Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 106, Supplement 7, pp eS21–eS30 | Cite as

Relations spatiales entre les caractéristiques des territoires et les taux d’enfants de groupes ethnoculturels signalés à la protection de la jeunesse

  • Sarah DufourEmail author
  • Chantai Lavergne
  • Yuddy Ramos
Recherche Quantitative
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to 1) map the geographic distribution of rates of children reported to Montreal child protective services by ethnocultural group (Black, other visible minorities, not from visible minorities) and 2) estimate the relative contribution of different territorial characteristics to the rates for those groups.

Method

The study covered the 505 Montreal-area census tracts for which complete data were available. The reporting rates by group (dependent variables) and various territorial characteristics such as poverty (independent variables) were mapped and subjected to multiple linear regression and geographically weighted regression. The results of the geographically weighted regression were then mapped.

Results

The geographic distribution and reporting rates varied greatly by group, with the Black children having the highest rates. Although territorial characteristics explained 51 % of variance for the children who were not members of visible minorities, they were clearly less effective in predicting rates in the case of Black children (18%) and other minorities (18%).

Conclusion

Already well-known territorial risk factors are at work in Montreal, but their influence is not equally strong in all census tracts nor, especially, in all ethnocultural groups. Therefore, when only the distribution and prediction of reports for all children as a whole are examined, important differences are underestimated. Access to and appropriateness of services offered to vulnerable families, including those of visible minorities, could, however, be improved with a better understanding of local dynamics.

Key words

Child abuse domestic violence geographic mapping risk factors epidemiology 

Résumé

Objectifs

Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de 1) cartographier la distribution spatiale des taux d’enfants de groupes ethnoculturels signalés à la protection de la jeunesse (enfants noirs, d’autres minorités visibles et non issus des minorités visibles) et 2) estimer la contribution relative de diverses caractéristiques territoriales à ces taux selon les groupes.

Méthode

Cinq cent cinq secteurs de recensement montréalais sont étudiés. Les taux d’enfants signalés selon les groupes (variables dépendantes) et des caractéristiques territoriales comme la pauvreté (variables indépendantes) sont cartographiés puis soumis à des régressions linéaires multiples et géographiquement pondérés (GWR); des résultats GWR sont finalement cartographiés.

Résultats

La distribution spatiale et les taux d’enfants signalés sont très différents selon les groupes, les Noirs présentant le taux moyen d’enfants signalés le plus élevé. Si, en considérant les relations spatiales, les caractéristiques territoriales permettent d’expliquer 51 % de la variance pour les enfants non issus des minorités visibles, elles s’avèrent nettement moins efficaces dans la prédiction des taux d’enfants noirs (18 %) et d’autres minorités (18 %).

Conclusion

Les facteurs de risque territoriaux des signalements, déjà bien connus, sont à l’œuvre à Montréal. Cependant, ils n’agissent pas avec la même intensité selon le secteur de recensement ni, surtout, selon les groupes ethnoculturels. Lorsqu’on s’intéresse seulement à la distribution et la prédiction des signalements de l’ensemble des enfants, on dilue donc des différences importantes. Pourtant, l’accès et l’adéquation des services offerts aux familles vulnérables, dont celles de minorités visibles, peuvent être bonifiés par une meilleure compréhension des dynamiques locales.

Mots clés

abus à l’égard des enfants violence familiale cartographie géographique facteurs de risque épidémiologie 

Références

  1. 1.
    Kaspar V, Noh S. Discrimination and Identity: An Overview of Theoretical and Empirical Research. Halifax, NS: Department of Canadian Heritage for the Ethnocultural, Racial, Religious, and Linguistic Diversity and Identity Seminar, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan A. Every child matters? A critical review of child welfare reforms in the context of minority ethnic children and families. Child Abuse Rev 2008; 17(1):6–22. doi: 10.1002/car.1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montréal en statistiques. Population et démographie: Populations des minorités visibles: des différences marquées entre l’île de Montréal et la couronne urbaine. Montréal (Québec): Ville de Montréal, 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell BA. Canada’s Growing Visible Minority Population: Generational Challenges, Opportunities and FederalPpolicy. Ottawa, ON: Serving Canada’s Multicultural Population for the Future, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eid P, Turenne M, Magloire J. Profilage racial et discrimination systémique des jeunes racisés Montréal: Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Daciuk J, Felstiner C, Black T, et coll. Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CJM-IU. Présents et engagés-Rapport annuel 2009-2010. Montréal: Centre jeunesse de Montréal-Institut universitaire, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Les centres de la jeunesse et de la famille Batshaw. Ensemble dans l’action, rapport annuel de gestion. Montréal: Les centres de la jeunesse et de la famille Batshaw, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dufour S, Mayer M, Carrière J, Gauvin L-M. Le projet „Cartes sur les risques, les abus et les besoins des enfants”: un outil diagnostic interactif des communautés. Intervention 2006;125:68–77.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loseke DR, Gelles RJ, Cavanaugh MM. Current Controversies on Family Violence. London: SAGE Publications, 2005; 376 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Daciuk J, Felstiner C, Black T, et coll. Étude canadienne sur l’incidence des signalements de cas de violence et de négligence envers les enfants-2003. Ottawa: Ministère des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dessureault D, Éthier LS, Milot T, Dionne M. Taux de récurrence chez les enfants signalés à une direction de la protection de la jeunesse entre 1998 et 2002. Serv Soc Que 2004;51(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavergne C, Dufour S, Sarniento J, Descôteaux M-È. La réponse du système de protection de la jeunesse montréalais aux enfants issus des minorités visibles. Intervention 2009;131:233–41.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavergne C, Dufour S, Trocmé N, Larrivée M-C. Visible minority, aboriginal, and Caucasian children investigated by Canadian protective services. Child Welfare 2008;87(2):59–76. PMID: 18972932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derezotes D, Testa M, Poertner J. Race Matters in Child Welfare: The Overrepresentation of African American Children in the System Washington, DC: CWLA Press, 2005; 248 p.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    CWLA. Children of Color in the Child Welfare System. NDAS, 2005. Sur Internet: https://doi.org/thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/ChildrenofColor05.pdf (consulté le 13 novembre 2015).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coulton CJ, Crampton DS, Irwin M, Spilsbury JC, Korbin JE. How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse Negl 2007;31(11-12):1117–42. PMID: 18023868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dettlaff AJ, Rycraft JR. Deconstructing disproportionality: Views from multiple community stakeholders. Child Welfare 2008;87(2):37–58. PMID: 18972931.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merritt DH. Child abuse potential: Correlates with child maltreatment rates and structural measures of neighborhoods. Child Youth Serv Rev 2009; 31(8):927–34. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ards SD, Myers SL Jr, Malkis A, Sugrue E, Zhou L. Racial disproportionality in reported and substantiated child abuse and neglect: An examination of systematic bias. Child Youth Serv Rev 2003;25(5-6):375–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Korbin JE, Coulton CJ, Chard S, Piatt-Houston C, Su M. Impoverishment and child maltreatment in African American and European American neighborhoods. Dev Psychopathol 1998;10(2):215–33. PMID: 9635222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fromm SJ. The processes that moderate the effect of community structural factors on neighborhood child maltreatment rates. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gracia E, Herrero J. Perceived neighborhood social disorder and residents’ attitudes toward reporting child physical abuse. Child Abuse Negl 2006; 30(4):357–65. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harris MS, Hackett W. Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to address disproportionality. Child Youth Serv Rev 2008;30(2): 199–215. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sedlak A, Woolverton M, Karla M. Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. 18th International congress on child abuse and neglect; Honolulu, Hawaii. Washington: US. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coulton CJ, Korbin JE, Su M, Chow J. Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Dev 1995;66(5):1262–76. PMID: 7555215. doi: 10.1111/j.l467-8624.1995.tb00934.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coulton CJ, Korbin JE, Su M. Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse Negl 1999;23(11):1019–40. doi: 10.1016/S0145- 2134(99)00076-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ernst JS. Community-level factors and child maltreatment in a suburban community. Soc Work Res 2001;25(3):133–42. doi: 10.1093/swr/25.3.133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freisthler B. A spatial analysis of social disorganization, alcohol access, and rates of child maltreatment in neighborhoods. Child Youth Serv Rev 2004;26(9):803–19. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ben-Arieh A. Socioeconomic correlates of rates of child maltreatment in small communities. Am J Orthopsychiat 2010;80(1):109–14. PMID: 20397995. doi:10.1111/j.l939-0025.2010.01013.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Freisthler B, Bruce E, Needell B. Understanding the geospatial relationship of neighborhood characteristics and rates of maltreatment for Black, Hispanic, and White children. Soc Work 2007;52(1):7–16. doi: 10.1093/sw/52.1.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Statistique Canada. Secteur de recensement Ottawa: Statistique Canada, 2013. Sur Internet: https://doi.org/www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92-195-x/2011001/geo/ct-sr/ct-sr-fra.htm (consulté le 10 août 2014).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME. Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr Anal 1996;28(4):281–98. doi: 10.1111/j.l538-4632.1996.tb00936.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Apparicio P, Séguin A-M, Leloup X. Modélisation spatiale de la pauvreté à Montréal: apport méthodologique de la régression géographiquement pondérée. Can Geogr 2007;51(4):412–27. doi: 10.HH/j.1541-0064.2007.00189.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harris P, Fotheringham AS, Juggins S. Robust geographically weighted regression: A technique for quantifying spatial relationships between freshwater acidification critical loads and catchment attributes. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2010;100(2):286–306. doi: 10.1080/00045600903550378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klein S, Merritt DH. Neighborhood racial & ethnic diversity as a predictor of child welfare system involvement. Child Youth Serv Rev 2014;41:95–105. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Freisthler B, Gruenewald PJ, Remer LG, Lery B, Needell B. Exploring the spatial dynamics of alcohol outlets and child protective services referrals, substantiations, and foster care entries. Child Maltreat 2007;12(2):114–24. PMID: 17446565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ben-Arieh A, Haj-Yahia MM. The “geography” of child maltreatment in Israel: Findings from a national data set of cases reported to the social services. Child Abuse Negl 2006;30(9):991–1003. PMID: 16962172. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drake B, Pandey S. Understanding the relationship between neighborhood poverty and specific types of child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl 1996; 20(11)1003–18. PMID: 8958452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wheeler D, Tiefelsdorf M. Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. J Geogr Syst 2005;7(2):161–87. doi: 10.1007/s10109-005-0155-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École de psychoéducationUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre de recherche Jeunes en difficulté du Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux (CIUSSS)Centre-Sud-de-Nle-de-MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Département de géographieUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations