The author of "What You Can Change and What You Can't" did a well informed review of studies that measure influence of child abuse and traumas on adult life.
What he found is that there is barely any, and that studies that detect this influence have severely flawed methodology.
I can't find any references to this online. Given its controversial I call bullshit.
Closest community background reading: http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/criminal-justice-reform
Scale
prevalence
Back of the envelope estimate of the number of abused excluding those who are emotionaly abused and neglected (because those stats aren’t on the wikipedia page for child abuse):
If all those physically abused are the same as those sexually abused (most conservative estimate) then 0.2 of all people are abused as children. If they are completely seperate populations then ((1/5 + 1/13)/2) + (1/4) = 0.39 (~0.4) of all people are abused as children. So, 0.2-0.4 of all people are abused.
More likely ¼ of all people are abused as children in some way or another
Harm (qualitatively)
Exponential growth, externalities or diminishment of the problem
Shut up, stop dumping qutes and give me the QALY’s
0.028per year * world population * 0.25 = 51800000 QALY’s per year
Neglectedness
It's likely to be more neglected in low and middle income countries.
Tractability
What can we do about it?
Given that ‘’three quarters of substantiated cases of physical abuse of children have occurred within the context of physical punishment’’, (see tractability section) assuming that a ban on corporal punishment towards children could be enforced with just 10% compliance worldwide, we could save a minimum of 10% * ¾ * 51800000 QALY’s per year = 3885000 QALY’s per year.
Now how cost effective would it be? What could we use as a reference class for how much resources would need to be invested to outlaw and enforce bans on corporal punishment of children? I don’t have the subject matter experience to say, so if anybody can help me out here please do. If you can also estimate how much money would be saved from everything from healthcare costs to criminal justice aversion costs, please chime in.
Instead, let’s compare with one Open Philanthropy Project funded area [clearing the organ donation waitlist](http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/organ-transplantation). They’ve simply funded trying to figure out the solution, whereas some steps are more obvious for child abuse. They decide to go ahead on that based on estimates for merely thousands of QALY’s. It should be overwhelmingly evident that averting child abuse probably dominates the organ donation waitlist problem.
Faced with such aberrant findings, I think it’s appropriate to hand this over to the community for input before collaboratively investigating this area. Could averting child abuse be the most important cause? If it is at least an important cause, what does it’s neglectedness from the cause prioritisation community thus far say about the methods by which potential important causes are identified?