Repeating the claim that Maine has the highest rate of child abuse in the country ignores important differences between state systems and fuels a panic that can ultimately do more harm to Maine children. (Stock photo by Os Tartarouchos via Getty Images)
Long ago, when I was a new City Hall reporter in another state, crime statistics seemed to show a big single-year change. I don’t remember if it was an increase or a decrease. But when I spoke to a leading expert on crime statistics, he told me the change was meaningless.
I don’t remember the details; in part, it was because of how easily a single-year change could be due to random chance. But I vividly remember the response of my editor: “Thanks a lot,” she said. “You just reported us out of a good story.”
So I understand the temptation, when the federal government releases its annual “Child Maltreatment” report, to do what many in Maine did last year: rush to a single table in the 300-page document and conclude: “Maine has the highest rate of child abuse in America!”
It’s a good story. It almost certainly isn’t true.
Since that dubious distinction could apply to any state, Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico, the odds that it’s Maine are roughly one in 52. But the Child Maltreatment report actually tells us nothing about relative rates of child maltreatment. Claiming otherwise only feeds the hype, hysteria and foster-care panic that has plunged a once-promising system into chaos and is destroying the lives of so many Maine children.
So as journalists and advocates await the release of the next edition of the report, due out this month, please allow me to report you out of a good story – and explain why it matters.
For starters, on page 5, the report itself carries what amounts to a warning label. It states:
“[R]eaders should exercise caution in making state-to-state comparisons. Each state defines child abuse and neglect in its own statutes and policies and the child welfare agencies determine the appropriate response for the alleged maltreatment based on those statutes and policies.”
As the warning label explains, while every state has disturbingly broad, vague definitions, particularly of neglect – definitions that often are little more than definitions of poverty – those definitions do vary. For example, some states attempt to exclude poverty-related neglect; Maine does not.
Maine’s definition of neglect is ‘easy to conflate with poverty’
Standards for deeming a case “substantiated” also vary. In all states, the term is an exaggeration; it means only that caseworkers checked a box on a form documenting their belief that the abuse or neglect occurred and they know who did it. Some states require the worker to believe they have “clear and convincing” evidence. Most states require a lower standard, “preponderance of the evidence,” and some have an even lower standard.
We know that the standard has an effect on the proportion of cases substantiated. So that, of course, affects a state’s “ranking.”
New York State used to have that even lower standard. In 2022 it was raised to “preponderance of the evidence.” So in 2023, New York’s comparative “ranking” for child abuse may go down. But does that mean New York now has less child abuse?
In contrast, Maine’s figures, along with those from six other states, include a category called “indicated,” which requires even less evidence than “substantiated.” That probably raises raising Maine’s “ranking.”
Perhaps most important, there are all sorts of variations in messaging. Most states still train those who are mandated to report child abuse to report anything and everything. But New York and Washington State have changed their training to a more nuanced approach. New York now says “You don’t have to report a family to support a family.” That, too, could wind up reducing the number of “substantiated” cases of “child abuse.”
In Maine, the messaging has been vastly different.
In the course of hyping the “#1 in child abuse” claim, the Maine Children’s Alliance issued a report including a graphic purporting to show that the rate of “child maltreatment” doubled in Maine even as it’s declined nationwide. In fact, the sharpest increases occurred after Maine’s “Trump-before-Trump” former governor, Paul LePage, demanded a more aggressive approach to tearing apart families and then, again, after child abuse fatalities made headlines. So what actually is being measured is the extent to which caseworkers run scared because they don’t want one of their cases to incite the wrath of politicians and/or media.
The almost-certainly false “#1 in child abuse” claim creates a vicious cycle. Fearmongering by politicians prompts people to deluge the state hotline with false reports. It prompts caseworkers to needlessly “substantiate” cases and needlessly take away children they otherwise wouldn’t, doing those children enormous harm in the process. Then the supposed “increase” in “child maltreatment” provides more fodder for the fearmongers. That leads to another vicious cycle: All those additional needless investigations and removals further overload caseworkers, so they have even less time to find the few children in real danger.
Perhaps this year advocates in Maine will skip the good story, and try for the true story. Those usually turn out to be the best stories anyway.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.