|
LITERATURE REVIEW
The growing concerns of labeling child rearing practices as abusive or neglectful because of lack of knowledge about cultural differences has been reflected in a great deal of literature (Arnold, 1982; Baumrind, 1972; Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Gelles & Cornell, 1983; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Heffer & Kelly, 1987; Korbin, 1980; Straus, 1994; Wu, 1981). However, it is comparably argued that not all forms of behavior toward children should be accepted because of cultural sensitivity (Dubanoski, Inaba, & Gerkewicz, 1983; Korbin, 1980). For instance, some literature considers disciplinary practices that consist of physical punishment of children by parents as an unacceptable form of family violence (Gelles, 1979; Hyman, 1990; Payne, 1989; Pulkkinen, 1987). Some authors believe that perceptions of corporal punishment as a way to teach responsibility or build character should be dismissed as a myth (Dubanoski et al., 1983; Straus, 1994). However, other literary works indicate that many developing societies still believe that a child's natural characteristic of impulsivity, self-endangering, or antisocial behavior cannot be controlled without physical discipline or at least the threat of it (Chao, 1994; Korbin, 1980). As such, many cultures continue to view the experience of deliberately inflicted pain as vital to the development of strength and character valued by the cultures. Evidently, both parents and children support such practices (Chao, 1994; Wu, 1981).
Korbin (1981,1987, 1991) believed that all child rearing practices tend to support the development of character and influence behaviors. Some child rearing customs help develop characteristics that are greatly valued by the culture. All cultures encourage dependence and ultimate care of the very young which vary in the length of time. Because the survival of a society depends on training appropriate characteristics in each new generation, the time in which a child is encouraged to move toward self-sufficiency and independence and how the child is encouraged are crucial factors.
Since most child abuse and neglect occurs during a parent-child interaction, the assessment methods need to be reevaluated because of varying child rearing practices from culture to culture. In the foreword for Korbin (1981), Kempe urged that a balance be achieved between those who believe that all changes in a society are good for the children and those who support all cultural practices as appropriate, even though the practices may be more harmful than beneficial for their society. In order to understand the problems presented, a collaboration between what we know about child abuse and neglect in Western nations and that of what we know about child rearing practices, beliefs, and behaviors in other cultures is needed (Korbin, 1980, 1981). Therefore, the first part of this literature review will provide the following information:
- The Historical Overview of Child Abuse in the United States
- Child Welfare Services in Los Angeles County
- Child Abuse and Neglect in Cultural Perspective
- Western Views on Discipline
In order to provide comprehensive knowledge of some of the elements that entangle the Cambodian community with child abuse and neglect dilemmas, the latter part of the review will provide extensive literature on the Cambodian people. The section will include:
- Background of the Cambodian people
- Recent Cambodian History
- The Refugee Camp Experience
- The Refugee Resettlement in the United States
- Socioeconomic Status
- Acculturation
- Family Relationships
- Child Rearing Practices
- Cambodian Disciplinary Practices
Historical Overview of Child Abuse and Neglect
Children have been victims of maltreatment throughout history (Hefler & Kempe, 1974; Radbill, 1968, 1980). For centuries, acts ranging from extreme parental insensitivity and neglect to physical and sexual abuse have been common throughout the world. In colonial days, children were viewed as personal property of their parents without rights of their own (Radbill, 1968, 1980). Children were sold, exploited, and sacrificed. Infanticide was not uncommon and was socially acceptable. Such acts of infanticide were supported in cases of illegitimacy or physical/mental deficiency. It was viewed as promoting general welfare to destroy "burdensome" children (Iverson, 1990). Parents who severely punished their children were supported by law and the community for merely disciplining their children. It was not until the era of industrialization that children were considered to have rights. Child labor laws were enacted in the early 20th century, prohibiting parents from exploiting their children (DiNitto & McNeece, 1990; Pfohl, 1977; Watkins, 1990).
Prior to the enactment of child-concerned laws, institutions were established to deal with matters relating to neglected and abandoned youth. However, the focus was not the protection of children, but rather the institutionalization of children to teach them proper values and good work habits. The perception that children would benefit from living in rural areas, created institutions such as the Children's Aid Society in 1853 and the Children's Home Society in 1883, which sent thousands of children to live and work with mostly Christian families, away from the cities and their own families (DiNitto & McNeece, 1990; Pfohl, 1977; Watkins, 1990).
The origin of child protective services in the United States began with the case of Mary Ellen, a severely abused child who came to the attention of the American legal system in 1874. The case helped introduce and publicize the maltreatment of children and later pushed for the development of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Iverson, 1990; Watkins, 1990; Zigler & Hall, 1989).
In 1909, the federal government's interest in the welfare of children started with the first White House Conference on Children and the establishment of the Children's Bureau in 1912. The Children's Bureau was concerned with child welfare issues ranging from health care to delinquency and orphan children. The Social Security Act of 1935 later directed the Children's Bureau to join forces with the states to create child welfare services (DiNitto, 1995). The public interest in child welfare was fostered in 1962, after Dr. Kempe and his colleagues' publication of the "Battered Child Syndrome" (Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegenmueller, & Silver, 1962). The legislation was urged to mandate reporting laws in which it required those who work with children as part of their profession to report any suspicion of child abuse to child protection authorities or law enforcement officials (Mash & Barkley, 1996).
Due to the dramatic growth in public interest in preventing and treating child abuse, the original child welfare services provisions under Title V of the Social Security Act were extended to Title IV-B in 1967. In 1974, the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (PL 93-247) was passed and it established the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN). The NCCAN assisted the states with programs as well as conducted child abuse and neglect research. The public also began to view child maltreatment as a public health problem (Broadhurst, Dowling, Flammang, Loone, & O'Brien, 1977). These concerns led to pressure for the passage of Title XX in 1975, making more welfare services available for each state and providing federal reimbursement for most of the costs (DiNitto, 1995; Zastrow, 1996).
The most significant and recent development in child welfare services was the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (DiNitto, 1995; Nou-Meas, 1998), also known as the permanency planning law (DiNitto, 1995). The law consisted of Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, in which it acknowledged the rights of children to a permanent home. Financial penalties were imposed on states that did not comply with the act's requirement (Kadushin & Martin, 1988; Seltzer & Bloksberg, 1987). The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Fraser, Pecora, & Haapala, 1991; Nou-Meas, 1998) permitted the Family Preservation and Support Services provisions to allocate $930 million for child welfare services (Fraser et al., 1991; Kadushin & Martin, 1988; Seltzer & Bloksberg, 1987). Each state receives funds based on the number of its children receiving food stamps, and 90% of these funds must go to services (Fraser et al., 1991).
Despite the increasing attention to child maltreatment, the federal government has no clear definition of these problems and has shifted the responsibility to the states to define child maltreatment. Currently, the definition varies slightly from state to state. Many authors have blamed the inconsistency of the definition of child maltreatment for the lack of progress in combating the problem (DiNitto, 1995; Kadushin & Martin, 1988; Mash & Barkley, 1996). In 1991, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect declared the matter a "national emergency" (Family Resource Coalition, 1997). In 1997, over three million children were reported for child abuse and neglect to child protective service agencies in the United States. This figure represents a 1.7% increase over the number of children reported in 1996. Experts attribute much of the increase in reporting to greater public awareness of, and willingness to report child, maltreatment, as well as changes in how states collected reports of maltreatment (Wang & Daro, 1998).
Child Welfare Services in Los Angeles County
In 1984, the largest child protection agency in the state was established by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services, 1992). The Department of Children's Services was the initial name of the agency. However, the name has been changed to the Department of Children and Family Services to emphasize the effort toward strengthening families. Currently, there are over 4,000 workers employed by Department of Children and Family Services to serve the ethnically diverse families living in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, 1995).
In an attempt to meet the specific needs of its ethnically diverse population, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has established a variety of specialized units. The units consist of Deaf Services Project, Sexual Abuse Treatment Team, Medically Fragile Children, Black Family Investment Project, Latino Family Preservation Project, American Indian Unit, and the Asian/Pacific Project. Each of the units is specialized to handle sensitive issues relating to the population that it serves.
The increasing number of child maltreatment cases in the Asian/Pacific Islander population and the need for cultural sensitivity caused the Department of Children and Family Services to establish the Asian/Pacific Project in 1989. In meeting the unique needs of the Asian/Pacific Islander population, the Asian/Pacific Project employs children social workers who are bilingual and bicultural. The project currently provide services to families who speak languages such as Khmer, Vietnamese, Tongan, Japanese, Korean, Hmong, Lao, Thai, Mandarin, Char Chou, Cantonese, Tangelo, and Samoan. Currently, the Asian/Pacific Project has one Director, six Supervising Children's Social Workers, 40 bilingual/bicultural Children's Social Workers, and nine supportive staff. The Asian/Pacific Project received 17,182 cases from the Department of Children and Family Services Child Abuse Hotline between March 1989 to August 1999. Families of Cambodian descent totaled 5,418 (31.5%) of the reported cases (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, 1999). The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services established four components of programs for both the specialized units and the regular units to provide services:
1. Emergency Response Services (ER)
The Child Abuse Hotline is a mandated program with staff available 24 hours a day to immediately respond to calls reporting children in life threatening situations.
2. Family Maintenance Services (FM)
This program provides ongoing services to children and their families after their entry into the child protection system. Rehabilitation services such as counseling, parenting classes, and other services related to preserving the family unit can be offered through FM program.
3. Family Reunification Services (FR)
When it is determined that a child cannot safely remain at home, the option of placing the child in relative care or foster care would be considered. Once the child is removed from the custody of his or her parents, the FR program will be offered to reunite the child with his or her parents. Rehabilitation services for parents to regain custody of the child will be offered as well as mandated by the court.
4. Permanent Placement Services (PP)
Once family reunification is not successful and it is determined that the
child cannot return home to a safe environment, the PP program is initiated. A permanent home is sought for the child either through adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. (Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services, 1992, p. 1)
Child Abuse and Neglect in Cultural Perspective
Child abuse and neglect occurs in all cultures, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups. The literature has recognized the need for cross-cultural perspectives on child maltreatment, but only a few studies have attempted to do the same. Despite the growing number of child maltreatment cases in the Asian/Pacific community, little attention has been given to the problem. For instance, works completed by Korbin (1980, 1981), Giovannoni and Becerra (1979), Gopaul-McNicol (1993), and Payne (1989) provide minimal background information for understanding cross-cultural issues of child abuse and neglect. Payne noted that parents in many developing countries face new disciplinary problems as a result of unexpected socioeconomic changes with increased exposure to child rearing beliefs, norms, and/or advice from other cultures. Since the Cambodians are recent immigrants from a developing country, the same can be said; the Cambodian population may be facing the same dilemmas in disciplining their children in the United States as those in other developing countries. Similarly to other Asian/Pacific communities, very little information about the Cambodian family and its functions is available.
As mentioned earlier, what is considered to be child maltreatment differs from culture to culture. Culturally accepted child rearing practices in one culture may be viewed as abusive in another culture (Arnold, 1982; Korbin, 1981, 1987; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Payne, 1989). For instance, many of the discipline methods used by Asians are ways to maintain the cultural tradition of filial devotion of the young to the old. For example, physical punishment such as twisting ears, pinching the face, kicking and beating, and hitting the head are acceptable forms of child rearing practices in many Asian groups. However, these acts are viewed by the Western child welfare system as abusive (Wu, 1981).
Ima and Hohm (1991) studied the patterns of Asian/Pacific Islander refugees and immigrants' child maltreatment in San Diego, California in 1991 and found differences from those of general child maltreatment in the United States. The study revealed greater proportions of female victims, younger child victims, more physical abuse than any other form of child maltreatment, and a higher incidence of parents being charged for the act individually rather than together. Wu (1981) reported that Vietnamese and other Asian parents contested that child protection laws strip their rights to instill morality in their children.
In their study, Ima and Hohm (1991) also found that allegations of child maltreatment were significantly higher among Cambodians and Laotians than those of the general public. One of the factors for this is the Cambodian parents' relaxed beliefs/attitudes regarding parenting styles. The seemingly casual child rearing practices of Cambodian parents are often viewed as neglectful and unsafe for the children. Therefore, their likelihood of being reported of child maltreatment increased. Another is the growing number of emotionally dysfunctional parents. Due to their inability to meet the demands of everyday life and those of their children, Cambodian parents are prone to being reported for child maltreatment. In addition, Cambodians are often dependent on public welfare. Therefore, they are under closer scrutiny by the social service agencies. Ima and Hohm (1991) introduced five explanations of the high reporting of child maltreatment in the Asian/Pacific Islander community: 1) level of traumas experienced in the country of origin, 2) variation in child rearing practices, 3) the perceptibility of social welfare professionals, 4) lack of support systems to help prevent the occurrence of abusive situations, and 5) the inability to cope with cultural conflicts with the host country.
In an attempt to prevent misinterpretation of cultural differences, Korbin (1980) created three levels of cultural consideration in identifying child abuse and neglect cross-culturally. The first level consists of practices viewed as acceptable by one culture but as abusive or neglectful by another. At the second level, while cultures vary in their definitions of child abuse and neglect, each group has criteria for identifying behaviors that are outside the norm of acceptable child rearing. The behaviors that are not tolerated by the culture may be more appropriately categorized as child abuse or neglect than behavior classified as cultural differences. The third level of consideration is societal abuse and neglect of children that may be seen as determined by the socioeconomic conditions rather than by parental character flaws.
Western Views on Discipline
According to May (1979), the purposes of discipline include teaching children to achieve for themselves, to have self-discipline so that they can act without parental guidance, to develop a sense of pride when they behave appropriately, to develop their own skills to make decision and solving problem, and to enjoy learning. Further, discipline also helps in the building of self-confidence and a positive self-image. Therefore, discipline should not be used to instill shame or guilt. May argued that punishment and abuse are not discipline because the purpose of punishment is to cause pain and harm, and abuse usually destroys children physically and emotionally.
According to May (1979), punishment is defined as actions that discourage
a response and decrease the chance that the response will reappear. When a child manifests an undesirable behavior, an unpleasant stimulus is placed upon the child. Punishment is said to work if one wants to reduce or remove an unwanted behavior. However, effectiveness is dependent on such factors as timing, intensity, consistency, underlying rationale, and the relationship between the child and the parent.
CONTINUE LITERATURE REVIEW
|
