Tiffany Putnam Calero

Youth Violence
3/31/05

Homes –the Shelters or Shatterers of Fragile Lives?

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.

(Straus & Gelles p.511)

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

punishment by others, for example.

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

1,000 couples/children. Nationwide, these findings would indicate approximately 1.5

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.

115,121, Gelles & Cornell, p.52)

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

characters). A parent may be abusive to another parent/child or may display extreme

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

comments, throwing an item at another family member, pushing, grabbing, shoving,

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

state of arousal as neurotransmitters adjust to take on the impact of a traumatic event

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

Services. (Straus & Gelles p.227-8)

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

as corrective or disciplinary. These separate thoughts may be named “legitimate” and

“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

out of anger as for corrective purposes). An act of violence performed on a child by a

stranger, however, may be looked at as illegitimate and society may take action against

the perpetrator in this case. (Straus & Gelles p. 21)

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

the list included: verbally aggressive to child, husband/wife verbally aggressive to

wife/husband, husband/wife physically aggressive to wife/husband, being in a high-

conflict marriage, having more than one child, a parent was physically punished as an

adolescent by mother/father/both, mother/father hit father/mother in parent’s childhood

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

lessened by any of several measures: by seeking psychotherapy, lowering stress by

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

violence.” (Cathy Spatz Widom)

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

happier for our children, our future.