Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks New Yorkers have frequently, if not relentlessly, been coaxed and reminded, If You See Something, Say Something. Other cities around the world have probably instituted similar public efforts. The campaign to prevent future terrorist attacks shares several components with nationwide child abuse prevention campaigns. Both are geared toward attracting the public's attention through the depiction of a sense of urgency. The implication behind both campaigns is that each target group is very vulnerable to harm carried out by others. Both target groups require public intervention to secure their safety. Both groups' safety is threatened by people who are, or may be, intent on causing them harm or worse. The public is warned in both scenarios that potential catastrophe is likely without their intervention.
Both campaigns are not merely a momentary call to arms but are also an effort to educate the public about its current and future responsibility. They also, in effect, are influential in shaping the public's attitudes about the agents of both respective acts, terrorist attacks and child maltreatment.
The possibility exists that the pervasiveness of public campaigns such as the anti-terror effort and Most Wanted posters may, to some extent, color the manner in which people come to think about and understand the child abuse prevention effort and, in turn, child maltreatment itself. This can influence many to view the parents as perpetrators of crimes whose rights as parents should be terminated.
One may ask what difference it makes what attitude a potential reporter of child maltreatment holds, as long as the call is made. A multifold response is required:
First, reporting a family to a child abuse hotline is never to be taken lightly. Even when substantiated maltreatment is found to be present, given the infamous and ongoing pattern of child welfare's history of not providing appropriate and helpful services to families, with much unnecessary disruption and misguided intervention, extreme caution had better be the guide. A violation or crime can be viewed as something straight forward or black and white; a citizen's civic duty is to make a report, few would question. But a mind-set that views child maltreatment, not as a crime, and not as an antisocial act, but as a family problem which calls for possible compassionate and competent assistance, should often give one reason to pause and consider more effective intervenient approaches before contacting a hotline.
Second, whether or not public announcements include exhortations to parents themselves to call for assistance, the hotline, at least in theory, can be a possible source for parents. They probably will be more likely to do so in response to a campaign that promises compassionate help.
Third, children, too, who may contemplate turning to a child abuse hotline for assistance will probably be less hesitant to do so in response to a campaign that does not appear harsh nor entails parental punishment.
Fourth, the child welfare system as a societal institution is in a position to educate and inform the public about its purpose and work. This work should be accurately reflected in any public pronouncements.
Fifth, a citizenry correctly informed and knowledgeable about various aspects of child welfare work will be in a position to advocate and support long overdue real and substantial reform.
Sixth, child welfare personnel themselves can likely be erroneously influenced by the nature of the campaign, as can politicians, whose hoped for familiarity with the complexities and subtleties of child welfare can have a significant impact on policy and procedure.
Seventh, a citizenry that has developed a compassionate view of families who are burdened with various problems and hardship will be more likely to voluntarily offer neighborly help and assistance.
The very term child protection connotes something adversarial; it can seem to call for someone to step in and provide a barrier between the parent and child. It implies that this barrier is needed to stop the onslaught of harm and danger coming from the parent(s). It also implies that the parents' intent is to harm the child unless official protectors can successfully and, sometimes forcefully, stop them. Who would even imagine harming a defenseless child, so this stream of thought goes, but an evil-intended defective, certainly not a normal human being; moreover, if that person also happens to be the child's parent, such wickedness is almost unimaginable. This is very likely the picture conveyed by the concept child protection. Though perhaps not always articulated this way, it nonetheless, in a more abbreviated form, may dominate the thinking of many citizens who have been influenced by protective imagery.
Rather than present parents as adversarial, child maltreatment prevention campaigns can and should describe a more accurate and compassionate picture, one that portrays some families as experiencing difficulties, and/or lacking adequate parenting knowledge. And, that their family situation connects with the societal mandate to provide assistance to help them improve should be the context in which this is presented. Rather than merely responding to another's call for action, the campaign should emphasize the ethical imperative that binds us all to help one another.
Both campaigns are not merely a momentary call to arms but are also an effort to educate the public about its current and future responsibility. They also, in effect, are influential in shaping the public's attitudes about the agents of both respective acts, terrorist attacks and child maltreatment.
The possibility exists that the pervasiveness of public campaigns such as the anti-terror effort and Most Wanted posters may, to some extent, color the manner in which people come to think about and understand the child abuse prevention effort and, in turn, child maltreatment itself. This can influence many to view the parents as perpetrators of crimes whose rights as parents should be terminated.
One may ask what difference it makes what attitude a potential reporter of child maltreatment holds, as long as the call is made. A multifold response is required:
First, reporting a family to a child abuse hotline is never to be taken lightly. Even when substantiated maltreatment is found to be present, given the infamous and ongoing pattern of child welfare's history of not providing appropriate and helpful services to families, with much unnecessary disruption and misguided intervention, extreme caution had better be the guide. A violation or crime can be viewed as something straight forward or black and white; a citizen's civic duty is to make a report, few would question. But a mind-set that views child maltreatment, not as a crime, and not as an antisocial act, but as a family problem which calls for possible compassionate and competent assistance, should often give one reason to pause and consider more effective intervenient approaches before contacting a hotline.
Second, whether or not public announcements include exhortations to parents themselves to call for assistance, the hotline, at least in theory, can be a possible source for parents. They probably will be more likely to do so in response to a campaign that promises compassionate help.
Third, children, too, who may contemplate turning to a child abuse hotline for assistance will probably be less hesitant to do so in response to a campaign that does not appear harsh nor entails parental punishment.
Fourth, the child welfare system as a societal institution is in a position to educate and inform the public about its purpose and work. This work should be accurately reflected in any public pronouncements.
Fifth, a citizenry correctly informed and knowledgeable about various aspects of child welfare work will be in a position to advocate and support long overdue real and substantial reform.
Sixth, child welfare personnel themselves can likely be erroneously influenced by the nature of the campaign, as can politicians, whose hoped for familiarity with the complexities and subtleties of child welfare can have a significant impact on policy and procedure.
Seventh, a citizenry that has developed a compassionate view of families who are burdened with various problems and hardship will be more likely to voluntarily offer neighborly help and assistance.
The very term child protection connotes something adversarial; it can seem to call for someone to step in and provide a barrier between the parent and child. It implies that this barrier is needed to stop the onslaught of harm and danger coming from the parent(s). It also implies that the parents' intent is to harm the child unless official protectors can successfully and, sometimes forcefully, stop them. Who would even imagine harming a defenseless child, so this stream of thought goes, but an evil-intended defective, certainly not a normal human being; moreover, if that person also happens to be the child's parent, such wickedness is almost unimaginable. This is very likely the picture conveyed by the concept child protection. Though perhaps not always articulated this way, it nonetheless, in a more abbreviated form, may dominate the thinking of many citizens who have been influenced by protective imagery.
Rather than present parents as adversarial, child maltreatment prevention campaigns can and should describe a more accurate and compassionate picture, one that portrays some families as experiencing difficulties, and/or lacking adequate parenting knowledge. And, that their family situation connects with the societal mandate to provide assistance to help them improve should be the context in which this is presented. Rather than merely responding to another's call for action, the campaign should emphasize the ethical imperative that binds us all to help one another.
RSS Feed