• Determining which children are in vulnerable situations and need assistance requires identifying the risk factors that they face.
• Helping street children involves bolstering protective factors that can reduce the impacts of the risks.
• Effective interventions to help at-risk children must be practical and flexible to their different needs, and should involve people, institutions, and systems that care about and support them.

Research on Brazil’s street children needs to meet the children where they are

What is one simple thing street children would like to improve their lives? When we asked street children in Brazil, we wondered if they would talk about iPhones, new clothes, or sneakers. But the children did not focus on material things. Many asked for “somewhere I can put my stuff.” Others requested “a place that’s my own, hidden from the world.” They were searching for privacy, because when you live on the streets, everything is public.

Sometime later, my friend, the director of a Brazilian children’s shelter, sought my advice. “We can’t keep the children off the street. They come and they are gone. We can’t keep them safe when they don’t come back every night. What can I do?” My suggestion was to give each child a locker and a key. “You can keep spare keys in the office, but promise me you will not search inside those lockers,” I advised.

We know from developmental psychology that every child needs someone who really cares about them.

A month later I returned. “Are you a magician?” my friend laughed. The children were coming back at night to stay at the shelter. Later, we learned what they were storing on those shelves. Just simple things: Some shampoo, pieces of paper, a document. Having a little privacy, in the form of a tiny locker, made all the difference to where the children spent the night.

This example highlights why, for more than 30 years, our teams of researchers studying Brazil’s street children have focused on leaving our ivory towers. We must understand the lives of street children to identify interventions that genuinely support their development. In the vast academic learning about child development, we must find what is relevant to their lives and translate this combined, well-evidenced understanding into effective, practical interventions.

Defining street children

We studied children of all ages in Brazilian urban areas. In our work, we have learned a lot – about terminology, children’s needs, and impactful interventions – thanks to our research teams, many collaborators, and mentors. First, we realized that conventional definitions of street children were at best inadequate and often wrong. They tended to focus on key activities, such as begging or wiping windshields, where children slept, or their family ties. But these definitions did not fit well and they did not inform effective interventions.

We seldom found children who had completely lost contact with family. Sleeping locations also blurred the picture: Some lived at home and worked on the streets, occasionally sleeping there. Others periodically slept on the streets for weeks but then returned home.

Photo provided by the author.

Instead, we categorize children around the risks they face (e.g., contact with gangs, use of drugs, sexual exploitation) and the programs and people available to protect them (e.g., school attendance, supportive social networks, contact with caring adults). Through this approach, we draw on what is known about the impacts of exposing vulnerable children to developmental risks.

We also shine a light on factors that already exist to protect them. This helps us identify actions tailored to each child, based on well-evidenced knowledge. It means that in our work, we combine the insights of rigorous developmental science with in-depth understanding of street children’s lives.

Find one person who really cares about the child

We know from developmental psychology that every child needs someone who really cares about them. But what does that mean for street children? Most do have relationships with family members. But many of those relationships have big problems, including abusive behavior. These children know that their home is not a place to be all the time.

School attachment is a very important protective factor, particularly for youth in their early teens, for both girls and boys.

They are also smart. They understand how to find people who can take care of them. We have found many people in institutions and shelters who recognize this central childhood need and will play a protective, constant role in children’s lives. It is important to build on these opportunities for children.

School is vital in this respect. In our research, school attachment is a very important protective factor, particularly for youth in their early teens, for both girls and boys. This finding highlights the crucial role that schools can play, but they must be ready to embrace these children.

Street children want to go to school

Some people say street children do not want to go to school or learn. That is not true. It is not easy for them. They do not have someone who wakes them every morning to go to school. They lack paper, notebooks, and pencils, as well as a place to keep school supplies for the next day.

In addition, street children can face prejudice from other students and teachers. Surviving on the street requires constant vigilance to potential dangers, so maintaining self-discipline and concentration at school can be difficult. But given the chance, most street children we have met love school. They want to go. But they need an open school, not a place where they have to arrive at exactly 8 a.m. The school has to be flexible and welcoming: Maybe they get there at 9. There should be some breakfast for them.

We have also learned about psychological interventions that support children who have experienced trauma. For example, we know that group therapy can be highly effective, especially for girls who have experienced sexual exploitation, but it is less helpful for boys, who may be less able to confide in groups and may need more one-to-one approaches.

In conclusion – doing good, but accidentally doing harm

Finally, we have found that services and institutions that strive to bring children off the street sometimes unintentionally achieve the opposite. Some children told us that, to access care institutions and services, they had to “pretend” they were street children, giving that identity a high status. Instead of slowing the migration of children to the street, these institutions were actually propelling children to street life. We had to go to the directors of these institutions and advise them to change their approach.

And they did. They introduced more rules and expectations around what the children should be doing, such as attending certain programs and bringing a responsible adult with them, so they did not just come in for new clothes and disappear again. They were genuinely off the streets.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons we have learned from our innovative approach is that traditional research techniques, which usually have academics observing and then walking away with their findings, are not ethical in this environment. We are always asking: “How can we learn from and inform practitioners? How can we contribute to the well-being of these children, right here, now, in front of us?” We must be wary never to exploit the misery of the many for our own personal academic advancement.

The post Brazil and its street children – understanding the needs of street children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Key takeaways on Children’s Screen Time for caregivers

• Research shows that most toddlers spend a significant amount of time watching screens – an average of about 4 hours a day.
• Toddlers who spend more time watching screens, such as television, videos, and digital games, may have fewer expressive language skills, or the ability to express themselves verbally.
• Caregivers can support language development by having conversations with their child during or after screen time and by engaging in high-quality language interactions without screens at other times of the day (e.g., while on transportation, at meals).

Why screen time might affect a child’s language development

Young children rapidly learn words by interacting with their environment, such as through conversations with their caregivers. However, how much language children are exposed to in the home environment varies widely across families, contributing to school readiness gaps between children from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Children’s screen time, including watching television and videos, and playing digital games, is one early experience that may be related to their language development.

There is research to suggest that brain development through screens may be slower when compared to interaction with caregivers. Photo: Thom Cochrane. Creative Commons.

High levels of screen time may replace interaction with caregivers

Many researchers have theorized about the impact of screen time on young children’s language development. First, high levels of screen time may replace interaction with a caregiver who can respond to and elicit responses from children. This tailored back-and-forth interaction, or contingent responding, influences learning and allows children to practice their language skills.

Young children have trouble learning from media

Second, although some media products for toddlers are marketed as educational, evidence suggests that children this age have trouble learning from media, perhaps because videos are often simpler than real-life experiences and replace rich real-world stimuli. This may be especially important for toddlers from homes with low incomes, who are likely to experience high levels of media exposure and are most at risk for delays in language development.

More screen time was associated with lower levels of language skills for toddlers.

Studying screen time and language in children

To examine the relationship between screen time and a child’s language development, we conducted a study that asked two questions:

1. How much screen time do toddlers from homes with low incomes experience?
2. Is the amount of screen time related to toddlers’ language development?

Our study used data from the Kids in Columbus Study, a longitudinal study on midwestern U.S. two- and three-year-olds living in poverty (i.e., 185% of U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines). We collected data on 157 toddlers; 54% were Black, 47% were White, and 8% were Latino (respondents could select all races and ethnicities that applied).

Caregivers completed surveys on toddlers’ screen time during an average weekday (e.g., in front of a television watching programs, videos, and DVDs; playing video games; using computers, cell phones, handheld video games, tablets, smartphones, and other electronic devices). About six months later, we observed toddlers’ language abilities by taking a standardized measurement of what words toddlers understood and what words they could speak. 

Screen time can influence a child’s language development. Photo: Karolina Grabowska. Pexels.

How much screen time do children from homes with low incomes experience?

The toddlers’ amount of screen time varied. While some families reported little to no screen time, a substantial portion reported more than 8 hours per day. The average amount of daily screen time was nearly 4 hours. This finding is similar to nationally representative data showing that daily screen time for children under eight years old living in homes with low incomes was 3.5 hours.

More screen time was related to lower levels of expressive language

Next, we sought to determine whether the amount of toddlers’ screen time related to their language development. We measured language development by looking at toddlers’ scores on two tests: the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. More screen time was associated with lower levels of language skills for toddlers.

It is challenging, and probably not necessary or advisable, to avoid all screen time.

Interestingly, screen time was related only to toddlers’ expressive language (i.e., their ability to express themselves verbally) and not to their receptive language (i.e., how well they understand when others speak to them) or vocabulary (i.e., the words they understand). Screen time could influence children’s ability to use language themselves because it may replace opportunities to practice talking, such as conversations with a caregiver or other adults.

How can caregivers support children’s early language development during screen time?

Today, it is challenging, and probably not necessary or advisable, to avoid all screen time. Yet caregivers can take several steps to support children’s language development in the context of our digital world.

First, caregivers can co-participate in the screen time with the child. They can talk with their child about what they are watching or doing on screens. Second, they can engage in high-quality language interactions without screens at other times of the day (e.g., while on transportation, at meals). And third, because not all screen content is created equal, caregivers can monitor what children are using and help them seek out high-quality programming, including educational shows and applications. Caregivers can look to sources informed by research, such as Common Sense Media, to find age-based recommendations.

Co-participating in screen time could enhance a child’s development. Photo: Wayan Vota. Creative Commons.

Our finding that more screen time was related to lower levels of expressive language skills is especially important because children from homes with low incomes are already at risk for language delay and lower levels of school readiness than their peers from middle- and upper-income homes. More screen time could further widen this gap. Researchers may benefit from comparing relations between screen use and language development in children from other income levels (e.g., middle and high income).

In addition, researchers need to examine whether using educational media or using media with an adult is less likely to be related to lower levels of language skills than is using screen time for entertainment or alone. Studies could also explore potential interventions to support caregivers in providing stimulating language environments for children and keeping screens as a fun, but not predominant, part of their lives.

The post Toddlers’ screen time: Links between screen time and child development appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with parents in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice. Instead, the children and youth should be invited to challenge these situations. Finding ways to raise families out of poverty would go far in addressing the needs of families who have a parent in prison.

Impacts on children and adolescents of having a parent in prison

Having an incarcerated parent has multiple impacts on youth, with profound implications for both child and adolescent development. Antisocial behavior, psychological difficulties, trauma, risk taking, and health problems in children are all linked to having a parent in prison. Experts are also concerned about intergenerational transmission of criminality.

Children and adolescents with an incarcerated parent are likely to already be facing disadvantage and material hardship, and the imprisonment intensifies these problems. Imprisonment of a parent, particularly a father who earns money or pays child support, can cause intense stress for a family.

“In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies found that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly.”

Furthermore, imprisonment involves extra costs, such as legal fees, fines, prison visits, and phone calls. The pressure on the non-incarcerated parent, who is often already underresourced, can lead to a decline in the parent’s mental and physical health, which is linked to less positive parenting. And this, in turn, is linked to less cognitive and social competence in children and youth.

Incarceration exacerbates family instability, including relationship stress and the likelihood of divorce and separation. A child or adolescent may even become homeless: About 11% of children with a mother in prison and 2% of children with a father in prison enter into foster or state care. (However, the causal link between incarceration and foster care is uncertain.)

In some cases, incarceration can lead to improvements for children and adolescents, removing from the home a source of disruption, abuse, or violence.

Protective factors for children and youth

Researchers have identified a number of protective factors for children and youth with an incarcerated parent. A positive relationship between parent and child prior to the incarceration of that parent can help youth cope.

The quality of caregiving at home is very significant, though it is compromised by incarceration, as described above. Kin-based care, such as that provided by grandparents, can protect children and give them the opportunity to thrive.

The nature of a child’s contact with the parent in prison or jail can also make a difference. Contact can be through in-person visits or videos, recorded messages, letters, and phone calls.

In a 2010 comprehensive review of evidence, 58% of studies reported that visits to parents in prison benefitted children, particularly if visiting arrangements were family friendly. Four- to nine- year-olds were likely to show improved self-esteem following visits to their fathers in federal prison, as do the same aged children following visits to their mother in prison. In one study, adolescents with regular contact with their mothers in prison were less likely to drop out of school early than those with irregular or no contact. Children nine years old and older were less likely to display anger and alienation if they saw their mother in jail than if they had no contact.

All forms of contact seem to be beneficial. One study found less depression in four- to 14-year-olds who received more letters from their jailed parents than in their peers who did not receive letters. Letter writing was also associated with a stronger coparenting relationship between the two parents.

“Developing the resilience of children and adolescents with a parent in prison is important, but it should not involve just encouraging them to adapt to situations of disadvantage and injustice.”

Visits to prison can work both ways for children. They can help strengthen family bonds and the commitment to positive parenting by the incarcerated parent. They can provide an opportunity for sharing meals and playing games, and family members often report positively about the experience. But a visit to a prison can be very disturbing for a child.

In the United States, jails are locally operated, have shorter-term facilities, and typically have poor visiting facilities. In contrast, federal prisons hold people with longer sentences and offer more optimal conditions for visits.

Support for children and youth with an incarcerated parent

Parenting Inside Out is an intervention that has been evaluated via a randomized controlled study. It has shown positive outcomes for children’s and youth’s relationships with both the parent in prison and the parent at home. The program has many parts, including therapeutically organized visiting at the prison and collaboration with community agencies to provide support to the parent and family after the sentence is over.

Family-friendly visiting facilities are important and include having books, toys, and nursery facilities for very young children. Children and youth can also benefit from mentoring in their community to help them cope at home and at school.

Programs that focus on building children’s resilience look at the strengths already in the family and support family members to support each other and engage effectively with service providers. Sesame Street has created a multi-media kit, Little Children Big Challenges: Incarceration, that aims to help children thrive when a parent is incarcerated. Schools can also help children build resilience in the face of the adversity of having a parent in prison.

The Sesame Street program addresses social justice. It engages with parents to leverage power to tackle systemic problems such as poverty and disenfranchisement.

The post Supporting children and adolescents with incarcerated parents includes addressing social injustice appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Being resilient does not mean being invulnerable. Resilience and invulnerability are sometimes confused. For example, more educational support for children with learning disabilities may make them more resilient within a learning environment, but it will not make them less vulnerable to stigma or bullying.

Resilience may be displayed in ways that not all consider positive. Over-optimistic expectations that have little chance of being met – “false hopes” – can lead to failure, as can excessive self-reliance. Similarly, excessively high self-esteem can slide into narcissism. Resilience may manifest as a lack of appropriate emotional response to adversity, for example, in the case of bereavement.

A focus on resilience may distract from the need to challenge adversity rather than adapt to it – the resilience paradox.

Resilience according to whom? The Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton managed to survive with his team for two years in a cold wilderness. Was this heroic resilience, as was celebrated at the time, or did taking his crew into such a situation recklessly endanger their lives? When soldiers reach a personal limit in training, is resilience showing grit or is it extracting themselves to focus on something that suits them better mentally or physically? Were the survivors of the 2002 flooding in the Solomon Islands resilient when they responded with self-reliance by rebuilding houses that could not withstand another flood? Was the 19^th-century belief in opium as a relief from anxiety a form of resilience?

A focus on resilience may distract from the need to challenge adversity rather than adapt to it – the resilience paradox. One could argue that adapting to climate change is counterproductive when the only safe response is to challenge it and try to stop it. The same could be argued for racism, poverty, violence, maltreatment, and social injustice. In all cases, resilience by a compliant individual may only make matters worse. This is called the resilience paradox. Expecting resilience in such contexts could even be considered cruel.

The post Is resilience always a good thing? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

In 1972, Mike published Maternal Deprivation Reassessed. It was a slim volume, written in dry academic style, but it was a tour de force. In the book, he scrutinised John Bowlby’s attachment theory, especially the impact on children of separation from their mothers, with his characteristic precision, and he concluded that some aspects of the theory, such as the claim that only mothers could be attachment figures for young children, did not stand up. His interest in the topic may well have been grounded in his own separation from his parents when he was evacuated from England to the United States at the beginning of the second world war. What was remarkable about Mike’s book was his incisiveness in analysing the evidence for and against Bowlby’s views. This was emblematic of all of Mike’s work; a forensic examination of the empirical evidence was at the root of everything he did. Bowlby, of course, remained the leading figure in the field of attachment, but he did come to the same conclusions as Mike on some specific issues. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, and the slightly later Helping Troubled Children, were the books that inspired me as a young undergraduate to become a developmental psychologist. Not only did they present the study of children’s development as a worthwhile pursuit, but they also provided insight into how greater understanding of children’s difficulties could lead to better solutions for their psychological problems. For many budding psychologists back then, these books felt like a call to arms.

I first met Mike in the autumn of 1976. Recently enrolled on a Master’s course in child development at the Institute of Education in London, I had just begun a study of children in lesbian mother families. It is hard to describe just how much animosity there was against lesbian mothers in these days. Divorced heterosexual mothers were subject to considerable prejudice and discrimination; lesbian mothers were beyond the pale. It was in this social climate that Mike was called to act as an expert witness in child custody cases involving lesbian mothers. With his ever-present eye on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of it, Mike argued that there was no good scientific reason to deny lesbian women custody of their children on the grounds of their sexual orientation. He also believed that there was a need for sound empirical data on what actually happened to children with lesbian mothers, so when he heard about my fledgling study of children in lesbian mother families, I was summoned to meet him. There began a body of research that changed the way in which lesbian mothers were treated and perceived. Most child psychiatrists in these days wouldn’t have touched this controversial topic with a barge pole. For Mike, the issue was an empirical one. He did all he could to support research on whether the outcomes for children with lesbian mothers were, as he put it, ‘good, bad, or indifferent’, and to ensure that this research was carried out to the highest possible standards. Mike was an iconoclast through and through.

I can’t pretend it was always easy working with Mike. He was an exacting supervisor, and we had disagreements based on generational differences, such as whether the word gay should, or should not, have inverted commas. Mike supported the former. This was one of the few arguments that I won! But I learned more from him than anyone else I have ever met in academic life. He was extremely generous with his time, sending 10-page memos that will be familiar to those who have ever worked with him. Their arrival used to incur in me a sense of dread, but I also knew that the contents would make the research very much better. The last of such memos was waiting for me when I returned to my office following the third Covid lockdown; it was a handwritten note with his thoughts on my most recent book.

I came to realise that Mike relished a good argument. When I learned to stand up for myself, there would be a twinkle in his eye, and our conversations became much more fun. Mike’s interest in lesbian mothers is a little-known part of his vast array of accomplishments, but this work would not have been taken nearly so seriously without his weight behind it. Mike has always been committed to social justice and to the proper use of research, not only in improving people’s lives, but also in changing social attitudes. He was a man before his time in supporting lesbian mothers in courts of law in the mid-1970s. More than 40 years later, in 2019, we were both tickled to see that our early, and somewhat obscure, article on children in lesbian mother families was included among the selection of his papers republished to celebrate the 60^th anniversary edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Others are better qualified than I am to honour Mike’s intellectual accomplishments and unparalleled contribution to research in the fields of child development, child psychiatry, and developmental psychopathology, for which he has been awarded many honours. His work on the aetiology of child psychiatric disorder, the intergenerational transmission of psychiatric disorder, autism, risk and resilience in childhood, social influences on child adjustment, and the interplay between genes and the environment – to name just some of areas that he influenced – was transformative, and it had a pivotal influence on policy and practice worldwide. He had a capacity to identify the most important questions, and to be unrelenting in his search for the answers. For Mike, identifying the mechanisms was always key.

At a time when mental health problems in childhood and adolescence are on the rise, Mike’s work is more important than ever. His contribution has been profound, not least for its rigour and integrity, and will continue inform solutions to children’s problems for decades to come.

The post Obituary: Professor Sir Michael (Mike) Rutter appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

About 33 million children worldwide are displaced or in refugee camps, and many lack any form of education due to the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many children in the United States are struggling with remote learning and emotionally distressed by the absence of social interactions. But significant numbers of children in the world do not have access to the Internet or to any education during the pandemic.

Children are our future. Yet about 33 million children worldwide are displaced and most of them are out of school. Refugee children are a case in point. More than 92% of refugee children live in developing countries. Lack of education during COVID-19 has the potential to become an even more destructive pandemic.

Rohingya children are receiving no education during the pandemic

In August 2017, more than 742,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar. More than 800,0000 Rohingya refugees now live in Cox’s Bazar in the largest and most crowded refugee camp in the world, and more than half are children and adolescents. Prior to the pandemic, children in Rohingya refugee camps were not allowed to receive education in local schools, barring them from opportunities to integrate into the local community in Bangladesh.

As a result of the lockdown due to the pandemic, about 315,000 Rohingya children and adolescents lost access to education in the camps’ more than 6,000 learning institutions, which closed in mid-March 2020. In January 2020, the government of Bangladesh promised to give Rohingya children access to education and skills training, but we know little about the fine points of the pledge because the pandemic has stalled any progress, creating an education gap ever since.

“They are neglected, lack proper nutrition and health care, do not have access to any education, and are caught in a limbo of an uncertain future, from which there seems no apparent escape. It is time to give these children a fair chance at life.”

What is being done to close the education gap?

For many decades, Rohingya parents in the Rakhine state of Myanmar have seen their children being killed, maimed, violated, abducted, attacked in schools and hospitals, and denied a chance at a decent life. The situation was so bad for these and other refugee children worldwide that in 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1261 to protect children in conflict regions for the first time. But Rohingyas in Bangladesh continue to live in danger. The lack of access to education is likely to result in parents marrying their children off at an early age or losing them to human trafficking. This means that generations of children will not realize their potential.

Considering these issues, the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner of Bangladesh agreed that “it will definitely help” to educate children in the camp. Yet despite similar language from policymakers, a government directive in 2019 banned Internet access in the camp, so during the pandemic, even remote learning is not an option for children there, worsening the education gap.

Photo: taken at a learning center by Fatima Zahra in October 2019 (before the lockdown). It shows two siblings – getting ready to go home after school. Location: Ukhiya, Cox’s Bazar.

The violence against children affects not only the refugees in the camp but also the social architecture of the host community. Refugee children in Bangladesh are a big part of the future of the country’s political economy and national security. Many fear that the inequalities and violence in the camps already contribute to enhanced violence in the host communities surrounding the camps.

How to right the wrong against refugee children in three steps

Sadly, the fate of Rohingya children in Bangladesh is similar to that of most refugee children in the world. They are neglected, lack proper nutrition and health care, lack access to any education, and are caught in a limbo of an uncertain future from which there seems no apparent escape. It is time to give these children a fair chance at life through three steps.

1. Access to high-quality education

First, children need access to high-quality education that is in both the children’s mother tongue and the language of the host country.

Language of instruction determines the effectiveness of education. It also determines how children perceive their future (in the host country) and how they are accepted as people from another country (their home country). Rohingya children were allowed some form of education in the Rohingya language before the pandemic in the informal learning institutes in the camps, but the host community looks down on Rohingya culture and language so the children did not learn about their home country.

“We often forget that refugee children are just like our children – and that they are in our space because they have nowhere to go. Governments,including the newly elected U.S. government, the private sector, and donors can step up their game and play a major role in supporting the future of refugee children.”

Bangladesh should give refugee children access to the curriculum in public schools in the country. This will create a cultural bridge between refugee and host community children. The Bangladeshi government has been very clear from the start that they do not want to do this. While learning one’s first language has tremendous benefits, it also helps facilitate learning another language (such as Bangla and English) when the children are living in Bangladesh. Children who speak the Rohingya language can build on the language and literacy they know to acquire another language.

2. Access to mental health support

Second, children in the camp need mental health support. Many children and adults in the camp are suffering from acute depression and anxiety. These children need teachers who are trained to support the learning of children who have experienced severe trauma, anxiety, and depression, and who continue to live with constant uncertainty.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the camps are invested in supporting children’s education – assistance from the local and national governments will mean they can scale their efforts in training teachers to extend high-quality education to the children in order to close the education gap.

3. Access to high-speed internet

Finally, people in the camp need access to high-speed Internet. The first two steps that are needed to improve education are possible only if refugee children have access to the outside world.

Using the Internet is crucial for children to access both education and mental health support. NGOs and companies can set up Wifi hotspots throughout the camp, as has been done in the past in other camps. Once that happens, children can access remote learning programs. Parents also need access to the relevant technologies (such as smartphones and the Internet) so they can oversee their children’s learning, which is instinctive for most parents.

As leading post-colonial scholarHomi Bhabha said, “the refugee condition makes the most stringent and severe demands on the national community or the ‘world community’ to recognize the global right of hospitality which is at the heart of human survival itself … for a ‘good life lived with others.'” We often forget that refugee children are just like our children – and that they are in our space because they have nowhere to go. Governments (including the newly elected U.S. government), the private sector, and donors can step up their game and play a major role in supporting the future of refugee children.

Closing the education gap for refugee children will move us one step closer to building a strong and diverse leadership for the world.

Header photo: taken during a focused group discussion with Rohingya children and adolescents about their learning preferences and aspirations as part of a research study at the South Asia Institute at Harvard University. The picture shows a child solving some basic math problems to demonstrate what he learned back in his school in Myanmar. Location: Ukhiya, Cox’s Bazar.

The post Closing the education gap – Time to step up for refugee children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

A more comprehensive model of poverty’s impact would improve childhood interventions and understanding of how disadvantage affects lives.

Is adolescent parenthood amid poverty always poorly thought out – the irrational miscalculation of youthful short-sightedness? It depends. Some studies of teenage parenting show worse outcomes for both mothers and children, but others indicate better outcomes, once social disadvantages are accounted for. Starting a family early may make sense, even in the long term. To understand why, we should step down from our ivory towers and into the shoes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are making these decisions.

Damaging decisions can be rational

A disadvantaged young woman –  like her relatives – can expect a shorter, unhealthier life than a more affluent young woman. Her unconscious calculations, formed under the effects of poverty, might also vary from her better-off contemporaries. For example, decisions about whether to delay pregnancy for further education might involve a different cost-benefit matrix for a low-income woman than for someone who has more resources. If she waits, then her parents – their health probably already declining under the chronic stress of poverty — might be unable to help her raise the kids. She’ll want those children to reach adulthood before her parents’ advancing health issues compete for her attention. When is a good time to begin a family if a woman wants to be well at least until her oldest grandchild is five? Answers to this question have anticipated childbearing choices across socioeconomic groups; they have also accurately predicted an eight-year gap between the first birth for an average woman and for women living in poverty. Therefore, an early start can be rational, given the circumstances.

This example begins to show why we need well-rounded ways to capture the diverse impacts of living in poverty. For understandable reasons, a conventional deficit approach concentrates on the damage that disadvantage causes for long-term physical and mental health. But this focus can be too narrow. It may not recognize that some actions –  irrational within privileged contexts –  are reasonable for someone in poverty, even if these actions might also harm health and well-being.

“Hidden talents” spring from poverty

Focusing solely on damage caused by living in poverty can also obscure mental strengths – what are called “hidden talents” – developed by the experience. For example, adversity may enhance abilities to address challenges relevant to disadvantaged environments. People may develop specific abilities to deal with harsh and unpredictable situations where threat looms large and potential rewards are sparse and short-lived.

“We should step down from our ivory towers and into the shoes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are making decisions.”

Cognitive tests of young British homeless people showed that, predictably, they performed less well on many activities than did peers from more affluent backgrounds. The deficit process – linked to sleep deprivation, poor nutrition, chronic stress or neglect –  damaged their performance on most tests. However, on the creativity test, the homeless scored on par with others. Surviving on the streets may put a premium on creativity –  being able to solve problems imaginatively – leading to homeless people scoring within the typical range.

Research has revealed other allied skills. Studies by Seth Pollak at the University of Wisconsin-Madison show that people who have been physically abused may develop an enhanced ability to detect threat. This can help them spot danger early and avoid it.

Other studies suggest that, in unpredictable circumstances, it is valuable to be able to shift attention  and form memories quickly and efficiently. Cognitive studies show that people who have recently experienced violence may do as well as – or even better than – people who have not experienced violence on tests of remembering information relevant to social dominance. However, such findings are difficult to accommodate if we rely solely on a deficit model that highlights the undoubtedly widespread damage that poverty and adversity can inflict on brain and body.

A “strengths-based” model complements the deficit approach

An approach that combines the deficit model with models of reasoned responses and hidden talents is vital for many reasons. It can help fine tune policy and interventions. It can encourage the development of learning and work environments that capitalize on strengths that arise from adversity. It can help explain apparently anomalous research findings where enhanced performance among people in poverty might otherwise be dismissed as a fluke or mistake. Finally, it challenges researchers, who typically come from privileged backgrounds and who may overlook strengths developed through poverty: A broader, more complex model makes us question our assumptions of what is “normal.”

In terms of policy interventions, a broader model might make parenting programs more effective. In general, authoritative parenting is regarded as the gold standard. Characterized by high demands and high responsiveness, and by giving children choices and flexibility, this approach is believed to secure the best academic and mental health outcomes for children. Experts advocate it and prefer it to authoritarian parenting styles that brook no discussion or dissent.

Better parenting programs

 But maybe parenting that provides children with choices and flexibility is not always the most rational or even effective approach to raising children. African American children typically face a much harsher reality than affluent White contemporaries whose parents are more likely to favor an authoritative, more liberal style. African American children are much more at risk if they make a single mistake — such as saying something a police officer dislikes, shoplifting once, or misbehaving in ways a teacher finds threatening; when done by a White child, these actions might be dismissed or explained as exploring boundaries. The costs to African American children of slipping up – involvement in the judicial system and tougher punishment – are high. This helps explain why some African American parents are harsher and more authoritarian. Are they making a mistake? It’s unclear: There is some evidence that children who experience strict, no-discussion, but non-abusive upbringings have better outcomes in these contexts than more permissive parenting.

“A broader model might make parenting programs more effective … Educational practice also could gain insights.”

Perhaps advocates of a simple deficit approach should get closer to the realities of disadvantaged lives and gain a broadened perspective. For example, it is tempting to conclude that hypervigilant behavior — checking for potential dangers – developed in an abusive childhood offers no benefit and only damage as a working model for a more typical adult life. But this may ignore an asymmetry in the costs of trusting someone you cannot trust compared with trusting someone who can be trusted. Erring on the side of caution may be reasonable, and not merely a mark of impairment caused by stressful early experiences that we should work to reverse.

Social workers recognize such subtleties. Such behavior makes sense to them and matches their experiences. They see that it can be reasonable (if damaging and not desirable) for young people who are raised in adversity to use aggression to acquire social status or to engage in delinquent behavior to secure resources when they are deprived of opportunities. In contrast, developmental scientists who study youth behavior are often not focused sufficiently on the context; they may concentrate more on the shortcomings of the individual and on interventions that can improve that person’s outcomes.

Insights into the impact of poverty on learning 

Educational practice could gain insights and accrue benefits from broadening the deficit approach. Studies suggest that adversity impairs a variety of cognitive abilities. However, research also suggests that, in some conditions, adversity may improve abilities to switch between tasks. Particularly in stressful settings, this skill seems to come to the surface, whereas it may not be apparent in neutral settings.

Working memory – keeping track of changes in the environment – also seems to be enhanced by some experiences of adversity. These hidden talents could help inform the design of learning environments where the optimal set-up for a disadvantaged child might differ from that for a more affluent peer.

These insights might also help us design more equitable testing environments for children. Exams with problems that require hours of focused activity may be harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are used to more dynamic situations where their attention is more distributed. Pencil-and-paper problems might be harder than hands-on calculations. Problems about money – a pressing need for children from low-income families – might be more difficult than more abstract problems. We should recognize that children in poverty or from working-class backgrounds may be skilled at – and particularly benefit from – solving problems collaboratively.

No one believes that poverty is good. The damage it causes far outweighs any marginal benefits. However, a strengths-based approach, combined with a better understanding of reasonable behavior, can complement the perspectives and tools already available to us, even if this approach comes with its own set of challenges. This endeavor can help us understand how contexts of adversity shape people’s strengths and weaknesses. It may swing the pendulum more toward intervening to improve those contexts and away from simply trying to change the individuals who live in them.

The post Poverty generates strengths and rational decisions, not just damage appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Poverty research is prone to blind spots, especially with respect to race and racism.

Amidst the intertwined pandemics of COVID-19 and racism, something unprecedented should be happening in research on poverty and children’s development. Scholars should be looking in the mirror and starting to see their blind spots regarding race and racism. Scholars of color (who are in the minority) have been aware of this for years. Others are only just starting to see how their own training hinged on certain models that are White and WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich, Democratic). They are starting to see how their own mentors reinforced privilege by allowing access to pipelines of opportunities that looked like their own. They are beginning to understand how their own research about “others” (i.e., people from places, experiences, and histories unlike their own) hinges on theories, methods, and importantly, assumptions that excluded the realities, experiences, and expertise of the very people being studied, particularly with respect to race and racism.

Blind spots are hard to see; by definition, they are about omission. Yet blind spots – such as clinical color blindness, overlooking issues of race and racism, or consigning race to a static variable – contribute to the creation of future scholarship and science, and to the fostering of explanations that can be terribly misguided. Such blind spots are harder still to address. Training and education – our typical responses — are only as effective as accepting what is reflecting back from the mirror and our efforts to continually shift and re-shift those reflections.

“The lived experience of families in poverty intersects with experiences of race, immigration status, and the structures and systems that perpetuate injustice.”

Historically, the neglect of race and racism in research on poverty and child development has been shaped by denial and fear of race — as immutable – carrying the burden of explaining poverty. This neglect is shaped by over-application of models that reinforce notions that being poor is less a condition of society and more a condition of being a member of a lesser-than-non-White group, whether Black, Latino, or indigenous in the U.S. context. And scholars with good intentions unintentionally began practicing “assimilationist” racism, preferring to ignore the issue rather than face it head on. The recent publication of Lawrence Mead’s “Poverty and Culture” in a peer-reviewed journal showed that, 50 years after Senator Daniel Moynihan’s report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, all these blind spots are surprisingly alive and well in poverty research.

How can family and child development scholars build a dynamic and resilient world view and a professional architecture to directly address race and racism in their research? How can scholars disrupt the perpetuation of inaccurate ideologies, and recalibrate power imbalances to optimize discourse and guide policy?

First, scholarship of and for children and families should stay grounded in lived experience. Data, whether in the form of numbers or words, do not emerge free of history and context; history and context should be the starting point. The lived experience of families in poverty intersects with experiences of race, immigration status, and the structures and systems that perpetuate exclusion and racism. At the same time, lived experience is the daily routines, survival strategies and resistance to oppression that parents, caregivers, workers, educators, and children and youth engage in every day. Research on poverty should be enriched by greater integration of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods literatures on intersectionality; racial socialization and identity; experiences of and responses to discrimination; representation, racial composition, and intergroup relations in  the contexts of work, schools, and media, and funds of knowledge and traditions of socialization in racially, linguistically, and culturally diverse communities. This list can go on. These areas of research are robust and growing, each typically with both basic developmental and applied/intervention studies. Research on mainstream poverty needs to change and view these emerging areas as core, not neglected.

Photo: Maria Oswalt. Unsplash.

Second, as scholars, we can surround ourselves in authentic ways with others who are outside our inner disciplinary circles, ask for and be open to accepting authentic critiques, and strive toward richer research questions that may generate more powerful implications. Poverty scholarship can go deeper than controls for race, considering it a fixed and context-free characteristic. How can experiences of racism at household, neighborhood, structural, or policy levels be integrated into policy research on poverty and child development? Would our proposals for anti-poverty policy be more effective if they integrated attention to racial segregation and other disparities by race in opportunity and social mobility? We can be much bolder in straying from conventional silos and daring to cross disciplines and levels of analysis. Race and racism are inherent at all layers of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, from macro-level structures to micro-level interactions. But because poverty researchers and race researchers largely do not overlap or collaborate, a number of novel questions are neglected. What would it mean to address structural sources of racism in tandem with other areas of anti-poverty policy? Can social movements change the linked and mutually reinforcing narratives around race and poverty?

Third, scholarship can and should start with understanding and questioning existing assumptions and pushing toward changing these defaults. Are we assuming that every child is born on a level playing field even though Black-White racial differences in household wealth are large and constrain the ability of Black families to respond to economic shocks? Are we naïve in assuming that enhancing income — the conventional realm of safety net policies – is enough to address intergenerational disparities of wealth, without concurrent efforts to adjust the many tax and transfer policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy?

Fourth, we can diversify the poverty policy and scholarship research “workforce.” At any established public policy and social science, population, and developmental science research conference where poverty scholars convene, you witness a sea of White people, sometimes predominantly White male people. Contrast this with convenings focused on race, ethnicity, or immigration and child development: You see scholars who are closer to representing the diversity of the United States. A much more robustly diverse pipeline of scholars across disciplines is required. Fellowship programs recently initiated by the Russell Sage Foundation, and those set up years ago by the Foundation for Child Development, the American Psychological Association, and the National Institutes of Health, are important first steps toward diversifying the pipeline of scholars, but are only a start (and will fail as a singular source of interventions). If admissions to graduate training programs; hiring processes in research institutions and universities; and the topics of research valued in curricula, departments, and peer review do not change priorities, we will continue to see the artificial and ultimately harmful divide between research on poverty and race among both scholars and scholarship.

“Are we naïve in assuming that enhancing income — the conventional realm of safety net policies – is enough to address intergenerational disparities of wealth, without concurrent efforts to adjust the many tax and transfer policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy?”

Fifth, we can be louder and more active in our universities as we pursue or engage in external funding, in our roles as peer reviewers and editors, and as participants and leaders of professional organizations. Scholars who have profited from existing systems can and should demand more change toward inclusion. This opportunity to lead brings together the substance, messages, and models, explicit and implicit, conveyed by our research. This is an opportunity to step away from privilege and question how the public profile and output of your work is framed through an anti-racist lens. This is also an opportunity to create mechanisms – publishing avenues, grants, forums for speaking engagements — that were previously closed.

Addressing race and racism in research on poverty and children’s development is going to be hard. However, the rewards will be full and rich, and will ultimately increase the impact of developmentally informed anti-poverty policies and practices. Our work will otherwise stagnate if we continue with siloed and segregated approaches, dipping into the same tools and perspectives that have shaped poverty research to date. That is, if we do not actively strive for change now, anti-racist poverty policy will not make progress. With such progress, we will be better positioned to overcome inequality in race and income, instead of chaotically reacting to public health and economic shocks like those triggered by COVID-19.

Author’s Note: We apologize for misconstrual in our use of the term “blind spot” and “color blind” that, while appeared effective at the time we composed our commentary, are also Ableist terms and can be harmful.

The post Race and racism: the blind spot in research on poverty and child development appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Mom or dad sharing and modelling how to manage aggression and upset may explain why some impoverished young children grow up more resilient.

Why do some children who are raised amid poverty, risk and danger emerge as more resilient than others in similar circumstances ? Why do some grow up relatively unscathed compared with their peers, whose later lives may be scarred by criminality, poor mental health, and repeated disadvantage?

Having a calm, supportive parent when something goes wrong may be part of the answer. That’s a mom or dad who responds to early childhood frustration, anger, anxiety or tantrums by neither suppressing those emotions nor ignoring them. Rather, such parents are empathetic and understanding, and they help children to steady themselves. They also model this steadiness in the way they deal with the adversities that they encounter. That’s not easy for parents who may themselves be struggling with multiple challenges. But our research suggests that doing it well can make a big difference for their children.

Emotionally supportive parenting has long term impacts

This parental skill of helping young children handle their emotions – in difficult social and economic circumstances that may provoke many strong feelings – can support emotional self-management. This in turn enables young children to concentrate better at school and get along with others. We know from other studies of self-regulation that, in the longer run, these skills help children to grow up at lower risk of anxiety, depression, violent behavior and criminal acts. As adults, they operate better at work, at home and within the law.

We’re not necessarily talking about parents working miracles amid adversity. Emotionally supportive parenting can’t turn around every impact of the many difficulties faced by children who, in their early years, may experience poor, crowded housing, an inadequate diet, and insufficient stimulation, surrounded by badly resourced neighbourhoods. But our research shows that, for these children, emotionally supportive parenting can flatten the curve: it can at least stop things from getting worse.

“What do parents do, when, for example,  a young child becomes angry because someone has done something unfair to them, such as take their toy?”

Our study examined the relationship between emotion-related parenting and externalising symptoms such as aggression across early school years among 207 children (two-thirds of them boys) from high-risk urban communities in the United States, who showed aggressive/oppositional behaviors when they started school. Their mothers’ level of supportive, emotion-related parenting was observed in the year of kindergarten during structured interactions at home. Our measure captured how parents responded to children’s emotions, how parents talked about emotions, and the way parents expressed their own emotions. Teacher ratings of externalising symptoms, including aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors, were then measured every year to the second grade.

Aggression rose amid less-skilled parenting

Aggressive behavior worsened among children who lacked emotionally supportive parenting. Each year, teachers reported seeing more problems than in the year before. In contrast, when mothers offered supportive emotion-related parenting, the children did not necessarily improve, but they didn’t get worse. Emotionally supportive parenting seems to halt the escalation in aggression as children grow older, which, research shows, can predict so many difficulties in later life.

In practical terms, we are talking about what parents do, when, for example, young children become angry because someone has done something unfair to them, such as take their toy. A child might want to scream, start crying or punch the child that took the toy. But a parent can encourage a range of strategies to help the upset child avoid following this first impulse.

Doing so might be difficult. The parent might be struggling with a host of other serious issues, such as how to pay the rent, living in a dangerous neighbourhood and parenting a difficult child. These problems can weigh on the parents, making it hard for them to sympathise in the moment about the relatively insignificant problems faced by their child. Mom or dad’s response might be: ‘Life’s unfair. You have no idea. I hate my job.’ They might think it best to toughen up the child to face disappointments, telling them to suck it up and cope with it.

But that’s not as helpful – even when the upset seems to be around something apparently trivial – as when a parent sympathises, talks things through, and helps the child understand their feelings. Simply labelling an emotion, saying it is normal, helps children regulate their reactions. Parents can also help children develop a step-by-step strategy when feeling upset, such as taking deep breaths and calming themselves. Afterwards, parents might say, ‘I’m sorry that your toy was taken, but let’s leave it in the past and do something fun now.’ That can help children who are feeling negative to know that their emotions are understood while giving them a way of coming back and feeling better.

Opportunities to model emotion-related parenting

A lot of parents also find opportunities in daily life – when a young child is not expressing emotions – of exploring feelings and how to handle them. When parents and children read a book, they might encounter a character who is experiencing difficulties. That’s an opportunity to talk about what the character is feeling and what the character could do.

Parents can also model how they deal with their own stress. Parents are the gateway to the world for young children. Stress can either flow through parents by affecting how they respond to their children, or parents can make the decision to demonstrate how stress can be handled. This doesn’t mean parents should hide their emotions, or the fact that they are upset or scared. Children are way too good at picking up on that. It’s better for parents to acknowledge that they are worried and explain how they are going to handle what’s going on. They can say: ‘This is how we will resolve it and, if you are worried about it too, let’s do something together about it.’ These parents are modelling that emotions are normal and that there are ways to manage them.

In our research sample, we did not see a lot of emotionally supportive parenting. Only 10 per cent of the mothers showed consistently emotionally supportive parenting. But where they could offer it, we saw a flattening of the curve, so that, over time, the increased aggression and externalising behavior found in other children were less likely to occur.

Learning to be more empathetic parents 

There is potential to improve this picture further. Few programs specifically focus on emotion-related parenting. One that does so is Tuning in to Kids, which has been tested in low- to middle-income families in Australia. This program had moderate to strong effects, at least in the short term, in improving parents’ supportive behaviors and in reducing parents’ dismissive reactions to children’s emotions.

“Emotionally supportive parenting seems to halt an escalation in aggression as children grow older, which can predict so many difficulties in later life.”

It has also been shown to be effective when implemented in families with children who already demonstrated behavioral problems (similar to our sample), or went through traumatic experiences. And researchers also found improvements in children’s behaviors when parents participated in the program, compared to a control group. This evidence suggests that there may be strong potential to promote supportive, emotion-related parenting behaviors through training programs, even for families in disadvantaged situations.

Many other parent training programs, such as Triple-P and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, may not specifically target emotion-related parenting, but they include components that try to promote parents’ sensitivity to children’s emotional cues, such as signals that may indicate a child is upset, and teach parents skills to help children regulate emotions.  These programs have been tested in diverse populations, including families living in disadvantaged communities or families with children already showing behavioral problems. They have led to more positive parenting, such as warmth, effective discipline, and sensitivity, as well as improvements in children’s behaviors.

Parents should recognise their achievements

A key message from our research is that children may display behavior problems for many reasons, particularly given the multiple difficulties that disadvantaged families face. Parents should not beat themselves up and be judged as failures if their children continue to have behavioral problems. Their interventions might be doing a lot to stop their children from getting worse amid multiple challenges. That huge achievement should be celebrated.

The post Emotionally supportive parenting can help disadvantaged children stay on the rails appeared first on Child and Family Blog.