Key Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence & Implications...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    29-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    212
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Key Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence & Implications...

  • Key Findings from the National Survey of Childrens Exposure to Violence & Implications for AssessmentSherry HambySewanee, the University of the SouthDavid Finkelhor, & Heather TurnerCrimes Against Children Research Center, UNHPresented at the Defending Childhood Initiative Grantee Meeting, Washington, DC, January 25-27, 2011For more info contact [email protected]*

  • National Survey of Childrens 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.*

  • Victimization in Last YearTotal and Selected Aggregates(Children 0-17, N=4549)61466102525

    Chart1

    60.6

    46.3

    6.1

    10.2

    24.6

    25.3

    East

    Percent of all Children .

    Sheet1

    Any VictAny Physical AssaultAny Sex VictAny MaltreatmentAny Prop VictAny Witness/Indirect

    East61466102525

    West30.6334.631.6

    North45.946.94543.9

  • #1: Childrens Lives Arent Organized by Research Disciplines, Institutional Mandates, or Professional Roles*

  • The Stovepipes of Child VictimizationGraphic prepared by Kelly Foster

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

  • But many children are victimized in multiple waysIf Maltreated, OR (adjusted) for Risk of Other Victimization Type*

  • ..and, across violence subdisciplines, we are largely studying the same kidsIf Physically Assaulted, OR (adjusted) for Risk of Other Victimization Type*

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

  • #2: Childrens families arent defined by current adult romantic relationships*

  • A Well-Known Decline in 2-parent Households*

  • ..but even this can mask the large numbers of children experiencing the end of parental unionsChilds Age%Based on 1995 NSFG data; from Manning et al., 2004*

  • Children Are Exposed to Multiple Parental and Caregiver RelationshipsOthers: Parents ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, foster parents, in-home relatives, other caregivers*

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

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

  • Witnessing Partner Violence (WPV): Common & co-occurs w/ child abuseWPV YouthReview by Appel & Holden, 199841%From Straus, 1992 (1985 NFVR)**

  • Physical Abuse & WPV*All odds ratios control for several demographics and have Zhang & Yu correction applied*

    Chart1

    17.63.5

    31.14.8

    % WPV youth

    % non-WPV youth

    Sheet1

    % WPV youth% non-WPV youth

    Past year17.63.5

    Lifetime31.14.8

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

    Chart1

    4.41

    4.99

    Odds ratio

    Sheet1

    Odds ratio

    Past year4.41

    Lifetime4.99

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • Psychological Abuse & WPV*From Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010*

    Chart1

    23.46

    38.28

    % WPV youth

    % non-WPV youth

    Sheet1

    % WPV youth% non-WPV youth

    Past year23.46

    Lifetime38.28

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

    Chart1

    3.48

    4.32

    Odds ratio

    Sheet1

    Odds ratio

    Past year3.48

    Lifetime4.32

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • Sexual Abuse by Known Adult & WPV**

    Chart1

    1.40.2

    5.30.4

    % WPV youth

    % non-WPV youth

    Sheet1

    % WPV youth% non-WPV youth

    Past year1.40.2

    Lifetime5.30.4

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

    Chart1

    6.13

    5.18

    Odds ratio

    Sheet1

    Odds ratio

    Past year6.13

    Lifetime5.18

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • Neglect & WPV**

    Chart1

    9.90.9

    13.81.6

    % WPV youth

    % non-WPV youth

    Sheet1

    % WPV youth% non-WPV youth

    Past year9.90.9

    Lifetime13.81.6

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

    Chart1

    9.06

    6.17

    Odds ratio

    Sheet1

    Odds ratio

    Past year9.06

    Lifetime6.17

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • Custodial Interference & WPV*72% of family abductions occurred in WPV homes!*

    Chart1

    8.51.1

    20.11.5

    % WPV youth

    % non-WPV youth

    Sheet1

    % WPV youth% non-WPV youth

    Past year8.51.1

    Lifetime20.11.5

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

    Chart1

    8.83

    9.15

    Odds ratio

    Sheet1

    Odds ratio

    Past year8.83

    Lifetime9.15

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • #4 Exposure to Family Violence is Not Just About Inter-parental Violence*

  • Other Household Members Assault Each Other at Significant Rates%Lifetime rates from Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, forthcoming*

  • Perpetrators & Victims of Other Household Assault in NatSCEVPerpetratorsVictims*

  • Targets of Household Offenses Resulting in Law Enforcement ContactJuveniles OffendersAdult OffendersNIBRS data, Snyder & McCurley, 2008*

  • #5 Current Trauma Symptoms Are More Tied to Variety and Number of Exposures than to Specific Victimization Types*

  • 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 variables

    *

    Chart1

    -0.568

    -0.432

    -0.15

    -0.042

    0.153

    0.287

    0.377

    0.497

    0.611

    0.672

    0.683

    1.343

    1.197

    1.395

    1.749

    Number of Exposures to Different Victimization Types

    Adjusted Symptom Means**

    Sheet1

    01234567891011-1213-1415-1617+

    Estimated Marginal Means-0.568-0.432-0.15-0.0420.1530.2870.3770.4970.6110.6720.6831.3431.1971.3951.749

  • Polyvictimization matters more than any particular typeMaltreatment, 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 * Remarkably, this association is close to zero if you add poly-victimization to the equationit explains nearly all of the variability accounted for by maltreatment.The strongest predictor gets to explain as much variance as it can, leaving only unique variance for other variables. It turns out there is little unique about maltreatment.

  • Polyvictimization (PV) Swamps Effects of Individual Victimizations on TraumaAssault

    Maltreatment

    Peer/Sibling

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

    SexualVictzn

    Witness Fam Viol

    Expos toComm Viol

    Without PV With PV * Without PV With PV * *

  • Figure 2: Trauma Symptom Scores across Victim Groups*

  • 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(includes witnessing DV, war zone)JVQ ref: Hamby, Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2004*

  • 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*

  • Challenges of the JVQ-R2 modelInstitutional 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 idd through this model*

  • Help for Conceptual IssuesBe clear about definitions and how they overlap (or dont) 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).*

  • JVQ-R2 Steps in Development

    Item Formulation Expert Review Focus Groups of Youth and Parents Cognitive Interviews National Household Survey