Dimensions of Structural Disadvantage: A Latent Class Analysis of a Neighborhood Measure in Child Welfare Data

Abstract

Contextual constructs, such as neighborhood structure, may contribute to child welfare involvement. Secondary data analysis is used with the nationally representative, longitudinal National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being-II (N = 5,872). This study employs latent class analysis (LCA) to identify the number of classes needed to explain the distribution of caregiver responses on the Community Environment Scale. LCA is ideal for this study to identify meaningful groups of caregivers involved with child welfare using neighborhood risk factors. Three latent classes are identified: high social order/medium social capital; high social order/low social capital; low social order/low social capital. Multinomial logistic regression tests whether there are significant differences across the classes, partially validating the LCA that poor, minority caregivers live in neighborhoods with lower social order and capital. Understanding neighborhoods as "high" versus "low" risk may not fully illuminate contextual risk factors in order to develop neighborhood-based interventions. This study reveals that there is a third group of caregivers who reside in places with higher social order but lower social capital. Social capital might be an important factor in preventing child maltreatment. Future work is needed to understand additional individual and neighborhood characteristics that predict membership in each class.

Indicators for Evaluating Community- and Societal-Level Risk and Protective Factors for Violence Prevention: Findings From a Review of the Literature

“…A few constructs in the tables are qualitative in nature and can be used in mixed-methods designs. For example, social processes such as social capital, social networks, and social organization are considered community resources 13 that are built and realized through social relationships 28 and the strength of social ties. 29 They are measures of the community connectedness and support (see Supplemental Digital Content Table 7, available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/A389) protective factor, which has a wide range of possible data sources from organizational membership rolls to U.S. Census data.…”

“…It is worth noting that while each unique indicator and associated construct are reported under only 1 table, some of the constructs and indicators may be linked to more than 1 risk or protective factor. For example, social disorganization theory describes how social capital operates through social networks and social institutions, 28 assumes that delinquency and crime occur in neighborhoods where social relations and social institutions have broken down, 30,31 and is characterized in communities by concentrated disadvantage (poverty), residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity. 31 Although in this review indicators of community constructs associated with social disorganization theory were reported in the poor neighborhood support and cohesion table, social disorganization theory has been used in the literature to measure community support and connectedness as well as diminished economic opportunities and is a clear example of how indicators in 1 results table could be linked to multiple risk and protective factors.…”

How Do Families Experience and Interact with CPS?

“…A host of studies have highlighted the association with and impact of neighborhood characteristics on CPS-involved families across different races/ethnicities (Freisthler, Merritt, and LaScala 2006; Klein and Merritt 2014; Freisthler, Bruce, and Needell 2007; Kohl, Jonson-Reid, and Drake 2009; Korbin et al 1998; Merritt 2009). Neighborhood structure plays a significant role in parenting and family functioning (Abner 2014; Coulton et al 2007; Merritt 2009). Communities experience varying levels of social service oversight and police presence, which have been linked to increased maltreatment referrals and actual rates of maltreatment (Klein and Merritt 2014).…”

“…Families in poverty are likely more vulnerable to injustices related to system oversight. They suffer a host of inequities inherent in systemic and structural oppression as they navigate all types of human services organizations (Abner 2014). Both children and parents in these families have been subjected to varying levels of chronic trauma based on their socioeconomic backgrounds and experiences with oversight systems.…”

Profiles of Contextual Risk at Birth and Adolescent Substance Use

“…There has been increased attention to person-centered methods for studying risk factors for child and adolescent psychosocial difficulties (Abner, 2014; Brody et al, 2013; Bowen, Lee, & Weller, 2007; Cavanaugh, Petras, & Martins, 2015; Copeland et al, 2009; Dunn et al, 2011; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000; Hendryx et al, 2014; Jobe-Shields et al, 2015; Lanza et al, 2011; Lanza, Rhoades, Nix, Greenberg, & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2010; McFeeters, Boyda, & O’Neill, 2015; Menard, Bandeen-Roche, & Chilcoat, 2004; Oliver, Kretschmer, Maughan, 2014; Parra, DuBois, & Sher, 2006; Roy & Raver, 2014; Shevlin & Elklit, 2008; Zeides, Roosa, Knight, & Gonzales, 2013). Results from this work tend to support the hypothesis that there are subgroups of youth with unique profiles of risk factors.…”