the Ministry of
  Justice.
• In the United Kingdom the Home Office is the
  Government department responsible for this
  through the police service. The Sex Offenders
  Register was established in the late 1990s and is
  governed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

19
Critical aspects for comparative analysis of data

• 1. the definition of the phenomenon
• 2. the structure and tools of data collection
• 3. the population considered (crimes reported,
  children referred to social services, persons
  denounced as author of crime, etc.)
• 4. the time schedule of gathering (How frequently
  the information is gathered?)
• 5. the sources of data (police, health sector,
  social services, etc.)

20
Some conclusions

• 1. The critical points emerged with the present
  survey reflects the multidimensional nature of
  each case of child abuse, which creates
  difficulties in the conceptualization of the
  phenomenon (which definition should we use, the
  legal one or the clinical one?)
  operationalization (which behaviours we define,
  e.g., neglect?) and modalities and content of
  registration (e.g. all the denounces or only
  those for which the judiciary procedures started?
  Do we count the children or the reporting?).

21
2. The policy makers and those responsible for
the data systems themselves seem to pay little
attention to the phenomenon 1. Possible
reasons for the lack of attention to this
issue 1. Lack of faith in the data systems. The
professionals and administrators who work in the
child maltreatment field and even the people
responsible for the data systems may lack faith
in their systems and the numbers they produce. 2.
Lack of funding for data collecting and
interpretation. 3. Lack of an evaluation
orientation. The field of child maltreatment has
a very weak orientation in general using
statistics and research to evaluate its practice
in a systematic way, preferring cases and
anecdotes to drive policies 1 Gelles, R. J.
(2000).
22

• 3. Although almost all countries have legal and
  compulsory obligations of reporting a situation
  of child abuse to an authority, it does not
  function as improvement in the collection of
  data. Neither it cannot automatically be assumed
  that, in virtue of the obligation all
  professionals respect it, especially if sanctions
  are not introduced when a professional fails in
  carrying out to the obligation of law.

23

• 4. Even if the existence of a good system of data
  on child abuse is not an indicator of the degree
  of care for children , certainly it a symptom of
  a diffuse adult- centred society and culture,
  which pays little attention to childhood.
  Improvement in the quality of data, then is a
  problem of improvement in a culture respectful of
  the principles stated in CRC, as well.

24

• 5.Regarding the problem of definitions to be
  adopted for each form of child abuse,
  ChildONEurope could propose a glossary based on
  the WHO definitions approved in the 1999
  Consultation on child abuse and neglect, and, for
  the categories not included in such document, on
  the main international Agreements and Conventions
  approved at a worldwide level.

25

• 6. For using data as tools for monitoring the
  state of children, the Social sector is
  undoubtedly the best sources of data because the
  local social services may intercept situations at
  risk or uncover situations reported to services
  for secondary causes such as economic problems of
  the family, child development problems or
  disabilities. But this is also the more
  overburdened sector, naturally posed on the front
  line of all social problems.

26
We could know looking at the problem by social
services
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS SPAIN -
GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL ACTION, THE CHILD
AND THE FAMILY, CHILD ABUSE DETECTION,
NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF CASES, 2003
27

• 7. Data collection is not a without costs
  activity. A good system needs financial
  investment for the infrastructure (set software
  and database, e.g.), training, maintenance,
  monitoring, analysing and periodical reporting.