1. Objectifs

Intentions :
This «study addressed the challenge of measuring CR [community readiness] for child maltreatment prevention, while capturing the essence of this multidimensional construct […]. Its purpose, both psychometric and descriptive, was operationalized by the following objectives: [T]o provide further validation and propose an alternative use for the RAP-CM [Readiness Assessment for the Prevention of Child Maltreatment]— short version at the scale of the community in Canada, a high-income country. [T]o illustrate the utility of this alternative with a description of some dimensions of CR for child maltreatment prevention in four communities [and to] explore the relationship between some dimensions of CR and inter-agency collaboration in these communities.» (p. 302)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Authors «administered a mail survey in four urban/suburban health catchment areas in the province of Québec, Canada. This survey was the first step in a research program evaluating a strategy for child maltreatment prevention using Triple P. Communities with a large population of 0-to 17-year-old children (12,000–20,000) as well as indicators of families’ vulnerability (high poverty rate and/or high child maltreatment reporting rates) were targeted. […] The resulting nonprobability sample consisted of 276 respondents: 222 service providers and 54 supervisors/managers from 35 different organizations.» (p. 302)

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«The results of this study suggest that […] the validity of a measure of CR for child maltreatment prevention can be affected by the “key” character of the informants participating in the survey. A key informant has a good level of knowledge about the community, knows how the problem manifests itself, is aware of the measures put in place at the local level to counter these manifestations, and is informed regarding the political and economic context framing local action. […] Moreover, the alternative “lack of knowledge of the environment” score suggested in this study could itself constitute an indicator of CR. Indeed, when a high number of actors in the field have only a cursory and imprecise knowledge of the existing leverages and resources for preventing child maltreatment, it is difficult to conclude that they are collectively ready to take action to this end. […] In the four communities under study here, our survey revealed that between one quarter and one half of actors working in child and family services did not know: [h]ow much of a priority child maltreatment prevention was in their community, [h]ow intensive communication efforts concerning child maltreatment prevention had been, [w]hat expertise was available to prevent child maltreatment, and [w]hat level of mobilization they could count on among informal social resources.» (p. 312-313)