Psychological and Support Characteristics of Parents of Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Relationship with Child Functioning and Treatment

Child sexual abuse continues to be a prevalent and complex problem in today’s society as it poses serious and pervasive mental health risks to child victims and their non-offending parents. The main objectives of this study were (a) to elucidate the psychological symptoms and support needs of parents of child sexual abuse victims as they present to group treatment, (b) to examine changes in psychological symptoms and support needs and their relationship with child functioning over the course of a parallel group treatment, and (c) to examine the impact of these factors on completion of group treatment. Participants included 104 sexually abused youth and their non-offending parent presenting to Project SAFE Group Intervention, a 12-session cognitive-behavioral group treatment for sexually abused children and their non-offending parents. This project had a unique advantage of utilizing a variety of demographic, parent-, and child-report measures, allowing for a more comprehensive examination of change in symptomatology and needs over the course of treatment. Several significant findings were noted, including the identification of four clusters of youth at pre-treatment, which were maintained at post-treatment; elevations on the CTQ Sexual Abuse scale; parents of youth sexually abused by a non-family member had significantly higher PSI-Restriction of Role subscale scores; parental expectations of a negative impact on their child were worse for older children; several parent characteristics predicted client treatment retention (e.g., older parents, lower SCL-90-R GSI scores); and an early age of onset of abuse also increased treatment retention. Future directions, recommendations, and limitations were discussed.

URBAN WILDLIFE: CAN WE LIVE WITH THEM?

ABSTRACT: A survey of Extension Wildlife Specialists in the U.S. provided a basis for estimating the magnitude of urban wildlife damage and control in this country. Response to the 9-question mail questionnaire was good (76 percent) following the single mailing to all Extension Wildlife Specialists or people in similar positions listed in the national directory. The majority of questions were answered based upon the experiences and best estimates of these specialists for the interval October 1986-September 1987. Specialists had difficulty providing estimates of damage and costs of prevention and control; 57 percent were not able to provide any data on these topics. Several of the questions dealt with attitudes of people requesting urban wildlife information and/or assistance and wide ranges of responses were received to most of these questions. Most people (78 percent) appeared willing to implement prevention/control measures recommended by these specialists, more than half (61 percent) wanted the animal handled/removed by someone else, and only about 40 percent wanted the damage stopped regardless of cost. Also, slightly over half (55 percent) of clientele represented did not want the offending animal harmed in any way. These results were highly variable from state to state. Several differences were noted in overall responses regarding urban wildlife species. Requests for information were received most frequently for bats and snakes, but both of these groups of animals ranked very low in terms of actual damage reported. The most frequently mentioned groups of animals causing damage in urban areas were roosting birds (including pigeons, starlings, and sparrows), woodpeckers (especially flickers), tree squirrels, bats, and moles. In terms of actual dollar values of damage done, white-tailed deer and pocket gophers apparently caused the most estimated damage. Due to these differences, it is necessary to know which criteria are being used to make an assessment of the relative importance of animal damage control problems. Techniques for controlling urban wildlife damage, such as exclusion, live-trapping, repellents, and poisons, are compared and discussed in some detail in this paper. As urbanization occurs across the nation, concerns about urban wildlife damage will continue; in most cases, we can and will live among these creatures.

METHODS OF CONTROLLING COYOTES, BOBCATS, AND FOXES

In reviewing methods of predator control, it would first seem appropriate to define what is meant "by "methods" and what is meant by "control." Taking the last term first, control, as applied to the predatory coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, may be defined as regulating the numbers of these animals to the point where the economic losses for which they are responsible will be reduced to a practicable minimum. In some situations, area control, i.e., limiting the numbers of the offending predator over wide areas, may be necessary for satisfactory reduction of economic losses; in other situations, spot control or localized reduction of numbers of a certain predator may be called for; in still other situations, elimination of an individual animal may be all the control that is needed. In no sense is control, as applied to coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, intended to mean extermi¬nation of a species. The term "methods" is interpreted as meaning the procedures employed against coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, and not the broader systems of predator control such as the paid hunter system, the extension system, or the much-discredited bounty system. For an excellent review of the systems of predator control, see Latham (l).