Findings from the National Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence Exposure to Violence

(NatSCEV)(NatSCEV)

Heather A. Turner, Ph.D.Heather A. Turner, Ph.D.Crimes Against Children Research Crimes Against Children Research

CenterCenter

University of New HampshireUniversity of New Hampshire

Core Research TeamCore Research Team

David Finkelhor, Principal InvestigatorDavid Finkelhor, Principal Investigator

Heather A. Turner, Co-Principal Heather A. Turner, Co-Principal InvestigatorInvestigator

Sherry Hamby, Co-InvestigatorSherry Hamby, Co-Investigator

Richard Ormrod, Data manager and Richard Ormrod, Data manager and analystanalyst

Assessment, Prevention, & Intervention Assessment, Prevention, & Intervention Tend to Focus On a Single Problem….Tend to Focus On a Single Problem….

4

Need for Comprehensive EpidemiologyNeed for Comprehensive Epidemiology

Understand full burden on childrenUnderstand full burden on children

See inter-relationships among See inter-relationships among victimizationsvictimizations

Identify highest risk childrenIdentify highest risk children

Track trendsTrack trends

Understand developmental patterns Understand developmental patterns across the entire developmental spectrumacross the entire developmental spectrum

JVQ ModulesJVQ Modules Module A: Conventional Crime

– Robbery– Personal Theft– Vandalism– Assault with Weapon– Assault without Weapon– Attempted Assault– Kidnapping– Bias Attack

Module B: Child Maltreatment– Physical Abuse by Caregiver– Psychological/Emotional Abuse– Neglect– Custodial Interference/Family Abduction

Module C: Peer & Sibling Victimization– Gang or Group Assault– Peer or Sibling Assault– Nonsexual Genital Assault– Bullying– Emotional bullying– Dating Violence

Module D: Sexual Victimization– Sexual Assault by Known Adult– Nonspecific Sexual Assault– Sexual Assault by Peer– Rape: Attempted or Completed– Flashing/Sexual Exposure– Verbal Sexual Harassment– Statutory Rape & Sexual Misconduct

Module E: Witnessing & Indirect Victimization– Witness to Domestic Violence– Witness to Parent Assault of Sibling– Witness to Assault with Weapon– Witness to Assault without Weapon– Burglary of Family Household– Murder of Family Member or Friend– Witness to Murder– Exposure to Random Shootings, Terrorism or Riots– Exposure to War or Ethnic Conflict

NatSCEV JVQ AdditionsNatSCEV JVQ Additions

Community Crime Exposure– Family/friend Sexual Assault

– Family/ friend Robbed

– Family/friend Gun Threat

Family Abuse Exposure– Parents Threaten Other Parent

– Parents Break Objects

– Parents Push Other Parent

– Parents Slap, Choke, Beat Up

– Any Teen or Grown-up Fight in Household

School Violence Threat– Threaten School Bomb or Attack

– School Vandalism

Internet Victimization– Internet Harassment

– Internet Sexual Victimizations

National Survey of Children’s Exposure National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV)to Violence (NatSCEV)

Survey conducted January 2008- May 2008Survey conducted January 2008- May 2008 National RDD sample of 4549 children age 0-17National RDD sample of 4549 children age 0-17 Telephone interviews with 2454 caregivers of children Telephone interviews with 2454 caregivers of children

age 0-9age 0-9 Telephone interviews with 2095 youth age 10-17Telephone interviews with 2095 youth age 10-17 Respondents promised confidentiality and paid $20 for Respondents promised confidentiality and paid $20 for

participationparticipation Over-sample of minorities and low incomeOver-sample of minorities and low income Interviews completed with 71% of eligible respondents Interviews completed with 71% of eligible respondents

contacted (63% with over-sample of minorities and contacted (63% with over-sample of minorities and low low income)income)

How complete are survey disclosures?How complete are survey disclosures?

Parents disclose far more on Parents disclose far more on surveys than are known to surveys than are known to authorities. authorities. – Surveys have produced rates of sexual Surveys have produced rates of sexual

abuse many times higher than CPS rates abuse many times higher than CPS rates suggest suggest

– Parents have good knowledge about out-Parents have good knowledge about out-of-home incidents through early of-home incidents through early childhood. Parental estimates of childhood. Parental estimates of exposure to community violence can be exposure to community violence can be off by as much as 50% for older youth off by as much as 50% for older youth

– Parents actually tend to disclose MORE Parents actually tend to disclose MORE family-perpetrated violence than childrenfamily-perpetrated violence than children

11

NatSCEV addresses this by:NatSCEV addresses this by:Confidential survey reportsConfidential survey reports

Using youth report for ages 10 and up to Using youth report for ages 10 and up to maximize accuracy of out-of-home incidents. maximize accuracy of out-of-home incidents.

We don’t find major discontinuities between 9 We don’t find major discontinuities between 9 and 10 years (switching from caregiver to self-and 10 years (switching from caregiver to self-report) in any types of victimization, including report) in any types of victimization, including maltreatment and witnessing partner violence maltreatment and witnessing partner violence

Overall, there may be some under-reporting by Overall, there may be some under-reporting by youngest self-report youth (10-11 year olds)youngest self-report youth (10-11 year olds)

12

RESULTSRESULTS

0102030405060708090

100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Per

cen

t of a

ll C

hil

dre

n .

Victim Age (years)

3-year running average

Any Victimization

Any Past Year Victimization by Victim Age

Victimization in Last YearVictimization in Last YearTotal and Selected AggregatesTotal and Selected Aggregates

(Children 0-17, N=4549)

61

46

610

25 25

3-year running average

Major Victimization Types by Victim AgeMajor Victimization Types by Victim Age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Per

cen

t Vic

tim

ized

in P

ast

Yea

r *

Victim Age (years)

Physical Assault

Witness ViolenceProperty Victimization

Maltreatment

Sexual Victimization

Any Victimization

Indirect Exposureto Violence

Highlights & Age Trends: Highlights & Age Trends: Physical Assault, Past YearPhysical Assault, Past Year

17

Bullying & Harassment, Past YearBullying & Harassment, Past Year

18

Property Victimization, Past Property Victimization, Past YearYear

19

Exposure to Community Violence, Exposure to Community Violence, Past YearPast Year

20

Child Maltreatment, Past YearChild Maltreatment, Past Year

21

Sexual Victimization, Past YearSexual Victimization, Past Year

22

Witness Family Violence, Past YearWitness Family Violence, Past Year

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Any wit fam asslt

Wit part asslt

Wit phys ab sib

Wit oth fam asslt

Indirect only

All

0 to 1

2 to 5

6 to 9

10 to 13

14 to 17

23

Highlights: Lifetime RatesHighlights: Lifetime RatesThe main strength of lifetime rates is their ability to The main strength of lifetime rates is their ability to show the total burden of victimization.show the total burden of victimization.

Traumatic effects may extend well beyond 1 yearTraumatic effects may extend well beyond 1 year

Lifetime rates are not large multiples of past year Lifetime rates are not large multiples of past year rates. Why?rates. Why?– Re-victimization of the same child—can only Re-victimization of the same child—can only

become a “victim” oncebecome a “victim” once– Many in our sample very young—not entered Many in our sample very young—not entered

peak exposure period for some riskspeak exposure period for some risks– Also issues with memory (esp for less common Also issues with memory (esp for less common

or less salient victimizations)or less salient victimizations)24

Lifetime Rates: HighlightsLifetime Rates: Highlights

25

The Importance of Focusing The Importance of Focusing on Violence and Crime on Violence and Crime

Victimization among Victimization among ChildrenChildren

Children More Victimized than Adults, General Crime

Agg.Assault

SimpleAssault

Rape Robbery

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000

00

11

22

33

44

You

th R

isk

- A

du

lt R

isk

(12-

17)

2.0x

2.9x

2.3x1.9x

Youth Have More Serious Crime VictimizationYouth Have More Serious Crime Victimization

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001

0

5

10

15

20

Weapon Used in Crime Injury

Vic

tim

izat

ion

Rat

e pe

r 10

00

Adult Adult

Youth

Youth5.7

10.1

5.7

15.8

Children More Victimized than Adults,Children More Victimized than Adults,Family ViolenceFamily Violence

0

1

2

3

4

5

65.3 x

3.1 x

Any Violence Severe ViolenceNational Family Violence Survey

Chi

ld R

isk

- A

dult

Ris

k(0

-18)

Rural Youth More Victimized than Urban AdultsRural Youth More Victimized than Urban Adults

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001

64

31

48

18

48

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Youth (12-17) Adults

Vic

tim

izati

on

Rate

per

1000

Suburban

Centra

l City

Small Town /

R

uralCentral City

Suburban

Small Town /

R

ural

Youth (12-17) Adults

POLY-VICTIMIZATION OF POLY-VICTIMIZATION OF CHILDRENCHILDREN

Considering Cumulative Effects of Considering Cumulative Effects of Different Types of VictimizationDifferent Types of Victimization

many children are exposed to multiple many children are exposed to multiple forms of victimizationforms of victimization

effects of adversity in childhood do not effects of adversity in childhood do not dissipate but instead “build up” over timedissipate but instead “build up” over time

cumulative adversity affects neurological cumulative adversity affects neurological systems that create long-term vulnerability systems that create long-term vulnerability to disorderto disorder

The Poly-Victimization ModelThe Poly-Victimization Model

Focuses on the full burden of victimization Focuses on the full burden of victimization by assessing exposure to multiple types by assessing exposure to multiple types Allow us to identify interconnections Allow us to identify interconnections among typesamong typesAcknowledges the high rates of Acknowledges the high rates of victimization across types often involve the victimization across types often involve the same childrensame childrenGuards against overestimating impact of Guards against overestimating impact of individual victimizationsindividual victimizations

Poly-victimizationPoly-victimizationEarlier work :Earlier work :

examined past year exposure to multiple examined past year exposure to multiple forms of victimizationforms of victimization

Current research:Current research:

considers lifetime exposureconsiders lifetime exposure

expanded the types of victimizations expanded the types of victimizations assessed assessed

Larger nationally representative sampleLarger nationally representative sample

MeasurementMeasurement

Poly-victimization:Poly-victimization:– Summary of 37 different victimization typesSummary of 37 different victimization types– Poly-victim group = 11+ different types of Poly-victim group = 11+ different types of

victimizations in child’s lifetime (top 10% of victimizations in child’s lifetime (top 10% of sample)sample)

Trauma Symptoms:Trauma Symptoms:– Standardized aggregate score of anger, Standardized aggregate score of anger,

depression, anxiety, and PTSD items of depression, anxiety, and PTSD items of shortened TSCC (10-17 year olds) and TSCYC shortened TSCC (10-17 year olds) and TSCYC (2-9 year olds)(2-9 year olds)

Table 1: Exposure to Specific Victimization Table 1: Exposure to Specific Victimization Types by Victimization Level Types by Victimization Level

VictimsVictims Poly-VictimsPoly-VictimsVictimization Type:Victimization Type: (1-10 scnrs)(1-10 scnrs) (>10 scnrs)(>10 scnrs)

Physical AssaultPhysical Assault 73.3 %73.3 % 100.0 %100.0 %PropertyProperty 47.0 %47.0 % 93.6 %93.6 %MaltreatmentMaltreatment 18.2 %18.2 % 78.6 %78.6 %Peer-SiblingPeer-Sibling 79.2 %79.2 % 96.1 %96.1 %Sexual VictimizationSexual Victimization 7.8 %7.8 % 55.4 %55.4 %Sexual AssaultSexual Assault 3.0 %3.0 % 22.9 %22.9 %Witness Family ViolenceWitness Family Violence 20.4 %20.4 % 85.7 %85.7 %Exposure to Community ViolExposure to Community Viol 51.4 %51.4 % 97.5 %97.5 %Physical AbusePhysical Abuse 6.1 %6.1 % 51.2 %51.2 %BullyingBullying 26.0 %26.0 % 59.9 %59.9 %

Poly-victims’ Domains of VictimizationPoly-victims’ Domains of Victimization

98

34

46

18

10079

96

55

86

2

0102030405060708090

100

% o

f P

olyv

icti

ms

.

Victimization Domains

2

3

4

5

Poly-victims as a Proportion of Victims Poly-victims as a Proportion of Victims of Particular Types of Victimizationof Particular Types of Victimization

16

38

15

50

37

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Assault Maltreatment Peer/Sib Sexual Witness Familyviol

Expos CommViol

Per

cen

t of

Vic

tim

s.

Seriousness of Poly-victims’ Seriousness of Poly-victims’ Victimization ExperiencesVictimization Experiences

15 11 8

25

7363

55

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

Any Vict Injury Any Weapon Vict Any Sex Vict Any CaregiverPerpetration

Per

cen

t of

Vic

tim

s .

Victim, Non-Poly Poly Victim

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics by Table 2. Demographic Characteristics by Victimization GroupVictimization Group

Non-victim Victim Poly-victimNon-victim Victim Poly-victimCharacteristic Characteristic (0 types)(0 types) (1-10 types) (>10 types)(1-10 types) (>10 types)

Age Group Age Group 2-5 Years2-5 Years 40.6 %40.6 % 21.9 %21.9 % 5.4 % 5.4 %6-9 Years6-9 Years 24.1 %24.1 % 27.9 %27.9 % 12.6 %12.6 %10-13 Years10-13 Years 22.1 %22.1 % 27.1 %27.1 % 21.2 %21.2 %14-17 Years14-17 Years 3.2 %3.2 % 23.1 %23.1 % 60.8%60.8%

GenderGenderFemaleFemale 52.4 %52.4 % 47.8 %47.8 % 47.8 %47.8 %MaleMale 47.6 %47.6 % 52.2%52.2% 52.2 %52.2 %

Socio-economic StatusSocio-economic StatusLow Low 24.8 %24.8 % 14.9 %14.9 % 17.2 %17.2 %MiddleMiddle 62.9 %62.9 % 69.5 %69.5 % 74.4%74.4%HighHigh 12.3 %12.3 % 15.6 %15.6 % 8.4 %8.4 %

Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity White, non-HispanicWhite, non-Hispanic 52.3 %52.3 % 62.2 %62.2 % 53.9 %53.9 %Black, non-HispanicBlack, non-Hispanic 15.1 %15.1 % 14.5 %14.5 % 23.6 %23.6 %Hispanic, Any RaceHispanic, Any Race 26.1 %26.1 % 17.4 %17.4 % 12.3 %12.3 %Other Race, non-HispanicOther Race, non-Hispanic 6.3 %6.3 % 5.4 %5.4 % 8.9 %8.9 %

Family Structure Family Structure Two Parent Family Two Parent Family 73.1 %73.1 % 64.2 %64.2 % 36.0 %36.0 %Step-parent or Partner Family Step-parent or Partner Family 6.8 %6.8 % 10.0 %10.0 % 20.2 %20.2 %Single Parent Family Single Parent Family 17.5 %17.5 % 21.1 %21.1 % 32.8 %32.8 %Other Adult CaregiverOther Adult Caregiver 2.7 %2.7 % 4.7 %4.7 % 11.1 %11.1 %

Characteristics of Poly-victimsCharacteristics of Poly-victims

2415 18

715 15

219

1824

33

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below AverageSES

African-American Single Parent Step Family

Per

cent

Non-Victim Victim, Non-Poly Poly Victim

Figure 1. Trauma Symptom Levels by Total Figure 1. Trauma Symptom Levels by Total Number of Victimization TypesNumber 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 variables

Table 3: The Effect of Poly-victimization on Table 3: The Effect of Poly-victimization on Trauma SymptomsTrauma Symptoms

Trauma SymptomsMeasure b (s.e.) Beta

Poly-Victimization (PV) .13 (.003) 0.57 **

Any Physical Assault model without PV .67 (.031) 0.32 ** model with PV .10 (.034) 0.05 **

Any Maltreatment model without PV .88 (.039) 0.35 ** model with PV .18 (.042) 0.07 **

Any Peer-Sibling Victimization model without PV .67 (.032) 0.32 ** model with PV .15 (.033) 0.07 **

Any Sexual Victimization model without PV .88 (.052) 0.27 ** model with PV .02 (.052) 0.01

Any Exposure to Family Violence model without PV .04 (.037) 0.35 ** model with PV .12 (.041) 0.05 **

Any Exposure to Community Violence model without PV .56 (.034) 0.28 ** model with PV -.06 (.035) -0.03

Poly-victimization (PV) Swamps Effects of Poly-victimization (PV) Swamps Effects of Individual Victimizations on TraumaIndividual Victimizations on Trauma

AssaultAssault

MaltreatmentMaltreatment

Peer/SiblingPeer/Sibling

0.05

0.32

* Standardized Regression coefficient, controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, SES, family structure.

SexualSexual

VictznVictzn

Witness Witness

Fam ViolFam Viol

Expos toExpos to

Comm ViolComm Viol

0.07

0.35

0.07

0.32

0.01

0.27

0.05

0.35

0.28

-0.03

Without PV With PV * Without PV With PV *

Figure 2: Trauma Symptom Scores across Figure 2: Trauma Symptom Scores across Victim GroupsVictim Groups

Peer-Sib Victims

Sexual Victims

Maltreatment VictimsProperty Victims

Witness Community Viol Victims

Witness Family Viol Victims

non-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vic

non-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vicnon-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vic

non-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vic

non-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vic

non-vic

vic – low chron

vic – high chron

vic – poly vic

Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings

Poly-victims:Poly-victims:

Often come from disadvantaged Often come from disadvantaged groupsgroups

Comprise a large portion of all Comprise a large portion of all children who experience individual children who experience individual types of victimizationtypes of victimization

Are often exposed to victimization Are often exposed to victimization from multiple contexts or sourcesfrom multiple contexts or sources

Summary of Findings, Summary of Findings, contcont

Poly-victimization is more highly Poly-victimization is more highly related to trauma symptoms than related to trauma symptoms than experiencing repeated victimizations experiencing repeated victimizations of a single type of a single type

Lifetime poly-victimization accounts Lifetime poly-victimization accounts for most of the effect of individual for most of the effect of individual victimization typesvictimization types

DiscussionDiscussion

Why the powerful effect of poly-victimization?Why the powerful effect of poly-victimization?

Represents a condition of victimization rather than Represents a condition of victimization rather than a set of eventsa set of events

Threats to safety, stability, nurturance in multiple Threats to safety, stability, nurturance in multiple life domains (home, school, community)life domains (home, school, community)

Damages resources (social support, coping, self Damages resources (social support, coping, self concept) that help buffer the impact of victimizationconcept) that help buffer the impact of victimization

Pathways to Poly-victimizationPathways to Poly-victimization

Dangerous neighborhoodsDangerous neighborhoods

Dysfunctional/Violent ParentsDysfunctional/Violent Parents

Family adversityFamily adversity

Existing child mental health problems Existing child mental health problems or disabilitiesor disabilities

Assessment Issues about Assessment Issues about Poly-victimizationPoly-victimization

Need to assess a broader range of Need to assess a broader range of victimizationsvictimizations

Important to identify the most highly Important to identify the most highly victimized youthvictimized youth

Combination with aggression and Combination with aggression and delinquencydelinquency

THE CO-OCCURRENCE OF THE CO-OCCURRENCE OF WPV& MALTREATMENTWPV& MALTREATMENT

52

Physical Abuse & WPVPhysical Abuse & WPV

53All odds ratios control for several demographics and have Zhang & Yu correction applied

Psychological Abuse & WPVPsychological Abuse & WPV

54

Sexual Abuse by Known Adult Sexual Abuse by Known Adult & WPV& WPV

55

Neglect & WPVNeglect & WPV

56

Custodial Interference & WPVCustodial Interference & WPV

5772% of family abductions occurred in

WPV homes!

Overlap of WPV and Other Overlap of WPV and Other Victimizations: LifetimeVictimizations: Lifetime

Corrected OR range 1.63 to 3.81

58

Intervention IssuesIntervention Issues

Treatment approaches should address multiple Treatment approaches should address multiple victimizationsvictimizations

Utility of providing training across victimization Utility of providing training across victimization intervention specialtiesintervention specialties

Mixture of symptom alleviation and skill development Mixture of symptom alleviation and skill development

Multiple intervention contexts (schools, police, family Multiple intervention contexts (schools, police, family court, child protection)court, child protection)

Child and intimate partner victimization are not Child and intimate partner victimization are not distinct phenomena. Services should be more distinct phenomena. Services should be more integrated & more focused on helping all victims in a integrated & more focused on helping all victims in a family.family.

Thank youThank you

Research supported with grants from the Research supported with grants from the Department of Juvenile Justice and Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as part Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as part of the Safe Start Initiativeof the Safe Start Initiative