U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

September 2001

A Message From OJJDP

Although legal definitions of animal

abuse vary, it is a crime in every

State, and many States have enacted

laws establishing certain forms of cruelty to animals as felony offenses. The

forms of abuse to which animals may

be subjected are similar to the forms

of abuse children experience, including physical abuse, serious neglect,

and even psychological abuse.

It has been said that violence begets

violence, but what do we know about

the nature of the relationship between

the abuse of animals and aggressive

behavior towards human beings?

This Bulletin describes psychiatric,

psychological, and criminal research

linking animal abuse to violence perpetrated by juveniles and adults.

Particular attention is focused on the

prevalence of cruelty to animals by

children and adolescents and to the

role of animal abuse as a possible

symptom of conduct disorder. In addition, the motivations and etiology

underlying the maltreatment of animals are thoroughly reviewed.

The abuse of sentient creatures demands our attention. The Bulletin

includes recommendations to curb

such cruelty, while providing contact

information for additional resources

concerned with violence perpetrated

against animals and people.

It is our hope that the information that

this Bulletin offers will contribute to

reducing both forms of violence.

emphasized throughout, and a list of national organizations with programs related to the link between animal abuse and

other violent behavior is also provided.

This Bulletin does not suggest that attending to animal abuse is a panacea for dealing with the challenges of identifying and

addressing youth violence. Violent behavior is multidimensional and multidetermined, and its developmental course is

still the subject of concerted research

investigation (Moffitt, 1997). However, it

is argued here that animal abuse has received insufficient attention—in fact, is

sometimes explicitly excluded (e.g., Stone

and Kelner, 2000)—as one of a number of

“red flags,” warning signs, or sentinel behaviors that could help identify youth at

risk for perpetrating interpersonal violence

(a relation first noted in the psychiatric

literature by Pinel in 1809) and youth who

have themselves been victimized.

Defining Animal Abuse

All 50 States have legislation relating to

animal abuse. Most States categorize it as

a misdemeanor offense, and 30 States also

have instituted felony-level statutes for

certain forms of cruelty to animals. However, legal definitions of animal abuse, and

even the types of animals that are covered

by these statutes, differ from State to State

(Ascione and Lockwood, 2001; Frasch et

al., 1999; Lacroix, 1998). The research literature also fails to yield a consistent

definition of animal abuse or cruelty to

Animal Abuse and 

Youth Violence

Frank R. Ascione

The past two decades have witnessed a

resurgence of interest in the relation

between cruelty to animals, or animal

abuse, and serious violent behavior, especially among youthful offenders. As an

illustration, a recent study by Verlinden

(2000) of 9 school shootings in the United

States (from Moses Lake, WA, in 1996 to

Conyers, GA, in 1999) reported that 5 (45

percent) of the 11 perpetrators had histories of alleged animal abuse. The most

well-documented example was the case of

Luke Woodham who, in the April before

his October 1997 murder of his mother

and two schoolmates, tortured and killed

his own pet dog (Ascione, 1999).

This Bulletin reports on the psychiatric,

psychological, and criminological research

linking animal abuse to juvenile- and adultperpetrated violence. It addresses the

challenge of defining animal abuse and

examines the difficulty of deriving accurate

incidence and prevalence data for this

behavior. It also explores the relationships

between animal abuse and conduct disorder (CD), analyzes the motives of child

and adolescent animal abusers, and considers the contexts that may lead to the

emergence of animal abuse as a symptom

of psychological disorder. (Although a few

studies examine the neurobiological correlates of cruelty to animals—see Lockwood

and Ascione, 1998—that topic is beyond

the scope of this review.) The importance

of including information about animal

abuse in assessments of youth at risk of

committing interpersonal violence is
2

had been screened for the absence of

mental health referrals in the past year.

The referred children were drawn from

18 mental health clinics across the United

States. Most of the referred children were

being evaluated for outpatient mental

health services. Potential candidates for

inclusion in the nonreferred and referred

groups were excluded if they were mentally retarded, had a serious physical illness,

or had a handicap. 

One item on the ACQ asks the respondent

whether their child or adolescent has been

“cruel to animals” in the past 2 months.

Respondents can answer using the following 4-point scale: 0 = never or not at all

true (as far as you know), 1 = once in a

while or just a little, 2 = quite often or

quite a lot, or 3 = very often or very much.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of caregivers, for each age group, gender, and

referral status, that reported the presence

of cruelty to animals (David Jacobowitz,

Statistician Programmer, Achenbach System for Empirical Behavioral Assessment,

College of Medicine, University of Vermont,

animals; however, the following definition

captures features common to most attempts to define this behavior: “socially

unacceptable behavior that intentionally

causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or

distress to and/or death of an animal”

(Ascione, 1993:228). 

This definition excludes practices that may

cause harm to animals yet are socially condoned (e.g., legal hunting, certain agricultural and veterinary practices). Because

the status of a particular animal may vary

from one culture to another, the definition

takes into account the social contexts that

help determine what is considered animal

abuse. For the purposes of this review, the

animals that are victims of abuse are most

often vertebrates because this is the category of animals to which are attributed

the greatest capacity for experiencing and

displaying pain and distress. 

The forms of abuse to which animals may

be subjected are parallel to the forms of

child maltreatment. Animals may be physically or sexually abused, may be seriously

neglected, and, some might argue, may be

psychologically abused.

Prevalence of Cruelty

to Animals by Children

and Adolescents

Because cruelty to animals is not monitored systematically in national crime

reporting systems (Howard Snyder, personal communication, January 22, 2001),

researchers must rely on data from studies

in developmental psychology and psychopathology to estimate the prevalence of

this problem behavior in samples of youth.

A number of assessment instruments that

address child behavior problems include

a question about cruelty to animals. However, “cruelty” is not always explicitly defined for the respondent, so it is difficult

to determine the exact behaviors that are

being reported.

Using the Achenbach-Conners-Quay Behavior Checklist (ACQ), Achenbach and colleagues (1991) collected parent or guardian

reports of problem behaviors for 2,600

boys and girls ages 4 to 16 who had been

referred to mental health clinics and a

control group of 2,600 boys and girls of

the same age. The nonreferred children

constituted a representative sample of the

U.S. population, based on ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and place of residence

(urban/suburban/rural and national region

[e.g., Northeast, West]). These children

personal communication, July 17, 1992). In

their statistical analysis of individual ACQ

items, Achenbach and colleagues noted

that cruelty to animals was significantly

(p<0.01) higher for referred youth, boys,

and younger children.

The data in figure 1 illustrate the relatively

low frequency of cruelty to animals in the

nonreferred sample (0–13 percent) in comparison with the referred sample (7–34

percent). Eighteen to twenty-five percent

of referred boys between the ages of 6 and

16 were reported to have been cruel to

animals, and the data suggest this item’s

incidence has greater stability through

childhood and adolescence for boys than

for girls.

Data on the prevalence of cruelty to animals are also provided in the manuals for

the Child Behavior Checklist (CBC), perhaps one of the most widely used checklists for child behavior problems, which is

available in separate versions for 2- to 3-

year-olds (Achenbach, 1992) and 4- to 18-

year-olds (Achenbach, 1991). The cruelty

Youth (%)

Girls not referred to 

mental health services

Boys not referred to 

mental health services 

Girls referred to mental 

health services

Boys referred to mental 

health services

Age (years)

4–5 6–7 8–9 10–11 12–13 14–15 16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 1: Percentage of Youth Reported by Caregivers To Have Been

Cruel to Animals, by Offender’s Age, Gender, and Referral

Status

Note: Data show caregivers’ responses to a question asking whether their child or adolescent

had been cruel to animals in the past 2 months.

Source: Achenbach, T.M., Howell, C.T., Quay, H.C., and Conners, C.K. 1991. National survey

of problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-year-olds. Monographs of the Society

for Research in Child Development 56: Serial No. 255.
3

Limitations of Adult

Reports on Children’s

Cruelty to Animals

Both the ACQ and CBC rely on caretakers’

reports, and comparable information from

youth’s self-reports of cruelty to animals

is not available. The reliance on caretakers’ reports, however, could be problematic because animal abuse may be performed covertly (a characteristic shared

with youth vandalism and firesetting) and

caretakers may be unaware of the presence of this behavior in their children.

Offord, Boyle, and Racine (1991) surveyed

a nonclinical sample of 1,232 Canadian

parents/guardians and their 12- to 16-

year-old boys and girls. They asked respondents (both parents/guardians and

adolescents) to report on a number of CD

symptoms, based on a 3-point scale identical to the one used with the CBC. (See

pages 4–5 for a more indepth discussion

of the link between CD and animal abuse.)

Figure 3 compares parent/guardian reports of cruelty to animals with youth selfreports. These data suggest that parents

and guardians may seriously underestimate cruelty to animals, with boys selfreporting this behavior at 3.8 times the

rate of parents/guardians and girls at 7.6

times the parent/guardian rate. Similar

underestimates appear for two other CD

symptoms, vandalism and firesetting, that

may often be covert and, therefore, unknown to or undetected by parents or

guardians (see figure 4).

A recent study of a nonclinical sample 

of youth (1,333 boys and 837 girls; mean

age, 14.6 years) in Alexandria, Egypt

(Youssef, Attia, and Kamel, 1999), also 

provides data on self-reported cruelty to

animals. Dividing their sample into two

groups—one reporting that they had engaged in violent behavior (acts of “physical force that tended to inflict harm or

cause bodily injury”) and the other reporting that they had not—Youssef, Attia,

and Kamel (1999:284) asked youth whether

they were often cruel to animals. Of the

violent youth, 9.6 percent reported being

cruel; of the nonviolent youth, 2.05 percent reported being cruel. The cruelty-toanimals variable significantly (p<0.003)

determined membership in the violent or

nonviolent group.

It should be noted that instruments used

to assess teacher reports of children’s

problem behaviors rarely include an item

on animal abuse (e.g., Reynolds and Kamphaus, 1992). Although teachers are unlikely to observe their pupils being cruel to

animals, teachers may hear about such

acts or read about them in students’ written work. These indirect observations

should be taken seriously and serve as a

signal for further assessment (Dwyer,

Osher, and Warger, 1998).

Animal Abuse and

Violent Offending

Animal abuse and interpersonal violence

toward humans share common characteristics: both types of victims are living

creatures, have a capacity for experiencing pain and distress, can display physical

signs of their pain and distress (with which

humans could empathize), and may die 

as a result of inflicted injuries. Given these

commonalities, it is not surprising that

early research in this area, much of it

using retrospective assessment, examined

to animals item on the CBC (which uses a

“past 2 months” timeframe for 2- to 3-yearolds and a “past 6 months” timeframe for

4- to 18-year-olds) is scored on a 3-point

scale: 0 = not true (as far as you know),

1 = somewhat or sometimes true, or 2 =

very true or often true. Referred and nonreferred boys and girls can be compared

for each of three age groups. These data

are presented in figure 2. In this figure,

data on acts of vandalism committed by

the two older age groups are included for

comparison. Again, cruelty to animals is

more often reported for younger children

and boys, especially those referred for

mental health services. Figure 2 also suggests that reported rates of cruelty to animals (for youth ages 4 and older) are higher than or similar to reported rates of

vandalism, a problem behavior about

which more systematic juvenile crime

data are available.1 Age (years)

Youth (%)

Cruelty to animals* Vandalism†

Girls not referred to 

mental health services

Boys not referred to 

mental health services 

Girls referred to mental 

health services

Boys referred to mental 

health services

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

12–18

4–11

12–18

4–11

2–3

Figure 2: Comparison of Reports of Incidents of Cruelty to Animals 

and Incidents of Vandalism, by Offender’s Age, Gender, and 

Referral Status

* In the past 2 months for children ages 2–3; in the past 6 months for children ages 4–18.

† The percentage for girls not referred to mental health services was zero for both age groups.

Sources: Achenbach, T.M. 1992. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3 and 1992 Profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.M. 1991. Manual

for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,

Department of Psychiatry.
4

percent of the former group reported cruelty to animals compared with 0 percent

of the latter. 

Miller and Knutson (1997) examined selfreports of animal abuse by 299 inmates incarcerated for various felony offenses and

308 introductory psychology class undergraduates.2 The percentages of inmates

and undergraduates, respectively, reporting the following types of animal abuse

were as follows: “Hurt an animal?” 16.4

percent and 9.7 percent, “Killed a stray?”

32.8 percent and 14.3 percent, and “Killed

a pet?” 12 percent and 3.2 percent. 

More recently, Schiff, Louw, and Ascione

(1999) surveyed 117 men incarcerated in a

South African prison about their childhood

animal abuse. Of the 58 men who had committed crimes of aggression, 63.3 percent

admitted to cruelty to animals; of the 59

nonaggressive inmates, the percentage

was 10.5 percent.

In a study of 28 convicted, incarcerated

sexual homicide perpetrators (all men),

Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1988) assessed the men’s self-reports of cruelty to

animals in childhood and adolescence.

Childhood animal abuse was reported by

36 percent of the perpetrators, and 46 percent admitted to abusing animals as adolescents. Thirty-six percent of these men

said they had also abused animals in adulthood. In a study by Tingle et al. (1986) of

64 convicted male sex offenders, animal

abuse in childhood or adolescence was

reported by 48 percent of the rapists and

30 percent of the child molesters.

Taken together, these studies suggest that

animal abuse may be characteristic of the

developmental histories of between one in

four and nearly two in three violent adult

offenders. 

Animal Abuse and

Conduct Disorder

The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM–IV) defines CD as “a repetitive and

persistent pattern of behavior in which

the basic rights of others or major ageappropriate societal norms or rules are

violated” and requires that at least 3 of 15

separate symptoms be present in the past

year for a diagnosis of CD (American Psychiatric Association, 1994:90). Among the

symptoms listed are those categorized under “deceitfulness or theft,” “destruction

of property” (which encompasses firesetting and vandalism), and “aggression to

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Parent Reports

Self-Reports

Youth (%)

Boys Girls

Figure 3: Comparison of Parental Reports and Self-Reports of Cruelty 

to Animals Among 12- to 16-Year-Olds, by Offender’s Gender

Source: Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., and Racine, Y.A. 1991. The epidemiology of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. In The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression,

edited by D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31–54.

This figure was derived from table 2.3, p. 39.

Parent reports

Boys Girls

0 2 4 6 8 10

Self-reports

Parent reports

Self-reports

Vandalism Firesetting

Youth (%)

Figure 4: Comparison of Parental Reports and Self-Reports of 

Vandalism and Firesetting Among 12- to 16-Year-Olds,

by Offender’s Gender

Source: Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., and Racine, Y.A. 1991. The epidemiology of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. In The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression,

edited by D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31–54.

the relation between childhood histories of

animal abuse and later violent offending. 

Kellert and Felthous (1985) found that violent, incarcerated men reported higher

rates of “substantial cruelty to animals” in

childhood (25 percent) than a comparison

group of nonincarcerated men (0 percent).

A similar difference emerged in a study of

assaultive and nonassaultive women offenders (Felthous and Yudowitz, 1977): 36
5

people and animals” (which includes cruelty to people or to animals, stealing with

confrontation of the victim, and forced

sexual activity). There is a great deal of

overlap between the symptoms of CD and

behaviors used to characterize serious

violent juvenile offenders (see Loeber,

Farrington, and Waschbusch, 1998:14–15).

Cruelty to animals has only recently been

included in the symptom list for CD, appearing for the first time in the revised

third edition of the Manual (DSM–III–R;

American Psychiatric Association, 1987).

Cruelty to animals, however, does not

specifically appear in any of the categories

(i.e., person, property, drug, and public

order) under which juvenile offenders are

classified in national crime reporting systems (see Snyder and Sickmund, 1999) despite law enforcement’s acknowledgment

of the link between animal abuse and human violence (Lockwood and Church,

1996; Ponder and Lockwood, 2000; Schleuter, 1999; Turner, 2000).

Animal abuse may vary in frequency, severity, and chronicity and range from the

developmentally immature teasing of animals (e.g., a toddler pulling a kitten along

by the tail) to serious animal torture (e.g.,

stealing neighborhood pets and setting

them on fire). Unfortunately, most assessments of cruelty to animals lack a scaling

of these important differences. One exception is the Interview for Antisocial Behavior

(IAB) developed by Kazdin and EsveldtDawson (1986). Although it was created

before the 1987 revision of the DSM, this

instrument assesses 30 forms of antisocial

behavior, several of which reflect the current CD symptom listings (established in

1994). The IAB has a number of positive

features, including both parent- and selfreport forms and ratings of problem

severity and chronicity.3

As illustrated in a study of psychiatric outpatient referrals by Loeber et al. (1993),

patterns of chronic behavior may be more

significant than isolated incidents. Three

yearly assessments that included a question about cruelty to animals were completed with 177 boys ages 7–12 years, some

of whom (40.1 percent) were diagnosed

with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)

and others (38.4 percent) with CD. Singleyear assessment of cruelty to animals

did not differentiate boys with ODD from

those with CD, but a significant difference

emerged when scores on this item were

aggregated over a 3-year period: cruelty 

to animals was present for 13.3 percent of

boys with ODD and 29.4 percent of boys

with CD (p<0.05).

Because of the interest in early identification of children at risk for later violent

offending, it should be noted that cruelty

to animals may be one of the first CD

symptoms to appear in young children.

Parents’ reports on the emergence of CD

symptoms in their children mark 6.5 years

as the median age for onset of “hurting

animals”—earlier than bullying, cruelty to

people, vandalism, or setting fires (Frick

et al., 1993). That study reinforces the

importance of considering animal abuse a

significant early warning sign for identifying youth with potential for receiving a CD

diagnosis.4 The diagnostic value of this

symptom is also supported in a report by

Spitzer, Davies, and Barkley (1990), which

was based on national field trials for

developing DSM–III–R.

Recently, Luk et al. (1999:30) reported a

reanalysis of case data for a sample of

children (n=141) referred to mental health

services for “symptoms suggestive of oppositional defiant/conduct disorder” and

control data for a sample of community

children (n=37). The clinic-referred children were subdivided into two groups

based on CBC assessments: cruelty to animals present (n=40) and absent (n=101).

Therefore, 28.4 percent of the clinicreferred children displayed animal abuse.

The community children were selected

only if cruelty to animals was absent in

their CBC assessments. Luk et al. demonstrated that differentiating the clinicreferred subgroups on the basis of cruelty

to animals was related to scores on a

measure of childhood behavior problems

that, unlike the CBC, does not assess

cruelty to animals—the Eyberg Child

Behavior Inventory (Eyberg and Ross,

1978). The authors found that clinicreferred children assessed as being cruel

to animals had significantly (p<0.001)

higher mean problem and problem-severity scores on the Eyberg Inventory than

either clinic children who were not cruel

to animals or community children.

Thus, there is substantial evidence for the

value of assessing cruelty to animals as a

specific symptom of CD and as a correlate

of other forms of antisocial behavior in

both childhood and adulthood. One additional study will be described to illustrate

this conclusion.

Arluke and colleagues (1999) reviewed the

files of the Massachusetts Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and located the records of 153 individuals (146 males

and 7 females, age range 11–76 years)

who had been prosecuted for intentional

physical cruelty to animals (not passive

forms of cruelty such as neglect). A comparison group of 153 individuals (matched

for age, gender, and socioeconomic status, but with no record of any cruelty-toanimal complaints) was selected from the

same neighborhoods in which those who

had been prosecuted resided. The State’s

criminal records were reviewed for each

individual in both groups. Any adult arrests for violent, property, drug, or public

order offenses were noted. As shown in

figure 5, individuals prosecuted for animal

abuse were more likely to have an adult

arrest in each of the four crime categories than the comparison group members.

The differences between percentages for

abusers and nonabusers were highly significant (p<0.0001) for all four types of

offenses. These results make it clear that

animal abusers are not only dangerous to

their animal victims but also may jeopardize human welfare.

Motivations That May

Underlie Animal Abuse

by Children and

Adolescents

Whenever high-profile cases of animal

abuse are reported in the media, a common public reaction is to ask: “Why would

someone do that?” Burying puppies alive,

shooting wild mustangs, setting a dog on

fire, beating a petting zoo donkey—these

and countless other examples offend the

public by their seemingly senseless cruelty. In an effort to better understand this

phenomenon, Kellert and Felthous (1985:

1122–1124) interviewed abusers and discovered a number of motivations that may

characterize adult cruelty to animals, some

of which may also be applicable to animal

abuse perpetrated by juveniles: 

◆ To control an animal (i.e., animal abuse

as discipline or “training”).

◆ To retaliate against an animal.

◆ To satisfy a prejudice against a species

or breed (e.g., hatred of cats).

◆ To express aggression through an animal (i.e., training an animal to attack,

using inflicted pain to create a “mean”

dog).

◆ To enhance one’s own aggressiveness

(e.g., using an animal victim for target

practice).

◆ To shock people for amusement.

◆ To retaliate against other people (by

hurting their pets or abusing animals

in their presence).
6

◆ To displace hostility from a person to

an animal (i.e., attacking a vulnerable

animal when assaulting the real human

target is judged too risky).

◆ To experience nonspecific sadism (i.e.,

enjoying the suffering experienced by

the animal victim, in and of itself).

Child and adolescent motivations for animal abuse have not been studied as extensively. However, case reports and a youth

interview study (using the Cruelty to Animals Assessment Instrument) conducted

by Ascione, Thompson, and Black (1997)

suggest a number of developmentally

related motivations:

◆ Curiosity or exploration (i.e., the animal is injured or killed in the process of

being examined, usually by a young or

developmentally delayed child).

◆ Peer pressure (e.g., peers may encourage animal abuse or require it as part

of an initiation rite).

◆ Mood enhancement (e.g., animal 

abuse is used to relieve boredom or

depression).

◆ Sexual gratification (i.e., bestiality).

◆ Forced abuse (i.e., the child is coerced

into animal abuse by a more powerful

individual).

◆ Attachment to an animal (e.g., the child

kills an animal to prevent its torture by

another individual).

◆ Animal phobias (that cause a preemptive attack on a feared animal).

◆ Identification with the child’s abuser

(e.g., a victimized child may try to regain a sense of power by victimizing a

more vulnerable animal).

◆ Posttraumatic play (i.e., reenacting violent episodes with an animal victim).

◆ Imitation (i.e., copying a parent’s or

other adult’s abusive “discipline” of

animals).

◆ Self-injury (i.e., using an animal to inflict

injuries on the child’s own body).

◆ Rehearsal for interpersonal violence

(i.e., “practicing” violence on stray animals or pets before engaging in violent

acts against other people).

◆ Vehicle for emotional abuse (e.g., injuring a sibling’s pet to frighten the sibling).

CD assessments are not usually designed

to discover the underlying reasons for a

child’s or adolescent’s cruelty to animals,

but as with juvenile firesetting (discussed

below), understanding motivations may

be critical for designing effective intervention strategies. A recent review by Agnew

(1998) provides a more extensive treatment of the social-psychological causes of

animal abuse.

As noted by Ascione and Lockwood (2001),

one model that could be used to develop

an animal abuse assessment instrument

is the approach that has been taken to

assess juvenile firesetting. Firesetting

shares many features with animal abuse:

both are CD symptoms, may reflect developmental changes, may share etiological

factors, may often be performed covertly,

and may be early sentinels for later psychological problems.

Some children may manifest both problem

behaviors. Wooden and Berkey (1984)

noted the co-occurrence of cruelty to animals in a sample of 69 firesetters ages

4–17: cruelty to animals was reported for

46 percent of 4- to 8-year-olds, 9 percent

of 9- to 12-year-olds, and 12 percent of

13- to 17-year-olds. The authors caution

that the lower rates for older children and

adolescents may be related to the covert

nature of this behavior, as children experience greater independence and venture

farther from home for more prolonged

periods. Sakheim and Osborne (1994)

reported similar results with samples of

children who set fires (n=100) and those

who did not (n=55). Fifty percent of the

firesetters’ parents reported that their

children had been cruel “to children or

animals,” but only 9 percent of parents of

the children who did not set fires reported

the same (p<0.01).

Animal abuse in the context of firesetting

may also have predictive value. Rice and

Harris (1996) reported on a sample of 243

firesetters who had resided in a maximumsecurity psychiatric facility and were later

released. In a followup of 208 of these

men, Rice and Harris found that a childhood history of cruelty to animals (coded

from patient records) predicted violent

offense recidivism (p<0.001) and nonviolent offense recidivism (p<0.05) but not

firesetting recidivism.5

The Salt Lake City Area Juvenile Firesetter/

Arson Control and Prevention Program

(1992), funded by the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, is

based on a typology of juvenile firesetters

that may be relevant for developing a

Violent

0 10 20 30 40 50

Property

Drug

Disorder

Percentage

Animal abusers Nonabusers of animals

Type of Other Offense

Figure 5: Percentage of Types of Other Offenses Committed by

Individuals Prosecuted for Animal Abuse and a Control 

Group Who Did Not Abuse Animals

Note: Age range of sample: 11–76 years. All chi-square comparisons between abusers and

nonabusers significant at p<0.0001.

Source: Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., and Ascione, F. 1999. The relationship of animal abuse to

violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14:963–975.
7

typology for children who abuse animals

(Marcel Chappuis, personal communication, March 23, 1998). The typology of

juvenile firesetters categorizes children

into the following groups: 

◆ Normal curiosity firesetters. The mean

age of this group is 5 years (range, 3–7

years). Children in this group often

share the characteristics of poor parental supervision, a lack of fire education,

and no fear of fire.

◆ “Plea-for-help” firesetters. The mean

age of this group is 9 years (range,

7–13 years). The group’s firesetting 

is often symptomatic of more deepseated psychological disturbance. 

The individuals usually have had adequate fire education.

◆ Delinquent firesetters. The mean age

of this group is 14 years (range, 13

years to adulthood). Firesetting may be

one of a host of adolescent-onset antisocial behaviors, including gang-related

activities, exhibited by this group.

The Salt Lake City program has developed

a series of assessment scales geared to

each age group of firesetters that can be

administered to the child and the child’s

parent/guardian. In addition to questions

about fire education and the firesetting

incident(s), this series has questions about

general behavior problems (similar to

items on the CBC), including one item

about cruelty to animals. (There is also a

direct question about whether the firesetting incident involved the burning of an

animal.) Responses to these assessments

are used to select an intervention strategy. Children who fall into the normal curiosity group are often enrolled in a fire

education program, and attempts may be

made to educate parents about fire safety

and the need for supervising young children. Children who fall into the other two

groups are referred to mental health services because fire departments are not prepared to deal with the psychological problems these young people may present. 

It might be possible to develop a similar

typology for children who abuse animals.

Although there is not a great deal of empirical information on which to rely, the

study by Ascione, Thompson, and Black

(1997) suggests the varied motivations

that may underlie child and adolescent

animal abuse. Using the extensive experience of animal control and animal welfare

professionals, one could develop a typology mirroring that for juvenile firesetters.

A sketch of such a typology might approximate the following:

◆ Exploratory/curious animal abuse.

Children in this category are likely to

be of preschool or early elementary

school age, poorly supervised, and 

lacking training on the physical care

and humane treatment of a variety of

animals, especially family pets and/or

stray animals and neighborhood wildlife. Humane education interventions

(teaching children to be kind, caring,

and nurturing toward animals) by parents, childcare providers, and teachers

are likely to be sufficient to encourage

desistence of animal abuse in these

children. Age alone should not be the

determining factor in including children

in this category. For example, CD symptoms may have an early developmental

onset, and as noted earlier, cruelty to

animals is one of the earliest CD symptoms to be noted by caretakers. Older

children who are developmentally

delayed may also fall into this group.

◆ Pathological animal abuse. Children 

in this category are more likely to be

(though not necessarily) older than children in the exploratory/curious group.

Rather than indicating a lack of education about the humane treatment of animals, animal abuse by these children

may be symptomatic of psychological

disturbances of varying severity. For

example, a number of studies have tied

childhood animal abuse to childhood

histories of physical abuse, sexual

abuse, and exposure to domestic violence (see pages 8–9 for discussions of

these issues). In these cases, professional, clinical intervention is warranted.

◆ Delinquent animal abuse. Youth in this

category are most likely to be adolescents whose animal abuse may be one

of a number of antisocial activities. In

some cases, the animal abuse may be a

component of gang/cult-related activities (e.g., initiation rites) or less formal

group violence and destructiveness.

The use of alcohol and other substances

may be associated with animal abuse

for these youth, and they may require

both judicial and clinical interventions.

The Etiology of Animal

Abuse

Although “bad seed” interpretations of

youth violence have waxed and waned

throughout history (Garbarino, 1999;

Kellerman, 1999), it is clear that attention

to the family, social, and community contexts of children’s lives is critical for understanding violent behavior. This holds

true for the special case of animal abuse.

As Widom (1989) has demonstrated, a

history of child abuse and neglect places

individuals at risk for later delinquency,

adult criminal offending, and violent criminal activity. This section addresses factors

in children’s lives that have been associated with increased levels of animal abuse.

The factors range from negative but relatively normative experiences (corporal

punishment) to potentially more devastating circumstances (physical abuse, sexual

abuse, and domestic violence). 

Corporal Punishment

Evidence continues to mount on the ineffectiveness and deleterious nature of corporal punishment as a child-rearing technique (Straus, 1991). Two recent studies

link this evidence to animal abuse. In a

survey of 267 undergraduates, 68.4 percent
8

of whom were women, Flynn (1999a) asked

participants about their history of abusing

animals (e.g., hurting, torturing, or killing

pets or stray animals; sex acts with animals). Students also responded to items

assessing attitudes toward spanking and

husband-on-wife abuse. In all, 34.5 percent

of the men and 9.3 percent of the women

reported at least one childhood incident of

animal abuse. These respondents (both

men and women) were significantly more

likely to endorse the use of corporal punishment and to approve of a husband slapping his wife. Although these findings do

not establish a direct link between abusing

animals and spanking children or slapping

wives, they do suggest an association between animal abuse and accepting attitudes toward these activities.

In a followup report with this same sample of undergraduates, Flynn (1999b)

found that, for men, perpetrating animal

abuse was positively correlated with the

frequency of their father’s use of corporal

punishment (spanking, slapping, or hitting) in adolescence. Self-reports of animal

abuse by men experiencing paternal corporal punishment in adolescence were 2.4

times higher than for men who were not

physically disciplined (57.1 percent and

23.1 percent, respectively, p<0.005).

Physical Abuse

Research specifically designed to assess

the relation between animal abuse and

child maltreatment is meager yet compelling in its implications. For example, a 1983

study by DeViney, Dickert, and Lockwood

of 53 New Jersey families that met State

criteria for substantiated child abuse and

neglect and had pets in their homes revealed that in 60 percent of these families,

pets were also abused or neglected. Animal

abuse was significantly higher (88 percent)

in families where child physical abuse was

present than in families where other forms

of child maltreatment (e.g., sexual abuse)

occurred (34 percent). One or both parents and their children were responsible

for abusing the families’ pets.

Sexual Abuse

Friedrich et al. (1992) compared a nonabused sample of 880 children ages 2–12

with 276 children in the same age range

who had been sexually abused in the past

12 months. Based on a reexamination of

data from this study, Friedrich (personal

communication, April 1992) provided

information on cruelty to animals derived

from the nonperpetrating caretakers’ CBC

reports on children. As shown in figure 6,

children with a history of sexual abuse

were significantly (p<0.001) more likely to

have been cruel to animals than children

in the nonabused group. A study of 499

seriously mentally ill 5- to 18-year-olds

hospitalized at a tertiary care psychiatric

facility (McClellan et al., 1995) also found

cruelty to animals to be more prevalent

among patients who had been sexually

abused than among those who had not

been sexually abused (p=0.004).

One form of cruelty to animals that has

received scant attention in the literature is

the sexual abuse of animals, or bestiality.

Bestiality may range from touching or

fondling the genitals of animals to sexual

intercourse and violent sexual abuse.

Some species of animals may be seriously

injured or die as a result of the abuse

inflicted (e.g., penetration that damages

internal organs). Beirne (1997) provided 

an excellent theoretical overview of this

issue, but empirical studies, especially

with children, are rare (e.g., see case study

by Wiegand, Schmidt, and Kleiber, 1999).

Lane (1997) noted that juvenile sex offending may include bestiality, sometimes combined with other violent behavior toward

animals. Adolescent sexual offenders may

also use threats of harm to pets as a way

of gaining compliance from their human

victims (Kaufman, Hilliker, and Daleiden,

1996). In the study of sexual homicide perpetrators cited earlier (Ressler, Burgess,

and Douglas, 1988), 40 percent of the men

who said they had been sexually abused in

childhood or adolescence reported having

sexual contact with animals. Itzin (1998)

reported anecdotal evidence of bestiality

being forced on children who also were

sexually abused and involved in the production of child pornography.

Although it is difficult to obtain information about sexual behavior in children and

adolescents, especially sexual behavior

with animals, Friedrich (1997) provided

some information on this issue with data

from his Child Sexual Behavior Inventory

(CSBI). Caregivers of 1,114 children ages

2–12 who had not been abused and caregivers of 512 sexually abused children in

the same age range reported on a variety

of sexual or sexualized behaviors in the

children, including whether the child

“touches animals’ sex parts.” (Note: The

reporting caregivers of the sexually abused

children were not the perpetrators of the

abuse.) The children were divided into

three age groups: ages 2–5, 6–9, and 10–12.

The queried behavior was relatively infrequent, but it was clear that in the two

older groups, sexually abused children

were more likely to display the behavior

than nonabused children (see figure 7).

Although the behavior appears to decline

among sexually abused 10- to 12-year-olds,

one might speculate that the decrease is

accounted for, in part, by a greater secretiveness in older children in acting out sexually with animals. The decrease may also

be related to older children’s transferring

their inappropriate sexual activity from

animal to human victims.

Further evidence for the relation between

sexual abuse victimization and bestiality is

No history of

sexual abuse

Boys Girls

History of

sexual abuse

Youth (%)

Victimization Status

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 6: Percentage of Youth Ages 2–12 Reported by Caregivers 

To Have Been Cruel to Animals, by Offender’s Gender and

History of Sexual Abuse

Source: Friedrich, W.N., personal communication, April 1992.
9

provided by Wherry and colleagues (1995).

They administered the CSBI to caretakers

of 24 boys ages 6–12 who were psychiatric

inpatients. Eight of these boys had been

sexually abused. “Touches animals’ sex

parts” was reported for 50 percent of

abused boys but none of nonabused boys

(p<0.01). 

Domestic Violence

Animals may also be abused in the context of family violence between intimate

adult partners. Ascione (1998) reported

an interview study of 38 women who were

battered and had sought shelter. Fiftyeight percent of the women had children

and 74 percent had pets. When asked

whether their adult partner had ever

threatened or actually hurt or killed one

or more of their pets, 71 percent of women

with pets responded “yes.” Thirty-two percent of women with children reported that

their children had hurt or killed one or

more family pets. In a replication study

of 100 women who were battered and had

entered a shelter and a comparison group

of 117 nonbattered women, all of whom

had pets, Ascione (2000b) found that 54

percent of the battered women compared

with 5 percent of the nonbattered women

reported that their partner had hurt or

killed pets (see figure 8). Children’s exposure to this animal abuse was reported by

62 percent of the battered women. Nearly

one in four of the battered women reported that concern for their pets’ welfare had

prevented them from seeking shelter

sooner.6

Flynn (2000) reported similar findings in 

a study of 43 women with pets who had

entered a South Carolina domestic violence

shelter. (Twenty-eight of the women were

accompanied by children.) Of these 43

women, 46.5 percent reported threats to

(n=9) or harm of (n=11) their pets. Although only 7 percent of children were

reported to be cruel to animals, 33.3 percent of women whose pets were abused

reported that their children had also been

abused. Of the women whose pets were

not abused, 15.8 percent reported child

abuse. (The figure was 10.5 percent for

women with no pets.)

These studies make it clear that in families challenged by child maltreatment and

domestic violence, there is increased opportunity for children to be exposed to

the abuse of animals. Even if adult family

members do not abuse animals, some children may express the pain of their own

victimization by abusing vulnerable family

pets. Just as researchers are beginning to

understand the overlap between child

abuse and neglect and domestic violence

between intimate adult partners (Ross,

1996), they must now consider the overlap of these forms of abuse with animal

maltreatment (see figure 9).

Policy Implications and

Recommendations

This section addresses issues relating to

the reporting, assessment, and treatment

of children involved in animal abuse. It

presents recommendations associated

with these issues and highlights the need

for enhanced professional training.

2–5 6–9 10–12

Youth (%)

Nonabused boys Nonabused girls

Sexually abused boys Sexually abused girls

Age (years)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Figure 7: Percentage of Youth Ages 2–12 Reported by Caregivers 

To Have Sexually Abused Animals, by Offender’s Age,

Gender, and Victimization Status

Source: Friedrich, W.N. 1997. Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Women (%)

Nonvictims of Domestic 

Abuse (n=117)

Victims of Domestic 

Abuse (n=100)

Figure 8: Percentage of Women Who Reported That Their Domestic

Partners Hurt or Killed Pets, by Reporter’s History of 

Domestic Abuse

Source: Ascione, F.R. 2000b. What veterinarians need to know about the link between animal

abuse and interpersonal violence. Proceedings of the 137th Annual Meeting of the American

Veterinary Medical Association, Salt Lake City, UT, July 25, 2000 (CD–ROM records #316–317).
10

Reporting

Cruelty to animals is all too often a part of

the landscape of violence in which youth

participate and to which they are exposed.

The number of animals that are victims of

such abuse is, at present, difficult to estimate, as is the number of young people

who perpetrate such abuse. In an ideal

world, national data would be available on

the yearly incidence of animal abuse, data

that could be used to track trends and

serve as a baseline against which the

effectiveness of interventions could be

assessed. The existing national data collection systems in the area of child abuse

and neglect illustrate the value of such

archival records (Sedlak and Broadhurst,

1996). However, it is not clear how animal

abuse offenses could be incorporated into

the existing categorization (person, property, drug, public order) of juvenile arrests.

Only two States (Minnesota and West Virginia) mandate that veterinarians report

suspected cases of animal abuse (Frasch

et al., 1999). Until a national system of

monitoring and reporting animal abuse 

is instituted, the following approaches 

to recording cases of animal abuse are 

recommended:

◆ Local humane societies, societies for

the prevention of cruelty to animals,

and animal control agencies should routinely refer cases of serious, juvenileand adult-perpetrated animal abuse to

social welfare and law enforcement

agencies and should maintain systematic records that could be available for

archival review (Ascione and Barnard,

1998; Ascione, Kaufmann, and Brooks,

2000).

◆ Parents, childcare providers, teachers,

others who play caregiving roles for

children (e.g., clergy, coaches), and

young people themselves should be informed that animal abuse may be a significant sign of a tendency to violence

and psychological disturbance and

should not be ignored. Efforts in this

area are already emerging and include

Early Warning, Timely Response: A

Guide to Safe Schools (Dwyer, Osher,

and Warger, 1998) from the U.S. Department of Education and the Warning

Signs guide (1999) developed by MTVMusic TelevisionTM and the American

Psychological Association and disseminated as part of their Fight for Your

Rights: Take a Stand Against Violence

campaign. The American Humane

Association’s (1996) Growing Up Humane in a Violent World: A Parent’s

Guide provides developmentally sensitive information about children and 

animals and the significance of animal

abuse. The Guide also includes educational strategies appropriate for 

preschoolers and some designed for

elementary and secondary school 

students.

◆ Youth should be surveyed about their

treatment of animals. Because animals

may often be abused covertly, parents

and other adults may not be the best

sources of information about this behavior problem. To obtain a better estimate of the incidence of animal

abuse, youth surveys of violent behavior should include self-report items

such as “Have you hurt an animal on

purpose?” or “Have you made an animal suffer for no reason?” Also, witnessing animal abuse is a form of

exposure to violence that should be

routinely assessed because it may have

significant effects on young people

(Boat, 1999). Often children are deeply

attached to their pets and observing

the violent abuse or death of a pet at

the hands of others may be emotionally devastating.

Assessment and Treatment

As part of the search for effective youth

violence prevention and intervention programs, animal welfare organizations have

been developing educational and therapeutic efforts that incorporate “animalassisted” or “animal-facilitated” components (Duel, 2000). The underlying theme

of many of these programs is that teaching young people to train, care for, and

interact in a nurturing manner with animals will reduce any propensity they may

have for aggression and violence. These

programs assume that children are more

likely to commit animal abuse when their

capacity for empathy has been undermined or compromised (for example, by

years of neglect or maltreatment—see

Bavolek, 2000). Developing a sense of

empathy for animals is assumed to be

a bridge to greater empathy for fellow

human beings, making violence toward

them less likely.

Child Abuse

and Neglect

Domestic

Violence

Animal

Abuse

Figure 9: Interconnectedness 

of Different Types 

of Abuse 

Source: Ascione, F.R., and Arkow, P., eds.

1999. Child Abuse, Domestic Violence,

and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles 

of Compassion for Prevention and

Intervention. West Lafayette, IN:

Purdue University Press.
11

The development of animal abuse assessment and intervention programs is accompanied by a number of issues related to

evaluation and accountability:

◆ Although formal protocols for the clinical assessment (Lewchanin and Zimmerman, 2000) and treatment (Jory and

Randour, 1999; Zimmerman and Lewchanin, 2000) of animal abuse are beginning to emerge, they are still at a formative stage of development and their

effectiveness is difficult to evaluate.

◆ Attempts have been made to create

typologies for perpetrators of animal

abuse, similar to typologies for firesetters. These typologies have intuitive

appeal, but their utility has not been

empirically assessed. Whether using

the proposed categories of animal

abusers can facilitate the selection of

appropriate therapeutic interventions

remains to be determined.

◆ Given the challenges of incorporating animals into the therapeutic process (Fine, 2000), evaluation of animalfacilitated therapy programs must

move beyond anecdotal evidence.

Katcher and Wilkins (2000) provided an

evaluation model in a study of animalfacilitated therapy for children with

attention disorders. The model should

be expanded to programs for youth

with CD. 

◆ Evaluation of intervention effectiveness

will continue to grow in importance

because, in some jurisdictions (e.g.,

California, Colorado), courts may recommend or mandate assessment and

treatment of individuals convicted of

certain forms of animal abuse (Frasch et

al., 1999). The effects of such programs

on recidivism have not been examined.

Training

Educational programs at both the preprofessional and professional levels should

give greater emphasis to training about

animal abuse and its overlap with other

forms of family and community violence.

This effort has already emerged in veterinary education (Ascione and Barnard,

1998), the legal profession (Davidson,

1998), and law enforcement (Lockwood,

1989) and should be expanded to include

mental health (psychology and psychiatry) and other human health professions

(e.g., social work, child welfare, and pediatrics) and elementary and secondary

education. The following are recommendations for improving and expanding professional training concerning animal abuse:

◆ Professional cross training should be

expanded (Ascione, Kaufmann, and

Brooks, 2000). For example, animal

control officers should be trained to

identify signs of child maltreatment

and child protection workers should be

trained to identify animal abuse. The

underlying theme of such training

should be that animal abuse is a significant form of violence that not only

harms animals but may be a warning

sign of a child who is psychologically

disturbed or in danger of maltreatment.

◆ Training and continuing education for

judges should include current information on the associations among animal

abuse, domestic violence, and child

maltreatment. Decisions about child

custody and foster placements should

be informed by research showing that

adults who abuse animals are potentially dangerous to humans.

◆ Cross training could also enhance the

success of foster placements for maltreated children who may be physically

or sexually abusing animals. Foster

care providers, especially those with

family pets, should be alerted to the

potential for animal abuse to occur.

Conclusion

Although vandalism may represent costly

and psychologically significant destructiveness (Goldstein, 1996), smashed windshields and graffitied walls do not feel

pain or cry out when they are damaged.

Animals, however, do express their distress when they have been abused, and

their distress calls out for attention. This

Bulletin has provided an overview of the

underreported and understudied phenomenon of animal abuse in childhood and adolescence. Addressing cruelty to animals

as a significant form of aggressive and

antisocial behavior may add one more

piece to the puzzle of understanding and

preventing youth violence.

Resources

The American Humane Association

63 Inverness Drive East

Englewood, CO 80112–5117

303–792–9900

303–792–5333 (fax)

www.americanhumane.org

The National Resource Center on the

Link Between Violence to People

and Animals

63 Inverness Drive East

Englewood, CO 80112–5117

877–LINK–222 (877–546–5222)

link@americanhumane.org

The American Humane Association (AHA),

established in 1877, includes both child

protection and animal protection divisions.

AHA operates the National Resource Center on the Link Between Violence to People

and Animals, provides training to professional groups across the country, and has

brochures, fact sheets, and special issues

of Protecting Children available that are

devoted to this topic.

The Humane Society of the United States

First StrikeTM Campaign

2100 L Street NW.

Washington, DC 20037

202–452–1100

888–213–0956

www.hsus.org/firststrike/

The Humane Society of the United 

States (HSUS) launched the First StrikeTM

Campaign in 1997 to raise public and professional awareness about the connection

between animal abuse and human violence.

The campaign provides training for law

enforcement officers, prosecutors, social

service workers, veterinarians, mental

health professionals, educators, and the

general public on the importance of treating animal abuse as a serious crime and

an indicator of other forms of violence. 

A complete list of resources available

through the HSUS First StrikeTM Campaign

is available at the Web site and can also

be obtained by calling the toll-free number

(both listed above). Resources include a

free campaign kit with brochures and fact

sheets. A general brochure, a brochure on

domestic violence, and a brochure for

children are available in Spanish. Also

available are the First StrikeTM Campaign

video and public service announcements,
12

articles addressing the connection between animal abuse and human violence,

and Violence Prevention and Intervention:

A Directory of Animal-Related Programs

(Duel, 2000), an 82-page listing of prevention and intervention programs.

The Latham Foundation for the

Promotion of Humane Education

1826 Clement Avenue

Alameda, CA 94501

510–521–0920

510–521–9861 (fax)

www.latham.org

Established in 1918, the Latham Foundation promotes respect for all life through

education. The Foundation publishes a

quarterly periodical, The Latham Letter,

and maintains a number of print and

video resources related to animal abuse,

child maltreatment, and humane education, including:

◆ Breaking the Cycles of Violence: A Video

and Training Manual (set). Authored by

Phil Arkow, the video and 64-page manual are ideal for cross training professionals on animal and human abuse

issues.

◆ Teaching Compassion: A Guide for Humane Educators. Written by Pamela

Raphael with Libby Coleman, Ph.D., and

Lynn Loar, Ph.D., this 130-page guide

includes a teacher’s narrative and lesson plans to encourage respect, responsibility, compassion, and empathy.

◆ Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and

Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of

Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. Produced with the assistance

of the Latham Foundation, this book,

edited by Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., and

Phil Arkow (1999), includes original

chapters written by authorities from

each of these three areas of professional focus.

◆ Safe Havens for Pets: Guidelines for

Programs Sheltering Pets for Women

Who Are Battered. Based on indepth

interviews with 41 domestic violence

and animal welfare agencies, this book

describes the development and operation of programs that shelter pets for

women and their children who are escaping violent homes. A free copy of

this book is available for any law enforcement, domestic violence, animal

welfare, child welfare, or related

agency making a request (funded by

the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation).

Send a self-adhesive, self-addressed

mailing label to:

Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

Utah State University

2810 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT 84322–2810

435–797–1464

435–797–1448 (fax)

franka@coe.usu.edu

Endnotes

1. In 1997, there were 136,000 arrests of

persons under age 18 for vandalism

(Snyder and Sickmund, 1999); during the

1990–99 reporting period, juvenile arrests

for vandalism decreased for boys but

increased for girls (Snyder, 2000).

2. Of the 299 inmates, 16 percent were

female and 11.9 percent were ages 15 to

19 (the remaining 88.1 percent were older

than 19). Of the 308 undergraduates, 57.1

percent were female.

3. Kazdin and Esveldt-Dawson reported

that responses to the cruelty to animals

item were positively correlated (r=0.46,

p<0.001) with the IAB total score. Cruelty

to animals scores were significantly

higher for CD-diagnosed than for non-CDdiagnosed boys and girls, ages 6–13, who

were inpatients at a psychiatric facility

(F[1,256] = 8.44, p<0.01).

4. Randolf (1999) suggested that cruelty to

animals also may be one of the core symptoms of attachment disorders (see also

Magid and McKelvey, 1987).

5. It is interesting to note that enuresis

(bedwetting) was not significantly related

to any of the three forms of recidivism.

Bedwetting has been included in the socalled “triad” of symptoms (with cruelty

to animals and firesetting) as a possible

predictor of serious violence. Research

has been inconclusive about the triad’s

predictive value (Barnett and Spitzer,

1994; Lockwood and Ascione,

1998:245–246).

6. Thus, some domestic violence victims

and their children may remain with a batterer because they have no one to care for

their pets if the victim and children enter

a domestic violence shelter. In response,

programs to shelter pets of domestic violence victims have been and continue to

be established across the United States

and Canada (Ascione, 2000a). The increasing availability of these pet-sheltering programs will benefit battered women and

their children because helping mothers

achieve safety may be one of the best

ways to ensure the safety of their children (Jacobsen, 2000).

References

Achenbach, T.M. 1991. Manual for the Child

Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,

Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M. 1992. Manual for the Child

Behavior Checklist/2–3 and 1992 Profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,

Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M., Howell, C.T., Quay, H.C.,

and Conners, C.K. 1991. National survey of

problems and competencies among fourto sixteen-year-olds. Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development

56: Serial No. 255.

Agnew, R. 1998. The causes of animal

abuse: A social-psychological analysis.

Theoretical Criminology 2:177–209.

American Humane Association. 1996.

Growing Up Humane in a Violent World: A

Parent’s Guide. Englewood, CO: American

Humane Association.

American Psychiatric Association. 1987.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. 3d ed. Revised. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association. 1994.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., and Ascione,

F. 1999. The relationship of animal abuse

to violence and other forms of antisocial

behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence

14:963–975.

Ascione, F.R. 1993. Children who are cruel

to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos 6:226–247.

Ascione, F.R. 1998. Battered women’s reports of their partners’ and their children’s

cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional

Abuse 1:119–133.

Ascione, F.R. 1999. The abuse of animals

and human interpersonal violence: Making

the connection. In Child Abuse, Domestic

Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the

Circles of Compassion for Prevention and

Intervention, edited by F.R. Ascione and

P. Arkow. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, pp. 50–61.
13

Ascione, F.R. 2000a. Safe Havens for Pets:

Guidelines for Programs Sheltering Pets 

for Women Who Are Battered. Logan, UT:

Author.

Ascione, F.R. 2000b. What veterinarians

need to know about the link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence.

Proceedings of the 137th Annual Meeting

of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Salt Lake City, UT, July 25, 2000

(CD–ROM records #316–317).

Ascione, F.R., and Arkow, P., eds. 1999.

Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal

Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for

Prevention and Intervention. West Lafayette,

IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione, F.R., and Barnard, S. 1998. The

link between animal abuse and violence to

humans: Why veterinarians should care. In

Recognizing and Reporting Animal Abuse: 

A Veterinarian’s Guide, edited by P. Olson.

Englewood, CO: American Humane Association, pp. 4–10.

Ascione, F.R., Kaufmann, M.E., and Brooks,

S.M. 2000. Animal abuse and developmental psychopathology: Recent research,

programmatic, and therapeutic issues and

challenges for the future. In Handbook on

Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, edited

by A. Fine. New York: Academic Press, pp.

325–354.

Ascione, F.R., and Lockwood, R. 2001.

Cruelty to animals: Changing psychological, social, and legislative perspectives. In

State of the Animals 2000, edited by D.J.

Salem and A.N. Rowan. Washington, DC:

Humane Society Press, pp. 39–53.

Ascione, F.R., Thompson, T.M., and Black,

T. 1997. Childhood cruelty to animals:

Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos 10:170–177.

Barnett, W., and Spitzer, M. 1994. Pathological fire-setting 1951–1991: A review. Medical Science and the Law 34:4–20.

Bavolek, S.J. 2000. The Nurturing Parenting

Programs. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Beirne, P. 1997. Rethinking bestiality: Towards a sociology of interspecies sexual

assault. Theoretical Criminology 1:317–340.

Boat, B.W. 1999. Abuse of children and animals: Using the links to inform child assessment and protection. In Child Abuse,

Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse:

Linking the Circles of Compassion for

Prevention and Intervention, edited by F.R.

Ascione and P. Arkow. West Lafayette, IN:

Purdue University Press, pp. 83–100.

Davidson, H. 1998. What lawyers and

judges should know about the link 

between child abuse and animal cruelty.

American Bar Association Child Law

Practice 17:60–63.

DeViney, E., Dickert, J., and Lockwood, R.

1983. The care of pets within child abusing families. International Journal for the

Study of Animal Problems 4:321–329.

Duel, D.K. 2000. Violence Prevention and

Intervention: A Directory of Animal-Related

Programs. Washington, DC: The Humane

Society of the United States.

Dwyer, K., Osher, D., and Warger, C. 1998.

Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide

to Safe Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Eyberg, S.M., and Ross, A.W. 1978. Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 7:113–116.

Felthous, A.R., and Yudowitz, B. 1977. Approaching a comparative typology of assaultive female offenders. Psychiatry 40:

270–276.

Fine, A., ed. 2000. Handbook on AnimalAssisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations

and Guidelines for Practice. New York:

Academic Press.

Flynn, C.P. 1999a. Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal

violence in families. Society and Animals

7:161–171.

Flynn, C.P. 1999b. Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s

cruelty to animals. Journal of Marriage

and the Family 61:971–981.

Flynn, C.P. 2000. Woman’s best friend: Pet

abuse and the role of companion animals

in the lives of battered women. Violence

Against Women 6:162–177.

Frasch, P.D., Otto, S.K., Olsen, K.M., and

Ernest, P.A. 1999. State animal anti-cruelty

statutes: An overview. Animal Law 5:69–80.

Frick, P.J., Van Horn, Y., Lahey, B.B., Christ,

M.A.G., Loeber, R., Hart, E.A., Tannenbaum,

L., and Hanson, K. 1993. Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A metaanalytic review of factor analyses and

cross-validation in a clinical sample.

Clinical Psychology Review 13:319–340.

Friedrich, W.N. 1997. Child Sexual Behavior

Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources. 

Friedrich, W.N., Grambsch, P., Damon, L.,

Hewitt, S.K., Koverola, C., Lang, R.A., Wolfe,

V., and Broughton, D. 1992. Child Sexual

Behavior Inventory: Normative and clinical

comparisons. Psychological Assessment

4:303–311.

Garbarino, J. 1999. Lost Boys: Why Our

Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save

Them. New York: Free Press.

Goldstein, A.P. 1996. The Psychology of

Vandalism. New York: Plenum Press.

Itzin, C. 1998. Pornography and the organization of intra- and extrafamilial child

sexual abuse. In Out of Darkness: Contemporary Perspectives on Family Violence,

edited by G.K. Kantor and J.L. Jasinski.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

pp. 58–79.

Jacobsen, W.B. 2000. Safe From the Start:

Taking Action on Children Exposed to Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Jory, B., and Randour, M.L. 1999. The AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse.

Washington Grove, MD: Psychologists for

the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Katcher, A.H., and Wilkins, G.G. 2000. The

Centaur’s lessons: Therapeutic education

through care of animals and nature study.

In Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy:

Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for

Practice, edited by A. Fine. New York: Academic Press, pp. 153–177.

Kaufman, K.L., Hilliker, D.R., and Daleiden,

E.L. 1996. Subgroup differences in the

modus operandi of adolescent sexual

offenders. Child Maltreatment 1:17–24.

Kazdin, A.E., and Esveldt-Dawson, K. 1986.

The interview for antisocial behavior: Psychometric characteristics and concurrent

validity with child psychiatric inpatients.

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment 8:289–303.

Kellerman, J. 1999. Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children. New York: Ballantine Publishing Group.

Kellert, S.R., and Felthous, A.R. 1985. Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations

38:1113–1129.
14

Lacroix, C.A. 1998. Another weapon for

combating family violence: Prevention of

animal abuse. Animal Law 4:1–32.

Lane, S. 1997. Assessment of sexually abusive youth. In Juvenile Sexual Offending:

Causes, Consequences, and Correction, edited by G. Ryan and S. Lane. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 219–263.

Lewchanin, S., and Zimmerman, E. 2000.

Clinical Assessment of Juvenile Animal

Cruelty. Brunswick, ME: Biddle Publishing

Company and Audenreed Press.

Lockwood, R. 1989. Cruelty to Animals and

Human Violence. Training Key No. 392.

Arlington, VA: International Association 

of Chiefs of Police.

Lockwood, R., and Ascione, F.R. 1998.

Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University

Press.

Lockwood, R., and Church, A. 1996. Deadly

serious: An FBI perspective on animal cruelty. HSUS News Fall:1–4.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., and Waschbusch, D.A. 1998. Serious and violent

juvenile offenders. In Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, pp. 13–29.

Loeber, R., Keenan, K., Lahey, B., Green, S.,

and Thomas, C. 1993. Evidence for developmentally based diagnoses of oppositional

defiant disorder and conduct disorder.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

21:377–410.

Luk, E.S.L., Staiger, P.K., Wong, L., and

Mathai, J. 1999. Children who are cruel to

animals: A revisit. Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 33:29–36.

Magid, K., and McKelvey, C.A. 1987. High

Risk: Children Without a Conscience. New

York: Bantam Books.

McClellan, J., Adams, J., Douglas, D., 

McCurry, C., and Storck, M. 1995. Clinical characteristics related to severity of

sexual abuse: A study of seriously mentally ill youth. Child Abuse and Neglect

19:1245–1254.

Miller, K.S., and Knutson, J.F. 1997. Reports

of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students.

Child Abuse and Neglect 21:59–82.

Moffitt, T.E. 1997. Adolescence-limited and

life-course persistent offending: A complementary pair of developmental theories.

In Developmental Theories of Crime and

Delinquency, edited by T.P. Thornberry.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 11–54.

MTV-Music TelevisionTM and American

Psychological Association. 1999. Warning

Signs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., and Racine, Y.A.

1991. The epidemiology of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. In

The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, edited by D.J. Pepler 

and K.H. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31–54.

Pinel, P. 1809. Traite medico-philosophique

sur l’alienation mentale. 2d ed. Paris:

Brosson.

Ponder, C., and Lockwood, R. 2000. Programs educate law enforcement on link

between animal cruelty and domestic 

violence. The Police Chief 67:31–36.

Randolf, E. 1999. Manual for the Randolf

Attachment Disorder Questionnaire. Evergreen, CO: The Attachment Center Press.

Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., and Douglas,

J.E. 1988. Sexual Homicide: Patterns and

Motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Reynolds, C.R., and Kamphaus, R.W. 1992.

Behavior Assessment System for Children:

Teacher Rating Scales. Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service.

Rice, M.E., and Harris, G.T. 1996. Predicting

the recidivism of mentally disordered firesetters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence

11:364–375.

Ross, S.M. 1996. Risk of physical abuse to

children of spouse abusing parents. Child

Abuse and Neglect 20:589–598.

Sakheim, G.A., and Osborne, E. 1994. Firesetting Children: Risk Assessment and Treatment. Washington, DC: Child Welfare

League of America.

Salt Lake City Area Juvenile Firesetter/

Arson Control and Prevention Program.

1992. No Bad Children, Just Bad Choices:

Juvenile Firesetter Program. Salt Lake City:

Salt Lake City Fire Department.

Schiff, K., Louw, D., and Ascione, F.R. 1999.

Animal relations in childhood and later

violent behaviour against humans. Acta

Criminologica 12:77–86.

Schleuter, S. 1999. Animal abuse and law

enforcement. In Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles

of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, edited by F.R. Ascione and P. Arkow.

West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University

Press, pp. 316–327.

Sedlak, A.J., and Broadhurst, D.D. 1996.

Third National Incidence Study of Child

Abuse and Neglect: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Snyder, H.N. 2000. Juvenile Arrests 1999.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Spitzer, R.L., Davies, M., and Barkley, R.A.

1990. The DSM–III–R field trial of disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry 29:690–697.

Stone, R., and Kelner, K. 2000. Violence: 

No silver bullet. Science 289:569.

Straus, M.A. 1991. Beating the Devil Out of

Them: Corporal Punishment in American

Families. New York: Lexington Books.

Tingle, D., Barnard, G.W., Robbins, L.,

Newman, G., and Hutchinson, D. 1986.

Childhood and adolescent characteristics

of pedophiles and rapists. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry 9:103–116.

Turner, N. 2000. Animal abuse and the link

to domestic violence. The Police Chief

67:28–30.

Verlinden, S. 2000. Risk factors in school

shootings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR.

Wherry, J.N., Jolly, J.B., Feldman, J., Adam,

B., and Manjanatha, S. 1995. Child Sexual

Abuse Inventory scores for inpatient psychiatric boys: An exploratory study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 4:95–105.

Widom, C.S. 1989. The cycle of violence.

Science 244:160–166.

Wiegand, P., Schmidt, V., and Kleiber, M.

1999. German shepherd dog is suspected

of sexually abusing a child. International

Journal of Legal Medicine 112:324–325.
15

Acknowledgments

Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Adjunct Professor of

Family and Human Development at Utah State University. The author thanks Rolf

Loeber for his support and encouragement during the preparation of this Bulletin.

Photo on page 7 copyright ©1997–99 Photodisc, Inc.; photo on page 10 copyright

©1998–2001, Eyewire, Inc.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Wooden, W.S., and Berkey, M.L. 1984.

Children and Arson: America’s Middle Class

Nightmare. New York: Plenum Press.

Youssef, R.M., Attia, M.S., and Kamel, M.I.

1999. Violence among schoolchildren in

Alexandria. Eastern Mediterranean Health

Journal 5:282–298.

Zimmerman, E., and Lewchanin, S. 2000.

Community Intervention in Juvenile Cruelty

to Animals. Brunswick, ME: Biddle Publishing Company.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 188677

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300