Income, family structure, and child maltreatment risk Lawrence M. Berger Center for Health and Wellbeing, Woodrow Wilson School, 228 Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA Available online 23 March 2004 Abstract This paper uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to explore the effects of income, family structure, and public policies on several indicators of child maltreatment. Results suggest that income and family structure affect a family’s overall risk of child maltreatment, and that these factors differentially affect various outcome measures. In particular, income impacts routine medical and dental care, the quality of the caregiving environment, and to a lesser extent, spanking behaviors. Single-parent families and families with a biological mother and non-biological father figure tend to have lower quality caregiving environments than mother – father families, and single- mother families with working mothers are at even greater risk of poor caregiving. Finally, this analysis provides some tentative evidence that higher welfare benefits and lower unemployment rates may serve as protective factors for children. D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Child maltreatment; Child well-being; Income; Family structure 1. Introduction Child maltreatment in the US has been closely linked to poverty, as well as to parental characteristics and caregiving environments that are associated with poverty. Currently, however, researchers have yet to fully understand these relationships or to identify the specific effects of income, family structure, and public policies on different types of maltreatment (e.g. physical, medical, emotional and the caregiving environment). Fur- thermore, economic models of child maltreatment have only recently begun to be developed and tested. 0190-7409/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.017 E-mail address: LBerger@Princeton.edu (L.M. Berger). www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth Children and Youth Services Review 26 (2004) 725 – 748