Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Youth Violence
3/31/05
When we consider the meaning of “home” in our own minds, many of us come up with
the idealogical thought that “home” means “family” and is an institution that belongs at the
core of our beings. We hold the picturesque image of a home that is whole, happy, loving
– a place to withdraw in calmness and security. We are told this should be so, so we
believe it and continue to strive for this near impossible dream. We deny the actual, that
the disharmony that is more prevalent than peace has, in fact, transformed our lives more
to the antithesis of our “happy home” dream and we are living a lie without challenge.
We deny the harms within our own troubled homes and choose to ignore the pains
experienced by others – paying attention just sharpens our connection to “the reality”.
Today, more than ever, we need to pay attention. As one psychologist and former Family
Advocate for America had once commented (not a direct quote), “We’ve lost one
generation. We may be able to survive it. But we will not survive the loss of another.”
(James C. Dobson, PhD) In 1990, a National Commission also made reference to the
survival of our nation by claiming, “Never before has one generation of American children
been less healthy, less cared for, or less prepared for life than their parents were at the
same age.” An index put out by the Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy
measuring the social well-being of youth dropped from 68 in 1970 to 37 in 1987. (Hewlett
p.11) In America, we have been blessed with freedoms that many who live around the
world could never dream – freedom of religion, freedom to generally speak and act as we
choose. As well, we have the right to choose, the right to divorce and generally the right
to take care of our own needs, often with little responsibility, innate or imposed, to protect
the wellbeing of others. Our nation has mutated into a place that has lately put “self”
before “others” leading to the neglect and abuse of others, including our future generation
of youth. Children of the US are at greater risk than children in other industrialized
countries that otherwise parallel ours. From a report twenty years ago, the nationwide
incidence of child abuse had quadrupled since 1975. (Hewlett p.12) Little has changed
with regard to prevalence today. Our youth experience abuse in several forms – neglect,
physical abuse, psychological abuse. They receive it first hand or are witness to it.
By the best estimates of authors Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz, the number of incidences
of violence in the home surpasses the number of incidences that one would be at risk of
experiencing on the street. (Straus & Gelles p. 17, Reiss & Roth p. 221) Gelles claims
that family violence is more common in developed countries and notes that children who
are valued in some way (ie. for economic, spiritual or psychological qualities) are less
likely to be mistreated. He believes that certain factors may also lead a family member to
be abusive - a child may have less desirable qualities (ie. a handicap), a child’s
capabilities and development stage may be misunderstood leading adult to expect more
out of the child, and a family without a social network or assistance with childcare may
opt to abuse. (Gelles & Cornell p. 33-35) Violence is usually thought of as a physical act,
and within the home has been called family violence, intimate violence or domestic
violence. (Straus & Gelles p. 19, 21) Child abuse (now and from 25 years ago) has been
generally defined as an act causing physical or mental injury to, negligent treatment of, or
maltreatment of a child under the age of eighteen. (Straus & Gelles p.20, NIH)
Unfortunately, violence toward children has been regarded differently by individual groups
and has not been defined uniformly by all, making comparative research a bit of a
challenge. (Reiss & Roth p. 222) What is viewed as abuse by some may be viewed as
Straus and Gelles performed a comprehensive comparison of family violence using two
National Family Violence Surveys, one from 1975, the other from 1985. After
interviewing parents in 1985, they found that nearly all of the young children three years
of age or younger had been hit by their parents during the year at least once. (Straus &
Gelles p.97) Based on the findings for this same year, children seventeen or younger
experienced very severe violent acts at the hands of their parents at a rate of 23 per
million victims in this category of violence. For this same age group, children
experienced severe violence at a rate of 110 per 1,000 couples/children. They estimated
that 6.9 million children experienced severe violence nationwide. Incidences of violence
were not seen as isolated cases. They generally occurred several time during the year
with a mean frequency of 10.5 incidences/year. (Straus & Gelles p. 97, 105-6, 110, 114-5)
These estimates seem high enough, but more alarming is the likelihood that the rate of
this parental abuse was largely underreported. (Straus & Gelles, p. 427)
On the most part, figures between the 1975 and 1985 surveys showed that actual abuse
may have been on the decline, but it was difficult to measure. (Straus & Gelles p. 115-18)
It was possible that the results of the 1975 study brought increased awareness to the
matter of child abuse. A campaign to reduce child abuse came about with the largest
share of financial resources used toward this cause. Social workers that were not
previously available became a part of this cause. All states developed compulsory child
abuse reporting laws. The definition of abuse has been slowly enlarging to include
damaging aggressive, non-physical acts along with physical acts. (Straus & Gelles p.
The 1975 and 1985 National Family Violence Surveys also employed the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTS) to find possible trends in violence. The CTS measures how individuals deal
with conflict based on three modes: 1.) the Reasoning Scale, which included use of
reason, rational discussion, argument 2.) the Verbal Aggression Scale, which included
use of verbal or non-verbal acts which symbolically hurt another, or the use of threats 3.)
the Physical Aggression or Violence Scale, which included the use of physical force
against another person as a means of resolving conflict. (Straus & Gelles p. 5, 32) The
findings showed consistency of the CTS outcome with previous data recommending a
“catharsis” theory of aggression and also showed that patterns of violent behaviour are
shared between generations. (Straus & Gelles p. 43) It was determined that several of
the most important risk factors leading to family violence were the inequality of roles
within the family (ie. male dominance), poverty and unemployment, stress and lack of
community ties, youthfulness and heavy drinking. (Straus & Gelles p. 6-7, 70) The CTS
puts focus on acts of violence (vs. putting focus on injuries caused by violence, as with
child abuse legislation and welfare practice). This is useful. Not always does a violent
act lead to physical injury severe enough to report, which may allow for cases to be left
uninvestigated. As well, other research has shown that more than 95% of children who
have been seriously assaulted did not have injuries serious enough to be given medical
attention. If focus were to be given only to cases of abuse causing injury, many lives
would fall through the cracks and continue to be broken down by abusive relationships.
(Straus & Gelles p. 79-81) Statistics based on state and federal laws that defined child
abuse as acts that put a child at risk for injury grossly underestimated the rate of abuse
experienced by youth and clearly pointed to a need for reevaluation of the definition.
Child abuse within the home does not come only at the hands of a parent or caregiver.
According to the National Family Violence Surveys, the greatest number of incidences of
abuse was expressed child to child. The studies have shown that children are actually
the most violent people in American families, revealing a startling 800 out of 1,000
couples/children (or an estimated 50.4 million children nationwide) exhibiting some form
of violence against a brother or sister. (Straus & Gelles p. 97, 106, Gelles & Cornell p. 85,
Reiss & Roth p. 230) In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz studied sibling rivalry within 49
families; based on reports from parents, the frequency of sibling violence was 131
incidences within a one-week period of time (the rate would likely have been higher had
the incidences that parents grouped together as one been counted separately and had
they successfully reported all incidences). (Gelles & Cornell, p.87) In the case of a six-
month-old child who received a head fracture, the hospital’s medical review team
determined the injury to have been caused by a 5-year-old sibling. The team was
relieved that they would not need to charge a parent, until one of the doctors questioned,
“How do you suppose the 5-year-old learned to be violent?” (Gelles & Cornell p.12-3)
This is exactly the question that needs to be approached. What this child learns in earlier
years about conflict and coping in life is what is etched into his or her mind to be drawn
on during future events. We know that children imitate and exaggerate the behaviours of
their parents (as well as that of other role models, siblings, acquaintances, television
emotion to an event for lack of finding other useful coping strategies. It is generally
accepted by society that it is “normal” for kids to squabble. At times, society feels that it
is necessary for a child to experience this type of violence so that they may “toughen up.”
(Straus & Gelles p. 106) At an early age, children are still developing speech and
reasoning skills. When they are frustrated, want something, don’t want something, they
often do what is easiest for them based on their limited development – they may grab,
push, hit, yell – still not well-skilled at verbalizing what they are feeling in a more civil
manner. Should this behaviour be expected or considered acceptable among our youth?
To consider this, we may look at the varying types and degrees of abuse (not necessarily
only child abuse), the attitudes held by individuals and society as a whole about violence
and the aftermath of violence as it expresses itself in a child’s life over time. First, there
are types of abuse that are generally considered minor, such as verbally aggressive
slapping or spanking a family member. Abuse is further broken down as severe abuse
when the following is involved: kicking, biting, punching, hitting or trying to hit with an
object, beating up, choking, burning, scalding, threatening with a weapon or using a
weapon. Other factors to consider are the frequency at which these acts occur, the level
of injury inflicted, the motive for the violence and the relationship that the victim has to the
perpetrator. (Straus & Gelles p. 6, 77) It is especially harmful to a child when violence
occurs frequently or without warning and when it is initiated by in individual who a child
would usually be expected to trust (ie. a parent). A child will experience a heightened
during the emergency response efforts of his/her body. This is a normal, protective
mechanism, but overactive can lead to serious, possibly permanent, changes to a child’s
brain. The norepinephrine that is usually elevated during occasional traumatic episodes
may be present to the degree that kindling occurs when a child is regularly victim of or
witness to violence – a “fraying of nerves.” (Flannery p. 85) Injury inflicted may mean a
long-lasting psychological scar that is difficult to recover from. The physical implications
as noted above go hand-in-hand with this psychological trauma. Also, violence in the
home tragically leads to death very often. In previous research, child homicide was one
of the five leading causes of death among children under the age of eighteen. At the
time, 69% of neonatal deaths and 32% of the deaths of children aged one to seventeen
were at the hand of a parent or family member. (Gelles & Cornell p. 51) In 1989, at least
1,200 and as many as 5,000 children died as a result of maltreatment and over 160,000
were badly harmed, according to a report by the US Department of Health and Human
The attitudes that we hold in America regarding what constitutes abuse are diverse.
Though there is a general definition for it, many have learned to believe differently
through their own experiences. Based on cultural and social standards and previous
personal history, each has come to see some acts of violence as abusive and some acts
“illegitimate” acts of violence. A member of the community might see a parent forcefully
hitting a child. This could be considered an act of punishment by some and abuse by
others. More of the time, though, this is considered a legitimate act as it is acceptable for
a parent to punish a child (regardless of the fact that a parent may be punishing as much
stranger, however, may be looked at as illegitimate and society may take action against
Trouble and violence in the home is unfortunately part of the make-up of the average
American family. The most susceptible are the youngest children. Children aged three or
four tend to be the group that is reported most often – whether they are physically
punished more or are so fragile that they injure more easily. (Gelles & Cornell p. 54, 144)
The number of reports of child maltreatment was about 60,000 in 1974, rose to 1.1 million
in 1980 and then to 2.4 million in 1988. (Reiss & Roth p. 228) Children who are abused
display more behavioural problems, such as throwing temper tantrums, hanging out with
troublemaking kids, performing poorly in school, showing problems with discipline, being
more physically assaultive, vandalizing, stealing, getting arrested and using drugs and
alcohol. (Straus & Gelles p. 70, Gelles & Cornell p. 59) Children who watch another
family member being abused (especially a mother) are, in effect, being taught that this
sort of behaviour is acceptable and are being trained to become violent. (Straus & Gelles
p. 255) In fact, the high level of abuse by a child to his/her mother corroborates this
point. Teens abuse their parents about as often as they are abused themselves. (Gelles
& Cornell p. 99-100, Straus & Gelles p. 107) It has been shown that there is a strong
correlation between the abuse of one family member and that of another – a common
scene as one example of this is the wife who is beaten by her husband who beats on her
own child. (Straus & Gelles p. 254) Also, spouses who experience a high level of tension
within their relationships are likely to abuse their children twice as often. (Straus & Gelles
p. 252).
Using the findings from the 1975 and 1985 National Family Violence Surveys, Straus and
Gelles were able to compose what they called a “Child Abuse Checklist.” This checklist
was useful in distinguishing a parent who was considered “high risk” (one who tended to
be abusive) from one who was not likely to be abusive. These personal traits shown on
conflict marriage, having more than one child, a parent was physically punished as an
family, husband is a blue-collar worker, parents married for less than ten years, lived in
neighborhood for less than five years. (Straus & Gelles p. 258) This checklist may help
bring awareness to parents and to others who may be of assistance to these parents in
lowering incidences of child abuse. It is possible that the frequency of abuse may be
sharing with other in the responsibilities of child care, learn ways to replace physical
forms with non-physical forms of punishment, having ties to the community and finding
ways to relieve the burden of economic stress. (Straus & Gelles p. 260) Parents who feel
as though they are not being supported, feel isolated from society and have economic
stressors and who have witnessed abuse in their own childhood lives even just once are
at great risk for abusing their own children. (Straus & Gelles p. 256) “Violence begets
Finally, a quest toward a more moral society may take us to the deepest root of the
problem of abuse. Nearly all of the authors have reiterated their beliefs that victims and
perpetrators have not been candid with the frequency and severity of abusive incidents.
A likely reason, they did not discuss because they were aware of the wrongness of these
acts – they were protecting themselves or others from blame. Coles wrote about the
“mixed messages” that children are given regarding right and wrong, treatment of others
and how they lived their own lives in general. Parents should “talk a good line” and I
believe as importantly “walk a good walk.” It only takes a single traumatic incident to
impact a child strongly. Coles told stories of a boy who was spanked severely for teasing
a dog and of a boy being told that he would be “eaten up alive” by a dog, for no apparent
reason. (Coles p. 129-31, 81-2) Unfit parents reside, but at the expense of breaking
childrens’ spirits. As a society, we are responsible for making this country safer and