ASA Adjudication on Keeping Kids Company

Ad

Two posters promoted the charity Keeping Kids Company. Ad (a) featured four black male teenagers in an urban setting and was headlined "YOU ARE RIGHT. Kids who can kill really are wrong in the head." The body copy stated "Yes violent kids are different [underlined]. The brain on the left is that of a boy from a normal, loving background. The other is from a boy who has suffered neglect and abuse. His brain is so much smaller because the parts that deal with emotion and behaviour are underdeveloped [underlined] ... We have the chance to stop street violence [underlined]. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to?" The ad showed two scans of brains. The larger brain was labelled "normal" and the smaller brain was labelled "extreme neglect". Text next to the brain scans stated "From studies conducted by researchers from the Child Trauma Academy ... ". Ad (b) showed a black teenager on a bike and two black teenagers harassing a white man. The ad was headlined "HOW DO YOU GET INSIDE First get inside THE HEAD OF A 16-YEAR OLD the head of a 16-year old KNIFE-WIELDING THUG? bed-wetting boy." The body copy stated "Evil thug. Animal. Needs locking up. Be honest, when you look at this picture aren't they the kinds [sic] of thoughts running through your head? Punishing these kids only adds to their resentment and anger [underlined]. Kids Company has known for a long time that the only way to change these kids is by changing the way we look at them. They've suffered appallingly at the hands of family members or their parent's drug dealers and pimps. They've spent all their young lives hardly sleeping through fear. Even now they may still sometimes wet the bed at the memories of past traumas ... Make them cherish life - theirs and everyone else's ... Before we can make the public feel safe, we need to make kids feel safe. There a lot of ways you can help. Join us at kidsco.org.uk to find out how."

Issue

1. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) was offensive because it depicted only black teenagers.

2. A second complainant challenged whether ad (b) was offensive and racist because it focused on negative images of black teenagers and implied they were thugs and criminals.

3. A third complainant challenged whether ad (a) was misleading, because it implied emotional development was responsible for the difference in brain size illustrated in the ad.

4. The ASA challenged whether the link between brain size and violent behaviour in children in ad (a) could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Keeping Kids Company (Kids Company) said there were five ads within the campaign, and enclosed copies of those ads.  The ads featured a broad cross-section of children from different ethic backgrounds in and around Kilburn including White-Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean children.  They displayed each of the different executions on various poster sites.

They said they were keen to use local teenagers from London youth centres rather than recruiting models who would have no emotional involvement with their subject because they worked with traumatised children in London. The teenagers were not selected on the basis of their race and were representative of the racial mix in those youth clubs.  They said that 80% of the children who came to Kids Company for help were from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds so the ratio across all ads was representative of that.

The Outdoor Advertising Association said Kids Company had supplied separate images containing both black and white teenagers, those designs were spread as evenly as possible across nine stations and as such they considered the campaign to be acceptable.

2. Kids Company said the ads were designed to engage viewers by confronting superficial judgements and prejudices about the children featured. The larger headline copy was designed to arrest the viewers' attention and played on the presumption that the teenagers were seen as "knife-wielding thugs", but that idea was undercut by the italicised headline copy communicating Kids Company's point of view.

They said the ad was built on the idea that they needed to change the way the public saw the children featured before those children could begin to change themselves. They said they used negative images of anti-social teenagers to provoke a specific response from their target audience, in order to engage, explain and educate people about the social and environmental factors that produce violent teenagers.

They said the ad argued that the children only appeared to be thugs to those prone to prejudiced views, and challenged the viewer to reject stereotypes.  They said that rationale was carried through the body which stated "the only way to change these kids is by changing the way we look at them."

3. Kids Company said the brain images used in the ad were taken from a published study, "Altered brain development following global neglect in early childhood", carried out by Dr Bruce Perry, an international expert in child trauma and brain development based at the Child Trauma Academy in the USA. They said both images featured the brains of three-year-old children, and neither had been manipulated in any way by Kids Company, having been taken directly from Dr Perry's work, with his permission. They said the brain on the left was of a healthy three-year-old with an average head size and the image on the right was of a three-year-old child who had suffered sensory-deprivation neglect. They referred the ASA to a number of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

4. Kids Company said there was evidence to suggest that abnormalities in brain structure and function could predispose an individual to antisocial behaviours and referred the ASA to a number of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted Kids Company's comments. We accepted the ads formed part of a campaign featuring a cross section of children from London youth clubs that reflected the racial mix of the children that came to Kids Company for help, and that for the most part two or more ads from the campaign had been displayed at each station. However, although we noted it was Kids Company's intention to raise awareness about the problems facing the children they sought to help, we nonetheless considered ad (a) was likely to cause serious offence because it featured only black teenagers. Moreover, we considered ad (b) focused on a negative image of black teenagers that was likely to reinforce negative stereotypes and was therefore racist.

On points 1. and 2. ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency).

3. Upheld

We noted the ad stated "His brain is so much smaller because the parts that deal with emotion and behaviour are underdeveloped". We considered readers would understand that to mean the emotional development of the subject had caused their brain to develop differently from the brain labelled "normal".

We reviewed the study from which the image was taken. We noted it stated that the brain on the right was from a three-year-old child that had suffered "severe sensory-deprivation neglect."  We understood "severe sensory-deprivation neglect" to mean exposure to a minimum of sensory experiences, for example (as stated in the study), children that had been raised in cages in dark rooms for the first years of their life. We noted the report also referred to nutrition as a key factor in the way brains developed.

Although we noted the emotional development of a child was linked to their sensory experience, we did not consider that the report suggested the difference in brain size was caused only by the emotional development of the subject. Because we considered the ad implied it was, but that view was not supported by the study, we concluded the ad was misleading.  

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We reviewed the studies referred to by Kids Company. We noted the ad stated "Kids who can kill really are wrong in the head" and "Yes violent kids are different" and illustrated that difference with the scan of two differently sized brains. We therefore considered it implied a direct link between brain size and violent behaviour. Although we accepted some of the studies concluded structural and functional deficits in the brain were related to antisocial and aggressive behaviour in children and adults, we noted that none of the studies referred directly to the overall size of the brain having an impact on violent behaviour to the extent that the contrasting image of the two brains implied.  Because we considered the ad implied there was a link between violent behaviour and overall brain size, but that view was not supported by the studies referred to by Kids Company, we concluded ad (a) was misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)