Family structure and children's risk of child protective services re-reports.

Background: Single parent families are at higher risk of re-report to Child Protective Services (CPS) than two-parent families. Yet, how single-family homes differ in risk from two-parent families remains under researched.
Objective: To identify heterogenous patterns of child and caregiver factors among CPS-involved families and the subsequent risk for CPS re-report based on child and family characteristics (i.e., sociodemographic information, family structure, and risk indicators).
Participants and Setting: Data were from the 2017 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System Child File (N = 249,026).
Methods: We conducted latent class analysis (LCA) to identify discrete patterns (i.e., classes) based on child and caregiver risk indicators (e.g., substance use, behavioral health). We then used logistic regression to examine family structure and other family characteristics and CPS indicators predicted CPS re-report for each class.
Results: Results yielded five distinct classes: 1) Financial Stressors (25 % of the sample); 2) Caregiver Substance Use (16 %); 3) Complex Household Stressors (3 %); 4) Child Disabilities (4 %); and 5) Minimal Household Stressors (53 %). Family structure was significantly associated with CPS re-reports for Classes 1, 2, and 5. For Class 1, single father families had increased odds of CPS re-report compared to other family structures. For Classes 2 and 5, single father families' odds of CPS re-reports were greater than those of married families, but lower than single mother families.
Conclusions: Children growing up in single father families have different likelihoods of repeat CPS involvement compared to those in single mother and married families. Financial stressors and parental substance use within single father families should be addressed.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We declare that our work is original and constitutes details from our own study. This manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere. All of the contributions to this work were done by the named authors, and there are no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)