Children and youth victimization: Detection and reporting from school staff members
[eng] Violence affects many children and youth, causing devastating effects. Schools are in an ideal position to prevent, detect and report potential victimization cases. Yet, studies have found several limitations to perform these tasks, like misconceptions or lack of knowledge and resources. Besid...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/180467 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/180467 http://hdl.handle.net/10803/672576 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Adolescents maltractats Infants maltractats Detecció del maltractament infantil Professors Abused teenagers Abused children Investigation in child abuse Teachers |
| Sumario: | [eng] Violence affects many children and youth, causing devastating effects. Schools are in an ideal position to prevent, detect and report potential victimization cases. Yet, studies have found several limitations to perform these tasks, like misconceptions or lack of knowledge and resources. Besides, the empirical evidence of the effect of each of these variables in the detection and reporting experience is limited. This thesis composed by three original empirical studies addresses the experience of school staff members with children and youth victimization, its detection and the reporting of potential cases, as well as their level of knowledge. The studies have been published as detailed in the “Studies” section. The sample for studies 1 and 2 was composed by 184 staff members between 22 and 64 years old (84.04% females, M = 43.40, SD = 10.37). Sample for study 3 included 453 school staff members (83.53% females) between 22 and 65 years old (M = 42.23, SD = 9.46). Participants answered a self-administered questionnaire created ad·hoc , including questions about experience with victimization (e.g., “Have you received any training regarding child victimization?”), its detection (e.g., “How many times during your career did you suspect that a minor might be being victimized?”) and its reporting (e.g., “Have you ever you report a child abuse suspicion to an external agency outside school (e.g., social services)?”). The level of knowledge was tested through statements about victimization (e.g., “Child victimization affects less than 10% of minors in Spain”) , its detection (e.g., “A minor growing up in a one-parent family is more likely to experience victimization”) and its reporting (e.g., “If a suspicions turns out not to be true, the family is entitled to sue the informant”) that participants had to classify as true, false or unknown. Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, percentages, proportions, means and standard deviations), bivariate (i.e., Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test with their corresponding effect sizes) multivariate (i.e., logistic regression) and qualitative analysis were used to respond to each study’s aims. A small proportion of school staff has ever been trained regarding childhood and youth victimization. Over 70% has suspected that a student might be being victimized at least once. However, only around 40% of those who ever detected a potential case reported outside school. The majority of those who reported perceived the intervention that followed the report as beneficial for the child’s well-being. The decision not to report was mostly based on what happened once participants shared their concerns within the school. Other reasons not to report were thinking that their suspicions needed to be serious or certain, unclear definitions, feeling they were not entitled, lack of knowledge and fears. With each year of experience, the likelihood to detect a potential case increased by one time. The likelihood of reporting was significantly higher among school staff with accurate and concrete knowledge in reporting procedures (e.g., anonymity, need for the principal’s consent). Reporter’s gender (i.e., males were more likely to report than females) or the role they performed in school (i.e., workers who only came into contact with children specifically or sporadically reported significantly less than those who spent at least for hours a day in charge of groups of students) were also relevant. Results found complement previous research by quantifying the proportion of suspicions of potential victimization cases that go underreported from school. Findings contribute to dispel misconceptions about the efficiency of social services interventions and suggest ways in which early report can be increased. Empirical evidence of the effect of specific aspects of knowledge in reporting is provided and internal school dynamics that might prevent some concerns to reach external agencies are described. |
|---|