The International Center for Assault Prevention (ICAP) has developed several technical assistance bulletins in response to current issues on child abuse and related topics. The following are included in this site:
"What have your parents told you that you should or shouldn't do with strangers?"
That line has been spoken exactly this way since CAP originated in 1978. It was designed to elicit answers from children. So, what have parents told their children? We have certainly discovered some amazing answers to that question! Perhaps the most common answer, though, is what people often refer to as 'The Rule'. Many children first learn it in utero and most are reminded of it well into adulthood. "Don't talk to strangers." Gavin DeBecker, in his book Protecting the Gift, says 'The Rule' isn't really a rule after all but a highly flexible and incomprehensible concept that only Mom and Dad really understand if even they do.
The original designers of the Child Assault Prevention curriculum knew, as so many other experts know today, that many children break 'The Rule' just as soon as they go out of the house! They may break it when they are with their parents or when they are alone. So, their intention in writing the line we use was to give children a chance to answer what they have been told by their parents – not to provide reinforcement for what, essentially, is an ineffective prevention strategy.
It is quite amazing to see how many cultures have embraced 'The Rule'. CAP trainers have had interesting conversations about it with people from all over the world. Whether in a large city in New Zealand or a remote village in Kyrgyzstan, parents speak of the important lesson they have taught their children about "stranger danger". Let's look at this message and see why so many experts in the field of child abuse and neglect agree with its intent but find its popularity a bit mystifying.
First of all, let's examine what we, as parents, are relying on when we tell a child not to talk to strangers. We are expecting a couple of very important things:
- Children have the ability to identify who is a stranger and who is not. For little ones, this is a Herculean task. They consider the person who gives them hamburgers at McDonald's and the person who delivers the mail to be people they know. They wave every day to the guy who lives on the corner and has the really pretty garden. In one well-known child abduction and murder case, the victim said "Hi" almost every day to the person convicted of killing her. Her parents, on the other hand, considered him a stranger. They had never had him over to their house, knew nothing about him and never spoke to him. For children, the definition of a stranger may vary greatly from that of their parents. Definitions become more nebulous as relationships begin to develop. They also begin to blur when the stranger is a woman or a well-dressed, clean-shaven man who looks "nice"; someone who does not fit the stereotypical "stranger" description.
- Children will behave as we have asked even when we are not with them. From the moment our children are born, this is something we wish for. Sadly, it may be a rare occurrence as children grow up. Children like to be independent. They are curious. They are also very social beings. These characteristics combine to present a real challenge when parental instructions limit them.
In addition to the parental expectations 'The Rule' elicits, it also confuses children of all ages. Although children are taught not to speak to strangers, parents often instruct them to tell the "nice lady" in the grocery store how old they are. When they sit at a soccer game, they may be told to go play with an older child they have never seen before because he is the child of another soccer parent. These examples and thousands more like them present confusing information for children. They may find themselves asking, "Why do I talk to some strangers and not others?" "Why is it OK to talk to this person I have never met before but not OK to wave to the man I see every day on the way home from school?" Despite years of being raised with a hard and fast rule, children see it violated every day. The early writers of the CAP curriculum were, obviously, very aware of the confusing messages parents may give and the resulting responsibility those messages place on children. CAP does not expect children to decide who is or is not a "good stranger". Many adults can not make that determination! Instead, our curriculum gives children strategies they can use with all strangers.
Another area of confusion around 'The Rule' may actually endanger children. They are taught not to speak to strangers because of the inherent danger in doing so. Yet they do it frequently and safely. Therefore, the initial message of danger may seem invalid to them. They may wonder if 'The Rule' isn't an unrealistic warning all parents give, much like the one about running with scissors or swimming after a meal. If they do it enough and find it to be safe, will they drop their guard when it is most needed?
Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of this age-old rule is the implication that strangers are the ones who hurt children and people they know are the ones with whom they are safe. Professionals in the field of law enforcement, social services and other related fields are quick to point out the fallacy of that statement. More than 85% of all abuse cases, worldwide, are known to be perpetrated by someone the child knows. Again, the CAP curriculum spends one-third of the workshop on these offenders.
As CAP people around the world implement parent workshops, the message of stranger danger is never dismissed. Clearly, there are strangers who hurt, abduct and even murder children. It is reasonable to expect children to be wary of anyone who might present a danger to them. But teaching children never to speak to anyone they do not know seriously limits their ability to communicate, and communication is how we ultimately determine our level of safety. Helping children communicate safely and with a sense of empowerment may be the best solution to this age-old problem.
Perhaps the best way to explain the importance of communication is to look at two adults riding in an elevator together. Knowing the ride will be a long one, one person often looks at the floor for what seems like an interminable time or stares at the lighted buttons. There is a strange awkwardness that occurs. But as soon as one person speaks to the other about the weather, the building, the state of the world, or any other mundane topic, that awkwardness changes. With just a simple sentence, they begin to know something about each other. The tone of a voice or a facial expression can help people sense whether they are welcomed, accepted or, perhaps, safe. Thus, even the simplest form of communication becomes an essential way to assess the environment. To take that skill away or to seriously limit it by forbidding any dialogue with a stranger does not allow children to trust their instincts or even develop the intuition they will need as adults.
Gavin DeBecker tells a story of one mother who teaches her son to "trust his instincts" while she is with him. As they eat in a fast food restaurant or walk in a mall, she tells the boy to look around and choose an adult he feels would be safe and ask him or her what time it is. The child looks around and settles on someone. When he returns from his task, his mother asks him what it was about the person he chose that made him feel safe or secure in asking. When he tells her that the man had his grandchild with him, or the woman was talking nicely to another person, she helps him process that experience and reinforces the skills she knows he will need if she is not around. Interestingly enough, she says her son seems to have very good instincts about whom he should or should not approach. Many experts agree that all humans have these instincts but often ignore them for fear of offending someone. Women, in particular, do not always listen to intuitive messages of danger. Rehearsals like this one, simple to do and fun for most children, help them evaluate their surroundings and also learn to communicate with adult strangers. Communication is especially important if children are lost or need help.
Children who are raised by 'The Rule' and get lost or need help are in a particularly difficult position. They have been told never to talk to strangers, yet in order to get help, they must talk to people they do not know. A recent compilation of statistics on stranger abductions indicates that "children are more likely to be kidnapped by acquaintances, people they know but who are not family members, than by complete strangers." Yet, the fear of having a child lost in a mall and abducted by a stranger seems to be a common one for parents. In an effort to give children strategies which might help them, parents often give suggestions that are impractical or even dangerous.
- Always look for a person in uniform such as a security guard. This may sound reasonable to an adult, because adults know where these officers can usually be found and what identification they may have. We know, for example, that if they work at a mall, their uniforms may indicate the name of the mall. Many children who are lost are too young to read. So, determining the accuracy of a shoulder patch is not a realistic expectation. Finding a security officer may be an equally difficult and time-consuming task.
- Always go to an information booth. Again, assuming the child is young, finding such a resource may be very difficult. Many multi-leveled malls have only one such center.
- Always ask a store manager. This is difficult without the ability to read name tags or understand who works in a store and who is a shopper (even adults often ask customers for help thinking they are asking store employees).
- If lost in an area unfamiliar to you, look for a police station. Again, how practical is this for a 5 year old or even a 10 year old?
When children are lost, one of two things usually happens: they pick someone to help them or someone picks them. The latter choice may end up being fine but, in this situation and in most situations in their lives, it is much more empowering for them to decide which option they want. In situations such as this, the child who has been taught never to talk to strangers has fewer skills than the young man who, with his mother nearby, asked someone what time it was. He is used to talking with people he does not know and, more importantly, he has been taught to trust his instincts. Therein may lie the secret to picking a person who will help him.
There are many suggestions made to children about whom they should approach if they are lost or need help. The ones mentioned above are most common but, once again, the one suggested by Gavin DeBecker is the one NCAP feels is the most practical and may be the most effective: "Teach children that if they are ever lost, go to a woman. Why? Well, first of all, if your child chooses a woman, it is highly unlikely she will be a sexual predator. Next, a woman approached by a lost child asking for help is likely to stop whatever she is doing, commit to that child, and not rest until the child is safe. This choice may seem politically incorrect but in all cultures, at all ages and at all times in history, men are more violent than women."
As CAP facilitators around the world conduct parent workshops, they are continually asked about strangers and how our curriculum addresses this issue. It is reassuring to know that the women who authored Strategies for Free Children did not include 'The Rule' as part of the children's workshop script. Although children often mention it during the group discussion, it has never been included in the role-plays nor has the primary facilitator addressed it. It is reassuring to know that the writers of our material seemed to understand, in 1978, what recent research is now documenting: 'The Rule' is not the most effective way to teach our children about stranger danger.
Malcolm is a ten year old boy who likes to "surf the net" and chat with sports fans who also like his favorite teams. In the course of one conversation, he was chatting with another boy who asked him his favorite hockey team. Malcolm said it was, for sure, The New Jersey Devils! The kid asked if he had ever been to a game and Malcolm said, "Are you kidding, my Dad and I go to almost every home game!" The other boy sounded envious and said, "It must be nice to live so close to an arena. I live really far away from any hockey teams. I'd like to be able to jump in the car and be at the game in a half hour." Malcolm said, "Yeah, it's pretty cool! Ten minutes and we are at the parking lot having a tail gate party with all my Dad's friends!" They continued their conversation praising the Devils and their chances for the Stanley Cup this year. By the end of their chat, the adult speaking to Malcolm was able to pinpoint the boy's exact location without ever asking for an address or a phone number both of which Malcolm would never have given because he had been warned not to do that.
This story is one of a thousand examples of how children can be vulnerable when engaging in what appears to be harmless and entertaining conversation. It also points out, quite clearly, that despite the enormous benefits associated with the Internet, children and adults need to be very sensitive to its inherent dangers.
We have spent an inordinate amount of time, energy and resources teaching our children how to be safe in the communities in which they live. We have taught them about strangers, peers and those they know and trust. In each case, we have given them strategies to help keep them safe, strong and free. When children log on to the Internet, they enter a new kind of community. Much like the towns and cities in which they live, the Internet is a public place. And the dangers they face there are exacerbated by the fact that they can not see or hear the person with whom they are having a conversation. Therefore, the intuitive skills their parents have worked so hard to teach them, such as watching eye contact, body language or tone of voice, are of little use. Without those factors to evaluate their safety, children and even adults - are at a disadvantage on line.
Children, who are both trusting and curious, can often stumble onto or be attracted to sites which exploit them, give inappropriate information, portray violent images, preach bias and hate centered rhetoric, show explicit sexual materials or provide other information which is dangerous or unacceptable. This inherent danger is not reason enough to keep them from exploring the limitless resources that the Internet provides, but it is a strong reminder that the adults in their lives need to learn more about computers and also closely supervise their use.
Did You Know?
- There are an estimated 24 million children between the ages of ten and seventeen using the Internet regularly?
- Approximately one in four of those children (6 million) has received unsolicited and unwanted exposure to sexually explicit pictures while searching for unrelated information?
- As many as one in five children has received unwanted sexual advances from individuals while on line?
- Approximately six percent of young people in a recent study expressed worry over someone who was bothering or harassing them on line?
These facts may come as a shock to some, but considering the anonymity of the Internet, it is not surprising. People feel they can be more forward and less careful than they might be on the street or in a phone conversation. The average user does not have the knowledge or the technical equipment to discover who is harassing him or her. Listed below are a few clues for parents to follow before their children LOG ON.
- Learn all you can about computers and the Internet
- Oversee your child's use of the computer
- Guidelines should be followed when your child uses the computer
- Observe the sites your child visits and the e-mail he or she receives
- Notify your Internet provider if your child receives unwanted and unsolicited materials
Let's look at each of these suggestions and see how they might help protect children who go on line.
Learn all you can about using computers and, specifically, the Internet. Since the beginning of time, parents have been learning new skills and expanding their knowledge based on the interests of their children. For example, most parents may never know what an "infield fly rule" is until their sons and daughters play Little League baseball. Many do not know anything about stamp collecting or playing chess until their children come home and say, "I want to do this." Then, the parents become experts some even become coaches of the very thing they knew so little about! Part of the reason for that is the parent's desire to be a part of his or her child's life and enthusiastically participate in activities together. The computer is no different from Little League or chess. It takes a little time to learn but the rewards are well worth the investment.
Oversee your child's use of the computer. We wouldn't think of dropping our children off in the center of a huge new city and telling them we will be back to pick them up in three hours. Yet that is virtually what happens when children go to their rooms, close the door and have an entire world at their fingertips. Though they can certainly benefit greatly from the educational materials on line, they are also easy prey to those who might deceive or endanger them. Family computers should be placed in an area where a responsible adult can pass by and randomly check on the activities that are taking place on line. In addition, it should be checked regularly for files and games that might have been downloaded. Families who carefully scrutinize visitors to their homes should insist the same rules apply to those who visit them on line. Overseeing the use of the computer can also apply to the time children spend in front of a monitor. Some families set a timer and limit the amount of time their children can spend on line.
Guidelines for going online help children feel more confident and less worried about potential problems. Some commonly suggested ideas for staying safe on line are listed below. Many parents post these guidelines near the computer.
a.) Do not give personal information in any public area on the Internet such as a website, a chat room or a bulletin board.
b.) Be aware that when you enter a chat room or an instant message session, people will be likely to see your e-mail address and can, therefore, e-mail you.
c.) Using a gender-neutral name when entering a chat room is a good idea. Make sure it does not give enough information for someone to identify you. d.) Passwords should not be shared with friends or anyone on line claiming to represent your service provider.
e.) Remember that all messages sent via e-mail can be copied to others. So, don't ever write anything you wouldn't want someone else to see. This is an especially important point with young people who share secrets or occasionally gossip. Some comments have been posted on bulletin boards for everyone to see.
f.) Make sure parents are aware of any contests you might enter on line. Some are not what they appear to be and allow access to your e-mail.
g.) Sending rude or inconsiderate messages (called "flaming") creates many problems on line. It offends others and may also make you the target of unsolicited e-mail containing viruses or other unwanted materials.
h.) Be especially careful not to open any e-mail, files, pictures or games without knowing the person who sent it. Many times, these vehicles are used to transport viruses.
i.) Don't blame yourself if you receive offensive materials. They are often sent via e-mail address books and have little to do with you or anyone you know.
Observe the sites your child visits. You can check the history function on your browser to see what sites your children have been visiting. Pay especially close attention to chat rooms because they have been the most common vehicle for offensive comments and threats. When your children first start using the Internet, consider sharing an e-mail address or give them an address which is applicable to the entire family. If your child has set up his or her own website, make sure you monitor what is on it. Look to make sure no personal information is given which might permit someone to locate or identify the child. Know who your child's friends are online. Many providers ( i.e. AOL) have a buddy list of online friends. Monitoring that list can give you an idea about who your child is talking to on a regular basis.
Notify authorities if you or your child receive offensive mail or unwanted materials via the Internet. If your child tells you he or she received this kind of message or material, try not to be judgmental or to blame the child. Sometimes parents take away Internet privileges when the child has done nothing to invite or encourage such communication. It is more than likely that children have absolutely no clue why or how they received the message. If you punish them, the next time they may not come to you for help. Most Internet providers encourage people to notify them of such inappropriate messages. If the provider can identify the offender, it will usually terminate his or her account.
Ending on a Positive Note
Although there have been a number of cases brought to the public's attention regarding the dangers and disadvantages of the Internet, the fact remains that reported cases of abuse are relatively infrequent. The educational benefits increase daily as more and more information and materials become available from cyberspace. Just as we have carefully monitored our children on the streets of our towns and cities, we must be vigilant as they travel on the "Information Superhighway". Giving them strategies which will inform them, empower them and lessen their isolation will help them navigate safely.
Overview of the Problem
Child abuse and neglect has cost our society billions of dollars and the cost has been far more than a financial one. Each year, child welfare agencies across the country spend millions of dollars trying to help victims and prosecute offenders. In addition, millions more are spent on the long and short term consequences of abuse. As we enter the new millennium, the attention of many professionals is focused on prevention. With effective programming, there is hope that we can seriously limit the trauma suffered by our children and, at the same time, lessen the financial strain on the nation's economy.
Child abuse and neglect have known detrimental effects on the physical, psychological, cognitive and behavioral development of children (National Research Council, 1993). These consequences range from minor to severe and include physical injuries, brain damage, chronic low self-esteem, problems with bonding and forming relationships, developmental delays, learning disorders and aggressive behaviors. Clinical conditions associated with abuse and neglect include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and cognitive disorders. Beyond the trauma inflicted on individual children, child maltreatment also has been linked with long-term, negative societal consequences. For example, studies associate child maltreatment with increased risk of low academic achievement, drug use, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality. (Widom, 1992; Kelly, Thornberry and Smith, 1997)
Direct Costs
Direct costs are those incurred as a direct result of child abuse and neglect. Included in these figures are the cost of the child welfare system, judicial and law enforcement, health and mental health systems. These costs can include expenses associated with hospitalization and medical services provided to treat injuries resulting from abuse. They would also cover child protective service investigations, police investigations, foster care and other out-of-home placements. They can also include any family preservation, rehabilitation or treatment programs.
It is virtually impossible to calculate, on a national level, an accurate total of direct expenditures since so many costs are blended into other categories or are simply not tracked as abuse and neglect related expenses. However, the government expenditures for child welfare programs do provide us with a benchmark for estimating the annual direct cost for abuse and neglect. In 1998, federal expenditures to states for major child welfare programs exceeded 4.5 billion dollars. That total excludes Medicaid dollars, which are an important source of funding for treatment. (CWLA, 1998) It is also important to note here that federal funding accounts for only 42% of most state child welfare dollars. The remaining 58% is the responsibility of the state and local government.
Indirect Costs
These costs reflect the long term economic consequences of child maltreatment in such areas as education, mental health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency, domestic violence, homelessness, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality. The indirect costs can also be present in loss of productivity, incarceration, long-term injury or unemployment or death. These figures are much more difficult to ascertain since many are based on assumptions or are extrapolated from research.
Deborah Daro, a nationally recognized researcher in child abuse and neglect, has estimated that the national cost in future lost productivity of severely abused or neglected children is between $658 million and 1.3 billion each year, assuming the impairments reduce their future earnings by as little as 5 to 10 percent. (Daro, 1998)
To date, very few longitudinal studies have been done to assess the cost effectiveness of prevention. For the most part, local and state figures reflecting the cost of intervention and treatment have been compared to the costs of prevention efforts. As expected, prevention has been widely accepted as the most cost effective. The debate seems to settle on whether or not the prevention efforts are then considered to be effective. Four key studies (outlined below) have been completed which compare the costs of preventative family support services with the savings generated from the positive outcomes of prevention programs and/or the direct and indirect costs of not preventing child maltreatment. Many of the prevention programs in effect today also address other areas of concern which are directly related to child maltreatment. For example, preventable health conditions (i.e. low birthweight, infant mortality, newborn addictions) or social isolation, lack of parenting skills or inappropriate child rearing behaviors can also be included as areas which benefit from effective prevention education. At the present time, these four sites have the most in-depth findings on prevention cost effectiveness. Their findings are the basis for many discussions at prevention conferences and workshops.
Elmira, New York
A 1990 report by David Olds and colleagues presents an economic analysis within a rigorous evaluation based on a randomized trial of a nurse-home visitation program serving 400 pregnant women in Elmira, New York. (Olds et al, 1993) The evaluation indicated that frequent home visits by nurses during pregnancy and the first 2 years of a child's life improved a wide range of maternal and child health outcomes among adolescent, unmarried and low-income first time mothers (Olds & Kitzman, 1993) The study found that, in comparison to the non-visited mothers, the nurse-visited women had improved health behaviors (reduced cigarette use and improved diets) and fewer visits to the emergency room with their children. They also had greater participation in the workforce and fewer subsequent pregnancies. The economic analysis which came out of this study suggests that the government savings could offset the cost of the program within just 4 years.
Michigan
The Children's Trust Fund of Michigan (Caldwell, 1992) also conducted a study relating to first time parents. However, their study addresses every family in Michigan. They estimated that providing either comprehensive parent education or a home visitation service to every Michigan family expecting its first child would amount to only 5 percent of the estimated total state cost of maltreatment. Based on an estimated per family cost of $712, statewide prevention services were projected at approximately $43 million. In comparison, analysts found that child maltreatment and inadequate parental care cost the state approximately $823 million.
Colorado
A similar 1995 analysis, by the Colorado Children's Trust Fund, examined the costs incurred by failing to prevent child abuse and neglect and then compared those costs with the savings that would accrue from an investment in effective prevention services. (Gould & O'Brien, 1995). The state estimated that $190 million in annual direct costs for child maltreatment and $212 million in indirect costs related to child maltreatment. That figure, $402 million, represented the state's annual expenditures related to child abuse and neglect.
The state costs of maltreatment were compared to the potential savings associated with an intensive home visitation program targeted towards those families most at risk of abuse and neglect. Based on an estimated $2,000 per family cost of a statewide home visitation program for high risk families with children birth to three years old, the Colorado analysis projected a cost of $32 million. It further concluded that if the program were able to reduce child maltreatment expenditures by only 6%, the cost of the prevention investment would be offset (Gould et al. 1995)
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
This study looked at high risk families in one county in Pennsylvania and focused on the family centers offering prevention services. Comparing levels of spending on remedi-ation, maintenance and child protective services in high risk neighborhoods with the same factors in low risk neighborhoods gave researchers a "cost-of-failure". This approach seem to capture real world comparisons for estimates of "what could have been". (Bruner, 1996)
Costs were calculated for establishing family centers to serve populations within the high-risk neighborhoods. This analysis was grounded in the existing body of research on various elements needed for children to succeed and the potential long-term effects of such elements when applied. The estimated cost of establishing this prevention program in family centers was $18.5 million. From a return-on-investment perspective, the $18.5 million expenditure can be compared with the $416.3 million estimated long-term preventable expenditures.
Although most of these studies, with the exception of the Michigan research, deal with secondary rather than primary prevention efforts, there is considerable support among research experts for the position that these prevention efforts do, indeed, reap benefits. The positive outcomes of prevention programs, with even relatively small reductions in the rate of child maltreatment, demonstrate that prevention can be cost-effective.
To estimate the financial costs of the long-term consequences of child maltreatment, researchers must take a holistic and long-term perspective. It is difficult to measure effectiveness until children have reached a healthy, productive and non-violent stage of adulthood. (Bruner and Scott, 1994). While additional investment, research, careful documentation and well designed analysis are needed within the prevention field – both to assess the effectiveness of prevention programs and their cost-effectiveness, current findings suggest that over the long term, prevention pays. (National Research Council, 1993)
RESOURCES
Bruner, C. (1996). Potential Returns on Investment from a Comprehensive Family Center Approach in High-Risk Neighborhoods: Background Paper, Allegheny County Study. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.
Bruner, C. and Scott, S. (1994). Invest-Based Budgeting – The Principles in Converting from a Remediation Response to a Prevention/Investment Budget. Occasional Paper #11. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.
Caldwell, R.A. (1992). The Costs of Child Abuse vs. Child Abuse Prevention:Michigan's Experience. East Lansing, MI: Michigan Children's Trust Fund.
Daro, D. (1988). Confronting Child Abuse: Research for Effective Program Design. NY: The Free Press, Macmillan, Inc.
Gould, M.S. & O'Brien, T. (1995). Child Maltreatment in Colorado: The Value of Prevention and the Cost of Failure to Prevent. Denver, CO: Center for Human Investment Policy, University of Colorado at Denver.
Kelley, B.T., Thornberry, T.P. and Smith, C.A. (1997). In the Wake of Childhood Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
National Research Council. (1993). Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Olds, D.L., Henderson, C.R., Phelps, C., Kitzman, H. & Hanks, C. (1993). Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending. Medical Care 31 (2): 15-174.
Olds, D. & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children. 3(3): 53-92.
Widom, C.S. (1992). The Cycle of Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
|
