Exposure to Community Violence as a New Adverse Childhood Experience Category: A Summary of a New Study

Karen:

I think it is important to not use the term toxic stress or trauma too loosely. It is important that actual research like what is shared in this post, is used to accurately identify sources of toxic stress. We need to rely on behavioral and biological measures that show that regular experiences of violence within one's own home or community causes poor outcomes for individuals.

But just because something is difficult or stressful---ie. political protest-- doesn't make it trauma. In fact, conflict can be an opportunity for learning and growth. It is when violence becomes ongoing and affects children's sense of safety in their daily lives that it is toxic to their wellbeing. More over, I would argue that children need to understand how anger and voicing that anger works in the real world--in all its messiness--for better or worse. There is an opportunity here to teach children about healthy use of their voices to protest what they see as injustice vs. violent and damaging uses of "free speech." Being able to use one's voice to speak up and create change is one of the skills that help mitigate the effects of violence, trauma, and disempowerment.

 

I'm glad to see that community violence is again being recognized as a childhood adversity.  This paper, added to the Finkelhor paper and two papers from the Philadelphia ACEs group (Cronholm, 2015 and Wade 2015), demonstrate that community level toxic stressors (e.g., exposure to community violence, racism/discrimination, being bullied, etc) expand the conceptualization and measurement of ACEs.

Hi, Paul: I'm the founder and publisher of ACEs Connection Network. If you go to our "About" section, you'll find all of our bios and contact info. Feel free to email us or message us through the site anytime.

I think what you saw on Karen's comment was the top of the email from ACEs Connection in which she saw this post.

Cheers, Jane

This would seem to be particularly useful from a research perspective (the stumbling block for Complex Trauma reviewed for DSM5)

-- and maybe only from that perspective

I know many paramedical officers in our services would want a broader set of criteria to be used in clinical practice -- "a childhood experience that disables or distorts adaptive attachment relations" perhaps, and so they are pleased to see the forthcoming ICD 11.  Many of our older staff are also cognizant of the decades-long research, from the '60s --- children from the ghettos -- long predating the ACEs research, yet reaching much the same conclusions. Similarly, world wide studies also "mention in passing" the effects of psychological and family stressors, yet resources, including food and social services, have to be prioritized in terms of immediate physical survival -- Phillip Baiden has done some good work in this "cross-cultural" area.

And why is the term "ACEs science" used? It doesn't have the "cohesion" of other branches of science, and seems to be used only on this site, and on ACEsTooHigh -- an alternative expression is used on this site "NEAR science" (perhaps a better aide memoire and this may be a more functional, and broadly acceptable, term), which ACEs science might not be

NEAR Science

 

 

Karen Polehn posted:

The hostile political environment of our elected leaders should also qualify as a ECV. We traumatize children with the hate mongering and escalation of protests and negative messages from the public about our government that we are supposed to trust. What message are we sending to our most vulnerable populations, when violence becomes a household name that is just an event, or pursued to be how we are acceptably dealing with "what we want"?..
Toxic stress not only to our leaders, but our children see it as "the only way to make a change" is far from the message we want to deliver too our most vulnerable!
Hate mongering, and violent toxic attacks on our elected leaders becomes a negative model of what respect looks like in our modern world.


Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:00 PM, ACEsConnection <communitymanager@acesconnection.com> wrote:
>
>

this is intriguing -- this is the first time I've seen the email address for anyone actually given -- "communitymanager"  = Jane Stevens?

Hi, Karen. Thanks for your comment. Violent and/or toxic attacks on anyone aren't useful. Free speech by people to express their disagreement with what our elected leaders are doing is an integral part of who we are as Americans. And it can be accomplished in a trauma-informed/resilience-building way that sets a good example for our children to become involved citizens.

The hostile political environment of our elected leaders should also qualify as a ECV. We traumatize children with the hate mongering and escalation of protests and negative messages from the public about our government that we are supposed to trust. What message are we sending to our most vulnerable populations, when violence becomes a household name that is just an event, or pursued to be how we are acceptably dealing with "what we want"?..
Toxic stress not only to our leaders, but our children see it as "the only way to make a change" is far from the message we want to deliver too our most vulnerable!
Hate mongering, and violent toxic attacks on our elected leaders becomes a negative model of what respect looks like in our modern world.


Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:00 PM, ACEsConnection <communitymanager@acesconnection.com> wrote:
>
>