Violent Kids: What Can We Do?

Very young criminals have been front-page news in recent months, sending shock and outrage across the nation. We've heard about a 12-year-old girl convicted of killing a 2-year-old, 10- and 11-year-old boys who dropped a five-year-old 14 stories to his death, and a 6-year-old who pulled a baby from his bassinet and inflicted near-fatal brain damage.

Overall, children are far more likely to be victims of crime than they are to be aggressors. Arrest rates for juvenile violent crime actually decreased nationwide in 1995 for the first time in almost a decade, according to Justice Department data released in August 1996. For youth ages 10-17, arrest rates forviolent crime declined 2.9% in 1995--the first such decrease since 1987--and arrest rates for murder declined for the second year in a row. So it's possible that we're seeing more news reports, not more crimes. Since the issue burst into prominence, stories that previously would have received only local coverage have become national news. Still, even one such incident deserves a serious response.

Kids who turn tough at a tender age--what's a nation to do? From the child welfare perspective, two things are clear. First, we must rule out all the vindictive reactions that ignore the difference between children and adults.Children are children. Calling them "monsters" or "predators" may increase the sense of distance that helps people to feel secure, but it doesn't change the facts.

Second, we also must rule out returning the child to the environment that produced her or him without serious intervention. Although, judging from media reports, these are the only options the public is aware of, there is a wide range of possibilities between the two.

A child who breaks the law is signaling as clearly as he or she knows how that something is wrong in that child's life. Chances are, earlier cries for help have not been heard. Our best hope is to identify these children as early as possible and help them put their lives on course.

We already know what factors protect children from harm and what factors spell trouble. The country attorney's office of Hennepin County, Minnesota, analyzed the records of 135 children, ages 4 to 9, who had been accused of crimes. They found that 91% lived in families receiving AFDC, 81% were in families that had been investigated by child protective services, 70% had at least one parent or sibling who had been in trouble with the law, and well over half had behavior, attendance, or learning problems in school. Even allowing for possible bias on the part of law enforcement, it's a Stark picture. High-risk neighborhoods; poor family functioning, including child abuse, domestic violence, and parental incarceration; antisocial behavior with peers; and school failure add up to a recipe for risk.

We probably could never treat every child who grows up in these conditions. Miraculously, most of them don't need it. Thanks to childhood resilience, random kindness, and a profusion of good programs, many children are protected from even the most unpromising environments and grow up straight.

Social scientists who focus on protective factors rather than risk factors recommend an approach that strengthens communities by increasing the number of positive influences available to every child. These include opportunities, skills, and recognition. The key factors are positive relationships, including sustained adult guidance and attention, and positive activities.

The earlier a child is identified as needing help, the better the chance of success. But what kind of help, in the case of children who commit violent offenses? What do we know about treatment for young, violent offenders? Failure rates are generally quite high, according to Mark Fraser, writing in the January 1996 Families in Society. But some approaches work better than others, in the home, in school, or in residential care.

* Home. Violent children usually come from violent homes. With all children, but particularly with young children, treatment must involve the entire family whenever possible. This family focus must include a realistic response to any evidence of domestic violence. Successful treatment also must enlist extended family and community support systems to supplement the work of professionals.

* School. Family preservation usually is the front line for child welfare services, but its rate of success is higher with relatively passive abused or neglected children than with aggressive ones, according to Fraser's research. For school-age children, effective treatment must address not only family relationships but also school and peer relationships--either directly, in the residential environment, or indirectly through coordination of services. Today's educators need new sets of skills not only to deal with violent youngsters but to create a nonviolent culture for all their students. (See Changing the Culture, below.)

* Residential treatment. Treatment is expensive, and the best treatment is very expensive. But violent youngsters need intensive training to learn new interaction strategies. Family-focused residential treatment must be considered as an early option--not just a last resort. The cognitive-behavioral work that is most successful in bringing children to adopt new responses to stimuli probably works best in a residential environment. Because of experiences they've had in the past, and perhaps because of individual processing defects, violent children perceive hostility even when it isn't there. They need to develop the ability to solve problems without resorting to force or coercion, to gain new information processing and communication skills. Children, especially young children, learn best in nurturing environments.

Larry Brendtro, the author of Positive Peer Culture, believes that altruism is inherent in everyone. In fact, approaches that build on the potential for good, whether home and community based or residential, are demonstrably more effective than getting tough. The state of Arizona scrapped its boot camp early in 1996 after a seven-year trial. The recidivism rate was over 77%--higher than the 50% for traditional jail time. Meanwhile, a youth diversion program in St. Louis, Missouri, run by Central Baptist Children's Home of Lake Villa, Illinois, succeeded in keeping 93% of its high-risk youths at home in 1995, and 90% over four years. None of the young women had become pregnant, and most of the children had left the gangs with which they had been involved.

Austin, Texas, has reduced youth crime with a major public-private effort that includes family support, work, and recreational opportunities for young people, as well as community policing. Other communities, including Minneapolis, Minnesota, also are pulling together for their children. But this holistic approach requires community wide commitment, something that is still building even in Austin. Effective programs must be long-term, multifaceted, and adequately funded. Prevention is at least as complex as treatment.

In the long run, we will continue to produce violent children until we can reverse our culture's acceptance and even celebration of violence. As long as gore is accepted as entertainment and guns as just another item in commerce, violence will be commonplace. Increasingly widespread poverty will only exacerbate it.

Still, there is hope. People who work with children have an opportunity to shape the cultural environment in which the future is being nurtured. Even children from violent homes have a chance to learn new patterns when they enter school. Sadly, many adults in positions of authority still believe in ignoring "routine" peer-on-peer aggression. In the spring 1996 issue of Caring, Ronald L. Oliver describes an ongoing body of research: "In all of the public schools sampled todate, more than two-thirds of the young people thought that adults handled the problem of bullying poorly." Adults tended to blame the victim, and many believe that the group has a right to impose its values on nonconforming members.

This attitude is not healthy for bullies or victims. The growing practice of training students as peer conflict mediators is one sign of progress. The next step is for adults to create a standard of no tolerance for even minor cruelty.

The 1930 White House Conference on the Health and Protection of Children, convened by President Herbert Hoover, drafted a Children's Charter that summarized 19 rights of American children. Among them: "For every child who isin conflict with society, the right to be dealt with intelligently as society's charge, not society's outcast." Our nation has been making gradual progress in this direction for almost seven decades. Will that progress now be swept away along with other legacies from the 1930's?

National CASA Association - 100 W. Harrison - North Tower, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98119 - 800 628-3233