Disasters, Victimization, And Childrens Mental Health
CV190Child Development, July/August 2010, Volume 81, Number 4, Pages 1040–1052Disasters, Victimization, and Children’s Mental HealthKathryn A. Becker-BleaseHeather A. Turner andDavid FinkelhorOregon State UniversityUniversity of New HampshireIn a representative sample of 2,030 U.S. children aged 2–17, 13.9% report lifetime exposure to disaster, and 4.1%report experiencing a disaster in the past year. Disaster exposure was associated with some forms of victimization and adversity. Victimization was associated with depression among 2- to 9-year-old disaster survivors,and with depression and aggression among 10- to 17-year-old disaster survivors. Children exposed to eithervictimization only or both disaster and victimization had worse mental health compared to those who experienced neither. More research into the prevalence and effects of disasters and other stressful events among children is needed to better understand the interactive risks for and effects of multiple forms of trauma.Disasters are relatively common events that disruptchildren’s basic needs including access to food,water, shelter, and primary caregivers. Much ofwhat we know about disasters and children comesfrom samples of children exposed to a relativelyfew, large-scale disasters rather than from representative samples across the population (e.g., Centersfor Disease Control, 2005; Landrigan et al., 2008;see Norris et al., 2002, for a review). In addition, weknow little about how exposure to disasters is associated with exposure to other kinds of stressfulevents. In this study, we investigate the prevalenceand effects of disasters and other stressful events ina representative sample of U.S. children.DefinitionsIn this article, we use the term disaster to refer toone-time or ongoing events of human or naturalcause that lead groups of people to experienceFor the purposes of compliance with Section 507 of PL 104-208(the ‘‘Stevens Amendment’’), readers are advised that 100% ofthe funds for this program are derived from federal sources (thisproject was supported by Grants 1999-JP-FX-1101 and 2002-JWBX-0002 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Departmentof Justice). The total amount of federal funding involved is 584,549. Points of view or opinions in this document are thoseof the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authorswish to thank Richard Ormrod for help with data management,and John Boyle and Patricia Vanderwolf for help in data collection.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toKathryn A. Becker-Blease, Department of Psychology, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Electronic mail may besent to kathryn.blease@oregonstate.edu.stressors including the threat of death, bereavement, disrupted social support systems, and insecurity of basic human needs such as food, water,housing, and access to close family members. Weuse the term victimization to refer to ‘‘harms thatoccur to individuals because other human actorsbehaving in ways that violate social norms’’ (italics inoriginal, Finkelhor & Kendall-Tackett, 1997, p. 2).Victimization includes maltreatment, sexual andphysical abuse, neglect, exposure to domestic violence, and other crimes such as theft and peer andsibling physical assault. Finally, we use the termadversity to refer to other (nonvictimization, nondisaster) events that have been associated withpoorer mental health, including having an incarcerated or substance-abusing parent. Disasters, victimization, and other adverse events are interrelated incomplex ways. Exposure to any one type of eventcould put children at risk to experience other typesof events, or affect how children respond if andwhen they experience another kind of event. Additional environmental and genetic factors could beimplicated both in risk of exposure and for outcomes following exposure to any of these events.DisastersGeneral population studies indicate that manypeople in the United States experience disasterseach year. Adults self-report a lifetime prevalencerate of 11%–30% (Briere & Elliott, 2000; Goldberg & 2010, Copyright the Author(s)Journal Compilation 2010, Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2010/8104-0003
Disasters, Victimization, and Mental HealthFreyd, 2006; Green & Solomon, 1995; Norris et al.,2002) depending in part whether disaster is definedexclusively as natural disasters, or also includeshuman-caused incidents. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to obtain a nationalprevalence estimate for disaster exposure amongchildren in the United States.Numerous researchers have examined children’sreactions to large-scale disasters worldwide. Fromthese studies, we know that disasters are implicated in a range of physical effects, including traumatic brain injury, low birth weight, andrespiratory, musculoskeletal, and other physicalsymptoms (Dirkzwager, Kerssens, & Yzermans,2006; Keenan, Marshall, Nocera, & Runyan, 2004;Landrigan et al., 2008; Rath et al., 2007). Psychological sequalae include posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, anxiety, behavior problems,sleep problems, and learning problems (Norriset al., 2002; Stein et al., 2004; Weems et al., 2007).Based on a review of many studies, Norris et al.(2002) concluded that school-age children are morelikely than adults to experience severe impairmentfollowing disasters.A few studies point to differential effects ofdisasters for adolescents compared to youngerchildren. Increased aggression and enuresis among2- to 9-year-olds have been reported 6 months aftera flood (Durkin, Khan, Davidson, Zaman, & Stein,1993) and preschoolers demonstrate increased fearof storms, concern for others, and other signs ofdisaster experience in their play up to 1 year following a hurricane (Saylor, Swenson, & Powell,1992). Other studies of children who were underage 5 at the time of exposure to nuclear accidentsshow few long-term effects (Bromet et al., 2000;Cornely & Bromet, 1986). Dirkzwager et al. (2006)reported that children aged 4–12 reported increasedsleep problems relative to controls, whereas adolescents aged 13–18 reported increased anxietysymptoms compared to controls. Green et al. (1991)studied children who experienced a dam collapse2 years prior. They report that children aged 2–8reported fewer posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms than children aged 9–15. Most symptoms haddisappeared 17 years after the disaster, but somenew symptoms (suicidal ideation and substanceabuse) arose as participants aged (Green et al.,1994). Based on the available evidence, youngchildren have been found to show less severesymptoms of shorter duration than older childrenand adolescents, but not enough data are availableto speak definitively about age effects amongchildren, particularly for those under 5.1041VictimizationStudies investigating the effects of various formsof victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner,2007) and adverse childhood experiences (Donget al., 2004) have demonstrated that many peoplewho experience one type of stressful event arelikely to experience other types. When multiplestressful events are not considered simultaneously,consequences of multiple events may be attributedto the single event that is the focus of study. Thereis a particular risk of this effect with disasterresearch because most disaster research seeks samples after a particular event for the specific purposeof determining the effects of that one particularevent. The data set used in this study allows us toestimate the effects of a wide range of stressfulevents, including disasters.Disasters, Victimization, and Other AdversityIt is easy to imagine that risk for some stressfulevents puts children at risk for similar types ofevents. Poverty, parenting capacity, social support,and many other environmental factors may leadto the empirical evidence demonstrating associations among types of maltreatment and victimization. Why would we predict an associationbetween exposure to victimization and disasters?At least two mechanisms could result in an association between disasters and other stressfulevents. First, the stress of the disaster may impairparents’ ability to care for their children. Asreviewed by Norris et al. (2002), adults exposedto disaster may experience sleep disturbance, aworsening of mental health symptoms, reducedsocial support, and increased use of alcohol following disasters. Further, several studies havepointed to increases in child abuse following natural disasters, although this finding is not universal (Curtis, Miller, & Berry, 2000; Keenan et al.,2004).It is also possible that some of the same riskfactors are associated with both disasters and victimization. In the geography and communitydevelopment literature, vulnerability to disaster isconceptualized as the interaction between risk ofdisaster exposure and the ability to prepare forand respond to disasters (Cutter & Finch, 2008;Masozeraa, Bailey, & Kerchner, 2007). For the purposes of this article, we are mainly concernedwith risk of exposure, but the overlap of conceptsis relevant to our definition of disaster, as well asour survey respondents’ definitions. People who
1042Becker-Blease, Turner, and Finkelhorexperience an ice storm for which both they andtheir community are prepared are less likely toself-report disaster exposure than another personwho survived a storm that resulted in injuries anddeath. In another example, a homeowner living ina well-maintained home is at less risk for experiencing a major fire than is someone living in anapartment complex with inadequate fire alarmsand escape routes. For these reasons and others,socioeconomic status (SES), urbanity, and race andethnicity are persistent predictors of vulnerabilityto disaster (Cutter & Finch, 2008). These same factors are consistent predictors of exposure to victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007; Stein, Jaycox,Kataoka, Rhodes, & Vestal, 2003). Likewise, someof the same factors that underlie risk of disasterexposure, also put children at risk for poorer mental health outcomes. Parents who have moreresources are not only more able to locate safeshelter out of the way of a natural disaster butalso in a better position to help children cope withthe event and obtain professional mental healthservices if required.Research Questions and Hypotheses1. How many children are affected by disastersin the United States?2. Is risk for disaster exposure associated withrisk for exposure to other stressful events?We hypothesized that risk for disaster wouldbe associated with risk of physical abuse,exposure to domestic and community violence, and other adversity. We made nohypotheses about the causality of this association.3. To what extent is victimization history associated with mental health symptoms amongdisaster victims? We hypothesized that amongdisaster victims, victimization would be a significant predictor of mental health.4. How do mental health symptoms comparefor children who have experienced disasters,victimization, both disaster and victimizationevents, and neither disaster nor victimizationevents? We hypothesized that those whohad experienced neither a disaster nor victimization would report the least mentalhealth symptoms, those who had experienced both would report the most symptoms, and those who experienced either adisaster or victimization would have intermediate scores.MethodParticipantsThis research is based on data from the Developmental Victimization Survey (DVS), designed toobtain 1-year incidence estimates of a comprehensive range of childhood victimizations across gender, race, and developmental stage. The survey,conducted between December 2002 and February2003, assessed the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 2,030 children aged 2–17living in the contiguous United States. The surveywas conducted in English, and 1% of those contacted were unable to complete the survey due toa language barrier. The interviews with parentsand youth were conducted over the phone by theemployees of an experienced survey research firmspecially trained to talk with children andparents. Telephone interviewing is a cost-effectivemethodology (Weeks, Kulka, Lessler, & Whitmore,1983) that has been demonstrated to be comparable in reliability and validity with in-personinterviews, even for sensitive topics (Bajos, Spira,Ducot, & Messiah, 1992; Bermack, 1989; Czaja,1987; Marin & Marin, 1989). The methodologyis also used to interview youth in the U.S.Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, variousyears) and in a variety of other epidemiologicalstudies of youth concerning violence exposure(Hausman, Spivak, Prothrow-Stith, & Roeber,1992).The sample selection procedures were based ona list-assisted random digit dial telephone surveydesign. This design increases the rate of contactinghouseholds with children aged 2–17 while decreasing the rate of dialing business and nonworkingnumbers. Experimental studies have found thisdesign to decrease standard errors relative to thestandard Mitofsky–Waksberg (Waksberg, 1978)method while producing samples with similardemographic profiles (Brick, Waksberg, Kulp, &Starer, 1995; Lund & Wright, 1994).A short interview was conducted with an adultcaregiver (usually a parent) to obtain family demographic information. Because the questions in thesurvey are of a sensitive nature, interviewersexplained the study honestly and carefully upfront. Care was taken to not refer to the study as a‘‘crime’’ study, as many victims of crimes do notlabel their experiences as a crime. Instead, children’s‘‘safety’’ was emphasized.Specifically, parents of 2- to 9-year-olds weretold:
Disasters, Victimization, and Mental HealthThis study is being conducted by the [Name ofUniversity] to better understand problems facingchildren today. For this study, we will be interviewing 2000 families across the country to findout about stressful events that happen to somechildren, and how schools and various agenciesmay better protect kids from dangerous situations. Your family was selected at random to represent families with children aged 2–17. Yourinterview will take about 30 minutes. We will beasking you about things that may have happenedin your child’s school, neighborhood, or home,and about how your child’s health has beenlately. Some of the questions involve sensitiveissues, such as whether your child has ever experienced violence and whether your child has everexperienced unwanted sexual advances.Parents of 10- to 17-year-olds were told:In learning about child safety for children, wewould like to get the input of both children andtheir parents. It is particularly important for usto find out what kinds of situations kids considerdangerous, whether they have ever encounteredthese situations, and what they know about howto avoid or handle these situations . . . We willbe asking him her about things that may havehappened in your child’s school, neighborhood,or home, and about how your child’s health hasbeen lately. . .Some of the questions involve sensitive issues,such as whether your child has ever experiencedviolence and whether your child has experiencedunwanted sexual advances.Before beginning the survey, 10- to 17-year-oldswere told:Your age group (x-year-olds) is part of nationalsample of 2,000 boys and girls selected completely at random. You will be representing allkids in the United States in your age group. Thisis an important study because you’ll be able totell us what kinds of dangerous situations kidsface these days. What you and the other kids tellus will help us keep kids safe. Your interviewwill take about 20–30 minutes. We will be askingyou about things that may have happened inyour school, neighborhood, or home. We’ll alsoask about how your health has been lately. Someof the questions involve sensitive issues, such aswhether you have experienced violence.1043One child was randomly selected from all eligible children living in a household by selecting thechild with the most recent birthday. If the selectedchild was 10–17 years old, the main telephoneinterview was conducted with the child. If theselected child was 2–9 years old, the interview wasconducted with the caregiver who ‘‘is most familiarwith the child’s daily routine and experiences.’’Caregivers were interviewed as proxies for this agegroup because the ability of children under the ageof 10 to be recruited and participate in phone interviews of this nature has not been well established(Hausman et al., 1992; Waksberg, 1978), yet suchchildren are still at an age when parents tend to bewell informed about their experiences both at andaway from home. In 68% of these caretaker interviews, the caretaker was the biological mother, in24% the biological father, and in 8% some other relative or caretaker.Data were collected using a computer-assistedtelephone interview system (CATI). The use ofCATI minimizes recording errors and provides substantial quality control benefits. For this survey,only interviewers who had extensive experienceinterviewing children and in addressing sensitivetopics were chosen. Interviewers then went throughextensive training on the questionnaire and interview protocol.Up to 13 callbacks were made to select and contact a respondent and up to 25 callbacks were madeto complete the interview. Consent was obtainedprior to the interview. In the case of a child interview, consent was obtained from both the parentand the child. Respondents were promised complete confidentiality and were paid 10 for theirparticipation. Telephone interviewers screened7,907 households. Of those, 5,011 households didnot have an eligible child, 511 declined to participate, and 350 agreed to participate at another timebut were unable to be reached by the end of thestudy. Of the 2,896 eligible households screened,interviews were completed with 2,035 participants,representing 70.3% of eligible households. The finalsample consisted of 1,000 children aged 10–17 and1,030 caregivers of children aged 2–9.All procedures were authorized by the Institutional Review Board of the University of NewHampshire. Both universal and targeted interventions were used to assist children who were potentially at risk for abuse, or harm to self or other. Allparticipants were given the phone number to theGirls and Boys Town National Hotline. The U.S.Department of Health and Human Servicesdescribes hotline this way:
1044Becker-Blease, Turner, and FinkelhorThe Girls and Boys Town National Hotline is a24-hour crisis, resource and referral line. Accredited by the American Association of Suicidology,the Hotline has been in operation since 1989 andis staffed by trained counselors who canrespond to questions every day of the week,365 days a year. Approximately 250,000 callerscontact the hotline annually to receive help relating to being suicidal, physically or sexuallyabused, on the run, addicted, threatened bygang violence, fighting with a parent, a parentfrustrated by a child, scared of a spouse, orfaced with an overwhelming challenge. (Healthfinder.gov, 2008)Additionally, the CATI system was programmedto flag automatically cases in which a child couldhave been in danger. Interviewers also flaggedcases that presented a concern and provided briefnotes that could be used to better understand thesituation. Children or parents who disclosed a situation of serious threat or ongoing victimizationwere recontacted by a clinical member of theresearch team, trained in telephone crisis counseling, whose responsibility was to stay in contactwith the respondent until the situation wasresolved or brought to the attention of appropriateauthorities. The kinds of concerns varied widelyand included depressed children who were seekingtreatment, teenagers who were slapped once ortwice by a parent, abused children who no lo
2002) depending in part whether disaster is defined exclusively as natural disasters, or also includes human-caused incidents. To the best of our knowl-edge, this study is the first to obtain a national prevalence estimate for disaster exposure among children in the United States.
Rates of total household property victimization include burglary, motor vehicle theft, and household larceny. Differences in the total household property victimization rates across winter, spring, summer, and fall exhibited recurrent seasonal patterns (figure 1). In all of the years except 1995, rates of household property victimization
My preferred solution is to call this field. childhood victimization. or. devel opmental victimology, using the broader victimization concept instead ofthe terms. violence. or. abuse (Finkelhor, 2008). Victimization. refers to harms caused by human agents acting in violation ofsocial norms. The human agency
Sexual Victimization of SMI offenders in Jails/ Prisons 1 in 12 male inmates with mental illness vs 1 in 33 male inmates without mental illness reported sexual victimization by another inmate within the last 6 months. Among those with mental illness, females with 3 times more
1.8 Disasters, Risk Reduction and Management - Definitions 6 1.8.1 Disasters 7 1.8.2 Disaster Management 7 1.8.3 Disaster Risk Reduction (Mitigation) 8 1.9 Types of Disasters 8 1.9.1 Natural Hazards 8 1.9.2 Human-Induced Disasters 10 1.10 Levels of Disasters 11 1.11 Institutional Framework 11 1.11.1 National Level 11
The role and importance of crime victimization surveys in a system of crime statistics and their role in reporting on SDG 16 Michael Jandl Research Officer Data Development and Dissemination Unit UNODC. Part I: The role of Victimization surveys in crime and criminal justice statistics.
Traditional bullying and victimization are very common; cyberbullying and cyber victimization quite rare among Vietnamese adolescents. A slight decline in prevalence of bullying victimization and perpetration over time (Olweus, 2013). 44.7 28.9 43.5 28.1 11.9 6.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Victimisation P
and verbal aggression, as well as relational aggression (Asher, Rose, & Gabriel, 2001). Investigating the further-reaching complications of relational victimization seems a logical next step. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of retrospective relational victimization experiences and early parental
Introduction to Takaful Prepared by: Dr. Khalid Al Amri 6 Conventional Insurance (non-mutual) Takaful Insurance Five Key Elements Speculation Uncertainty Prohibited activities Mutual Guarantee: The basic objective of Takaful is to pay a defined loss from a defined fund. Liability and all losses are divided between policyholders. The policyholders are both the insurer and the insured Ownership .
