| Safe Start: Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is requesting applications for the Safe Start: Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence project. This project will help local communities implement collaborative cross-agency strategies for effectively reducing the impact of children’s exposure to violence, with particular emphasis on young children (age 6 and younger) and their families. For the purposes of this project, exposure to violence includes both direct victimization (e.g., child abuse, neglect, or maltreatment) and indirect victimization (e.g., witnessing domestic violence or community violence). Children’s exposure to other forms of violence—such as violence in the media, terrorism, and war—is beyond the scope of this project. (See Identification and Classification of Children Exposed to Violence.) Millions of children in the United States are exposed to violence at home, in their neighborhood, and at school. The welfare of children exposed to violence has become a major concern for medical and health professionals, child protection and social services agencies, law enforcement, and juvenile justice agencies because these children often do not receive adequate intervention or treatment to address harmful aftereffects. In many families, neighborhoods, and communities, violence is a regular occurrence in the lives of children. Young people are routinely exposed to violence—both as victims of and witnesses to violent acts. The impact of these exposures on children’s development varies from child to child, depending on the child’s temperament, level of risk and protective factors in the child’s environment, and the quality and availability of community resources. Detrimental effects of exposure to violence can include delayed language development, visual and learning deficits, emotional disturbances, failure to thrive, short-term disruptions in psychosocial functioning, lapses into states of trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder. According to the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, children experience incidents of maltreatment and indirect exposure to domestic and community violence as traumatic events—i.e., experiences that cause physical, emotional, or psychological distress or harm. Children often perceive these events as threats to their safety or the stability of their environment (National Library of Medicine, 2002). In addition, events that may appear harmless to an adult may be very traumatic to a young child because young children have not developed the skills to understand or deal with feelings and stress related to traumatic events (Cohen and Walthall, 2003). Moreover, the memory of the experience may remain traumatic for a child, even long after the experience has occurred. Understanding the scope of the effects of children’s exposure to violence and the mediating factors that influence child developmental outcomes has become a central focus of recent research. Research on children who witness family and community violence is less extensive than research on children who are direct victims of abuse and neglect. Although not the direct targets of violence, children who witness family and community violence also suffer negative consequences (Osofsky, 2003). The relatively limited literature points to long-term developmental effects on children exposed to violence at the individual, family, school, neighborhood, and community levels (Carter, Weithorn, and Berhman, 1999). Growing evidence links children’s indirect exposure to violence to a wide range of psychological, emotional, behavioral, social, and academic problems (Margolin and Gordis, 2000). In addition, the literature indicates several mediating factors, such as the severity of violence, the age of onset, and the proximity, frequency, duration, and timing of the violence (Schwartz and Gorman, 2003). Important questions remain unanswered in the effort to understand the epidemiology of children’s exposure to violence. How should children’s exposure to violence be defined? What is the impact of children’s exposure to violence? What best practices are recommended? Although various schools of thought exist regarding the best framework and models for understanding the complexity of this problem, most researchers, practitioners, and advocates concur that fully addressing the issues related to children exposed to violence requires an ecological and transactional framework (Dawes and Donald, 2000). An ecological framework places young victims of violence and young witnesses to violence within the context of family, community, and society. Factors within these realms must be taken into consideration in an analysis of children’s exposure to violence. These developmental, environmental, and social influences are grouped into a set of systems—with the child in the middle. The transactional framework recognizes the complexity of the multiple interacting systems that determine developmental outcomes. The transactional approach contends that at each developmental phase, the child brings his or her past experience and current level of psychosocial functioning to bear on the interpretation of the situation. Therefore, a child’s response to a violent event is developmentally dependent on the reactions of those in the immediate environment, which may either reduce or increase the vulnerability of that child to the violent event. To understand how developmental outcomes relate to violence, violence must be viewed as a multilevel phenomenon that affects the individual, family, and community; the interventions used to address these outcomes must be developmentally and environmentally specific and appropriate. Although this brief background section does not provide an exhaustive review of all the literature and data on children exposed to violence, it highlights current aspects related to this issue based on a review of empirical data from 1999 to 2003. It classifies the population, discusses the prevalence and incidence of children exposed to violence, and notes the impacts of children’s exposure to violence. Identification and Classification of Children Exposed to Violence Direct Exposure to Violence. Children’s direct exposure to violence usually occurs in the form of child abuse and neglect. Child maltreatment is the broad category used to classify child abuse and neglect. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1996) defines child maltreatment as “the physical and mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of 18 by a person who is responsible for the child’s welfare under circumstances which indicate the child’s health and welfare is harmed or threatened.” Although standard definitions for child maltreatment do not currently exist, and definitions in federal and state legislation vary considerably, children who are victims of direct violence are usually victims of four major types of child maltreatment: physical abuse, child neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (Edleson, 1999a). Indirect Exposure to Violence. Children’s indirect exposure to violence typically occurs when they witness family and community violence (Somer and Braunstein, 1999). Exposure to family violence includes the physical, sexual, verbal, and emotional abuse between adults that is seen or heard by a child within the home. It also includes taking a child hostage to force a parent to return home, using a child as an emotional weapon against the victim, forcing a child to watch or participate in the abuse of a parent, and interrogating and threatening a child to obtain information about the victim’s activities (Edleson, 1999a). At younger ages and earlier developmental periods, children who experience indirect violence between intimate partners are not able to distinguish between direct and indirect experiences. Therefore, younger children who may still be involved in the developmental tasks of separation may experience and perceive such violence as a direct personal threat. In addition to seeing, hearing, or being forced to actively participate in the abuse of a parent, the child also deals with the aftermath of the violent event. Community violence has been defined as “violence that occurs in the child’s environment but outside the home” (Frierson, 1999). Prevalence and Incidence of Children’s Exposure to Violence Every year, millions of children are exposed to violence. Because violence affects every corner of society, an alarming number of children and youth are victims and/or witnesses of violence in their homes, in their communities, and at school. Data on the incidence and prevalence of children’s exposure to violence come from a variety of sources, including official crime data surveys, public health epidemiological studies, and social science research (Frierson, 1999). Violence at Home For many children, particularly young children, the locus of violence is their own home. Violence at home includes child maltreatment (i.e., abuse or neglect by family members/caretakers) and adult domestic violence. In many families, child maltreatment and domestic violence are intertwined. Child Maltreatment. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) collects data annually from state child protective services agencies. These data provide an overview of the magnitude and severity of the problem of child maltreatment (HHS, 2003; Chalk, Gibbons, and Scarupa, 2002). In 2001, an estimated 903,000 children nationwide were victims of abuse and neglect. This number represents a victimization rate of 12.4 per 1,000 children. More than half of these victims (59.2 percent) experienced neglect, 18.6 percent were physically abused, 9.6 percent were sexually abused, 6.8 percent were emotionally or psychologically maltreated, and 19.5 percent experienced some other type of maltreatment. The rate of victimization was inversely related to the age of the child; children age 3 and younger accounted for more than one-fourth (27.7 percent) of all child victims (HHS, 2003). In addition, researchers have found that the severity of child victimization is greater for children younger than age 5 (Dilillo, Tremblay, and Peterson, 2000). In 2001, approximately 1,300 child fatalities nationwide were attributed to abuse or neglect. The very youngest children were at greatest risk of dying; children younger than age 6 accounted for 84.5 percent of all child fatalities, and infants younger than 1 accounted for 40.9 percent (HHS, 2003). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), homicide is the 15th leading cause of death during the first year of life. From 1989 to 1998, 3,312 infant homicides were reported. The risk of infant homicide is greatest on the day of birth. Of those infants killed on the day they are born, 95 percent are not born in a hospital and the perpetrator is usually the mother, who is likely to be an adolescent and have a history of mental illness (Paulozzi and Sells, 2002). Experts believe that child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are underreported because of variations in reporting requirements and definitions of terms such as “child homicide,” “abuse,” and “neglect” and because of a lack of national standards for investigating child deaths (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, 2003). Domestic Violence. Because definitions of what constitutes children’s exposure to domestic violence differ, as do research methodologies, estimates of prevalence vary widely (Osofsky, 2003; Edleson, 1999a; Fantuzzo and Mohr, 1999). Regardless of these conceptual and methodological issues, research findings to date provide clear evidence that domestic violence occurs in large numbers of households with children and that domestic violence and child maltreatment are often linked (Fantuzzo and Mohr, 1999; Osofsky, 2003). Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that from 1993 to 1998, approximately 1 million crimes of intimate partner violence were committed each year and that children resided in 43 percent of the households in which intimate partner violence occurred (Rennison and Welchans, 2000). Findings from the Spousal Assault Replication Program, a research project sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, show that children were present in households where domestic violence occurred at more than twice the rate at which they were present in comparable households in the general population. In addition, households that experienced domestic violence had a significantly higher proportion of children younger than age 5 than did households in the general population (Fantuzzo and Mohr, 1999). Based on data from the National Family Violence Survey conducted in 1979, Carlson (1984) estimated that at least 3.3 million American children between ages 3 and 17 are exposed to serious domestic violence each year (Jouriles et al., 2001). Straus (1992) estimated that as many as 10 million teenagers are exposed to domestic violence each year (Edleson, 1999a). Although Carlson’s 1984 and Straus’s 1992 estimates of the prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence are still widely cited today, researchers have called for a large, up-to-date, scientifically sound study of children’s exposure to domestic violence (Edleson, 1999a; Jouriles et al., 2001). Children who live in homes where domestic violence occurs face an increased risk of child maltreatment. Research studies reveal a 30- to 60-percent overlap between child abuse/neglect and domestic violence in such families, with a 40-percent median co-occurrence in the families studied (Edleson et al., 2003; Edleson, 1999b; National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, 2000). Community Violence In neighborhoods nationwide, children and adolescents are victims of homicide, victims of serious violent crime (e.g., rape, robbery, and assault), participants in physical fights, and witnesses to all these forms of violence. Although juvenile homicide rates in the United States have declined since
the early 1990s, they remain unacceptably high (Wilson, 2000). According
to CDC, an average of nine children and adolescents were killed every day
during the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1999, almost 34,000 young people (age
18 and younger) were killed. Homicide is the leading cause of death among
African American youth ages 15 to 19 and the second leading cause of death
among all youth in that age group (Thornton et al., Juveniles and young adults are far more likely to be victims of nonfatal violent crime (i.e., rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault) than persons from other age groups. In 2002, persons ages 16 to 19 experienced violent crime at a rate of 58.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons, and persons ages 12 to 15 were victimized at a rate of 44.4 per 1,000. In comparison, the overall violent crime rate in the United States in 2002 was 23.0 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older (Rennison and Rand, 2003). Physical fighting is a common occurrence in the lives of children. In 2001, one-third of all high school students reported that they had been in a physical fight within the past year, and 4 percent reported that they required medical treatment for their resulting injuries (Brown and Bzostek, 2003). In a recent review of the literature on children and adolescents who witness community violence, Buka and colleagues (2001) concluded that the reported rates in the United States are “disturbingly high,” particularly among males, ethnic minorities, and urban residents. In a study assessing predominantly low-income urban youth, approximately one-quarter of participants reported having witnessed a murder; that percentage ranged from 1 percent in a study of upper-middle-class youth (Gladstein, Rusonis, and Heald, 1992) to 47 percent in a study of low-income, predominantly African American youth (Fitzpatrick, 1997). The percentage of youth who reported witnessing a stabbing in their lifetime ranged from 9 percent in a sample of affluent youth (Gladstein, Rusonis, and Heald, 1992) to 56 percent in a sample of inner-city youth (Fitzpatrick, 1997). The percentage of youth who reported having witnessed a shooting ranged from 4 to 70 percent; among urban youth, the lowest prevalence rate was 20 percent. Buka and colleagues also noted that children and youth who reported witnessing severe violence such as murder, shooting, and stabbing were likely to have witnessed lesser types of violence as well. In a study of 97 young boys (ages 6 to 10) in New York City who were considered at high risk for antisocial behavior (because of their urban residence and the presence of a sibling with a juvenile court conviction), Miller et al. (1999) found that these children witnessed high levels of community violence. Among the study participants, 84 percent had heard guns being shot and 25 percent had witnessed a murder. Almost all of the participants (96 percent) had witnessed at least one of the nine violent events described by the investigators, and 75 percent had witnessed four or more violent events. Although most studies report that the prevalence of exposure to violence increases with age (Buka et al., 2001), even the youngest children witness community violence. In a study focusing on preschool children’s exposure to community violence, Shahinfar (1997) interviewed 155 parents and 73 children (ages 31/2 to 41/2) who were enrolled in Head Start programs in a low-income neighborhood near Washington, DC. Seventy-eight percent of the children and 67 percent of the parents reported that the child had witnessed or been the victim of at least one violent event ranging from “mild violence,” such as exposure to beating, chasing, pushing, shoving, and slapping, to “severe violence,” such as exposure to robbery, threatening with a weapon, shooting, and stabbing. Violence at School Few studies have examined violence in elementary schools. However, available data point to an “epidemic of violence on junior high and high school campuses” (Tolmas, 1999). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (DeVoe et al., 2003), in 2001, students ages 12 to 18 were victims of approximately 764,000 violent crimes at school, and the violent crime victimization rate at school was 28 violent victimizations per 1,000 students. Younger students (ages 12 to 14) were more likely than older students (ages 15 to 18) to be victimized at school. In addition, 8 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school within the last 6 months, 12 percent of male students and 7 percent of female students were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property, and students were more likely to be afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to school than away from school. Disparities in Levels of Violence Experienced by Different Groups of Children Disparities exist in the overall levels of violence experienced by different groups of children. A child’s risk of exposure to violence and the types of violence encountered vary by age, gender, and socioeconomic status (Brown and Bzostek, 2003; Buka et al., 2001). For example, infants and young children are more likely than older children to be victims of abuse and neglect or to be exposed to domestic violence, and the severity of maltreatment is greater for children younger than age 5. At every age, females are more likely than males to be victims of sexual assault (Rennison and Rand, 2003; Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000), while males are more likely to be victims of homicide. Low-income urban youth are more likely than their upper-middle-class counterparts to experience community violence (Lauritsen, 2003). Impact of Exposure to Violence on Overall Child Development A growing body of literature has examined the impact of family violence and child maltreatment on child development. In several instances, researchers have found that not all children exposed to violence show maladjustment or adverse impacts. Moreover, some children may show resilience, which is defined as not simply the absence of pathology, but the presence of competence in the face of crisis (Kitzmann et al., 2003). The effects of violence vary immensely from child to child and are influenced by factors such as family situation, community environment, and the existence of a positive and supportive relationship between the child and a caring adult. However, research continues to indicate the devastating impact of child maltreatment, family violence, and community violence on vulnerable children and society in general (Brill, Fiorentino, and Grant, 2001). Researchers have found that children exposed to violence in the home are often traumatized. Many children as young as age 2 exhibit symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, such as sleep disturbances, flashbacks, separation anxiety, aggression, hyperactivity, and emotional detachment (Graham-Bermann, 2002). Child Maltreatment Child maltreatment has immediate physical and long-term developmental effects on children. The short-term physical effects range from bruises and broken bones to physical disability and death. The long-term developmental effects include deficits in multisystem developmental achievements in behavioral, cognitive, and emotional regulation (De Bellis et al., 2001). These traumatic effects on psychological and emotional development are closely linked to later delinquent and criminal behavior. Graham-Berman (2002) noted in a recent review of the literature on child abuse and neglect that young victims are affected in three important developmental domains: (1) the development of secure attachments, which is the basic foundation of a child’s sense of self and ability to form trusting relationships; (2) the development of peer relationships, which shapes how a child reads social cues and interacts with others; and (3) the development of language, which is critical for academic success. Family Violence In a recent comparison study of 153 children (ages 5 to 16) whose mothers experienced police- or court-reported intimate partner violence, Kernic and colleagues (2002) found that, relative to children from the comparison group, children whose mothers experienced such violence were 60 percent more likely to have visited a nurse for physical health problems that resulted in being sent home from school. Children exposed to intimate partner violence were more than twice as likely as children from the comparison group to have visited a school nurse at least once during the study period for concerns related to social and emotional issues, four times more likely to have visited a nurse for alcohol-related or other drug assessments or concerns, and more than seven times more likely to have received a speech and pathology referral. Finally, the researchers found that children exposed to maternal intimate partner violence were significantly more likely to be suspended from school than children in the comparison group, and children exposed to both maternal intimate partner violence and child abuse were at greater risk of heightened aggression and delinquency (Kernic et al., 2002). In a study of 45 children from three elementary schools in kindergarten through fifth grade, Reynolds and colleagues (2001) found that, for children who had witnessed domestic violence, higher levels of symptoms indicative of posttraumatic stress were associated with greater numbers of depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem. However, the researchers indicated the need for further studies comparing children exposed to violence with other groups of children, such as children of divorce, children not in therapy, and children from intact families. Community Violence In a cross-sectional investigation focusing on the link between community violence exposure and academic difficulties, Schwartz and Gorman (2003) studied 237 urban elementary school students (mean age of 9 1/2) and found a strong association between children’s self-reporting of exposure to community violence and deficient academic performance. The results of the study suggest that children who are exposed to community violence may be vulnerable to academic difficulties because of depressive tendencies such as intrusive thoughts, decreased motivation, and low energy. The study also found evidence that children who experience community violence may be vulnerable to bullying or related social difficulties with school peers as a consequence of acquired deficits in emotion regulation and social-information processing (Schwartz and Gorman, 2003). The purpose of the Safe Start: Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence project is to reduce the impact of children’s exposure to violence, with particular emphasis on young children (age 6 and younger) and their families. The goal of the initiative is to collaboratively develop, implement, and evaluate promising practices and policies that will effectively reduce the harmful effects of children’s exposure to violence by increasing the identification of developmentally appropriate services for children and their families, improving access to these services, and enhancing the quality and delivery of services. Objectives The project seeks to collaboratively develop, implement, and evaluate promising practices and policies by doing the following:
OJJDP will select up to 14 applicants to receive up to $210,000 in funding through cooperative agreements for up to a 4-year period to implement the most promising approaches, based on current research, for reducing the impacts of children’s exposure to violence. These funds must be allocated proportionally to provide up to $200,000 for intervention activities related to practice and policy strategies and up to $10,000 for data collection activities. OJJDP recognizes that federal funding for this intervention project may not fully provide for all necessary resources associated with the intervention design proposed by the applicants; however, applicants should leverage and maximize existing resources in this collaborative effort. Applicants may also target interventions, when reasonable and cost-effective, to areas of specific need within the community to narrow the scale of the intervention. Applicants are required to identify collaborative intersections between agencies and systems to focus the intervention activities. Intervention activities may take the form of delivering direct services; developing and implementing revised policies, protocols, and procedures within the collaborative organizations applying for these funds; or a combination of both. All proposed activities must be logical, comprehensive, and sound, with the purpose of reducing the negative impacts of exposure on children; activities may, therefore, require both direct services and policy enhancement. The proposed approach must be based on current research and knowledge in the field of exposure to violence and must be diagramed in a logic model described in detail under the data collection section. Applicants must commit to working cooperatively and collaboratively with OJJDP and other partners in a national effort to implement and evaluate the projects. Target Population The target population for this project is children exposed to violence (infants to age 18) and their families. Particular emphasis is given, however, to young children (infants to age 6) and their families. The rationale for this emphasis, which is important in developing a suitable project design, is twofold. Research shows that young children are at the greatest risk of harm from exposure; however, despite this increased risk, the effect of exposure on young children is often unrecognized. In addition, the number of resources, services, and points of entry into services and support for young children is limited, particularly the number of services that are developmentally specific, which is a critical factor in effectively serving young children. This project places specific emphasis on defining exposure in terms of direct victimization (e.g, child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment) and indirect victimization (e.g., witnessing domestic and community violence). A combined approach is emphasized to appropriately respond to the high levels of co-occurrence of direct and indirect exposure documented in the literature and to create project designs that most effectively maximize resources to respond comprehensively to these forms of exposure. An important distinction to note in this definition is that exposure is limited to “violence” and not defined in the broader terms of “trauma.” This distinction is made for purposes of the overall project design and is intended to limit interventions and eligibility for children and families who may have experienced a significant trauma, but not a direct or indirect exposure to violence as defined by this announcement. The intent is to maintain an overall focus on defining exposure to violence in terms of the relative proximal distance to an incident and the intent to harm. For example, children who witness a shooting in their neighborhood or who witness the intimate partner violence of their parent clearly meet the definition of exposure. Children who are riding a school bus and are involved in or witness a traumatic car accident with injuries or even fatalities may demonstrate the need for intervention support. Although nonviolent trauma is not part of the defined focus of this project, a limited number of case-level decisions can be made to effectively respond in specific incidences of trauma when a child has proximal distance to the incident. Children who experience traumatic events indirectly may need support services such as grief counseling; however, these services fall outside of the scope of work of this project. Sample Projects Although current research is not conclusive about the incidence and prevalence of exposure to violence or the specific interventions that are most effective, much knowledge has been developed in the field during the past 10 years. Several promising approaches have emerged that highlight intervention strategies for developing critical partnerships among various agencies (e.g., law enforcement and mental health, mental health and child development, medical services and mental health, and domestic violence services, child protective services, and the courts). Applicants should be aware of these established strategies for intervention and should use the promising approaches demonstrated by a number of projects. (A list of such projects appears below. Please note that this list is illustrative, not exhaustive.)
These examples illustrate a few key intervention projects operating in the field of children’s exposure to violence. OJJDP has supported many of the projects. However, evaluation data related to the effectiveness of strategies remain limited. The Safe Start: Promising Approaches effort seeks to expand these and other innovative intervention strategies while also expanding the evidence base for determining effectiveness in a broad range of interventions. Applicants will therefore be expected to implement innovate collaborative strategies and to commit to and conduct significant data collection to support a national evaluation of the promising approaches in each selected site. Applicants needing additional information about the projects listed above and current literature on children’s exposure to violence may refer to the contact information list provided in appendix B. This list includes Web links and brief project descriptions. Sample Project Strategies The projects identified in the previous section use a range of established strategies. The following sample strategies convey the breadth and range of options for practice and policy interventions:
Applicants should determine the most appropriate and effective strategies for their communities based on an assessment of the community and a demonstrated knowledge of the research in this area of exposure. Please note that in developing and defining a project design, applicants must clearly identify the nexus within which the collaborative partners propose to work; all project designs must be developmentally specific and appropriate. To add to the knowledge base on children’s exposure to violence, OJJDP will conduct a comprehensive, rigorous national evaluation of the project. Sites will be required to collect and submit certain data to OJJDP for the purpose of this evaluation. The required data elements include: Performance Measures (submitted quarterly)
OJJDP funding recipients under the Safe Start: Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence project are expected to develop and implement promising practices and policies that will effectively reduce the harmful effects of children’s exposure to violence by increasing the identification of developmentally appropriate services for children and their families, improving access to these services, and enhancing the quality and delivery of services. Additionally, recipients are required to fully participate in a national evaluation of their projects. Case Variables (submitted semiannually) For each child served: 1. The type(s) of violence the child witnessed:
2. Severity of violence. Did the child witness:
3. Child’s relationship to persons involved:
4. Frequency of violence:
5. Age of child at this exposure. 6. Gender of child. 7. Race/ethnicity of child. 8. Length of time since the index incident. 9. Child’s proximity to the violent event witnessed (approximate linear distance). 10. At intake, has the child already received any intervention or treatment for this incidence of exposure? Yes (describe)/No. 11. Does the child display any of the following sequelae at intake (preintervention)? Yes/No and how measured (instrument/scale):
12. Does the child display any of the following sequelae at followup (postintervention?) Yes/No and how measured (instrument/scale):
Children receiving services should receive a followup semiannually for 24 months after the intervention. Thus, case variable number 12 above will be reported several times for each child served. The application should include a table or spreadsheet that identifies the data source and collection frequency for each data element listed in appendix A. Data collection instruments should be validated and nationally known. Instruments should be identified by name and citation. Sites are not required to perform analyses of the data, although local evaluation plans that include analysis of local data are encouraged. Participation in the National Evaluation of Safe Start: Promising Approaches In conjunction with the selection and funding of Safe Start: Promising Approaches sites, OJJDP will fund a comprehensive, rigorous national evaluation of the initiative. Sites will be required to participate in the national evaluation, which will include interviews with program staff, collaborators, and clients; site visits and observations of program activities; assisting with the selection of a local evaluator; and other efforts. Cooperation with the national evaluation is a requirement for selection; failure to collect and report required data may be considered grounds for termination from the initiative. The national evaluation of the Safe Start: Promising Approaches project will employ a quasi-experimental design that includes the collection of relevant data on the children and families receiving treatment or participating in the intervention (the “treatment group”) and on a comparison or control group that does not receive services or treatment. The nontreatment group should resemble the treatment group as closely as possible along important demographic and contextual variables (such as race/ethnicity, age, sociodemographic status, type of exposure). After sites are selected for funding, the national evaluator and OJJDP will work with them to identify an appropriate source for comparison/control group families and to collect data. Sites are required to cooperate in this effort. To facilitate the implementation of the treatment and nontreatment group design, applicants should address the following issues in their applications:
Applicants that are unfamiliar with evaluation design and the use of treatment and control groups may want to consult a person with such expertise at a university, local government agency, or evaluation/research firm. For more information on OJJDP’s evaluation of the Safe Start program, including lessons learned, applicants may contact Katherine Darke Schmitt at OJJDP at katherine.darke.schmitt@usdoj.gov. OJJDP invites applications from collaborative groups of two or more public agencies (including state agencies, local units of government, and tribal governments) and/or private organizations who agree to waive any profit or fee. Joint applications from two or more eligible applicants are required, and one applicant must be clearly indicated as the lead agency with the others indicated as coapplicants. Applicants must apply jointly with another key agency or group of agencies working together to implement specific practice and policy strategies for reducing the impact of children’s exposure to violence. Local jurisdictions receiving current funding support under the Safe Start Demonstration Project are not eligible to apply. These jurisdictions include Baltimore, Maryland; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Chatham County, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Pinellas County, Florida; Rochester, New York; San Francisco, California; Spokane, Washington; Washington County, Maine; Sitka Tribe of Alaska; and Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico. Faith-Based and Community Organizations It is OJP policy that faith-based and community organizations that statutorily qualify as eligible applicants under OJP programs are invited and encouraged to apply for assistance awards. Faith-based and community organizations will be considered for an award on the same basis as other eligible applicants and, if they receive assistance awards, will be treated on an equal basis with non-faith-based and community organization grantees in the administration of such awards. No eligible applicant or grantee will be discriminated against on the basis of its religious character or affiliation, religious name, or the religious composition of its board of directors or persons working in the organization. OJJDP is committed to ensuring a competitive and standardized process for awarding grants. Applications will be screened initially to determine whether the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements as noted above. Only applications submitted by eligible applicants that meet all other requirements will be evaluated, scored, and rated by a peer review panel according to the selection criteria described under Application Requirements. All applications that proceed to peer review will be rated on a 100-point scale. Point values for individual elements of the application are presented below with the description of each element. Peer reviewers’ ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory only. All final grant award decisions will be made by the U.S. Department of Justice, which may also give consideration to geographic distribution when making awards. Detailed information about OJJDP’s peer review process can be found on the OJJDP Web site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/funding/peerreview.html). Applicants must submit the following information online through GMS:
Detailed instructions and descriptions of each of the required application elements are provided below. Applications that do not include all the required elements will not be considered for funding. Note: Files attached to applications submitted online in GMS must be in the following formats: Microsoft Word (.doc), PDF files (.pdf), or text documents (.txt). An Application Checklist has been provided for your convenience. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Beginning October 1, 2003 a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be included in every application for a new award or renewal of an award. The DUNS number will be required whether an applicant is submitting an application through OJP’s Grants Management System or through the governmentwide electronic portal (grants.gov). An application will not be considered complete until a valid DUNS number is provided by the applicant. Individuals who would personally receive a grant or cooperative agreement from the federal government are exempt from this requirement. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps necessary to obtain one as soon as possible. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 800–333–0505. GMS Registration Applicants must register for this solicitation by selecting “Safe Start: Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence” from the Funding Opportunities page in GMS. To register, applicants must select “Apply Now,” read the warning message that appears, and select “Continue.” The deadline for applicants to register on GMS is September 8, 2004. Application for Federal Assistance (SF–424) Applicants must complete the Overview, Applicant Information, and Project Information sections of GMS. These sections provide the information needed to generate the Application for Federal Assistance (SF–424), a standard form used by most federal agencies. Assurances and Certifications Applicants are required to review and accept the Assurances and Certifications. Please verify that the name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the authorizing official on these online forms are correct. Assurances The applicant must comply with Assurances to receive federal funds under this program. It is the responsibility of the recipient of the federal funds to fully understand and comply with these requirements. Failure to comply may result in the withholding of funds, termination of the award, or other sanctions. Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; and the Drug-Free Workplace Requirement Applicants are required to review and check off the box on the certification form included in the online application process. This form commits the applicant to compliance with the certification requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, “New Restrictions on Lobbying,” and 28 CFR Part 67, “A Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-Wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace.” Applicants should be aware that the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1913, recently was amended to expand significantly the restriction on the use of appropriated funding for lobbying. This expansion also makes the anti-lobbying restrictions enforceable via large civil penalties, with civil fines between $10,000 and $100,000 per each individual occurrence of lobbying activity. These restrictions are in addition to the anti-lobbying and lobbying disclosure restrictions imposed by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently in the process of amending the OMB cost circulars and the common rule (codified at 28 CFR Part 69 for U.S. Department of Justice grantees) to reflect these modifications. However, in the interest of full disclosure, all applicants must understand that no federally appropriated funding made available under this grant program may be used, either directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government, without the express approval of OJP. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a minimum $10,000 fine for each occurrence. This prohibition applies to all activity, even if currently allowed within the parameters of the existing OMB circulars. The authorizing official must review the Assurances and Certifications forms in their entirety. To accept the Assurances and Certifications in GMS, click on the Assurances and Certifications link and click the “Accept” button at the bottom of the screen. Budget Detail Worksheet (10 points) Applicants must provide a budget that (1) is complete, allowable, and cost effective in relation to the proposed activities; (2) shows the cost calculations demonstrating how the applicant arrived at the total amount requested; (3) includes both the federal request and any match, including in-kind contributions; and (4) provides a brief supporting narrative to link costs with project activities. The budget must reflect the guidelines under Award Amount and Award Period. Total costs specified in the complete budget must match the amount provided in the Estimated Funding section of the Project Information screen in GMS. All funds listed in the budget will be subject to audit. Budget Worksheet and Narrative Applicants must submit a budget that includes both a detailed worksheet itemizing all costs and a narrative explaining and justifying each budget item. The worksheet should provide the detailed computation for each budget line item. The narrative should describe each budget item and relate it to the appropriate project activity. It should closely follow the content of the budget worksheet and provide justification for all proposed costs. In the budget narrative, the applicant should explain how fringe benefits were calculated, how travel costs were estimated, why particular items of equipment or supplies must be purchased, and how overhead or indirect costs (if applicable) were calculated. The budget narrative should also justify the specific items listed in the budget worksheet (particularly supplies, travel, and equipment) and demonstrate that all costs are reasonable. As with the Program Narrative and Other Program Attachments, the Budget Detail Worksheet file must be submitted in an approved format (Microsoft Word document, PDF file, or text document). Program Narrative (Total: 90 points) The Program Narrative, which is limited to 30 single-spaced pages, is worth a total of 90 points in the peer reviewers’ scoring. The program narrative must include the following items. Problem(s) To Be Addressed (10 points) Applicants must provide a detailed description, to the extent known, of the incidence and prevalence of children’s exposure to violence in the target community. This discussion must address the nature and extent of children’s exposure to violence, including the factors in the community that put children at high risk of exposure to violence. Applicants should provide indicators or measures of the extent of the problem based on current local data, such as crime, justice, health, and economic statistics. Applicants should also identify current community resources and efforts to reduce the effects of exposure to violence on children, noting any gaps in community response/service delivery. Applicants should indicate their knowledge of how and why coordination among their specific community partners can be effective in addressing the effects of exposure on children. Based on this assessment of the current needs and resources in the community, applicants should clearly define the intersection for intervention work and the collaborative agencies required to carry out the intervention. As a part of this identification, applicants should clearly define the exposure as it applies to the locally identified need and intervention approach in the community. Note: The definition of exposure presented by the applicant must be within the scope of the definition for exposure presented in this announcement (see Defining Exposure to Violence) Although an applicant may choose to narrow the definition, the narrowed definition must be consistent with the data, stated need, and requirement for a comprehensive approach. Goals and Objectives (10 Points) Applicants must first outline the shared vision for reducing the impact of exposure to violence, describing how the involved systems and agencies will operate upon full implementation of the proposed practice and/or policy strategies. Applicants will be evaluated on a clear, far-reaching, realistic vision statement. Applicants must then provide a clear set of project goals and objectives as they logically relate not only to the needs, resources, and capabilities of their communities (which applicants should list in the response to the “Problems To Be Addressed” section above) but also to the current research base and stated outcomes expected as a result of the intervention work. Objectives must be quantified, measurable, and attainable within the timeframe of the 4-year project period and be congruent with the project’s goals and objectives. Applicants must describe in detail the specific project design to be undertaken and the agencies collaboratively involved in implementing the intervention approach. Applicants must identify all major activities to be undertaken and any policies, procedures, and protocols to be addressed (developed or modified within the participating agencies). Activities must be defined in such discrete detail that all activities are quantified and described in terms of the targeted group; the criteria for identifying, screening, and assessing the target group, if applicable; the number to be served; and the type of activity or service to be provided. The type of activity to be provided must describe in detail the frequency, duration, and intensity of the activity. For example, the frequency, duration, and intensity of a training activity could be “once a month,” “2 hours,” and “for 6 months,” respectively. In addition, the project design must include a timeline/milestone chart identifying each task or action step necessary for each identified activity and the agency and staff responsible (job functions). Weight will be given to intervention approaches that are both comprehensive and balanced with clearly defined mechanisms and points of entry to identifying and supporting children who have been exposed to violence and their families. Data Collection and Submission Requirements (25 Points) This section details the data collection and submission requirements that must be addressed in the application. These guidelines describe the minimum acceptable data collection efforts. Applicants may elect to collect additional data or to followup for longer periods as they deem appropriate. To be considered for selection, sites must address the following in their application: Name of the Data Collection/Management Specialist. Sites should identify the person who will be responsible for the data collection and management and discuss his or her experience/expertise in this area. Logic Model. Applicants must submit a logic model diagraming the relationship between the research/evidence base on children’s exposure to violence and the policy, practice, or intervention to be undertaken with this award. The logic model should show inputs, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes aligned with the goals and purposes of the initiative. For more information about logic models, applicants may refer to “Everything You Wanted to Know About Logic Models But Were Afraid to Ask” (www.insites.org/documents/logmod.htm) or “Logic Modeling: A Tool for Teaching Practice Evaluation” (Journal of Social Word Education, No. 1, pp. 103–117). Informed Consent. The application must describe the procedures to be used to obtain informed consent from all participating families. Informed consent procedures must inform participants that case data without any identifying information will be reported to OJJDP for use in the evaluation. Institutional Review Board Clearance. Applicants must seek and obtain institutional review board (IRB) clearance for data collection activities, including reporting data to OJJDP and participating in the comparison/control group design of the national evaluation. Data Collection Plans. Click here for a detailed list of the performance measures and case variables required. Applicants should describe their strategy to collect and submit quarterly Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure data and case variables for each child served. Applicants should identify the sources of the data, the instruments to be used, and the frequency of collection for all required data elements and any other data that the site proposes to collect. Instruments and measures should be validated and logically connected to the outputs and outcomes they are intended to measure. If access to another agency’s data is required, proof of access/availability must be submitted with the application in the form of a letter or memorandum of cooperation between the applicant and the owner of the data. Followup Data Collection Procedures. Case variable number 12 and any other outcome variable(s) the applicant deems relevant should be collected, at a minimum, semiannually for 24 months. The application should include procedures for tracking former clients, in particular those who are difficult to locate. Applicants may consider the use of incentives to encourage clients to participate in followup data collection. Comparison/Control Group Plans. The applicant should address the following questions related to the comparison/control group design of the national evaluation:
Data Storage and Reporting. The applicant should describe how data will be stored and managed (e.g., what software will be used and who will be responsible for entering, verifying, and labeling the data). The applicant should describe how the data will be transmitted to OJJDP (e.g., how, in what format, using what software). Data that contain personally identifying information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers should not be reported to OJJDP. Applicants should describe the procedure they will use to “scrub” data of identifying information for submission to OJJDP and to assign a case number to each case to facilitate longitudinal tracking. Organizational Capability and Management (20 Points) Applicants should use this section to describe a sound leadership design and an administration and operating structure that is capable of carrying out the proposed initiative. Applicants should demonstrate the following: organizational and collaborative readiness, an effective team management structure among the collaborative partners, and a strong organizational capability that is commensurate with the scope of work outlined in this solicitation. These elements and their share of the 20 points available under this criterion are discussed below. Section 1 (10 points) Organizational Capability and Leadership. Applicants must identify members of the collaborative’s key leadership and describe their respective roles and responsibilities. Key leadership must include the agency leadership authorized to make internal policy and procedural changes to ensure successful implementation of the proposed interventions. Applicants must have demonstrated expertise in the organizational capabilities necessary to oversee a project of this size and scope. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly commits all collaborative agencies participating in this intervention project to all required elements of this program narrative and the terms and resources agreed upon locally must be provided as part of the Other Program Attachments. Collaborative Readiness. Applicants should provide a detailed description of how the coapplicants (collaborative partners) are ready to engage in the full scope of this project. Applicants should demonstrate a readiness to implement improvement strategies, including how the proposed vision and project design will build on and complement current collaborative planning processes to achieve the project’s objectives. Applicants should discuss the coapplicants’ history of collaboration and planning. Applicants should also demonstrate evidence of a climate favorable to children and families by listing current agency policies, cross-agency protocols, and MOUs and interagency agreements that aid collaboration in regard to project objectives. In particular, applicants should provide evidence of specific and detailed experience in leading collaborative and system improvement efforts. Applicants also must clearly demonstrate a commitment to participating collaboratively with OJJDP, the national partners, and other relevant participants in the implementation and evaluation of these interventions. Furthermore, applicants should demonstrate a willingness and an ability to build capacity beyond their own jurisdiction and to transfer knowledge to other communities and related partner agencies. Section 2 (10 Points) Management. Applicants should outline a proposed staffing structure and management plan. Key staff should also be identified, including all project intervention staff and managers and the data collection specialist referenced above in the data collection section of the project design. Applicants should identify roles and responsibilities for all staff and describe the core management team. In addition, the capabilities and experience of all staff who will participate in the management team or play lead roles in the effort should be included. Applicants should (1) provide résumés of key personnel and include their job descriptions in the Other Program Attachments, (2) indicate the percentage of time that each named staff person or consultant will devote to the project, (3) describe the lines of supervision and authority, and (4) describe the management structure and practices that will be used to evaluate the staff, take corrective action when needed, and ensure the success of the program. Organizational charts are also useful and should be included in the review of this selection criteria. Format The Program Narrative (including all required sections) must be single-spaced using a standard 12-point font and 1-inch margins on all sides. Please limit the use of acronyms. If used, acronyms must be spelled out when first referenced. The Program Narrative must not exceed 30 pages (please number pages 1 of 30, 2 of 30, etc.). This 30-page limit includes any charts, tables, or figures. As with the Budget Detail Worksheet and Other Program Attachments, the Program Narrative file must be submitted in an approved format (Microsoft Word document, PDF file, or text document). Applicants must provide the following materials in a single file as an attachment to their GMS application. As with the Budget Detail Worksheet and Program Narrative attachments, the Other Program Attachments file must be submitted in an approved format (Microsoft Word document, PDF file, or text document). Please provide the following items in the order presented here and use the headings as indicated, starting each section on a new page. In other words, the Other Program Attachments will be one file with seven sections, with each section beginning on a new page. The sections are:
The result of Safe Start Promising Approaches will be to identify promising practices and policies that reduce the harmful effects of children’s exposure to violence. In order to identify which practices and policies are most effective, OJJDP will conduct an outcome evaluation of this program and will address the following key performance measure:
The ultimate goal is to replicate these promising practices and policies to reduce the harmful effects of children’s exposure to violence. In addition to the performance measure above, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Public Law 103–62, requires that recipients of federal grant awards collect, analyze, and report data that measure the results of strategies implemented with federal funds. To ensure compliance with GPRA, grantees will be required to collect and report data that measure the results of the program implemented with this grant. To ensure accountability of these data, for which OJP is responsible, the following performance measures are required, showing increases in—
Award recipients will be required to collect and report data in support of these measures. Recipients’ assistance in obtaining this information will facilitate future program planning and will allow OJP to provide Congress with measurable program results of federally funded programs. Single Point of Contact Review Executive Order 12372 requires applicants from state and local units of government or other organizations providing services within a state to submit a copy of the application to the state Single Point of Contact (SPOC) if one exists and if this program has been selected for review by the state. A list of state SPOCs is available on the OMB Web site (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html). Applicants must contact their state SPOCs to determine whether their programs have been selected for state review. The date that the application was sent to the SPOC or the reason such submission is not required should be entered in Block 3 of the Overview section of the GMS application. Coordination of Federal Efforts To encourage better coordination among federal agencies in addressing state and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice requests that applicants provide information on the following: (1) active federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts, including awards from the U.S. Department of Justice; (2) any pending application(s) for federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the funding sought by this application. For each federal award, applicants must include the program or project title, the federal grantor agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose. “Related efforts” is defined for these purposes as one of the following:
Civil Rights Compliance All recipients of federal grant funds are required to comply with nondiscrimination requirements contained in various federal laws. In the event that a court or administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or age against a recipient of funds after a due process hearing, the recipient must agree to forward a copy of the finding to the Office of Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs. All applicants should consult the Assurances required to be submitted with the application to understand the applicable legal and administrative requirements. National origin discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI and the Safe Streets Act, recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to their programs. Meaningful access may entail providing language assistance services, including oral and written translation when necessary. The U.S. Department of Justice has issued guidance for grantees to assist them in complying with Title VI requirements. The guidance document can be accessed on the Internet at www.lep.gov, by contacting OJP’s Office for Civil Rights at 202–307–0690, or by writing to the following address: Office for Civil Rights Privacy Certificate Requirements Applicants should be aware of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) requirements for privacy and confidentiality in research and statistical efforts. These requirements are stipulated by 42 U.S.C. § 3879g. DOJ has issued a specific regulation concerning the implementation of this statutory requirement in 28 CFR Part 22. In accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, applicants requesting funds for research or statistical activities must submit a Privacy Certificate with the application. The purpose of the Privacy Certificate is to ensure that the applicant has appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect the confidentiality of data identifiable to private persons. Specifically, the Privacy Certificate must be in compliance with the requirements of 28 CFR § 22.23. OJJDP has developed guidelines for preparing a Privacy Certificate in accordance with the confidentiality regulation. Copies of the Privacy Certificate Guidelines, a Privacy Certificate Face Sheet, and a Sample Attachment for a Privacy Certificate are available on the OJJDP Web site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/funding/privacy.pdf). Applicants are further advised that any project that will involve the use of human research subjects must be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB), in accordance with DOJ regulations at 28 CFR Part 46. IRB review is not required prior to submission of the application. However, if an award is made and the project involves research using human subjects, OJJDP will place a special condition on the award requiring that the project be approved by an appropriate IRB before federal funds can be disbursed for activities involving human subjects. Applicants should include plans for IRB review, where applicable, in the project timeline submitted with the proposal. A copy of “Confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical Information (28 CFR Part 22)” is available on the OJJDP Web site (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/funding/confidentiality.pdf). Financial Requirements Discretionary grants are governed by the provisions of the OMB circulars applicable to financial assistance and the OJP’s Financial Guide available from the OJP Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/oc). The Guide includes information on allowable costs, methods of payment, audit requirements, accounting systems, and financial records. This document will govern the administration of funds by all successful applicants. Government Audit Requirements Audits of state and local units of government, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit institutions must comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB circular A–133, which states that recipients who expend $500,000 or more of federal funds during their fiscal year are required to submit an organizationwide financial and compliance audit report within 9 months after the close of each fiscal year during the term of the award to their cognizant federal agency. Grantees must comply with the following OJP reporting requirements:
Suspension or Termination of Funding OJJDP may suspend funding in whole or in part, terminate funding, or impose other sanctions on a recipient for the following reasons:
Before imposing sanctions, OJJDP will provide reasonable notice to the recipient of its intent to impose sanctions and will attempt to resolve the problem informally. Hearing and appeal procedures will follow those in DOJ regulations in 28 CFR Part 18. Brill, C., Fiorentino, N., and Grant, J. 2001. Covictimization and inner city youth: A review. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health 3(4):229–239. Brown, B.V., and Bzostek, S. 2003. Violence in the lives of children. Cross Currents 1. Retrieved on December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.childtrendsdatabank.org. Buka, S.L, Stichick, T.L., Birdthistle, I., and Earls, F.J. 2001. Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 71(3):298–310. Carter, L.S., Weithorn, L.A., and Behrman, R.E. 1999. Domestic violence and children: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, Domestic Violence and Children 9(3):1–20. Carlson, B.E. 1984. Children’s observations of interpersonal violence. In Battered Women and Their Families, edited by A. Roberts. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 147–167. Chalk, R., Gibbons, A., and Scarupa, H. 2002. The Multiple Dimensions of Child Abuse and Neglect: New Insights into an Old Problem. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved on December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.childtrendsdatabank.org. Cohen, E., and Walthall, B. 2003. Silent realities: Supporting young children and their families who experience violence. Washington, DC: The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. Retrieved on February 20, 2004, from the Web: www.cwresource.org/Online publications/SilentRealities1.pdf. Dawes, A., and Donald, D. 2000. Improving children’s chances: Developmental theory and effective interventions in community contexts. In Addressing Childhood Adversity, edited by D. Donald, A. Dawes, and J. Louw. Cape Town, South Africa: David Philip, pp. 1–25. De Bellis, M.D., Broussard, E.R., Herring, D.J., Wexler, S., Moritz, G., and Benitez, J.G. 2001. Psychiatric co-morbidity in caregivers and children involved in maltreatment: A pilot research study with policy implications. Child Abuse and Neglect 25:923–944. DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Planty, M., Snyder, T.D., and Rand, M.R. 2003. Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs02.htm. Dilillo, D., Tremblay, G., and Peterson, L. 2000. Materal anger. Child Abuse and Neglect 24(6):767–779. Edleson, J.L. 1999a. Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14(8):839–870. Edleson, J.L. 1999b. The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women 5(2):134–154. Edleson, J.L., Mbilinyi, L.F., Beeman, S.K., and Hagemeister, A.K. 2003. How children are involved in adult domestic violence: Results from a four-city telephone survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18(1):18–32. Fantuzzo, J.W., and Mohr, W.K. 1999. Prevalence and effects of child exposure to domestic violence. The Future of Children 9(3): 21–32. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.futureofchildren.org. Fitzpatrick, K.M. 1997. Aggression and environmental risk among low-income African-American youth. Journal of Adolescent Health 21:172–178. Frierson, T.A. 1999. The prevalence and impact of exposure to violence among emotionally disturbed/behaviorally disordered boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(7–A), 2444. Gladstein, J., Rusonis, E.J., and Heald, F.P. 1992. A comparison of inner-city and upper middle class youth’s exposure to violence. Journal of Adolescent Health 13:275–280. Graham-Bermann, S.A. 2002. Child abuse in the context of domestic violence. In The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (2d ed), edited by John E.B. Myers and Lucy Berliner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 119–129. Jouriles, E.N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W.D., and Ezell, E. 2001. Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children: The Future of Research, Intervention, and Social Policy, edited by S.A. Graham-Bermann and J.L. Edleson. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 12–34. Kernic, M.A., Holt, V.L., Wolf, M.E., McKnight, B., Huebner, C.E., and Rivara, F.P. 2002. Academic and school health issues among children exposed to maternal intimate partner abuse. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 156(6):549–555. Kiztmann, K.M., Gaylord, N.K., Holt, A.R., and Kenny, E.D. 2003. Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(2):339–352. Lauritsen, J.L. 2003. How Families and Communities Influence Youth Victimization. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Margolin, G., and Gordis, E.B. 2000. The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology 51:445–479. Miller, L.S., Wasserman, G.A., Neugebauer, R., Gorman-Smith, D., and Kamboukas, D. 1999. Witnessed community violence and antisocial behavior in high-risk, urban boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 28(1):2–11. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. 2003. Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from the Web: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. 2000. In Harm’s Way: Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from the Web: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/otherpubs/harmsway.cfm. National Library of Medicine. 2002. Medical Encyclopedia. Traumatic event. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from the Web: www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001924.htm. Osofsky, J.D. 2003. Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence and child maltreatment: Implications for prevention and intervention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 6(3):161–170. Paulozzi, L., and Sells, M. 2002. Variation in homicide risk during infancy-United States, 1989–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(9):187–189. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from the Web: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5109a3.htm. Rennison, C.M., and Rand, M.R. 2003. Criminal Victimization, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from the Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. Rennison, C.M., and Welchans, S. 2000. Intimate Partner Violence. Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from the Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. Reynolds, M.W., Wallace, J., Hill, T.F., Weist, M.D., and Nabors, L.A. 2001. The relationship between gender, depression, and self-esteem in children who have witnessed domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect 25:1201–1206. Shahinfar, A. 1997. Preschool children’s exposure to community violence: Prevalence, correlates, and moderating factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, No. 9836528. Somer, E., and Braunstein, A. 1999. Are children exposed to interparental violence being psychologically maltreated? Aggression and Violent Behavior 4:449–456. Straus, M.A. 1992. Children as Witnesses to Marital Violence: A Risk for Lifelong Problems Among a Nationally Representative Sample of American Men and Women. Report of the 23rd Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories. Schwartz, D., and Gorman, A.H. 2003. Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(1):163–173. Thornton, T.N., Craft, C.A., Dahlberg, L.L., Lynch, B.S., and Baer, K. 2002. Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.cdc.gov/ncipc. Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. 2000. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Tolmas, H.C. 1999. The epidemic of adolescent violence in the U.S.A. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 11(3–4):135–151. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. 2003. Child Maltreatment 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from the Web: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications. Wilson, J.J. 2000. Children as Victims. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved January 9, 2004, from the Web: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org. Cohen, E., and Walthall, B. 2003. Silent Realities: Supporting Young Children and Their Families Who Experience Violence. Washington, DC: National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2000. Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children Exposed to Violence. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Osofsky, J.D., and Fenichel, E. 1996. Islands of Safety: Assessing and Treating Young Victims of Violence. Washington, DC: Zero To Three. Up to $210,000 in funding through cooperative agreements will be awarded to as many as 14 applicants for terms as long as 4 years. These funds must be allocated proportionately to provide up to $200,000 for intervention activities related to practice and policy strategies and up to $10,000 for data collection activities. Funding is available for up to a 4-year period. Applications must be received by 8:00 p.m. ET on September 10, 2004. For additional information, call OJJDP at 202-307-1341 .
|
|||||||
