Observing, Understanding, Responding & Protecting Our Children

1. Observing, Understanding, Responding & Protecting Our Children Harold Johnson/MSU 2/26/2010 2010 Michigan EHDI Conference East Lansing, MI

2. Presentation Outline • What are we talking about? • Why do WE have to deal with this? • What is stopping us? • Where can we go for more information and help when we need it? • What can we realistically do? H. Johnson/MSU

3. What are we talking about? http://www.childhelp.org/ http://www.dcmp.org/ http://www.dcmp.org/FlashLanding/SecureFlash.aspx?G=31653p:// H. Johnson/MSU

4. Why do WE have to deal with this? http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/ • Every State legally mandates that educators report suspected child abuse and neglect (Crosson-Tower, 2003). H. Johnson/MSU

5. Why do WE have to...(cont) Example: Michigan H. Johnson/MSU

6. What is stopping us? • Barriers to reporting Child Abuse/Neglect (CA/N): 1. Belief that CA/N is not a common, or sufficiently important problem to warrant our attention. [info] 2. Insufficient knowledge re.... • ...the signs and symptoms of CA/N; and • ...CA/N reporting procedures and/or conflicting school policies. [info] 3. Perceived negative consequences of reporting, i.e., ... • ...make things worse for the child; and • ...fear of disapproval from parents, parental denial, lack of administrative support and legal ramifications for false allegations. [info] H. Johnson/MSU

7. Barriers...(cont.) 4. Lessons learned from past reporting, e.g., nothing happened. 5. Negative attitude towards Child Protective Services. [Info: 4 & 5] 6. The lack of training, and ongoing support, concerning recognizing, reporting and responding to possible incidences of CA/N. 7. The belief that someone else is dealing with this problem. [info: 6 & 7] Alvarex, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin, 2004; Bonner, & Hensley, 1997; Kenny, 2001, 2004 H. Johnson/MSU

8. Barriers (cont.) • In summary, we do not deal with CA/N because we... • ...think it is not a significant problem • ...are uncertain how to recognize, or report it • ...are afraid of the possible consequences • ...do not think anything positive will occur • ...think someone else is dealing with it • I would also suggest that we have not dealt with CA/N because it is such a controversial, and unpleasant topic to discuss and think about. H. Johnson/MSU

9. Barriers (cont.) • In reality, ... • ...30+% of our students will experience CA/N prior to the 12th grade, with the greatest risk occurring from birth to age three years. • ...we are legally required to report possible instances of CA/N • ...yet we are neither prepared for, nor supported in, meeting our legal responsibility as mandatory reporters of CA/N. H. Johnson/MSU

10. Barriers (cont.) • In reality, ... • ...our lack of attention, preparation and support to Observe, Understand, and Respond serves to increase the duration and the impact of CA/N • ...all of our work to provide effective early intervention will be negated, if our students are not physically, or mentally able to learn. • ...WE can start to address the horrific realities of CA/N by enhancing out ability to observe, understand, and respond to children who are d/hh. H. Johnson/MSU

11. Where can we go for more information and help when we need it? Hands & Voices has been a partner in this effort since 2007 http://deafed-childabuse-neglect-col.wiki.educ.msu.edu/ • A “Community of Learners” has been established to address the issue of CA/N as experienced by children who are d/hh. H. Johnson/MSU

12. Go for more info... Call and discuss your concerns with an expert... http://www.childhelp.org/hotline H. Johnson/MSU

13. Report your concerns... http://www.childwelfare.gov/responding/reporting.cfm H. Johnson/MSU

14. What can we realistically do? • We can... 1. ...recognize CA/N as a frequent and significant barrier to the physical, emotional and academic success of OUR students who are d/hh. 2. ...find the local CA/N experts and begin a conversation about OUR students who are d/hh. H. Johnson/MSU

15. What can we do...(cont.) • We can... 3. ...request additional training and support from state and national EHDI to learn how to Observe, Understand, and Respond to possible instances of CA/N. 4. ...enhance our parent’s ability to develop their children’s learning and language skills by improving their ability to Observe, Understand, and Respond to children’s interactional behavior, while simultaneously protecting them from CA/N. H. Johnson/MSU

16. What can we do...(cont.) • We can... • 5. ...join the Deaf Education Community of Learners (http://deafed-childabuse-neglect-col.wiki.educ.msu.edu/) to identify, document, and recognize those early intervention and K-12 programs that have established effective CA/N prevention and response programs, while we challenge those who have yet to do so. H. Johnson/MSU

17. Thank You I hope you will join with me in an effort to Observe, Understand, and Respond to children who are d/hh. Please give me your contact information so that we CAN make a difference together! H. Johnson/MSU

18. Contact Information • Harold A. Johnson/Professor • Deaf Education Teacher Preparation • 343A Erickson Hall • Michigan State University • East Lansing, MI 48824 • 517 432-3926 [office] • 517 353-6393 [fax] • 35.8.171.220 [video ph] • Harold.a.johnson3 [Skype] • MSUE_H_Johnson [iVisit] • www.educ.msu.edu/deafed [Web] H. Johnson/MSU

19. What do we Know about Child Abuse and Neglect (CA/N)? H. Johnson/MSU

20. Barrier #1: CA/N not a big problem... • Child Maltreatment Report, 2007 • In 2007, 1,760 children died of abuse, 73.5% of those children died by age 3 years. • Children in the age group of birth to one year have the highest rate of victimization • CA/N is experienced by 09% of children with out disabilities vs. 31% of children with disabilities (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000). • Existent research indicates that while 10% of hearing boys and 25% of hearing girls report sexual abuse, vs. 54% of boys who are d/hh and 50% of girls who are d/hh report sexual abuse (Sullivan, Vernon, Scanlan, John, 1987). H. Johnson/MSU

21. Barrier #1: Belief CA/N is not important... (cont.) • It is estimated that 83% of women with disabilities will be sexually assaulted during their life (Obinna, Krueger, Osterbaan, Sadusky, DeVore, 2005). • Consequences of CA/N • Melmed, 2004 • Impact of CA/N greatest among the very young, i.e., • Lower social competence • Show less empathy • Have difficulty recognizing the emotions of others • More likely to be insecurely attached to their parents • Demonstrate deficits in IQ scores, language abilities and school performance

22. Barrier #1: Belief CA/N is uncommon... (cont.) • Consequences of CA/N (cont.) • Child Welfare Information Gateway (2008) • Shaken baby syndrome...consequences may include bleeding in the eyes or brain, injury of the spinal cord and neck, and rib/bone fracture • “Depression and withdrawal symptoms were common among children as young as 3 who experienced emotional, physical, or environmental neglect. (Dubowitz, Papas, Black, & Starr, 2002).”

23. Barrier #1: Belief CA/N is uncommon... (cont.) • Consequences of CA/N (cont.) • Wang, Holton, 2007 (cont.) • Poor physical health • chronic fatigue, altered immune function, hypertension, sexually transmitted diseases, obesity • Social difficulties • insecure attachments with caregivers, which may lead to difficulties in developing trusting relationships with peers and adults later in life • Cognitive dysfunctions • deficits in attention, abstract reasoning, language development, and problem-solving skills, which ultimately affect academic achievement and school performance • Behavioral problems • aggression, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality, abusive or violent behavior Back

24. Barrier #2...Insufficient knowledge...the signs & symptoms of CA/N. • * Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2007b • Observe the child... • Shows sudden changes in behavior, or school performance • Has not received help for physical, or medical problems brought to the parents' attention • Is always watchful, as though preparing for something bad to happen • Is overly compliant, passive, or withdrawn • Comes to school or other activities early, stays late, and does not want to go home • What are the child indicators that you have learned to look for with children who are deaf/hard of hearing? *See Appendix “A” for definitions of CA/N & Appendix “B” for signs for specific types of abuse H. Johnson/MSU

25. Barrier #2... (cont.) • Observe the parent... • Shows little concern for the child • Denies the existence of—or blames the child for—the child's problems in school or at home • Asks teachers or other caregivers to use harsh physical discipline if the child misbehaves • Sees the child as entirely bad, worthless, or burdensome • Demands a level of physical or academic performance the child cannot achieve • Looks primarily to the child for care, attention, and satisfaction of emotional needs H. Johnson/MSU

26. Barrier #2... (cont.) Observe Parent/Child Interactions: • Rarely touch or look at each other • Consider their relationship entirely negative • State that they do not like each other • What are the parent/child indicators that you have learned to look for with children who are deaf/hard of hearing? • What professional development support have you received to observe, understand and respond to possible instances of CA/N? Back H. Johnson/MSU

27. Barrier #2... (cont.) • ...Insufficient knowledge re...the reporting procedures. • Most (58%) instances of CA/N are reported by professionals, with teachers representing the single largest (17%) category of professionals. • While protocols have been established to guide educator’s reporting of CA/N (Crosson-Tower, 2003), most (87%) educators submit reports to school officials vs. Child Protective Services (CPS), with less than 30% of suspected cases subsequently shared with CPS. H. Johnson/MSU

28. Barrier #3. Perceived negative consequences of reporting • ...make things worse for the child; • In the majority of cases, maltreatment does not increase as a result of reporting and in less than 3% of reported cases result in children being removed from the home (Alvarex, et al, 2004)

29. Barrier #3. (cont.) • ...fear of disapproval from parents, parental denial, lack of administrative support and legal ramifications for false allegations. • Most (76%) educators do not think that their administrators will support them if they made a CA/N report (Kenny, 2004). • All states provide immunity to those professionals who report CA/N in good faith (Alvarex, et al, 2004) • What support and directions have you been provided in relation to reporting CA/N? Back H. Johnson/MSU

30. Barriers #4 & 5 • Barriers #4 & 5. Lessons learned from past reporting, e.g., nothing happened, and Negative attitude towards Child Protective Services (CPS). • Interactions between mandatory reporters and CPS are often difficult (Alvarex, et al, 2004) • CPS services are underfunded and overwhelmed, with most of the available funds being used to respond to, vs. prevent CA/N (Freundlich, 2007) H. Johnson/MSU

31. Barriers #4 & 5 (cont.) • Insufficient CPS data collection and training concerning the documentation, recognition and response to CA/N as experienced by children with disabilities (Alvarex et al, 2004; Horner-Johnson, & Drum, 2006; Kendall-Tackett, Lyon, Tallaferro, & Little, 2005). • In relation to instances of sexual abuse, educational systems frequently disbelieve victims, and fail to effectively deal with perpetrators (Shakeshaft, 2004) • What have been your experiences with CPS in relation to children who are d/hh? Back

32. Barriers #6 & 7 • Barriers # 6 & 7. The lack of training, and ongoing support, concerning recognizing, reporting and responding to possible incidences of CA/N & The belief that someone else is dealing with this problem. • Who in Deaf Education is providing leadership, training, support and services re. CA/N? • Ed Shroyer (200?) briefly funded a center concerning CA/N as experienced by children who d/hh H. Johnson/MSU

33. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Who in Deaf Education is providing leadership...(cont.) • CEASD has a 2002 position paper entitled “Safe Schools for all deaf & hard of hearing children” + a range of existing programs concerning both bullying and CA/N • NAD has a 2008 position statement on “Mental health services for deaf children” that notes a higher rate of sexual abuse. • DOVE Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Women and Children has established a multi state program of services and training • http://www.deafdove.org/ H. Johnson/MSU

34. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Who in the field of Deaf Education is providing leadership...(cont.) • Hands & Voices has been providing presentations and piloting parent/professional information programs (http://www.handsandvoices.org/) • ACE-D/HH: accepted *Collaboration Proposal • AGBell: Collaboration Proposal under consideration • ASDC: accepted Collaboration Proposal • CAID: accepted Collaboration Proposal • CEASD: Collaboration Proposal under consideration • CED: Collaboration Proposal under consideration • EHDI? (see next page) *See Appendix “C” H. Johnson/MSU

35. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • “EHDI programs are characterized by three main components: • Screening (the initial test of infants for hearing loss)  • Audiologic evaluation (to confirm hearing loss) • Early intervention (including medical treatment, early intervention services and family support) to enhance communication, thinking, and behavioral skills needed to achieve academic and social success.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/default.htm H. Johnson/MSU No mention of CA/N...why?

36. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) Given the fact that... ....children with disabilities are three times more likely to experience CA/N ...the occurrence of CA/N can dramatically and negatively impact a child’s heath, behavior, learning, language and academic performance ...ALL individuals who work within the EHDI systems are mandatory reporters of CA/N EHDI should address the issue of CA/N as experienced by children who are d/hh. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/riskprotectivefactors.html H. Johnson/MSU

37. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • In light of this lack of information, in 2008 I conducted a survey of extent to which parents and professionals are aware, informed and prepared to recognize and respond to possible incidences of CA/N as experienced by children who are d/hh. • 322 respondents • Demographic Overview: • Most (60%) were between the ages of 35-54. • Most (80%) had greater than a B.A./B.S. degree. • Most (90%) were female • Most (88%) were professionals • Most (82%) were hearing H. Johnson/MSU

38. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey results... • Demographic Overview: (cont.) • Most (70%) had 11+ years of experience in interacting with individuals who were d/hh • Most (82%) had daily interactions with individuals who were d/hh • A majority (51%) used speech & sign in those interactions, with the rest using speech (25%), or sign (18%) • Training re. CA/N: • Most (64%) had formal training re. CA/N, but only in a minority (29%) of cases, was the training specific to children who were d/hh H. Johnson/MSU

39. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey results... • Training re. CA/N: (cont.) • Training resulted in mixed results, i.e., • In response to the question “How well prepared do you now consider yourself to be in relation to recognizing and reporting possible cases of child abuse and neglect? • 48% indicated that they were well, or sufficiently prepared vs. 49% indicated that they were somewhat, or unprepared • In contrast, a majority (55%) indicated that well/sufficiently confident they could find accurate information concerning CA/N H. Johnson/MSU

40. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey results... • Training re. CA/N: (cont.) • A minority (09%) indicated that they were very confident that they could recognize if a child who is d/hh was experiencing CA/N • A majority (53%) indicated that they were very/sufficiently confident in their knowledge of how to report possible incidences of CA/N as experienced by a child who is d/hh. H. Johnson/MSU

41. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey results... • Training re. CA/N: (cont.) • A minority (15%) indicated they were very, or sufficiently (27%) confident in their knowledge regarding how to respond to a child who is d/hh and possible the victim of CA/N • Most (87%) wanted to learn more about the prevention of CA/N as experienced by children who were d/hh H. Johnson/MSU

42. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey results... • Resulting knowledge: • Most have had some general, formal training re. CA/N, few in relation to students who are d/hh • CA/N training resulted in mixed results, i.e., • while a majority thought they could find accurate information, and knew how to make a report, • few thought they could effectively recognize, or respond to a child who is d/hh and who may have experienced CA/N • Most would like learn more re. how to prevent CA/N as experienced by children who are d/hh • What more re. CA/N do you need to know? H. Johnson/MSU

43. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey Results & the literature base • Kenny (2001; 2004) indicates... • ...that less than 30% of suspected CA/N cases known to school personnel are formally reported. • ...teachers need more training re. legal mandates of reporting, how to recognize and how to report suspected instances of CA/N. • ...training should be ongoing and include experientially exercises and hypothetical situations. • ...the better the CA/N training, the more cognizant teachers became of the difficulty in recognizing the signs and systems of CA/N H. Johnson/MSU

44. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Survey Results & the literature base • Kenny (2001; 2004) indicates...(cont.) • ...SPED teaches made more reports of CA/N, but did not receive any better training H. Johnson/MSU

45. Barriers #6 & 7 (cont.) • Back • Implications: • Children who are d/hh are three times more likely to experience CA/N than their hearing peers • Professionals who work with children who are d/hh are not well prepared to recognize, report, or respond to possible instances of CA/N • With a few notable exceptions, CA/N has largely been ignored by the major organizations within the field of Deaf Education. • Ignoring CA/N increase the length and impact of the abuse. H. Johnson/MSU

46. Reference List H. Johnson/MSU

47. Alvarex, K.M., Kenny, M.C., Donohue, B., & Carpin, K. M. (2004). Why are professionals failing to initiate mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any empirically based training programs to assist professionals in the reporting process? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 563-578. • Bonner, B.L. & Hensley, L.D. (1997). State efforts to identify maltreated children with disabilities: A follow-up study. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 52-60. • CEASD (2002). Safe schools for all deaf & hard of hearing children. Retrieved on 2/15/2010 from: http://www.ceasd.org/acrobat/CEASD_safe_schools.pdf • Child Welfare Information Gateway (2008). Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect. Retrieved on February 23, 2010 from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm • Child Maltreatment Report (2007). Retrieved on 6/7/09 from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/index.htm • Child Welfare Information Gateway (2007a). Definitions of child abuse and neglect. Retrieved on 1/25/2010 from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm • Child Welfare Information Gateway (2007b). Recognizing child abuse and neglect: Signs and Symptoms. Retrieved on 1/25/2010 from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/signs.cfm H. Johnson/MSU

48. Child Welfare Information Gateway (2006). Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect: fact sheet. Retrieved on 2/3/2008 from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm • Crosson-Tower, Cynthia (2003). The Role of Educators in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect. Office on Child Abuse and Neglect., Caliber Associates, Retrieved on 5/13/2009 from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/educator/index.cfm • DePanfilis, D. (2006). Child neglect: A guide for prevention, assessment, and intervention. Retrieved on February 8, 2008 from: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/neglect/index.cfm • Freundlich, M. (2007). Time for reform: Investing in prevention: Keeping children save at home. Retrieved from: http://www.preventchildabuse.org/about_us/media_releases/pew_kaw_prevention_report_final.pdf • Horner-Johnson, W., & Drum, C.E. (2006). Prevalence of maltreatment of people with intellectual disabilities: A review of the recently published research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 12(1), 57-69. H. Johnson/MSU

49. Kendall-Tackett, K., Lyon, T., Tallaferro, G., & Little, L. (2005). Why child maltreatment researchers should include children’s disability status in their maltreatment studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(2), 147-151 • Kenny, M. C. (2001). Child abuse reporting: Teachers’ perceived deterrents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 81-92. • Kenny, M. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1311-1319. • Melmed, M.E. (2004). Statement of Matthew E. Melmed executive director zero to three: National center for infants, toddlers and families: Before the house committee on ways and means subcommittee on human resources. Retriieved February 23, 2010 from http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/cw_testimony_04_final.pdf?docID=1284 • NAD (2008). Position statement on mental health services for deaf children. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.nad.org/issues/health-care/mental-health-services/for-deaf-children H. Johnson/MSU

50. Obinna, Jennifer, Krueger, Sarah, Osterbaan, Constance, Sadusky, Jane M, DeVore, Wendy (2005). Understanding the Needs of the Victims of Sexual Assault in the Deaf Community: A Needs Assessment and Audit. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/212867.pdf • Shakeshaft, Charol (2004). Educator Sexual Misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature. U.S. Dept of Education (purchase order ED-02-PO-3281) Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf • Sullivan, P.M., & Knutson, J.F. (2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(10), 1257-1273. • Sullivan, Patricia M., Vernon, McCay, & Scanlan, John, M. (1987). Sexual abuse of deaf youth. American Annals of the Deaf, 32(4), 256-262 H. Johnson/MSU