sign in sign up
<<
Home , School violence, Violence

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

NATIONAL SURVEY OF Children’s Exposure to

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator October 2009 Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Children’s Exposure A Message From OJJDP to Violence: Children are exposed to violence every day in their homes, schools, and communities. They may be A Comprehensive struck by a boyfriend, bullied by a classmate, or abused by an adult. National Survey They may witness an assault on a parent or a shooting on the street. Such exposure can cause significant physical, mental, and emotional harm David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Richard Ormrod, with long-term effects that can last Sherry Hamby, and Kristen Kracke well into adulthood.

This Bulletin discusses the National Sur- and the first attempt to measure the cumu- In 1999, OJJDP created the Safe Start Initiative to prevent and reduce vey of Children’s Exposure to Violence lative exposure to violence over the ’s the impact of children’s exposure to (NatSCEV), the most comprehensive lifetime. violence through enhanced practice, nationwide survey of the incidence and The survey confirms that most of our research, evaluation, training and prevalence of children’s exposure to vio- technical assistance, resources, and lence to date, sponsored by the Office of society’s children are exposed to violence in their daily lives. More than 60 percent outreach. The initiative has improved Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- the delivery of developmentally appro- tion (OJJDP) and supported by the Cen- of the children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either priate services for children exposed to ters for Disease Control and Prevention violence and their families. (CDC). Conducted between January and directly or indirectly (i.e., as a witness to May 2008, it measured the past-year and a violent act; by learning of a violent act Understanding the nature and extent lifetime exposure to violence for children against a family member, neighbor, or of children’s exposure to violence age 17 and younger across several major close friend; or from a threat against their is essential to combating its effects. Partnering with the Centers for Dis- categories: conventional , child home or school) (for full details on these ease Control and Prevention, OJJDP maltreatment, victimization by peers and and other statistics cited in this Bulletin, see Finkelhor et al., 2009). Nearly one-half has sponsored the most compre- siblings, sexual victimization, witnessing hensive effort to date to measure and indirect victimization (including expo- of the children and adolescents surveyed (46.3 percent) were assaulted at least once children’s exposure to violence. The sure to community violence and family National Survey of Children’s Expo- violence), and threats, and in the past year, and more than 1 in 10 (10.2 percent) were injured in an assault; 1 sure to Violence is the first survey Internet victimization. (For more detailed to ask children and caregivers about information on the types of violence that in 4 (24.6 percent) were victims of robbery, vandalism, or theft; 1 in 10 (10.2 percent) exposure to a range of violent inci- children were questioned about, see dents and maltreatment. “Screening Questions” on page 2.) This suffered from child maltreatment (includ- survey is the first comprehensive attempt ing physical and emotional , , As amply evidenced in this Bulletin, to measure children’s exposure to vio- or a family abduction); and 1 in 16 (6.1 per- children’s exposure to violence is pervasive and crosses all ages. The lence in the home, school, and community cent) were victimized sexually. More than 1 research findings reported here are across all age groups from birth to age 17, in 4 (25.3 percent) witnessed a violent act critical to informing our efforts to pro- tect children from its damaging effects.

AccessAccess OJJDP OJJDP publications publications online online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp at ojjdp.ncjrs.org and nearly 1 in 10 (9.8 percent) saw one family member assault another. Multiple Screening Questions victimizations were common: more than one-third (38.7 percent) experienced 2 or The survey asked screening questions about 48 types of victimization in the fol- lowing categories: more direct victimizations in the previ- ous year, more than 1 in 10 (10.9 percent) u Conventional crime. Nine types of victimization, including robbery, theft, destruction of experienced 5 or more direct victimiza- property, attack with an object or weapon, attack without an object or weapon, attempted tions in the previous year, and more than attack, threatened attack, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, and or bias 1 in 75 (1.4 percent) experienced 10 or attack (an attack on a child because of the child’s or parent’s skin color, religion, physi- more direct victimizations in the previous cal problem, or perceived sexual orientation). year. u Child maltreatment. Four types of victimization, including being hit, kicked, or beaten by Reports of lifetime exposure to violence an adult (other than on the bottom); psychological or emotional abuse; neglect; were generally about one-third to one-half and abduction by a parent or caregiver, also known as custodial interference. higher than reports of past-year exposure, u Peer and sibling victimization. Six types of victimization, including being attacked by although the difference tended to be a group of children; being hit or beaten by another child, including a brother or sister; greater for less frequent and more severe being hit or kicked in the private parts; being chased, grabbed, or forced to do some- types of victimization. (For example, more thing; being teased or emotionally bullied; and being a victim of violence. than three times as many respondents reported being victims of a kidnapping u Sexual victimization. Seven types of victimization, including sexual contact or fondling over their lifetimes as did in the past by an adult the child knew, sexual contact or fondling by an adult stranger, sexual contact year.) Nearly seven in eight children (86.6 or fondling by another child or teenager, attempted or completed intercourse, exposure or percent) who reported being exposed “flashing,” , and consensual sexual conduct with an adult. to violence during their lifetimes also u Witnessing and indirect victimization. These fall into two general categories, expo- reported being exposed to violence within sure to community violence and exposure to family violence. For exposure to commu- the past year, which indicated that these nity violence, the survey included 10 types of victimization, including seeing someone children were at ongoing risk of violent attacked with an object or weapon; seeing someone attacked without an object or victimization. The reports of lifetime weapon; having something stolen from the household; having a friend, neighbor, or fam- exposure also indicate how certain types ily member murdered; witnessing a ; witnessing or hearing a shooting, bombing, of exposure change and accumulate as or riot; being in a zone; knowing a family member or close friend who was fondled a child grows up; nearly one in five girls or forced to have sex; knowing a family member or close friend who was robbed or ages 14 to 17 (18.7 percent) had been the mugged; and knowing a family member or close friend who was threatened with a gun victim of a or attempted or knife. sexual assault, and more than one-third of For exposure to family violence, eight types of victimization were assessed: seeing a all 14- to 17-year-olds had seen a parent parent assaulted by a spouse, domestic partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend; seeing a assaulted. brother or sister assaulted by a parent; threat by one parent to assault the other; threat by a parent to damage the other parent’s property; one parent pushing the other; Background one parent hitting or slapping the other; one parent kicking, choking, or beating up the other; and assault by another adult household member against a child or adult in The Problem of Violence the household. Against Children u School violence and threat. Two types of victimization, including a credible bomb Children in the United States are more threat against the child’s school and fire or other to the school. likely to be exposed to violence and crime u Internet violence and victimization. Two types of victimization, including Internet than are adults (Finkelhor, 2008; Hashima threats or harassment and unwanted online sexual solicitation. and Finkelhor, 1999). In 2005, juveniles and young adults ages 12 to 19 were more than twice as likely to be victims of vio- however, children who are exposed to Research has found that early identifica- lent as the population as a whole violence undergo lasting physical, mental, tion, intervention, and continued followup (Baum, 2005).1 Each year, millions of chil- and emotional harm. They suffer from are valuable strategies to prevent or dren and adolescents in the United States difficulties with attachment, regressive decrease the impact of exposure to vio- are exposed to violence in their homes, behavior, anxiety and , and lence. Families, , , judges, schools, and communities as both victims and conduct problems. They pediatricians, mental providers, and witnesses. Even if they are not physi- may be more prone to , child protection workers, domestic vio- cally present, children may be affected delinquency, further victimization, and lence advocates, and others who interact by intentional harm done by another involvement with the child welfare and with children have a responsibility to (for example, the murder of or an assault juvenile justice systems. Moreover, being create interventions, both physical and on a family member or close neighbor). exposed to violence may impair a child’s psychological, that decrease or prevent Children react to exposure to violence in capacity for partnering and later the harms associated with exposure to different ways, and many children show in life, continuing the violence.2 These include ways of interact- remarkable resilience. All too often, into the next generation. ing sensitively and expeditiously with

2 children, ensuring protective environ- ments and caregivers, and helping chil- dren use positive skills. Much more research is warranted about what works to mitigate the effects of exposure to violence. Too little is known about the numbers of children exposed to violence. Although several studies have attempted to mea- sure children’s exposure to violence, these estimates have varied greatly and have often measured only a subset of that exposure.3 Not only does this partial measurement fail to reveal the full extent of violence against children, it also fails to account fully for the multiple victimiza- tions that many children experience; the co-occurrence of certain types of violence (for example, intimate partner violence and child maltreatment or neglect within a including , drug abuse, depres- direct or indirect victimization within the household); the extent to which exposure sion, severe obesity, and several chronic past year, and the average young victim to one type of violence may make a child adult diseases. The survey further found reported three separate types of victim- more vulnerable to other types of violence that multiple adverse experiences com- izations in separate incidents. More than and victimization; and the cumulative pounded those harms. Although the ACE one-third of those surveyed reported that effects of repeated exposure to violence study was one of the first to document they witnessed violence or were otherwise as both a direct victim and a witness. the long-term consequences of multiple indirect victims of violence. DVS, however, Basic epidemiological data are important childhood victimizations, it had a different provided only a limited assessment of to determine the extent of the public focus than NatSCEV. For one, the study lifetime incidence of exposure to violence; health problem, the need for services, and questioned adults on their memories of did not look specifically at items such as a baseline for evaluating progress. adverse childhood experiences rather threats and Internet victimization; and than surveying children directly, and the had limited measurement of exposure to Prior Attempts at set of adverse experiences was more lim- family violence, exposure to community Comprehensive ited than those included in NatSCEV. violence, and school violence and threats. Measurements DVS also did not include children younger The other major attempt to examine the There have been many studies on the than age 2. NatSCEV expands on DVS by prevalence and incidence of children’s comprehensively assessing lifetime expo- health and behavioral consequences of exposure to violence was the Develop- child maltreatment and, to a lesser extent, sure, considering additional forms of vio- mental Victimization Survey (DVS), a pre- lence, and including infants in the sample. on other forms of violence against chil- cursor to NatSCEV. DVS asked a nationally 4 With its much larger sample size, NatSCEV dren. However, most of these studies representative sample of 2,030 children focused on only one type of violence or also allows for much more reliable esti- ages 10 to 17 and caregivers of children mates of rarer forms of victimization and on a few types within a single category ages 2 to 9 about their past-year exposure 5 more accurate rates within different sub- such as . Two notable earlier to crime and violence in five categories: studies attempted to measure children’s groups of the population (Finkelhor et al., conventional crime, child maltreatment, 2009). exposure to violence and its adverse peer and sibling victimization, sexual effects in a more comprehensive fash- assault, and witnessing and indirect vic- ion. The Adverse Childhood Experiences timization (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Kracke History of the (ACE) study, cosponsored by CDC and and Hahn, 2008). DVS was the first survey Current Study Kaiser Permanente, looked at the conse- to simultaneously examine these various quences for future health and well-being forms of victimization to obtain a compre- Under the leadership of then Deputy of exposure to seven types of adverse hensive picture of children’s exposure to Attorney General Eric Holder in June 6 childhood experiences under the cat- violence. It was also the first national sur- 1999, OJJDP created the Safe Start Initia- egories of abuse, neglect, and household vey to estimate the incidence of many spe- tive to prevent and reduce the impact of dysfunction. Almost two-thirds of those cific forms of victimization such as bias children’s exposure to violence. As a part surveyed had suffered at least one adverse attacks and witnessing of this initiative and with a growing need childhood experience, and more than (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Kracke and Hahn, to document the full extent of children’s one in five respondents reported three or 2008). DVS generally found a higher rate of exposure to violence, OJJDP launched the more such experiences. The survey found specific types of victimization than earlier National Survey of Children’s Exposure to increased rates of a number of long-term studies such as the National Crime Victim- Violence. harms to physical, mental, and emotional ization Survey. Nearly three-quarters of health associated with those experiences, Safe Start’s NatSCEV is the first national the respondents (71 percent) reported a incidence and prevalence study to examine

3 providing critical national data on levels of Exhibit 1: Past-Year Exposure to Selected Categories of Violence for violence as well as data on key indicators All Children Surveyed of protective factors. 70 Highlights of the 60.6% 60 Survey Results NatSCEV estimates both past-year and 50 lifetime exposure to violence across a number of categories, including physical assault, , sexual victimization, 40 child maltreatment, dating violence, and 36.7% witnessed and indirect victimization 30 (See “Methodology” on page 6 for more detailed definitions of these terms). Exhib- it 1 illustrates the past-year exposure for 20 19.2% all survey respondents to selected catego- 14.9% ries of violence. Some of the more notable 10.2% 10 9.8% findings are outlined below (see Finkelhor Percentage of children exposed 6.1% et al., 2009, for more details). 1. 4% 0 As noted earlier, the NatSCEV survey Any Assault Assault Sexual Child Dating Witness- Witness- found that children’s exposure to violence exposure with no with victim- maltreat- violence* ing ing is common; more than 60 percent of the weapon ization ment community weapon and/ family assault children surveyed had been exposed to or or injury assault violence in the past year and more than 1 Type of violence in 10 reported 5 or more exposures. This exposure occurs across all age ranges of childhood and for both genders. In gen- * Figures for dating violence are only for children and adolescents age 12 and older. eral, however, the types of exposure that were most prevalent among younger chil- dren were less serious, such as assaults comprehensively the extent and nature where the exposure to violence occurred, without a weapon or without injury, of children’s exposure to violence across whether injury resulted, how often the assaults by a juvenile sibling, or bullying all ages, settings, and timeframes (see child was exposed to a specific type of and teasing, all of which were most com- “Methodology” on page 6). It measures violence, and the child’s relationship mon among 6- to 9-year-olds and declined their experience of violence in the home, to the perpetrator and (when the child thereafter. Older adolescents ages 14 to school, and community. It asked children witnessed violence) the victim. In addi- 17 were the most likely to experience and their adult caregivers about not only tion, the study documents differences in more serious forms of violence, including the incidents of violence that children exposure to violence across gender, race, assaults with injury, assaults, sexual suffered and witnessed themselves but socioeconomic status, family structure, victimizations, and physical and emo- also other related crime and threat expo- region, urban/rural residence, and devel- tional abuse, and to witness violence in sures, such as theft or burglary from a opmental stage of the child; specifies how the community. (See exhibit 2 for a list of child’s household, being in a school that different forms of violent victimization the most common victimizations for each was the target of a credible bomb threat, “cluster” or co-occur; identifies individual, age range from infancy to later adoles- and being in a war zone or an area where family, and community-level predictors of cence.) This is not a hard and fast distinc- ethnic violence occurred. It includes both violence exposure among children; exam- tion; some serious forms of victimization, the past-year and lifetime exposure to ines associations between levels/types of including kidnapping and assaults with a violence of children of all ages up to age violence exposure and child mental and weapon, were most common among 10- to 17. The study was developed under the emotional health; and assesses the extent 13-year-olds. This age group was also the direction of OJJDP, and was designed and to which children disclose incidents of vio- most likely to witness violence within the conducted by the Crimes against Children lence to various individuals and the nature home, including involv- Research Center of the University of New and source of assistance or treatment pro- ing their parents and assaults by other Hampshire. It provides comprehensive vided (if any). family members. data on the full extent of violence in This study began in 2007 with funding The following sections provide more details the daily lives of children. The primary from OJJDP’s Safe Start Initiative. OJJDP about the findings of the study regarding purpose of NatSCEV is to document the then partnered with CDC to collect addi- children’s exposure to major categories of incidence and prevalence of children’s tional data on safe, stable, and nurturing violence, including assaults, bullying, sexual exposure to a broad array of violent expe- relationships—a key focus for CDC’s child victimization, child maltreatment, and riences across a wide developmental spec- maltreatment prevention activities. The witnessing and indirect victimization. The trum. The research team asked followup combined approach by OJJDP and CDC is Bulletin then discusses the study’s findings questions about specific events, including about multiple and cumulative exposures

4 to violence, including documentation that highest incidence occurs among 6- to Exhibit 2: Developmental children who are exposed to one form of 9-year-olds, who had rates of 21.5 percent Patterns in Exposure to violence are at greatly increased risk for past-year incidence and 28.0 percent life- Violence being exposed to violence in other forms. time incidence. About 1 in 5 children (19.7 percent) Victimization in Infancy Physical Assault reported having been teased or emo- Most common victimizations during Nearly one-half (46.3 percent) of all the tionally bullied in the previous year and this period: children surveyed were physically assault- nearly 3 in 10 reported having been teased Assault by a sibling ed within the previous year, and more or emotionally bullied in their lifetimes. Assault with no weapon or injury than one-half (56.7 percent) had been Teasing or emotional bullying followed a Witnessing family assault assaulted during their lifetime. Physical similar pattern to physical bullying among assaults are extremely common across age groups, rising to reach a peak among Victimization in the Toddler Years the entire span of childhood and peak 6- to 9-year-olds, nearly one-third of whom (Ages 2 to 5) during middle childhood. Assaults by sib- (30.4 percent) reported having been Most common victimizations during lings especially show a marked develop- teased in the past year and then falling this period: mental trend, peaking during the middle steadily thereafter. childhood years (ages 6 to 9) and then Assault by a sibling Internet harassment was less common Assault with no weapon or injury declining. Incidence for the most severe assaults, however, rises steadily with age. than other forms of bullying. Questions Bullying (physical) about Internet harassment were asked Witnessing family assault Among 14- to 17-year-olds, nearly one in five (18.8 percent) had been injured in the only of age 10 and older, who might Victimization in Middle Childhood past year in a physical assault. New forms be most likely to independently use a (Ages 6 to 9) of violence, such as dating violence, also computer. Unlike other forms of bullying, the peak risk period for Internet harass- Peak risk period for: emerge during , reaching a 5.6-percent past-year incidence rate and ment was ages 14 to 17. In this group, 5.6 Assault by a sibling percent reported Internet harassment Assault with no weapon or injury an 8.8-percent lifetime rate for the oldest adolescents. The lifetime incidence of within the past year and 7.9 percent dur- Bullying (physical) ing their lifetimes. Emotional bullying/teasing assault victimization generally rose steadi- ly as children grew older, with more than Boys were more likely than girls to be Victimization in Preteens and Early 7 in 10 14- to 17-year-olds (71.1 percent) physically bullied or threatened, but girls Adolescence (Ages 10 to 13) reporting that they had been assaulted were more likely to be victims of Internet Peak risk period for: during their lifetimes (Finkelhor et al., harassment. For past-year rates, there Assault with weapon 2009). were no significant gender differences in Sexual harassment (same rate In general, boys are somewhat more likely emotional bullying; however, for lifetime ages 10 to 17) than girls to be victims of assault. The rates, girls reported more cumulative Kidnapping past-year incidence of assault is 50.2 exposure to emotional bullying than boys Witnessing family assault percent for boys and 42.1 percent for (Finkelhor et al., 2009). Witnessing intimate partner girls, and the lifetime incidence of assault (interparental) violence is 60.3 percent for boys and 52.9 percent Sexual Victimization Victimization in Later Adolescence for girls. These patterns are consistent Overall, 6.1 percent of all children sur- (Ages 14 to 17) with other data on criminal victimization, veyed had been sexually victimized in the which typically show that males are the past year and nearly 1 in 10 (9.8 percent) Peak risk period for: most common targets of physical assault over their lifetimes. Sexual victimizations Assault with injury (Finkelhor, 2008; Kilpatrick, Saunders, and included attempted and completed Assault by peer (nonsibling) Smith, 2003; Baum, 2005; Rand, 2008). (1.1 percent past year, 2.4 percent life- Genital assault time); sexual assault by a known adult (0.3 Dating violence Bullying percent past year, 1.2 percent lifetime), an Sexual victimizations of all types adult stranger (0.3 percent past year, 0.5 Sexual assault The survey looked at bullying separately from assault and asked about multiple percent lifetime), or a peer (1.3 percent Sexual harassment (same rate past year, 2.7 percent lifetime); flashing or ages 10 to 17) types of bullying: physical bullying, emotional bullying, and Internet harass- sexual exposure by an adult (0.4 percent Flashing or sexual exposure ment. Overall, 13.2 percent of those sur- past year, 0.6 percent lifetime) or peer Unwanted online sexual solicitation veyed reported having been physically (2.2 percent past year, 3.7 percent life- Any maltreatment bullied within the past year, and more time); sexual harassment (2.6 percent past Physical abuse than one in five (21.6 percent) reported year, 4.2 percent lifetime); and statutory Psychological or emotional abuse sexual offenses (0.1 percent past year, having been physically bullied during 7 Witnessing community assault their lifetimes. The risk of bullying peaks 0.4 percent lifetime). Adolescents ages Exposure to shooting during middle childhood in a pattern 14 to 17 were by far the most likely to be School threat of bomb or attack similar to that for sibling assault. The sexually victimized; nearly one in six (16.3 percent) was sexually victimized in the

5 past year, and more than one in four (27.3 percent) had been sexually victimized Methodology during their lifetimes. The most common forms of sexual victimization were flashing The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) was con- ducted between January and May 2008. Researchers conducted interviews or exposure by a peer, sexual harassment, about the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,549 children and sexual assault. and adolescents age 17 and younger. They interviewed by telephone youth ages Girls were more likely than boys to be 10 to 17 and adult caregivers of children age 9 and younger. Because telephone sexually victimized: 7.4 percent of girls interviews afford greater anonymity and than in-person interviews, they reported a sexual victimization within the may encourage those interviewed to be more forthcoming about such sensitive past year, and nearly one in eight (12.2 matters as being exposed to violence or being victims of crime. percent) reported being sexually victim- The interview sample (n = 4,549) consisted of 2 groups: a nationally representa- ized during their lifetimes. Girls ages 14 to tive sample of telephone numbers within the contiguous United States (n = 3,053) 17 had the highest rates of sexual victim- and an oversample of telephone exchanges with 70 percent or greater African ization: 7.9 percent were victims of sexual American, Hispanic, or low-income households to ensure a proportion of minor- assault in the past year and 18.7 percent ity and low-income households large enough for subgroup analysis. Both groups during their lifetimes (Finkelhor et al., were sampled through random-digit dialing. The cooperation rate for the first 2009). group was 71 percent and the response rate was 54 percent. The oversample had somewhat lower cooperation (63 percent) and response rates (43 percent). Child Maltreatment A nonresponse analysis conducted on households that could not be contacted or that declined to participate indicated that the risk of victimization for those house- Overall, more than 1 in 10 children sur- holds did not differ systematically from the risk for households that took part in veyed (10.2 percent) suffered some form the survey. of maltreatment (including physical abuse other than sexual assault, psychological An adult, usually a parent, provided demographic information for each partici- or emotional abuse, child neglect, and pating household, including race/ethnicity (one of four categories: white, non- custodial interference) during the past Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic; other race, non-Hispanic; and Hispanic, any race) and household income. The child in the household with the most recent birthday year and nearly 1 in 5 (18.6 percent) dur- was then selected to be surveyed. Interviewers spoke directly with children age ing their lifetimes. Both the past-year and 10 and older; for children age 9 and younger, the parent or other adult caregiver lifetime rates of exposure to maltreatment “most familiar with the child’s daily routine and experience” was interviewed. rose as children grew older, particularly Comparison of a number of indicators, including reports of child maltreatment or for children age 10 and older: one in six neglect and violence by family members, found no evidence that caregivers who 14- to 17-year-olds (16.6 percent) suffered answered for younger children failed to report neglect or violence that was occur- maltreatment during the past year and ring in the family. nearly one in three (32.1 percent) during their lifetimes. Interviews averaged about 45 minutes in length and were conducted in both English and Spanish. Approximately 279 caregiver interviews were conducted in Spanish; Patterns of child maltreatment were simi- almost all interviews with children and adolescents 10 and older were in English. lar for girls and boys with the exception of psychological or emotional abuse, the Types of Violent Victimization Surveyed incidence of which was somewhat higher Interviewers asked the children or their caregivers about their exposure to for girls than for boys. Rates of sexual selected types of violence in the past year and over their lifetimes (see “Screen- assault by a known adult (not limited to ing Questions” on page 2). In addition, interviewers asked followup questions caregivers) were also higher for girls than about the perpetrator, the use of a weapon, injury, and whether multiple events for boys, in a pattern that was similar to other forms of sexual victimization.

Witnessing and Indirect Of all forms of victimization measured in rose even more dramatically, from 9.0 Exposure to Violence NatSCEV, witnessing community violence percent of 2- to 5-year-olds to nearly two- showed the strongest age trends. There thirds (64.2 percent) of 14- to 17-year-olds. NatSCEV found that witnessing violence was more than a sevenfold increase in Witnessing of shootings also rose sharply was a common occurrence for children, rates from toddlers (2- to 5-year-olds) to in both past-year and lifetime incidence particularly as they grew older. Over- older adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds). from one age group to the next. Among all, more than one-quarter of children More than 7 in 10 14- to 17-year-olds had children younger than 2 years old, 1.1 surveyed (25.3 percent) had witnessed witnessed violence against another person percent were exposed to shootings in the violence in their homes, schools, and during their lives. past year, whereas more than 1 in 10 14- communities during the past year; and to 17-year-olds (10.2 percent) witnessed more than one-third (37.8 percent) had These age trends were due mostly to wit- a shooting in the past year. Similarly, 3.5 witnessed violence against another per- nessing violence in the community. The percent of 2- to 5-year-olds had witnessed son during their lifetimes. The proportion past-year incidence of witnessing assaults a shooting during their lifetimes, whereas of children who witnessed violence both in the community rose from 5.8 percent more than one in five 14- to 17-year-olds within the past year and during their life- among 2- to 5-year-olds to 42.2 percent (22.2 percent) had witnessed a shooting.8 times rose from one age group to the next. among 14- to 17-year-olds; lifetime incidence As striking as these age trends are, even

6 direct victimization, nearly two-thirds Methodology (continued) (64.5 percent) reported more than one. A significant number of children reported occurred together. Because different types of victimization can occur together high levels of exposure to violence in the and some events fall into more than one category (for example, physical abuse past year: more than 1 in 10 (10.9 percent) by a parent or caretaker can also be considered an assault), a number of items were rescored. A total of 51 victimization items were extracted in the following reported 5 or more direct exposures to categories: violence, and 1.4 percent reported 10 or more direct victimizations. (Victimiza- u Assaults. These included any physical assault, assault with a weapon, assault with tions that could be counted in more than injury, assault without a weapon, attempted assault, attempted or completed kidnapping, one category, such as physical abuse by assault by a brother or sister, assault by another child or adolescent, nonsexual genital a parent or caregiver that could also be assault, dating violence, bias attacks, and threats. considered an assault, were not included u Bullying. This included physical bullying, teasing or emotional bullying, and Internet in the counting of multiple victimizations. harassment. See “Methodology” for a discussion of this point.) u Sexual victimization. This included completed or attempted rape; sexual assault by an adult acquaintance, an adult stranger, or another child or adolescent; flashing by an adult Children who were exposed to one type or another child or adolescent; sexual harassment orally or in writing; statutory sexual of violence, both within the past year and offenses; and unwanted online sexual solicitation. over their lifetimes, were at far greater risk of experiencing other types of vio- u Child maltreatment by an adult. This included physical abuse, psychological or emo- lence. For example, a child who was physi- tional abuse, neglect, and custodial interference or family abduction. cally assaulted in the past year would be u Witnessed and indirect victimization. Witnessed victimization included witnessing the five times as likely to also have been sexu- following: an assault by one parent or family member against another, an assault by a ally victimized and more than four times parent on a brother or sister, an assault on a family member by someone outside the as likely also to have been maltreated household, an assault outside the home, or a murder. Types of indirect victimization during that period. Similarly, a child who included exposure to shooting, bombs, or riots; exposure to war or ethnic conflict; being was physically assaulted during his or her told about or seeing evidence of a violent event in the child’s household or community; lifetime would be more than six times as theft or burglary from the child’s household; or a credible threat of a bomb or attack likely to have been sexually victimized against the child’s school. and more than five times as likely to have been maltreated during his or her lifetime. Limitations The survey methodology has several limitations that may cause it to understate chil- dren’s actual exposure to violence. First, because the survey required the cooperation Implications for of the family, it ran the risk of missing those children who were most vulnerable to being Policymakers, exposed either to violence in general or to specific types of violence. Second, parents Researchers, and or caregivers who answer for younger children may not know about all of a child’s expo- sure to violence or may underreport or minimize certain types of victimization. Third, the Practitioners screening and followup questions may miss some episodes of victimization and incorrectly The findings of the NatSCEV study con- classify others. Fourth, children may not recall some exposure to violence, particularly less firm that for many children in the United serious exposure, or may not accurately recall the timing of their exposure (i.e., whether States, violence is a frequent occurrence. or not the exposure occurred within the past year). Despite these limitations, NatSCEV Of the nationally representative sample of provides the most detailed and comprehensive data available on youth victimization. U.S. youth who participated in the study, more than 60 percent reported that they were victims of direct or indirect violence in the past year. Furthermore, nearly two- the lower numbers among young children likely to witness violence in the commu- thirds of those participants were victim- are cause for great concern. nity, murder, and shootings both in the ized more than once. Nearly one-half of the past year and during their lifetimes. There children surveyed reported that they were In contrast to the patterns for witnessing were no gender differences in witnessing assaulted during the previous year, and community violence, few age trends in family violence (Finkelhor et al., 2009). more than 10 percent of them were injured exposure can be seen for witnessing vio- as a result. More than one-fourth of the lence within the family. Rates for witness- children witnessed another person being ing family violence were fairly constant Multiple and Cumulative Victimizations violently attacked. More than 10 percent of across the span of childhood, with all age the children surveyed reported that they groups falling in a fairly narrow range of A large proportion of children surveyed were indirectly exposed to violence. approximately 6 to 11 percent. (38.7 percent) reported more than one direct victimization (a victimization direct- More needs to be understood about how Over the course of their lifetimes, boys ed toward the child, as opposed to an exposure to individual episodes of vio- overall were slightly more likely than girls incident that the child witnessed, heard, lence, repeated exposure to violence, and to witness violence (40.1 percent of boys or was otherwise exposed to) within the multiple types of exposure affect children and 35.4 percent of girls). Boys were more previous year. Of those who reported any and families, providing many avenues

7 categories and determines which types of violence occur more or less frequently. For example, the research team broke assaults down into peer and sibling assaults, as- saults without weapon or injury, and more serious types of assaults. Peer and sibling assaults were common across all age ranges and across both genders. More serious types of assaults included assaults with a weapon, assaults with injury, gang assaults, attempted assaults, genital as- saults, dating violence, and bias attacks (which were less common).

Monitoring Exposure Over Time More research is also needed that fol- lows children into adulthood to assess the effects of violence on their long-term for research and policy development. As exposure to one form of violence may health and well-being. Such research would in this study, future research and policy make a child more vulnerable to other complement those studies, such as the development efforts must incorporate forms. Nearly two in five children surveyed ACE study discussed earlier, that have a broader perspective in documenting were exposed to two or more types of taken a retrospective look at the effects of the full scope of children’s exposure to violence in the previous year. More than adverse childhood experiences. NatSCEV’s violence. 1 in 10 was exposed to 5 or more different findings affirm that more needs to be done types of violence during that year. These to measure children’s exposure to violence Understanding the children are the most likely to suffer seri- on an ongoing and systematic basis using Progression of Violence ous long-term physical, emotional, and public surveillance mechanisms, including mental harm (Finkelhor, Ormrod, and followup surveys and long-term monitoring NatSCEV detailed the extent to which Turner, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). Many previ- (Kracke and Hahn, 2008). children in this country are exposed to ous studies have shown how exposure to serious violence. The study found that in The estimates of specific exposures in violence has damaging consequences for NatSCEV are roughly equivalent to or the year prior to being interviewed, 1 in 20 the physical and mental health of youth children witnessed someone being shot, somewhat higher than the estimates in (Gilbert et al., 2009; Widom, 1998; Fantuzzo previous community survey studies of 1 in 200 witnessed a murder, and 1 in 50 and Mohr, 1998; Hurt et al., 2001) and their was sexually assaulted. The survey showed child physical abuse (Theodore et al., long-term functioning and well-being as 2005); sexual victimization (Theodore et that as children grow older the incidences adults (Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood, of victimization increase. Among 14- to al., 2005); sexual assault (Kilpatrick, Saun- 2008; Fergusson and Horwood, 1998; ders, and Smith, 2003; Finkelhor, Hammer, 17-year-old participants, 1 in 10 witnessed Kendall-Tackett, 2003). a shooting in the past year, 1 in 75 wit- and Sedlak, 2008); physical assault with a nessed a murder, and 1 in 20 was sexually weapon (Kilpatrick, Saunders, and Smith, assaulted. NatSCEV differs from earlier Expanding the Inquiry 2003); witnessing violence (Kilpatrick, studies in that it looks across the full spec- Researchers and practitioners need to ask Saunders, and Smith, 2003); dating vio- trum of violence, examining and comparing children more specific questions about a lence (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008); and the incidence of different types of violence broader range of victimizations, includ- bullying (Nansel et al., 2003). Differences within broad categories and determining ing dating violence, emotional abuse, and in age range and definition account for which types are more or less frequent. The exposure to violence within the family. It some variations between the findings of study looks not only at when and how chil- is also critical to ask children who are suf- this and other studies. Because this is the dren become more vulnerable to increas- fering from one form of victimization about first national study to ask children and ingly serious types of violence as they additional forms of victimizations they may their caregivers directly about exposure grow older, it also tracks the cumulative have experienced to fully address their to certain types of family violence, such effects of exposure to violence over time. mental and emotional health needs. Practi- as assaults by one parent on another, the For example, although all age groups are tioners also need to investigate victimiza- exposure rate of 6.2 percent is several vulnerable to simple assault, older children tion across all age ranges with the help of times greater than estimates obtained and adolescents are several times more instruments geared to younger children from cases disclosed to child protec- likely to be sexually assaulted or to witness and (as was done in the NatSCEV study) tion agencies (Administration on Chil- a shooting than are younger children. the use of proxies, such as parents and dren, Youth and Families, 2004) and caretakers. enforcement (Federal Bureau of Investiga- The NatSCEV study clearly illustrates the tion, 2007). cumulative effects on children exposed NatSCEV differs from earlier studies in that to multiple incidents of violence and how it examines and compares the incidence of different types of violence within broad

8 Reaching Across Disciplines welfare and protection agencies, early Endnotes childhood educators and childcare pro- This study’s findings confirm that more 1. According to the 2005 National Crime viders, schools and educational institu- needs to be done at all levels of policy Victimization Survey, 44 per 1,000 juve- tions, domestic violence service providers and practice to reach across disciplines niles ages 12 to 15 and 44.2 per 1,000 and advocates, law enforcement agencies, to identify children at risk from exposure adolescents and young adults ages 16 and the justice system). The Safe Start Ini- to violence and to coordinate the delivery to 19 were victims of , as tiative has worked toward a comprehen- of services to these children. For example, compared with a victimization rate of sive approach across the continuum of first responders and providers who are 21.2 per 1,000 for all persons age 12 prevention, intervention, treatment, and involved in incidents of domestic violence and older (Baum, 2005). and deal with victims in their aftermath response for 10 years and has made sig- 2. Background material adapted from (e.g., police, emergency room physicians nificant progress in increasing knowledge, information on the Safe Start Center and nurses, social workers, domestic vio- skills, and awareness of children’s expo- Web site. For more detailed informa- lence advocates, and judges) should be sure to violence. More work is needed. tion, go to www.safestartcenter.org. aware not only of the adult victims but also The next step in addressing children’s of the children who may have witnessed exposure to violence and efforts to ame- 3. Kracke and Hahn (2008) cite studies the incident. They may also need to work liorate or eliminate the harm it causes is that estimate children’s exposure to with childcare providers, teachers, and to foster and sustain a comprehensive violence as ranging from 3 million to school counselors and psychologists to approach in both practice and research 17 million incidents. As they note, assess the effects on a child’s interaction that builds on the groundwork established however, these studies measured only with his or her classmates and to provide under Safe Start and this study. It is impor- children’s witnessing of domestic vio- needed help. tant to develop, implement, and evaluate lence. They did not measure violence programs and policies designed to prevent that was inflicted on children directly Expanding Identification children’s exposure to violence; to craft or violence that children witnessed Capabilities and implement strategies and interven- outside the home. tions to help children who have been Researchers, practitioners, and policy- 4. For an overview of these studies, see exposed to violence and their families; and makers need to collaborate to develop and Kracke and Hahn (2008). to replicate those programs, policies, and expand effective screening and assessment 5. For an overview of research on child interventions that prove to be effective in tools that are developmentally appropriate abuse and other forms of maltreat- preventing and lessening violence against for children across all age ranges and types ment and their long-term health and children in communities across the Nation. of violence. These instruments and tools behavioral consequences, see Repetti, can identify children who are The NatSCEV study represents the best Taylor, and Seeman (2002). emotionally, socially, physically, and devel- attempt to date to quantify children’s 6. The categories of adverse childhood opmentally. More importantly, these instru- exposure to violence. Understanding cat- experiences studied were psychologi- ments can aid practitioners, advocates, egories and forms of violence is critical to cal, physical, or ; violence frontline service providers, and responders creating appropriate interventions to pre- against mother; or living with house- across all service sectors to reach and vent and suppress violence and to treat its hold members who were substance help those children. Understanding the full victims. This study’s greatest contribution, abusers, mentally ill or suicidal, or ever extent of children’s exposure to violence however, is that it highlights the degree imprisoned. For more information on and the interactions among multiple types to which children in this country live with the ACE study, see Centers for Disease of violence more comprehensively can violence in their daily lives. Violence takes Control and Prevention (2006) and further practitioners’ ability to respond to a toll on children whether as victims or Felitti et al. (1998). those families who need support and to witnesses. Seemingly minor incidents may alleviate the harmful effects of exposure to have long-lasting and far-reaching conse- 7. The aggregate figure for any (Kracke and Hahn, 2008). quences. If policymakers, practitioners, victimization did not include unwanted advocates, and the general public are to online sexual solicitation (Finkelhor et Coordinating Across Sectors respond effectively to curb the negative al., 2009). Finally, just as the NatSCEV study by its effects of children’s exposure to violence, 8. Previous studies have also noted comprehensive nature addresses the frag- everyone must look at the problem in its that low-income and minority youth mentation that, until now, characterized totality and make a coordinated effort to are many times more likely to have many attempts to look at child victimiza- help the children and their families who witnessed serious violence in the tion and exposure to violence, greater suffer these effects. community. Kracke and Hahn (2008) coordination of the efforts to combat the cite studies noting that only 1 percent effects of that victimization are needed. For Further Information of upper-middle-class youth had wit- For example, recent initiatives have nessed a murder and 9 percent had formed to separately address bullying, To learn more about the Safe Start Ini- witnessed a stabbing (Gladstein, Ruso- dating violence, and sexual harassment. tiative, visit www.safestartcenter.org. nis, and Heald, 1992), whereas 43 per- cent of low-income African American At the Federal, State, tribal, and local For more information about the school-aged children had witnessed a levels, responsibility for dealing with chil- National Survey of Children’s Expo- murder and 56 percent had witnessed dren’s exposure to violence is distributed sure to Violence, visit the Crimes a stabbing (Fitzpatrick and Boldizar, across all service and response sectors against Children Research Center 1993). (e.g., health departments, hospitals, child Web site at www.unh.edu/ccrc.

9 Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., Ormrod, R.K., and Hamby, S.L. 2009. Violence, crime, and exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics 124(5) (November). Fitzpatrick, K.M., and Boldizar, J.P. 1993. The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African- American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia- try 32:424–430. Gilbert, R., Widom, C.S., Browne, K.D., Fergusson, D.M., Webb, E., and Janson, S. 2009. Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet 373(9657):68–81. Gladstein, J., Rusonis, E.J., and Heald, F.P. 1992. A comparison of inner-city and upper-middle-class youth’s exposure to References Fergusson, D.M., Boden, J.M., and violence. Journal of Horwood, L.J. 2008. Exposure to child- 13:275–280. Administration on Children, Youth and hood sexual and physical abuse and Families. 2004. Child Maltreatment 2002: Hashima, P., and Finkelhor, D. 1999. adjustment in early adulthood. Child Reports From the States to the National Violent victimization of youth versus Abuse & Neglect 32:607–619. Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. adults in the National Crime Victimization Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Fergusson, D.M., and Horwood, L.J. 1998. Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Health and Services, Administra- Exposure to interparental violence in 14(8):799–820. tion on Children, Youth and Families. childhood and psychosocial adjustment Hurt, H., Malmud, E., Brodsky, N.L., and in young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect Baum, K. 2005. Juvenile Victimization and Giannetta, J. 2001. Exposure to violence: 22(5):339–357. Offending, 1993–2003. Washington, DC: Psychological and academic correlates in U.S. Department of Justice, Office Finkelhor, D. 2008. Childhood Victimiza- child witnesses. Archives of Pediatrics & of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice tion: Violence, Crime, and Abuse in the Adolescent Medicine 155(12):1351–1356. Statistics. Lives of Young People. New York, NY: Kendall-Tackett, K. 2003. Treating the Oxford University Press. Centers for Disease Control and Preven- Lifetime Health Effects of Childhood Vic- tion. 2006. Adverse Childhood Experiences Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., and Sedlak, A. timization. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Study: Major Findings. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 2008. Sexually Assaulted Children: National Institute. Department of Health and Human Ser- Estimates and Characteristics. Washington, Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E., and Smith, vices, Centers for Disease Control and DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of D.W. 2003. Youth Victimization: Prevalence Prevention. Available from www.cdc.gov/ Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus- and Implications. Washington, DC: U.S. nccdphp/ace/findings.htm. tice and Delinquency Prevention. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Fantuzzo, J., and Mohr, W. 1999. Preva- Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, Programs, National Institute of Justice. lence and effects of child exposure to H.A. 2007a. Poly-victimization: A neglected Kracke, K., and Hahn, H. 2008. The nature domestic violence. The Future of Children component in child victimization trauma. and extent of childhood exposure to vio- 9(3):21–32. Child Abuse & Neglect 31:7–26. lence: What we know, why we don’t know Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2007. Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, more, and why it matters. Journal of Emo- Crime in the United States, 2006. Avail- H.A. 2007b. Poly-victimization and trauma tional Abuse 8(1/2):29–49. able from www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius/2006/. in a national longitudinal cohort. Develop- Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M.D., Haynie, D.L., Retrieved from the Internet on February ment and 19(1):149–166. Ruan, W.J., and Scheidt, P.C. 2003. Rela- 11, 2009. Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, tionships between bullying and violence Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, H.A. 2007c. Revictimization patterns in among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics & D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M., and a national longitudinal sample of chil- Adolescent Medicine 157(4):348–353. Edwards, V. 1998. Relationship of child- dren and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect Rand, M.R. 2008. Criminal Victimization, hood abuse and household dysfunction 31(5):479–502. 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of to many of the leading causes of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experi- Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., Turner, H.A., of Justice Statistics. ences (ACE) Study. American Journal of and Hamby, S.L. 2005. The victimization Preventive Medicine 14(4):245–258. of children and youth: A comprehen- sive, national survey. Child Maltreatment 10(1):5–25.

10 Repetti, R.L., Taylor, S.E., and Seeman Wolitzky-Taylor, K.B., Ruggiero, K.J., The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency T.E. 2002. Risky families: Family social Danielson, C.K., Resnick, H.S., Hanson, Prevention is a component of the Office of environments and the mental and physi- R.F., Smith, D.W., Saunders, B.E., and Justice Programs, which also includes the cal health of offspring. Bulletin Kilpatrick, D.G. 2008. Prevalence and Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of 128(2):330–366. correlates of dating violence in a national Justice Statistics; the Community Capacity sample of adolescents. Journal of the Theodore, A.D., Chang, J.J., Runyan, Development Office; the National Institute of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the D.K., Hunter, W.M., Bangdiwala, S.I., and 47(7):755–762. Agans, R. 2005. Epidemiologic features Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, of the physical and sexual maltreatment Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking of children in the Carolinas. Pediatrics This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative (SMART). 115(3):331–337. agreement number 2005–JL–FX–0048 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- Widom, C.S. 1998. Childhood victimiza- vention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. tion: Early adversity and subsequent psychopathology. In Adversity, Stress, and Points of view or opinions expressed in this Psychopathology, edited by B.P. Dohren- document are those of the authors and do not wend. New York, NY: Oxford University necessarily represent the official position or Press. policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments This Bulletin was written by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Director, Crimes against Chil- dren Research Center, University of New Hampshire; Heather Turner, Ph.D., Pro- fessor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire; Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire; Sherry Hamby, Ph.D., Research Associ- ate Professor, Department of Psychology, Sewanee, University of the South; and Kristen Kracke, M.S.W., Safe Start Initiative Coordinator and Program Manager, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). OJJDP wishes to acknowledge the contributions to this Bulletin of James A. Mercy, Ph.D., Special Adviser for Strategic Directions, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Rebecca T. Leeb, Ph.D., Epidemiologist, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention. OJJDP also wishes to acknowledge the support of CDC for the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence and its partnership in the Safe Start Initiative to create safe, stable, and nurturing environments for children and their families. The authors wish to thank Brian Higgins, Writer/Editor, Lockheed Martin’s Office of Justice Programs Communication and Publication Support Services, for his assistance in editing and coordinating the production of this Bulletin.

Share With Your Colleagues Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Publication Reprint/Feedback P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000 800–851–3420 301–519–5600 (fax) Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov

11 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP *NCJ~227744* PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 227744