MALE PERPETRATORS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT: 

FINDINGS FROM NCANDS 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

January 2005 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary v

Introduction 1

Methodology 3

Findings 7

Summary and Conclusions 22

References 25

Appendix A. Supporting Data Tables 27

Table A–1 Male Perpetrators 27

Table A–2 Age of Male and Female Perpetrators 27

Table A–3 Race of Perpetrators 28

Table A–4 Perpetrators as Caregivers 28

Table A–5 Perpetrators by Number of Child Victims 29

Table A–6 Perpetrators by Age of Child Victims 29

Table A–7 Perpetrators by Sex of Child Victim 30

Table A–8 Maltreatment by Male and Female Perpetrators 30

Table A–9 Drug and Alcohol Use of Caregiver Perpetrators 31

Table A–10 Family Violence of Caregiver Perpetrators 31

Table A–11 Services Received by Categories of Perpetrators 31

Table A–12 Recidivism of Categories of Male Perpetrators 32

Table A–13 Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victims 32

Table A–14 Services Received by Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert 

with Mothers 

33

Table A–15 Recidivism of Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with 

Others 

33

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

iii
List of Tables and Figures 

Tables 

Table 1 Demographic Information in 18 States in Perpetrator Database 

Compared with National Data 

4

Table 2 Age Distributions of Male Perpetrator Categories 9

Table 3 Perpetrator Categories by Type of Maltreatment 13

Table 4 Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Age of Victims 18

Table 5 Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Type of Maltreatment 20

Figures 

Figure 1 Construction of the Unique Perpetrator Data Set 5

Figure 2 Male Perpetrators 8

Figure 3 Age of Male and Female Perpetrators 8

Figure 4 Distribution of Perpetrators by Age of Victims 11

Figure 5 Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victim 12

Figure 6 Maltreatment by Male and Female Perpetrators 13

Figure 7 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Among Male Caregiver Perpetrators 14

Figure 8 Family Violence Among Male Caregiver Perpetrators 15

Figure 9 Services Received by Categories of Male Perpetrators 16

Figure 10 Recidivism of Categories of Male Perpetrators 17

Figure 11 Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victims 19

Figure 12 Services Received by Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with 

Mothers 

20

Figure 13 Recidivism of Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with Others 21

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

iv
MALE PERPETRATORS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT: 

FINDINGS FROM NCANDS 

Executive Summary 

sing the case-level data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect System

(NCANDS) for 2002, analyses of the characteristics of male perpetrators of 

maltreatment were conducted. The study utilized an 18-State data set of 

192,392 perpetrators identified by the child protective services (CPS) system during 

2002. The relationship of the perpetrators to the child victims, as well as whether the 

perpetrator acted alone or with another person, was considered along with demographic 

characteristics of both perpetrators and victims, and circumstances of the maltreatment. 

Research questions and key findings are as follows: 

U 

What are the characteristics of male perpetrators of child maltreatment? 

• Of all reported cases in the18-State data set, slightly less than one-half of all 

perpetrators were male. Of these, about one-half (51%) were biological fathers, an 

additional one-fifth occupied some other parental role (adoptive fathers, stepfathers, 

mothers’ boyfriends), and about one-quarter were in nonparental relationships 

(including relatives, foster parents, day care providers, or friends) to their victims. In 

comparison, among female perpetrators, 86 percent were biological mothers. 

• Male and female perpetrators were similar in terms of race. Males were slightly older 

than females, with an age difference of about 5 years, and men were substantially less 

likely to be in a caregiver status to the child than were women (60% compared with 

87%). 

What specific patterns of child maltreatment are associated with male perpetrators? 

• Male perpetrators were associated more often than female perpetrators with older 

victims and with female victims. This is consistent with the finding that male 

perpetrators were more likely than female perpetrators to be involved in sexual abuse. 

• There are differences in the patterns of maltreatment among categories of fathers, in 

that biological fathers more likely to maltreat young children, more likely to maltreat 

both girls and boys, more likely to be involved in neglect cases and less likely than 

other male perpetrators to be involved in sexual abuse. These finding suggest that in 

comparison to other male perpetrators, the circumstances associated with biological 

fathers are more similar to biological mothers. 

• Nonparent male perpetrators were much more likely than other males to be involved 

in sexual abuse cases. 

What outcomes are associated with male perpetrators of child maltreatment? 

• Postinvestigation services were provided more often with female perpetrators than 

with male perpetrators. 

• Recidivism rates were highest for biological fathers, mother’s boyfriends, and 

nonparents, and lowest for adoptive fathers and stepfathers. The impact of the type of 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

v
maltreatment or the male perpetrator’s continued access to the child on this difference 

in recidivism rates is not known. 

How does the presence of a mother coperpetrator influence the circumstances 

surrounding the child maltreatment or the outcomes? 

• Almost two-thirds of male perpetrators of child maltreatment were reported as being 

the only perpetrator, one third acted with the child’s mother and about 6 percent acted 

with someone other than the mother. 

• Biological fathers were less likely than other male perpetrators to act alone. When 

acting in concert with the mother, biological fathers were more likely to be involved 

with younger children and more likely to be involved with neglect than other types of 

maltreatment.

• Biological fathers and father surrogates who acted with the mother were roughly 

twice as likely to repeat their maltreatments within 12 months as those fathers who 

acted alone.

The findings from this research provide insights that may help to design improved 

prevention and intervention programs. If prevention and treatment interventions for child 

maltreatment are targeted primarily toward women, a large proportion of perpetrators will 

not benefit from these efforts. Similarly, in-home services, in their most narrow sense, 

may be missing the opportunity to involve men who maltreat children but are not living 

in the home. 

The findings also show that male perpetrators who are not biological fathers were more 

commonly associated with physical abuse and sexual abuse, older children, and female 

children. Similarly, when acting alone, biological fathers and father surrogates were more 

often perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse, but when acting with the mother were 

more often associated with neglect. The relatively large proportion of stepfathers and 

adoptive fathers associated with sexual abuse, as well as with older, female children, 

suggests the need for prevention efforts in blended and adoptive families.

Finally, the findings and the literature suggest that because male perpetrators have many 

different relationships with their victims, interventions that strengthen the role of fathers 

to prevent further child maltreatment and improve child well-being are a complex 

undertaking. This study identifies clear subgroups of male perpetrators, suggesting that 

interventions of all types may need to be more highly differentiated for these different 

groups.

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

vi
Introduction 

uccessful service delivery requires a good understanding of one’s client population 

and interventions tailored to those clients’ needs. With respect to services that 

prevent or ameliorate child maltreatment, agencies serve children in the context of 

their families. But in practice, services are most often delivered to mothers. Men are 

noticeably absent in most social service agencies’ waiting rooms, parenting classes, and 

family group decision meetings. Yet more than 40 percent of child maltreatment 

perpetrators were men, according to national data for 2002 (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2004). The intent of the analyses presented below was to look more 

closely at male perpetrators of child maltreatment in order to better understand their 

characteristics and patterns of maltreatment. By understanding more clearly who these 

men are and whether they are similar to or different from traditional child welfare clients 

(i.e. mothers), we may better design prevention and intervention approaches that meet 

their needs and protect their children and others in their care. 

S 

This paper used a unique multi-State data set of nearly 200,000 child maltreatment 

perpetrators to better understand the characteristics of male perpetrators, their 

maltreatment patterns, and the outcomes associated with their maltreatments. 

Furthermore, the influence of a mother coperpetrator on the circumstances surrounding 

the child maltreatment or the outcomes was also investigated.

Previous Research on Male Perpetrators 

Until the past decade, child welfare research primarily focused on mothers of maltreated 

children rather than fathers. For example, a 1990 review of major social work journals 

published in the preceding 27-year period (814 issues) elicited only 21 articles focusing 

on fathers (Greif & Bailey, 1990). 

Much of the recent research investigating the role of fathers and other males as 

perpetrators of child maltreatment has focused on circumstances related to specific types 

of maltreatment and relatively small samples or clinical populations. For example, Phelan 

(1995), Manion, McIntyre, Firestone, Ligezinska, Ensome, & Wells (1996), Manion, 

Firestone, Cloutier, Ligezinska, McIntyre, & Ensom (1998), and Rudin, Zalewski, & 

Bodmer-Turner (1995) focused on sexual abuse; Bagley & Pritchard (2000), and 

Klevens, Bayon, & Sierra (2000) focused on physical abuse; and Brewster, Nelson, 

Hymel, Colby, Lucas, McCanne, et al. (1998), Smithey (1998), and Adinkrah (2003) 

focused on fatalities. 

Some research shows that when we take issues of severity into consideration, fathers or 

father surrogates (cohabiting husbands or boyfriends who are not biologically related to 

the child) are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than women 

perpetrators (Brewster et al., 1998; Klevens et al., 2000; U.S. Advisory Board on Child 

Abuse and Neglect, 1995). Daly & Wilson (1999) have argued that parents are less likely 

than surrogate parents to physically abuse or seriously injure their biological offspring 

due to their greater investment in the genetic continuity of their family. In a longitudinal 

analysis of a cohort of children at risk for child maltreatment, Radhakrishna, Bou-Saada, 

Hunter, Catellier, & Kotch (2001) demonstrated that the presence of a father surrogate in 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

1
the home increased the risk of a maltreatment report to more than twice that of families 

with both biological parents in the home. 

The research on male perpetrators is complicated by inconsistent or imprecise definitions 

of perpetrators and classifications of male perpetrators. Persons found by a child welfare 

agency to be responsible for the maltreatment of a child may have committed an act of 

maltreatment, allowed an act of maltreatment to occur, or contributed to the risk of

maltreatment. Furthermore, there is no consistent typology for male perpetrators. Some

studies of male perpetrators do not distinguish between biological fathers and stepfathers 

in their analyses (Smith & Saunders, 1995), or they do not consistently group fathers in 

the various types of father relationships. Manion et al. (1996) cited Canadian national 

data indicating the percentage of sexual abuse cases that were incestuous (18%), involved 

strangers (18%), or involved other friends and acquaintances (18%). Bagley & Pritchard 

(2000), in their examination of a cohort of convicted child sexual abuse perpetrators, 

distinguished among biological relatives, consisting of birth fathers and other biologically 

related males such as uncles and grandfathers (18%), nonbiological relatives consisting of 

stepfathers and cohabiters (10%), and extrafamilial offenders, who had no family link 

with their victim (72%). Dubowitz et al. (2001) distinguished between fathers and other 

“father figures,” which included stepfathers, mother’s boyfriends, and other male 

relatives, but recognized that these relationships were based on the child’s perception, 

and were not based on other parental or adult information. 

Research on Fathers and Child Well-Being 

Recent research has begun to examine the specific benefits of fathers to child well-being. 

The economic and social stressors to which a single mother is exposed put her at risk for 

maltreating her children. Child Trends (2002) reported that children are more likely to be 

abused by mothers in single-parent families than in two-parent families. Children raised

in two-parent families have been shown to have better school performance, superior peer 

relationships, and fewer behavioral problems than children living in single parent families 

(Lamb, 2001). Child Trends (2002) documented a large number of indicators to better 

understand the role that fathers play in the lives of their children. These indicators 

demonstrated that a considerable percentage of fathers were highly engaged in a variety 

of roles with their children, including play, discipline, and primary caregiving. 

Dubowitz, Black, Cox, Kerr, Litrownik, Radhakrishna, et al. (2001) concluded that the 

presence of a father or father figure, regardless of whether he lived in the same home, 

was associated with better cognitive development and greater perceived competence 

among 6-year-olds when coupled with the child’s perception of father support. 

Researchers have shown that even nonresidential fathers can contribute to positive child 

outcomes when they maintain an active involvement in their children’s lives (Lamb, 

2001; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003). Results of a 

community survey by Nobes & Smith (2002) that found that children in two-parent 

families were punished significantly more frequently than children in single mother 

households, raising the possibility of an association with maltreatment. The general 

direction of current research, however, has increased interest in supporting and 

strengthening the relationship of fathers and their children. 

 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

2
The Objective of This Study 

The objective of this study was to better understand the characteristics of male 

perpetrators of child maltreatment as well as how they and their patterns of maltreatment 

vary among subgroups of men and compare to those of women. This research takes 

advantage of a large data set of child maltreatment investigations reported by States to the 

Federal Government through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

(NCANDS). The study classifies subgroups of male perpetrators according to 

relationship to the victim, and examines how investigation outcomes differ depending on 

whether the male perpetrator was found to have acted alone or in conjunction with the 

victim’s mother. 

The key research questions for this study were the following:

1. What are the characteristics of male perpetrators of child maltreatment? 

Specifically, these analyses examined the age, race, and role of perpetrators. 

2. What specific patterns of child maltreatment are associated with male 

perpetrators? The circumstances surrounding the maltreatment were examined for 

several categories of perpetrators. These included characteristics of the child 

victims such as age, race, and sex, as well as the number of child victims and the 

type of maltreatment. 

3. What outcomes are associated with male perpetrators of child maltreatment? Of 

interest for this research question were events that occurred after the finding of 

maltreatment, such as, whether services were provided, whether the victims were 

placed in foster care, and whether there were any subsequent determinations of 

maltreatment by the same perpetrator. 

4. How does the presence of a mother coperpetrator influence circumstances

surrounding the child maltreatment or the outcomes? This line of analysis 

compared male perpetrators who acted alone with those who acted with the 

victim’s mother. 

Methodology 

C ase-level data from the 2002 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

(NCANDS) were used as the basis for the analysis. Only cases of substantiated or 

indicated maltreatment were included in the data set. These data are submitted on 

a voluntary basis in a common record format to the Federal Government by State CPS 

agencies. The submissions are a rich source of information about children who are the 

subjects of child maltreatment investigations, including data about the investigations, 

child demographics, and types of maltreatment, perpetrators, and services. Each year the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prepares an annual report that analyzes 

the NCANDS data. For calendar year 2002, Child File data submissions from 42 States—

containing case-specific information on close to 3 million reported children—were 

submitted to NCANDS. Data from 18 States, including 202,376 unique perpetrators, 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

3
were used to create the data set for this research.1

 These States were chosen for the 

completeness and validity of their data on the relationship of the perpetrators to the 

victims. The population in these 18 States was comparable to the national population on a 

range of demographic characteristics including age, race distribution, and poverty level. 

(See table 1.) The findings in this study are not necessarily representative of all reporting 

States or the entire nation as there may be other differences that are not reported or 

observed. For some analyses, fewer States were included if some States did not provide 

valid data on the variables of interest. 

Table 1. Demographic Information in 18 States in Perpetrator Database 

Compared with National Data 

Demographic Indicators All States 18 States 

Total Population 281,421,906 99,243,669

% of U.S. Population 100% 35%

Population under 18 years: Total 26% 26%

Percent of total population living in family settings 80% 81%

Married-couple family, with own children under 18 years old 

(percent of families) 35% 36% Families 

Families with female householder, no husband present, with 

own children under 18 years old (percent of families) 11% 10%

Average Poverty Rate 12.2% 12.0%

White (not Hispanic), percent of total population 69% 73%

Black or African American (not Hispanic), percent of total 

population 12% 11%

American Indian and Alaska Native (not Hispanic), percent of 

total population 1% 1%

Asian / Pacific Islander (not Hispanic), percent of total 

population 4% 2%

Other or Multiple Race (not Hispanic), percent of total population 2% 1%

Race 

Hispanic or Latino, percent of total population 13% 12%

Male, percent of total population 49% 49% Sex 

Female, percent of total population 51% 51%

Rate of children investigated per 1,000 children in population 43.8 39.4 Child Abuse and

Neglect Rate of victims of child maltreatment per 1,000 children in 

population 12.3 10.9

Creation of the Unique Perpetrator Database 

Consistent with the research questions, the analysis of the data depended on developing a 

data set of unique perpetrators. Despite the relative simplicity of obtaining unduplicated 

perpetrator data since encrypted unique identifiers are presented in the data set, the design 

for this research depended on examining complex event and relationship data associated 

with each perpetrator. For instance, a perpetrator may have victimized more than one 

child, in one or more report events. In addition, the perpetrator may have been related to 

one child as a biological parent and to another as a stepparent. Similarly, the perpetrator 

may have been associated with different or similar types of maltreatment with each child, 

and may have acted alone or in concert with other perpetrators each time or only 

sometimes.

 

1 These States were: Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

4
Data on all reports, children, and maltreatments were merged and recoded to represent 

the categories of reports, children, and maltreatments associated with each unique 

perpetrator. 

Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the stages of data construction. 

Figure 1. Construction of the Unique Perpetrator Data Set 

Child File

(Report-Child Pair Records)

Report-ChildPerpetrator Triad File

Initial Unique Perpetrator File

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 4

Stage 3

Final Unique Perpetrator File

Stage 1 refers to the NCANDS case-level Child File. The NCANDS Child File 

establishes a record for each child in a report alleging child maltreatment. This record 

entity is called a report-child pair. Data on up to three perpetrators and the types of 

maltreatment associated with each can be included in each report-child pair record. Data 

on perpetrators are collected only if the child has been found to be a victim of 

maltreatment.

Stage 2 refers to creating records for each perpetrator in each report-child pair record. In 

other words, if a report-child pair record had three perpetrators, then three report-childperpetrator triad records were created. 

Stage 3 refers to aggregating data for each perpetrator to create a new file with all 

unduplicated male perpetrators. During Stage 3, several additional variables were 

derived: 

• Age and Sex of Victims—The age and sex of all victims associated with a 

specific perpetrator were recoded into categories that considered them as a group 

rather than as individuals. The categories for age were: younger than age 1, age 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

5
1–3, age 4–7, age 8–11, age 12–15, and age 16 or older. The categories for sex 

were girls (i.e., only girls), boys (i.e., only boys), and both boys and girls. 

• Maltreatment Types—Maltreatment types were recoded into a single variable that 

described them collectively (such as physical abuse only or multiple types of 

maltreatments) so that the range of maltreatments with which the perpetrator was 

involved was captured. 

• Perpetrator Type—The NCANDS collects both gender and relationship of the 

perpetrator. Male biological parents and female biological parents were recoded 

as biological fathers and biological mothers respectively. Similarly other 

relationships were recoded to include the following: biological father only, 

stepfather only, adoptive father only, mother’s boyfriend only, male nonparent 

only, and combination fathers. Combination fathers were perpetrators with more 

than one relationship type of which at least one relationship was that of a parent. 

Male nonparent was used to designate other male relatives and male nonrelatives, 

and includes a small number of perpetrators with multiple nonparental 

relationships. Corresponding categories were created for female perpetrators as 

well—biological mothers, stepmothers, adoptive mothers, fathers’ girlfriends, and 

combination mothers. 

• Perpetrator Relationship to Other Perpetrators—To examine the differences 

among perpetrators who acted alone and those who acted with others, a variable 

was developed which matched each male perpetrator to other perpetrators. For 

example, if a biological father was associated with a report in which the child’s 

mother was also a perpetrator, then the biological father was classified as 

biological father acting with the mother. 

Stage 4 included additional screening of data to exclude certain categories of missing 

data. 

• Perpetrators without gender data were excluded (3,491 perpetrators). 

• Perpetrators with missing or unknown relationships, including those who were 

known to be parents but the type of parent was not known were excluded 

(6,489 perpetrators). 

• Perpetrators who were identified as having multiple, incongruous relationships 

with the same child, such as biological father and stepfather (71 perpetrators). 

• Perpetrators who were probably misidentified as unique perpetrators, because 

they were associated with more than 20 victims, were excluded (4 perpetrators). 

The final data set was composed of 192,321 unduplicated perpetrators based on data from

18 States. 

Limitations to Analyses of These Data 

While the advantages of this large, multi-State data set are many, some limitations to 

these data should be noted as well. 

 

The designation of the individuals in this data set as perpetrators was made by CPS 

representatives during the disposition of a report or reports of child maltreatment. 

Inevitably, some individuals with similar circumstances or relationships may have been 

inconsistently recorded as perpetrators across agencies, counties, or States. For example, 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

6
a boyfriend living with a mother who was found to be neglecting her children may have

been included as a coperpetrator in one CPS agency, but not in a different agency. While 

efforts were made to reduce these inconsistencies in the data set, some undoubtedly 

remain. 

Furthermore, the NCANDS data did not include whether the perpetrators were living in 

the same home as the victims. Similarly, the relationship between coperpetrators was not 

captured. A child may have been maltreated by both his biological mother and biological 

father, but this data set does not indicate whether these parents were married to each other 

or whether they lived in the same household. 

It is also important to note that some categories of male perpetrators that are discussed 

are much smaller than others. For example, adoptive fathers account for only 1 percent of 

all male perpetrators, but are discussed along with other groups that are much larger. The 

implications of findings related to these small groups should be considered carefully. 

 

Findings 

he findings are discussed in terms of the overall research questions. First, a 

general description of male perpetrators is presented. Second, the categories of 

primary interest for this research—biological fathers and father surrogates 

including adoptive fathers, stepfathers, and mothers’ boyfriends—are compared with 

male perpetrators who were not parents. Finally, comparisons of fathers, father 

surrogates, and male nonparents acting alone, with the mother, and with others are 

described. Supporting data tables for the analyses presented in this section are included in 

appendix A. 

T 

What are the characteristics of male perpetrators of child maltreatment? 

Of the 192,321 unique perpetrators in the data set, 

89,028 (46%) were male and 103,293 (54%) were 

female. Figure 2 shows male perpetrators by their 

relationship to their victims. More than one-half of all 

male perpetrators (51%) were biological fathers. The 

second largest group was male nonparents (26%), 

who included male relatives (12%), male nonrelatives (13%), and those with a 

combination of nonparental relationships (1%). Boyfriends, stepfathers, combination 

fathers, and adoptive fathers accounted for 10 percent, 8 percent, 5 percent, and 1 percent 

of all male perpetrators, respectively. Among female perpetrators, 86 percent were 

biological mothers, 10 percent were nonparents, and the remaining 4 percent were 

stepmothers, adoptive mothers, fathers’ girlfriends, or combination mothers. 

Nearly one-half of all 

perpetrators were male, and of 

these, one-half were biological 

fathers. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

7
Figure 2. Male Perpetrators2

(n = 89,028) 

Adoptive Father

1%

Stepfather

8%

Mother's

Boyfriend

10%

Combination

Father

5%

Nonparent

26%

Biological

Father

51%

Age of Male Perpetrators 

Male perpetrators were 5 years older, on average, 

than female perpetrators. The average age of male

perpetrators was 38.6 years, while among females the 

average age was 33.4 years. (See figure 3.) This coincides with the typical age disparity 

between married partners. According to U.S. Census data, among married couples with 

children, husbands are on average 2.4 years older than their wives.3

 

Male perpetrators were older 

than female perpetrators.

Figure 3. Age of Male and Female Perpetrators4

(n = 192,321) 

10%

7%

25%

39%

32%

35%

18%

13%

5%

3% 2% 1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Male (n=89,028) Female (n=103,293)

Age 20 or younger Age 21 to 30 Age 31 to 40 Age 41 to 50 Age 51 to 60 Age 61 and older

 

2

 Table A–1 provides supporting data for this figure. 3

 Current Population Survey 2004, March Supplement. 4

 Table A–2 provides supporting data for this figure. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

8
Age distributions were also examined by male perpetrator relationship. (See table 2.) The 

average age for biological fathers was 37.7 years, for stepfathers 38.9 years, for adoptive 

fathers 47.0 years, for mothers’ boyfriends 39.3 years, for combination fathers 34.8 years, 

and for male nonparents 40.8 years. 

Table 2. Age Distributions of Male Perpetrator Categories 

(n = 89,028) 

Age of 

Perpetrator 

Biological 

Father 

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother’sBoyfriend 

Combination 

Father Nonparent Total 

Age 20 or 1,034 0 50 303 89 7,396 8,872

Younger 2% 0% 1% 4% 2% 32% 10%

12,648 24 1,467 2,905 1,523 3,939 22,506 Age 21–30 28% 5% 21% 34% 33% 17% 25%

17,223 139 3,006 2,930 1,926 2,887 28,111 Age 31–40 38% 29% 44% 34% 42% 13% 32%

9,968 156 1,563 1,302 782 2,144 15,915 Age 41–50 22% 33% 23% 15% 17% 9% 18%

1,957 98 323 231 132 1,492 4,233 Age 51–60 4% 20% 5% 3% 3% 7% 5%

Age 61 or 318 37 75 46 26 1,156 1,658

Older 1% 8% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2%

2,378 25 373 905 126 3,926 7,733 Missing Age 5% 5% 5% 10% 3% 17% 9%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Perpetrator Race

Male and female perpetrators did not differ in terms 

of race. More than one-half of male perpetrators 

were White (58%), as were female perpetrators 

(57%). Sixteen percent of male perpetrators were African American; 21 percent of female 

perpetrators were African American. Among both male and female perpetrators, 

13 percent were Hispanic. When the race of male perpetrators was examined for the 

different father categories, all had similar racial distributions. Among all father 

categories, the largest racial group was White and the second largest group was African 

American.5

Male and female perpetrators 

did not differ in terms of race. 

Caregiver Status of Perpetrator

In 10 of the 18 States, data were provided on whether 

the perpetrator was in a caregiver role with the victim

at the time of the maltreatment. If the perpetrator was 

in a caregiving role with any of the associated 

victims, he or she was considered to be a caretaker. Female perpetrators were much more 

likely to be in a caregiving role than were male perpetrators; 87 percent of females were 

caregivers compared with 60 percent of males. 

Female perpetrators were more 

likely to be caregivers to their 

victims than male perpetrators. 

 

5

 Table A–3 provides supporting data on race of male perpetrators. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

9
Biological or legal fathers were more likely to be designated as being in a caregiving 

relationship to the maltreated child than were nonparent males.

6

 Perpetrators in most of 

the father categories were almost as likely as female perpetrators to be in caregiver roles. 

The highest percentages of caregivers were among combination fathers (86%), 

stepfathers (82%), biological fathers (81%), and adoptive fathers (72%). Among mothers’ 

boyfriends, only 43 percent were caregivers. Among male nonparents, the percentage of 

those in a caregiving role was 15 percent. 

What specific patterns of maltreatment are associated with male perpetrators? 

These analyses address the second key research question—are male perpetrators 

associated with any specific patterns of maltreatment? The basic characteristics of the 

child victims associated with male perpetrators in each of the six male perpetrator 

categories (biological father, stepfather, adoptive father, mother’s boyfriend, combination 

father, and nonparent), as well as the type of maltreatment and the total number of child 

victims, are examined. 

Number of Child Victims 

The majority of both male and female perpetrators 

were associated with only one child victim— 

67 percent of males and 61 percent of females. 

Biological fathers were most likely of all the male 

perpetrators to be associated with more than one 

child.7

 Among biological fathers, 35 percent were 

associated with more than one child. Among mothers’ boyfriends, 31 percent were 

associated with more than one child. Among stepfathers, 22 percent were associated with 

more than one child. Among adoptive fathers, only 15 percent were associated with more 

than one child. Among nonparents, 18 percent were associated with more than one child. 

All combination fathers were associated with more than one child, because by definition 

they have more than one relationship with more than one child. 

Both male and female 

perpetrators were most likely 

to be associated with only one 

child victim. 

Age of Child Victims 

When compared with female perpetrators, male 

perpetrators were involved with more children older 

than age 8 and fewer children younger than age 1. 

Twenty-one percent of females were associated with 

child victims under age 1, while only 11 percent of male perpetrators were associated 

with infant victims; and 29 percent of male perpetrators were associated with victims 

between age 12 and 15, compared with 22 percent of females. 

Male perpetrators were 

associated more often 

with older victims. 

The different groups of male perpetrators varied in their associations with children in 

each age group. (See figure 4.) Biological fathers, combination fathers, and mothers’ 

boyfriends were most frequently associated with infants and children under age 3. 

Stepfathers, adoptive fathers, and nonparents were most frequently associated with older 

children and adolescents. 

 

6

 Table A–4 provides supporting data on male perpetrators as caregivers. 7

 Table A–5 provides supporting data on the number of child victims associated with male perpetrators in

each category. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

10
Figure 4. Distribution of Perpetrators by Age of Victims8,9

(n = 89,028) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Biological Father

(n =45,526) 

Adoptive Father

(n =479) 

Stepfather 

(n=6,857) 

Mother's

Boyfriend

(n=8,622)

Combination

Father

(n=4,604)

Nonparent 

(n=22,940) 

Age 1 or Younger Age 1 to 3 Age 4 to 7 Age 8 to 11 Age 12 to 15 Age 16 or older

Sex of Child Victims 

Perpetrators were categorized as having been 

associated with girls, boys, or both boys and girls. 

Male perpetrators were associated more often 

only with female victims, while female 

perpetrators were associated with male and female victims in almost equal numbers. 

However, this pattern does not hold true for all categories of male perpetrators. More than 

one-half of the perpetrators who were stepfathers or adoptive fathers maltreated girls. The 

majority of combination fathers were associated with both male and female victims; this 

is related to the fact that all these perpetrators were associated with multiple victims. 

Among biological fathers and mothers’ boyfriends, the proportions associated with boys 

and with girls were more evenly distributed. Nonparents had the highest proportion of 

perpetrators (65%) who maltreated girls. (See figure 5.) 

Stepfathers, adoptive fathers, and 

nonparents maltreated girls more 

often than other male perpetrators. 

 

8

 Table A–6 provides supporting data for Figure 4. 9

 Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to perpetrators being counted more than once if they

maltreated more than one child. Since all combination fathers maltreated more than one child, the 

percentages for this group are more than 200 percent. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

11
Figure 5. Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victim10

(n = 89,028) 

100% 6% 12% 8%

20% 18%

80% 27% 35% 32%

64%

37%

60% 40%

40%

65% 58% 56% 15%

45% 20% 39%

20%

0%

Biological Father Adoptive Father Stepfather Mother's Combination Nonparent

(n =45,526) (n =479) (n=6,857) Boyfriend Father (n=22,940)

(n=8,622) (n=4,604)

Girls Only Boys Only Boys and Girls

Perpetrators Acting Alone or with a Partner 

Some perpetrators acted alone, and some acted with 

another person or people. (See appendix A, table A–

1.) Sometimes, the other person was the mother of the 

victim, sometimes he or she was a different person. 

The majority (59%) of male perpetrators always acted alone; 34 percent acted at least 

once with the mother of the victim; and 6 percent acted at least once with other(s) but 

never acted with the mother. 

More than one-half of male 

perpetrators of child 

maltreatment always acted alone. 

Among biological fathers, 55 percent always acted alone, while 41 percent were 

associated with the mother at least once, and 4 percent acted with another person. A 

slightly larger percentage of stepfathers (64%) and adoptive fathers (60%) always acted 

alone. Among nonparent male perpetrators, 73 percent always acted alone, only 

12 percent acted at least once with the mother, and 14 percent acted with another person 

or people. Thus more than one-half of these male perpetrators were perpetrators of 

maltreatment without the involvement of either the victim’s mother or another person as 

a perpetrator.11

Type of Maltreatment 

Male and female perpetrators had distinct patterns 

of maltreatment. More than one-third of male 

perpetrators (36%) were associated with neglect; 

66 percent of female perpetrators were associated 

with neglect. (See figure 6.) A quarter of males 

Male perpetrators physically or 

sexually abused their victims more 

and neglected their victims less 

than did female perpetrators. 

 

10 Table A–7 provides supporting data for Figure 5. 11 Table A–2 provides supporting data on the number of perpetrators in each category who acted alone, 

with the mother, or with another person. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

12
(26%) were associated with sexual abuse, while 2 percent of female perpetrators were 

associated with sexual abuse. The percentages associated with physical abuse were 

comparable, although slightly higher for males (22%) than for females (18%). 

Figure 6. Maltreatment by Male and Female Perpetrators12

(n = 192,321) 

22%

18%

36%

66%

26%

2%

5% 4%

11% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Male (n=89,028) Female (n=103,293)

Physical Abuse Only Neglect or Medical Neglect Only Sexual Abuse Only Other or Emotional Abuse Only Multiple Maltreatment

Within male perpetrator categories there were also distinct patterns in the type of 

maltreatment. (See table 3.) One-half of biological fathers were associated with neglect. 

Adoptive fathers and stepfathers had distributions similar to each other, approximately 

one-quarter to one-third of each group was associated with one of the main types of 

maltreatment—physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse. 

Table 3. Perpetrator Categories by Type of Maltreatment 

(n = 89,028) 

Type of

Maltreatment 

Biological 

Father 

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother’sBoyfriend 

Combination 

Father Nonparent Total 

Physical Abuse 11,920 157 2,331 2,629 388 2,544 19,969

Only 26% 33% 34% 30% 8% 11% 22%

Neglect or Medical 22,580 111 1,345 2,662 2,596 2,819 32,113

Neglect Only 50% 23% 20% 31% 56% 12% 36%

Sexual Abuse 3,226 114 2,064 1,712 339 15,579 23,034

Only 7% 24% 30% 20% 7% 68% 26%

Other or Emotional 2,971 15 286 498 124 379 4,273

Abuse Only 7% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 5%

Mult 4,828 82 831 1,121 1,157 1,619 9,638 iple

Maltreatment 11% 17% 12% 13% 25% 7% 11%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

12 Table A–8 provides supporting data for Figure 6.

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

13
For both adoptive fathers and stepfathers, physical abuse was the most frequent type. 

Nonparental perpetrators were primarily associated with sexual abuse (68%). Biological 

fathers had the smallest percentage of sexual abuse cases (7%) compared to between 20

percent and 30 percent for boyfriends, adoptive fathers, and stepfathers. The pattern for 

combination fathers was similar to biological fathers, although with higher proportions 

being associated with neglect (56%), and with multiple types of maltreatment (25%). 

Risk Factors 

Of great interest is the examination of risk factors associated with perpetrators. The 

analyses of these data are complicated both by the data collection process as well as the 

data submission process in NCANDS. Information on such risk factors is largely 

dependent upon the assessments that are conducted by the CPS agency during 

investigations and are therefore likely to be underreported. Additionally, since risk 

factors are specifically associated with each child in a report rather than each perpetrator, 

the risk factors discussed below would be associated with all perpetrators in a specific 

report-child pair record. 

Of the States that identified whether the perpetrator was a 

caregiver or not, seven States were also able to indicate 

whether the caregivers in the report had drug or alcohol 

risk factors.13 Because the data on these risk factors were 

associated with caregivers, only perpetrators who were 

caregivers were included in these analyses. Sixteen 

percent of all male perpetrators who were caregivers were 

associated with these risk factors, compared with 20 

percent of all female perpetrators who were caregivers. Boyfriends who were caregivers 

were more often associated with the risk factors of alcohol, drug, or drug and alcohol 

(25%) than were the other types of male perpetrators. (See figure 7.) Biological fathers 

and stepfathers, who were caregivers, had the next highest percentages of involvement 

with drugs and alcohol (18% and 14% respectively). 

Mothers’ boyfriends who were 

caregivers were associated with 

alcohol and drug use more than 

were other types of male 

perpetrators. They also had a 

higher incidence of domestic 

violence between adults. 

Eight States provided data on the presence of domestic violence in the families of

maltreatment victims. Combination fathers who were caregivers were most often 

associated with the risk factors of family violence (35%), followed by boyfriends and 

stepfathers (23% and 20%, respectively). (See figure 8.) Biological fathers who were 

caregivers had the next highest percentages of involvement with family violence (18%). 

 

13These risk factors were coded as caregiver alcohol abuse and caregiver drug abuse in the NCANDS data 

set. They were recoded as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and drug and alcohol abuse. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

14
Figure 7. Drug and Alcohol Abuse Among Male Caregiver Perpetrators14

(n = 24,085) 

5% 6% 7%

8% 5%

11%

5%

3%

7%

3%

4%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Biological Father

(n =15,659)

Adoptive Father

(n =130)

Stepfather 

(n=2,984)

Mother's

Boyfriend

(n=1,957)

 Combination 

Father 

(n=1,482)

Nonparent

(n=1,873)

Alcohol Abuse Drug Abuse Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Figure 8. Family Violence Among Male Caregiver Perpetrators15 

(n = 14,410), Data from 8 States 

10%

20% 23%

35%

6%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Biological Father

(n =10,570)

Adoptive Father

(n =135)

Stepfather 

(n=1,086)

Mother's

Boyfriend

(n=600)

 Combination 

Father (n=955)

Nonparent

(n=1,064)

Presence of Family Violence Risk Factor

 

14 Table A–9 provides supporting data for Figure 7. 15 Table A–10 provides supporting data for Figure 8.

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

15
What outcomes are associated with male perpetrators of child maltreatment? 

These analyses address the third key research question—are there different outcomes 

associated with different types of male perpetrators? Perpetrators were compared in terms 

of services and recidivism. 

Services 

Nearly one-half of all male perpetrators were associated with

at least one investigation after which additional services were 

provided and recorded by the child welfare agency (47%). A 

larger percentage of female perpetrators (57%) received 

services. Approximately 16 percent of male perpetrators were

associated with at least one victim who was placed in foster 

care as a result of the investigation compared to 24 percent of female perpetrators.

Postinvestigation services 

were provided more often with 

female perpetrators than with 

male perpetrators. 

The proportions of male perpetrators who were associated with in-home services were 

quite comparable for all categories except combination fathers and nonparents. 

Approximately one-third of most categories of male perpetrators were associated with 

post-investigation in-home services. Among combination fathers 43 percent had in-home 

services provided and among nonparents only 24 percent had in-home services provided. 

The percentages of perpetrators associated with at least one child placed in foster care 

ranged from 10 percent (nonparents) to 29 percent (adoptive fathers). (See figure 9.) 

Approximately one-half of all perpetrators who were biological fathers, stepfathers, or 

mothers’ boyfriends did not receive any services. The percentage that did not receive any 

services was lower among adoptive fathers (40%) and higher among nonparents (66%). 

Figure 9. Services Received by Categories of Male Perpetrators16

(n = 89,028) 

17%

29%

14% 15%

26%

10%

34%

31%

36% 33%

43%

24%

49%

40%

50% 52%

31%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Biological Father

(n =45,526) 

Adoptive Father

(n =479)

Stepfather

(n=6,857)

Mother's

Boyfriend

(n=8,622)

Combination

Father

(n=4,604)

Nonparent

(n=22,940)

Foster Care In-Home Services None Reported

 

16 Table A–11 provides supporting data for Figure 9.

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

16
Perpetrator Recidivism 

Survival analysis techniques were used to estimate the 

proportion of perpetrators who had a second finding 

of having maltreated a child within 12 months of the 

first finding in the reporting period.17 Overall, male 

perpetrators had a lower recidivist rate, 6 percent at 

6 months and 9 percent at 12 months, compared with 

female perpetrators (8% and 12% respectively). 

Male perpetrators had a lower 

rate of recidivism than female 

perpetrators. Stepfathers and 

adoptive fathers rate of 

recidivism was lower than 

most other male perpetrators. 

Within 12 months, it was projected that 7 percent of biological fathers were associated 

with a second maltreated child, while approximately 4 percent of adoptive and 

stepfathers, 7 percent of boyfriends, and 8 percent of nonparents experienced an 

additional report of maltreatment in the same year. (See figure 10.) In addition, 

combination fathers experienced a 38 percent recidivism rate after 12 months. This is due 

to the fact that these perpetrators were necessarily associated with multiple children and 

frequently multiple reports.18

Figure 10. Recidivism of Categories of Male Perpetrators19

(n = 89,028) 

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

0 1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months Until Recidivism

Proportion R

ecidivating

Biological Father Adoptive Father Stepfather

Mother's Boyfriend Nonparent

 

17 Survival analysis is routinely used to provide an unbiased estimate of the likelihood of occurrence of a 

certain events—in this case, subsequent maltreatment by a perpetrator. Survival analysis controls for the 

situations in which the subjects can no longer be observed. Survival estimates are especially useful in this 

instance because not all perpetrators can be tracked for an equal period of time. 18 Combination fathers were omitted from Figure 10 due to inconsistency of scale and because they are 

defined, in part, by multiple events and may not represent a comparable category. Nonparents also include 

some complex relationships, with more than one event. 

19 Table A–12 provides supporting data for Figure10. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

17
Among male perpetrators who were associated with postinvestigation services (either 

foster care or in-home services), the proportion recidivating in 1 year was twice the 

proportion of males who were not associated with services—12 percent compared to 

6 percent. This finding is consistent with findings on female perpetrators in that 

20 percent of females associated with services recidivate within 12 months compared 

with 8 percent who were not associated with services. Perpetrators receiving services 

may have an intrinsically higher risk of recidivism that cannot be fully addressed by 

services, or the increased recidivism may possibly be due to increased attention and 

surveillance by CPS. This finding regarding services and perpetrator recidivism is also

consistent with studies of child maltreatment recurrence (Fluke, Yuan, & Edwards et al,. 

1999; DePanfilis & Zuravin, 1999a; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2004). 

How does the presence of a mother coperpetrator influence circumstances 

surrounding the child maltreatment or the outcomes? 

Perpetrators could either act alone or in concert with others. As noted above, male 

perpetrators were classified by whether they always acted alone or they were responsible 

for the maltreatment along with the victim’s mother (biological mother, stepmother or 

adoptive mother) in at least one victimization event. Male perpetrators who acted only 

with a person or persons other than the victim’s mother were not included in these 

analyses.20 Of a total of 79,031 male perpetrators, 65 percent only acted alone, and 

35 percent were associated with at least one victim’s mother on at least one occasion. To 

simplify the comparisons for these analyses, a “father surrogate” category was created to 

combine adoptive fathers, stepfathers, and mothers’ boyfriends. The following categories 

were compared: biological father acting alone; biological father acting with mother; 

biological father acting with other person or people; father surrogate acting alone; father 

surrogate acting with mother; father surrogate acting with other person or people; male 

nonparent acting alone; male nonparent acting with mother; and male nonparent acting 

with other person or people. Fifty-five percent of biological fathers always acted alone; 

and 58 percent of father surrogates (adoptive fathers, stepfathers, and mothers’ 

boyfriends) and 73 percent of male nonparents acted alone. 

Age of Child Victims 

Male perpetrators showed different patterns in the age 

of their child victims. (See table 4.) Among biological 

fathers who acted with mothers, 25 percent were 

associated with children under age 1, but among those 

who acted alone only 9 percent were associated with 

infant victims. Among other groups of male 

perpetrators, very few were associated with the youngest victims regardless of whether 

they acted with the mother or alone. Biological fathers were associated with fewer 

preteen (age 8–11) and teenage (age 12–15) victims than were the other male 

perpetrators, regardless of whether they acted alone or with the mother. 

Biological fathers acting with 

mothers were associated with 

maltreatment of infants more often 

than were those acting alone. 

 

20 For these analyses, 5,594 perpetrators who acted only with a person other than the victim’s mother were 

excluded. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

18
Table 4. Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Age of Victims 

(n = 79,031) 

Age of Acting Alone Acting with Mother

Youngest

Child

Biological

Father

Father

Surrogate Nonparent Total BiologicalFather

Father

Surrogate Nonparent Total

Total

Younger 2,320 229 199 2,748 4,720 433 215 5,368 8,116

than Age 1 7% 2% 1% 5% 17% 5% 6% 13% 8%

5,604 1,182 1,507 8,293 7,196 1,615 636 9,447 17,740 Age 1–3 22% 13% 9% 16% 38% 25% 23% 34% 22%

7,082 2,302 4,701 14,085 6,318 2,267 915 9,500 23,585 Age 4–7 28% 25% 28% 28% 34% 36% 33% 34% 30%

6,581 2,721 4,706 14,008 4,755 2,150 813 7,718 21,726 Age 8–11 26% 30% 28% 27% 25% 34% 29% 28% 27%

6,939 3,208 5,898 16,045 3,484 1,886 835 6,205 22,250 Age 12–15 28% 35% 35% 31% 19% 30% 30% 22% 28%

Age 16 or 2,600 1,016 1,736 5,352 1,260 553 202 2,015 7,367

Older 10% 11% 10% 10% 7% 9% 7% 7% 9%

All 25,181 9,198 16,798 51,177 18,727 6,371 2,756 27,854 79,031

Perpetrators 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

31,126 10,658 18,747 60,531 27,733 8,904 3,616 40,253 100,784 Total 

122% 116% 111% 117% 140% 138% 129% 139% 125%

Sex of Child Victims 

Male perpetrators acting alone were consistently associated with maltreating girls more 

often compared with male perpetrators acting with mothers. Among biological fathers 

acting alone, 42 percent had maltreated girls; 55 percent of father surrogates acting alone 

and 68 percent of male nonparents acting alone were associated with girls. (See figure 

11.) In contrast to all categories of male perpetrators acting alone, for the categories of 

male perpetrators acting with the victim’s mother the percentage associated with girls 

was lower, and a higher percentage acted with both boys and girls. 

Figure 11. Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victims21

(n = 79,031) 

42%

55%

68%

35% 42%

52%

43%

35%

26%

36%

34%

31%

14% 9% 6%

28% 24% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Biological Father

(n=25,181)

Father Surrogate

(n=9,198)

Nonparent

(n=16,798)

Biological Father

(n=18,675)

Father Surrogate

(n=6,360)

Nonparent

(n=2,752)

Acting Alone Acting with Mother

Girls Only Boys Only Boys and Girls

Acting Alone Acting with Mother

 

21 Table A–13 provides supporting data for Figure 11. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

19
Maltreatment Type 

Male perpetrators acting alone followed a very 

different pattern of maltreatment from those acting 

with the victim’s mother. In all instances, male 

perpetrators acting alone were more likely to be 

associated with sexual abuse than if they acted with 

mothers. Also, biological father and father surrogate perpetrators were more likely to be

associated with physical abuse and less likely to be associated with neglect if they acted 

alone. (See table 5.) 

Male perpetrators were more 

likely to maltreat girls when 

acting alone than when acting 

with mothers. 

Table 5. Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Type of Maltreatment

(n = 79,031) 

Acting Alone Acting with Mother Type of

Maltreatment Biological

Father

Father

Surrogate Nonparent Total BiologicalFather

Father

Surrogate Nonparent Total

Total

Physical 9,982 3,854 1,947 15,783 1,686 1,172 294 3,152 18,935

Abuse Only 40% 42% 12% 31% 9% 18% 11% 11% 24%

Neglect or 8,587 1,079 1,027 10,693 13,201 2,944 1,032 17,177 27,870

Medical 

Neglect Only 34% 12% 6% 21% 70% 46% 37% 62% 35%

Sexual 2,698 3,198 13,055 18,951 340 575 700 1,615 20,566

Abuse Only 11% 35% 78% 37% 2% 9% 25% 6% 26%

Other or 2,001 484 234 2,718 874 297 64 1,235 3,953

Emotional 

Abuse Only 8% 5% 1% 5% 5% 5% 2% 4% 5%

Multiple 1,913 583 535 3,031 2,626 1,383 666 4,675 7,706

Maltreatment 8% 6% 3% 6% 14% 22% 24% 17% 10%

25,181 9,198 16,798 51,176 18,727 6,371 2,756 27,854 79,031

Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Services 

Male perpetrators who acted alone were less likely to receive services than males who 

acted with the victims’ mothers. (See figure 12.) In all categories, male perpetrators who 

acted alone were less likely to have a child placed in foster care or to receive in-home 

services. This finding may be consistent with the types of maltreatment associated with 

male perpetrators acting alone; in sexual abuse cases, the perpetrator may be removed 

from the household so that the child is protected without the need for foster care. 

Recidivism

Recidivism was projected to be highest among 

biological fathers acting with mothers (10%), and

lowest among father surrogates acting alone (4%). 

(See figure 13.) Five percent of biological fathers 

alone were recidivists compared with 10 percent of 

biological fathers acting with mothers. Similarly, 

among father surrogates, 4 percent of those acting alone were again perpetrators within 

1 year, compared with 8 percent of those acting with mothers. Among nonparents, the 

Among male perpetrators, 

recidivism was highest among 

biological fathers acting with 

mothers and lowest among 

father surrogates acting alone. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

20
percent of recidivists was approximately the same for both groups, although slightly 

higher for those acting alone (7%) than for those acting with the mother (6%). 

Figure 12. Services Received by Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with 

Mothers22

(n = 79,031) 

10% 7% 6%

27% 26% 26%

32% 32%

22%

37% 36% 35%

58% 60%

72%

37% 38% 40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Biological Father

(n=25,181)

Father Surrogate

(n=9,198)

Nonparent

(n=16,798)

Biological Father

(n=18,675)

Father Surrogate

(n=6,360)

Nonparent

(n=2,752)

Acting Alone Acting with Mother

Foster Care In-Home Services None Reported

Acting Alone Acting with Mother

Figure 13. Recidivism of Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with Others23

(n=79,031) 

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

012 3 4 567 8 9 10 11 12

Months Until Recidivism

Proportion Recidivating

Biological father acting alone Father surrogate acting alone

Nonparent acting alone Biological father acting with mother

Father surrogate acting with mother Nonparent acting with mother

 

22 Table A–14 provides supporting data for Figure 12. 23 Table A–15 provides supporting data for Figure 13. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

21
Summary and Conclusions 

he distribution and characteristics of male perpetrators are among the least studied 

aspects of child maltreatment. Nonetheless, generalizations regarding this group 

are common. The use of NCANDS data to explore information about this group of 

perpetrato

T 

rs has revealed a clearer picture from a multi-State perspective.

Key Findings 

This study confirms earlier findings (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2004) that females outnumbered male perpetrators among cases investigated by CPS, by 

a margin of 10 percent. Males were slightly older than females, but otherwise no other 

basic demographic differences between male and female perpetrators were observed. 

More than one-half of the male perpetrators were biological fathers, nearly one-quarter 

occupied some other parental role (adoptive fathers, stepfather, mothers’ boyfriends), and 

an additional one-quarter were in nonparental relationships (including relatives, foster 

parents, daycare providers, or friends) to their victims. With respect to basic demographic 

descriptors, male perpetrators with different relationships to their victims varied to only a 

limited degree in their age and race. 

In contrast, the categories of male perpetrators varied by the characteristics and 

experiences of their victims. Biological fathers were associated with the youngest victims 

compared with other male perpetrators, and among these groups, stepfathers and adoptive 

fathers were associated with relatively higher percentages of preteen or teenage victims. 

Further, nonparent perpetrators had the largest proportion of female victims, and more 

than one-half of the stepfather and adoptive father perpetrators had exclusively female 

victims. In contrast, fewer than one-half of the perpetrators who were biological fathers 

and mothers’ boyfriends were associated with only female victims. 

The study also confirmed NCANDS findings (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2004) that patterns of sexual abuse were more common among male 

perpetrators, whereas neglect was more common among female perpetrators. About onefifth of perpetrators, both male and female, physically abused their victims. The 

maltreatment pattern for biological fathers was similar to the overall female pattern—that 

is, the majority was associated only with neglect, and less than 10 percent were sexually 

abusive, although about one-quarter were physically abusive. In contrast, about onequarter of the stepfather and adoptive fathers sexually abused their victims and roughly 

one-third physically abused their victims. Interestingly, maltreatment patterns for 

mothers’ boyfriends appeared to fall between the biological fathers and the combined 

group of stepfathers and adoptive fathers, such that the proportion of sexual abuse was 

less than it was among stepfathers and adoptive fathers, but greater than it was among 

biological fathers, with the pattern being reversed for neglect. Finally, more than twothirds of the nonparent perpetrators sexually abused their victims. 

 

To explore this further, the categories of male perpetrators were broken down by those 

who acted alone and those who acted in concert with a victim’s mother. One of the most 

important findings is that a majority of male perpetrators in this study were found to have 

always acted alone. For these analyses, the stepfather, adoptive father, and mother’s 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

22
boyfriend categories were combined as father surrogates. When these categories were 

arrayed with respect to the victim characteristics, and particularly their maltreatment 

experience, a continuum emerges from the contrasts. Male perpetrators acting alone were 

more likely to have committed sexual abuse or physical abuse, to have abused girls, to 

have abused older children, and not to have received services than similar male 

perpetrators who acted with mothers. Male perpetrators who acted with mothers were 

more likely to be associated with neglect than any other type of maltreatment. In other 

words, the overall perpetration pattern for males acting with mothers has more 

similarities to the overall pattern for females when compared to males acting alone. 

Both within the group of perpetrators acting alone and with the mother, the biological 

fathers’ victims were younger and proportionally fewer were sexually abused. Surrogate 

fathers victimized a greater proportion of older female children and were associated more 

often with sexual abuse compared with biological fathers. However, when compared with 

biological and nonparent perpetrators, the surrogate fathers fell in between in terms of 

age, gender, and sexual abuse of their victims. Taken together, the data appear to support 

a two-dimensional continuum of male perpetration patterns based on the relationship to 

the child and whether the perpetrator acted alone.

Finally, intervention outcomes appear to be tied into the continuum as well. With the 

exception of mothers’ boyfriends, more than one-half of male perpetrators in all father 

categories received some services. However, the rate of foster care service provision was 

three times as frequent among male perpetrators acting with mothers as it was among 

males acting alone, across categories. On the other hand, the proportion associated with 

the provision of in-home services was relatively consistent among male perpetrators, 

regardless of involvement of the mother. Only among nonparents was in-home service 

notably higher among those perpetrators involved with the mother than those who were 

acting alone. 

Although recidivism rates were low, biological fathers were more likely to be 

perpetrators of maltreatment again than were most other male perpetrators. The lowest 

levels of recidivism were among mothers’ boyfriends and stepfathers. The lack of 

permanence in the relationship between a boyfriend and the mother may be responsible 

for this; such a perpetrator may be excluded from the household before recidivism can 

occur. Among stepfathers, lower recidivism rates may also result from such exclusion 

from the household, either on the part of the mother or CPS, or it may reflect the 

successful implementation of intervention services. 

A pattern of decreasing recidivism can also be tied to the perpetrator continuum, so that 

those males acting with mothers were more likely to recidivate than were males acting

alone. Also consistent with the continuum, among perpetrators acting with mothers, 

biological fathers acting with mothers were most likely to recidivate followed by father 

surrogates and then nonparents. The father surrogate perpetrators acting alone were least 

likely to recidivate. The type of maltreatment or level of access to the child was not 

considered for these analyses. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

23
Implications

These findings may have important policy implications. The first implication is that if

prevention and treatment interventions for child maltreatment are targeted only to 

women, a large proportion of perpetrators will not benefit from these efforts. Secondly, 

in-home services, in their most narrow sense, may be missing the opportunity to involve 

men who maltreat children but who are not living in the home. As many as one-third 

more biological fathers act alone than act with a mother in maltreating their children, 

suggesting a degree of disconnectedness in family relations that may be significant. 

The second implication is that perpetrators who are not biological fathers were more 

commonly associated with physical abuse and sexual abuse, older children, and female 

children. Similarly, when acting alone, biological fathers and father surrogates were more 

often perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse, but when acting with the mother were 

more often associated with neglect. These perpetrator category distinctions echo broader 

distinctions in the NCANDS data and add to the notion that the dynamics associated with 

neglect are quite dissimilar from physical and sexual abuse. But again, this study 

highlights that a relatively large proportion of male perpetrators are involved in neglect 

when both parents are present, a finding not emphasized in prior research. Additionally, 

the relatively large proportion of stepfathers and adoptive fathers associated with sexual 

abuse, as well as with older, female children, suggests the need for prevention efforts in 

blended and adoptive families. 

The third area of findings with potential policy implications is that male perpetrators have 

many different relationships to their victims. The findings and the literature suggest that 

interventions that strengthen the role of fathers to prevent further child maltreatment and 

improve child well-being are a complex undertaking. This study provides insights into 

this complexity by identifying clear subgroups of perpetrators. Because of the distinct 

differences among these male perpetrators with different relationships to their victims, 

interventions of all types may need to be more highly differentiated. The classification 

scheme presented could be refined and combined with more information about victims, 

and ultimately families, resulting in a data driven classification scheme of CPS 

populations for whom specific and targeted interventions may be designed. For example, 

it seems discouraging that biological father perpetrators who acted with the victims’ 

mother were more likely to recidivate than were other male perpetrators. However, as the 

data show, these are also situations in which neglect is more frequently of concern and 

children are younger, both important risk factors for recurrence (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2004). This is precisely the set of children and families who 

must be served more effectively to reduce maltreatment recurrence. The data clearly 

imply that fathers of these families must be included in the service plans. 

Further exploration of information on male perpetrators is certainly warranted. For 

example, multivariate analyses have not been conducted; these might highlight even more 

clearly how the variables relate to each other and the relative importance of some

variables in refining the classification scheme. In addition, obtaining a clearer picture of 

how the various categories of perpetrators fit within households would provide insights 

into the service and recidivism outcomes. The NCANDS data remain an important 

resource in developing this understanding as they provide a comprehensive view of the 

range of child maltreatment circumstances among CPS populations. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

24
References 

Adinkrah, M. (2003). Men who kill their own children: paternal filicide incidents in 

contemporary Fiji. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(5), 557–568. 

Bagley, C., & Pritchard, C. (2000). Criminality and violence in intra- and extra-familial 

child sex abusers in a 2-year cohort of convicted perpetrators. Child Abuse 

Review, 9(4), 264–274. 

Brewster, A. L., Nelson, J. P., Hymel, K. P., Colby, D. R., Lucas, D. R., McCanne, T. R., 

et al. (1998). Victim, perpetrator, family, and incident characteristics of 32 infant 

maltreatment deaths in the United States Air Force. Child Abuse and Neglect, 

22(2), 91–101. 

Child Trends. (2002). Charting Parenthood: A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and 

Mothers in America. 

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1999). The Truth About Cinderella: A Darwinian View of 

Parental Love. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

DePanfilis, D. and S. Zuravin (1999). Epidemiology of child maltreatment recurrence.

Social Services Review 27(2), 218–223. 

Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Cox, C. E., Kerr, M. A., Litrownik, A. J., Radhakrishna, A., 

et al. (2001). Father involvement and children's functioning at age 6 years: A 

multisite study. Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 300–309. 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2003). America's Children: 

Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Freeman, J. B., Levine, M., & Doueck, H. J. (1996). Child age and caseworker attention 

in child protective services investigations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(10), 

907–920. 

Fluke, J., Y. Yuan, & Edwards, M. (1999). Recurrence of maltreatment: An application 

of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Child Abuse and Neglect 

23(7): 633–650. 

Greif, J. L., & Bailey, C. (1990). Where are the fathers in social work literature? Families 

in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 71(2), 88–92. 

Klevens, J., Bayon, M. C., & Sierra, M. (2000). Risk factors and context of men who 

physically abuse in Bogota, Columbia. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(3), 323–332. 

Lamb, M. E. (2001). Male roles in families "at risk": The ecology of Child Maltreatment. 

Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 310–313. 

Manion, I., Firestone, P., Cloutier, P., Ligezinska, M., McIntyre, J., & Ensom, R. (1998). 

Child extrafamilial sexual abuse: Predicting parent and child functioning. Child 

Abuse and Neglect, 22(12), 1285–1304. 

Manion, I. G., McIntyre, J., Firestone, P., Ligezinska, M., Ensome, R., & Wells, G. 

(1996). Secondary traumatization in parents following the disclosure of 

extrafamilial child sexual abuse: Initial effects. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 

1095–1109. 

Nobes, G., & Smith, M. (2002). Family structure and the physical punishment of 

children. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 349–373. 

O'Donohue, W., Smith, V., & Schewe, P. (1998). The credibility of child sexual abuse 

allegations: Perpetrator gender and subject occupational status. Sexual Abuse: A 

Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(1), 17–24. 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

25
Phelan, P. (1995). Incest and its meaning: The perspective of fathers and daughters. Child 

Abuse and Neglect, 19(1), 7–24. 

Radhakrishna, A., Bou-Saada, I. E., Hunter, W. M., Catellier, D. J., & Kotch, J. B. 

(2001). Are father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment? Child 

Maltreatment, 6(4), 281–289. 

Rudin, M. M., Zalewski, C., & Bodmer-Turner, J. (1995). Characteristics of child sexual 

abuse victims according to perpetrator gender. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(8), 

963–973. 

Smith, D. W., & Saunders, B. E. (1995). Personality characteristics of father/perpetrators 

and nonoffending mothers in incest families: Individual and dyadic analyses. 

Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(5), 607–617. 

Smithey, M. (1998). Infant homicide: Victim/offender relationship and causes of death. 

Journal of Family Violence, 13(3), 285297. 

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A Nation's Shame: Fatal 

Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: Department of 

Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Nurturing Fatherhood: 

Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation and 

Fatherhood. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from

http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/cfsforum/front.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002a). State Policies to Promote 

Marriage - Final Report. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003b). Child Maltreatment 2001: 

Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Child Maltreatment 2002: 

Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

26
APPENDIX A. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES 

Table A–1. Male Perpetrators 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Perpetrator Acting Alone Acting with Mother Acting with 

Other Person(s) Total 

25,181 18,727 1,618 45,526

Biological Father 

55% 41% 4% 100%

287 183 9 479

Adoptive Father 

60% 38% 2% 100%

4,399 2,339 119 6,857

Stepfather 

64% 34% 2% 100%

4,512 3,849 261 8,622

Mother’s Boyfriend 

52% 45% 3% 100%

1,638 2,765 201 4,604

Combination Father 

36% 60% 4% 100%

16,798 2,756 3,386 22,940

Nonparent 

73% 12% 15% 100%

52,815 30,619 5,594 89,028

Total Male Perpetrators 

59% 34% 6% 100%

64,810 38,483 103,293

Total Female Perpetrators 

63% 37% 100%

117,625 30,619 44,077 192,321

Total Perpetrators

61% 16% 23% 100%

Table A–2. Age of Male and Female Perpetrators 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Age of Perpetrator Male Female Total Perpetrators

8,872 6,898 15,770

Age 20 or younger 10% 7% 8%

22,506 40,345 62,851

Age 21–30 

25% 39% 33%

28,111 35,666 63,777

Age 31–40 

32% 35% 33%

15,915 13,105 29,020

Age 41–50 

18% 13% 15%

4,233 2,763 6,996

Age 51–60 

5% 3% 4%

1,658 1,030 2,688

Age 61 and older 

2% 1% 1%

7,733 3,486 11,219

Missing Age 9% 3% 6%

89,028 103,293 192,321 Total 

100% 100% 100%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

27
Table A–3. Race of Perpetrators 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Race of 

Male 

Perpetrator 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

496 5 57 46 91 199 894 1,664 2,558 American

Indian or 

Alaska

Native 

Only 

1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%

6,627 69 944 1,778 810 3,954 14,182 21,855 36,037

Black Only

15% 14% 14% 21% 18% 17% 16% 21% 19%

444 2 44 35 37 124 686 775 1,461 Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander 

Only 1% 0.42% 1% 0.41% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

27,943 333 4,120 4,268 2,802 12,444 51,910 59,005 110,915 White 

Only 61% 70% 60% 50% 61% 54% 58% 57% 58%

Hispanic 6,055 23 1,102 1,197 437 3,182 11,996 13,062 25,058

of Any

Race 13% 5% 16% 14% 9% 14% 13% 13% 13%

115 2 18 15 17 74 241 485 726 Multiple

Race 0.25% 0.42% 0.26% 0.17% 0.37% 0.32% 0.27% 0.47% 0.38%

3,846 45 572 1,283 410 2,963 9,119 6,447 15,566 Unknown 

or Other 8% 9% 8% 15% 9% 13% 10% 6% 8%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 103,293 192,321

Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table A–4. Perpetrators as Caregivers 

(n = 109,305, Data from 10 States) 

Caregiver

Status of

Perpetrator 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

20,768 187 3,043 2,007 1,618 1,914 29,537 52,234 81,771 Caregiver 

81% 72% 82% 42% 87% 14% 60% 87% 75%

Not a 4,743 71 676 2,736 236 11,409 19,871 7,663 27,534

Caregiver 19% 28% 18% 58% 13% 86% 40% 13% 25%

25,511 258 3,719 4,743 1,854 13,323 49,408 59,897 109,305 Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

28
Table A–5. Perpetrators by Number of Child Victims 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Number

of Child

Victims 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

29,753 405 5,326 5,908 0 18,372 59,764 62,520 122,284 1 

65% 85% 78% 69% 0% 80% 67% 61% 64%

9,537 51 948 1,655 1,906 3,121 17,218 22,355 39,573 2 

21% 11% 14% 19% 41% 14% 19% 22% 21%

4,058 19 384 707 1,418 938 7,524 11,056 18,580 3 9% 4% 6% 8% 31% 4% 8% 11% 10%

4 or 2,178 4 199 352 1,280 509 4,522 7,362 11,884

more 5% 1% 3% 4% 28% 2% 5% 7% 6%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 103,293 192,321 Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table A–6. Perpetrators by Age of Child Victims 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Age of Child 

Victim 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

Age 1 or 7,189 2 139 537 1,142 511 9,520 21,386 30,906

Younger 16% 0% 2% 6% 25% 2% 11% 21% 16%

13,242 19 660 2,177 2,408 2,579 21,085 32,385 53,470

Age 1–3 

29% 4% 10% 25% 52% 11% 24% 31% 28%

13,949 61 1,592 3,032 2,742 6,520 27,896 34,653 62,549

Age 4–7 

31% 13% 23% 35% 60% 28% 31% 34% 33%

11,820 128 2,202 2,669 2,353 6,489 25,661 28,211 53,872

Age 8–11

26% 27% 32% 31% 51% 28% 29% 27% 28%

10,852 226 2,801 2,200 1,576 8,021 25,676 22,642 48,318

Age 12–15 

24% 47% 41% 26% 34% 35% 29% 22% 25%

Age 16 or 3,987 95 922 589 489 2,337 8,419 7,635 16,054

older 9% 20% 13% 7% 11% 10% 9% 7% 8%

All 45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 103,293 192,321

Perpetrators 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

61,039 531 8,316 11,204 10,710 26,457 118,257 146,912 265,169 Total 

134% 111% 121% 130% 233% 115% 133% 142% 138%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

29
Table A–7. Perpetrators by Sex of Child Victim 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Sex of 

Child 

Victim 

Biological 

Father 

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother'sBoyfriend 

Combination 

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators 

Total 

Female 

Perpetrators

Total 

Perpetrators

Just 17,827 276 3,831 3,895 942 14,806 41,577 39,698 81,275

Girls 39% 58% 56% 45% 20% 65% 47% 38% 42%

Just 18,243 169 2,216 3,154 709 6,230 30,721 38,202 68,923

Boys 40% 35% 32% 37% 15% 27% 35% 37% 36%

Boys 9,296 31 795 1,542 2,949 1,852 16,465 25,076 41,541

and 

Girls 20% 6% 12% 18% 64% 8% 18% 18% 24%

M 160 3 15 31 4 52 265 317 582 issing

Data 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 103,293 192,321

Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78%

Table A–8. Maltreatment by Male and Female Perpetrators 

(n = 192,321, Data from 18 States) 

Maltreatment Male Female Total 

19,969 18,168 38,137

Physical Abuse Only 22% 18% 20%

Neglect or Medical Neglect 32,113 68,289 100,402

Only 36% 66% 52%

23,034 2,064 25,098

Sexual Abuse Only 26% 2% 13%

Other or Emotional Abuse 4,273 3,675 7,948

Only 5% 4% 4%

9,638 11,095 20,733

Multiple Maltreatment 

11% 11% 11%

89,028 103,293 192,321

Total 

100% 100% 100%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

30
Table A–9. Drug and Alcohol Abuse of Caregiver Perpetrators 

(n = 24,085, Data from 7 States) 

Drug and 

Alcohol

Abuse 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

Just 850 1 179 136 47 20 1,233 1,645 2,878

Alcohol 5% 1% 6% 7% 3% 1% 5% 4% 5%

Just 1,176 0 136 223 55 11 1,601 4,286 5,887

Drug 8% 0% 5% 11% 4% 1% 7% 11% 9%

Drug and 715 0 101 128 50 13 1,007 1,861 2,868

Alcohol 5% 0% 3% 7% 3% 1% 4% 5% 5%

12,918 129 2,568 1,470 1,330 1,829 20,244 31,384 51,628 None or 

Unknown 82% 99% 86% 75% 90% 98% 84% 80% 82%

15,659 130 2,984 1,957 1,482 1,873 24,085 39,176 63,261 Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table A–10. Family Violence of Caregiver Perpetrators 

(n = 40,484, Data from 8 States) 

Family

Violence 

Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

1,851 13 221 137 331 59 2,612 2,625 5,237

Presence 

of Family

Violence 

Risk 

Factor 

18% 10% 20% 23% 35% 6% 18% 10% 13%

8,719 122 865 463 624 1,005 11,798 23,449 35,247

None or 

Unknown 

82% 90% 80% 77% 65% 94% 82% 90% 87%

10,570 135 1,086 600 955 1,064 14,410 26,074 40,484

Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table A–11. Services Received by Categories of Perpetrators 

(n = 192,131, Data from 18 States) 

Services Biological

Father

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother's Boyfriend 

Combination

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

Total

Female

Perpetrators

Total

Perpetrators

Foster 7,920 139 953 1,329 1,177 2,324 13,842 24,607 38,449

Care 17% 29% 14% 15% 26% 10% 16% 24% 20%

In-Home 15,354 148 2,446 2,806 1,992 5,441 28,187 34,193 62,380

Services 34% 31% 36% 33% 43% 24% 32% 33% 32%

22,252 192 3,458 4,487 1,435 15,175 46,999 44,493 91,492 None 

Reported 49% 40% 50% 52% 31% 66% 53% 43% 48%

45,526 479 6,857 8,622 4,604 22,940 89,028 103,293 192,321

Total 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

31
Table A–12. Recidivism of Categories of Male Perpetrators 

(n = 89,028, Data from 18 States) 

Recidivism Biological 

Father 

Adoptive 

Father Stepfather Mother’sBoyfriend 

Combination 

Father Nonparent Total MalePerpetrators

After 1 month 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 2% 2%

After 2 months 2% 2% 1% 2% 10% 2% 3%

After 3 months 3% 2% 2% 2% 14% 3% 4%

After 4 months 3% 2% 2% 3% 16% 3% 5%

After 5 months 4% 3% 3% 4% 19% 4% 6%

After 6 months 4% 3% 3% 4% 22% 4% 7%

After 7 months 5% 4% 3% 4% 25% 5% 8%

After 8 months 5% 4% 4% 5% 28% 5% 9%

After 9 months 6% 4% 4% 5% 30% 6% 10%

After 10 months 6% 4% 4% 6% 32% 6% 10%

After 11 months 7% 4% 4% 6% 35% 7% 11%

After 12 months 7% 4% 5% 7% 38% 8% 12%

Table A–13. Actions and Categories of Male Perpetrators by Sex of Victims 

(n = 79,031, Data from 18 States) 

Acting Alone Acting with Mother 

Victim Biological 

Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent Total Biological Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent Total 

Total 

Perpetrators 

10,590 5,104 11,349 27,043 6,568 2,687 1,433 10,688 37,731 Girls Only 

42% 55% 68% 53% 35% 42% 52% 38% 48%

10,855 3,249 4,447 18,551 6,775 2,163 843 9,781 28,332

Boys Only 43% 35% 26% 36% 36% 34% 31% 35% 36%

Boys and 3,638 810 956 5,404 5,332 1,510 476 7,318 12,722

Girls 14% 9% 6% 11% 28% 24% 17% 26% 16%

98 35 46 179 52 11 4 67 246

Missing Data

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All 25,181 9,198 16,798 51,177 18,727 6,371 2,756 27,854 79,031

Perpetrators 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

32
Table A–14. Services Received by Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with 

Mothers 

(n = 79,031, Data from 18 States) 

Acting Alone Acting with Mother 

Services Biological 

Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent Total Biological Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent Total 

Total 

Foster 2,526 689 1,007 4,222 5,040 1,642 709 7,391 11,613

Care 10% 7% 6% 8% 27% 26% 26% 27% 15%

In-home 8,004 2,965 3,667 14,636 6,838 2,301 958 10,097 24,733

Services 32% 32% 22% 29% 37% 36% 35% 36% 31%

None 14,651 5,544 12,124 32,319 6,849 2,428 1,089 10,366 42,685

Reported 58% 60% 72% 63% 37% 38% 40% 37% 54%

Total 25,181 9,198 16,798 51,177 18,727 6,371 2,756 27,854 79,031

Table A–15. Recidivism of Perpetrators Acting Alone or in Concert with Others 

(n = 79,031, Data from 18 States) 

Acting Alone Acting with Mother 

Recidivism Biological 

Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent Biological Father 

Father 

Surrogate Nonparent 

After 1 month 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%

After 2 months 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2%

After 3 months 1% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2%

After 4 months 2% 2% 3% 5% 4% 2%

After 5 months 2% 2% 3% 5% 5% 3%

After 6 months 3% 2% 4% 6% 5% 3%

After 7 months 3% 3% 4% 7% 6% 4%

After 8 months 3% 3% 5% 8% 6% 4%

After 9 months 4% 3% 5% 8% 7% 4%

After 10 months 4% 3% 6% 9% 7% 5%

After 11 months 4% 4% 6% 9% 7% 5%

After 12 months 5% 4% 7% 10% 8% 6%

Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment: 

Findings from NCANDS

33