Academic Outcomes Among Children Who Experienced or Were Exposed to Physical Abuse

Abstract

All forms of family violence may negatively affect a child’s development. However, research on child maltreatment is primarily focused on the child who is directly maltreated and does not often account for how other children in the family experience the abuse. The central aim of our study was to better understand how children’s direct experience of physical abuse and exposure to physical abuse influence their academic outcomes. Data were taken from the Minnesota Departments of Education and Human Services. The sample was developed from a population-level cohort of 8–10 years old children (N = 1740) from two groups: Child Protective Service (CPS)-involved (a child who allegedly experienced physical abuse or a child who was exposed to the alleged physical abuse of another child in their household) and the matched comparison. Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) was also measured for CPS-involved children. School attendance and academic achievement were examined over 4 years. Descriptive statistics and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) were used to answer the three research questions. Over time, declines in attendance for children exposed to physical abuse were significantly greater than those of their matched peers. Exposure to IPV for CPS-involved children resulted in further declines in attendance. Math proficiency of children who experienced physical abuse declined at a significantly faster rate than their matched peers. The decline in reading proficiency of both children who experienced physical abuse and children exposed to physical abuse was more significantly pronounced than that of their matched peers. Differences in math and reading proficiency were eliminated when IPV exposure was taken into account. Child protection workers and school professionals should be aware of negative effects of experiences of and exposures to child maltreatment and work collaboratively to provide academic support, counseling, and other interventions to support children’s academic stability.

Keywords

child abuse child maltreatment physical abuse exposure to violence academic achievement education

Children who experience various forms of family violence are at an increased risk for a wide array of health problems and academic challenges when compared to children not exposed to family violence. In federal fiscal year 2019, Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies in the U.S. received an estimated 4.3 million referrals of alleged child maltreatment involving approximately 7.9 million children (USDHHS, 2021). Of these, an estimated 656,243 unique children were the substantiated victims of abuse and neglect. These data also show that 84.5% of children experienced a single maltreatment type, with 10.3% having experienced physical abuse. In their lifetime, 16% of children are exposed to psychological or emotional intimate partner violence (IPV) and 17.9% are exposed to physical IPV (Hamby et al., 2011). Data on children’s exposure to a sibling’s physical abuse are largely unavailable; yet, there is evidence to suggest that when one child in a family is physically abused, other children are not (Hamilton-Giachritsis & Browne, 2005). Results from a national sample of 1467 children, ages 2–17, revealed that 7.2% experienced physical abuse and 2.8% were exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling (Finkelhor et al., 2009).

Research on child maltreatment is primarily focused on the child who is directly maltreated and does not often account for how other children in the family experience the abuse. Some scholars have noted that siblings and other non-offending family members are negatively, indirectly affected by incidents of child sexual abuse (Baker et al., 2002; Tavkar & Hansen, 2011); however, the effects of children’s exposure to child maltreatment remain grossly understudied. Our aim was to fill in this gap in the literature and better understand how differential forms of family violence influence children’s outcomes—with a particular focus on children’s experiences of physical abuse and children’s exposure to physical abuse, given that children in the same family or household often have different involvement. The purpose of our study was to compare the educational outcomes of children who experienced physical abuse and children who were exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling to children without such experiences. Exposure to IPV was also measured for CPS-involved children. In particular, we wanted to understand differences in both the educational stability (attendance) and academic achievement (performance on standardized achievement tests) among children, over time.

Children’s Outcomes Associated with Physical Family Violence

Children with at least one maltreatment investigation by the third grade (approximately 8 years of age), were significantly more likely to be held back in the first or second grade and more likely to perform poorly on third-grade standardized tests for both math and reading (Ryan et al., 2018). Child physical abuse, specifically, has been linked to academic-related problems. Compared to children with no history of maltreatment, children who experienced physical abuse at some point in their lifetime (typically identified through child protection records) were less engaged in school, had lower grades, poorer test scores, more suspensions, and higher absenteeism, and were more likely to drop out of school (Johnson-Reid et al., 2004; Kendall-Tackett & Eckenrode, 1996; Kinard, 1999; Kurtz et al., 1993; Leiter, 2007; bib_Leiter_and_Johnsen_1997Leiter & Johnsen, 1997; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001; see also literature review by Romano et al., 2015). In a study of children aged 8–14, Font and Cage (2018) found that all forms of physical punishment were associated with students’ declines in school engagement and that physical abuse was significantly associated with declines in cognitive performance. Due to the co-occurrence between child maltreatment and IPV, children who experience or are exposed to physical abuse may also be exposed to IPV (Chan et al., 2021; Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Zolotor et al., 2007). Academic outcomes among children exposed to IPV are explored less than other outcomes, such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors, but there is evidence that exposure to IPV compromises children’s cognitive development and academic outcomes (see review by Kitzmann et al., 2003). Compared to their peers with no history of abuse, children exposed to IPV have greater speech and language impairment, lower reading scores, poorer academic progress or performance, lower attendance, and were more likely to experience academic failure, as measured by failing grades, suspension, and/or expulsion (see review by Artz et al., 2014). There is also evidence that children exposed to IPV create an achievement spillover by significantly decreasing the math and reading test scores and increasing the misbehavior of their classroom peers (Carrell & Hoekstra, 2010).

To our knowledge, there are no published findings focused on academic outcomes associated with exposure to the abuse of a sibling; yet, one would expect any incident of child maltreatment to have a negative effect on all children in the family. In 1982, Pfouts, Schopler, and Henley wrote, “Long-term outcomes for these silent witnesses to sibling abuse may have been largely overlooked by both researchers and clinicians” (p. 368) and this was echoed decades later when Howells and Rosenbaum (2008) wrote, “no attention has been paid to the potential effects of seeing a sibling being abused by their parental figures” (p. 203). Indeed, very little research has focused on the effects of children’s exposure to physical abuse. Most of what is known about the developmental outcomes of children who have been exposed to child physical abuse stems from research published several decades ago. These findings indicate that children exposed to physical maltreatment display negative outcomes (e.g., internalizing and externalizing behaviors) and point to the need for more rigorous research (Beezley et al., 1976; Bolton et al., 1977; Pfouts et al., 1982). More recently, scholars have found externalizing behaviors scores among individuals exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling that were comparable or higher to those exhibited by direct victims of physical abuse (Howells & Rosenbaum, 2008; Renner, 2012). In addition, Renner and Boel-Studt (2017) explored three types of physical family violence victimization (child physical abuse, exposure to child physical abuse, and exposure to IPV) and externalizing and internalizing behaviors among a sample of 2402 children and adolescents. The authors found that one of each of the three forms of victimization was differentially associated with increased externalizing behaviors among children at each of three age groups (ages 3–5, 6–12, and 13–18 years), with exposure to the physical abuse of a sibling being significantly associated with externalizing behaviors among children ages 6–12.

Exposure to frequent, severe, and/or chronic adversity, during sensitive developmental periods can cause lasting changes to the stress response regulation (Bucci et al., 2016). Adverse childhood experiences may negatively affect children’s functioning through producing a toxic stress response, which disrupts brain functioning and other organ and metabolic systems, leading to physiological changes that are precursors to later impairments in learning, behavioral problems, and challenges to mental and physical health (Shonkoff et al., 2012). Exposure to traumatic events and traumatic stress symptoms are associated with problems in cognitive functioning (e.g., lower IQ and lower verbal abilities), academic functioning (e.g., lower standardized achievement tests and lower attendance), and social-emotional-behavioral functioning (e.g., elevated externalizing and internalizing symptoms) among school-aged youth (Perfect et al., 2016). The authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on the relations between seven types of violence in childhood (physical, sexual, and emotional violence, neglect, community violence, bullying, and witnessing parental violence) and educational outcomes (Fry et al., 2018). These findings indicated that all forms of violence in childhood have a negative effect on children’s academic achievement through standard test scores, in addition to repeating grades, dropout, and graduation.

Current Study

The scant publications focused on the effects of exposure to child physical abuse almost exclusively attend to behavioral outcomes, namely externalizing and internalizing behaviors. In this study, we explored school attendance and academic achievement over time among children who experience different forms of family violence, with a specific focus on child physical abuse.

Through this study, we sought to answer three research questions:

1. Do school attendance and achievement patterns differ for children who were involved with CPS due to alleged physical abuse compared to their peers who were not involved in CPS?

2. Do school attendance and achievement patterns differ for children who were allegedly physically abused compared to children who were exposed to alleged physical abuse?

3. Does exposure to IPV explain differences in attendance and achievement outcomes among children who are involved with CPS?

We anticipated that CPS-involvement would be associated with both decreased school attendance and decreased academic achievement, compared to no CPS involvement. We did not pose specific hypotheses regarding whether direct or indirect child physical abuse would be most salient for children in the sample. This decision was largely due to the lack of available research on exposure to child maltreatment of a sibling and how this type of victimization may influence academic outcomes. Recognizing that children’s academic outcomes are influenced by factors other than victimization, we included covariates such as race, free/reduced lunch receipt, and receipt of special education services. In the CPS-only analyses, covariates included whether IPV was reported in the home and whether or not the child was part of a sibling pair.

Method

Data Sources

Data were taken from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). Data from these two state agencies are housed at the University of Minnesota by the Minnesota Linking Information for Kids (Minn-LInK) project. Through the Minn-LInK project, researchers integrate statewide individual-level administrative data from multiple agencies to answer questions about the effects of policies, programs, and practice on the well-being of children in Minnesota. Data were used in accordance with data sharing agreements between Minn-LInK and these state agencies. The University of Minnesota’s Institutional Review Board approved the use of these data and all identifiers were removed from the data file after data integration.

Sampling Procedures

The sample was developed from a population-level cohort of children aged 8–10 years old who experienced alleged physical abuse or were exposed to the alleged physical abuse of a child in their household for the first and only time in the academic years (AY) 2011–2012 or 2012–2013. This sampling frame was chosen to allow for annual comparisons of attendance and achievement while controlling for potential confounding variables. After identifying all children in DHS data who were named in a CPS case alleging physical abuse, accepted maltreatment reports from 2000–2016, including both Family Investigation and Family Assessment (i.e., Alternative Response) tracks, were used to determine whether a child was the alleged victim of abuse or exposed to the alleged abuse of another child in the household. Given that the effects of neglect and other types of maltreatment may differ from one another, children who experienced or were exposed to maltreatment other than physical abuse and children with subsequent maltreatment allegations were not included in the sample, in an effort to isolate the effects of this type of maltreatment.

Education records were used to identify demographic characteristics (race/ethnicity and sex), service needs (free or reduced-price lunch and special education receipt), and a matched comparison group of children without histories of child protection involvement. MDE data were also used to track school attendance and academic achievement over four years (in the AY of the maltreatment report, Time 1, and for three subsequent years, Times 2–4).

A comparison group of similarly-situated children with no history of CPS involvement was created using propensity score matching. The comparison group was matched on gender, race/ethnicity, school district, grade level, receipt of free or reduced lunch, and receipt of special education services. Fuzzy matching methods prioritizing exact matches with a match tolerance of 0.05 were used to construct the comparison group (Oakes & Johnson, 2006). Children were matched in the AY in which the maltreatment report occurred for the CPS-involved group.

Sample

The final sample consisted of 1740 children from two groups: CPS-involved (either a child who allegedly experienced physical abuse or a child who was exposed to the alleged physical abuse of another child in their household) and the matched comparison. The two groups were similar with respect to gender, race/ethnicity, receipt of special education services, receipt of free or reduced-price lunch, grade level, and school district (see Table 1). Both groups had equal numbers of males and females. The CPS-involved and matched comparison groups, respectively, had nearly equal numbers of White (49.70% and 50.30%), Black (49.85% and 50.15%), and Hispanic (49.57% and 50.43%) children, but the matched comparison group had slightly fewer American Indian/Alaska Native (53.66% vs. 46.34%) and Asian (52.05% and 47.95%) children than the CPS-involved group. Children in both groups received special education services and were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch at nearly equal rates.

Table 1.

Characteristics of CPS-Involved Children and Matched Comparison Group.

Characteristic	Total CPS-Involved (n = 870)		Matched Comparison (n = 870)		Total (n = 1740)
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	N
Female	401	46.09	401	46.09	802
Male	469	53.91	469	53.91	938
White	494	56.78	500	57.47	994
Black	162	18.62	163	18.74	325
Hispanic	116	13.33	118	13.56	234
Asian	76	8.74	70	8.05	146
AIAN	22	2.53	19	2.18	41
Special education	254	29.20	245	28.16	499
Free/reduced lunch	620	71.26	607	69.77	1227
IPV	219	25.17	—	—	870
Sibling pair	222	25.52	—	—	870

Note. Differences between study groups were not statistically significant.

Table 2.

Characteristics of CPS-Involved Children by Exposure Type.

Characteristic	Alleged Child Physical Abuse (n = 417)		Exposed to Alleged Child Physical Abuse (n = 453)		Total CPS-Involved (n = 870)		Total Sample (n = 1740)
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	n	%	N
Female	170	40.77	231	50.99	401	46.09	802
Male	247	59.23	222	49.01	469	53.91	938
White	244	58.51	250	55.19	494	56.78	994
Black	71	17.03	91	20.09	162	18.62	325
Hispanic	55	13.19	61	13.47	116	13.33	234
Asian	35	8.39	41	9.05	76	8.74	146
AIAN	12	2.88	10	2.21	22	2.53	41
Special education	150	35.97	104	22.96	254	29.20	499
Free/reduced lunch	290	69.54	330	72.85	620	71.26	1227
IPV	118	28.30	101	22.30	219	25.17	870
Sibling pair	86	20.62	136	30.02	222	25.52	870

Note. Differences between study groups were not statistically significant.

Of the 870 CPS-involved children, 47.93% (n = 417) experienced physical abuse and 52.07% (n = 453) were exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling. Statistically significant differences were not present with respect to child attributes between study groups post-matching (see Table 1). Among all CPS-involved children, there were slightly more males (53.91%) than females (46.09%), similar to children who experienced physical abuse (59.23% male and 40.77% female). However, males and females were exposed to physical abuse at nearly similar rates.

Similar to statewide racial disparities in the child protection system (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2018), non-White children were represented at disproportionate rates among CPS-involved children in this study, regardless of alleged direct or indirect physical abuse. Percentages were similar to the broader CPS-involved children when examined by experience of child physical abuse and exposure to child physical abuse.

Both receipt of special education services and free or reduced-price lunch (or lack thereof) were measured in the year of CPS involvement. Nearly one-third of CPS-involved children received special education services in the AY of the child protection report, a higher proportion than all children statewide (15.71%; MDE, 2018). Special education receipt varied greatly among children who experienced physical abuse (35.97%) and children who were exposed to physical abuse (22.96%). Receipt of free or reduced-price lunch rates were similarly disproportionately higher; 71.26% of CPS-involved children were eligible compared to 37.20% statewide (Minnesota Department of Education, 2018). Children were eligible at similar percentages regardless of the type of CPS involvement.

Measures

Information on child protection involvement, including an indicator of exposure to IPV, came from DHS data. Demographic characteristics included child gender (female and male) and race/ethnicity (White, Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native) and were taken from MDE data. Additional information about the characteristics and experiences of children in K-12 public education included attendance, and Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) Math and Reading proficiency, receipt of free or reduced-price lunch, and receipt of special education services.

Child Protective Service involvement.

Reports made to local CPS agencies in Minnesota are initially screened to determine whether they meet the criteria (Maltreatment of Minors Act, 2019) to be assigned to Family Investigation or Family Assessment (i.e., Alternative Response). DHS data (2000–2016) were used to identify records of children who were named in accepted maltreatment reports for allegations of physical abuse for the first and only time in AY 2011–2012 or 2012–2013. This means that children in the CPS group had no history of child maltreatment allegations in Minnesota prior to the sample years. Children in this study were coded as: 0 = no CPS involvement, 1 = experienced alleged physical abuse (PA), or 2 = exposed to alleged physical abuse (PA).

Intimate partner violence.

Caregivers were asked about their previous experiences of domestic violence as part of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Risk Assessment (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2015) that is completed as part of Minnesota’s child protection process. The SDM Risk Assessment is completed by child protection workers based on the worker’s knowledge of a family’s history and circumstances, as ascertained by interviews with and assessments of family members. Structured Decision Making Risk Assessments are completed during a child protection assessment or investigation to determine whether or not a family should be referred for ongoing case management and again prior to ending case management services to document elimination of safety concerns and reduction of risk for ongoing maltreatment. One indicator from the SDM Risk Assessment was used for this study, “Either caregiver has a history of domestic violence.” Child protection workers are instructed to select “Yes” if either caregiver has a history of domestic violence in a current or prior relationship, defined as adult mistreatment of one another and evidenced by hitting, slapping, yelling, berating, verbal/physical abuse, physical fighting (with or without injury), continuing threats, ultimata, intimidation, frequent separation/reconciliation, involvement of law enforcement and/or domestic violence programs, restraining orders, or criminal reports. Selecting “No” indicates that neither caregiver has a history of domestic violence. Thus, responses were coded dichotomously (yes/no) and were available only for children with CPS involvement.

Attendance.

Using MDE data, attendance rates were calculated for children at four time points. Attendance rates were calculated by dividing the sum of average daily attendance (total number of days the student attended) by the sum of the average daily membership (total number of days the student was required to attend). Attendance was modeled as a continuous variable.

Math and reading proficiency.

The MCA is an annual standardized assessment administered to Minnesota students in grades 3 through 8, 10, and 11 to measure progress toward the state’s academic standards and federal and state legislative requirements. MCA scale scores (ranging from 1 to 99) were used to determine each student’s achievement level and scores are assigned a proficiency level (exceeds standards, meets standards, partially meets standards, and does not meet standards). For each of the four years, each child’s academic proficiency on math and reading assessments were coded as 0 = does not meet standards or partially meets standards or 1 = meets standards or exceeds standards.

Receipt of free or reduced-price lunch.

Using MDE records from the AY of the maltreatment report, receipt of free or reduced-price lunch was used as a proxy to describe the socioeconomic status of children. This variable has three status categories: (a) ineligible for free or reduced lunch, (b) eligible for reduced price lunch, and (c) eligible for free lunch. Children were eligible for reduced price lunch if their family income was between 130% and 185% of the federal poverty guidelines and they were eligible for free lunch if their family was below 130% of the poverty guidelines (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Science, 2008). Meal eligibility was coded as 0 = the child was not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the year of the maltreatment report or 1 = the child was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the year of the maltreatment report.

Special education receipt.

Special education receipt was taken from MDE data and was measured at Time 1—the year of the maltreatment report. Special education served as an indicator of the child’s need for and participation in special education programs during the AY. Federal laws provide funds designed to supplement state educational efforts on behalf of students with disabilities in local education agencies or state supported schools. Special education receipt was coded as 0 = student did not require evaluation, student was evaluated but did not require services or not participating in services, or parents refused services or 1 = student was evaluated and received special education services.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) were used to answer the three research questions. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 (IBM Corp, 2015). Descriptive analysis was used to assess the characteristics of children who experienced physical abuse, those who were exposed to physical abuse, and their matched peers. Generalized Estimating Equation, an extension of the general linear model that provides a semi-parametric approach to longitudinal analysis of categorical response data, was used to explore the academic trajectories of CPS-involved children over time as compared to their peers who were not CPS-involved. This method was preferred over a hierarchical linear model (HLM) because the parameter interpretation is a population average, rather than group-specific (Hubbard et al., 2010).

In the GEE model, a response variable Y could be either continuous or categorical where Y = (Y_ij), response for each subject i, was measured at two different time points, j = 1, 2. A GEE model with continuous responses is,

g (μ_ij) = μ_ij = β₀ + β₁Pre_ij + β₂X_ij:

The term, g(∙), Pre, and X, is the link function, a baseline data, and a group variable, respectively, where ν(μ_ij) = 1 and V (y_ij) = ∅. A GEE model with binary responses looks like, log[μ_ij/1−μ_ij] = log[P (Y_ij = 1)/1−P (Y_ij = 1)] = β₀ + β₁Pre_ij + β₂X_ij; where variance specification for binary responses is ν(μ_ij) = μ_ij (1-μ_ij) and ∅= 1.

Results

School Attendance

As seen in Figure 1, all children maintained high attendance (above 92%) across the four-year study period; yet, all children experienced an overall decline in attendance in that time. This decline in attendance is a normal phenomenon as children progress in school. Despite this typical decline, the rate of decline varied depending on a child’s experience of maltreatment (Research Question #1). Attendance patterns were first examined for CPS-involved children (regardless of being exposed to alleged physical abuse or experiencing alleged physical abuse) and children without a history of CPS-involvement. In the AY of the maltreatment incident, the attendance rates of all children were nearly identical (94.88% for CPS-involved children and 94.91% for children in the matched comparison) but children involved in an accepted report of physical abuse experienced a decline in attendance in the year following the report and maintained lower attendance rates over time than their non-CPS-involved peers. Attendance rates of CPS-involved children declined at a significantly faster rate than that of their peers (β = −0.71, p = .017).

Figure 1.

Average attendance over a 4-year period.

Attendance rates were further examined with a focus on victimization and exposure to physical abuse; significant differences continued to emerge (Figure 1; Research Question #2). Declines in attendance for children who were exposed to physical abuse were significantly greater than those of their matched peers (β = −0.81, p = .03), whereas the patterns of attendance for children who experienced physical abuse and their matched peers were not significantly different from one another. An additional analysis was conducted to determine whether or not significant differences in attendance over time existed between those exposed to physical abuse as compared to those with alleged victimization; significant differences did not exist in the decline in attendance rates over time between these two groups. However, CPS-involved children who experienced IPV displayed significantly different declines in attendance over time (β = −1.52, p = .009) (Research Question #3) compared to children who did not experience IPV. For every percentage point decrease in attendance for CPS-involved children, those who experienced IPV had a 1.5 percentage point decrease in attendance.

Academic Achievement

Regardless of exposure or alleged victimization, CPS-involved children were overall less proficient than their matched peers on the MCA math and reading tests across all four time points (see Figures 2 and 3; Research Question #1). As with school attendance, a decrease in proficiency is typical as children progress in school (Minnesota Department of Education, 2018). In the year of the maltreatment report, CPS-involved children demonstrated lower proficiency than their matched peers on both assessments. The proficiency levels of CPS-involved children decreased at a slightly faster rate (β = .319, p < .001 for math; β = .348, p = .002 for reading) than that of their non-CPS-involved peers on both the MCA math and reading assessments.

Figure 2.

MCA math proficiency over a 4-year period.

Figure 3.

MCA reading proficiency over a 4-year period.

After it was determined that significant differences existed between CPS-involved children and their matched peers, achievement over time was also examined for children who were exposed to physical abuse and those who experienced abuse as compared to their peers (see Figures 2 and 3; Research Question #2). Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment math proficiency levels of children who experienced physical abuse declined at a significantly faster rate than those of their matched peers (β = .645, p < .001), whereas patterns of achievement on the MCA math assessment for children who were exposed to physical abuse and their matched peers were not significantly different from one another. In fact, children who were exposed to physical abuse had nearly identical math achievement as their matched peers.

When reading proficiency was examined, the decline in proficiency of both children who experienced abuse and those exposed to abuse was more significantly pronounced than that of their matched peers (β = .499, p < .001 for children who experienced physical abuse; β = .218, p = .048 for children exposed to physical abuse). The trajectory of reading proficiency over the four-year period for all three groups was similar, but proficiency declined steeply in the fourth year for both children exposed to physical abuse and the children who experienced physical abuse as compared to their peers.

Similar to attendance, a third analysis was conducted to determine whether or not the trajectories of math and reading proficiency over time were significantly different for children exposed to physical abuse as compared to children who experienced physical abuse. When math proficiency was examined, children exposed to physical abuse experienced significantly different trajectories (β = −.596, p < .001) than children who were directly victimized. On the MCA reading assessment, both groups experienced similar, but significantly different trajectories over time (β = −.299, p = .027). Although math and reading proficiency were significantly different for children exposed to physical abuse and children who experienced physical abuse, math (β = .076, p = .783) and reading (β = .538, p = .463) proficiency were not significantly different for those children when exposure to IPV was taken into account (Research Question #3).

Discussion

Our findings coincide with and extend previous research on the effect of maltreatment on educational stability and academic achievement to also include children who are exposed to physical abuse. With respect to educational stability, our findings revealed that the attendance patterns of children with CPS involvement due to physical abuse declined at a significantly faster rate than the attendance rates of their peers who had no such involvement with CPS. The findings further revealed that differences in attendance patterns coincided with exposure to physical abuse but not the direct experience of physical abuse. Attendance patterns of children who were exposed to the physical abuse of another child in the household declined at a significantly faster rate than that of their (non-CPS-involved) peers. Furthermore, although the attendance patterns among all CPS-involved children showed a decline in the year following the alleged physical abuse, the attendance of children who experienced physical abuse recovered to a rate nearly equivalent to that of children without CPS involvement after three years; the attendance of children who were exposed to physical abuse did not exhibit this recovery and rather continued to decline throughout the study period. Additionally, CPS-involved children who experienced IPV displayed significantly larger declines in attendance over time compared to children who did not experience IPV.

Previous researchers have demonstrated that children who experience maltreatment (whether substantiated or unsubstantiated) have poorer attendance than their non-maltreated peers (Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Kiesel et al., 2016; Kinard, 1999; Kurtz et al., 1993; Leiter, 2007; Leiter & Johnsen, 1997). However, findings of the current study suggest that exposure may be more detrimental to academic stability than actual experiences of physical abuse. Differences in the attendance patterns of children who experience maltreatment and those exposed may be explained by differences in service provision. Although CPS services are typically focused on parents (e.g., parent education, therapy, etc.), children who are directly maltreated often receive services to support healing through child protection interventions. Children exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling have been exposed to a traumatic event (i.e., witnessing the event occur and witnessing injuries from the incident) but may not have been provided (and therefore been benefited by) the same services as children who experienced the abuse due to variations in statutory interpretations of policy and local practice (Renner & Driessen, 2019). Children exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling may exhibit feelings of guilt because they were not directly maltreated and/or helplessness because they could not stop the abuse (Gil, 1983), which may translate into symptoms of depression or anxiety; and these mental health symptoms may lead to behavioral challenges (Finkelhor et al., 2009; Howells & Rosenbaum, 2008; Renner, 2012) and possibly to the avoidance of the school environment.

When a child is maltreated, the entire family unit is affected; the needs of all members, and the family unit, must be assessed and addressed. Years of effort by family violence practitioners, advocates, and scholars resulted in significant increases in services and research for children exposed to IPV, along with eventual changes in state statutes and CPS practices. However, a focus on siblings who are exposed to child maltreatment remains limited throughout federal and state child welfare policies. Researchers have documented significant behavioral consequences associated with a sibling’s exposure to child physical abuse (Renner, 2012; Renner & Boel-Studt, 2017) and mental health problems among family members of children who experience sexual abuse (Tavkar & Hansen, 2011). As researchers draw attention to the negative effects of exposure to child maltreatment on siblings, child abuse prevention efforts should focus on children who experience maltreatment directly and indirectly, and child welfare workers should utilize family-based interventions and extend services to all members of the family system.

With respect to academic achievement, our findings revealed that the math and reading proficiency of children with CPS involvement due to physical abuse also declined at significantly faster rates than those of their peers who had no such involvement. Our findings revealed differences in achievement patterns that coincided with the alleged experience of physical abuse on both math and reading assessments and the exposure to alleged physical abuse on reading assessments. Declines in math proficiency were significantly more pronounced for children who experienced physical abuse than for their peers. However, reading achievement patterns among children exposed to physical abuse and children who experienced physical abuse were significantly worse than their peers. Although math and reading proficiency were significantly different for children exposed to physical abuse and children who experienced physical abuse, math and reading proficiency were not significantly different for those children when exposure to IPV was taken into account. Differences in the math and reading proficiency among CPS-involved children in our study were substantially diminished once exposure to IPV was taken into account. This suggests that exposure to IPV plays a significant role in the academic stability and achievement among children who experience or are exposed to physical abuse.

Our findings are consistent with previous research, which suggests that family violence and the circumstances surrounding it are detrimental to school achievement. Children who experience abuse may be negatively impacted by the maltreatment itself (Delaney-Black et al., 2002; Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Leiter & Johnsen, 1997; Rouse & Fantuzzo, 2009; Kendall-Tackett & Eckenrode, 1996; Kinard, 1999; Kurtz et al., 1993; Piescher et al., 2014; Romano et al., 2015; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999); and, children who experience abuse and those who are exposed to the abuse of a sibling may also be impacted by trauma-related distress, which may in turn negatively affect academic achievement (Delaney-Black et al., 2002). It may be this type of distress that has the most adverse effects on academic achievement for children exposed to the abuse of a sibling. Trauma-related distress may also explain why exposure to violence in other contexts (exposure to IPV or community violence, etc.) has negative effects on achievement (Frye et al., 2018; Thompson & Whimper, 2010). Trauma-related distress coupled with a lack of service receipt (as previously described) and poorer attendance associated with the maltreatment event itself may help to explain the poor academic achievement of children exposed to the abuse of a sibling.

Limitations

Findings from our study should be viewed in light of several limitations. First, Minnesota employs a dual-response child protection system in which maltreatment substantiation is not a facet of the response used for the majority of CPS cases; to obtain an adequate sample size and include the full range of physical abuse experiences, we relied on allegations of physical abuse that were accepted for a CPS response in this study. Thus, comparisons between exposure to substantiated physical abuse and experiences of substantiated physical abuse were not made. In addition, reliance on existing administrative data from Minnesota’s CPS prohibited us from controlling for alleged victimization or exposure to physical abuse that did not occur in Minnesota as well as exposure to physical abuse where a child was not named in a CPS report. In addition, we constructed a sample that was restricted by age at first allegation/exposure and abuse type to (1) control for potentially confounding factors, and (2) assess the effect of experiencing alleged physical abuse versus exposure to physical abuse. It remains unknown whether experiences of or exposure to other types of maltreatment would yield similar findings. The sample’s age range was restricted to include those children whose first documented allegation of or exposure to physical abuse occurred between the ages of 8 and 10. This restriction allowed us to assess academic functioning over time, as Minnesota’s statewide tests of math and reading are not given to all grades. Thus, it is unknown whether the patterns found in the current research may generalize to other age ranges or experiences of maltreatment, such as sexual abuse or neglect. We were also unable to assess the effect of service provision to families and, more importantly, differences in service provision among children who were alleged to have experienced physical abuse and those exposed to physical abuse because administrative records did not contain information about services provided to families or individuals.

Implications

Our research findings suggest several implications for child protection and service delivery, given that positive school experiences are an important predictor of long-term health and well-being. First, there is a need for a shared understanding and dedicated attention to child well-being by child- and family-serving systems, including child protection and education systems (Kiesel et al., 2016; Semanchin-Jones et al., 2015), whereas safety and permanency have been well-operationalized in child protection, child well-being appears to be a much more complex and difficult concept to define and measure. Current federal guidelines require child protective agencies to attend to child well-being, yet the definition and operationalization remain vague. Without a shared definition child- and family-serving systems are left to their own accord. A shared understanding of well-being is needed before research and evaluation can be used to build knowledge and resources that support improved system responses and therefore, outcomes for children (Fixsen et al., 2005).

Secondly, child protection systems need more support and standardization in how to best identify and include siblings in their service provision (Renner & Driessen, 2019). Siblings of maltreated children are in need of greater attention with respect to assessment and service delivery in the child protection system. Given the variability in defining and attending to the needs of “siblings,” it is critical that the federal government align its definitions across various child protection policies to be more inclusive of all siblings, including children in the household and children who share a family system.

Child protection and school professionals should also be aware of the associated negative effects of exposure to child maltreatment and work collaboratively to provide academic support, counseling, and other interventions to support children’s academic stability. Working to increase the safety and well-being of all children (including those who have been maltreated and those who have been exposed to maltreatment of a sibling) falls within the scope of CPS; yet, providing services to children who are exposed to child maltreatment is not required within current federal child protection mandates (Renner & Driessen, 2019). Educational mandates also largely fail to address the needs of children who are maltreated and those who are exposed to the maltreatment of a sibling. Child protection and school professionals should be mindful of potential academic challenges among children who have been maltreated as well as among those who have been exposed to maltreatment and recognize that children may require academic support for several years following the incident of abuse. Collaborative and creative funding solutions may be required to provide these services.

Our findings also suggest implications for future research. Research studies to replicate our findings in other populations and to address the limitations of our study are needed. For example, research to better understand the effects of exposure to different types of maltreatment (including multi-type exposure) and in different populations is warranted. As previously stated, non-White children were represented at disproportionate rates among CPS-involved children in this study sample. Due to the scant literature focused on academic outcomes of children exposed to the physical abuse of a sibling, we opted not to disaggregate analyses in this study and separately describe similarities and differences based on gender or race. However, to further advance racial equity and anti-oppressive scholarship on family violence, future research efforts in this area should focus specifically on disaggregation by race and ethnicity and comparative analysis of any differences or disparities. Such efforts will highlight structural forces that differentially affect children’s involvement in the child welfare system, as well as their academic outcomes. In addition, given that experiences of physical abuse—both direct allegations of physical abuse and exposure to alleged physical abuse—were more likely to occur for children identifed as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) (as are all types of maltreatment reported in Minnesota), negative academic effects experienced by children in this study sample may serve as a further disadvantage to BIPOC students and thus further widen the educational opportunity gap. Not only may these experiences widen the opportunity gap in education settings, but if the hypothesized lack of services occurred for those who were exposed to physical abuse, additional barriers to reaching the full potential for young people who identify as BIPOC remain.

Finally, more research on mediators and moderators on violence exposures on academic outcomes is needed. A better understanding of the mechanisms through which direct and indirect experiences of violence impacts academic functioning and knowing about the conditions under which violence impacts academic functioning should be undertaken by researchers in order to develop more effective interventions. Finally, research focused on the role of service receipt on child outcomes is critical for advancing our knowledge and formulating effective interventions. Qualitative studies developed to better understand children’s experiences with maltreatment would also enhance our ability to develop and tailor interventions for all children affected by maltreatment, not just those who directly experienced it. With a better understanding of the potential effects of exposure to maltreatment, child- and family-serving systems will be better positioned to attend to the well-being of children and youth who experience and are exposed to physical abuse and other types of maltreatment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project MIN-55-030.

ORCID iDs

Lynette M. Renner

Kristine N. Piescher

Author Biographies

Lynette M. Renner, PhD, MSW, is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, with particular attention to risk and resilience factors; behavioral, mental health and parenting outcomes; help-seeking strategies; and the development and evaluation of legal, health care, and therapeutic interventions.

Kristine N. Piescher, PhD, is the Director of Research and Evaluation at the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) in the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on child maltreatment, child and family well-being, child welfare workforce development and system change, housing and homelessness, and utilizing cross-systems data for research and evaluation, with implications for practice and policy.

Nicole L. Mickelson, MPP, is currently a Financial Analyst at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. In her previous role as a Minn-LInK researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) in the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota, she focused on utilizing cross-systems data for research and evaluation in the areas of child maltreatment, child and family well-being, and program evaluation.

References

Artz

Jackson

M. A.

Rossiter

K. R.

Nijdam-Jones

Géczy

Porteous

(2014). A comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of exposure to intimate partner violence on children and youth. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 5(4), 493–587. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs.artzs.542014

Baker

J. N.

Tanis

H. J.

Rice

J. B.

(2002). Including siblings in the treatment of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v10n03_01

Beezley

Martin

Alexander

(1976). Comprehensive family oriented therapy. In Helfer

R. E.

Kempe

C. H.

(Eds.), Child abuse and neglect. The family and the community (pp. 169–194). Ballinger Publishing Company.

Bolton

F. G.

Reich

J. W.

Gutierres

S. E.

(1977). Delinquency patterns in maltreated children and siblings. Victimology: An International Journal, 2(2), 349–357.

Bucci

Marques

S. S.

Harris

N. B.

(2016). Toxic stress in children and adolescents. Advances in Pediatrics, 63(1), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yapd.2016.04.002

Carrell

S. E.

Hoekstra

M. L.

(2010). Externalities in the classroom: How children exposed to domestic violence affect everyone’s kids. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.1.211

Chan

K. L.

Chen

(2021). Prevalence and correlates of the co-occurrence of family violence: A meta-analysis on family polyvictimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019841601

Delaney-Black

Covington

Ondersma

Nordstrom-Klee

Templin

Ager

Janisse

Sokol

R. J.

(2002). Violence exposure, trauma, and IQ and/or reading deficits among urban children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156(3), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.3.280

Fantuzzo

Perlman

Dobbins

(2011). Types and timing of child maltreatment and early school success: A population-based investigation. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1404–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.010

10.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

Kracke

(2009). Children’s exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

11.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

12.

Font

S. A.

Cage

(2018). Dimensions of physical punishment and their associations with children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.008.

13.

Fry

Fang

Elliott

Casey

Zheng

Florian

McCluskey

(2018). The relationships between violence in childhood and educational outcomes: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 6-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.021.

14.

Gil

(1983). Outgrowing the pain: A book for and about adults abused as children. New York, NY: Dell Publishing.

15.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2011). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and other family violence. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232272.pdf

16.

Hamilton-Giachritsis

C. E.

Browne

K. D.

(2005). A retrospective study of risk to siblings in abusing families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.619

17.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Sousa

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Moylan

C. A.

(2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9(2), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008314797

18.

Howells

N. L.

Rosenbaum

(2008). Effects of perpetrator and victim gender on negative outcomes of family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9144-5

19.

Hubbard

A. E.

Ahern

Fleischer

N. L.

Laan

Lippman

S. A.

Jewell

Bruckner

Satariano

W. A.

(2010). To GEE or not to GEE: Comparing population averages and mixed models for estimating the associations between neighborhood risk factors and health. Epidemiology, 21(4), 467–474. http://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181caeb90

20.

IBM Corp . (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 24.0. IBM Corp.

21.

Johnson-Reid

Drake

Kim

Porterfield

Han

(2004). A prospective analysis of the relationship between reported child maltreatment and special education eligibility among poor children. Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504269192

22.

Kendall-Tackett

K. A.

Eckenrode

(1996). The effects of neglect on academic achievement and disciplinary problems: A developmental perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(3), 161–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(95)00139-5

23.

Kiesel

Piescher

Edleson

(2016). Child maltreatment, exposure to intimate partner violence, and academic performance. Journal of Public Child Welfare [Special Issue, 10(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2016.1209150

24.

Kinard

E. M.

(1999). Psychosocial resources and academic performance in abused children. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(5), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00026-2

25.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.71.2.339

26.

Kurtz

P. D.

Gaudin

J. M.

Wodarski

J. S.

Howing

P. T.

(1993). Maltreatment and the school-aged child: School performance consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(5), 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90080-O

27.

Leiter

(2007). School performance trajectories after the advent of reported maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(3), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.09.002

28.

Leiter

Johnsen

(1997). Child maltreatment and school performance declines: An event-history analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 563–589. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312034003563

29.

Maltreatment of Minors Act, Minn. Stat. §626.556. (2019).

30.

Minnesota Department of Education . (2018). Minnesota report card: 2018 demographics. http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#

31.

Minnesota Department of Human Services . (2015). The Structured Decision Making system for child protective services: Policy and procedures manual. https://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/agencywide/documents/pub/dhs16_169048.pdf

32.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, Children and Family Services . (2018). Minnesota’s child maltreatment report, 2017. Author. https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2018/mandated/181110.pdf

33.

Oakes

M. J.

Johnson

P. J.

(2006). Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. Methods in Social Epidemiology, 1, 370-393.

34.

Perfect

M. M.

Turley

M. R.

Carlson

J. S.

Yohanna

Saint Gilles

M. P.

(2016). School-related outcomes of traumatic event exposure and traumatic stress symptoms in students: A systematic review of research from 1990 to 2015. School Mental Health, 8(1), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9175-2

35.

Pfouts

J. H.

Schopler

J. H.

Henley

H. C.

Jr. (1982). Forgotten victims of family violence. Social Work, 27(4), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/27.4.367

36.

Piescher

Colburne

Hong

LaLiberte

(2014). Child protective services and the achievement gap. Children and Youth Services Review, 47(P3), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.11.004

37.

Renner

L. M.

(2012). Single types of family violence victimization and externalizing behaviors among children and adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 27(3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9421-9

38.

Renner

L. M.

Boel-Studt

(2017). Physical family violence and externalizing and internalizing behaviors among children and adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87(4), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000260

39.

Renner

L. M.

Driessen

M. C.

(2019). Siblings who are exposed to child maltreatment: Practices reported by county children’s services supervisors. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 13(5), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2018.1514350

40.

Romano

Babchishin

Marquis

Fréchette

(2015). Childhood maltreatment and educational outcomes. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16(4), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014537908

41.

Rouse

Fantuzzo

(2009). Multiple risks and educational well being: A population-based investigation of threats to early school success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.001

42.

Rowe

Eckenrode

(1999). The timing of academic difficulties among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8), 813–832. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00044-7

43.

Ryan

J. P.

Jacob

B. A.

Gross

Perron

B. E.

Moore

Ferguson

(2018). Early exposure to child maltreatment and academic outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 23(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559518786815

44.

Semanchin-Jones

LaLiberte

Piescher

(2015). Defining and strengthening child well-being in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 54(C), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.001

45.

Shonk

S. M.

Cicchetti

(2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk for academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.3

46.

Shonkoff

J. P.

Garner

A. S.

Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care . (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2663

47.

Tavkar

Hansen

D. J.

(2011). Interventions for families victimized by child sexual abuse: Clinical issues and approaches for child advocacy center-based services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.005

48.

Thompson

Whimper

(2010). Exposure to family violence and reading level of early adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(7), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771003781347

49.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis . (2008). Direct certification in the national school lunch program: State implementation progress. Report CN-08-DC.

50.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau . (2021). Child Maltreatment 2019. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment

51.

Zolotor

A. J.

Theodore

A. D.

Coyne-Beasley

Runyan

D. K.

(2007). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Overlapping risk. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm021