10 Things You Might Be Surprised to Know About Youth Victimization by 3dMq16

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 44

									  Key Findings from the
    National Survey of
  Children’s Exposure to
Violence & Implications for
       Assessment
                       Sherry Hamby
               Sewanee, the University of the South
        David Finkelhor, & Heather Turner
         Crimes Against Children Research Center, UNH
 Presented at the Defending Childhood Initiative Grantee Meeting,
               Washington, DC, January 25-27, 2011
        For more info contact sherry.hamby@sewanee.edu              1
    National Survey of Children’s Exposure to
     Violence (NatSCEV, Finkelhor, Turner,
           Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009)
   Telephone survey conducted January 2008- May 2008
   National RDD sample of 4549 children age 1 month-17
       2454 caregivers of children age 0-9
       2095 youth age 10-17
   Respondents promised confidentiality and paid $20
   Oversample of African American, Hispanic, & low income
   Interviews completed with 71% of eligible respondents
        contacted (63% with oversample of minorities and low
        income)
   More than 40 types of victimization assessed.
                                                          2
 Victimization in Last Year
Total and Selected Aggregates
      (Children 0-17, N=4549)



61
       46

                                25   25

                        10
                6
   #1: Children’s Lives
   Aren’t Organized by
  Research Disciplines,
Institutional Mandates, or
    Professional Roles

                             4
The “Stovepipes”
      of

      Child
  Victimization



                   Graphic
                   prepared by
                   Kelly Foster
Assessment, Prevention, & Intervention
Tend to Focus On a Single Problem….




                                    6
But many children are victimized in
        multiple ways…




                        If Maltreated,
                   OR (adjusted) for Risk of
                   Other Victimization Type




                                               7
..and, across violence subdisciplines,
we are largely studying the same kids




                      If Physically Assaulted,
                     OR (adjusted) for Risk of
                     Other Victimization Type




                                                 8
      Even polyvictims (>10 unique
victimizations) comprise a high % of any
     particular victimization category




                                     9
#2: Children’s families
   aren’t defined by
current adult romantic
     relationships

                          10
A Well-Known Decline in 2-parent
         Households…




                                   11
  ..but even this can mask the large
numbers of children experiencing the
        end of parental unions



%




                           Based on 1995 NSFG
                           data; from Manning et
                           al., 2004
          Child’s Age                        12
 Children Are Exposed to Multiple
Parental and Caregiver Relationships
Others: Parents’ ex-                  Grandparents or other in-
boyfriends, ex-girlfriends,           home caregivers who
foster parents, in-home               supervise child 50+
relatives, other caregivers           hours/week while parent
                                      works
      Dad, stepmother, half-sibling
                                      Mom, boyfriend, half-siblings




                                                                      13
 Many Parents, Intimate Partners, &
Relatives Perpetrate Partner Violence in
           Front of Children




                                     14
#3 Witnessing Partner
 Violence is Not Only
Associated with Child
Physical Abuse, but All
Forms of Maltreatment

                          15
   Witnessing Partner Violence (WPV):
   Common & co-occurs w/ child abuse
                                       WPV Youth
                                Review by Appel & Holden, 1998




                                             41%




From Straus, 1992 (1985 NFVR)


                                                                 16
                  Physical Abuse & WPV
% abused




           All odds ratios control for several demographics and have Zhang & Yu correction applied   17
           Psychological Abuse & WPV
% abused




               From Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010   18
           Sexual Abuse by Known Adult
                     & WPV
% abused




                                         19
              Neglect & WPV
% neglected




                              20
                           Custodial Interference & WPV
% custodial interference




                           72% of family abductions occurred in WPV homes!
                                                                             21
#4 Exposure to Family
 Violence is Not Just
 About Inter-parental
      Violence

                        22
    Other Household Members Assault
     Each Other at Significant Rates



%




    Lifetime rates from Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, forthcoming   23
Perpetrators & Victims of Other
Household Assault in NatSCEV
 Perpetrators          Victims




                                  24
Targets of Household Offenses Resulting
     in Law Enforcement Contact
   Juveniles Offenders                           Adult Offenders




                    NIBRS data, Snyder & McCurley, 2008            25
   #5 Current Trauma
Symptoms Are More Tied
to Variety and Number of
    Exposures than to
  Specific Victimization
          Types
                           26
   Figure 1. Trauma Symptom Levels by Total
        Number of Victimization Types*




* cases with 11+ victimizations aggregated due to smaller Ns.
** mean standardized symptoms scores at different numbers of victimization types, controlling for demographic
                                                                                                       27
variables
              Polyvictimization matters more
                 than any particular type
Maltreatment, for example, has a
medium-sized association with trauma
symptoms, after controlling for age,
gender, and other demographics but
NOT poly-victimization.
            Without PV With PV *




                                         The strongest predictor gets to
Remarkably, this association is close
                                         explain as much variance as it
to zero if you add poly-
                                         can, leaving only “unique”
victimization to the equation—it
                                         variance for other variables. It
explains nearly all of the variability
                                         turns out there is little “unique”
accounted for by maltreatment.
                                         about maltreatment.
  Polyvictimization (PV) Swamps Effects of
    Individual Victimizations on Trauma
               Without PV With PV *                         Without PV With PV *

Assault                                    Sexual
                                           Victzn



Maltreatment                               Witness
                                           Fam Viol


Peer/Sibling                               Expos to
                                           Comm Viol



                   * Standardized Regression coefficient,
                   controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, SES,
                   family structure.                                               29
Figure 2: Trauma Symptom Scores across
             Victim Groups
 Property Victims   Maltreatment Victims    Peer-Sib Victims




                      Witness Family Viol   Witness Community Viol
 Sexual Victims       Victims               Victims




                                                               30
   Using the JVQ-R2, the
Victimization Questionnaire
      from NatSCEV
       What Does the JVQ Measure?
                                 The Juvenile Victimization
                                  Questionnaire has 5 modules:
                                        Conventional crime
                                             (theft, assault, kidnapping)
                                        Child maltreatment
                                             (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect)
                                        Peer Victimization
                                             (includes bullying)
                                        Sexual Victimizations
                                             (includes sexual harassment, statutory sex
                                              offenses)
                                        Witnessing and Indirect Victimization
JVQ ref: Hamby, Finkelhor, Ormrod,           (includes witnessing DV, war zone)
& Turner, 2004
                                                                                        32
    Advantages of the JVQ-R2 Model
   #1 Can track developmental
    pathways
   #2 Can identify overlap among types
   #3 Powerful determinant of
    symptoms
   #4 Comprehensive; includes violence
    across settings and perpetrators
   #5 Designed to map more closely
    onto common institutional categories
                                           33
        Challenges of the JVQ-R2 model
   Institutional categories do not always
    have consistent definitions or clear
    boundaries among types of
    victimization, and sometimes even
    vary across institutions.
       Ex. A: Child protective services typically
        examine caregiver perpetrators for physical
        abuse & neglect, but others for sexual abuse.
   Some degree of scoring overlap is
    hard to eliminate across victimization
    types.
   We have encountered some resistance
    at “accepting” the large numbers of
    victims id’d through this model
                                                        34
           Help for Conceptual Issues
   Be clear about definitions and how they
    overlap (or don’t) with institutional
    definitions.
   Collect enough incident data to be flexible in
    your definitions for different settings/uses.
   Provide multiple statistics that identify
    different levels of severity.
   We have spent a lot of time reviewing the
    reports and re-classifying as needed.
   The good news: in our earlier study, we
    compared numerous scoring alternatives,
    including simple counts from screeners, and
    found them all quite similar (Finkelhor,
    Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005).
                                                     35
JVQ-R2 Steps in Development


   Item Formulation
   Expert Review
   Focus Groups of Youth and Parents
   Cognitive Interviews
   National Household Survey
                                     JVQ Modules
 Module A: Conventional Crime
    –   Robbery                                Module D: Sexual Victimization
    –   Personal Theft                               –   Sexual Assault by Known Adult
    –   Vandalism                                    –   Sexual Assault by Unknown Adult
    –   Assault with Weapon                          –   Sexual Assault by Peer/Sibling
    –   Assault without Weapon                       –   Forced Sex (including attempts)
    –   Attempted Assault                            –   Flashing/Sexual Exposure
    –   Kidnapping                                   –   Verbal Sexual Harassment
    –   Bias Attack                                  –   Statutory Rape & Sexual Misconduct

 Module B: Child Maltreatment
    –   Physical Abuse by Caregiver                Module E: Witnessing & Indirect Victimization
    –   Psychological/Emotional Abuse                –   Witness to Domestic Violence
    –   Neglect                                      –   Witness to Parent Assault of Sibling
    –   Custodial Interference/Family Abduction      –   Witness to Assault with Weapon
                                                     –   Witness to Assault without Weapon
 Module C: Peer & Sibling Victimization             –   Burglary of Family Household
    –   Gang or Group Assault                        –   Murder of Family Member or Friend
    –   Peer or Sibling Assault                      –   Exposure to Random Shootings, Terrorism or Riots
    –   Nonsexual Genital Assault                    –   Exposure to War or Ethnic Conflict
    –   Physical Intimidation
    –   Relational Aggression
    –   Dating Violence
                           JVQ-R2 Supplemental Items
 Exposure to Family Violence & Abuse                      Electronic Victimization
    –       Parent Verbally Threatened                        –   Internet Harassment
    –       Parental Displaced Aggression                     –   Cell Phone Harassment
    –       Parent Pushed                                     –   Unwanted Internet Sex Talk
    –       Parent Hit or Slapped
    –       Parent Severely Physically Assault             School Violence & Threat
    –       Other Family Violence Exposure                    –   School Threat of Bomb or Attack
                                                              –   School Vandalism
 Other Severe Assaults
    –       Assault by Adult
                                                           Supplemental Neglect Items
    –       Assault with Injury
                                                              –   Neglect from Parental Incapacitation
                                                              –   Neglect from Parental Absence
 Exposure to Community Violence
                                                              –   Neglect from Inappropriate Adults in
     –       Exposure to Sexual Assault
                                                                  Home
     –       Exposure to Robbery
                                                              –   Neglect from Unsafe Environment
     –       Exposure to Threatened Assault with Weapon
                                                              –   Neglect from Lack of Hygiene
                                                                  Supervision
  Supplemental Peer Relational
   Aggression Items
        –     Social Discrediting by Peers
        –     Social Exclusion by Peers
                JVQ-R2: Choices
   Gold standard: Full JVQ
    (www.unh.edu/ccrc/jvq)
   Silver: JVQ short form, screener, or
    abbreviated interview
   Bronze: A brief screen, much in the
    same way many of you routinely ask
    about SI or HI:
   “Have you been hurt by someone in
    the last year, or do you ever feel
    scared or unsafe at home, school, in
    your neighborhood?”
   Ask in private setting!!               Body map
                                                      39
                    JVQ-R2 Formats
   Full JVQ, including all supplemental screeners
    and all follow-ups
     More than 50 forms of victimization
     39 follow-ups, some asked of all or most screeners,
      some specific to certain victimizations
   Screener only version
       No follow-up items
   Abbreviated interview
       34 core JVQ items, with limited follow-ups
   Reduced item version
       12 items that include at least one screener from each
        major victimization domain.
                 Sample Items
   In the last year, did anyone steal something from
    you and never give it back? Things like a
    backpack, money, watch, clothing, bike, stereo,
    or anything else?
   In the last year, did any kid, even a brother or
    sister, hit you? Somewhere like: at home, at
    school, out playing, in a store, or anywhere else?
         Building a Child-Centered
         Approach into Assessment
   Although some exemplary programs exist, many
    programs, including the important gateways of CPS
    & schools, seldom ask about victimizations aside
    from those related to initial report.
   We’d like to see all children who receive CPS
    referrals asked about bullying, nonfamily assault,
    and exposure to community violence.
   We’d like to see all school children referred for
    bullying or depression asked about family violence.
                                                    42
    All the Victims in a Family Need
                 Services
   Assess parents as well as children. Parents
    can’t implement treatment plans if they
    can’t freely choose their actions.
   Assess children as well as parents. What
    must it be like for a child in a shelter, a full-
    time residential program, to either not
    receive any services at all or to get perhaps
    an hour of week of group therapy?
   Use tools like the VIGOR (Hamby 2009) to
    formally incorporate children’s needs into
    safety planning.
                                                        43
             Bigger Implications?
   Need to re-think service delivery and consider
    alternative models.
   Zero-to-3 programs offer one model that might be
    extended across the span of childhood.
     Developmental focus
     Integrate as many services as possible

     Family-centered

   Big brother/big sister/coaches/ministers. Trusted
    adults are one key aspect of resilience, but these
    natural helpers don’t limit themselves to one
    domain of a child’s life.                       44

								
To top