UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION

[While initially appearing to be negative in tone, the following information provides a reasoned
method for dealing with the child abuse problem. It is demanding of parents and guardians.
That's good! -- RGP]

Creating the language, and image, of a chargeable criminal offense,

by being too graphic or too explicit in our examples and teaching,

could be a problem. Using the term "bad touch" when

referring to sexual touching may create problems in the future

from a mental health perspective relative to sexuality. Giving

all the gory details of a physical or sexual abuse case may create

extreme fear, and give children much more information than they

need to protect themselves.

The argument that you must teach a child what sexual/physical

abuse is, and what it looks like in order to teach them how to

prevent it, is a point of disagreement among experts in the field.

From the legal system's perspective, what is taught in the classroom

can be called into question in court to challenge a victim's credibility

and make the claim that the child created the charge, and the

specific action or words was from information that was disseminated

in the classroom. The defense attorney may claim the incident

didn't happen in reality and the child is lying, trying to "get

back" at the person who is being charged for some slight

or other.

It is important to teach the proper names of body parts as part

of health education. But children who are physically or sexually

abused understand the more general references to being hurt on

purpose or touching that feels uncomfortable, confusing or upsetting.

Children who have not been victimized do not need to be exposed

to material that's too graphic or explicit for two reasons, 1)

it may create fear where there was none and may be a violation

of law; 2) it may put ideas into their heads about "how

to" abuse others, particularly other children. It may teach

them how to be offenders instead of it being offender-prevention

training.

An increase in general paranoia about touching any child in any

way on the part of adult caregivers is another problem. There

needs to be more emphasis on the importance of nurturing physical

touching as a basic human need. Adults need to be reassured that

it is okay, even necessary, to continue nurturing physical contacts

with all children who wish it as a way of affirming children,

reassuring, and rewarding them. Adults need to be reminded that

children will set limits they're comfortable with if they are

given permission to express their feelings and act when they feel

uncomfortable.

A child can tell instantly when touching is comforting, when it

is disciplinary, when it is exploitative, or even dangerous.

We need to focus on individual responsibilities as well as

individual rights. This lack of balancing messages may be contributing

to an increase in reporting of illegal touching incidents without

dealing with the offender-prevention issue. We must tell students

what the law requires in terms of their behavior and the consequences

possible if they get involved in sexual touching that the student

may consider "playing" or just "picking on" another student.

Law enforcement personnel have begun to see an increase in false

reporting of sexual assault by older teens and young adults as

a way of "getting even," and "getting back at," or "getting out of"

taking responsibility for their own behavior.

Parental concern about intrusive questioning concerning family

interactions, or alcohol and drug use patterns, is another issue.

If we "survey" children, asking them to reveal patterns

of substance use/abuse or physically or sexually abusive behavior

in their homes, that may be seen as extremely intrusive and may

even be considered "putting ideas in their heads."

We must instead constantly empower children to ask for help if

and when they need it, reassure them that their feelings are valid

and it is okay to talk about feelings, or any problem children

may have that they have been unable to deal with themselves.

Teaching children to "Just Say No" is an oversimplification.

It may create guilt in someone who has already experienced victimization,

and who was unable to say no, or for whom saying no did not work.

This message without a counterbalancing empowerment focus (okay

- that did not work, what else could you try?), may reinforce

"learned helplessness" and further erode the victim's

self-esteem. We must avoid further victimizing or blaming the

victims!

Some other concerns include adaptation for Early Childhood and

other special needs groups. Can we balance the need for concrete

specific "rules" needed by those children, with the

concern that those very "rules" may cause complications

later? (e.g. "stranger danger" or "don't talk

to strangers" creating an unreasonable fear of every person

unknown to the child. The child may believe they can't ask someone

they don't know for help and the child becomes even more vulnerable.)

Is protective behavior-type education a program? Is one presentation

of the information enough? Every teacher knows that learning

concepts and building skills is an ongoing, long-term process.

Learning takes place at different rates and in different ways

for each individual. Learning protective behaviors, abuse prevention

empowerment skills and strategies, is no different than learning

to read or to be proficient in math. These concepts are learned

best when they are reinforced regularly, through both program

and process. Creating an atmosphere where children generally

feel safe and reinforcing protective behaviors in "teachable

moments" will be most effective.

The list of unintended consequences and concerns grows as we all

learn more about this extremely complex issue.

Created for Madison Metropolitan School District's Student Anti-Victimization Education

(S.A.V.E.) Committee -- Natalie Aikins, Police Officer, Safety Education Unit, Madison (WI)
Police Department - (608) 266-4483