• A strong sense of identity can help children and youth build resilience and self-esteem to cope with challenges.
• Cultural identity is particularly impactful for young people who face adversities, such as Australian Aboriginal youth.
• Obstacles to building a strong cultural identity include repercussions of the history of colonization and racism, as well as distance from cultural learning in modern urban life.
• Cultural identity and being Aboriginal should be seen as assets, and schools are one context where these can be cultivated.

Article contents:

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges
2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children
3. It is important to maintain cultural identity when children are young
4. Cultural identity combats adversity
5. The many barriers to transferring identity
6. Obstacles to learning within families
7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges

How do we help children thrive when they face a hostile environment – racism at school, in daily interactions, and in almost every aspect of their public lives?

This is a crucial question, particularly if a key protective factor – connection to their own culture – is weakened by public institutions that fail, however inadvertently, to value such connections, and when past experiences have left families fragmented and adults also struggle to cope.

These questions are acute for Australia’s Aboriginal children. Many of their parents and grandparents were traumatized. Not until 1977 did the Australian government end the practice of forcibly removing Aboriginal children – the Stolen Generation – from their families, placing them in missions to assimilate with non-Aboriginal people.

Indeed, it was only in 1968, following a referendum, that Aboriginal people were classified as human beings and counted in the Census.

How do we ensure that children today develop well when the chronic symptoms of colonization – and its subsequent fracturing of Aboriginal existence – endure: alcoholism, drug dependency, poverty, self-harm, suicide, mental illness, and incarceration of family members?

On top of that, Aboriginal children continue to experience high levels of racism. For example, in a study in a Western Australian town, 75% of Aboriginal children and youth aged 11-17 years experienced racism that they wanted to stop, and 74% were too scared to walk around the town (Kickett-Tucker et al, 2018).

2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children

Very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

One vital response to these challenges is to build a young person’s identity.

Research shows that the identity of Aboriginal children usually equates with being recognized as the first people of Australia, with identity defined as connection to country (place), family, kinship, language, culture, and importantly, traditional rights to heritage, history and lands.

Research also indicates that building such an identity is an all-encompassing, holistic way to support any child to grow and thrive. But it is a particularly effective and culturally safe way to address the daily costs of historic injustices and the realities of modern-day racism. It can enable young Aboriginal people to take a steady and sturdy journey to adulthood and support other key points in their life transitions. 

3. It is important across cultures to maintain cultural identity during youth 

The prescription to maintain a strong, positive identity is important during youth across all cultures, according to developmental psychology. It helps create functioning, well-rounded individuals, and boosts positive social and emotional well-being.

A robust identity empowers individuals to acknowledge, respect, and define their purpose and role in life, helping them understand who they are and how they relate to others. Research suggests that the transition from childhood to adolescence and into early adulthood is a vital time for interaction with – and formation of – identity, though identity continues to develop across the lifespan. 

4. Cultural identity combats adversity

A strong identity is particularly important for children who face adversity. It helps them develop resilience, which promotes the skills, knowledge, and confidence needed to overcome and cope with life’s challenges.

Individuals gain control over their own well-being which has a positive impact on their self-esteem. In a study of First Nations’ youth in Canada, a strong racial identity was a protective factor against self-harm and suicide.

Having a strong Aboriginal identity and self-esteem is like the hub of a wheel. Without the hub, the wheel can go nowhere. Like a hub, racial identity is at the center of an Aboriginal child’s well-being. It is their spirit and without it, they can be steered by outside forces that determine how fast to go and in which direction to travel.

5. The many barriers to transferring identity

But transferring and bolstering Aboriginal identity is fraught with difficulty. The experiences of the Stolen Generation painfully disturbed identity in older groups, undermining their connection with land, kin, spirituality, and culture.

Chris Jackamarra, one of those affected, explained: “The mission taught us that we were white, but they never taught us to be prepared for what was out in the world. That there was racial prejudice, stereotype casting and things like that. We were robbed of our identity and culture and that bothered me. It is something I was never taught and I am still just learning it now.”

In my research, I have identified very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children who still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

6. Obstacles to learning within families

Many modern-day obstacles stand in the way of transferring Aboriginal identity.

Understanding what it is to be Aboriginal involves observational learning by a child, including sitting and waiting with elders. In this situation, an elder carries out an activity, a child models it, and the elder continues the activity until the child has done it in culturally appropriate ways.

The activity might be burning fur off a kangaroo tail and cooking it under the ashes. It might be collecting berries and fruit products. Out in the bush, Aboriginal people look for bush medicine.

Food is vital and many activities take place around a campfire. But today, Aboriginal people, who typically live in urban centers, are not allowed to make fires because of the risk of bush fires. They lack money for gas and few have cars to travel to the bush, leaving many stuck in the city.

Moreover, many Aboriginal people are very poor. If they live in state-provided housing, there are rules about how many people can be together under one roof, and neighbors can report anyone who violates the rules.

7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

Schools have a long way to go before they are truly focused on Aboriginal children. Government funding is provided for Aboriginal education, but there is disparity between what is awarded to schools and the sums that are actually spent by schools on Aboriginal pupils’ education. Even less is spent to support the cultural identity of Aboriginal children and youth.

School leaders and teachers have some understanding that they should do something beyond just acknowledging the importance of Aboriginal culture, but ambivalence about teaching Indigenous languages persists. Aboriginal parents are rarely invited to help co-create curricula or inform teaching practices in ways that are culturally relevant.

Simple school practices could make a difference, signalling a shift in perceptions so that being Aboriginal is recognized as an asset, rather than a challenge. For example, when the Aboriginal flag is raised at school, an Aboriginal child should lead the flag raise alongside another student.

Each school assembly should begin with a welcome in an Indigenous language. Traditional authorities – local elders – should be invited regularly to attend assemblies. Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

These recommendations are just the beginning of big changes that need to occur to develop and support Aboriginal identity in children. Aboriginal children and youth need these actions to protect them in a world that is often hostile and damaging.

The post Maintaining cultural identity: Key to children’s development, particularly for Australia’s Aboriginal children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Parents, peers, and schools all represent crucial influences that shape how white¹ adolescents make sense of racism and their actions toward social justice.
• Having explicit conversations with white youth about racism and embedding children in racially diverse environments that acknowledge race are essential to countering the dominant color-blind narrative that race “doesn’t matter.”
• Conversations about race with white youth must go beyond simply acknowledging historical and contemporary racism toward encouraging anti-racist attitudes and actions to address inequities.

Children receive messages about race and color-blindness from multiple sources

There is no “neutral” in racism. All youth learn to either reinforce or disrupt systems of inequality that uphold and maintain a racist status quo. As such, shielding white children from learning about race and the United States’ racist history encourages a way of knowing that is untethered to the country’s racial realities and further sustains white supremacy and racism.

Contrary to the color-blind narrative that positions racism as a thing of the past and “everyone as equal,” racism is embedded in structural forces (e.g., law, institutions, housing) and continues to shape all people’s experiences (though differently). The color-blind narrative is pervasive among white parents and caregivers and within predominantly white institutions (including school settings). For instance, only 53% of white parents believe schools should teach about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism in the United States, while 82% of Black parents hold this belief.

For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

Regardless of whether children receive explicit messaging about race, they interpret the various experiences, interactions, and (un)intentional messages in their lives. Parents, peers, and schools are three interrelated influences that shape how children make sense of race during adolescence. For white youth, social environments that counter the color-blind narrative and instead address racism may be integral to fostering social justice action.

What social contexts about race and racism do white adolescents in the United States experience?

In our research study, we examined the myriad influences that shape how white youth make sense of racism and the resulting impacts on their social justice behaviors. We used survey data from the Maryland Adolescent Development in Context Study to examine 323 white adolescents’ racial environments (i.e., the social contexts that may shape their beliefs and attitudes about race and racism), with particular attention to conversations with parents about race and racial attitudes, cross-race friendships, and conversations with peers about race.

We also looked at the diversity of youth’s schools with respect to racial composition and curriculum. We then explored how these different racial environments during adolescence (16-17 years old) related to white youth’s social justice actions two years later in young adulthood. All participants in the study lived in a racially and socioeconomically diverse county in the Eastern United States.

Photo: cottonbro studio. Pexels.

The racial environments of most adolescents (80%) were characterized by silence or passivity about race. Such environments align with a color-blind narrative in which racism is downplayed or ignored, limiting white adolescents’ ability to disrupt and challenge racism. However, the racial environments of some adolescents (20%) were more race conscious, meaning that race-related conversations occurred more frequently, schools were racially diverse and acknowledged race and racism in the curriculum, and adolescents had cross-race friendships.

How did different racial environments affect white adolescents’ social justice action?

White adolescents in race-conscious environments were engaged in more social justice behaviors during young adulthood than were white adolescents in racial environments characterized by silence. These behaviors included participating in civil rights or women’s rights groups. Our findings suggest that when white youth are in environments that are racially diverse and that acknowledge race and racism, they are more likely to take action in young adulthood to promote and foster social justice.

How can parents foster social justice attitudes and behaviors in their white children?

The findings of our study, in conjunction with other recent findings, challenge the often-espoused color-blind belief that not talking about race promotes equity. Instead, they suggest that having explicit conversations about racism and inequality, and embedding children in environments (e.g., schools) that are racially diverse or conscious of racism, can foster white adolescents’ reflection and actions toward creating and maintaining equitable social conditions for all people.

How can parents and caregivers foster a race-conscious environment for white youth?

First, parents and caregivers of white children should reflect about their own racial attitudes and beliefs. As we saw in our study, even parents who believed they had “positive” racial attitudes may foster a color-blind racial environment for their children.

Parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism.

Thus, parents should challenge themselves to think critically about race in the United States and how their own racial identity relates to the ongoing perpetuation or disruption of racism. Numerous resources are available to prompt such critical reflection, including engaging with the works (e.g., film, books, art) of authors and artists of color that portray the racial realities of the United States.

Second, after such reflection, parents and caregivers must talk early and often with their white children about racism. For instance, when children bring up or notice race, parents should discuss what their child is noticing rather than silence them or communicate that noticing race is bad.

Building white adolescents’ skills

Discussing race and racism, celebrating and recognizing the contributions of people of color (which are often excluded from mainstream narratives), addressing racialized police killings and violence, and reflecting on the history and current manifestations of white supremacy are integral to building white adolescents’ skills for anti-racism work and for actively communicating the racial realities of the United States. (See EmbraceRace raising young white allies for more resources.)

Finally, the results of our study highlight the multidimensional nature of children’s racial environments. In other words, it is not just parents who play a role in how children make sense of racism, but rather a multitude of influences, including but not limited to peers and school. As such, fostering white youth’s social justice behaviors means embedding children in racially diverse environments in which cross-race friendships can form and where school curricula acknowledge and affirm people of color.

Photo: Ron Lach. Pexels.

White parents and caregivers can also promote change in their children’s schools by standing with parents of color as allies and teaching their children to stand up against racism. Parents can also support candidates in local and national elections who recognize the importance of discussing racism in educational settings. (Read more information on the debate about critical race theory in schools here.)

In conclusion – racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering narratives

The take-home message is that reaching a state of racial justice requires reckoning with whiteness and countering the pervasive color-blind narratives that produce false and inaccurate understandings of racism in the United States. In particular, our study demonstrates how race-conscious environments can counter the racist status quo by building white youth’s efforts for social justice. Our findings also underscore the role of white parents and caregivers in ensuring that the next generation strives for an equitable and anti-racist society.

¹ Although the style of the Child & Family Blog is to capitalize ‘White,’ the authors have intentionally not capitalized the word when it refers to skin color. For information supporting this rule, please see The Associated Press.

The post Fostering Social Justice: White Adolescents’ Social Justice Action Requires Race Conscious Environments appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• 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.

These young people may have very different experiences, but children who show resilience almost invariably share at least one fundamental protective factor. Typically, in the background, there are people connected to these children – usually parents and teachers – who are holding it together amid chaos and trauma to buffer children in their care from the dangers that surround them.

For example, over the years, I have seen a lot of effective parenting in emergency shelters. Despite scary situations and uncertainty, many caregivers manage to hold steady, even when they do not know where their family is going to live or how they will feed their children.

Buffering children does not mean shielding them from all stress. But it does mean keeping stress manageable. Children need to learn how to handle stress, setbacks, and failure, as well as what to do when they become overwhelmed. As an analogy, consider the functioning of our immune systems. Research tells us it is unwise to protect immune systems from all exposure to germs, although it is helpful to bolster them with vaccinations.

“Parents have often felt as though they were the first and last line of defense.”

Likewise, children need some exposure to challenges, supported by effective caregivers and teachers who ensure that they are not exposed to overwhelming trauma. All lives have major blows and face many kinds of adversities. Problem-solving skills, social support, and confidence that one can overcome adversity are important for resilience, but they develop best when they grow over time, honed by experiences of overcoming manageable challenges.

Systems and families have protected children

During COVID-19, we have seen impressive examples of family, education, health, and other community systems mobilizing to protect children. Parents, schools, health care, and social services – as well as neighborhood communities – have stepped up to shield and buffer children. They have tried to provide safe spaces to play and learn despite turmoil and unseen dangers. Not all those efforts have been successful, in part because the pandemic was so disruptive. We also discovered profound gaps in our preparedness for this kind of widespread catastrophe. Yet clearly, many systems eventually succeeded in protecting children from at least some of the dangers around them.

Parents carried the burden

Parents, in particular, have often felt as though they were the first and last line of defense. This was particularly true during the early stages of the pandemic, when many schools and child care facilities did not function as they usually did. During this time, a heavier burden of educating and caring for children passed to parents, even though they, too, were often struggling. Parents were expected to keep their children safe, healthy, and learning, even when they were juggling nearly impossible demands of work and family, illness or loss, and worries about paying the rent.

It is remarkable how the resilience of multi-layered systems – such as families and communities – springs into action in times of such stress. The surge in support from these quarters has been impressive during the two-plus years of the pandemic. But systems cannot keep surging capacity indefinitely. It is essential for parents and other protective systems to recharge and replenish their capacity.

If support systems are not maintained and restored, they may not work well when they are needed to take the strain again. The same is true for systems surrounding children. That is why maintaining children’s resilience requires a clear focus on looking after those who carry the greatest load of responsibilities for protecting and nurturing children. Bolster children’s buffers and you will strengthen children’s capacities to withstand blows, recover, and even thrive, in spite of trauma or disaster.

Photo: risingthermals. Creative Commons.

Capacities to cope for long periods

We know from research that many people weather long-lasting, difficult situations. Studies of those who survive prolonged conflicts or natural disasters show that recovery is possible even in situations of severe and chronic adversity, especially when the recovery environment is supportive. People help each other, often relying on cultural and religious practices that provide comfort and concrete supports such as food to those in need.

Although the mobilization of resilience may lag behind the challenges confronting families in unexpected and severe situations of adversity, the complexity and speed of resilience responses can be impressive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed many striking surges in resilience capacity – from the expansion of intensive care units and globally coordinated vaccine development to individual volunteering and giving.

Such acts of kindness benefit not only recipients but can help the givers feel better, too. I saw this after Hurricane Katrina in the United States. Schools developed programs for children to help their community prepare and plan for future disasters, and taught them to make “go bags” or put together care packages for families. Kind and helpful activities provide children with positive feelings while at the same time countering the sense of helplessness and loss of control that often accompanies experiences of severe adversity.

“Maintaining children’s resilience requires a clear focus on looking after those who carry the greatest load of responsibilities for protecting and nurturing them.”

However, the length and complicated challenges of this pandemic have sorely tested the resilience of systems and individuals supporting children. The pandemic itself may continue, perhaps in a diminished form, for some time. Additionally, lingering consequences may continue to affect families well into the future.

Many parents, teachers, and health care workers already feel worn out, yet they must remain on the front lines of defending and fostering children’s well-being for the long term.

The burden is great among disadvantaged families

The experience of the pandemic has also exposed weaknesses in the supports that protect disadvantaged families. When child care centers and schools were closed or struggling to continue serving children, some better-off families could mitigate the worst effects of the resulting disruptions on their children. They could hire nannies and tutors, team up to create learning pods, and afford private education systems that were more likely to stay open than publicly funded schools.

In contrast, low-income families often struggled with poor digital access and food insecurity as they waited for public systems to swing into action. The pandemic amplified, at least in the United States, effects of long-term underinvestment in child care facilities, health care for children, parental leave, and public school systems.

Support those feeling burned out

Now that we may be starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, there is an important and much-needed debate about how to help children “catch up” in their academic and social skills. But it is also vital to focus on how to support the people and systems that serve as the primary buffers for children in these difficult times.

Many caregivers and educators have run a marathon and they are exhausted. They need our collective support to recharge and carry on the crucial work of protecting children in the present and nurturing their resilience for the future. That support can take many different forms from family, friends, employers, NGOs, and governments, including listening, childcare, organized activities for children, family-oriented celebrations, flex-time, or tax credits. The well-being of children depends on the adaptive capacity of these unsung champions and, in turn, the future resilience of all our societies depends on developing resilience in children, preparing them for the life adversities they will inevitably encounter.

The post Protecting children from the pandemic’s impacts requires that we support their parents 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.

“For every COVID-19 death, one child has lost a parent or caregiver.”

Globally, this means that for every COVID-19 death, one child has lost a parent or caregiver.  This is twice the ratio we observed when we first assessed the COVID-19 orphanhood crisis in July 2021. These global data, along with country estimates, are available in the Real Time Calculator developed by colleagues at Imperial College London. They show that the number of children who have lost a parent or a primary or secondary caregiver since our published review of the October 2021 data has already risen to 7 million.

Formulating a policy response to this crisis: What matters most? 

First, location matters. The surge in orphanhood has been especially pronounced in countries with younger demographic profiles—countries that are often poorer and that have fewer support systems for affected children.

Second, age matters. Adolescents are the largest group affected, accounting for two of every three children and youth who have been orphaned, and each stage of a child’s development calls for tailored support. In the early years, children need continued investments in nurturing care, while school-age children face the challenge of staying enrolled and focused on learning.  Adolescents face added risks of sexual violence and exploitation, HIV infection, suicide, and dropping out of school, often to work outside the home or to take care of younger siblings.

“The surge in orphanhood has been especially pronounced in countries with younger demographic profiles.”

Third, gender matters. Girls who are orphaned may attend school less or drop out, and they often face greater risks of sexual violence, pregnancy, and child marriage than boys. Boys can be at greater risk of exploitation from violent groups such as gangs and militias.  Additionally, the higher incidence of mortality from COVID-19 among men means that three of every four children and youth who have been orphaned have lost their fathers, often compounding a personal loss with a large financial shock because in many families, fathers are the primary and sometimes sole breadwinners.

Photo: Luke Pennystan. Unsplash.

A policy solution:  The 3P framework

Our Global Reference Group on Children Affected by COVID-19  developed a policy brief outlining a strategy that can guide responses. It features three steps:

• Prevent deaths of parents and caregivers by supporting equitable vaccine access and strengthening health systems.
• Prepare family-based care, avoiding harmful residential-care approaches such as orphanages and children’s homes (because most orphaned children have relatives or community members who can care for them), and strengthen public and community-based support services.
• Protect children using evidence-based strategies that address their increased risks of poverty, childhood adversity, and violence, and that strengthen their recovery, including through educational support and promising “cash plus care” models that combine income transfers with caregiver support.

Drawing on these data, 40 non-governmental organizations recently signed on to a memorandum calling on the U.S. Government to include children affected by COVID-19 in the response to the global pandemic.

The post The negative effects of COVID-19 on children 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.

Based on years of research, the framework – called the Intergenerational and Cumulative Adverse and Resilient Experiences (ICARE) model – identifies 10 types of ACEs, as well as 10 protective and compensatory experiences (PACEs) that build resilience.

The ICARE model also recommends a wide set of interventions that address the many ways ACEs can harm children’s development. At the heart of the approach is supporting the protective factors that are already in place in families and helping families become stronger.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Neurobiological and epigenetic impacts of ACEs

Prolonged activation of stress responses that are typically used in brief crisis-response situations results in biological and neurobiological changes that can become embedded in a child. The body’s immune system can be harmed, as well as the development of brain structures and functions. Epigenetic changes to DNA as a result of adversity – the methylation of certain genes that change how they function – embed the impact of ACEs, influencing how the child responds to stress later in life. Epigenetic changes are heritable, passed from mothers and fathers to their biological children.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Developmental impacts of ACEs

The most significant developmental system in early childhood is attachment. Secure attachment evolves when an infant’s needs are consistently met, creating a safe and predictable place where caregivers can be trusted. Attachment also has a biological/neurobiological dimension, for example, with the action of the hormones dopamine and oxytocin. ACEs can disrupt attachment, which is associated with a wide range of behavioral, social, and emotional problems later in life.

ACEs can also damage cognitive development. Skills associated with executive function, such as working memory, inhibitory control, and focused attention, can be harmed in children who have experienced adversity. This can lead to problems with learning during education and training.

Intergenerational transmission

ACEs can disadvantage the next generation in two ways: Parents who have been adversely affected by ACEs in their own lives are more likely to struggle with parenting. And parents may pass to their children epigenetic changes that affect the child’s biological response to stress.

Strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of ACEs

The foundation of the strategic approach proposed by the ICARE model starts with assessing and mobilizing protective factors that already exist or could exist around the child. Researchers point to successful support programs in five categories:

1. Supporting parents and caregivers with their own psychological and emotional well-being
2. Supporting parents and caregivers with attachment and parenting skills
3. Supporting children directly, for example, by encouraging their participation in sports, hobbies, and friendships
4. Psychological therapies for children that address the past traumas
5. Play-based therapeutic activities for children and parents together

The authors of the framework explain that the ICARE model “suggests new opportunities to design and implement multilevel prevention and intervention programs across the various pathways by which adverse and protective experiences influence outcomes.”

The post How to protect children from the negative impacts of adverse childhood experiences – a comprehensive approach 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.