Richard Thompson Juvenile Protective Association

1. Listening to children from LONGSCAN: What 12-year olds tell us about witnessing violence Richard Thompson Juvenile Protective Association Jonathan Kotch, Terri Lewis, Des Runyan, Jamie Smith University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill

2. Acknowledgements • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children, Youth, and Families Children's Bureau Office on Child Abuse and Neglect • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development  

3. The Prevalence of Witnessed Violence • Nearly 40% of American teenagers witness violence every year (Kilpatrick et al., 2000). • 15% witness violence using a weapon, and 30% witness violence without a weapon (Finkelhor et al., 2005). • In areas dealing with war or high rates of violence, child exposure to violence is likely to be much higher.

4. Impact of Witnessed Violence • Mental health problems: depression, PTSD • Social problems: poor peer relationships, school failure • Risk-taking/aggression: juvenile justice involvement, substance use • WHO:Witnessing violence predisposes youth to engage in violence, and to be victims of violence later on (Krug et al., 2002).

5. Child Report vs. Parent Report • Problems with reliability of child report in very young (age 6) children (Thompson et al. 2006). • Parents underestimate child exposure to violence, relative to child report (Litrownik et al., 2003). • Child reports of witnessed violence better than parent reports of child witnessing in prediction of child outcomes: aggression, depression, anger, anxiety (Johnson et al., 2002).

6. Main Hypotheses • Modest agreement between children and parents on child exposure to violence. • Child reports of exposure willpredictchild outcomes, even after controlling for parent reports and for other risk factors (demographics and maltreatment history). • Effects will be present for both family and non-family violence.

7. Measures: Overview • Independent variables • Demographic information • Race • Gender • Adult male in home • Other control variables • Caregiver Depression: CES-D • Child Maltreatment history: Official records • Child exposure to violence • Caregiver report • Child report • Dependent variables: Child behavioral outcomes: • YSR: Child report (internalizing and externalizing) • CBCL: parent report (internalizing and externalizing) • TSC-C: Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children

8. Independent Variables: Demographics

9. Independent Variables: Other Control Variables

10. Independent Variables: Exposure to Violence • Child Report: History of Witnessed Violence Scale • 8 items assessing witnessed violence • Clarified whether violence included family or non-family • Frequency ever witnessed: Likert scale from none (0) to 4 or more times (3).

11. Independent Variables: Exposure to Violence (cont.) • Caregiver Report: Child Life Events • 6 items focused on witnessed violence from longer scale • Clarified whether violence included family or non-family • Frequency witnessed in last year: Likert scale from none (0) to 4 or more times (3).

12. Dependent Variables: Child Behavioral Outcomes

13. Method: Analysis • All subjects with age 12 interview • Subjects with incomplete data dropped • Correlations • Series of hierarchical regression analyses • Step 1: Models with caregiver reports • Family violence • Non-family violence • Step 2: Child reports added • Family violence • Non-family violence

14. Subjects: Complete vs. Incomplete Data • LONGSCAN sample with age 12 data: 949 • Analysis sample (complete data): 781 • Analysis sample less likely to be Hispanic (6% vs. 12% in sample with missing data) • Analysis sample lower mother depression (11.0 vs. 13.9) • Analysis sample less internalizing (YSR): (48.4 vs. 51.5) • Site Differences • No differences on other factors.

15. Child Exposure to Family Violence: Parent-Child Agreement • Agreement significant BUT very modest

16. Violence Exposure as a Predictor of Child Outcome (YSR)

17. Violence Exposure as a Predictor of Child Outcome (CBCL)

18. Violence Exposure as a Predictor of Child Outcome (TSC)

19. Summary of Results • Child reports of both family and non-family violence predict child reports of internalizing and externalizing behaviors and trauma symptoms. • Neither caregiver reports of family or non-family violence predict child reports of internalizing or externalizing behaviors, or trauma symptoms. • Caregiver report only of family violence predicts caregiver report of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. • child report only of non-family violence predicts caregiver report of internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

20. Summary of Results (cont.) • There is a significant but modest correlation between child and caregiver report of both family and non-family witnessed violence. • Caregiver depression predicts five of seven adverse child behavioral outcomes and depression. • Child maltreatment predicts only two (caregiver report of externalizing behavior and child report of depression) of the seven outcomes.

21. Limitations • Systematic, not representative, sample • Cross-sectional, not longitudinal • Some differences between total sample and sample used in analysis (differences controlled for) • Site differences (controlled for) • Difference measures used for caregiver witnessing and child witnessing

22. Implications for Research and Clinical Practice • Pay attention to child reports of witnessing violence • Child report is a better predictor of child’s self-reported behaviors than caregiver report. • Caregiver may be a valid source of child-witnessed family violence, but not of child-witnessed non-family violence, especially as the child grows older.

23. Implications for Research and Clinical Practice (cont.) • Among children at risk of maltreatment, witnessed violence happening to others in the family and the community may be associated with adverse outcomes. • Researchers should include children’s reports of witnessing violence in studies of maltreatment outcomes. • For more information, visit our website at http://www.iprc.unc.edu/longscan/

24. References • Finkelhor et al. 2005. The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment 10:5-25. • Johnson et al. 2002. Adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes from childhood exposure to violence. Child Maltreatment7:179-186. • Kilpatrick et al. 2000. Risk factors for adolescent substance abuse and dependence: Data from a national sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68: 19-30 • Krug et al., eds. World report on violence and health. Geneva : World Health Organization, 2002. • Litrownik et al. 2003. Exposure to family violence in young at-risk children: A longitudinal look at the effects of victimization and witnessed physical and psychological aggression. Journal of Family Violence 18: 59-73. • Thompson et al., 2006. Children’s self-reports about violence exposure: An examination of the Things I Have Seen and Heard scale. Manuscript under review.