The Assessment and Treatment of Children Who Abuse Animals: The AniCare Child Approach

Kenneth Shapiro, Mary Lou Randour, Susan Krinsk and Joann L. WolfThe Assessment and Treatment of Children Who Abuse Animals2014The AniCare Child Approach10.1007/978-3-319-01089-2_1© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

1. Context

Kenneth Shapiro¹ , Mary Lou Randour², Susan Krinsk³ and Joann L. Wolf⁴

(1)

Animals and Society Institute, Inc., Washington Grove, MD, USA

(2)

Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, DC, USA

(3)

Child Protective Center, Sarasota, FL, USA

(4)

Put-in-Bay, OH, USA

Abstract

There are treatments available for children with a wide variety of problems, including behavioral disorders, fire-setting, and other syndromes such as anxiety disorders, depression, sleep problems, and encopresis. Although juvenile animal abuse is far too common, and has long-standing and multiple negative consequences for the child and society, until the publication of AniCare Adult in 1998 and the first edition of AniCare Child in 2002, there was no treatment approach with an exclusive focus on juvenile animal abuse. AniCare Child filled that gap by providing specific and reliable treatment approaches for children who abuse animals.

1.1 The Need

There are treatments available for children with a wide variety of problems, including behavioral disorders, fire-setting, and other syndromes such as anxiety disorders, depression, sleep problems, and encopresis. Although juvenile animal abuse is far too common, and has long-standing and multiple negative consequences for the child and society, until the publication of AniCare Adult in 1998 and the first edition of AniCare Child in 2002, there was no treatment approach with an exclusive focus on juvenile animal abuse. AniCare Child filled that gap by providing specific and reliable treatment approaches for children who abuse animals.

1.2 Development of AniCare Child

The development of AniCare Child is based on clinical experience, a review of effective treatments for children that are relevant to this topic, and consultation with and review by other experts. Two of the coauthors of AniCare Child, who have considerable experience working with children with behavioral problems such as animal abuse and provided detailed clinical insight, are Susan Krinsk, LMHC of the Child Protection Center of Sarasota, Florida, and Joey Wolf, M.A., formerly Director of the Aurora Center for Treatment in Aurora, Colorado. The other coauthor, Mary Lou Randour, Ph.D., also coauthored AniCare Adult.

In addition to the coauthors, a number of others helped develop AniCare Child. Other contributors to AniCare Child provided valuable feedback, read early drafts, and offered important clinical and theoretical insights: Frank Ascione, Ph.D.; Edith A. Bennett, Ph.D.; Barbara Boat, Ph.D.; Peter Campos, Ph.D.; Deborah Matthews, Ph.D.; and Richard Ruth, Ph.D.

Undertaken by Kenneth Shapiro, the third edition applies the collected experience of several AniCare-certified trainers who have conducted 65 workshops in 23 states. AniCare Child encompasses several theoretical perspectives—attachment theory, cognitive behaviorism and trauma-informed personal narrative, and psychodynamic theory.

Although clinicians are generally trained in a particular theoretical orientation, many clinicians adopt an eclectic approach, borrowing from other perspectives as needed. The interventions of AniCare Child, which draw from numerous sources, are useful for clinicians of varied theoretical backgrounds.

1.3 Background

Juvenile crime statistics portray a disturbing trend in the last several decades. Youth violence began to increase in the 1960s, and while it remained high, it also showed relative stability until the mid-1980s. It then began to increase steadily, shooting up dramatically in 1993, and then slowly declining to the (still high) rate of the 1980s.

Although the troubling spike of youth violence in 1993 has abated, it remains the second leading cause of death for youth between the ages of 10 and 24 (Centers for Disease Control, 2010). Additionally, much attention is now being given low-level aggression, which includes such antisocial acts as verbal insults, pushing and shoving, violating rules, and theft (Moeller, 2001). Researchers have documented the negative impact of bullying (Hilton, Anngela-Cole, & Wakita, 2010). Some writers contend that engaging in low-level aggressive behaviors encourages the commission of more violent acts (Goldstein, 1999; Toby, 1995). Data from the large-scale longitudinal Pittsburgh Youth Study (Loeber et al., 1993) suggest multiple developmental pathways from low-level aggression to more serious acts of delinquency. Youth violence at all levels, from bullying to school shootings, remains a troubling problem for society.

One significant manifestation of youth violence is juvenile animal abuse. It has been reported that many youths involved with US school shootings had engaged in various forms of animal abuse (Miner, 1999; Verlinden, Hersen, & Thomas, 2000). According to the FBI, in almost all cases, serial killers had histories of animal abuse in their youth (Lockwood & Hodge, 1998).

In addition to these dramatic examples, an accumulating body of psychological and other social science research provides substantial evidence for a link between animal abuse and human violence. Frick et al. (1993) identified animal abuse as one of the earliest-onset symptoms of conduct disorder, a diagnosis characterized by repetitive violation of social norms or others’ rights and a prerequisite for an adult diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Research studies comparing incarcerated adult males to noncriminal men have found a significant association between animal cruelty in childhood and serious, recurrent aggression against people as an adult (Felthous & Kellert, 1987). Another comprehensive study showed that adult men convicted of animal abuse were much more likely to have perpetrated violence against humans, committed crimes against property, and been arrested for substance abuse or drunk and disorderly charges when compared to similar men who had no animal abuse convictions (Luke, Arluke, & Levin, 1997). Similarly, a three-year study by the Chicago Police Department found that 65 % of people arrested for animal abuse crimes were also arrested for violent crimes against people (Degenhardt, 2004). In the Pittsburgh Youth Study described above, physical aggression against people and animals was one of four factors linked to persistent antisocial behavior over time. In a national sample, Vaughn et al. (2009) examined the lifetime prevalence of animal abuse and found significant associations with antisocial behaviors, as well as family history of antisocial behavior. Henry and Sanders (2007) found that both perpetrators and victims of bullying were more likely to abuse animals. Several studies suggest that recurrent animal abuse may serve as a better predictor than isolated acts of animal abuse (Hensley, Tallichet, & Dutkiewicz, 2009; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004).

1.4 Animal Abuse and Family Violence

Another strand of research indicates a strong association between animal abuse and family violence. The co-occurrence rate of physical child abuse and animal abuse is over 80 % (Deviney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). Reviewing the research on the relationship between violence to children and violence to animals, Boat (1995) adds that there are many anecdotal reports linking animal abuse to the battering of women, sexual abuse of children, and acts of bestiality. There were similar findings for intimate partner violence. Ascione (2007) summarizes 12 interview studies of women seeking shelter in which up to 84 % reported that their partners had threatened, injured, or killed one or more family pets. In these studies, 29–76 % of children had been exposed to animal abuse, and up to 57 % of children had engaged in animal abuse themselves. DeGue and DiLillo (2009) interviewed college students, finding that 60 % of those who had been exposed to or engaged in animal abuse as children had also experienced child abuse or family violence. A large-scale study by Walton-Moss, Manganello, Frye, and Campbell (2005) found pet abuse to be one of the major risk factors for perpetrating intimate partner violence. Batterers who also abuse animals may also demonstrate more controlling behaviors and a wider range of abusive behaviors (Simmons & Lehmann, 2007).

The relationship between animal abuse and family violence is an important one, with implications for a variety of professional groups. However, children who engage in animal abuse do not necessarily come from violent families. The number of children who abuse animals is alarmingly high, as recent research discussed below has shown. Due to the prevalence of juvenile animal abuse and its developmental and clinical implications, all those who work with children need to be diligent about looking and listening for reports of animal abuse by children.

1.5 The Prevalence of Juvenile Animal Abuse

There are a number of well-designed studies that offer information on the prevalence of juvenile animal abuse. In general, the findings demonstrate that animal abuse in childhood is common. In the prevalence research, animal abuse was defined as deliberately hurting, torturing, or killing an animal in a cruel way.

Three studies of adult subjects, one of military personnel and the other two of college students, reported that 10–34.5 % of males admitted committing acts of animal abuse as children and 27–48.8 % had witnessed it (the lower rate came from the military sample) (Baker, Boat, Grinvalsky, & Geraciotti, 1998; Flynn, 1999; Miller & Knutson, 1997). All of these research subjects were functioning in society and, presumably, many did not come from violent families. Family violence is not the only factor associated with childhood animal abuse. Other studies on the incidence of juvenile animal abuse, which involved younger subjects, 2–18 years of age, indicated slightly different rates. Ascione (2001) reported on two studies with prevalence findings. The first, using the Achenbach-Conners-Quay Behavior Checklist, surveyed the parents of 2,600 boys and girls referred to mental health clinics for behavioral problems, who were compared to a control group of 2,600 boys and girls of the same age (ages 4–16). In the non-referred sample, the rate for animal abuse ranged from 0 to 6 % for girls and 4 to 13 % for boys; this contrasted to the referred sample in which the range was 7–17 % for girls and 18–34 % for boys. In addition to this survey, data for children ages 2–18 from the manuals of the Child Behavior Checklist indicated the following: The range of referred boys who reported incidents of animal abuse was 16–40 % and 9–31 % for referred girls. This compares to an animal abuse rate that ranged from 3 to 15 % for non-referred boys and 1 to 9 % for non-referred girls. Unlike the studies of the college and military samples referred to earlier, there was no definition of animal abuse and the time frame was limited to the past 2–6 months. Additionally, as Ascione noted (2001), caretakers typically underreport children’s cruelty to animals.

What attitudes are associated with committing animal abuse? In one of the samples of college subjects, the researcher also asked, Is it OK to slap your wife? or Is it OK to spank your children? Individuals who had engaged in animal abuse as children were more likely to say yes to both of these questions (Flynn, 1999).

Children who abuse animals may not become serial killers, school shooters, batterers, or adult criminals—but they do become conditioned to accept and engage in interpersonal violence as adults. Even children who only witness animal abuse by family members or peers more often perpetrate animal abuse than non-witnesses (Baldry, 2003; Henry, 2004; Thomas & Gullone, 2006). They also report long-standing, recurring negative symptoms. Flynn’s study of college students found that eight out of nine who had witnessed animal abuse as children reported being bothered some or a lot when the cruelty occurred and 73 % indicated it still bothered them (2000, p. 90). Assessing whether children have witnessed animal abuse is an important part of any evaluation of children and is discussed in the Treatment section.

1.6 Changing Attitudes Toward Animal Abuse

The pervasiveness of childhood animal abuse suggests, perhaps, that there has been a lack of recognition by some that animal abuse is another form of violence and that it requires a strong and immediate response by law enforcement, educators, parents, and mental health professionals. But that is changing. A growing awareness of the seriousness of animal abuse and its link to human violence has led to changes in animal abuse laws. Before 1990, only seven states had felony provisions in their animal cruelty laws; currently, 47 states and the District of Columbia have felony-level statutes. In about 30 states, the District of Columbia legislation allows, and in some instances mandates, the judge to include treatment as part of the sentence. In California, anyone convicted of animal abuse is required to receive treatment. In Illinois, Maine, Nevada, Texas, and Utah, treatment is mandated for juveniles, and in Iowa and New Mexico, the court shall order counseling for youth.

Other policies that recognize animal abuse are the development of safe havens that provide housing and care for companion animals of the human victims of domestic violence and court-ordered protective orders that include companion animals who were or are at risk of becoming co-victims of domestic violence.

As summarized above, research studies demonstrate various ways in which animal abuse is linked to violence against humans and other criminal and socially deviant behavior, as well as long-term mental health consequences that result from witnessing it. One important way to address the problem of youth violence is therefore to respond to animal abuse by reporting, investigating, prosecuting, and treating those who have perpetrated or witnessed abuse.

Throughout the years, clinicians who have treated children have encountered children who abuse animals. There is little research to ascertain how many clinicians evaluated their child clients to determine if they abused animals or witnessed abuse. However, a recent study of social workers found that one-third are including questions about companion and other animals in their intake assessments, and, although very few have had any special training, a bit less than 25 % are including companion and other animals in their intervention practice (Risley-Curtiss, 2010).

Very few clinicians treat the animal abuse as a central behavior to be addressed, just as they would directly address other forms of aggressiveness or sexual acting out or any other serious behavioral problem. Until recently, most clinicians viewed animal abuse more as a symptom than a behavior to be treated directly. Cruelty to animals was not added to the list of indicators for a diagnosis of conduct disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders until 1987 (DSM-IIIR). It has only been in the last decade that the research findings on the link between animal abuse and human violence have begun to be widely disseminated to professional audiences and the public.

Just as clinicians learned the importance of assessing and treating sexual abuse, substance disorders, and child abuse, now clinicians are much more prepared to understand the significance of animal abuse and to incorporate this knowledge into their practice. The purpose of AniCare Child is to provide clinicians with practical, clinically useful information about the assessment and treatment of children who have perpetrated or witnessed animal abuse.

Parents and others seek help for children who exhibit problems in behavior, social relationships, and other aspects of their lives, yet there is a marked scarcity of outcome research on therapy with children. For example, only 7.3 % of more than 3,000 studies looked into outcomes for children’s therapy. A similar review corroborated these findings—only 6 % of an examined 15,000 studies focused on children’s treatment outcomes (Christophersen & Mortweet, 2001).

Despite this lack of outcome data, there has been a movement over the last 30 years to support empirically researched treatments. The American Psychological Association Task Force on Empirically Supported Treatments recognized several procedures for the treatment of children they considered well established or probably efficacious. Among these were cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training for oppositional and aggressive children (Christophersen & Mortweet 2001). Additionally, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the University of Colorado identified ten violence prevention programs that met a high scientific standard for program effectiveness. Other efforts also have focused on effective interventions for children (Kernberg & Chazan, 1991; Moeller, 2001).

AniCare Child draws upon this literature, as well as the experience of expert clinicians, to develop the interventions presented in the following sections. A direct evaluation of the effectiveness of AniCare Child is in process involving a mixed methodology of a case study and before/after/follow-up measures of several relevant variables ñ attitudes toward violence, attitudes toward animals, and empathy. In addition to this direct evaluation, the approach has indirect validation through its use of validated interventions for antisocial