# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child Labor Defined: Historically, "child labor" is defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. However, not all work done by children should be classified as child labor. Children or adolescents' participation in work that does not affect their health and personal development or interfere with their schooling is generally regarded as being something positive. This includes activities such as helping their parents around the home, assisting in a family business or earning pocket money outside school hours and during school holidays.

Abusive Child Labor: What is to be prevented is child labor in its most extreme form: Children being enslaved, separated from their families, exposed to serious hazards and illnesses and/or left to fend for themselves. Forms of extreme child labor existed throughout American history until the 1930s. In particular, child labor was rife during the American Industrial Revolution (1820-1870). Industrialization attracted workers and their families from farms and rural areas into urban areas and factory work. In factories and mines, children were often preferred as employees, because owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike.

Historical documents revealed American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, many labor unions and social reformers advocated aggressively for state and local legislation to prevent extreme child labor. By 1900, their efforts had resulted in state and local legislation designed to prevent extreme child labor; however, the condition in states varied considerably on whether they had child labor standards, their content and the degree of enforcement.

The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces - all to stoke the profit margins of industrialists whose own children sat comfortably at school desks gleaning moral principles from their McGuffey Readers. By and large, these child laborers were the sons and daughters of poor parents or recent immigrants who depended on their children's meager wages to survive. But they were also the offspring of the rapid, unchecked industrialization that characterized large American cities as early as the 1850s. In 1870, the first U.S. census to report child labor numbers counted 750,000 workers under the age of 15, not including children who worked for their families in businesses or on farms. By 1911, more than two million American children under the age of 16 were working - many of them 12 hours or more, six days a week. Often they toiled in unhealthful and hazardous conditions; always for minuscule wages.

Young girls continued to work in mills, still in danger of slipping and losing a finger or a foot while standing on top of machines to change bobbins; or of being scalped if their hair got caught. And, as ever, after a day of bending over to pick bits of rock from coal, breaker boys were still stiff and in pain. If a breaker boy fell, he could still be smothered, or crushed, by huge piles of coal. And, when he turned 12, he would still be forced to go down into the mines and face the threat of cave-ins and explosions.

Child Labor Reform: In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked. Child labor began to decline as the labor and reform movements grew and labor standards in general began improving, increasing the political power of working people and other social reformers to demand legislation regulating child labor. Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined, and common initiatives were conducted by organizations led by working women and middle class consumers, such as state Consumers' Leagues and Working Women's Societies. These organizations generated the National Consumers' League in 1899 and the National Child Labor Committee in 1904, which shared goals of challenging child labor, including through anti-sweatshop campaigns and labeling programs.

Since 1900, there have been several efforts to regulate or eliminate child labor. One of the primary leaders in this effort was the National Child Labor Committee, which was organized in 1904. The National Child Labor Committee and various state child labor committees were gradualist in philosophy, preparing them to accept whatever was achievable even if it was not sufficient. They used flexible tactics and were resilient in the face of defeat and slow progress. Furthermore, these committees pioneered the usage of mass political action, including expert investigation, photography, pamphlets, leaflets, mass mailings, and lobbying. However, their success was dependent on the political climate of the nation overall, as well as developments that reduced the need or desire for child labor.

The National Child Labor Committee campaigned for tougher state and federal laws against the abuses of industrial child labor, and Lewis W. Hine was its greatest publicist. A teacher who left his profession to work full-time as investigator for the committee, Hine prepared a number of the Committee's reports and took some of the most powerful images in the history of documentary photography. The Library of Congress holds the papers of the Committee, including the reports, field notes, correspondence, and over 5,000 of Hine's photographs and negatives. This album depicts children at work in canneries and is accompanied by a follow-up report for a group of canneries previously investigated by Hine.

From 1911 to 1916, Hine traveled across southern and eastern states capturing thousands of unflinching images that exposed the heartless treatment of children. More often than not, Hine had to resort to trickery to gain access from resistant, even hostile, employers. He posed variously as a Bible salesman, industrial photographer, fire inspector and insurance agent to get candid shots, sometimes with a hidden camera. Children might be removed from view before he arrived or he might be barred from the premises altogether. When Hine couldn't find a way in, he waited outside the gates and photographed the children as they entered and exited.

The tireless efforts of reformers, social workers and unions seemed to pay off in 1916 - at the height of the progressive movement - when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Keating-Owen Act banning articles produced by child labor from being sold in interstate commerce. The act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court just two years later.

Between 1902-1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures and, as a result, many laws restricting child labor were passed. However, gaps remained, especially in the south. This led to a push for federal child labor laws, which Congress passed in 1916 and 1918, but the Supreme Court declared both of them unconstitutional. Opponents of child labor then sought a constitution amendment to authorize federal child labor legislation. Congress passed the amendment in 1924, but many states failed to ratify this amendment due to the conservative 1920s political climate and opposition from some church groups and farm organizations that feared increased federal power.

The Great Depression catalyzed changes in political attitudes in the United States, especially surrounding child labor. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal sought to prevent extreme child labor, and almost all of the codes under the National Industrial Recovery Act significantly reduced child labor. The Public Contracts Act of 1936 required boys to be 16 and girls to be 18 to work in firms supplying goods under federal contract. The Beet Sugar Act required children to be 14 to work in cultivating and harvesting sugar beets and cane. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) set the minimum working age at 14 for employment outside of school hours and 16 during school hours. Furthermore, non-agricultural work in interstate commerce required a minimum age of 16 during school hours and 18 for positions designated as "hazardous" by the secretary of labor.

Overall, these laws were successful, not only to the generally widespread disapproval towards child labor, but also because many previously unemployed adults became employed once children were limited in the workforce.

Sources:

University of Iowa Labor Center & Center for Human Rights. (2011). Child labor public education project. University of Iowa. Retrieved from https://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/

Yellowitz, I. (2009). Child labor. History. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/child-labor

How to Cite this Article (APA Format): Hansan, J. (2011). The American era of child labor. Social Welfare History Project. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-labor/

Resources related to this topic may be found in the Social Welfare History Image Portal.

See also the Child Labor Discovery Set.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child Labor Defined: Historically, "child labor" is defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. However, not all work done by children should be classified as child labor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The shocking number of animal cruelty cases reported every day is just the tip of the iceberg-most cases are never reported. Unlike violent crimes against people, cases of animal abuse are not compiled by state or federal agencies, making it difficult to calculate just how common they are. However, we can use the information that is available to try to understand and prevent cases of abuse.

Who abuses animals?

Cruelty and neglect cross all social and economic boundaries and media reports suggest that animal abuse is common in both rural and urban areas.

Intentional cruelty to animals is strongly correlated with other crimes, including violence against people.

Hoarding behavior often victimizes animals. Sufferers of a hoarding disorder may impose severe neglect on animals by housing far more than they are able to adequately take care of. Serious animal neglect (such as hoarding) is often an indicator of people in need of social or mental health services.

Surveys suggest that those who intentionally abuse animals are predominantly men under 30, while those involved in animal hoarding are more likely to be women over 60.

Most common victims

The animals whose abuse is most often reported are dogs, cats, horses and livestock. Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported, and few are ever prosecuted.

Organized cruelty

Dogfighting, cockfighting and other forms of organized animal cruelty go hand in hand with other crimes, and continues in many areas of the United States due to public corruption.

The HSUS documented uniformed police officers at a cockfighting pit in Kentucky.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has prosecuted multiple cases where drug cartels were running narcotics through cockfighting and dogfighting operations.

Dozens of homicides have occurred at cockfights and dogfights.

A California man was killed in a disagreement about a $10 cockfight bet.

The HSUS's investigative team combats complacent public officials and has worked with the FBI on public corruption cases in Tennessee and Virginia. In both instances, law enforcement officers were indicted and convicted.

Correlation with domestic violence

Data on domestic violence and child abuse cases reveal that a staggering number of animals are targeted by those who abuse their children or spouses.

There are approximately 70 million pet dogs and 74.1 million pet cats in the U.S. where 20 men and women are assaulted per minute (an average of around 10 million a year).

In one survey, 71 % of domestic violence victims reported that their abuser also targeted pets.

In one study of families under investigation for suspected child abuse, researchers found that pet abuse had occurred in 88 % of the families under supervision for physical abuse of their children.

To put a stop to this pattern of violence, the Humane Society Legislative Fund supported the Pets and Women's Safety (PAWS) Act, introduced to Congress in 2015 as H.R. 1258 and S.B. 1559 and enacted as part of the farm bill passed by Congress and signed by President Trump in 2018. Once fully enacted, the PAWS Act helps victims of domestic abuse find the means to escape their abusers while keeping their companion animals safe-many victims remain in abusive households for fear of their pets' safety.

State legislative trends

The HSUS has long led the push for stronger animal cruelty laws and provides training for law officials to detect and prosecute these crimes. With South Dakota joining the fight in March of 2014, animal cruelty laws now include felony provisions in all 50 states.

First vs. subsequent offense

Given that a fraction of animal cruelty acts are reported or successfully prosecuted, we are committed to supporting felony convictions in cases of severe cruelty.

49 states have laws to provide felony penalties for animal torture on the first offense.

Only Iowa doesn't have such a law.

Animal cruelty laws typically cover intentional and egregious animal neglect and abuse.

Changes in federal tracking

On January 1, 2016, the FBI added cruelty to animals as a category in the Uniform Crime Report, a nationwide crime reporting system commonly used in homicide investigations. While only about a third of U.S. communities currently participate in the system, the data generated will help create a clearer picture of animal abuse and guide strategies for intervention and enforcement. Data collection covers four categories: simple/gross neglect, intentional abuse and torture, organized abuse (such as dogfighting and cockfighting) and animal sexual abuse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facts, statistics and trends of animal abuse, animal cruelty and abused animals in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg isn't alone. Meet some other young activists who are leading the environmentalist fight | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greta Thunberg has rapidly become a household name since she began her climate strikes in 2018. And she's not alone.

# data[].attributes.headline
“The Effects of Climate Change.” NASA, NASA, 26 Aug. 2021, https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.   Accessed 16 Nov. 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
“The Effects of Climate Change.” NASA, NASA, 26 Aug. 2021, https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.   Accessed 16 Nov. 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg Is TIME's 2019 Person of the Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The climate activist has succeeded in turning vague anxieties about the planet into a worldwide movement calling for global change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
child labour, employment of children of less than a legally specified age. In Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, children under age 15 rarely work except in commercial agriculture, because of the effective enforcement of laws passed in the first half of the 20th century. In the United States, for example, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set the minimum age at 14 for employment outside of school hours in nonmanufacturing jobs, at 16 for employment during school hours in interstate commerce, and at 18 for occupations deemed hazardous.

Child labour is far more prevalent in developing countries, where millions of children-some as young as seven-still toil in quarries, mines, factories, fields, and service enterprises. They make up more than 10 percent of the labour force in some countries in the Middle East and from 2 to 10 percent in much of Latin America and some parts of Asia. Few, if any, laws govern their employment or the conditions under which work is performed. Restrictive legislation is rendered impractical by family poverty and lack of schools.

The movement to regulate child labour began in Great Britain at the close of the 18th century, when the rapid development of large-scale manufacturing made possible the exploitation of young children in mining and industrial work. The first law, in 1802, which was aimed at controlling the apprenticeship of pauper children to cotton-mill owners, was ineffective because it did not provide for enforcement. In 1833 the Factory Act did provide a system of factory inspection.

Organized international efforts to regulate child labour began with the first International Labour Conference in Berlin in 1890. Although agreement on standards was not reached at that time, similar conferences and other international moves followed. In 1900 the International Association for Labour Legislation was established at Basel, Switzerland, to promote child labour provisions as part of other international labour legislation. A report published by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) of the United Nations in 1960 on law and practice among more than 70 member nations showed serious failures to protect young workers in nonindustrial jobs, including agriculture and handicrafts. One of the ILO's current goals is to identify and resolve the "worst forms" of child labour; these are defined as any form of labour that negatively impacts a child's normal development. In 1992 the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) was created as a new department of the ILO. Through programs it operates around the world, IPEC seeks the removal of children from hazardous working conditions and the ultimate elimination of child labour.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child labor | Definition, History, Laws, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
child labour, employment of children of less than a legally specified age. In Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, children under age 15 rarely work except in commercial agriculture, because of the effective enforcement of laws passed in the first half of the 20th century.

# data[].attributes.body
https://answers.childrenshospital.org/bullied-samanthas-story/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the fifth grade when Samantha was 10 years old, she was bullied by a male classmate. She remembers walking through the halls of her elementary school and hearing the bully call out these words:
"Why are you on this earth? You don't deserve to be alive."
The bullying followed her every day. "I didn't want to go to school because I knew he would be there. I was afraid," says Samantha, now 15.

Weeks into the school year, the harassment and intimidation escalated and turned physical.

"It was usually mental [abuse], but at one point in fifth grade the bully came up to me, and he punched me on the back," says Samantha quietly. That was the breaking point.

"I had enough," says Samantha's mother, Karen. "The verbal and physical abuse needed to stop."

Samantha and her mother reported the incident to the school and the police resource officer. Another student, who witnessed the physical bullying, stepped forward and also reported the incident to the school. The bully was reprimanded by the officer; however, no further action was taken by Samantha's school.

Although the daily torment ended, Samantha's respite was temporary.

The bully's verbal aggression resurfaced, and it started to impact Samantha's schoolwork, self-esteem and overall health. Karen says her daughter exhibited many of the warning signs of being bullied - depressed mood, physical ailments and school avoidance.

"It started small with her belly hurting. Then she didn't want to go to school," says Karen. "Samantha stopped doing homework and spent as much time in the nurse's office as she did in classes."

Samantha missed 30 days of school that year due to bullying.

Finding a safe haven after being bullied

To help her daughter get the tools she needed to manage the effects of being bullied, Karen reached out to the Boston Children's Hospital Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC).

Samantha talks with Dr. Peter Raffalli about her experience being bullied.

Samantha and Karen met with the BACPAC team, including pediatric neurologist and BACPAC Program Director, Dr. Peter Raffalli. Samantha shared her story of victimization, learned skills to combat bullying and was given tools to promote self-empowerment.

"Samantha spoke for two hours, and she told the team about the bullying. She was happy that someone who wasn't a loved one validated she was being bullied, and it wasn't her fault," Karen recalls. "As she spoke, I could see the burden begin to lift from her shoulders."

About the Boston Children's BACPAC program

The BACPAC program was founded in 2009 and was initially framed as an anti-bullying resource for physicians and caregivers, families and school administration. In 2011, Raffalli and a team of physicians launched a formal patient-centered clinic, which has treated over 100 children since its inception.

The program is housed in the hospital's Department of Neurology because the pediatric neurology patient population - typically, children with ADHD, autism and other learning disabilities, are at a significantly higher risk for peer victimization than the general population.

The BACPAC program is the first of its kind nationwide.

"Our goal was to establish a program where children faced with bullying and cyberbullying could come to be heard, learn their rights under federal and state laws and learn strategies that might help end the abuse," Raffalli says.

During their appointment, Raffalli offered Samantha and Karen tools to combat bullying including:

strategies to help end bullying situations and bullying-prevention advice for the future

empowerment strategies on how to develop a network of adult staff at school that could be available to her and who could advocate for her at the level of the principal's office when reporting bullying

ways to improve Samantha's friendship group as a strong friendship group (this has been shown to be an insulating factor against bullying)

education regarding their rights under the Massachusetts anti-bullying legislation

a list of various state agencies that could be called upon if the family feels the school is not adequately troubleshooting the situation

reports and recommendations to share with the school in the hopes that the suggestions could be used by the school to protect Samantha

Samantha says she felt better about returning to school after visiting the BACPAC program and meeting Raffalli. "He made me feel happy and made me feel like even though I was getting bullied I could get through it."

The importance of empowerment

Samantha completed the fifth grade and moved onto a regional middle school with greater strength and empowerment. Today, Samantha has a great group of friends, is in all honors classes, plans to tryout for track and field this spring and continues to lean on the tools she learned from the BACPAC program.

When asked why she wanted to share her story, Samantha says without hesitation, "...because I don't want any other kid to go through what I went through."

"Samantha showed great courage and a determination to survive the situation," Raffalli says. "She is very bright and articulate, and I am very impressed with her strength."

Learn more about the Boston Children's Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'I was bullied by a classmate' - Boston Children's Answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the fifth grade when Samantha was 10 years old, she was bullied by a male classmate. She remembers walking through the halls of her elementary school and hearing the bully call out these words: "Why are you on this earth? You don't deserve to be alive." The bullying followed her every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stop Bullying on the Spot

When adults respond quickly and consistently to bullying behavior they send the message that it is not acceptable. Research shows this can stop bullying behavior over time.

Parents, school staff, and other adults in the community can help kids prevent bullying by talking about it, building a safe school environment, and creating a community-wide bullying prevention strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
StopBullying.gov provides information from various government agencies on bullying, cyberbullying, prevention and response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School , a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
×DOL-Timesheet AppTrack your regular work hours, break time, and overtime hours.Learn More // The federal child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stop Bullying on the Spot

When adults respond quickly and consistently to bullying behavior they send the message that it is not acceptable. Research shows this can stop bullying behavior over time.

Parents, school staff, and other adults in the community can help kids prevent bullying by talking about it, building a safe school environment, and creating a community-wide bullying prevention strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
StopBullying.gov provides information from various government agencies on bullying, cyberbullying, prevention and response.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that my best source was Quotes.net because I got a bunch of interesting quotes from famous people from there.
https://www.quotes.net/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath during the Classical period in Ancient Greece. Taught by Plato, he was the founder of the Lyceum, the Peripatetic school of philosophy, and the Aristotelian tradition.

We need you!

Help us build the largest human-edited quotes collection on the web!

Would you like us to send you a FREE inspiring quote delivered to your inbox daily?

Citation

Use the citation below to add Quotes.net to your bibliography:

Need some help with a quote?

Looking for a movie quote you can't find? Trying to find the meaning and origin of a famous quote or saying? Let our community figure it out for you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quotes.net: Thousands of famous quotations from many authors that can be browsed, searched, listened to, and translated to several languages ©2024 STANDS4 LLC

# data[].attributes.body
https://afineparent.com/strong-kids/stop-bullying.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You know that first minute when you're looking at your newborn bleary eyed and vow that nobody will dare mess with your child, because then they'll have to mess with you?

Then you send your daughter to school. With strangers. Adults and children you don't know, and you hope and pray they'll take care of your child like the treasure he is.

One day, your little one comes home with a teary face. "Someone hurt me."

Like my daughter did. "Mommy, Gina hit me."

According to a national survey commissioned by Care.com, bullying and cyberbullying have eclipsed kidnapping as parents' greatest fear.

Is there any wonder why? Just take a look at some of the stats. 1 in 4 children are bullied each month in the USA. Every 7 minutes a child is bullied. 160,000 kids miss school each day from fear of bullying. 1 in 10 children drops out of school due to bullying. Nearly one in three parents of children ages 12-17 agree that bullying is a more serious concern than other dangers, including domestic terrorism, car accidents, and suicide.

The only way we can change this is if we get involved. If you, and I and all of us take action, we can stop the bullying.

"I'm not in Congress, I don't set school policy. Heck, I'm not even a teacher. I'm a worried parent who wants my child to grow up safe and strong. How do we that?" you ask?

Here's what to focus on:

1. Understand What Exactly is Bullying

Bullying is a form of emotional or physical abuse that has three defining characteristics:

1. Deliberate - a bully's intention is to hurt someone

2. Repeated - the behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time

3. Power Imbalanced - a bully chooses victims he or she perceives as vulnerable

These three aspects must be included for a behavior to be labeled bullying.

There are many behaviors that look like bullying but require different approaches. It is important to determine whether the situation is bullying or something else. State law and school policy may have additional guidelines for defining bullying behavior.

In fact, the number of reports of Kentucky public school student bullying, harassing, or threatening others more than tripled from 2012 to 2015 due to changed criteria. So all that fine print really can make a difference.

Bullying occurs in many different forms, with varying levels of severity. It may involve:

Physical Bullying - poking, pushing, hitting, kicking, beating up

Verbal Bullying - yelling, taunting, name-calling, insulting, threatening to harm

Relational Bullying - excluding, spreading rumors, getting others to hurt someone

Cyberbullying - Sending hurtful messages or images by Internet or cell phone

Bullying can also be any combination of these. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

2. Recognize Signs of Bullying

Children have many reasons for not telling adults about bullying situations.

They are ashamed of being bullied.

They are afraid of retaliation.

They don't think anyone can or will help.

They have bought into the lie that being bullied is part of growing up.

Children who are also bullied by adult may believe that they are permitted to be bullied.

They have learned that "ratting" is not cool.

Although children do not tell us outright, they do give us clues.

According to Dr. Joel Haber, bullying expert and author of Bullyproof Your Child for Life , your child could be a victim of bullying if he/she:

Is reluctant or refuses to go to school

Clams up when you try to discuss school

Demands some sort of change in a long-standing routine, like riding the bus to school or going to the park on Saturdays

Does not want to participate in after-school activities or play with old friends

Seems hungrier than usual after school - it might be a sign that someone is stealing his lunch money or that he is unwilling to brave the cafeteria at lunchtime

Shows signs of physical distress such as headaches, stomach-aches, or nausea

Goes to the nurse in order to avoid going to class

Performance in school (grades, homework, attendance) suddenly declines

Acts sullen, angry, and frequently wants to be left alone

Uncharacteristically uses bad language

Shows marked behavior change after computer time or a phone call

Starts asking for more lunch or transportation money without a clear explanation of why it is needed

Has unexplained bruises or injuries

What if your child is the bully? Although you don't want to see your child acting mean, it is important to know the signs that your child may be bullying:

Lack of empathy

Needs to be in control

Underdeveloped social and interpersonal skills

Seems to derive pleasure from pain and suffering of others

Attacks before others can attack

Has been bullied by peer, sibling, or parent

Is exclusive - refuses to include certain kids in play or study

Persists in certain unpleasant behavior even after you have told him/her to stop

Is very concerned with being and staying popular

Seems intolerant of and/or shows contempt for children who are "different" or "weird"

Frequently teases or taunts other children

Constantly plays extremely aggressive videogames

Hurts animals

Observes you excluding, gossiping about, or otherwise hurting others: As human beings, we occasionally exhibit some bullying behaviors. It's only natural and it doesn't mean we're bad people. But think about your own behavior and ask - do your kids also show these traits?

3. Talk About Bullying

It's not only you who needs to know about bullying, this is something you want your child to know about before s/he ever has to confront it.

How can you start the conversation? Check out these resources, and decide which one would be best to explore with your child.

Preschool:

Elementary:

Mcgruff.org provides resources for adults and children looking to stop bullying and educate others about bullying issues.

PACER Kids Against Bullying is an educational site designed for elementary school students to learn about bullying prevention, engage in activities, and be inspired to take action.

Stopbullying.gov offers information, videos and games for children.

Middle/High School:
Parents:

4. Know Your Child's Rights

Children can be picked on for so many different reasons. Here are some that are common:

Do you know the laws of your state?

All states have laws that protect bullying, harassment, and intimidation in school. With a clear definitions, schools When a school finds out that harassment may have occurred, staff must enforce uniform standards of conduct. must investigate the incident(s) promptly and respond appropriately. With state law, schools cannot turn a blind eye to bullying.

Does your child have a disability, food allergy, or other special health need? Know his rights. Make sure his IEP includes a plan to protect your child from bullying. Keep an eye out for signs that your child is being bullied-by children, or even unfortunately by staff. Bullying behavior may cross the line to become "disability harassment," which is prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

5. Model Positive Social Behavior

The most effective way to keep children from being bullied, and from becoming bullies, is to make sure they grow up in loving relationships. Robert Fulgham succinctly put it, "Don't worry that your children never listen to you. Worry that they are always watching you."

Children learn both sides of every relationship, and they can act either one. Model positive parenting. If your discipline methods use power over your child, he will learn to use power over others, or to let others use power over him.

Click herefor our free 'How to Be a Positive Parent' mini-course.

6. Teach Your Child Social Skills

Kids need to know they can get their needs met while being respectful of other people. Give him words to stick up for himself early on:
"I want a turn now." "Hey, I don't like this."
Role play with your child how to join a game at the playground, introduce themselves to another child at a party, or initiate a play date/sleepover. Kids who are successful in joining groups of kids usually observe first, and find a way to fit into the group, rather than just barging in. Make games out of social skills and practice at home. Encourage your child to join groups and clubs that s/he enjoys.

Other ways to raise a friendly child?

7. The Bystander: Teach Kids to Prevent Bullying When They See It

Bullying expert Michele Borba says that when bystanders - kids who are nearby - intervene correctly, studies find they can cut bullying more than half the time and within 10 seconds.

Your child will witness bullying at some point. Teach them what to do.

Partner with the victim and remove her from danger: Go stand with the victim physically, turn the victim away from the bully and walk her off in the other direction - towards adult help. Say "You look upset" or "I've been looking for you" or "The teacher sent me to find you."

Get help: Bullies love an audience. Get the other kids on your side by waving them over to you, yelling, "We need your help." Confront the bully: "You're being mean." Then walk away: "C'mon, let's go!"

And of course, if you're at all worried about safety, dial 911 or shout for a teacher.

8. Coach Your Child to Handle Teasing and Bullying

Research shows that bullies begin with verbal harassment. How the "victim" responds to the first verbal aggression determines whether the bully continues to target this particular child.

Roleplay with your child is a great way to prepare them to stand up to a bully. Knowing your child well can help you decide how to best do this. Point out to your child that the bully wants to provoke a response that makes him feel powerful, so showing emotion and fighting back are exactly what the bully feeds off. Explain that he can always control his own response. How s/he responds may exaggerate the situation or defuse it. Practice until your child is confident in handling difficult situations.

The best strategy is always to respond evenly and firmly, maintaining the dignity of all children involved. Prepare your child with simple phrases that are direct and not antagonistic: "You know, I'm just going to ignore that comment." "Don't do that." "No." "Well, that's what you think." Then walk away.

Teach your child to act brave, look the bully in the eye, and say one of these things. Practice until your child has a strong, self-assured tone.

Assert by standing tall and using a strong voice. "Stop making fun of me. It's mean."

Agree with the teaser. Consider helping your child create a statement agreeing with her teaser. Teaser: "Hey, four eyes." Child: *Shrugs* "Yep, my eyesight is poor."

Ignore it. Bullies love it when their teasing upsets their victims, so help your child find a way to not let his tormentor get to him. Children offer these kid-tested ways to ignore teasers: "Pretend they're invisible," "Walk away without looking at them," "Quickly look at something else and laugh," and "Look completely uninterested."

If your child is being bullied:

1. Assure the child that you believe them and that they are not alone with this problem.

2. Affirm that this is not their fault.

3. Establish that there are things that you can doand develop a plan.

4. Report the bullying to school personnel.

Take action when your child says bullied. Work as a team. Assess immediate safety, demand action, get involved, and stay on top of it.

9. When Your Child is the Bully

Nobody sets out to be the parent of a mean kid. But what do you do when you get a phone call that your child bullied? Rosalind Wiseman , author of Queen Bees and Wannabees urges parents to understand:

Roles change. Today the bullied. Tomorrow, the bully. Children are not fixed in their roles. Depending on the situation, children can just as easily be the bully as they can the target.

They have a private life. Parents must assume and accept that they won't know everything that goes on with their child.

Kids have 2 sides. Children will act differently at home than they will at school. Your 7th grade son who kisses you goodnight before grabbing his stuffed animal will never show that side of himself to his friends.

You're still a good parent. There are many reasons why parents aren't aware of their child's inappropriate behavior, and it's not because the parent is irresponsible.

What to do if your child is the bully?

10 Get Involved

Talk to your child's school. Implement educational programs. Do they have an anti-bullying curriculum? Here are some you can suggest:

Increase public awareness. Hold a meeting about bullying. Invite parents, teachers, school personnel and the media. Not a speaker? Invite an author of a bullying book or an educator to talk.

Ensure your child's school has consistent school rules and policies about bullying that are implemented and followed through.

Is there supervision in high risk areas? Some ideas to offer:

Cameras

Parent volunteers

Older peer leaders

Student council

The 2-Minute Action Plan for Fine Parents

Don't be vague about bullying. Clarify what constitutes bullying. Pick one activity to bully proof your child today.

The Ongoing Action Plan for Fine Parents

Pick one way you will take action, in your child's school, in the community or online. How will you prevent a bullying incident?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Things Every Parent Can Do to Stop Bullying - A Fine Parent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know that first minute when you're looking at your newborn bleary eyed and vow that nobody will dare mess with your child, because then they'll have to mess with you? Then you send your daughter to school. With strangers.

# data[].attributes.body
Sugandha, Varshney. “Genetic Manipulation, Religious Sacrifices And Worse: 8 Types Of Horrific Animal Cruelty” 8th October, 2015

https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2015/10/saving-animals-from-cruelty/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
US Department of Health and Human Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bullying may seriously affect the mental health and well being of children and youth. Parents, teachers, coaches, and other youth-serving adults are in positions where they are able to notice when there are signs of mental distress or bullying behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg: Who is the climate activist and what has she achieved?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The climate activist has been arrested in Sweden and the UK as a result of her protests.

# data[].attributes.body
Tapper, James. “Greta Thunberg’s Mother Reveals Teenager’s Troubled Childhood.” The Observer. The Guardian for 200 years, 22 Feb. 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/22/greta-thunberg-mother-she-stopped-talking-and-eating Accessed 7 Dec. 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
“Climate change.” Britannica School, Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Sep. 2018. school.eb.com/levels/middle/article/climate-change/630276  Accessed 12 Nov. 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last Chance for Animals is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating animal exploitation through education, investigations, legislation, and media attention. The organization believes that animals are highly sentient creatures who exist for their own reasons independent of their…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Craig Kielburger, CM, author, speaker and social entrepreneur (born 17 December 1982 in Toronto, ON). Kielburger is best known for his activism as a young teenager and his work co-founding and leading ME to WE, a business that links purchases to global social and economic development. He also founded and co-leads WE Charity (formerly Free the Children), which focuses particularly on youth education and mobilization. Much of his work revolves around a conviction that youth are fundamental to creating systemic change.

Early Life and Education

Craig Kielburger is the second son of two teachers, Fred and Theresa Kielburger. He was raised in Thornhill, Ontario, a community just north of Toronto. In 2002, Kielburger had to couple his charitable initiatives with university, entering the University of Toronto's Peace and Conflict Studies program. In 2009, he was the youngest to ever graduate from the Kellogg-Schulich Executive MBA program at York University.

Free the Children

In 1995, Kielburger read a newspaper article about the murder of 12-year-old Iqbal Masih, a formerly enslaved Pakistani boy, who became an activist against child labour following his escape from forced labour. "It really upset me," Kielburger said. "What did the two of us have in common except our age?" He learned that Masih's story was just one example of child labour and was so moved by the systemic injustice that he rallied some of his classmates to launch Free the Children, a youth-led advocacy group that sought to draw attention to child labour. According to Kielburger, he was driven by a conviction that youth should be participants in issues that affected them, rather than allowing adults to speak for them. The idea of children helping children, tapping into the idealism and enthusiasm of children to create social change, remains fundamental to Kielburger's ethos.

"Children have an innate ability to feel suffering and injustice and to be far more emotional in their feelings," he said. "They haven't accepted certain social norms, like there will always be poverty. The child who says, 'This child is hungry; let's feed them,' might sound naïve to an adult. In fact, that's a compassionate, logical, very well thought of response. To say that we can end poverty in our world isn't naïve; it's idealistic. But young people need to be shamelessly idealistic in our world because it's the only way things will change."

The organization's first substantial action was a 3,000-signature petition calling for the release of child labour activist Kailash Satyarthi that was sent to the prime minister of India. Kielburger and his peers gave speeches about child labour at schools, churches and community groups ( see Kielburger's Campaign). Public attention grew after he impressed during a speech before the Ontario Federation of Labour, leading to $150,000 in donations to Free the Children.

It Takes a Child - A Journey into Child Labour

Kielburger wanted to visit the countries he spoke about. With guidance and substantial assistance from activist and university student Alam Rahman, and letters of support from various human rights organizations, Kielburger and his family plotted out a seven-week trip covering cities in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand and Bangladesh. He travelled over the winter of 1995-96.

On his trip, Kielburger met with child labourers and human rights organizations - experiences he later chronicled in his book Free the Children (1998), written with Kevin Major. The book also describes how Kielburger met with Jean Chrétien while the Prime Minister was in the region on a trade mission ( see International Trade). During their 15-minute encounter, Kielburger encouraged Chrétien to commit to adding child labour to his trade talk agenda, and to pressure North American companies to stop trading with businesses that relied on child labour. The book also details his encounter with Mother Theresa in her mission house in Calcutta, an encounter of great meaning to the devout Kielburger ( see Catholicism).

Upon his return, Kielburger became a media sensation. The well-spoken and earnest teenager had an interview on 60 Minutes, and fielded interview requests from news outlets around the world. Not all profiles were flattering. In November 1996, Saturday Night magazine ran a critical piece that, among other things, questioned the extent to which Kielburger was controlled by his parents, and suggested that Free the Children fundraising might be enriching the Kielburger family. The Kielburger family sued Saturday Night for libel. The magazine agreed to pay Kielburger $319,000 to settle the lawsuit in 2000 ( see Defamation in Canada). Kielburger said he would use the funds to pay legal fees and give the remainder to Free the Children. One account of the incident alleged that the entire affair was part of a product of a society that disliked youth disrupting the status-quo.

Activism

While Kielburger attracted attention and praise for himself and Free the Children, the organization ran into financial difficulties as well as operational challenges. Free the Children had difficulty attracting large donations from major sponsors. Though Free the Children helped fund organizations that raided factories using child labour, Kielburger discovered that children were often compelled to return to the factories after the raids were over.

Marc Kielburger took on a larger role with the organization after completing his law degree at the University of Oxford, and the group focused more on attracting smaller donations from youth. As well, they redoubled their efforts towards training and education, focusing especially on building new schools in developing nations. The organization also received a substantial boost from Craig's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 1999, which included a significant donation from Oprah herself.

Around the same time, Kielburger sought to increase corporate concern about child labour. He had returned to India in 1998, on a tour funded by a subsidiary of British American Tobacco. Craig was accompanied by other children, as well as Marc, and, on this and later tours, they sought to expose other people to the reality of child labour. From these tours, two important elements of their "Me to We" principles crystalized. One was the idea that corporations need to be involved in labour reform. The other was the conviction that sending abroad as many children as possible from developed countries (to learn about global conditions) fosters support for development.

Me to We

While studying at the University of Toronto, accolades continued to accumulate for Craig, including nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize ( see Nobel Prizes). He also continued to serve as the public face for Free the Children, which continued to expand and open new schools.

In 2004, Craig and Marc publicised their guiding ideals in their book Me to We: Finding Meaning in a Material World. The book included contributions from such luminaries as Oprah Winfrey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Dr. Jane Goodall. The book articulated several core points of Free the Children's "Me to We" philosophy, including the importance of community, the happiness derived from service, and the limitations of material gain. It drew on stories from their own experiences and from those of their volunteers and the people they met around the world. It sought to ground their philosophy in a broader spiritual context, partly reflecting the Kielburger brothers' Catholic upbringing, and asserted that the "ethics of reciprocity" is universal among world religions. This Me to We perspective also became the focal point of the large youth rallies the brothers held, gathering children and encouraging them to participate in and lead charitable and community events.

Kielburger's MBA studies demonstrated his interest in combining the tools of business with his broader aim of promoting educational and social development. This drive helped reshape his social enterprise, ME to WE, which operates on a for-profit basis through the sale of products linked to social and economic development. His ambition to connect the tools of corporate development with progressive change brings some challenges, including reports of very long workdays and accusations that WE Day rallies are excessively commercialized.

(left to right) Cameron Bailey, Kristin Kreuk, Martha Wainwright and Craig Kielburger after the finale of Canada Reads 2015.

Craig continues to enjoy a prolific public presence. In 2010, he and his brother were Toronto torchbearers for the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. He and Marc regularly contribute articles on socially conscious living to major newspapers in Canada. In the 2015 edition of the CBC TV series Canada Reads, Kielburger defended Thomas King's The Inconvenient Indian under the theme "One Book to Break Barriers." He and Marc continue to lead three related organizations: WE Charity (formerly Free the Children), ME to WE, and WE Day. He is frequently on the road, and states that he travels 300 days a year.

Honours and Awards

Meritorious Service Medal (civilian division), Governor General (1997)

Freedom from Fear Award, Roosevelt Institute (1998)

Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (2001)

Golden Jubilee Medal (2002)

Youth Award, World of Children (2002)

Nelson Mandela Human Rights Award, CAW (2003)

International Peace Award, Community of Christ (2005)

Honorary Doctor of Education, Nipissing University (2005)

World Children's Prize (2006)

Member, Order of Canada (2006)

Honorary Degree, University of Guelph (2007)

Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Alberta (2011)

Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Toronto (2011)

15th Anniversary Achievement Award, World of Children (2012)

Diamond Jubilee Medal (2012)

Honorary Degree, Carleton University (2012)

Honorary Doctor of Laws, Concordia University (2012)

Dedication Award, Muhammad Ali Center (2013)

Honorary Doctor of Laws, York University (2013)

Canada's Walk of Fame (with Marc Kielburger) (2013)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Craig Kielburger, CM, author, speaker and social entrepreneur (born 17 December 1982 in Toronto, ON). Kielburger is best known for his activism as a young teenager and his work co-founding and leading ME to WE, a business that links purchases to global social and economic development.

# data[].attributes.body
Diana Lambdin Meyer. "Animal abusers are more likely to abuse people." Herizons, vol. 10, no. 4, fall 1996, p. 9. Gale General OneFile, Accessed 22 Nov. 2021

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A30214996/ITOF?u=lausdnet&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=c386fd94

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How different would your life be if you never went to school and never learned how to read and write?

For millions of children, this is the case. Of the world's 787 million children of primary school age, 8% do not go to school. That's 58.4 million children.

The chart shows where they live in the world.

This is UNESCO data for the year 2019. During the pandemic, this number increased temporarily, but even at pre-pandemic levels - to which the world will hopefully return soon - the number was much too high. 58 million children out of primary school means 58 million who don't even have the chance to learn how to read and write.

Why are children not in school?

To make progress, we have to understand why children are not in school.

One major reason is violence in the world's ongoing conflict areas, including Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Nigeria. Half of all out-of-school children live in conflict-affected countries.

The other large barrier - often closely intertwined with conflict - is poverty.

In low-income countries, public finances for education are very low: the annual spending in a high-income country like Austria is more than 200-times higher per student than in a low-income country like the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the worst cases, poverty requires children to work - most commonly on smallholder farms - and this means they leave school early or never enter school in the first place.

If we want to make progress on education, then we will need to continue the developments that reduce conflict and poverty.

These macro changes are essential but can seem intangible in the short-term. Targeted policies can make a difference in such situations. One policy with a long and well-established track record is to provide free meals in schools. School meals achieve two goals at the same time: They offer children a better diet, and they provide an incentive for parents to send their children to school. Research studies have shown that school meals increase school attendance and have a long-lasting impact over the child's lifetime. A study in Sweden showed that pupils who received meals in school in the 1960s had 3% higher lifetime incomes. They have even been shown to have intergenerational benefits: the children of mothers who received school meals when they were children also benefit from school meal programs.

Widespread access to even the most basic education is a very recent achievement

As is so often the case with large global problems, the state of the world today is at the same time terrible, yet also much better than it was in the past.

This chart shows the same data as the first one, but it now also shows how the world has changed since the previous generation, 20 years ago. The share of children who are out-of-school has declined in all world regions. Globally, this share has halved. Today, 8% of children are not in school; twenty years ago this was 16%.

A generation ago, it was girls in particular who did not have access to schools. This inequality has declined, and today, the absolute number and the share of boys and girls who are out of primary school is similar.

Until recently, access to education was restricted to a very small elite everywhere

This recent change is part of a much larger development that spans the last few generations.

Until then, no matter where a child was born, its chances of getting even the most basic education were very small. Everywhere in the world, education was restricted to a small elite population.

The chart shows this big global development. In all countries - including those where children today have the best education - widespread access to even basic education is a recent achievement.

The global revolution in literacy

Reading is the single most important educational skill a young child can learn. How did literacy change as more and more children gained access to a basic education?

The chart shows that two centuries ago, only 1 out of every 10 adults knew how to read and write. This ratio has flipped since then: today, about 9 in 10 adults do have this basic skill.

To make progress against the world's problems, we need a strong team of educated people. From this perspective, it makes sense to consider this global change in absolute numbers. Today, there are about 4.6 billion people who can read and write. In 1800, there were fewer than 100 million people with the same skill. We have a much stronger team than ever before.

Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not

The majority of children that have ever lived did not have the opportunity to fulfill their potential. In the extreme poverty of the pre-growth economies, children with great potential ended up living a life in poverty. Even very basic educational skills - like reading and writing - were a privilege of a small elite.

It is hard to imagine what all these girls and boys could have become. Perhaps it is easier to see the importance of at least basic education by looking at those around us today and ask what their chances would have been without it. What would have become of Marie Curie, Jane Austen, Steve Jobs, or Einstein if they were born into a society in which children didn't have access to basic education?

The world has made a lot of progress in recent generations, but a lot of work is left for our generation today. Almost 60 million children are growing up without the opportunities that you and I had, thanks to the primary school that we were able to attend.

In this text, I focused on access to primary education. In my follow-up article, I will focus on the quality of education. I will show how extremely large the differences in educational quality between countries are and which opportunities there are to improve education, especially for the very poorest children in the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access to basic education: Almost 60 million children of primary school age are not in school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world has made a lot of progress in recent generations, but millions of children are still not in school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
EPA works bilaterally with governments and environmental officials around the world on e-waste management. U.S. EPA and Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA) coordinate the International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN), which has brought together environmental officials from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and North America to exchange best practices on e-waste management since 2011.

EPA also collaborates with the Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative (Step) to jointly address the e-waste problem in developing countries. Step, formerly known as UNU-Step, was previously an initiative under the United Nations University (UNU). EPA and UNU first signed a cooperative agreement to work together on e-waste in November 2010 and then again in 2015. Some of the work undertaken by UNU-Step included tracking global flows of e-waste, the Person-in-the-Port project in Nigeria, optimization of an e-waste dismantling facility in Ethiopia and the development of a tool to help gather information on volumes of e-waste generated within countries and exported to others. EPA is a founding member of the Step Initiative and serves on the Step Supervisory Committee.

Highlights

March 2019: EPA participated in the launch of the UNIDO-GEF project, "Strengthening of National Initiatives and Enhancement of Regional Cooperation or the Environmentally Sound Management of POPs in Waste of Electronic of Electrical Equipment (WEEE)." With EPA's support, Step developed a tool which will enhance the ability of participating countries to assess how much e-waste is generated, imported and exported.

The meeting took place in San Jose, Costa Rica with participation from the thirteen countries involved in the project, along with experts from around the region and the world.

Understanding E-Waste

What is E-Waste?

"E-waste", "electronic waste", "e-scrap" and "end-of-life electronics" are terms often used to describe used electronics that are nearing the end of their useful life, and are discarded, donated or given to a recycler. Though "e-waste" is the commonly used term, EPA considers e-waste to be a subset of used electronics and recognizes the inherent value of these materials that can be reused, refurbished or recycled to minimize the actual waste that might end up in a landfill or improperly disposed in an unprotected dump site either in the US or abroad.

An undetermined amount of used electronics is shipped from the United States and other developed countries to developing countries that lack the capacity to reject imports or to handle these materials appropriately. Without proper standards and enforcement, improper practices may result in public health and environmental concerns, even in countries where processing facilities exist.

We have serious concerns about unsafe handling of used electronics and e-waste, in developing countries, that results in harm to human health and the environment. For example, there are problems with open-air burning and acid baths being used to recover valuable materials from electronic components, which expose workers to harmful substances. There are also problems with toxic materials leaching into the environment. These practices can expose workers to high levels of contaminants such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which can lead to irreversible health effects, including cancers, miscarriages, neurological damage and diminished IQs.

EPA estimates that, in 2009, US consumers and businesses discarded televisions, computers, cell phones and hard copy peripherals (including printers, scanners, faxes) totaling 2.37 million tons. Approximately 25 percent of these electronics were collected for recycling, with the remainder disposed of primarily in landfills, where the precious metals cannot be recovered.

Understanding the Problem

Better data are needed to create a more comprehensive picture of the overall trade flows. Accurate information about the amounts, types of materials and destinations of used electronics exported will provide valuable information for the Federal government, private industry and other stakeholders.

To this end, EPA funded UNU-StEP to lead a study on US exports of used electronics in an attempt to better define the US contribution to the overall e-waste problem. StEP collaborated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER). A workshop in July 2011 in Washington, DC gathered input from stakeholders to and helped chart a path forward. In December 2013 the final study, (121 pp, 1.9 M, Quantitative Characterization of Domestic and Transboundary Flows of Used Electronics, was released. It presents a methodology for using existing trade data to calculate US exports and lays out challenges and options for future data-gathering efforts. View the Report (PDF) About PDF)

National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship

In July 2011, the Task Force released the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship report, which details the federal government's plan to enhance the management of electronics by: 1) incentivizing greener design of electronics; 2) leading by example; 3) increasing domestic recycling; and 4) reducing harmful exports of e-waste and building capacity in developing countries.

The strategy provides four overarching goals, action items under each goal, and the projects that will implement each action item. The international goal is aimed at "reducing the harm from US exports of e-waste and improve safe handling of used electronics in developing countries." These recommendations are described in more detail in the report.

On August 4, 2014, EPA, CEQ, and GSA joined the US Postal Service in Washington, DC to release Moving Sustainable Electronics Forward: A Update to the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, a report detailing key domestic and international accomplishments as a result of the release of the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship in July 2011. The report highlights the improvement of information on global flows of e-waste, and the strengthening of capacity around the globe to better manage used electronics.

Capacity Building

Building Capacity in Developing Countries and Sharing Best Practices

Ethiopia:

Managing the e-waste created by an increasing amount of computer and telecommunication equipment is important to the Ethiopian government, and many international partners have worked in Ethiopia to help address this concern.

In 2010, EPA provided funds to the United Nations University (UNU) to assess e-waste in Ethiopia. The assessment was carried out by Germany's Oeko Institute. Based on the results, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) invested $1 million in a project to strengthen Ethiopia's capacity to manage e-waste. This was the GEF's first investment on the e-waste issue. The EPA and GEF projects build upon a previous World Bank-funded initiative aimed at enhancing Ethiopia's Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector.

Through this multiyear effort, EPA, UNU-Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP ) and the GEF assessed the state of e-waste in Ethiopia, studied national and international downstream markets for certain e-waste components, and identified financing models for sound e-waste management in Ethiopia. The project also strengthened the capacity of a demanufacturing facility to process e-waste in Addis Ababa.

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was the overall manager of the GEF project, with UNU-StEP's Initiative team serving as the technical experts. EPA served as an international advisor to an Ethiopian working group on e-waste management during the course of this work. The project ended in late 2016.

These efforts developed the following publications:

The following links exit the site

International E-Waste Management Network:

The International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN) is a network of government officials that come together annually to exchange best practices and learn from experts how to improve management of used electronics in their own countries. US EPA and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (EPAT) support this effort through a cooperative agreement.

The IEMN began in 2011 and held its 6th annual workshop in October 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Officials from the governments of Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and North America were present to learn and share about new tools and approaches to e-waste management.

Multilateral Cooperation

In addition to country-specific capacity building, EPA engages in longer-term multilateral cooperation with key international organizations to address the export of used electronics from one country to another and its ramifications.

Solving the E-waste Problem (Step): Step is a multi-stakeholder initiative and a global platform addressing the e-waste problem. Step develops scientific papers to help members address e-waste issues within their own organizations and provides global, objective and scientifically-based information relevant to addressing the global problem of e-waste. EPA is a founding Step member and part of the Steering Committee.

(128 pp, 3 M, North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC): Canada, Mexico and the United States are collaborating on the sound management of e-waste in North America through the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). One project involves describing the transboundary movement, or flows, of used and end-of-life computers, monitors and other electronic equipment both within, and exported from, North America. A second project involves enhancing the capability of small and medium-sized enterprises to recycle and refurbish e-waste using sound environmental practices. CEC has released a report, "Quantitative Characterization of Domestic and Transboundary Flows of Used Electronics Products," About PDF) detailing trade flows of used electronics from and within North America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cleaning Up Electronic Waste (E-Waste) | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EPA works bilaterally with governments and environmental officials around the world on e-waste management. U.S. EPA and Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA) coordinate the International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN), which has brought together environmental officials from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and North America to exchange best practices on e-waste management since 2011.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Cruelty and Neglect: Prevalence and Community Actions in Victoria, Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Cruelty and Neglect: Prevalence and Community Actions in Victoria, Australia

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/12/1121/htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, the University of Melbourne, Animal Welfare Science Centre, North Melbourne, VIC 3051, Australia

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Victoria, Burwood East, VIC 3151, Australia

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 14 November 2019 / Revised: 5 December 2019 / Accepted: 9 December 2019 / Published: 11 December 2019

Simple Summary

Preventing animal cruelty and neglect is the goal of animal protection. But it is hard to effectively address a problem without a good understanding of its prevalence and nature. While 55,000-60,000 reports of mistreatment are made to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Australia each year, we do not know how well these data reflect what is actually happening in the community. After all, these data are reliant on people reporting what they see and therefore, probably only represent a fraction of what is actually occurring. To better understand this problem, we conducted the first extensive community survey to find out what people had seen in their communities and what they did about it. We found that animal mistreatment was (1) common, with 25.7% of people surveyed witnessing mistreatment, (2) mostly neglect with perceived underweight animals being the most common issue and (3) underreported to authorities with only 9% of witnesses reporting to RSPCA Victoria. While sobering, these findings are the first step to developing and resourcing well-informed strategies to prevent the mistreatment of animals.

1. Introduction

Animal mistreatment is a complex issue that affects countless animals worldwide [ 1]. Differences exist in the literature and the common vernacular regarding the use and meaning of terms such as cruelty, neglect, abuse and maltreatment. As such, here we will use the term 'animal mistreatment' to refer to all instances of significant animal suffering caused by a human, including both neglect and cruelty, regardless of intent. In Australia, around 55,000-60,000 reports of animal mistreatment are made each year to the RSPCA [ 2], approximately 11,000 of which are made in the state of Victoria [ 3]. While this is a substantial number, it is likely that, similar to other related social issues such as domestic violence and child abuse [ 4, 5, 6], these reports are just the 'tip of the iceberg' [ 7]. Taking the lead from more developed fields of prevention and intervention such as interpersonal violence and public health, understanding the extent of such an issue is the first crucial step in developing informed intervention strategies [ 8]. Previous research has investigated the prevalence of overt animal cruelty in non-representative samples of various subpopulations (e.g., adolescents [ 9], domestic violence perpetrators [ 10], and prison inmates [ 11]). Additionally, one study examined the prevalence of self-reported intentional animal abuse in two cities in Russia and Ukraine [ 12]. However, to date, there has been no empirical investigation of the prevalence of animal mistreatment (including both neglect and cruelty) in the general community and it is unknown how accurate a reflection official case data (reports made by the community) are of what is actually occurring in the community. Consequently, it is likely that the true scale of the problem has been largely overlooked. It is crucial to understand this for informed and effective policy and resourcing decisions to be made.

Using the only information available to them, animal welfare organisations and researchers have taken to analysing case data and even more limiting, prosecution records, for various trends [ 13, 14, 15]. Analysis of the Victorian (Australia) data has found that the number of cases differ significantly between Local Government Areas (LGAs). That is, some LGAs have consistently high numbers of cases, while others have low numbers of cases. These results are often communicated in the mainstream media, identifying 'cruelty hot spots' [ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. However, it is also found that the majority of complaints relate to issues of neglect rather than intentional cruelty. The observed differences between LGAs have also prompted interest in region specific intervention programs where there are high numbers of cases [ 23]. However, it is unknown if these differences in the number of cases between LGAs represent a true difference in prevalence of animal mistreatment, or merely differences in reporting. Indeed, many factors may influence reporting behaviour and an alternate explanation of these trends is that people in areas with high numbers of cases actually care more about animals and are therefore more likely to report when they see something wrong.

Consequently, in order to understand how case data trends relate to the actual prevalence of mistreatment, it is also important to understand how and why members of the community respond to witnessing instances of mistreatment; what do they do and why do they do it? Of particular interest is why people choose to report (or not) to authorities. While factors influencing reporting have been examined in other criminal situations [ 24], only one study that we are aware of has investigated this with regard to animal mistreatment. Taylor and Signal [ 25] investigated the relationships between several, mainly demographic, factors and people's propensity to report mistreatment. They found that individuals who identified as female, those working in 'white collar jobs', and those with an awareness of the link between animal cruelty and family violence, had a greater propensity to report mistreatment. While these are interesting findings, only one of these factors is open to change (awareness of the link between animal cruelty and family violence) and it would be beneficial for prevention initiatives to understand more about the attitudinal factors that influence reporting.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to gain a more objective understanding of the prevalence and types of animal mistreatment in Victoria, as well as how the community responds to witnessing mistreatment and why. Specifically, we aimed to determine how areas with high numbers of RSPCA Victoria cases differed with respect to these factors (prevalence, types, actions, and attitudes) to similar areas with low numbers of cases. Not only will this information prove valuable for decision making and planning of prevention activities in Victoria, it will also serve as an indicator of the accuracy of case data and trends for organisations worldwide.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Human Ethics Approval

This project was conducted in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) guidelines and regulations. Ethics approval for both the formative focus groups (ID: 1853397) and survey (ID: 1954263) was granted by the University of Melbourne Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences Human Ethics Advisory Group. All participants provided informed consent prior to partaking and were given the opportunity to withdraw their data upon completion of the task.

2.2. Focus Groups

Four focus groups, consisting of between six and twelve participants, were conducted in February 2019. The aim of the focus groups was to elicit common attitudes and beliefs from the general community to inform item development for the subsequent Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) questionnaire. The sessions were conducted in person at community spaces (library and a neighbourhood house) in the City of Latrobe region. The City of Latrobe region was used because a separate project, for which it was the focal site, provided the opportunity to conduct this work. Adult members of the general community were recruited through advertisements in social media groups (buy/swap/sell groups and community noticeboard groups) and provided with a financial incentive ($60) to attract a range of views. The final sample consisted of 37 individuals, 26 female, 10 male, and 1 gender non-binary, aged from 18 to 65 years. No recruits were refused participation. Key themes discussed included attitudes towards animals, what constitutes mistreatment, and perceived prevalence of mistreatment. Common themes and attitudes were identified for inclusion in the questionnaire.

2.3. Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to investigate (1) the prevalence of mistreatment, (2) the actions taken after witnessing mistreatment and, (3) people's attitudes towards reporting mistreatment. Demographic questions (age, education, country of birth, income bracket) were also included.

To estimate the prevalence of animal mistreatment, we investigated the number of incidents of mistreatment participants could recall witnessing in the past 12 months. However, animal mistreatment is a subjective topic; what one person considers to be mistreatment, another may not. As such, instead of simply asking whether a person had witnessed 'mistreatment', participants were asked 'In the last 12 months have you seen in your neighbourhood:' and then explicit descriptions of ten common types of animal mistreatment (as identified from RSPCA Victoria cases) were read out (see Table 1). If they answered yes to any of these, they were asked on how many separate occasions (i.e., involving different animals) they had seen this and the numeric value was recorded. These descriptions were based on commonly used descriptors or guidelines used by RSPCA employees when determining whether a situation likely involves mistreatment.

For each type of mistreatment that a participant had witnessed, they were then asked what they did, or most recently did if there were multiple occasions, after witnessing it. Participants selected one option for each type of mistreatment they had witnessed from the following list: 1. Made a report to RSPCA, 2. Made a report to the local council, 3. Made a report to a government department or other statutory authority, 4. Made a report to Police, 5. Discussed your concern with a professional, e.g., vet, animal welfare worker, 6. Sought advice from a family member or friend, 7. Other, (please specify), 8. Nothing. The response options were randomised in order to prevent response bias.

For each type of mistreatment witnessed that the participant had not acted upon (responded 'nothing' to the previous question), they were asked to describe in a few words why they had not acted. Their responses were then categorised by the telephone interviewer to pre-programmed responses: 1. I was unsure whether mistreatment was actually taking place, 2. I was not sure whether it was against the law, 3. I didn't know what the right thing to do was, 4. I didn't want to get involved, 5. I didn't know who to contact, 6. I didn't think it was any of my business, 7. I thought I might make the situation worse for the animal, 8. Someone else told me not to, 9. I was concerned about the person finding out it was me, 10. I was concerned about retaliation or backlash from the person involved, 11. I didn't think the authorities would help, 12. I was worried the animal would be euthanized, 13. I didn't have time, 14. Other (Specify), 15. There were no such situations (I always did something). After data collection was complete, five additional categories that were frequently noted in the 'Other (Specify)' response were added and back-coded: 16. I thought the situation was improving, 17. Stray or feral animal, 18. Witnessed in passing and couldn't intervene, 19. Someone else was taking action, 21. Wildlife.

Participants were also asked a series of attitudinal questions related to reporting animal mistreatment. These items were modelled off the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), one of the most widely used models of human behaviour [ 26]. The TPB identifies behaviour as an outcome of three attitudinal elements: (1) attitudes towards the behaviour itself, (2) subjective norms, and (3) perceived behavioural control [ 27]. While attitudes are difficult to measure directly, they can be inferred by responses to belief statements related to these three elements; (1) beliefs about the behaviour itself and its outcomes, (2) normative beliefs about how significant others would expect the individual to behave, and (3) beliefs about the degree of control the individual has over performing the behaviour [ 27]. Relevant beliefs were identified through the focus groups and in consultation with industry experts. Two additional belief statements that did not clearly fall into these categories were also incorporated as they were commonly expressed by focus group participants. Attitudinal items were scored on five-point Likert-type scales ( Table 2) and randomised in order.

2.4. Local Government Area Selection

As one of the key aims of the study was to determine the accuracy of case data with regard to observed trends between LGAs, select LGAs were chosen for sampling as opposed to a state-wide representative survey. A representative survey of Victoria would not allow for comparison of LGAs or identification of trends, because, unless the sample size was very large, the number of participants from each area would be small and provide unreliable estimates. Six LGAs were chosen for inclusion in the survey; three with high numbers of RSPCA reported cases and three with low numbers of cases ( Table 3). To do this, all 79 Victorian LGAs were ranked based on the raw numbers of reported cases and per capita cases over the preceding 3 years (2015-2018). The ten highest ranked (high numbers of cases) and ten lowest ranked (low number of cases) LGAs were considered for selection. Of the ten highest ranked (HR) LGAs, a regional city (City of Latrobe) was selected, being the highest ranked, along with an inner-city region (City of Melbourne) and an interface (peri-urban) region (Yarra Ranges Shire), to gain a better representation of the various region types that exist within Victoria. These three HR LGAs were then paired with similar low ranked (LR) regions based on Local Government Comparator Groups (standardised categories of councils developed to enable meaningful comparison of data and services between Victorian councils [ 28]), population, and Social Economic Index for Area (SEIFA) scores. The City of Latrobe was matched with Mildura Rural City and City of Melbourne with City of Stonnington. No interface councils appeared in the ten lowest ranked LGAs. Consequently, the interface councils with the lowest rank were considered, despite them not appearing in the bottom ten. While Nillumbik Shire had the lowest rank of the interface councils, Wyndham City was selected as it better matched the demographics (population and SEIFA ranking) of the chosen HR LGA (Yarra Ranges). This pairing of HR and LR LGAs allowed for more meaningful interpretation of results by limiting the number of variables between comparators.

2.5. Questionnaire Delivery and Sampling

Questionnaire delivery was contracted to the Social Research Centre, a data collection subsidiary of the Australian National University specialising in social and health research. The questionnaire was delivered as a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) using random digit dialing. Telephone number lists were acquired by the Social Research Centre from a commercial provider with a mixture of 80% mobile numbers and 20% landlines. For mobile numbers, a pre-notification SMS message was sent prior to phoning to provide the opportunity to opt-out and improve the likelihood people would answer the phone.

To facilitate a more representative sample, in each call the operator requested to speak to the person living in the household aged 18 years or over who was to have the next birthday. Population representative quotas were set for gender and age.

Data collection spanned four weeks from 29 April to 27 May 2019. The AAPOR Response Rate 3 [ 30] was 9.4% and the overall cooperation rate was 19.5%, with significant variation between landline (31.8%) and mobile (18.1%) frames.

2.6. Data Analysis

All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA), except for the Rodgerian analyses which were conducted in the Simple Powerful Statistics application [ 31]. All variables were screened using descriptive analyses. Extreme outliers (z > 3.29) were removed for the variables related to the number of separate incidents witnessed; each of these values was greater than 300 and it was likely the participant had misunderstood the question. While the distributions of responses were often skewed, given the large sample size (n = 1801), normality of sampling distribution was assumed in most cases.

Rodger's method of decision-based contrasts was used to compare between LGAs both the proportion of people who had witnessed mistreatment and the proportion who had reported to RSPCA Victoria. Rodger's method was utilised as it is the most powerful post-hoc statistical procedure for detecting differences in proportions between groups owing to its use of decision-based type 1 error rates as opposed to experiment-wise error rates [ 32, 33]. Two-way factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean number of incidents witnessed between HR/LR LGAs and the different region types (regional, interface, metro).

Correlations between attitudinal variables were low (<0.3) and hence, not suitable for dimension reduction techniques [ 34] (p. 685). As such, all attitude items were used in the analyses reported here. The relationship between attitudes towards reporting and reporting behaviour was first examined with biserial correlations. Correlations were only run on cases where the participant had witnessed mistreatment and had the opportunity to report (n = 462). The correlations between attitude items and reporting behaviour were weak and while logistic regression and discriminant function analysis were trialed, they yielded poor results accordingly. As such, these analyses were not appropriate and have not been reported. The relationship between reporting and other demographic variables was examined using chi-square tests.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Demographics

A total of 1801 individuals were surveyed with 300 respondents each from Latrobe, Yarra Ranges, Melbourne, Stonnington, and Wyndham, and 301 from Mildura. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 93 (M = 49.32, SD = 16.86) with 45.6% identifying as male, 53.7% female, 0.2% as other gender, and 0.4% undisclosed (0.1% discrepancy due to rounding). The majority of respondents (64.1%) had animals in their households with dogs (46.4%) and cats (27.2%) being the most common. Most respondents (70.0%) had completed year 12 or equivalent and 79.4% had completed further qualifications (including trade certificates).

3.2. Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Across the whole sample (n = 1801), 462 respondents (25.7%) had witnessed at least one incident of animal mistreatment in the past 12 months. The proportion of people who had witnessed at least one incident of mistreatment did not differ between paired HR/LR LGAs ( Table 4).

Overall, the mean number of separate incidents witnessed was 10.8 (SD = 42.06) with a median of 2. Again, the mean number of separate incidents witnessed did not differ between paired HR/LR LGAs, Fp = 0.642. However, the average number of incidents witnessed was significantly higher in the regional cities (F 1,444 = 0.217, M = 17.16, SD = 57.60, n = 183), when compared to the interface (M = 5.85, SD = 21.52, n = 127) and metro regions (M = 7.12, SD = 29.34, n = 140), ,444 = 3.554, p = 0.029. While Levene's test of homogeneity of variance was violated for this factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (p < 0.001), the sample sizes were similar between groups (ratio between largest group and smallest group <1.5) and hence, robust to violation [ 35] (p. 361). Additionally, as the group with the larger sample size had the larger variance, this would result in a loss of statistical power, and yet a significant difference was still detected. No interaction effect was found between HR/LR and LGA type. ₂

3.3. Types of Animal Mistreatment Witnessed

As demonstrated in Figure 1, the most commonly witnessed form of mistreatment overall was underweight animals (935 separate incidents), followed by excessive numbers of animals such that the owner could not care for them appropriately (874 incidents).

However, the most common forms of mistreatment witnessed differed between the LGAs ( Figure 2).

3.4. Actions Associated with Witnessing Animal Mistreatment

For each type of mistreatment a participant had witnessed, they were asked what they did in response, or what they most recently did if there were multiple incidents of the same mistreatment type. The sum of action responses for each LGA and the sample as a whole is provided in Table 5 with a graphical representation of their proportions provided in Figure 3. While 462 participants had witnessed mistreatment, many had witnessed multiple different types, hence the total number of recorded responses was 967.

When all actions were summed together, participants most commonly took some form of action (73% of all actions recorded). However, reporting to the various types of authorities (RSPCA Victoria, council, government, police) was relatively low with only 9% reporting to the primary investigatory body for animal mistreatment, RSPCA Victoria. The single most frequent response overall was to do nothing (27% of all recorded actions). This was consistent across all LGAs individually except Wyndham, where the most common response was to discuss the situation with friends or family.

While no action was the most common response for five out of the six LGAs, other responses to mistreatment differed between HR/LR LGA pairs. Specifically, reporting to RSPCA Victoria differed significantly in the regional city and metropolitan pairs ( Table 6). People in the HR LGAs (Latrobe and Melbourne) reported to RSPCA Victoria more often (for more types of mistreatment) than those in their paired LR regions (Mildura and Stonnington). However, there was no statistically significant difference for the interface pair.

Reponses to witnessing animal mistreatment also varied between different types of mistreatment. No action was the most common response for eight of the ten types of mistreatment. However, when an animal was killed, the most common response was to report it to the police (38%) or council (23.1%) and when an animal was without water, participants most commonly either helped the animal directly (28.2%) or reported to the RSPCA Victoria (28.2%).

3.5. Reasons for Inaction

The most common reason given for not taking action after witnessing animal mistreatment was being unsure that mistreatment was actually taking place (24%) ( Figure 4). However, when asked how confident they would be in recognising the signs of mistreatment, only 9% of these same people responded that they were 'not very confident', with 28.4% being 'fully confident' and 14.9% 'mostly confident'. The next most common reasons given for inaction were fear of retaliation (12%), thinking it was 'not any of my business' (9%), or not wanting to get involved (9%). The 'other' section includes both actions that did not fall into any of the pre-programmed responses (e.g., praying, ongoing monitoring of situation, informing supervisors) and pre-programmed responses that had less than a 3% response rate for ease of visualisation.

3.6. Attitudes towards Reporting Mistreatment

Generally, attitudes towards reporting animal mistreatment were positive. Across the whole sample (n = 1801), most people considered that reporting mistreatment would help the animal (88.3%) and that it is the right thing to do (98.8%). However, there were still 125 people (11.7%) who thought that it would not help the animal.

Biserial correlations between the attitude items and whether a person reported mistreatment were weak ( Table 7). While four items were statistically significant, the correlation coefficients (r) were small (<0.16) and likely to be of little practical significance. This conclusion was supported by the poor results produced by more detailed statistical analyses (logistic regression and discriminant function analysis not reported here).

3.7. Associations between Demographic Variables and Reporting

As shown in Table 8, the only demographic variables that indicated a significant relationship with reporting behaviour were the participant's LGA and LGA type (i.e., regional vs. metro vs. interface).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to gain a more objective understanding of animal mistreatment in Victoria and how this relates to previously relied on RSPCA Victoria case data. To do so, it is important to examine both the prevalence of witnessing mistreatment and the actions taken by witnesses. Collectively, our results suggest that there is a much larger problem of animal mistreatment in Victoria than previously considered and that official case data trends are not an accurate reflection of the prevalence of mistreatment within individual LGAs.

Overall, witnessing animal mistreatment was common with 25.7% of participants having witnessed at least one incident in the past year, often many more. As we only sampled six of the 79 LGAs in Victoria, generalisations are limited. However, given that the three main region types were represented (regional, interface, metro), it is reasonable to suggest that the average proportion of people who had witnessed mistreatment would be of a similar magnitude across the state. Of particular note is that only 9% of the people witnessing mistreatment reported what they had seen to RSPCA Victoria, the main regulatory body in Victoria for such reports. If this figure is consistent across the state, then it follows that the 11,000 reports made to RSPCA Victoria each year may only represent 9% of the true problem.

The differences in prevalence between LGAs found in RSPCA Victoria case data are likely more reflective of reporting propensity than of true differences in prevalence. When LGAs with high numbers of RSPCA cases (HR) and low numbers of RSPCA cases (LR) were matched based on socioeconomic index, population, and local government comparator groups, they did not differ in either the number of people who had witnessed at least one incident of mistreatment or the average number of separate incidents witnessed. This interpretation is also supported by the differences between the stated actions of participants in the regional and metro HR and LR LGAs; those in HR areas indicated that they reported to RSPCA Victoria more than those in LR areas. Not only do these results indicate that so-called 'hot spots' are falsely labelled, but also that a closer examination of areas with low reports may be required as they are likely to have a similar prevalence of mistreatment, but given their low reporting, the animals are not receiving the assistance they need.

However, it is important to note that this trend was not maintained with the interface pair; no statistically significant difference was found between the reporting behaviour of people in the LR Wyndham and HR Yarra Ranges. While it is unclear exactly why this may be, it is possible that this is because the interface LR LGA selected for the study (Wyndham) was not actually in the lowest 10 ranked LGAs (refer to methods for explanation). However, this provides a potentially interesting insight; being the only LGA surveyed that was not at the extreme ends of the case data rankings and given that it demonstrated the lowest prevalence rates combined with a similar propensity to report mistreatment as the HR LGAs, it suggests that those LGAs in the middle of the rankings may actually have the lowest true prevalence. Further investigation of other middle ranked LGAs would be required to elucidate this theory.

While the majority of participants who had witnessed mistreatment took some form of action, our results suggest that there may be uncertainty or conflicting motivations with regards to what the most appropriate course of action is. This is evidenced by the range of different actions taken and that reporting to the primary enforcement body (RSPCA Victoria) was low. That the single most common response to witnessing mistreatment was no action (27%) is also concerning. However, it is consistent with what is known as the 'bystander effect' which is well documented in other areas such as sexual harassment [ 36], sexual assault [ 37], and shoplifting [ 38]. These findings raise significant questions about what influences whether and how a witness will act, specifically whether they will report. In this study, reporting behaviour was difficult to predict. Unlike Taylor and Signal [ 25], we found no relationship between demographic variables and reporting behaviour (other than location). While there are well documented relationships between demographic factors such as age and gender and attitudes towards animals [ 39, 40, 41], given our findings that attitudes themselves had poor relationships with reporting, this is logical. Indeed, most people surveyed had relatively positive attitudes towards reporting mistreatment; they thought it was the right thing to do and that it would help the animal, yet still did not report. Reasons given for not acting in general were largely related to uncertainty (not being sure that mistreatment was taking place) and concern for personal consequences (fear of retaliation or not wanting to get involved). However, the uncertainty of witnesses was likely not a result of not knowing what mistreatment looks like, but rather a result of other contextual factors; most people who said that they did not act because they were unsure mistreatment was taking place, stated in the attitudinal questions that they were confident they could recognise mistreatment. Additionally, given the level of concern for personal consequences, the relationship with the offender and the characteristics of the offender are also likely to be important considerations in the decision to report [ 38]. Incidents involving friends, family, neighbours, or individuals who are volatile, would likely reduce an individual's propensity to report. Additionally, in situations where the witness is the only person likely to have seen the incident, making it easy to identify who made the report, it is likely that this would impact reporting behaviour due to potential negative consequences. Another influential factor that has been identified in other fields is the seriousness of the offence [ 24]. This was reflected to some degree by the differences in actions given the type of mistreatment occurring. In more serious situations, such as when an animal was killed, participants were most likely to report to police, whereas in simple situations like an animal with no water, they helped the animal directly. The only factor that was found to have a significant association with reporting to RSPCA Victoria was where the participant lived, i.e., their LGA. Hence, factors related to the social environment and potentially service provisions in individual areas, like the visibility or availability of RSPCA in that area may be influential. Mistrust or perceived powerlessness of authorities is a significant factor in other fields [ 42], though only 3% of people in this study identified this as their reason for not acting. Consistent with other bystander intervention work [ 36, 43], these findings indicate that responding to mistreatment, specifically reporting, is a complex behaviour with a range of external or contextual factors not accounted for here playing a significant role.

While individual LGAs with similar socio-economic contexts did not differ in prevalence, significant differences were found between region types. Participants in the regional cities surveyed recalled witnessing approximately 2.5 and 3 times more separate incidents than participants in the metro and interface regions respectively. This is not reflected in the RSPCA Victoria case data and without further information we cannot say definitively why this would occur. However, one possible explanation is that both regional cities surveyed were areas of significant social and economic disadvantage, ranked 3rd and 5th most disadvantaged in the state [ 29]. Financial difficulties and low education rates have previously been identified as predictors of animal neglect [ 14, 44]. As such, support and educational strategies as opposed to punitive approaches may be most appropriate in these areas.

Neglect-based issues, failing to provide for the animal's basic needs, were the most common types of mistreatment witnessed. This is consistent with trends in RSPCA cases in Victoria [ 45] as well as those in Queensland [ 13] and America [ 14, 15, 46]. The differences between LGAs in the most common types of mistreatment likely reflect the different lifestyles and pressures experienced in those areas. For example, the most common issue witnessed in Stonnington was animals being kept in areas they could not move around freely in. This is understandable given that Stonnington is a high density metropolitan area with large numbers of apartment blocks. In contrast, the most common issue in Latrobe was underweight animals, which likely reflects the economic difficulties faced in this area. Consequently, when considering targeted prevention strategies, it would be beneficial to consider these contextual challenges in order to tailor programs to the needs of that community.

As a whole, these findings raise significant questions about prevention messaging and the current trend of mass communications calling out areas with high numbers of reports. In multiple states of Australia, so-called 'cruelty hotspots' are highlighted in the mainstream media with pejorative headlines like 'Caboolture named and shamed over cruelty' [ 16, 17, 47]. Not only is this likely to be inaccurate given the present research, such descriptions may have unintended negative consequences. Studies of mass communications and interventions in a range of other fields suggest that such consequences could include 'boomerang effects', social norming, or desensitisation leading to apathy [ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52], all of which work against prevention aims. In addition, the use of the term 'cruelty' is likely to have certain connotations with the public that are not reflective of the majority neglect cases. One particular concern is the potential for these messages to marginalise individuals who are at-risk of neglecting animals as a result of their social and economic circumstances. In these instances, the most desirable behaviour is for them to seek help. Yet, by shaming or isolating individuals this may result in a reluctance to do so for fear of judgement or persecution [ 51].

As the first study of its kind, we recognise its limitations. Firstly, in the absence of being able to either ask animal owners about their experiences (i.e., whether they mistreat their animals) or directly observe the treatment of animals, we must rely on mistreatment being witnessed by others. Given that mistreatment largely occurs in the home environment, there are significant barriers to this and likely much that goes unnoticed. As a participant in one of our preliminary focus groups noted, 'It's the ones you don't see that you need to worry about'. Additionally, the accuracy with which an individual can recount the number of separate occasions they had witnessed mistreatment in the last year is questionable. Hence, we did not use those particular figures to make generalisations about mistreatment, they were simply used to compare averages between LGAs. In doing so, we assume that any error of measurement would be consistent across regions; we have no reason to believe that people in one region would have a more accurate recollection than those in another. As the questionnaire was presented in English and translation into other languages was beyond the scope of this study, there is potential for sampling bias. However, of the total number of individuals contacted to participate, only 0.8% were excluded as they did not speak English. With the questionnaire delivered by CATI and the participant interacting by phone with an interviewer, there is also potential for social desirability bias, particularly with regards to questions about attitudes and actions taken. However, other methods of survey delivery that would reduce this (e.g., online or mail) would not have been suitable; online surveys cannot facilitate random sampling (no sampling frame) and mail out surveys have low and slow response rates. Finally, as with any survey of this nature, there is the potential for those who are more concerned about animals and animal welfare to be more likely to agree to participate. This has the potential to bias the sample, but short of studying those who refuse to participate and comparing them to our sample, it is impossible to quantify this.

5. Conclusions

In the study of animal mistreatment, our ultimate goal is to prevent it from happening. In order to facilitate well-informed decisions about policies, resourcing, and prevention programs, authorities require accurate information about the problem. The results of the present study are the first step towards achieving this, demonstrating that animal mistreatment is common, underreported, and mostly neglect. Henceforth, ongoing monitoring would be beneficial to track trends over time and evaluate the impact of prevention initiatives. Additionally, given the low reporting rates, strategies to increase reporting would serve to make the information readily available to authorities (case data) more reflective of the problem. However, care needs to be taken in the development of such interventions as unintended consequences can arise. We would recommend an approach that does not focus on the prevalence of mistreatment or case data, but rather destigmatises reporting and frames it as a way to seek help for others who may be struggling. Any such strategies would need to be tested for their effectiveness and consequences. Overarchingly, this study highlights the need for investment in effective, evidence-based prevention programs to address the substantial amount of animal suffering occurring in our communities each day.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.G., J.F. and G.C.; methodology, C.G., J.F. and G.C.; formal analysis, C.G. and G.C.; writing-original draft preparation, C.G.; writing-review and editing, J.F. and G.C.; project administration, C.G. and J.F.; funding acquisition, C.G. and J.F.

Funding

Contracting of the Social Research Centre for data collection was funded by RSPCA Victoria predominantly through a grant received from the Victorian State Government's Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (now Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions).

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Social Research Centre in the delivery of the telephone survey.

Conflicts of Interest

One of the funders (RSPCA Victoria) was involved in the design of the study and the decision to publish. The funders had no role in the collection or analysis of the data. Input into the interpretation of the data was provided by the second author only (employed by the funder) and did not differ from the interpretations made by the other authors.

References

1. Tiplady, C. History of animal abuse. In Animal Abuse: Helping Animals and People; Tiplady, C., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2013; pp. 8-16. [Google Scholar]

2. RSPCA Australia. RSPCA Australia National Statistics 2017-2018. Available online: https://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/RSPCA%20Australia%20Annual%20Statistics%202017-2018.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2019).

3. Sentencing Advisory Council. Animal Cruelty Offences in Victoria. Available online: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/publications/animal-cruelty-offences-victoria (accessed on 12 September 2019).

4. Connor, M.; Currie, C.; Lawrence, A.B. Factors influencing the prevalence of animal cruelty during adolescence. J. Interpers. Violence 2018, 1-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

5. Hughes, L.A.; Antonaccio, O.; Botchkovar, E.V. The crime of animal abuse in two nonwestern cities: Prevalence, perpetrators, and pathways. J. Quant. Criminol. 2019, 1-28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

6. Donley, L.; Patronek, G.J.; Luke, C. Animal abuse in Massachusetts: A summary of case reports at the MSPCA and attitudes of Massachusetts veterinarians. J Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1999, 2, 59-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7. Wood, S. Animal Cruelty Hotspots. Available online: https://www.colliemail.com.au/story/4694701/animal-cruelty-hot-spot/ (accessed on 30 July 2019).

8. Moore, S. Massive Increase in Animal Cruelty in WA. Available online: https://www.stawelltimes.com.au/story/5493727/massive-increase-in-animal-cruelty-in-wa/?cs=7 (accessed on 30 July 2019).

9. Mackander, M. Maroochydore and Nambour Coast's Worst for Animal Cruelty. Available online: https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/lack-of-action-cause-of-abuse/2503676/ (accessed on 30 July 2019).

10. Lees, C. Mackay not So Cruel to Its Animals. Available online: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/daily-mercury/20150110/281651073483767 (accessed on 30 July 2019).

11. Kirkham, R. Hepburn Shire Records Most Reports of Animal Cruelty per Capita in State. Available online: https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5778576/hepburn-shire-records-most-reports-of-animal-cruelty-per-capita-in-state/ (accessed on 30 July 2019).

12. Bruce, K. RSPCA: Number of Animal Cruelty Reports Increased. Available online: https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/2223901/rspca-number-of-animal-cruelty-reports-increased/ (accessed on 30 July 2019).

13. Faa, M. Cruelty Complaints Spike. Available online: https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-544709745/cruelty-complaints-spike (accessed on 30 July 2019).

14. RSPCA Victoria. Strategic Plan 2017-2021. Available online: https://www.rspcavic.org/documents/About%20us/Strategic%20Plan/RSPCAVIC_StrategicPlan_2017-21%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2019).

15. Taylor, N.; Signal, T.D. Community demographics and the propensity to report animal cruelty. J. Appl Anim. Welf. Sci. 2006, 9, 201-210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11-39. [Google Scholar]

17. Victorian Local Government Comparator Groups. Available online: https://knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/29439/DOC-15-313642-Victorian-Local-Government-Comparator-Groups-2015-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).

18. Australian Bureau of Statistics Seifa 2016 by Local Government Area (LGA). Available online: http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ABS_SEIFA_LGA# (accessed on 8 October 2019).

19. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Available online: https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).

20. Roberts, M. Simple Powerful Statistics. Available online: https://sites.google.com/view/SPSprogram (accessed on 14 October 2019).

21. Field, A.P. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2018; p. 685. [Google Scholar]

22. Cohen, B.H. Explaining Psychological Statistics, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008; p. 361. [Google Scholar]

23. Serpell, J.A. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 145-151. [Google Scholar]

24. Latané, B.; Darley, J.M. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? Appleton-Century Crofts: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]

25. Monsalve, S.; Hammerschmidt, J.; Izar, M.L.; Marconcin, S.; Rizzato, F.; Polo, G.; Garcia, R. Associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in pinhais, brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018, 157, 19-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26. RSPCA Victoria. Animal Cruelty Offences Data. Available online: https://rspcavic.org/documents/About%20us/Annual%20Report/2018/RSPCA%20Victoria%20Animal%20Cruelty%20Offences%20Data%202017-18.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2019).

27. Otto, S.K. Confronting Animal Neglect in America: Current Law and Future Possibilities; Animal Legal Defense Fund: Cotati, CA, USA, 2007; p. 4. [Google Scholar]

28. Taylor, M. RSPCA Animal Cruelty Caseload Rises to Almost 150,000 Investigations. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/29/rspca-animal-cruelty-caseload-rises-to-almost-150000-investigations (accessed on 30 July 2019).

Figure 4. Reasons given for not taking action after witnessing animal mistreatment expressed as a percentage of total responses (n = 291).

Mistreatment Type

Description

Underweight

An animal that was underweight, such that you could see its ribs or hip bones

Insufficient treatment

An animal with an obvious illness injury or other physical health related issue, that you believe was not receiving veterinary treatment

Unhygienic living conditions

An animal being kept in an area that was heavily soiled with poo/faeces

Confined

An animal that was often kept in an area that was too small for it to move around freely

Tethered

An animal that was tied up for more than 22 h a day

Physical abuse

A person intentionally hit, kick, or otherwise physically harm an animal

Unattended

A dog or cat left alone for days at a time with nobody attending to it

Excessive number

A person with too many animals to look after them all properly

Kill

A person intentionally kill an animal, other than: for food while hunting, or to help the animal such as through euthanasia

No water

An animal left without clean water for 24 h or more

LGCG

Pair 1

Pair 2

Pair 3

Regional City

Metropolitan

Interface

RSPCA Case Data Ranking
High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

LGA
Latrobe

Mildura

Melbourne

Stonnington

Yarra Ranges

Wyndham

SEIFA [ 29]

3

5

72

78

57

54

Region Type

Rank

LGA

Count No

Count Yes

Proportion Yes

g

F

Interpretation

Action

Latrobe

Mildura

Melbourne

Stonnington

Yarra Ranges

Wyndham

Overall
Total responses
237

223

148

98

139

122

967

Region Type

Rank

LGA

Count Reported to RSPCA

Count all Actions Taken

Proportion of all Actions Taken

g

F

Interpretation

Attitude Item

r

Sig (2-Tailed)

n

Variable

Pearson Chi-square Value

df

p-Value

Interpretation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Cruelty and Neglect: Prevalence and Community Actions in Victoria, Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While animal mistreatment is common worldwide, its true scale is largely unknown. Currently, organisations rely on community reporting (case data) and trends found therein to inform prevention activities.

# data[].attributes.body
school.eb.com/levels/middle/article/global-warming/311438

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School, a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.