Responding to child maltreatment:
Comparison between the USA and China
Yanfeng Xu, Charlotte Lyn Bright,
Haksoon Ahn
School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore,
MD, USA
Key words: child abuse, child neglect, child protection, social
welfare policy, international comparisons, Chinese child
welfare, US child welfare
Yanfeng Xu, School of Social Work, University of Maryland,
525 W. Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA,
E-mail: yanfeng.xu@ssw.umaryland.edu
Accepted for publication August 11, 2017
Xu Y., Bright C.L., Ahn H. Responding to child maltreat-
ment: Comparison between the USA and China
A recent study estimated that over one-fourth of Chinese
children have suffered maltreatment (Fang et al., 2015).
However, the current child welfare policy in China is limited to
orphans, abandoned children, and children with disabilities.
Also, there is very little comparative research in China on
Chinese and other countries’child welfare systems. The
purpose of this study was to analyze applicable US and
Chinese child welfare policies, identify gaps in Chinese policy
regarding child maltreatment, and make recommendations for a
policy agenda for improving child welfare in China based on
cultural values and existing policy structures. Results show that
China has considerable capacity to make improvements in
child protective services, foster care, and adoption policies.
Based on the results of this study, several implications are
provided to develop China’s child maltreatment policy to
increase children’s outcomes of well-being, safety, and
permanency.
Key Practitioner Message: ·To understand the background and
system of current Chinese child maltreatment policy; ·To
review US child maltreatment policy and its implementation to
identify gaps in the Chinese child maltreatment system; ·To
provide policy suggestions to develop Chinese child
maltreatment policy and provide recommendations for social
work education and practice in China.
Introduction
China, one of the largest countries in the world, has
almost 400 million children under the age of 18
(National Bureau of Statistics of PRC, 2010). A
recent systematic review estimated that 26.6% of
Chinese children have suffered physical abuse, 19.6%
emotional abuse, 8.7% sexual abuse, and 26% neglect
(Fang et al., 2015). Although China has experienced
rapid economic growth, increasing urbanization, and
tremendous social transformations in recent decades,
social welfare policies and programs to respond to
these changes have not been developed. This gap
between economic growth and social welfare is evi-
dent in the shortcomings of the current child maltreat-
ment policies in China (Chan, 2012). The main focus
of the Chinese child welfare policy has been on sup-
porting orphans and international adoption policy
(Ministry of Civil Affairs of PRC, 2015). However,
recently there has been growing attention to child
maltreatment issues in China (Zhang, 2013). A partic-
ularly high-risk population is a group of ‘left-behind’
children who remain in rural areas with family mem-
bers when their parents migrate to urban regions
(Biao, 2007). The All-China Women’s Federation
(2013) reported that the number of children left
behind in China exceeds 61 million. The mental and
physical health of these children who are left behind
is of serious concern (Fan, Fang, Liu, & Liu, 2009;
Fan & Sang, 2006; Hu, Lu, & Huang, 2014).
The purpose of this study was to examine the
context of Chinese child maltreatment policy and
make suggestions for improving well-being, safety,
and permanency outcomes for children and families
in China. Specifically, this study examined the US’s
well-established child welfare policy in the areas of
child protective services, family and kinship foster
care, and adoption, to inform development of child
protection policy and services in China. In regard to
China’s child protection policy in this study, this
term includes short-term protective policies (general
policies applicable to child welfare) and long-term
protective policies (foster care policy and adoption
policy). Based on the existing capacity in the USA,
this study contributes to identifying critical issues and
needs of the child protection system in China and
provides recommendations to develop and implement
effective Chinese child maltreatment policies.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
SOCIAL WELFARE
ISSN 1369-6866
DOI: 10.1111/ijsw.12287
Int J Soc Welfare 2017:00:1–14
Comparative studies of child welfare systems between
the USA and China
A small number of studies, published in Chinese,
have compared Chinese and US child welfare poli-
cies. Dong and Wang (2011) conducted a compara-
tive study between these two countries in terms of
their history, current status, and trend. The present
study has used instead a broad definition of child
welfare, including children’s educational, medical,
survival, protection, and developmental rights, with
no explicit focus on child maltreatment. The study
found that China has no specific or independent child
welfare policy, the current Chinese child welfare poli-
cies lack authority and are dispersed among multiple
documents, the child welfare policy structure is
incomplete, and the fragmentation of responsible gov-
ernment departments affects the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of policy implementation (Dong & Wang,
2011).
Gao (2015) compared the implementation of child
protective policy in the USA and China from a social
organizational development perspective in order to
explore ways to develop child welfare policy in
China. Gao (2015) found that the barriers to enacting
child welfare policies in China include fragmentation,
malfunctioning, and a lack of coordination among the
many governmental and non-governmental organiza-
tions responsible for children’s policy implementa-
tion. Gao (2015) suggested that improving child
welfare policy implementation in China would
require strengthening intergovernmental relationships
and developing functional organizations.
Qiao and Xie (2013) compared the foster care pol-
icy of China with that of the USA and found differ-
ences between the two countries in types of youth in
foster care, foster care services, foster family recruit-
ment and evaluation, values-driving policy, and the
system for implementing policy. They also found
several common points, such as the interruption and/
or change of placements, the education of foster care
youth, and the capacity for foster care services (Qiao
& Xie, 2013). The authors recommended establishing
an indigenous Chinese child welfare philosophy and
institutions, developing a long-term foster care sys-
tem, broadening the targets of foster care, strengthen-
ing cooperation between government and social
organizations, clarifying social workers’role in foster
care, and forming a scientific evaluation system.
The remaining existing literature has focused on
future directions for Chinese child welfare. Some of
the articles have introduced American child welfare
services, child welfare legislation, and foster care,
respectively (Hu, 2011; Man & Barth, 2015; Shen &
Cai, 2013; Wang, 2010), and developed overall rec-
ommendations for Chinese child welfare policies.
These are: enact a specialized child protection law
(Dong & Wang, 2011; Hu, 2011; Shen & Cai, 2013);
establish an independent child welfare department
(Dong & Wang, 2011; Hu, 2011; Wang, 2010); and
develop cooperation between the government and
social organizations (Man & Barth, 2015). Additional
studies have articulated and analyzed the current
child welfare framework and legislation in China,
and pointed out future directions; for instance, to
establish a mandatory reporting system (Huang et al.,
2015; Liu, 2015), promote child welfare legislative
processes (Huang et al., 2015), and establish guardi-
anship rules and regulations (Cheng, 2014; Huang
et al., 2015; Li, 2007; Zhang, 2013; Zheng & Guo,
2011).
In summary, there is little existing research
describing child maltreatment policy in China, and
comparative studies between child welfare systems in
the USA and China have been limited to specific
areas. With the present study a significant gap in the
existing literature has been addressed in that it has
compared the two countries’child protection systems,
has examined current Chinese child welfare policy
responses to child maltreatment, and has provided
implications for the development of child maltreat-
ment policies and services in China based on existing
Chinese values and structure, with the intention of
informing policy implementation in areas that align
with child welfare policy in the USA.
Methods
A critical review and analysis of literature and policy
documents in the USA and China was conducted.
Chinese publications until 2015 were searched
through the China National Knowledge Infrastructure
(CNKI) database by using these terms: child welfare
policy, China and US child welfare policy compari-
son, child protection, foster care, adoption. Also,
original Chinese policy texts regarding child welfare
in the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the State Council,
and other government websites were examined and
their provisions applied to child maltreatment.
Additional literature searches were conducted on US
child welfare policies, and both US and Chinese child
welfare research published in English in the EBSCO-
host and Scopus databases. We identified relevant
published and unpublished literature, including
articles, chapters, books, policy documents, and laws,
through the search strategies detailed above. We ana-
lyzed this literature through a country-specific lens, as
articulated by Zhao, H€
am€
al€
ainen, and Chen (2017).
Specifically, we focused on policy development in
the USA and China, in the area of child welfare. We
limited our scope to literature relevant to both coun-
tries in terms of potential cultural congruence, rather
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd2
than encompassing all child welfare policy develop-
ment in both countries. This study’s purpose was to
identify and focus attention on areas of child mal-
treatment policy that align with Chinese cultural val-
ues and Chinese existing policy structure. Thus, the
context of child welfare policy, child protective serv-
ices, foster care, and adoption were examined to
compare the US and Chinese policies in response to
child maltreatment. This study points at those policy
recommendations that are most likely to be imple-
mented, given the existing structure and cultural val-
ues in China, rather than create a complete child
welfare system mirroring that of the USA.
Child welfare policy context comparison
Context of US child welfare policy
The USA has a long history of formal child protec-
tion, dating back to 1875 and the establishment of
the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Children (NYSPCC). As professional social work
emerged in the USA, child protection came into a
new era from 1875 to 1962 (Myers, 2004). This is
similar to the current situation in China, where organ-
izations have no legal authority to intervene in child
maltreatment, but there are some pioneering profes-
sional organizations and private agencies active in
these endeavors. Since 1962, child protection in the
USA has become systematized, guided by federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, a hierarchical
child welfare system, and a large workforce (Myers,
2004).
In response to child maltreatment, US child wel-
fare policies guide various services, such as child
protective services, foster care, independent living,
adoption, and in-home services. This study intro-
duced child protective policy, foster care, and adop-
tion policies in approximate order of system response
in order to frame a view of the US child welfare pol-
icy system. As China currently does not have this
level of policy and agency capacity, introducing US
child welfare policy is a valuable guide for develop-
ing China’s response to child maltreatment.
Context of Chinese child welfare policy
Compared with the USA, China has a relatively less-
developed child welfare policy and service system,
especially for maltreated children. However, China
has a long history of child welfare policy and practice
in specific areas. China has been a signatory to the
United Nations’Convention on the Rights of Child
since the 1990s, and has enacted three 10-year plans
of child development. The primary foci of these plans
encompass children’s survival, children’s health, edu-
cation, legal protection, and protection for some of
the most vulnerable children. Specifically, policies for
responding to the abandonment of children, orphans,
and children with disabilities have long been on the
agenda of the government (State Council of PRC,
1992, 2001, 2011). However, attention to child mal-
treatment policy is limited, for several reasons. The
first is the predominant cultural view that children are
essentially the property of the family. This view is
deeply rooted in Confucian philosophy, which sup-
ports punishment-oriented child-rearing practices
(Chan, 2012; Ji & Finkelhor, 2015). A related consid-
eration stems from the Confucian ideal of family har-
mony. Because of the primacy of family harmony as
a Chinese value, child maltreatment is considered
shameful and is kept private. This secrecy limits the
ability of the public sector to intervene, even if it had
the authority to do so.
The second reason for China’s limited role in
securing child welfare is the relationship between the
family and the state. Traditional cultural norms
emphasize the stronger role of the family and the
weaker role of the state when dealing with family
and children issues (Wang, 2012). A prevailing belief
is that children should be protected within the family,
including the extended family (Fong, 1997). Shang
(2008) found that extended families, especially pater-
nal extended families, play important roles in child
financial support and child care in rural China.
The Chinese government assumes responsibility
only for those children who lack parental care,
including abandoned children, street children, and
orphans (Bow, 2012), and the government provides
orphan care as a means of social control (Liu & Zhu,
2009). Since foster care was introduced in China in
the 1990s, institutional foster care and home foster
care are also provided for some orphans (Liu & Zhu,
2009). In recent years, the state has aimed to estab-
lish a modestly inclusive child welfare system for all
children (Social Welfare and Charity Affairs Promo-
tion Division of PRC, 2013), and has increased atten-
tion to the de facto orphans whose parents have no
ability to take care of their children (Shang & Dou,
2014).
Third, this limited child protection policy reflects
the overall political strategy of the Chinese govern-
ment. Despite a strong belief in social harmony, child
maltreatment is considered separate from this value
as it occurs inside the family (Qiao & Xie, 2015a).
Furthermore, China’s political emphasis on social har-
mony does not expand much into human rights (Qiao
& Xie, 2015a).
Last, Chinese child maltreatment may have been
overlooked as a social issue due to the previously
underdeveloped economy. In recent years, however,
China has reached a more continuous level of eco-
nomic growth and stability. This shift may allow the
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 3
state to dedicate more resources in responding to
child maltreatment.
In addition to economic development, media cov-
erage, and widespread attention given to two tragic
child maltreatment cases resulting in six child fatal-
ities (Investigation of four left-behind children who
committed suicide at home in Bijie, Guizhou, China,
2015; The children starved to death at home in
Nanjing, 2013) aroused public sympathy and led to a
call to develop a systematic set of policies and serv-
ices to promote child rights, well-being, and safety.
At this stage in its development, China may be ready
to apply lessons from other countries’child maltreat-
ment policies to the Chinese context.
Child protective policy comparison
Child protective policy in the USA
The USA enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974, officially making
child maltreatment a national public concern by iden-
tifying the federal role in supporting states’preven-
tion, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and
treatment activities (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2012). This policy guides child protection
services by clarifying the state’s power and authority
and the rights of child welfare-involved parents and
children. In addition, CAPTA mandates reporting
suspected child abuse or neglect to certain professio-
nals, such as social workers, educators, and health
professionals (Mathews & Kenny, 2008).
CAPTA also details the process of responding to
reports of maltreatment. A child’s risk and safety are
assessed in this process. Generally speaking, if a case
is determined to have no or low risk of maltreatment,
then it may be closed at any stage. If the risk level is
from low to moderate, then the case may be referred
to community-based or voluntary in-home child wel-
fare services. If the case risk reaches a moderate to
high level, then the family may be offered voluntary
in-home services or mandatory, court-ordered serv-
ices. Ideally, parents will be provided with appropri-
ate treatment and support (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2012).
Importantly, CAPTA’s 2010 amendment provides
a global definition of child abuse and neglect: ‘‘Any
recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or
caretaker which results in death, serious physical or
emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an
act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk
of serious harm’’ (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, 2010). However, the operational
definition of child abuse and neglect varies by state
and the types of harm that constitute each form of
child maltreatment may be defined or labeled
differently (Committee on Child Maltreatment
Research, Policy, and Practice for the Next Decade,
2004).
Chinese child protective legislation and policies
Chinese legislation has national, provincial, and local
levels (Chan, 2012). Due to the variation of provin-
cial and local policies, this study focused primarily
on national level legislation and policies.
Articles of six laws cover child maltreatment at
the national level:
1. Article 49 of the Constitution Law of the People’s
Republic of China expressly prohibits child mal-
treatment (National People’s Congress of PRC,
2004).
2. Article 10 of the Law of the People’s Republic of
China on the Protection of Minors forbids such
behavior as violence against children, child maltreat-
ment, child abandonment, and infanticide (Standing
Committee of the National People’s Congress of
PRC, 2012b).
3. Article 38 of the national policy on the Protection of
Women’s Rights and Interests forbids infanticide
and child abandonment as well as prohibiting dis-
crimination against children with disabilities and
female children (Standing Committee of the
National People’s Congress of PRC, 2005).
4. Article 41 of the Law of the People’s Republic of
China on Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency desig-
nates several departments as responsible for
responding to allegations of child abuse and provid-
ing child protection (Standing Committee of the
National People’s Congress of PRC, 2012a).
5. Article 260 of the Criminal Law of the People’s
Republic of China allows for the punishment of per-
petrators, including imprisonment and community
surveillance of offenders (Standing Committee of
the National People’s Congress of PRC, 2015b).
6. In December 2015, the Anti-domestic Violence Law
was passed with the aim of preventing family vio-
lence (Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress of PRC, 2015a).
Four national child welfare policies have recently
been enacted. First, Opinions of the General Office of
the State Council on Strengthening Orphan Security
(2010) is a milestone for Chinese child maltreatment
policy because it provides cash subsidies to orphans,
which underlines the authority of the state in inter-
vening when the biological or extended family cannot
sufficiently care for the child (Shang, 2011). Second,
Ministry of Civil Affairs on the Start of a Modest
Inclusive Model of Child Welfare System Construc-
tion (2013) defined vulnerable children and children
in vulnerable families, expanding the scope of those
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd4
considered to be at the highest risk of maltreatment,
including disabled children, medically fragile chil-
dren, street children, and those children whose
parents are incarcerated, abuse substances, are seri-
ously ill, severely disabled, impoverished, or unable
to maintain custody. Third, Notice of the Ministry of
Civil Affairs on Carrying Out the Pilot Work of the
Second Batch of the National Social Protection of the
Minor (2014b) emphasizes strengthening monitoring
and prevention; building a maltreatment reporting
system for teachers, doctors, community workers, and
relatives; and providing interventions to vulnerable
children and families. Last, the newly enacted policy,
The State Council on Further Strengthening the Pro-
tection of Left-behind Children in Rural China, went
into effect in February 2016 (State Council of PRC,
2016). This policy emphasizes preventing maltreat-
ment of left-behind children.
In addition to these pieces of legislation, there are
three 10-year National Programs of Action for Child
Development (NPACD), with dates from 1992 to
2020 (State Council of PRC, 1992, 2001, 2011). The
child welfare section of the 2011–2020 children’s
development plan mentions policies for orphans, left-
behind children, street children, children with disabil-
ities, children who are affected by HIV, and children
whose parents are in prison (State Council of PRC,
2011). The plan is aimed at establishing more sys-
tematic responses to raising and providing services to
orphans, as well as establishing services for street
children, children who move from rural to urban
regions, and left-behind children. The two most
recent NPACD texts note that they are aimed at pro-
tecting the most vulnerable children and children’s
rights in accordance with the United Nations’Con-
vention on the Rights of the Child.
As this policy review reveals, a great deal of
attention has been paid to the needs of particularly
vulnerable subgroups of youth. Although policy
implementation has focused on these needy groups,
policy does exist to prevent and respond to child
maltreatment in the broader population (e.g., laws
prohibiting violence against children). In most cases,
these policies are not applied to child maltreatment.
Specific areas of need include the lack of a common
definition of child maltreatment, the focus on physi-
cal abuse but not on neglect (see Chan, 2012, for an
in-depth discussion on cultural traditions that
emphasize responding to abuse over neglect), and
no clear mandate for reporting child maltreatment
(Liu, 2015; Shang & Zhang, 2008). For example,
the Anti-Domestic Violence Law requires educators,
health providers, social workers, community commit-
tee, and village committee members to report domes-
tic violence. It is the first mention of mandatory
reporting in Chinese law, but there is no specific
guidance about reporting procedures. A community
or police official will be assigned to respond to alle-
gations, which allows for penalties but not for serv-
ices or assistance. This dissonance between written
policy and accepted practice presents an opportunity,
then, for China to more fully develop its existing
child welfare policy with a view to promoting the
well-being of all children and implementing practices
ranging from child protective services to out-of-home
care in response to the needs of maltreated children.
Table 1 provides an overview of US child protec-
tive policy and current Chinese policies, including
some existing legislation and policies that can be
applied to child protection.
Definition and mandated reporting of child
maltreatment in China
China has not implemented any overarching defini-
tion of child abuse and neglect. Generally, the defini-
tion of child maltreatment should take into account
cultural variations in the value placed on children,
children’s ages and capabilities, and beliefs about
developmental stages of children, child-rearing practices,
and societal circumstances (Agathonos-Georgopoulou,
1992; Lansford et al., 2005; Raman & Hodes, 2012).
Chinese parents place high value on children’s
achievement (Zhai & Gao, 2009); also they are likely
to treat children as their private property and believe
that parents have the right to use the most effective
approach to teach children (Qiao & Xie, 2015b).
Thus, Chinese society has a high tolerance toward
physical punishment, which is a culturally acceptable
discipline strategy (Fong, 1997; Lau, Liu, Cheung,
Yu, & Wong, 1999; Qiao & Xie, 2015b). Neglect is
difficult to define and operationalize even in the USA
(Schumacher, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). Poverty is a
major threat to many Chinese children, especially in
rural areas, and must be disentangled from willful
child neglect. Neglect is understood to be uninten-
tional and caused by ignorance in Chinese perception
(Liao, Lee, Roberts-Lewis, Hong, & Jiao, 2011).
Cultural values, the community standard of caring,
parental behavioral and psychological characteristics,
and low socioeconomic status may contribute to or
be conflated with neglect (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2012; Schumacher et al., 2001). Although
there is no clear definition of child maltreatment in
Chinese relevant texts of laws and regulations and
previous related Chinese studies, this study has
defined child maltreatment policy in China as govern-
ment policy to investigate and provide services for
child physical abuse, sexual abuse, and intentional
child neglect, all of which could result in temporary
or permanent impairment of children’s physical, men-
tal, or psychological development or death. The
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 5
Table 1. US and China child protective policy.
USA China
Policy Target Implication Policy Target Application to child welfare
Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) (1974)
US children and
their families
A key piece of child protective
legislation.
Guides child protection work
by clarifying the state’s
power and authority in child
protection, and the rights of
child welfare-involved
parents and children.
Establishes the office on
Child Abuse and Neglect
Constitution of the People’s Republic
of China (2004 Amendment)
Chinese citizens Prohibits child maltreatment.
Law of the People’s Republic of China
on the Protection of Women’s Rights
and Interests (2005 Amendment)
Domestic violence victims
and perpetrators
Forbids infanticide and child
abandonment, discrimination
against children with disabilities
and female children.
Law of the People’s Republic of China
on the Protection of Minors (2012
Amendment)
Criminal offenders Forbids violence against children,
child maltreatment, child
abandonment, and infanticide.
Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) (2010
Amendment)
Provides a global definition of
child abuse and neglect.
Mandates reporting sus-
pected child abuse or neglect
for some professionals, like
social workers, educators,
and health professionals
Details the process of
responding to reports of
maltreatment, covering
investigation, screening, and
substantiation.
Law of the People’s Republic of China
on Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
(2012 Amendment)
Minors Designates several departments as
responsible for responding to
allegations of child abuse and
providing child protection.
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic
of China (2015 Amendment)
Women and children Allows for punishment of
perpetrators, including
imprisonment and community
surveillance of offenders.
Anti-domestic Violence Law (2015) Juveniles Protects children from violence in
the home.
The three ten-year National Programs
of Action for Child Development
(NPACD) (1992–2020)
Children Provides plans to benefit children,
especially the most vulnerable
children.
Opinions of the General Office of the
State Council on Strengthening
Orphan Security (2010)
Orphans Encourages different placement
arrangements for orphans: kinship
care, congregate care (orphanage),
foster care, and adoption.
Ministry of Civil Affairs on the Start of
a Modest Inclusive Model of Child
Welfare System Construction (2013)
Children, especially
vulnerable children
Defines the highest risk children
who need authority interventions:
vulnerable children and children in
those vulnerable families
Notice of the Ministry of Civil Affairs on
Carrying Out the Pilot Work of the
Second Batch of the National Social
Protection of the Minors (2014)
Vulnerable children Strengthens monitor and prevention
system; builds report system for
teachers, doctors, community
workers, and relatives; and
provides interventions to
vulnerable children and families.
State Council on Further Strengthening
the Protection of Left-behind Children
in Rural China (2016)
Left-behind children
in rural China
Protects left-behind children in rural
China from child maltreatment.
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd6
definition of child abuse and neglect is bound by cul-
tural context, so direct cross-national comparisons of
this concept are very difficult (Ahn et al., 2017).
Rather than recommending that China import a defi-
nition of child abuse and neglect from another coun-
try, such as the USA, we suggest that the
development of a culturally relevant definition is a
critical step to building child welfare policy in China.
For example, Chinese child physical abuse should
not include appropriate physical discipline, and
neglect should exclude unintentional harm caused by
low economic status, lack of resources, ignorance,
and community culture regarding health and educa-
tion practices.
Beyond defining child maltreatment, the system for
reporting suspected maltreatment needs to be more
clearly determined in China. This is the first critical
step for establishing the government’s authority to
intervene in family issues (Katz, Shang, & Zhang,
2011). The Anti-domestic Violence Law, effective in
March2016,representsastepinthedirectionofthe
mandatory report, as described earlier. China can bene-
fit from the USA example by mandating the reporting
of suspected child maltreatment for educators, social
workers, and health care providers.
Administration of child welfare policies and services
in China
Establishment of an independently responsible depart-
ment for responding to child maltreatment allegations
is also important to implement child welfare policy
and services in China. One of CAPTA’s contributions
was to establish the Office on Child Abuse and
Neglect (U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, 2010). Regardless of whether the agency
rests with national, provincial, or municipal author-
ities, establishing an independent child welfare
department in China is significant and urgent (Dong
& Wang, 2011; Gao, 2015; Hu, 2011; Shen & Cai,
2013; Wang, 2010) as a basic element of its child
protection system upon which other structures and
systems can build (Katz et al., 2011).
Critical to implementation of child maltreatment
policy is the development of a cooperative climate
with other government agencies, especially the court
system, in order to handle such issues as termination
of parents’rights and transfers of custody and guardi-
anship. The US child welfare system has multiple
levels of cooperation with family courts in matters
including investigation, removal, foster care, and
adoption. Without court support, child protection
workers lack the authority to intervene in family
issues and order alternative, out-of-home care when
necessary. Meanwhile, creating a comprehensive
alternative custody and guardianship system is a
necessary step to further develop the child protection
system (Cheng, 2014; Zhang, 2013). Transferring or
terminating parental rights, custody, and guardianship
due to child maltreatment is a significant but cur-
rently non-existent component of child protection
policy and practice in China.
Foster care policy comparison
US foster care policy
Foster care is any out-of-home living arrangement,
including kinship care, state-licensed family foster
homes, therapeutic foster homes, group care, residen-
tial treatment centers, and youth emergency shelters
(Berrick, 1998). The targets of foster care placement
are primarily maltreated children, but also include
children with behavior and/or emotional problems,
children with special health or developmental needs,
children from substance abusing families, and chil-
dren from families who have experienced domestic
violence (Pecora et al., 2009b).
Foster care policy in the US dates back to the first
White House Conference on Children in 1909, but in
its modern form stems from the Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act of 1980, which promotes per-
manency planning for all children in out-of-home
care and for children at risk of removal from their
homes (McCallister, Harper, & Drake, 2015), as
well as the Family Preservation and Family Support
Service Program which guarantees additional funding
for preventive and crisis services for children and
families at risk of entering the foster care system
(McCallister et al., 2015). The Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 highlights the principle that
foster care is temporary and focuses attention on
decreasing time in foster care by increasing support
for family reunification or, alternatively, terminating
parental rights to allow for the adoption of children
who will not be returning to their former homes. In
2008, the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act was enacted, which sup-
ports relative care, promotes co-location of siblings,
mandates transition plans, and focuses on improving
young adult outcomes by extending foster care serv-
ices up to the age of 21.
Chinese foster care policy
The Family Foster Care Administration Approach
(2014) is the only national policy regarding foster
care in China (Ministry of Civil Affairs of PRC,
2014a). Currently, fostered children under this policy
include orphans, abandoned infants and youth, and
street children, whose temporary custody belongs to
the Minor Protection and Rescue Institutions.
Severely disabled children without parents who
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 7
require substantial medical and educational services
tend to be served in facilities rather than in family
foster homes.
China currently utilizes family foster care and
agency foster care (Liu & Zhu, 2009; Qiao & Xie,
2013). Existing policy dictates required qualifications
for foster families and procedures for foster parent
application, training, and contracting. In agency care,
staff from a social services agency establish a family-
like setting with several children, with the intention
of providing individualized services (Liu & Zhu,
2009). Table 2 provides an overview of current
Chinese and US foster care policy. The comparison
allows us to identify gaps and needs of the Chinese
foster care policy and to recommend the establish-
ment of a more comprehensive foster care system in
China to address children’s safety and well-being.
Compared with US foster care policy, China is
restrictive in eligibility for foster care. There are no
safe and temporary alternative homes for maltreated
children. Critical steps to improve and expand upon
foster care in China may include the implementation
of formal and informal kinship care and expanding
recruitment efforts in order to motivate Chinese fami-
lies to serve as non-relative foster parents.
China has a familism tradition that the best family
relationship is one in which three generations stay under
one roof (Fong, 1997). Even as families become more
and more nuclear, in both rural and urban regions
grandparents continue to support the core family in
taking care of grandchildren (Hu, Burton, & Lonne,
2016; Katz et al., 2011; Shen, 2013). Grandparents are
the primary kin caregivers when parents are not avail-
able (Hu et al., 2016), mostly due to parents’work
schedules. From the culture and tradition perspective,
formal and informal kinship care have great potential to
develop in China. What is needed is a policy for
addressing such issues as professional management,
licensing, subsidies, and effective monitoring.
Regarding non-kinship foster care, the greatest chal-
lenge in China may be motivating Chinese parents to
foster. Research on motivations to foster has deter-
mined that child-centeredness is primary (De Maeyer,
Vanderfaeillie, Vanschoonlandt, Robberechts, &
Van Holen, 2014), for example, the intrinsic and altru-
istic motivators of wanting to make a difference to the
lives of children and a desire to have children in the
home (MacGregor, Rodger, Cummings, & Leschied,
2006). Research on Chinese foster parents is consistent
with international findings. Being foster parents or par-
ticipating in foster care activities is a rational choice
for families who have time and when the care model
is child-centered (Wu, Han, & Gao, 2005). However,
the need for foster care is greater than the number of
foster families (Rodger, Cummings, & Leschied, 2006;
Zhang, 2016), and family foster care remains rare in
China (Zhang, 2016). Furthermore, motivation to foster
is associated with religious beliefs in the USA
(Howell-Moroney, 2014). Most Chinese do not sub-
scribe to any specific religion, which may make foster
parent recruitment that much more difficult.
Adoption policy comparison
US adoption policy
There are four primary pieces of legislation that have
governed adoption policy in the USA. They are the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
(AACWA), Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA),
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and Multiethnic
Placement Act (MEPA) (Pecora et al., 2009a). In this
study, we have focused primarily on AACWA and
ASFA. AACWA aimed to provide a permanent fam-
ily for foster children, and also support families
Table 2. US and China foster care policy.
USA China
Policy Target Implication Policy Target Implication
Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act
(AACWA) (1980)
Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA)
(1997)
Fostering Connections
to Success and
Increasing Adoptions
Act (2008)
Maltreated children,
children with behavior
and/or emotional
problems, children
with special health or
developmental needs,
children from multi-
problem families
Promotes permanency
planning for all
children in out of
home care and for
children at-risk of
removal from their
homes
Highlights foster care
is temporary and
increases support for
family reunification or
adoption
Extends foster care
services to 21 years
old.
Family Foster Care
Administration
Approach (2014)
Orphans, abandoned
infants or children,
and children with a
disability
Provides foster
homes to orphans,
abandoned infants
and youth, and street
children whose
temporary custody
belongs to the Minor
Protection and
Rescue Institutions.
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd8
whose adopted children had special needs by provid-
ing financial incentives (Myers, 2004). However, the
speed of family reunification did not keep pace with
the increasing number of youth in foster care during
the 1980s and 1990s, making permanency outcomes
difficult to achieve and causing youth to languish in
care (Phillips & Mann, 2013). In this context, the
ASFA was enacted in 1997 and sought to reduce the
length of stay in foster care, while simultaneously
encouraging adoption by incentive payments. ASFA
also promoted concurrent planning (i.e., simultaneous
plans to guide the future of a youth continuing in
care and reuniting with family), and the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program (which aims to
protect children from maltreatment, ensure that chil-
dren can remain at home or in foster care safely, and
encourage reunification and adoption; Phillips &
Mann, 2013). Additionally, in the US context, adop-
tion from foster care is prevalent partly because
orphanages no longer exist (Pecora et al., 2009c).
Chinese adoption policy
Multiple policies address adoption in China: the
Adoption Law of the People’s Republic of China
(Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress of PRC, 1998), Measures for Registration of
Adoption of Children by Chinese Citizens (Ministry of
Civil Affairs of PRC, 1999a), and Measures for
Registration of Adoption of Children by Foreigners
with the People’s Republic of China (Ministry of Civil
Affairs of PRC, 1999b). In Article 4 of the Adoption
Law, it is noted that children under the age of 14 may
be adopted if they fall into one of the following catego-
ries: ‘‘(1) orphans bereaved of parents; (2) abandoned
infants or children whose parents cannot be ascertained
or found; or (3) children whose parents are unable to
rear them due to unusual difficulties.’’ Adopters are
required to meet the following requirements: ‘‘(1)
childless; (2) capable of rearing and educating the
adoptee; (3) suffering no such disease as is medically
regarded as unfit for adopting a child; and (4) having
reached the age of 30’’ (Article 6). If adopters are rela-
tives, or the adopted children are orphans, abandoned
infants or children, or the family is overseas Chinese,
then the family can waive some adoption requirements.
However, ‘‘if an adopter fails to perform the duty of
rearing the adoptee or commits maltreatment, abandon-
ment, or other acts of encroachment upon the lawful
rights of the minor adopted child, the person having
placed the child for adoption shall have the right to
demand termination of the adoptive relationship’’
(Article 26).
As with foster care policy, adoption policy in
China targets orphans, abandoned infants or children
whose parents cannot be ascertained or found, and
children with a disability. In order to provide for the
needs of all children, current policy could become
inclusive of maltreated children in families where
parental rights have been terminated, according to the
principles of permanency and children’s best interests.
Table 3 compares the current Chinese and US
adoption policy.
Future directions for child welfare in China
China has a number of policies regarding children’s
safety and permanence, but they have not yet been
implemented with respect to child maltreatment. The
primary focus has been on orphans, youth with
disabilities, and abandoned or street children. China
does not have a specificdefinition of child abuse and
neglect, and as we discussed earlier, the definition
should be culturally responsive and different from
western countries’definition. However, the USA has
tremendous policy and practice experience in child
protection, which would be a great reference for
China to develop child maltreatment policy.
Table 3. US and China adoption policy.
USA China
Policy Target Implication Policy Target Implication
Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act
(AACWA) (1980)
Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA)
(1997)
Children in
foster care
Encourages adoption by
incentive payments
Provides a permanent
family for foster chil-
dren, and also support
families whose adopted
children had special
needs by providing
financial incentives
Promotes concurrent
planning and the Pro-
moting Safe and Stable
Families program
Adoption Law of the
People’s Republic of
China (1998
Amendment)
Measures for Registra-
tion of Adoption of Chil-
dren by Chinese Citizens
(1999)
Measures for Registra-
tion of Adoption of Chil-
dren by Foreigners with
the People’s Republic of
China (1999)
Orphans, abandoned
infants or children,
and children with a
disability
Targeted at orphans,
abandoned infants or
children whose
parents cannot be
ascertained or found,
and children with a
disability nationally
and internationally.
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 9
Research has examined the effectiveness of US
child welfare policy to achieve safety, permanency,
and well-being goals. Many studies have indicated
that the highest risk families are those where the
parents display criminal behavior, substance use,
mental illness, or intimate partner violence, and
where the children display mental and behavior prob-
lems (Duggan et al., 2004; Stith et al., 2009). These
results provide solid evidence for Chinese child pro-
tection policy, that is, policy should put these fami-
lies first to prevent child maltreatment. Recent
Chinese policies are in line with these research find-
ings, which have paid attention to the most vulnera-
ble children and families in the Chinese context, and
are valid starting policies for child protection. These
policies focus on the most vulnerable children and
families, and highlight issues of custody and guardi-
anship, explicitly stating preferences for children to
live with parent(s) if possible and relatives if not,
prohibiting children under 16 to live without adults,
and requiring monitoring by government committees
at multiple levels. More importantly, it establishes a
child protection system for left-behind children,
including mandatory reporting and crisis intervention.
US empirical studies have found that child protective
services decrease the recurrence of child maltreat-
ment, and that the successful implementation of child
protective services is positively associated with serv-
ice attendance, parents’involvement, and a supportive
and respectful relationship between parents and
social workers (DePanfilis & Zuravin, 2002; Girvin,
DePanfilis, & Daining, 2007; Horwitz & Marshall,
2015). Therefore, future Chinese child protective pol-
icy should focus on engaging the family, retaining
the family in services, and improving social workers’
engagement skills.
Regarding Chinese child placement policy when
children are not safe at home, Opinions on Strength-
ening Orphan Security (2010) has offered an example
for out of home care, including kinship care, congre-
gate care, foster care, and adoption. Although it
applies only to orphans at present, the well-
established system can be applied to child protection
more broadly. Large numbers of US studies also pro-
vide strong evidence regarding out of home care.
This research has indicated that foster care is prefera-
ble to congregate care (Kerman, Wildfire, & Barth,
2002). Regarding the outcomes of foster care, numer-
ous studies have found that foster care alumni have
some negative long-term and short-term outcomes,
including involvement with the criminal justice sys-
tem, teen motherhood, mental illness, substance
abuse, low educational achievement, unemployment,
and homelessness (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006;
Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001;
Doyle, 2007; McDonald, 1996). However, some
protective predictors can foster better outcomes, or
example adequate social support, stable placements,
and transition services to independent living (Kerman
et al., 2002; Redding, Fried, & Britner, 2000;
Taussig, 2002).
China should learn from the US experience to
integrate protective components into policy making.
China has a tradition that several generations and
extended families live under one roof, and extended
families have responsibilities in taking care of the
children (Fong, 1997; Shang, 2008). Thus, kinship
care would be a very promising direction of future
Chinese child protection policy. Research in the USA
indicates that children in kinship care have signifi-
cantly fewer placement changes and better outcomes
in child’s safety and well-being (Winokur, Crawford,
Longobardi, & Valentine, 2008). However, research
has also demonstrated that children in kinship care
receive fewer services than those in non-kinship fos-
ter care (Ehrle & Geen, 2002), which reminds China
to provide services to extended families if they
become alternative caregivers.
In the USA, family reunification and adoption are
considered optimal choices for children and their
families (Kerman et al., 2002). Since the USA imple-
mented ASFA in 1997, the numbers in foster care
decreased by more than 150,000 children from 1998
to 2013, but the reunification rate decreased from 60
to 51% as well (Ruggiero, 2015). These data suggest
that Chinese policy should balance biological family
reunification and adoption based on the best interests
of the children. Because of the familism culture,
future Chinese adoption policy should encourage
adoption by relatives and neighbors, rather than
strangers. Also, Chinese adoption policy should
expand the targets of adoption to maltreated children.
Although China has a very promising future for
child protection work, there are some barriers to
implementing a child protective system. However,
these barriers can be overcome because a number of
things position the Chinese as being well-suited to
make policy improvements in child protection. First,
compared with the USA, China does not have a cen-
tral government child welfare department to coordi-
nate all child maltreatment responses. However, large
organizations such as the Communist Youth League,
Women Federations, and the Disabled Federation,
and neighborhood/village committees are resources
that can be utilized in the nascent child protection
system. Second, social work as a profession has
recently re-emerged with the instating of a licensing
examination in 2008 (Ministry of Civil Affairs &
Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of
PRC, 2008). Due to the short history of social work,
China does not have enough qualified social workers
to provide social services. In addition, the Chinese
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd10
government lacks understanding of child maltreat-
ment, but social work practitioners and researchers’
continuous practice and research will promote cultur-
ally responsive evidence-based policy and practice
(Qiao & Xie, 2013; Wang, 2010), and improve the
public’s awareness of child maltreatment. Last,
although Confucian philosophy and familism culture
may be a barrier for the authority to intervene in fam-
ilies, this could change with western pedagogies’
influences in education (Lau, Liu, Yu, & Wong,
1999).
The US’s well-established set of child protection
policies and practices provides China with a reference
to develop a child protection system in its own
context. This study provided some suggestions to
Chinese child welfare policy development. However,
because this study focused attention on child welfare
policy in two countries, we limited our search to
compatible constructs and terms. By doing so, we
may have overlooked literature of particular relevance
to only one of these countries. We encourage policy
makers to carefully consider the local and national
cultural context when implementing new child wel-
fare policy. The future expansion of China’s existing
protections for children will promote safety, perma-
nence, and well-being among many more of the
world’s children.
References
Agathonos-Georgopoulou, H. (1992). Cross-cultural perspec-
tives in child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Review,1(2),
80–88. doi:10.1002/car.2380010204
Ahn, J., Lee, B. J., Kahng, S. K., Kim, H. L., Hwang, O. K.,
Lee, E. J., ... Yoo, Y. S. (2017). Estimating the prevalence
rate of child physical and psychological maltreatment in
South Korea. Child Indicators Research,10(1), 187–203.
doi:10.1007/s12187-016-9369-z
All-China Women’s Federation. (2013).
我国农村留守儿童、
城乡流动儿童状况研究报告
[Research report of left-
behind children and migrant children in rural China].
Chongqing: Southwest China Normal University Press.
Berrick, J. D. (1998). When children cannot remain home:
Foster family care and kinship care. The Future of Children,
8(1), 72–87. doi:10.2307/1602629
Biao, X. (2007). How far are the left-behind left behind? A pre-
liminary study in rural China. Population, Space and Place,
13(3), 179–191. doi:10.1002/psp.437
Bow, L. N. (2012). Developing a child welfare and child protec-
tion system in China: UNICEF support to the government of
China. In K. L. Chan (Ed.), Child protection in chinese
societies: Challenges and policies (pp. 173–208). New
York: Nova Science Publishers.
Chan, K. L. (2012). Child maltreatment in Chinese societies: A
comprehensive review. In K. L. Chan (Ed.), Child protection
in Chinese societies: Challenges and policies (pp. 3–20).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Cheng, F. (2014).
中国儿童保护制度建设论纲
[The frame-
work of Chinese child welfare system construction].
Contemporary Youth Research,5,65–70.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). How the child
welfare system works. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved
from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/cpswork/
Committee on Child Maltreatment Research, Policy, and
Practice for the Next Decade: Phase II, Board on Children,
Youth, and Families, Committee on Law and Justice,
Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council. (2004).
Descripting problems. In A. C. Petersen, J. Joseph, &
M. Feit (Eds.), New directions in child abuse and neglect
research (pp. 32). Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK195985/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK195985.pdf
Courtney, M. E. & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for
young adults transitioning from out of home care in the
USA. Child & Family Social Work,11(3), 209–219.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00433.x
Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A.
(2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal
view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare,80(6), 685–717.
De Maeyer, S., Vanderfaeillie, J., Vanschoonlandt, F.,
Robberechts, M., & Van Holen, F. (2014). Motivation for
foster care. Children and Youth Services Review,36,
143–149. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.003
DePanfilis, D. & Zuravin, S. J. (2002). The effect of services on
the recurrence of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect,
26(2), 187–205. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00316-7
Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). The Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Reauthorization Act of
2010. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/cb/capta2010.pdf
Dong, X. & Wang, C. (2011).
中美儿童福利制度比较研究
[Comparison study between Chinese and American child
welfare regimes]. Contemporary Youth Research,7,24–29.
Doyle, J. J. Jr. (2007). Child protection and child outcomes:
Measuring the effects of foster care. TheAmericanEconomic
Review,97(5), 1583–1610. doi:10.1257/000282807783219698
Duggan, A., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., McFarlane,
E., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a
statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse:
Impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse &
Neglect,28(6), 623–643. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.008
Ehrle, J. & Geen, R. (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care—
Findings from a national survey. Children and Youth
Services Review,24(1), 15–35. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409
(01)00166-9
Fan, F. & Sang, B. (2006).
亲子教育缺失与”留守儿童”人
格、学绩及行为问题
[Absence of parental upbringing and
left-behind children’s personality, academic achievements as
well as behavior problems]. Psychological Science,4,
855–856.
Fan, X., Fang, X., Liu, Q., & Liu, Y. (2009).
流动儿童、留守
儿童与一般儿童社会适应比较研究
[A social adoption
comparison of migrant workers’children, children left
behind, and ordinary children]. Journal of Beijing Normal
University (Social Science Edition),5,33–40.
Fang, X., Fry, D. A., Ji, K., Finkelhor, D., Chen, J., Lannen, P.,
& Dunne, M. P. (2015). The burden of child maltreatment
in China: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization,93(3), 176–185C. doi:10.2471/
BLT.14.140970
Fong, R. (1997). Child welfare practice with Chinese families:
Assessment issues for immigrants from the People’s Repub-
lic of China. Journal of Family Social Work,2(1), 33–47.
doi:10.1300/J039v02n01_03
Gao, X. (2015).
政策相关组织的组织化程度对社会政策制度
的影响——以比较中美干预儿童虐待政策为基础的分析
[The impact of the organizational degree of the policies
related to the organizations on social policy making: A
study based on the analysis of comparing the intervention
on child abuse policy between the U.S. and China].
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 11
Dongyue Tribune,36(3), 10–15. doi:10.15981/j.cnki.
dongyueluncong.2015.03.003
General Office of the State Council of People’s Republic of
China [PRC]. (2010).
国务院办公厅关于加强孤儿保障工
作的意见
[Opinions of the General Office of the State
Council on Strengthening Orphan Security]. Retrieved from
http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/zwgk/fvfg/shsw/201011/
20101100114958.shtml
Girvin, H., DePanfilis, D., & Daining, C. (2007). Predicting pro-
gram completion among families enrolled in a child neglect
preventive intervention. Research on Social Work Practice,
17(6), 674–685. doi:10.1177/1049731507300285
Horwitz, M. & Marshall, T. (2015). Family engagement in child
protection social work. Journal of Family Social Work,18
(4), 288–301. doi:10.1080/10522158.2015.1079584
Howell-Moroney, M. (2014). The empirical ties between reli-
gious motivation and altruism in foster parents: Implications
for faith-based initiatives in foster care and adoption.
Religions,5(3), 720–737. doi:10.3390/rel5030720
Hu, H., Lu, S., & Huang, C. (2014).
中国流动儿童与留守儿
童的心理和行为结果
[The psychological and behavioral
outcomes of migrant and left-behind children in China].
Children and Youth Services Review,46,1–10.
Hu, Q. (2011).
美国儿童虐待法律保护体系介绍及对我国的
启示
[Introduction of American child welfare legislation and
inspiration to China]. Issues on Juvenile Crimes and
Delinquency,5,63–67.
Hu, Y., Burton, J., & Lonne, B. (2016). Empowering children
left behind in China. Asian Social Work and Policy Review,
10(2), 175–184. doi:10.1111/aswp.12086
Huang, X., Xu, T., Liu, W., Pan, J., Jiao, F., Chen, J., & Wang,
H. (2015).
中国儿童虐待防治法律法规与政策规定现状
分析
[The analysis of Chinese child abuse prevention and
treatment legislation and policies]. Chinese Journal of
Women and Children Health,3,83–87.
Ji, K. & Finkelhor, D. (2015). A meta-analysis of child physical
abuse prevalence in China. Child Abuse & Neglect,43,
61–72. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.11.011
Katz, I., Shang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Missing elements of a
child protection system in China: The case of LX. Social Policy
and Society,10(1), 93–102. doi:10.1017/S1474746410000424
Kerman, B., Wildfire, J., & Barth, R. P. (2002). Outcomes for
young adults who experienced foster care. Children and
Youth Services Review,24(5), 319–344. doi:10.1016/S0190-
7409(02)00180-9
Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu,
P., Palm
erus, K., ... Tapanya, S. (2005). Physical discipline
and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a
moderator. Child Development,76(6), 1234–1246.
Lau, J. T. F., Liu, J. L. Y., Cheung, J. C. K., Yu, A., & Wong,
C. K. (1999). Prevalence and correlates of physical abuse in
Hong Kong Chinese adolescents: A population-based
approach. Child Abuse & Neglect,23(6), 549–557. doi:
10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00029-0
Lau, J. T. F., Liu, J. L. Y., Yu, A., & Wong, C. K. (1999).
Conceptualization, reporting and underreporting of child
abuse in Hong Kong. Child Abuse & Neglect,23(11),
1159–1174. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00075-7
Li, H. (2007).
建立儿童虐待的预防和干预机制——从法律和
社会福利的角度
[Establishing a child abuse prevention and
intervention mechanism from the perspective of law and
social welfare]. Youth Studies,4,1–7.
Liao, M., Lee, A. S., Roberts-Lewis, A. C., Hong, J. S., & Jiao,
K. (2011). Child maltreatment in China: An ecological
review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review,
33(9), 1709–1719.
Liu, M. & Zhu, K. (2009). Orphan care in China. Social Work
and Society International Online Journal,7(1). Retrieved
from http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/43/346
Liu, X. (2015).
当务之急和制度建构：从南京虐童案看儿童
虐待强制报告
[The highest priority is to construct a system:
Building up the mandatory report system from Nanjing child
abuse case]. China Youth Study,9,42–46.
MacGregor, T., Rodger, S., Cummings, A., & Leschied, A.
(2006). The needs of foster parents: A qualitative study of
motivation, support, and retention. Qualitative Social Work,
5(3), 351–368. doi:10.1177/1473325006067365
Man, X. & Barth, R. P. (2015).
美国儿童家庭寄养制度的变
革与借鉴——基于自由主义与国家干预主义的福利辨析
[The evolution and inspiration of child foster care in the
U.S.]. Journal of East China University of Science and
Technology (Social Science Edition),1,15–21.
Mathews, B. & Kenny, M. C. (2008). Mandatory reporting
legislation in the United States, Canada, and Australia: A
cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences, and
issues. Child Maltreatment,13(1), 50–63. doi:10.1177/
1077559507310613
McCallister, J., Harper, C., & Drake, S. (2015, September).
Foster care policy. Retrieved from http://www.dhhr.wv.
gov/bcf/policy/Documents/FC%20Policy%20-%20Sept%
202015.pdf
McDonald, T. P. (1996). Assessing the long-term effects of fos-
ter care: A research synthesis. Edison, NJ: Child Welfare
League of America.
Ministry of Civil Affairs & Ministry of Human Resources and
Social Security of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(2008).
关于2008年度助理社会工作师、社会工作职业水
平考试有关问题的通知
[Notice about the 2008 professio-
nal exams of junior social workers and social workers].
Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/zwgk/tzl/
200806/20080600017042.shtml
Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(1999a). Measures for registration of adoption of children
by Chinese citizens. Retrieved from http://www.lawinfo-
china.com/display.aspx?lib5law&id514547&CGid5
Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(1999b).
外国人在中华人民共和国收养子女登记办法
[Measures for registration of adoption of children by foreign-
ers with the People’s Republic of China]. Retrieved from
http://www.chinaconsulatesf.org/chn/qianzhen/flfg/t654475.
htm
Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(2014a).
家庭寄养管理办法
[Family foster care administra-
tion approach]. Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/
zwgk/fvfg/shflhshsw/201409/20140900706005.shtml
Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(2014b).
民政部关于开展第二批全国未成年人社会保护
试点工作的通知
[Notice of the Ministry of Civil Affairs on
carrying out the pilot work of the second batch of the
national social protection of the minor]. Retrieved from
http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/zwgk/fvfg/shsw/201408/
20140800687761.shtml
Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China [PRC].
(2015).
民政部发布2014年社会服务发展统计公报
[Min-
istry of Civil Affairs released the 2014 social service devel-
opment statistical report]. Retrieved from http://www.mca.
gov.cn/article/zwgk/mzyw/201506/20150600832371.shtml
Myers, J. E. B. (2004). A history of child protection in America.
Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
National Bureau of Statistics of People’s Republic of China
[PRC]. (2010).
中国2010年人口普查资料
[China popula-
tion census data of 2010]. Retrieved from http://www.stats.
gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm
National People’s Congress of People’s Republic of China
[PRC]. (2004).
中华人民共和国宪法
[Constitutional law of
the People’s Republic of China]. Retrieved from http://www.
gov.cn/gongbao/content/2004/content_62714.htm
New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(NYSPCC). (n.d.). History of NYSPCC. Retrieved from
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd12
http://www.nyspcc.org/about-the-new-york-society-for-the-
prevention-of-cruelty-to-children/history/
Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P.,
DePanfilis, D., & Plotnick, R. D. (2009a). Adoption
and adoption services. In P. J. Pecora, J. K. Whittaker,
A. N. Maluccio, R. P. Barth, D. DePanfilis, & R. D. Plotnik
(Eds.), The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and
research (modern applications of social work) (3rd ed., pp.
269–292). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P.,
DePanfilis, D., & Plotnick, R. D. (2009b). Family foster
care. In P. J. Pecora, J. K. Whittaker, A. N. Maluccio, R. P.
Barth, & D. DePanfilis (Eds.), The child welfare challenge:
Policy, practice, and research (modern applications of
social work) (3rd ed., pp.194–218). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine
Transaction.
Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P.,
DePanfilis, D., & Plotnick, R. D. (2009c). Key child welfare
legislation and other policies. In P. J. Pecora, J. K. Whittaker,
A. N. Maluccio, R. P. Barth,& D. DePanfilis (Eds.), The child
welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (modern
applications of social work) (3rd ed., pp. 31–62). Piscataway,
NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Phillips, C. M. & Mann, A. (2013). Historical analysis of the
adoption and safe families act of 1997. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment,23(7), 862–868. doi:
10.1080/10911359.2013.809290
Qiao, D. & Xie, Q. (2013).
中美家庭寄养的比较及启示
[The
comparison of foster care between U.S. and China and its
implications]. China Youth Study,10, 110–115.
Qiao, D. & Xie, Q. (2015a).
中西方”儿童虐待”认知差异的逻
辑根源
[The logical roots of differences in perceptions of
child abuse between China and the West]. Jiangsu
Social Sciences,1,25–32. doi:10.13858/j.cnki.cn32-1312/
c.2015.01.004
Qiao, D. & Xie, Q. (2015b). Public perceptions of child physical
abuse in Beijing. Child & Family Social Work,22, 213–225.
doi:10.1111/cfs.12221
Raman, S. & Hodes, D. (2012). Cultural issues in child mal-
treatment. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health,48(1),
30–37.
Redding, R. E., Fried, C., & Britner, P. A. (2000). Predictors of
placement outcomes in treatment foster care: Implications
for foster parent selection and service delivery. Journal of
Child and Family Studies,9(4), 425–447. doi:10.1023/A:
1009418809133
Rodger, S., Cummings, A., & Leschied, A. W. (2006). Who is
caring for our most vulnerable children? The motivation to
foster in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect,30(10),
1129–1142. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.04.005
Ruggiero, J. A. (2015). Adopting children from US public foster
care: A sociological analysis with practical implications.
Sociology between the Gaps: Forgotten and Neglected
Topics,1(1), 14–46. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.
providence.edu/sbg/vol1/iss1/9
Schumacher, J. A., Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (2001).
Risk factors for child neglect. Aggression and Violent
Behavior,6(2–3), 231–254. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)
00024-0
Shang, X. (2008). The role of extended families in childcare and
protection: The case of rural China. International Journal of
Social Welfare,17(3), 204–215. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2397.2007.00531.x
Shang, X. (2011).
中国儿童福利政策的重大突破与发展方向
[The breakthrough and development direction of China’s
child welfare policy]. Social Welfare,6,5–6.
Shang, X. & Dou, Z. (2014).
一切为了儿童：福利院对事实
收养孤儿的支持
[Everything for children: The support for
de facto orphans from the welfare institution]. Shandong
Social Sciences,8,80–86.
Shang, X. & Zhang, Y. (2008).
儿童保护制度的要素缺失：
三个典型个案的分析
[The loss elements of the child pro-
tection system: Analysis of three typical cases]. Youth
Studies,5,34–41.
Shen, J. & Cai, Y. (2013).
美国儿童虐待的法律保障——以佐
治亚州”儿童虐待示范立法协议”为例
[The legal protec-
tion of U.S. abused children: Taking the state model of child
abuse protocol in Georgia for example]. Studies in
Early Childhood Education,5,1–6. doi:10.13861/j.cnki.
sece.2013.05.001
Shen, Y. (2013). 个体家庭iFamily：中国城市现代化进程中
的个体、家庭与国家[iFamily: The individual, family
and state in the process of Chinese city modernization].
Shanghai: Joint Publishing.
Social Welfare and Charity Affairs Promotion Division of
People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2013, June).
民政部关
于开展适度普惠型儿童福利制度建设试点工作的通知
[Pilot work to establish a modestly inclusive child welfare
system for all children]. Retrieved from http://www.mca.
gov.cn/article/zwgk/tzl/201306/20130600478862.shtml
Standing Committee of the National People’sCongressof
People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (1998). Adoption law of
the People's Republic of China (1998 Amendment).Retrieved
from http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?id512687&lib5law
&SearchKeyword5Adoption%20Law%20of%20the%20People
%27s%20Republic%20of%20China&SearchCKeyword5
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of
People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2005). Law of the
People's Republic of China on the protection of women's
rights and interests (2005 Amendment). Retrieved from
http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?
id54492&lib5law&SearchKeyword5Law%20of%20the%
20People%27s%20Republic%20of%20China%20on%20the
%20Protection%20of%20Women%27s%20Rights%20and%
20Interests&SearchCKeyword5
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of Peo-
ple’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2012a). Law of the People's
Republic of China on prevention of juvenile delinquency
(2012 Amendment). Retrieved from http://en.pkulaw.cn/dis-
play.aspx?id512577&lib5law&SearchKeyword5juvenile
%20delinquency&SearchCKeyword5
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of Peo-
ple’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2012b). Law of the People's
Republic of China on the protection of minors (2012 Amend-
ment). Retrieved from http://www.lawinfochina.com/dis-
play.aspx?id512626&lib5law
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of People’s
Republic of China [PRC]. (2015a). Anti-domestic violence law of
the People's Republic of China (2015). Retrieved from http://en.
pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?id520841&lib5law&SearchKeyword
5Anti-domestic%20Violence%20Law&SearchCKeyword5
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of People’s
Republic of China [PRC]. (2015b). Criminal law of the Peo-
ple's Republic of China (2015 Amendment). Retrieved from
http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?id519864&lib5law&Search
Keyword5Criminal%20Law%20of%20the%20People%27s%
20Republic%20of%20China&SearchCKeyword5
State Council of People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (1992).
九十年代中国儿童发展规划纲要
[Chinese child devel-
opment plan in 1990s]. Retrieved from http://baike.baidu.
com/view/3020132.htm
State Council of People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2001).
National program of action for child development in China
(2001–2010). Retrieved from http://www.womenofchina.cn/
womenofchina/html1/source/0/514-1.htm
State Council of People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2011).
中国儿童发展纲要（2011
–
2020年)
[China national
program for child development (2011–2020)]. Retrieved
from http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2011/content_
1927200.htm
Responding to child maltreatment
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 13
State Council of People’s Republic of China [PRC]. (2016).
国务院关于加强农村留守儿童关爱保护工作的意见
[The
State Council on further strengthening the protection of left-
behind children in rural China]. Retrieved from http://www.
gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-02/14/content_5041066.htm
Stith, S. M., Liu, T., Davies, L. C., Boykin, E. L., Alder, M. C.,
Harris, J. M., ... Dees, J. E. M. E. G. (2009). Risk factors in
child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review of the literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior,14(1), 13–29. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.006
Taussig, H. N. (2002). Risk behaviors in maltreated youth
placed in foster care: A longitudinal study of protective
and vulnerability factors. Child Abuse & Neglect,26(11),
1179–1199. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00391-5
Wang, L. (2010).
美国儿童保护工作体系及其运行特点和
启示
[The characteristics of the child welfare system in the
United States and inspirations]. Journal of China Women's
University,2,76–79. doi:10.13277/j.cnki.jcwu.2010.02.
010
Wang, X. (2012). Legal developments and challenges in child
protection in Mainland China. In K. L. Chan (Ed.), Child
protection in Chinese societies: Challenges and policies
(pp. 85–94). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Winokur, M., Crawford, G., Longobardi, R., & Valentine, D.
(2008). Matched comparison of children in kinship care and
foster care on child welfare outcomes. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,89(3),
338–346. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3759
Wu, L., Han, X., & Gao, X. (2005).
家庭寄养：动机与绩
效——对”北京模式”的深度分析
[Motivation and
performance: Deep analysis of the Beijing foster care
model]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Zhai, F. & Gao, Q. (2009). Child maltreatment among Asian
Americans characteristics and explanatory framework. Child
Maltreatment,14(2), 207–224.
Zhang, H. (2016, February).
西宁孤残儿童寄养家庭逐年减
少,业内人士呼吁更多人加入
[Foster homes for orphans
and children with disabilities are decreasing in Xining, and
advocacy for more professionals to join in]. China News.
Retrieved from http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2016/02-24/
7770701.shtml
Zhang, W. (2013).
中国儿童福利制度的构建
[The construc-
tion of Chinese child welfare system]. Issues on Juvenile
Crimes and Delinquency,4,12–22.
Zhao, F., H€
am€
al€
ainen, J. E. A., & Chen, H. L. (2017). Child
protection in China: Changing policies and reactions from
the field of social work. International Journal of Social
Welfare,26(4), 329–339. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12268
Zheng, Y. & Guo, X. (2011).
我国关于受虐儿童保护的立法
现状与完善建议
[The current status of Chinese child pro-
tection legislation and improvement suggestions]. Legal and
Economy,9, 111.
南京饿死女童案
[The children starved to death at home in
Nanjing]. (2013). Jiangsu People News. Retrieved from
http://js.people.com.cn/zt/330.html
贵州毕节4名儿童集体喝农药自杀事件调查
[Investigation of
four left-behind children committed suicide at home in Bijie,
Guizhou, China]. (2015, June). Xinhua News. Retrieved from
http://news.xinhuanet.com/2015-06/11/c_127906281.htm
Xu et al.
Int J Soc Welfare 2017: 00:1–14
V
C2017 The Author(s). International Journal of Social Welfare V
C2017 International Journal of Social Welfare and John Wiley & Sons Ltd14
