THE
INTERNATIONAL CHILD AND YOUTH CARE NETWORK
HOME / OTHER
JOURNALS
EXTRACTS FROM
THE "OTHER" JOURNALS
RELATING TO CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
— IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY, SCIENCE
. . .
Canadians smoking less than ever before
(CNW) — According to the latest results released today from the Canadian
Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS), the prevalence of smoking
continues to decline in Canada. The data were collected between February
and December 2002.
The survey reveals that 5.4 million Canadians, representing roughly 21
percent of the population aged 15 years and over, were current smokers.
This is a slight decrease from the 2001 rate (22%). These most recent
findings demonstrate that recent tobacco control initiatives have been
instrumental in helping bring Canada even closer to the government's
target to reduce overall smoking prevalence to 20 percent by 2011. Not
only are fewer Canadians smoking, but they are also smoking fewer
cigarettes on a daily basis. In 2002, the number of cigarettes smoked
was 16.4 cigarettes per day. This is a decrease from the 1985 average of
20.6 cigarettes smoked per day. In 2002, men continued to smoke more
cigarettes than women: 18.0 cigarettes per day for males as compared to
14.8 for females. CTUMS is conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of
Health Canada. Over the course of a year, CTUMS collects information
over the telephone from over 20,000 respondents. Since its creation in
1999, CTUMS has provided up-to-date, reliable, and consistent data on
tobacco use in Canada. The survey is especially helpful in providing
smoking data on groups at risk, such as youth and young adults aged
15-24.
Surveillance, such as CTUMS, is a key component in monitoring the impact
of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy announced in April 2001. The
strategy's diversified measures to reduce tobacco consumption also
include regulation and compliance, public education, policy development,
partnerships with provinces and territories, municipal governments and
non governmental organizations, taxation, and mass media campaigns.
Smoking is the most preventable cause of death and disease in Canada.
More than 45,000 people will die prematurely this year due to tobacco
use and at least 1000 of them will be non-smokers.
Source
Rural black teens have riskier sex than urban
counterparts
(Becky Ham — Health Behavior News Service) A new nationwide study of
black teens concludes that those living in rural areas engage in more
risky sexual behaviors than their counterparts in urban areas.
Based on responses to a nationwide survey of high school students, rural
black teens are more likely to have sex and to not use condoms,
according to Robin R. Millhausen, M.Sc. of the Rural Center for AIDS/STD
Prevention and colleagues.
Compared with their city counterparts, rural black girls and boys are 46
percent and 65 percent more likely, respectively, to report ever having
sex. Rural black girls are 34 percent more likely to say that they did
not use a condom the last time they had sex, while boys are 96 percent
more likely to have unprotected sex.
Rural black girls were also more likely than urban girls to report other
risky sexual behaviors, including having more than three sexual partners
in their life and more than one sex partner in the past three months.
The study was published in the American Journal of Health Behavior.
The researchers acknowledge that their study may not be representative
of all black teens living in rural areas, since it included only those
enrolled in school and did not consider differences in income or social
status.
In areas where sexually transmitted diseases and HIV prevalence is high,
risky sexual behavior “may easily foster STD/HIV outbreaks and
epidemics,” Milhausen says.
The survey was conducted among more than 4,000 teenagers. They were
considered to be rural residents if they lived in a county with less
than 50,000 people.
Milhausen and colleagues suggest that rural teens may not be as aware of
the risks of sexually transmitted disease as urban teens or may even
think that diseases like HIV/AIDS are urban problems only.
“If rural youth deny the possibility of HIV risk, they may be less
likely to engage in protective behaviors,” Milhausen says.
Source
Loud headphones today may mean a hearing aid
tomorrow
(Donna Halvorsen — Star Tribune) Andy Uzendoski has 3,000 songs in his
MP3 player — including all the work of Bruce Springsteen and U2 — and he
listens with headphones whenever he's not in class at the University of
Minnesota. He also used to play drums in rock bands and still goes to
clubs to hear others play. "I can't imagine a week without the music,"
he says.
For him — and many others of his generation — technology now allows an
immersion in music: headphones, high-end car stereos and loud
nightclubs. Health experts increasingly are concerned that music played
at excessive volume, over time, could steal the hearing of an entire
generation. Uzendoski, 21, of Minneapolis, recognizes the health risks.
He knows he should try to avoid or reduce damage to his ears. That's why
he wears ear plugs when he knows a concert will be loud. "It's ironic,"
he said. "If I listen to it too much now, I won't be able to listen to
it in the future."
Experts say the louder the music, the longer someone listens to it, the
closer it is to the ear, the more likely some hearing will be lost. Yet
many parents and children don't recognize that loss is occurring.
Hearing degenerates without pain or other warning, so some high
frequencies could be lost before the kids or their parents know they're
gone.
Everyone starts life with thousands of hair cells in the inner ears, and
loud sounds can destroy them permanently. When loud music is piled on
top of the everyday noises that kids are exposed to, the accumulated
exposure can lead to significant damage.
Unfortunately, warnings from parents probably don't count for much. If
parents tell their children to turn the music down or off, it's unwanted
advice that will "go in one ear and out the other," said Janet Hansen,
an audiologist at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis.
"Will they stop listening to loud music?" she asked. "Probably not,
because when you're young, your body is healthy and strong, and why
worry about it now? That's for old people to worry about."
The federal government requires employers to protect their workers from
noise at 85 decibels or higher if the sound will be at that level for 8
hours.
Headphones and nightclubs can deliver music at 110 to 120 decibels —
about the same level as an ambulance siren — or higher without
restrictions or warnings. Digital technology has aggravated the problem
by making it possible to increase volume without distortion.
"Noise isn't so much of an issue for teenagers," said Dr. Samuel Levine,
an otolaryngologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical
School. "They haven't had time to destroy their ears yet."
Research has documented the risk for young people.
German researcher Henning Wiegels found that teens' hearing was
damaged when they listened to loud music over headphones two hours a day
or went to clubs at least once a week for several years. A British study
of 15-to 23-year-olds found that those who regularly used headphones and
went to concerts had twice the hearing loss of those who didn't have
such exposure.
In the United States, people are losing their hearing nearly 20 years
earlier than would have been expected in the normal aging process, and
noise likely is the cause, according to the National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communications Disorders.
About 10 million Americans have irreversible ear damage caused by noise,
the institute said, and 30 million are exposed to dangerously loud noise
every day.
Studies by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 15
percent of people ages 3 to 19 have signs of hearing loss. In addition,
between 1971 and 1990, the number of people aged 45 to 64 with hearing
losses increased 26 percent while losses among 18-to 44-year-olds
increased 17 percent.
Rock music isn't alone in creating loud sounds.
Noise is everywhere. Vacuum cleaners average 81 decibels, a coffee
grinder 80, a hair dryer 75, vehicle traffic 90 or more, airplane cabin
noise 95 to 105, airplane takeoff 115 or more. Motorcycles, firecrackers
and firearms can range from 120 to 140; a rocket launch is 180. A
whisper is 10 decibels, normal conversation about 60.
How does noise affect hearing? The ear drum transmits sound vibrations
through three middle ear bones to the cochlea of the inner ear. Tiny
hair cells in the cochlea move the vibrations along, and they eventually
reach the brain. Excessively loud sounds cause some of the hairs to die,
and some hearing will be lost. The high frequency cells are the most
sensitive, so hearing loss tends to begin with them.
Some hearing loss is genetic; some is caused by ear infections or trauma
(such as a car accident) or aging. Baby boomers are losing their hearing
earlier than would be expected, and some of them blame loud rock
concerts they attended in their youth.
Noise has long been recognized as dangerous in industrial workplaces,
but other sounds have only recently been seen as potential dangers. Loud
noise also can cause tinnitus, a ringing, clicking or hissing sound in
the ears that can be permanent.
"People are starting to see that there's something to this," said Julee
Sylvester, spokeswoman for the Sight and Hearing Association, an
advocacy group based in St. Paul that has organized hearing screenings.
But, she said, "it's something they really don't think about until it
happens to them." Yet hearing loss from loud music and noise can be
prevented. "All you've got to do is stick some ear plugs in your ears,"
Hansen said.
Reaching teens
Teenagers may not get the message. They seldom show up at clinics
and doctor's offices to have their hearing tested. "It's rare that we
see a teenager to test their hearing unless there's some kind of medical
problem," Hansen said. "We don't want to scare them, but impress upon
them that when hearing is gone, it's not coming back."
Dr. Stuart Cox, a St. Paul ear, nose and throat specialist, said he
hasn't yet seen many young people with hearing loss from noise, but "I
think it's only a matter of time before we start seeing that."
One way to reach kids, Cox said, is to show them the results of their
hearing tests. "If they can see that there's a loss, and that it's
permanent, some of them will change their habits," he said. That can be
a simple as changing the volume dial. If headphones have a 1 to 10
scale, 4 or 5 is where listeners should be, Sylvester said. "Anything
above that is probably too loud."
She offers this guidance for parents:
- If you can hear music from your child's headphones while standing 3 feet away, they are too loud.
- If your child is wearing headphones and can't hear your voice, they are too loud.
Headaches alter lives of kids
(Health Day News) — For children and teens, migraines can affect their
quality of life as much as having arthritis or even cancer, a new study
finds. Researchers from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Headache Center
evaluated 572 youths between 2 and 18 years of age who had come to the
center for treatment, asking them and their parents how their headaches
affected their daily life. Of this group, 99 percent had a migraine
diagnosis and 40 percent of those had migraines termed "chronic daily
headaches," says study author Scott W. Powers, co-director of the
headache center. The findings are published in the July issue of
Pediatrics.
Powers and his colleagues then compared the children with headaches to
groups of 730 healthy children, 339 children with cancer such as
leukemia and 271 children with rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid
arthritis. All youngsters and their parents (or just the parents in the
case of the 2- to 4-year-olds) were asked about their quality of life in
four areas of functioning: physical, emotional, social and educational.
"Compared to the normal children, they had a lower quality of life, both
based on their own report and their parents' report of their perception
of the child," Powers says of those with headaches. Overall, the total
score for healthy children was 83 (of 100 possible), but just 73 for
headache sufferers.
When compared with children with cancer and rheumatologic disease, the
children with migraines had more problems with school and emotional
functioning. But they had higher physical and social functioning, the
researchers found.
Parents of the children with headaches reported lower educational and
emotional functioning compared with the parents of children with
rheumatologic disease, but not when compared with the parents of
children with cancer.
Social functioning was the least different, Powers says. "Social
activities engage the brain [and] are distracting," Powers says. "In
general, a kid having a migraine might try to engage in social
activities; it's easier than sitting in an algebra class."
While some might argue there's no comparison in the quality of life of a
child with cancer to one who suffers migraines, Powers explains they
decided to compare children with cancer, rheumatoid conditions and
migraine headaches because all are chronic illnesses.
"Migraine can be debilitating," says Sharon Wells, a Mesa, Ariz.,
resident whose son, Tony, died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Comparing the
quality of life of children with migraines to those who have cancer or
rheumatoid conditions makes a little more sense to her, she says, than
previous research which compared the quality of life of obese children
with that of children with cancer. But, she adds, "I don't put migraines
on the same level as cancer."
To Powers, the study results provide some insight into a childhood
condition that he says is prevalent and under-recognized. Published
studies have shown that about one in 10 children and one in four teens
have headaches, he says.
Sometimes, children are seen by several doctors who suspect other
diagnoses before the correct one is made, Powers says. At the center, he
says, doctors see about 400 new patients a year. "Their average age is
11, and many of them have had headaches since they were 8," he says.
Dr. Seymour Diamond, director of the Diamond Headache Clinic in Chicago
and a professor of family medicine at Chicago Medical School, praises
the new research. "It's a good study," he says. "It really stresses the
importance of the disability and the effects and how it alters the lives
of these kids."
"The finding that really surprised me," he adds, "was the comparison of
kids with cancer and with rheumatoid arthritis." That finding proves
that youngsters with headache are really suffering, he says, "and it
really emphasizes what I have known for years: That there is a lot of
disability and a lot of quality-of-life factors in children having
migraines." At the Cincinnati Headache Center, Powers says, everyone
gets suggestions on how to manage their lifestyle to minimize attacks.
Among the suggestions: Drink plenty of water, get enough sleep, eat
regularly and get regular exercise.
Source
Have TV and radio gone too far?
These days it seems anything goes on TV and radio and many parents are
not happy. But is it simply a reflection of the world we live in? Graham
Kennedy, the king of Australian television, once needed written
permission to say "bloody" on air. That was a few years before his
infamous crow call, which saw him banned from broadcasting his tonight
show live.
It was the era when I Dream of Jeannie's Barbara Eden had to obscure her
belly button with make-up. When an obviously expectant Lucille Ball
couldn't be called pregnant but rather "in the family way". Couples
couldn't be shown in a double bed. If they embraced on a bed at all,
they had to have at least one foot on the floor.
Even in the permissive '70s, the ABC's youth radio station Double J
outraged parents when it launched with Skyhooks' You Just Like Me 'Cos
I'm Good in Bed. Not long after, Bob Rogers was sacked twice from Sydney
radio for letting the f-word go to air.
Flash forward to broadcasting in contemporary Australia and we're on a
different planet. In the post-punk world, it's difficult to shock
anyone. C--- has become the new magic word. Triple J had a talkback
discussion about its use and Channel Nine's Sex and the City devoted an
entire episode to it.
In the '70s America thought The Brady Bunch was daring because it showed
a couple in their second marriage lying rather chastely in a double bed.
Now in the same sitcom timeslot we have a lead gay character in Will &
Grace and the bed-hopping antics of Friends.
In Australia, an episode of the Sunday night family show Always Greener
featured a teenage boy emerging from the toilet in agony after his
sister sprinkled his Penthouse magazine with chilli powder. A few weeks
ago at 9pm, ABC viewers of the UK drama The Book Club saw a man
ejaculate.
On Ten's Big Brother Uncut almost anything goes — from full-frontal
nudity to simulated oral sex to the most explicit conversations and
revelations. In a recent episode Kim, waggling her backside at Saxon in
the next bed, said: "This is what I'm going to do to you in the morning"
and made loud farting noises. Saxon replied: "Kim, when you open your
eyes, you'll see two round things and a long thing down your nose and
then you'll feel a warm trickle in your mouth and you'll know I got
there first." On Sydney breakfast radio, 2Day FM's Wendy Harmer hired a
private detective to catch a listener's husband with a prostitute.
Several years ago on her late-night Triple M sex show, Ruth Ostrow
interviewed a brothel client during intercourse and featured a woman
climaxing on air during oral sex with her partner.
Are there no limits anymore? And is broadcasting being led by community
standards or vice versa? TV and radio have developed their own codes of
practice in line with the Broadcasting Services Act. For TV, the level
of language, sexual references, violence and drug use is graded
according to viewing times. Between 4pm and 7.30pm, the mostly young TV
audience might hear such mild expletives as "bloody" or "bum". Between
7.30 and 8.30pm, "shit", "piss off" and some blaspheming is allowed,
with parental guidance recommended. "F---" can be aired from 8.30pm with
an M classification, but "motherf---er" and "c---sucker" are usually
reserved until 9pm with an MA classification. AV, a sub-category of MA ,
restricts particularly violent films such as Chopper to the 9.30pm slot.
In practice, it's a bit of a juggling act for network censors,
determining community standards, avoiding the wrath of politicians and
keeping the audience both onside and entertained.
Channel Nine's chief classification officer Richard Lyle believes it is
essentially a good system that has allowed television over the years to
accurately reflect the way society really is. "Coarse language is just a
reflection of the fact that viewers now hear realistic dialogue," he
says. "For a long time language in movies was very formal; then
Australian cop shows like Homicide and Division Four started using real
Australian accents with the slang, lingo and natural speech patterns you
hear on the street."
Social researcher Hugh Mackay says it's a dilemma parents have been
struggling with since the days of the nickelodeon. Entertainers and
program-makers have always pushed the boundaries and each technological
development has altered the landscape for the next generation. "Some
people do argue society is in a long process of being corrupted," Mackay
says, "but I think it's just social conventions changing."
Lyle says: "The power of the f-word has certainly diminished enormously
over the past 15 years in society and on television and I can't see why
c--- wouldn't go the same way. It's just a slang word and in
contemporary society words like nigger, kike or fag are far more
offensive." Guidelines for reality shows are less clear, says Lyle, and
are sure to create debate among industry and community groups when the
code of practice is next updated. "The guidelines we work by are
designed for sitcoms, dramas and movies. There's nothing about how to
judge a reality piece like Big Brother or Survivor."
Channel Ten faced this dilemma a few weeks ago when one of the
housemates in Big Brother told a racist joke. Responding to public
pressure, Ten issued an apology. Lyle thinks that was an overreaction.
"Of course it's not good to tell a racist joke but it's supposed to be
reality TV and Australians do tell racist jokes, so why do a mea culpa?"
Lyle himself was busy fielding calls earlier this month when Nine
launched The Block, a reality home-improvement program. A number of
viewers, including 2UE's Steve Price, expressed dismay that two gay men
were among the couples vying for prize money. Some of the complaints
amounted to straight-out homophobia, but Lyle said most calls came from
concerned parents worried their children would ask awkward questions
about homosexuality.
Price says he is not a homophobe but 6.30 on a Sunday night is the
traditional family hour and no parents want to have to explain to their
youngsters why two gay men are cavorting in their underwear as they
renovate their flat.
Lyle is unapologetic. "How wonderful if the kids are coming to ask
questions about sexual matters. But, really, most prepubescent children
watching the show would just interpret Gavin and Warren as two men who
are affectionate and supportive sharing a flat. Parents see it from
their own perspective rather than the child's. The innuendo goes over
the heads of children, like Gav's remark about Warren: 'He's got a great
back deck for entertaining."
Mike McColl Jones has been skirting such sensibilities for nearly 40
years. One of Australia's leading gag writers, he produced much of the
material delivered by Graham Kennedy, Don Lane, Steve Vizard and Bert
Newton on their night-time shows. "In the early days, management
rationed Graham to about five or six bloodys a year and one night he was
really on a roll and blew about 60 years. There were always complaints
and the whole point was to shock."
When the f-word was first used on British TV in the 1960s, comedian Tony
Hancock is alleged to have said, "That's fine, but where do we go from
here?" McColl Jones believes Hancock's comments are even more relevant
now. "With bloody, you still had the quarter finals, semi-finals and
finals to go. Now c--- is the new magic word and there's nowhere else to
go. Women do on television what they used to do off television to get on
television."
McColl Jones believes today's entertainers shorten their on-air life if
they rely too heavily on coarse language to get laughs. "Graham did the
crow calls to liven up those boring commercials. He was clearly saying 'Aark,
aark' but it was the suggestion that he might be saying the f-word that
made it funny. It's like that old joke about two nudists wolf-whistling
at a girl in a miniskirt - the suggestion is always much funnier than
being obvious or blatant. It's important to push the edges but using
coarse language to shock is an easy cop out."
Interestingly, under-40 radio stations have turned away from shock
tactics, favouring humour and slice-of-life material instead. Ostrow's
Triple M sex show didn't rate and research suggests women in particular
will turn the dial if they hear coarse language or material unsuitable
for their children. "We tell our presenters using coarse language is a
cheap way to get laughs," Austereo's network programmer, Jeff Allis,
says. "It shouldn't be necessary to swear. It doesn't add any value to a
joke and there's no longer any shock value."
Even so, when parents hear what their teenagers are listening to,
particularly at night, many are concerned about the explicit song lyrics
and buffoonery of some presenters. Mackay believes parents do themselves
a disservice by being too anxious about how the media affects their
children's behaviour. "The primary influence on kids is their parents
and, later, their peers," he says. "There's a superficial cosmetic
influence, where kids learn bits of language and information, but in
terms of their developing values, standards and behaviour they are not
media copycats at a deep level." Mackay agrees children are accessing
adult information at a much earlier age than previous generations. "So
what," he says. "There have always been precocious kids who know more
than their parents realise. The fact kids know stuff before they are
emotionally equipped to understand it is a relatively trivial
phenomenon. A lot of people who object to their nine-year-old saying
f--- use the word themselves. If it's on television, it's a good
opportunity for them to explain when it is appropriate to use such words
and when it isn't.
"Parents often do feel powerless in the face of the media and I think
it's an important message to them that they are in control. If parental
guidance is recommended the parent should be there and it's a great
opportunity to talk about the morality of certain issues. And there is
always the switch."
Source
Fatherless boys 'more likely' to rape
(By Sharon Labi) Boys from a fatherless home are more likely to
rape, drop out of school and end up in jail, fatherhood advocates said
today. The Fatherhood Foundation today released a 12-point plan to
reverse the trend of fatherless boys in Australia.
The plan received bipartisan support at its launch in Canberra today, a
day after Prime Minister John Howard bemoaned the lack of male role
models for young boys.
Mr Howard this week announced a parliamentary inquiry into child custody
laws, saying a major social problem was the lack of male role models.
Moves were already underway to try to boost the number of male teachers
in primary schools, and fathers were today encouraged to spend more
quality time with their children. The document contained research that
boys from fatherless homes were more likely to abuse drugs, commit rape
and commit suicide.
Labor frontbencher and father of two young boys, Mark Latham, said boys
who had no father in their lives and no mentor often suffered throughout
their youth. "Those boys lose that sense of normality, that sort of
anchor in their life; looking up to someone who's sending hopefully
positive messages about right and wrong, how you be a good man," Mr
Latham said. "If boys haven't got those messages we shouldn't be too
surprised if later in life some problems emerge."
With the changing role of women in the last 30 years, men were confused
in dealing with their new role and relationships, Mr Latham said.
"We don't want a men's movement that blames women; we want a men's
movement that works with men and women to develop better identity,
better relationships, a stronger fathering role in our society and to
develop win-win outcomes," he said.
Under the 12-point plan released by the National Fathering Forum,
government should address inequity in funding for men's issues, and
establish a minister or office for fatherhood.
It also says after divorce or separation, all children have a right to
equal contact with their mother and father unless there are proven
mitigating circumstances.
Fathering Forum convenor Warwick Marsh said rather than letting work
crowd their life, fathers should attempt to spend more time with
children to provide a positive role model.
Children's Minister Larry Anthony said 55,000 Australian children each
year were affected by divorce or separation, and kids did better when
they had more contact with their dads.
Source
Michigan Mentoring programs reap many
benefits
(By Cynthia L. Miller) They are "good kids," youths who might have
family problems or are going through the juvenile court for minor
offenses. They are at a crossroads and need love and support to make
smart decisions about the future directions of their lives. The Journey
Program attempts to provide that support by pairing a youth with an
adult mentor who offers an encouraging word, an ear to listen and a
shoulder to lean on when necessary.
Adult support and consistency are key components for a youth's success,
said Lisa Bottomley, 4-H Youth Mentoring Agent with the Journey Program,
which is run through the Michigan State University Extension office.
Before the program was established in the Tri-Cities about eight years
ago, there were few options for youngsters in need of positive role
models, Bottomley said.
The voluntary program matches a youngster, who may be referred by a
probation officer, therapist or other community organization or agency,
with a positive adult role model. Studies show mentored youth are more
likely to improve grades, avoid alcohol, drugs and delinquent behavior
and graduate from high school, she said.
The Journey Program is funded by MSU and Ottawa County and the program's
mission is to reduce the frequency and severity of delinquent behavior
by Ottawa County youth, Bottomley said.
Currently the program hosts 26 mentor and mentee matches as well as six
active youth visitors at the Ottawa County Juvenile Detention Center's
Fillmore Complex. Volunteer mentors who do not become part of the
Journey Program may be matched with members of the Ottawa County
Mentoring Collaborative, like the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program,
Bottomley said. "It's just a very new, innovative 4-H (program). ... Our
county commissioners realize the value and fund it," she said.
Bottomley said the county pays $40,000 in funding annually, which can
help up to 30 youngsters through the mentoring program. Compare that to
the $55,000 it costs to keep one child in juvenile detention for a year
and it's easy to see the cost effectiveness, Bottomley said.
"The Journey Program is such a good use of money ... (and) it creates
smiles. I've seen a lot of kids really grow," Bottomley said.
Bottomley said priority is placed on youth currently in the court
system, but others may also be included. Occasionally, young people are
recommended for the program from counselors.
Bottomley said MSU proposed the Journey Program and provides training,
program supervision and support. While each Michigan county has MSU
Extension offices, officials said there are only two similar programs in
conjunction with Juvenile Courts in Macomb and Washtenaw counties.
Which ever way a youth becomes involved with the Journey Program "the
earlier you grab a kid, the better chance you have to make an impact,"
Bottomley said. "All youngsters in the program are "good kids." "When
you meet them they could be your niece or nephew and there at that
critical point where they need some help so they don't go the wrong way.
We want to give them that support," she said.
Betty Claar, program supervisor for Ottawa County Family Court, Juvenile
Services Division, said youngsters come to the department for a variety
of reasons, which include running away from home, truancy or school and
family problems. Others are referred by the court. "Our feeling is that
this is a prevention program and we do believe that kids who have
mentors generally get out of the system quicker and have less new
charges ... because there is that positive influence in their lives."
Bottomley said there is a critical need for mentors. All applicants are
carefully screened and interviewed before being matched with a
youngster.
"Because it's a relationship-based program, I'm definitely in it for the
quality volunteer rather than the quantity," Bottomley said. "I'm very
careful with who I match with the one-on-one visits because (kids)
really look forward to (visits) and you don't want to break their
hearts."
Source
Offering youth a hope in life
(By Lorraine Chandler) Ashington Hirst High School pupils Karl Peart,
16, and Gemma Dimmick, 15, both died from suspected suicides in the past
month. Here, Lorraine Chandler, company director of Professional and
Community Training (PACT), explains the series of workshops she has put
together for schools and youth organisations — entitled Life Stinks
About a year ago I was contacted by a school where a child had committed
suicide and was asked to put a programme together for the school. This
inspired the Life Stinks workshops. It has been revealed that teenage
suicides do not happen individually. They happen in clusters.
The youngsters see the attention one person gets after he or she has
died and the emotions such actions provoked and they want to do the same
— except they are not around to see it.
Youngsters have to be very depressed and feel they have nowhere to turn
for them to commit suicide. Surprisingly, it is not mainly girls who
commit suicide; about 80 per cent of all suicides are by young men.
We want to go into schools and tell children where they can turn to for
help, and we want to get to them well before they have thought about
self-harm or suicide. Forty-one per cent of those intent on self-harm
seek help from friends, but their friends often do not know what advice
to give.
I decided to set up the Life Stinks courses with Christine Cross who
studied with me at Teesside University. I work on it from the social
aspect — how I can help the teenagers — and Christine looks at
everything from a psychological perspective, so we get a good balance.
We started with a course in Hartlepool on pregnancy and parenting, which
was so successful it reduced the number of teenage pregnancies by 28 per
cent. But it was the number of children self-harming and committing
suicide in the region which really worried us. There are a lot of
organisations out there that can help these people, and through our
courses we point the teenagers in the right direction.
However, we have found that children will not go to adults for help so
we want to have children in every school who can act as mentors. The
types of children who would be perfect are popular, approachable and
trustworthy. Teachers usually know who to put forward for the schemes.
We tell the mentors to never offer advice or interfere in the
conversation; we want the mentor to put them in the right direction and
be the link between the adult and the child.
You will never stop bullying in schools. Schools often think they have a
good bullying scheme in place, but is it right for the children? And do
youngsters really feel comfortable with the schemes at their school?
Samaritans and researchers from Oxford University's Centre for Suicide
Research recently conducted the UK's first large-scale study of
self-harm among school children. They found reasons given for self-harm
or suicidal thoughts included schoolwork, problems with parents, friends
who self-harm, being unable to cope by talking, and having few people to
talk to.
The self-harm and depression course which is being backed by the chief
executive of the Samaritans, Simon Armison, who is on a national
steering group for the provision of services for young people. If this
scheme takes off in the North East it could be used nationally, which
would be fantastic for children throughout the country who are not
getting the right help or advice.
I work for social services and I met a young girl called Clare who
self-harmed but felt that she was not getting help from anyone; people
wanted to treat the symptoms rather than the person.
We wanted to have an impact on young people in the region. We didn't
want to just hand out leaflets because teenagers take a quick look at
them and throw them away.
Children are very good at hiding their feelings. It is up to everyone,
not just one person or agency, to help them — it is everyone's
responsibility.
The courses are for teachers, carers, parents — anyone who has
involvement with children. We also go into school and teach children
about mentoring. We are then in contact with the school and mentors to
ensure everything is being implemented properly and the children are
happy with it. The programme is endorsed by Samaritans, and supported by
Teesside University and Bellingham Community Middle School.
Source
What to do if your child grunts back
(By Elizabeth Davidson) They walk into the classroom emitting strange
grunting noises, fail to make conversation and are often barely able to
talk. That's the picture emerging from our primary schools. Step
forward, the grunting generation.
In a recent survey by Government advisory body, the Basic Skills Agency,
teachers warned as many as half of all reception class children — aged
four — have insufficient language skills for their age and communicate
in monosyllables. This means these children are not yet ready for
learning when they start school - a major problem in primary schools,
say overworked teachers.
So what should you do if you ask your child a question and your child
grunts back? And is it the fault of parents, teachers, wishy-washy
educational programmes or our paranoid, over-protective culture?
Taking your child on excursions outside the home instead of parking them
in front of the television is important, says Basic Skills Agency
director, Alan Wells.
Wells, who coined the term "the daily grunt" to describe the pitiful
conversation within many family homes, says: ".
"Conversation has died a bit — people are very busy now and trying to
create time for playing, reading with, and talking to their children is
more difficult. Extended families are not as extended as they were and
so other generations of the family are not around to help out.
"We need to promote the importance of parents reading and playing with
their children, and if parents can't prise their children away from the
screen then they should find other things that they want to do — seeing
an animal in a zoo is more interesting than seeing it on television."
He says language skills have deteriorated during the last five years,
and recommends more schools run "Language through Play" workshops where
parents learn to communicate with their children using games and songs.
Campaign organisation Family and Youth Concern director Robert Whelan,
on the other hand, disparages the use of workshops and claims
old-fashioned meals round the family table are the answer. He says: "If
parents have forgotten how to bring up their children, then God help us!
"It's not just television, it's parents not being there, being out at
work, families not eating meals together. If we need to attend classes
with two social workers telling us how to talk to our children, then
something's really gone wrong." Whelan claims the answer is to spend
more time with your child.
He says: "It's an uphill job being a parent these days, but families
should make time for being together and, if they can't, then the parents
must reorganise their working lives. Once you have brought children into
the world then you must accept responsibility, otherwise they will be
suffering all their lives." But Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at
Kent University, leapt to the defence of parents. He claims a dumbed-down
culture is failing to tap the potential of children. There is a tendency
to blame parents for everything and, in this case, it is nonsense," he
says.
"Parents are no better or worse now than in previous generations. It is
a complete myth that parents spend less time with their children. In
fact several surveys have shown the reverse and that working mothers
spend more time with them than those who don't work."
"The problem is our culture devalues language skills, and our
educational resources place less emphasis on spelling and grammar, and
pay less attention to words. The signal that is coming out is children
can use any word as long as they don't swear - they can use 'wicked'
every second word and nobody will correct them. "When you hear the word
'awesome' for the 100th time, you have to ask whether that word has any
meaning any more." Correct your child's speech wherever necessary, and
encourage them to extend their vocabulary from as early as nursery
stage, advises Furedi. And he blasts the makers of educational games and
programmes for not stretching children enough.
"It would be useful if the makers of programmes like Teletubbies didn't
just have them grunting and making noises. They could be more creative
with words — children of three, four and five-years-old love playing
with words and rhythmic sounds, and having their curiosities engaged.
It's not expensive just, for example, to ask what rhymes with 'table'.
"We should expect more of our children."
Eric Wilkinson, Professor of Education at Glasgow University, warns we
should avoid being too protective if we want our children to develop
good social skills. He says: "I would suspect that over-protection is
the main reason for this failing. "There's a propensity for parents to
want to protect their children from perceived dangers, which means they
are not interacting with people on the way to school, or in shops or at
bus-stops." He adds: "Children are choosing to spend a lot of time in
front of a screen, whether it's a television or computer. "It would help
if children were allowed to follow their need to explore, and schools
might also engage with parents on an informal basis to encourage them to
read to children and talk with them."
Source
Youths warn parents of troubles
(By Jill Taylor) Parents wear blinders when it comes to their own kids,
and sometimes what they don't want to see grows into a nightmare.
"It's unbelievable how much parents trust their kids," said 17-year-old
Chad McComas, who is growing up with an asterisk next to his name
identifying him as the kid who killed four of his friends in a car crash
in December 2000.
"I thought maybe after I messed up, maybe everybody would learn," but
they haven't, McComas said Tuesday as he prepared for a forum tonight at
South Fork High School. |
The session, starting at 7 p.m., will include McComas, 16-year-old
Patrick Alloe and perhaps one or two other teenagers who will talk about
drugs and alcohol, reckless driving and other potentially life-altering
choices kids are making.
The event is scheduled by a network of parents calling themselves YES!,
for Youth Encouragement & Support. Last month, they sponsored a forum at
Martin County High School in which parents who had lost their children
to accidents or overdoses spoke of how their lives had changed and their
hopes for the community. "This is not a sleepy little town like we all
thought it was," said Judi Kaufman, whose daughter died from a drug
overdose.
Two years ago, Alloe nearly died after drinking and taking pills.
Unconscious and sick, he was left behind while his friends continued
partying. "My friends that I thought were my friends just left me on the
beach," Alloe said.
Someone found him and got him to a hospital; he spent some time in a
rehabilitation program. He's been clean and sober since then, although
not entirely trouble free. He was arrested for shooting a BB gun at a
car and spent a week in the juvenile detention center in Fort Pierce.
That was an eye opener, and Alloe will talk about it tonight.
McComas was charged with vehicular homicide and served a sentence in a
program for high-risk juveniles. "It didn't cross my mind at all that
anything bad could happen," McComas said of the late-night joy ride.
Even after the crash, he could not force himself to recognize it was
real. "At first I wouldn't believe that anyone was hurt," he said. "It
was a dream for a couple of weeks." In a letter he and the only
surviving passenger, Robert Marks, wrote to the mother of one of the
girls who died that night, McComas said it was planned as a "perfect
night" until he reached to adjust the CD player and he ran into a line
of mailboxes, setting off the car's air bags. "I couldn't see anything,"
he wrote. "I couldn't reach the steering wheel. I couldn't reach the
gearshift. I panicked."
Alicia Brennan, 14; Karen Victoria "Tori" Morris, 13; Josh Michaels, 12;
and Josh's 10-year-old brother, Sam, died after McComas crashed into a
small stand of trees. McComas said he wants to speak to other kids and
their parents to warn them. "Even if you are a good kid... you can make
a big mistake," he said.
He and Alloe said they are saddened every time they hear another
teenager has died from drugs or alcohol or recklessness. And they
despair every time they hear a parent deny the truth that their child is
experimenting, making bad choices, building to more bad choices and
leading to truly awful results. "I know what their kids are doing. I see
them," Alloe said. "There are so many people that are blind out there,
it's just ridiculous," McComas said.
Source
Children may grow out of nut allergy
(By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor) Children who have peanut allergy
should be tested every two years to check whether they have outgrown the
potentially life-threatening reaction, doctors say today.
Allergy cases have trebled in the past four years and the affliction is
among the commonest causes of anaphylactic shock, which can be fatal.
But research suggests the condition may last for only a few years.
Doctors at Johns Hopkins Children's Centre, Baltimore, and Arkansas
Children's Hospital in the US, who studied 80 youngsters aged from four
to 14 with peanut allergy, found more than half lost their sensitivity
and were able to eat the nuts without provoking a reaction.
The finding, in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, suggests
parents could be suffering unnecessary anxiety as they try to protect
their children from contact with peanuts when they are not at risk.
Robert Wood, a consultant paediatric allergist, said: "Although we once
thought peanut allergy was a lifelong problem we now believe certain
children ... may outgrow it. I recommend that children with peanut
allergy be tested on a regular basis every one or two years."
A recurrence of peanut allergy was rare, the researchers found, but it
was more likely to occur in those who avoided peanuts altogether, after
their allergy had disappeared.
Source
Pivotal role of father in family stressed
(by Huda Fawzi – Dubai) A low educational level, lack of parental
supervision and bad company are the main factors behind drug addiction
among the youth, according to a recent field study prepared by Samiha
Hashem and Dr Mohammed Murad Abdullah of Dubai Police. Focusing on the
causes of drugs addiction, the study surveyed 52 addicts from Rashidiya
which has a large number of addicts compared to other districts.
The survey shows that the majority of addicts are in the age group of
28-33. The study also shows that they tried drugs for the first time
when they were aged between 13 and 22, the average being 17.
Seventy-five per cent of the addicts do not have a secondary
certificate. They quit school to work and earn money to buy drugs.
When they started taking drugs, 67 per cent of the respondents worked in
the government, 17 per cent were students, 10 per cent unemployed and
four per cent worked in the private sector. The majority now are
unemployed.
Also 60 per cent of the respondents received a monthly salary of less
than Dh3,000, 19 per cent received Dh3,000-5,900, 13 per cent
Dh6,000-9,900 and eight per cent Dh10,000. It is important to note that
the largest group that gets below Dh 3,000 consists of those who are
unemployed and receive money from the family or the government. The
majority of the respondents — 71 per cent — are unmarried, 25 per cent
divorced and two per cent separated. Also with respect to the order of
the respondents in the family, 67 per cent comprise the middle child, 17
per cent the eldest child, 12 per cent the youngest and four per cent
the only child.
Most of the respondents' parents are alive while 17 per cent had a
deceased father and 10 per cent a deceased mother. Also, most of the
respondents' parents are happily married whereas 29 per cent of them
have divorced parents and six per cent separated parents.
Only 30 per cent of the respondents' mothers have married after getting
divorced. This shows that the role of a single mother in bringing up
children is limited and that the father's role is extremely important.
Polygamy had no effect on the addicts as 65 per cent of the respondent's
fathers did not have multiple wives.
In addition, 55 per cent of the respondents said they received their
parents' love and compassion, 19 per cent received great care, 12 per
cent were pampered, eight per cent received cruel treatment and six per
cent were neglected.
However, 77 per cent of the respondents said their parents treated them
equally as their brothers and sisters.
Only 54 per cent of the respondents discussed their problems with their
families. The majority said their families allowed them to sleep outside
their homes. Of them, 50 per cent used to spend the night in camps, 23
per cent at their friends' homes, 17 per cent with their relatives and
10 per cent in hotels. Most parents knew their children's friends since
they live in the same district. Although most of the respondents'
families noticed the changes in their children's behaviour, they were
not aware of the reasons or the fact that those who seek treatment will
not be punished. Most of the respondents' families do not drink alcohol.
However, about 11 per cent of the respondents' brothers take drugs. An
analysis of the respondents' answers about their families indicate that
the problem is mainly lack of parental supervision.
The study focused on the relation between the respondents and their
friends. It was found that most of the respondents had daily contact
with their friends from the same district and spent their free time with
them within the district. They met mostly in the evenings and mainly at
the playground with the majority of them spending together two to five
hours daily.
In addition, 62 per cent of the respondents' friends broke the law in
one way or another and 67 per cent committed crimes related to drugs.
This means that the influence of friends is the main factor that led the
respondents to take drugs.
About the respondents' behaviour in general and with respect to taking
drugs, the researchers found that the majority took mainly hashish,
tried drugs for the first time in the UAE and were aware of the harms
associated with the habit.
Also half the respondents preferred to take drugs with a friend or a
relative, 33 per cent preferred taking drugs alone and 17 per cent in a
group.
The majority of the respondents — 57 per cent - paid for the drugs from
their salaries, 25 per cent from their families' money, six per cent by
selling drugs, six per cent through stealing and two per cent by
borrowing while four per cent did not reveal the source. Furthermore, 44
per cent of the respondents tried drugs out of curiosity, 25 per cent to
forget their problems and 23 per cent to keep up with their friends.
Also 55 per cent obtained drugs for the first time from their friends,
17 per cent from drug dealers, 10 per cent from different sources such
as foreign girlfriends, friends who don't live in the same district and
some members of the police force, six per cent from a doctor, six per
cent from colleagues at work, four per cent from relatives and two per
cent from a pharmacy. This confirms that the influence of friends and
the lack of parental supervision are the main causes behind this bad
habit.
The study recommends that parents encourage their children to complete
their education, tell their children about the risks of the habit and
closely supervise their children, thereby not leaving them to bad
company who lead them towards this path.
Jobs should be created for the unemployed and programmes planned to
increase people's awareness about the perils of drug addiction. Besides,
smoking must be combated and security in remote areas increased.
Source
My Child Is Shoplifting
(Kids Health) Children steal for
many reasons. And kids of different ages — preschoolers, 6- or
7-year-olds, and teens — can be tempted to steal for different reasons:
Very young children sometimes take things they want without knowing or
understanding that things cost money and that it's wrong to take
something without paying for it.
Elementary school children usually know they're not supposed to take
something without paying, but they may take it anyway because they lack
enough self-control.
Preteens and teens know they're not supposed to steal, but they may
steal for the thrill of it or because their friends are shoplifting.
Some might believe they can get away with it. As they are given more
control over their lives, some teens may become rebellious and act out
by stealing.
And there may be more complex reasons why some children steal. They may
be angry or want attention. Their behavior may reflect stressful
problems they're having at home, at school, or with friends. Some may
steal as a cry for help because of emotional or physical abuse they're
enduring at home.
"They might steal if they're mad, or if there's a bad marriage, to try
to pull their parents together. And sometimes they steal because they
just want it," says Mary C. Gentile, a psychotherapist in Pasadena,
Maryland, who works with adolescents and families.
Some kids might steal because they can't afford to pay for what they
need or want. In some cases, kids and teens may steal to get popular
name-brand items or to support drug habits. Parents need to find out the
root of the behavior and address problems that surface, like drug abuse.
A parent's reaction when a child has been caught stealing should depend
on whether it's the first time or there's a pattern of stealing.
"If it's a one-time deal and [the child seems] remorseful or upset by
the consequences, then it stops," Gentile says. "If it happens again,
then there could be problems."
With very young children, parents need to help them understand that
stealing is wrong — that when you take something without asking or
paying for it, it hurts someone else. If a preschooler takes a piece of
candy, for instance, parents can help the child return the item. If
she's already eaten the candy, parents can take the child back to the
store and help her apologize and pay for it.
With school-age children, too, it's important to return the item that
was stolen. By the first and second grades, children should know
stealing is wrong. They may need a lesson in the consequences, however.
Having to return a stolen item can provide the embarrassment that makes
for an everlasting lesson on why stealing is wrong. It's important for
parents to support their kids and let them know that they understand the
whole experience is embarrassing. Further punishment, particularly
physical punishment, of the child is unnecessary and can be
counterproductive. It can make the child angry and lead to even worse
behavior.
If a preteen comes home with a friend's bracelet in her backpack and
it's clear she took it without her friend's permission, the parent
should talk to the child about how she would feel if a friend took
something of hers. The parent should encourage the daughter to call her
friend to apologize and explain what happened and that she'll return it.
When teens steal, Gentile recommends that parents follow through with
stricter consequences. For example, when a teen was caught stealing from
a store, she recommended the parent take the child back to the store and
meet with the security department to explain and apologize for what
happened. The experience worked. The teen hasn't had any more problems
with stealing.
If it's a first-time offense, stores and businesses may accept a teen's
apology and won't necessarily press charges. However, there's little
sympathy for repeat offenders.
Children of all ages need to know that shoplifting affects how people
run their businesses and how it raises prices for other consumers. They
should know that stealing is a crime and can lead to consequences far
worse than being grounded, including juvenile detention centers and
prison.
Source
Two studies link child care to behavior
problems
(By Susan Gilbert) With findings that are bound to rekindle the debate
over its effects on children, two studies being published today build on
evidence that those who spend long hours in child care may experience
more stress and are at increased risk of becoming overly aggressive and
developing other behavior problems.
One of the studies found that the more time children spent in child
care, the more likely they were to be disobedient and have trouble
getting along with others, though it suggested that factors like a
mother's sensitivity to the child's needs could moderate that outcome.
This report is from the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development,
the largest long-term study of child care in the United States, which
was undertaken by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, a branch of the National Institutes of Health. The findings
elaborate on preliminary research that created a storm of debate when
presented by the study's investigators at a child development meeting
two years ago.
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of
cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during
full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days
they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of
Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the
same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.
Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose
most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the
shyest. "These children struggle in group situations and find them
stressful," said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.
Dr. Gunnar said that while none of the cortisol levels measured were
high enough to be considered signs of psychological trauma, they were
nonetheless a cause for concern.
In a measure of how sensitive the topic of child care has become, the
studies, appearing in the journal Child Development, are accompanied by
nine commentaries from researchers around the world that put the
findings into perspective and, in some cases, rebut them. The editors of
the journal delayed publication of the studies for several months while
they circulated the manuscripts to more than 1,000 child development
experts and invited them to write commentaries.
"I think it was worth holding up publication of the research so that we
could put it in context," said Dr. Lynn S. Liben, editor in chief of
Child Development. "Child care is a controversial issue."
Unlike the University of Minnesota research, which dealt only with
children in day care, the study by the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development followed more than 1,000 children in 10
cities who were in the full range of child care arrangements, including
day care centers, preschools, care with nannies and care with relatives
other than their mothers. The children's behavior was evaluated by their
mothers, caregivers and kindergarten teachers.
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children
spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and
the greater its severity.
Over all, about 17 percent of the children had above-average levels of
problem behavior like disobedience and overassertiveness. Though their
behavior fell within normal limits, children exhibiting such traits
would be at risk of developing behavioral abnormalities, said the
study's scientific coordinator, Dr. Sarah L. Friedman.
Most of the children in the study spent 10 or more hours a week in child
care, and 10 percent spent more than 45 hours a week there. The
correlation between quantity of child care and behavior problems
remained even when other variables were taken into account, including
the quality and type of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her
child's needs and the family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study
found that the time spent in child care was linked more strongly with
children's behavior than was the quality of care.
But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects
that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's
socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than
did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity
and higher level of family income and education correlated with better
behavior in the children, the study found.
The commentaries published along with the two studies elaborated on some
of the findings and challenged others. Susan C. Crockenberg, a professor
of psychology at the University of Vermont, cited other research
concluding that boys were more vulnerable than girls to negative effects
of child care.
A few of the commentators argued that contrary to the findings of the
National Institute study, the quality of child care mattered a great
deal in fostering young children's social and emotional development. A
commentary by several researchers led by John M. Love, a senior fellow
at Mathematica Policy Research of Princeton, N.J., noted that the more
time that infants and toddlers spent in Head Start programs, considered
to be of high quality, the fewer their behavior problems and the greater
their intellectual and language development.
Source
UW report shows worrisome link between child
and parental mental health problems
(U.S. Newswire) New research from the UW's Washington Kids Count project
shows the emotional well-being of Washington children is strongly linked
to their parents' mental health. In turn, parents' mental health is
profoundly sensitive to their children's emotions and behavior.
According to the "Family Matters: Mental Health of Children and Parents"
report, elementary school children whose parents experienced symptoms of
poor mental health or high parental aggravation (parents who feel
stressed or angry toward their children) were almost five times as
likely to have severe emotional and behavioral problems as children
whose parents reported better mental health or only moderate
aggravation. For adolescents, the risk of having severe emotional and
behavioral problems was almost three times greater if a parent
experienced symptoms of poor mental health or high levels of
aggravation.
Similarly, parents were about five times more likely to report mental
health challenges if they had a child with severe emotional and
behavioral problems. Researchers also found that economic hardship,
single parenting, unemployment, not completing high school, having a
teenager in the house, and latchkey child care were associated with poor
parental mental health and high parental aggravation.
"Parents experiencing economic hardship are almost three and a half
times more likely to report symptoms of poor mental health," explained
Dr. Sheri L. Hill, assistant director of Washington Kids Count. "With
Washington's sustained high rate of unemployment and poor economy, many
parents in our state are at increased risk for mental health problems.
It is important to recognize that their children share this risk."
In Washington, an estimated 30,000 children ages 6 to 11 and more than
40,000 adolescents ages 12 to 17 have symptoms of severe emotional and
behavioral problems. Hill said a total family approach to mental health
treatment is necessary to effectively address the needs of both children
and parents. An increase in general support services for families and
better coordination among providers is also in order, she said.
"This research confirms what we know from working with children and
families on a daily basis: that treating the family as a unit is
critical in treating mental health problems," said Scott Hanauer,
director of Children's Home Society of Washington's Cobb Center for
Youth. "For children and families to succeed, we need a two-generation
approach that addresses the needs of both children and adults instead of
the current approach of focusing on one or the other. We help kids by
helping their parents, and vice versa."
Washington Kids Count suggests the following policy changes to improve
mental health resources for children and families:
- Improve mental health delivery
Identify and treat emotional and behavioral problems promptly, and consider how one person's problems affect others in the family. Support community mental health programs that serve both children and adults and provide integrated, family-centered care. Expand communications among services systems such as allowing schools and employers to refer families to mental health services. Train educational, social service, and all health professionals to recognize depression and other risks for mental health problems; make sure they are familiar with referral resources. - Improve community services
Offer accessible support services such as adult education and vocational training to single parents, families undergoing economic hardship, and parents who are unemployed or have not graduated from high school. Reduce the number of young children left to care for themselves by creating flexible child care options and before- and after-school programs. - Improve payment and insurance
systems
Make family counseling and therapy a reimbursable insurance expense. Encourage health care providers and insurers to address mental health problems with the same seriousness as other physical problems. Encourage employers to support family counseling.
The report findings are based on data
from the National Survey of American Families (NSAF) conducted by The
Urban Institute in 1997 and 1999.
Source
Violence in childhood begets spousal abuse
(HealthDayNews — by Amanda
Gardner) A new study has identified several factors that seem to
independently predict which people will end up in abusive relationships
as adults. Not surprisingly, children who had behavior problems or
witnessed their parents being violent toward one another were likelier
to be involved in an abusive relationship later. But the study also
found that, to a lesser degree, kids who were harshly punished were also
headed down the path to abuse in adulthood.
About 20 percent of men and 20 percent of women report that they have
abused their partner, with about the same percentage reporting being on
the receiving end. For more serious violence (for instance, which might
result in an injury and come to the attention of a medical
professional), about 5 percent of women and 5 percent of men report
being on each side — victim and perpetrator.
Despite the prevalence of the problem, existing treatment programs for
domestic violence do not seem to be working, says Miriam Ehrensaft, lead
author of the new study, appearing in the August issue of the Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The current findings, Ehrensaft
says, argue for early preventive measures in childhood.
Others take issue with the fact that the study only looked at the
mother's parenting styles. "We have had concerns with studies that look
just at the mother's parenting," says Maria Jose Angelelli, program
policy coordinator for the Texas Council on Family Violence in Austin.
"We're not disputing that that's not true, but how the father fits into
that cannot be omitted. It can't."
Researchers already knew that three factors were likely to increase the
risk that someone would end up in an abusive relationship as an adult:
conduct disorder (a group of behavioral and emotional problems in
children), exposure to parental violence, and "power assertive
parenting" (which involves controlling, forceful tactics, including
physical punishment).
"Each was assumed to be important in the development of partner
violence, but we didn't know how each of these things might contribute
independently," says Ehrensaft, who is an assistant professor of
clinical psychology at Columbia University College of Physicians and
Surgeons in New York City. Now researchers have some insight into which
factors may be more important.
"Conduct disorder is the most serious risk factor for partner violence,
and that's closely followed by exposure to domestic violence," Ehrensaft
says.
The risk from power-assertive parenting is much lower than the risk from
the other two factors. What's surprising, Ehrensaft says, is that "you
don't actually need a history of physical abuse or exposure to actual
physical violence between parents [to end up in an abusive
relationship]."
The study authors followed 543 children from two upstate New York
counties for 20 years, from childhood into adulthood. The youths and
their mothers were first contacted in 1975 and were interviewed again on
three additional occasions: in 1983, 1985-86, and 1991-93. In 1999, the
participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire on recent life
changes, work history, aggressive behavior, intimate partner history,
and partner violence.
Children with conduct disorder were four times more likely to perpetrate
violence against a partner and more than twice as likely to be on the
receiving end.
Children who had witnessed violence between their parents were more than
two times as likely to perpetrate and almost three times as likely to
receive it.
Child abuse seemed to be a strong predictor of who might end up injuring
a partner, but not who would end up receiving violence. That was another
surprise, Ehrensaft says.
In fact, though, the two are highly related. Most people who perpetrate
domestic violence are also recipients. "Most cases of aggression are
going both ways," Ehrensaft says.
Another important piece of the puzzle — and one that has implications
for prevention and treatment programs — is that the predictors for men
and women are largely the same.
Angelelli is concerned with some of these findings. In her experience,
witnessing abuse has not been a link among victims of domestic violence.
And childhood behavior disorders may be an issue but not at the top of
the list.
"We would argue that a major factor in preventing partner violence would
be prevention programs and providing safety to the victims and community
resources to the victim and the perpetrator," she says. "Treating the
child with a disorder we do not believe is a major factor. It's one of
the factors." Angelelli does agree that programs should be geared to
girls and boys.
"We need to be addressing girls' risk factors as well," Ehrensaft says.
"People have shied away from that because it will look like women
blaming. For me, it's really a matter of protecting girls more
thoroughly. If there is a risk factor for girls, it doesn't behoove us
politically to ignore it."
Source
Top
___