Maltreatment of children with developmental disabilities: An ecological systems analysis Carl L. Algood a, ⁎, Jun Sung Hong b,1 , Ruby M. Gourdine a,2 , Abigail B. Williams b,3 a School of Social Work, Howard University, 601 Howard Place, Northwest, Washington, DC 20059-1019, USA b University of Illinois, School of Social Work, Children and Family Research Center, 1010, W. Nevada Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA abstract article info Article history: Received 18 November 2010 Received in revised form 2 February 2011 Accepted 3 February 2011 Available online 3 March 2011 Keywords: Abuse and neglect Children Disabilities Ecological systems theory Maltreatment Special education The purpose of this review is to understand the risk factors for maltreatment of children with developmental disabilities. Using the Bronfrenbrenner's (1976, 1977) ecological systems framework, the authors examine how socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, and special education), micro- (parent–child relationship and domestic violence), exo- (parenting stress, parents' social support, and area of residence), and macrosystems level (culturally defined parenting practices) factors influence or inhibit maltreatment of children with disabilities. The authors highlight major implications for practice and policy for maltreated children with disabilities. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Maltreatment of children with disabilities has been a major social concern (Hibbard & Desch, 2007). Some researchers concur that children with disabilities are significantly more likely to be at risk of maltreatment than children in the general population (Brown & Schormans, 2003; Crosse, Kaye, & Ratnofsky, 1993; Goldson, 2001; Gore & Janssen, 2007; Mandell, Walrath, Mateuffel, & Pinto-Martin, 2005; Mansell, Sobsey, & Moskal, 1998; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Skarbek, Hahn, and Parrish (2009) also posit that children with disabilities are over three times more likely to experience sexual abuse than do children without disabilities. The Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008) estimates that 750,000 children were abused or neglected in 2008, of which more than 70% experienced neglect, 16% were physically abused, and 9% were sexually abused. Children with disabilities accounted for 6% of all maltreatment cases. However, several researchers (Bonner, Crow, & Hensley, 1997; Hibbard & Desch, 2007; Westat, Inc, 1993) have argued that little is known about the prevalence rate of abuse and neglect among children with disabilities, which is attributed in part to the failure of child welfare workers to recognize and document disabilities status in child abuse cases. Hibbard and Desch (2007) argue that data on the prevalence rate of maltreated children with disabilities are limited which is attributed to 1) variations in the definitions employed by researchers; 2) the lack of a consistent means to classify maltreat- ment; 3) the failure of child protective workers to document and recognize disabilities; and 4) the lack of social services training to properly assess children (Hibbard & Desch, 2007; p. 1018). Sullivan (2009) concurs that there is a lack of data on the incidences of exposure to violence on children with disabilities due to the various definitions of disabilities. The researcher argues that it is necessary to recognize the fact that ‘developmental disability’ is not a term that is interchangeable with all types of disabilities. Children can have a disability but not necessarily have a developmental disability (Sullivan, 2009). The legal definition of developmental disability was established with the passage of the Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights Act (P.L. 91–517) by the Congress in 1970. Developmental disability is defined by the Federal Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act as severe, chronic conditions that 1) are attributable to mental and physical impair- ments or both; 2) are manifested before age twenty two; 3) are likely to continue indefinitely, 4) results in substantive limitations in three or more major life activity areas, such as self care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self sufficiency; and 5) require a combination and sequence of special interdisciplinary or generic care treatment or other services that are of extended or lifelong duration Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1142–1148 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 806 7306. E-mail addresses: clalgood@yahoo.com (C.L. Algood), jhong23@illinois.edu (J.S. Hong), rgourdine@howard.edu (R.M. Gourdine), willia49@illinois.edu (A.B. Williams). 1 Tel.: +1 217 244 4662. 2 Tel.: +1 202 806 4733. 3 Tel.: +1 217 265 7867. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.02.003 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth