Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, February 21, 1991                   TAG: 9102210437
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

IF IT'S OBVIOUS, WHY NOT ACT ON IT?

A case in point: two studies, presented last weekend at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, regarding abused and severely neglected children.

One researcher, Cathy Spatz Widom of the State University of New York at Albany, previously had shown that among the eventual consequences of the abuse and neglect of young children are higher rates of delinquency as juveniles and violent criminality as adults. Subsequent research, she said, shows that the "negative outcomes" go beyond that: Lower IQs and higher rates of mental illness and drug (including alcohol) problems may be even more frequent consequences.

Another researcher, Byron Egeland of the University of Minnesota, reported that lower scores on IQ tests and higher rates of disruptive behavior show up among physically abused children as early as age 2.

Such findings hardly turn prevailing assumptions on their head. Without ever hearing of those or similar studies, most Americans likely would agree that seriously mistreating young children has bad consequences, both for the children and for society as a whole. Some would even question the value and cost of performing studies that seem to confirm the obvious.

Sometimes, though, the obvious is disproved by such studies. And sometimes we need to be reminded of the obvious. In this case, while Americans may recognize the link between grossly inadequate nurturing and much of the nation's costly social problems, they often seem disinclined to act on the implications.

As a society, for example, we are quick to demand harsh punishment for lawbreakers, slower to demand intervention programs for children at risk of growing up to become adult felons. Campaigns to get tough on drug users and traffickers draw our support; we say we can't afford the sort of assistance to troubled children that could prevent some of that drug use in the first place and so reduce the demand that makes drug-dealing lucrative.

More prisons and police, to deal with the consequences of child abuse and neglect, is seen as the "hard-headed" and "tough" approach. More preschools and social workers, to try to keep those consequences from arising, is seen as the "bleeding-heart" and "soft" way. Never mind that early intervention is more effective and less costly.

Prisons and police, of course, are essential. But there is nothing "soft" about spending public pennies now to save dollars later. It isn't "soft" to try to prevent crime as much as to avenge it.

Research such as Widom's and Egeland's is not startling; it does not force people to view the world in a new light. But by hardening evidence of the tie between how young children are treated and how they turn out, such research ought to give Americans more confidence in their intuition. If so, perhaps Americans will be readier to save children caught in grim circumstances from equally grim prospects - and to save society a load of future grief.