• 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.

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.

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.

Breaking the cycles of bias and violence starts at home by talking to children about racism rather than well-meaning adults avoiding the subject.

In a 2008 column that went viral, the late journalist Fatimah Ali predicted that only the election of Barack Obama would save our country from a full-on “race war.” She was wrong. Obama’s two terms of service have long passed, but the racial injustices in this country are raging in full force. This spring alone, in the context of public health and economic crises that disproportionately ravaged Black and Brown communities, we’ve witnessed the systematic and blatant disregard for Black lives over and over again — George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Christian Cooper. Communities of color and their allies are tired, weary, angry, and impatient for change. Photos of peaceful protesters speak to our hearts, while burning cars, boarded buildings, law enforcement officers in riot gear, and state-mandated curfews tell the story of a nation at war. Company CEOs, university presidents, national sports figures, and the general public are responding to the countrywide unrest and are watching closely.

Our youngest generation is watching, too.

In these painful times, when the structural racism and inequality of American society is so palpable, many parents are asking two critical questions. Most immediately, “How and how much should we discuss these recent racial traumas with our children?” More importantly “How do we teach this generation about what it means to be White, Black, or any other racial or ethnic group in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities that appear to be so intractable?” The answer to both questions is the same.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

As researchers with expertise in parenting among ethnic-racial minority families, we advocate an approach to racial discussions with children that is intentional, honest, and focused on equity and justice for all people. We call it “intentional parenting for equity and justice” (IPEJ). It entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded. IPEJ also involves identifying opportunities to expose children to the strengths and rich cultural traditions of all cultural and ethnic groups, including their positive contributions to all aspects of our society.

‘Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice’ entails deliberate and purposeful conversations and activities that increase children’s awareness of racial dynamics in our country and impel them to resist and change those dynamics, which most notably include institutionalized racism and oppression; racial stereotyping, microaggressions and their consequences; and the damaging effects of racial privilege on those who are excluded.

To achieve IPEJ as a normative approach to parenting, we need to shift the status quo. Currently, many well-meaning adults avoid mentioning race to their children, choosing instead to uphold colorblind and egalitarian national narratives. This is especially true of White parents. Studies following the killings of Trayvon Martin (2012) and Michael Brown (2014) showed that these highly visible events motivated Black parents to have extensive conversations about racism and discrimination with their children. But very few White parents did so, citing their wish to maintain a protected, worry-free childhood environment. Our research shows that on a more routine basis, Black, Latinx and Asian parents are far more likely than White parents to talk about racial issues with their children, especially cultural pride and awareness of discrimination.

The status quo hinders racial progress. To strongly position future generations to dismantle systems of racial injustice, inequality, and privilege, parents must deliberately teach children that they exist, that they are complex, and that they are unacceptable.

Photo: Victoria Pickering. Creative Commons.

Too many teens in our studies – teens of all racial backgrounds – say that racism is a thing of the past that ended when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus, even though they notice current racial disparities in the way people live, the opportunities they have, and the way people are treated in public places and by authorities. Children are learning race even when parents are not deliberately teaching it, and they are drawing conclusions that do not include the damage caused by persistent structural issues. In addition, when parents fail to sensitize children to racial bias, stereotyping, and their harmful effects, these racial dynamics persist uncontested.

In our studies, racial teasing and microaggressions are rampant in lunch rooms, schoolyards, and other unsupervised social and digital spaces where youth spend time: Although students of all races experience these aggressions, youth of color experience them more often, leading to what has been called “discriminatory distress” which, when chronic, has cumulative negative effects well into adulthood.  Instead of passively allowing young people to overlook or ignore these racial dynamics, we need to empower them to implement change. Moreover, when White parents continue to communicate to their children that race is unimportant, the burden of racial progress and change falls squarely on the shoulders of children of color, entitling White children to rarely or wrongly think about race. All parents, not just parents of color, need to actively help our children understand, interpret, and resist the structural racism and implicit biases they see in order to help prepare them as future leaders who recognize and fight against their own implicit racism and the racism of others.

How and how much, then, should parents discuss current racial events with their children? As much as possible, in ways that are aligned with children’s ages and readiness to learn. Importantly, though, parents need to have a plan about what they want to convey and how. For young children, discussion of highly visible racialized violence should be simple and brief. Although parents should certainly shield children from graphic video footage, they should prepare themselves to answer children’s questions about things they might see in newspapers or on TV (e.g., why are police officers pushing people? Why are stores and cars burning?). Answers should be simple and brief, and they should reflect parents’ equity and justice goals.

Photo: cool revolution. Creative Commons.

In our work, many parents have described situations in which young children’s questions caught them off-guard, leaving them at a loss for what to say or how to explain. Of course, older children are in a better position to digest more complicated information about inequality and structural racism, and we advocate that parents have frank and accurate discussions about current racialized events (especially their history and origins). Parents’ silence about racialized horrors that children see on TV and social media is in itself a communication to children that racism and inequality are an acceptable way of American life. It is important for all of us (teachers, parents, youth advocates, and researchers) to recognize that children are drawing inferences about the meaning of these events even if parents are not talking about them.

How can parents teach this generation in ways that help dismantle, rather than perpetuate, the systemic racial injustices and inequalities upon which America has been built? Our IPEJ principles apply most directly here. Parents first need to closely examine their own racial beliefs and attitudes to position themselves to teach what they value most to their children. If possible, they should expose children early to diversity in meaningful ways (the places and events they attend; the friends they have; the toys, books, symbols, and wall hanging in the home). In age-appropriate ways, find opportunities to talk about, rather than overlook, how racism and oppression has been deeply woven into the fabric of American life, both historically and to this day. Deliberately discuss, rather than avoid, how non-dominant groups are negatively stereotyped and harmed by slurs, stereotypes, and other stigmatizing public actions and portrayals of minority groups, both historically and now. When and where they see them, parents can identify instances of privilege and opportunity that result in people of color having less access. Find ways to expose children to the strengths, rich traditions, and positive contributions to all aspects of our society of diverse cultural and ethnic groups. In general, intentionally integrate teaching about race into your overall parenting agenda.

Racial injustice is a problem for all of us. Just as it required collective responsibility to flatten the COVID-19 curve, addressing racial oppression, injustice, and inequality is all of our collective responsibility. Intentional Parenting for Equity and Justice is a tool to end systemic and interpersonal racism by raising all children’s consciousness about the impact these systemic factors have on individuals’ health and wellbeing. Without this sort of approach, we, as social scientists, fear that traumatic and painful racial incidents will remain as entrenched as ever in the fabric of American life. Parents need to be part of the solution, recognizing that silence and inaction sustain systems of racial injustice.

The post Talking to children about racism: Breaking the cycle of bias and violence starts at home appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research from 16,652 individuals shows that divorce affects not only children’s ability to earn but reduces their wealth by 46% on average.

People in Australia who experience the divorce or separation of their parents during childhood accumulate 46% less net wealth, on average, than do people whose parents do not separate when they are children.

Wealth is defined as the net difference of all assets and debts. Assets include real estate, business assets, financial assets, savings, life insurances, private pension savings, cash, vehicles and other durables, and collectibles such as art. Debts include mortgages, loans, business debts, credit card debt and overdue bills.

Other studies have found links between experiencing parental separation during childhood and adult earning, but earnings are only a part of wealth. Wealth brings real and psychological safety nets in a way that income alone does not. Wealth, like health, represents the cumulative impact of many factors over time.

The research used data on 16,652 individuals from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey (HILDA, 2001-2014).

The timing of the parental separation – whether it occurred when the child was zero to five years old or six to 14 years old – made little difference to later wealth.

The researchers went on to examine what pathways may explain the association between childhood experience of parental separation and lower adult wealth.

They found that 21% of the link can be attributed to something rarely measured before in research on the impact of parental separation on children: a shorter ‘financial planning horizon’, which is how far into the future the individuals plan for their financial savings. A possible explanation of this link is that parental separation increases uncertainty for children, leading them to put higher value on the present and near future than on the far future. Other research has shown that people who think longer-term tend to save more money.

Another 20% of the link can be attributed to lower educational achievement, measured by the number of years of education completed. There are multiple ways that parental separation may disrupt education. It can reduce economic resources for the family; having less wealth means parents taking less risk with educational options for their children; and less consistent parenting may disrupt education as well.

A further 10% of the link can be attributed to more unstable family structures in adulthood for those who have experienced the separation of their parents in childhood. The measures used in this research were ‘how many years in a first marriage?’ and ‘how many co-residential and married partners?’ A strong link between family stability in adulthood and experience of parental separation in childhood has been found in other research. Family instability hampers wealth accumulationy. Also, children who have experienced the divorce of their parents are less likely to get married in the first place, and wealth accumulation is lower in cohabiting families than in married ones.

One thing the researchers predicted, but which did not show up in the statistics, was a link between less wealth and reduced wealth transfers from separated parents compared to married parents. Separation reduces parents’ wealth, leaving them less wealth to pass on to their children. Separation may lead to weaker parent-child bonds, particularly with fathers, which may also lead to less transfer of wealth, as well as less financial advice. But this pathway was not demonstrated in the research. It could be that when children move into blended families, new wealth transfers take place from nonbiological parents.

Unsurprisingly, the researchers found a link between reduced wealth and less income, accounting for 17% of the link between childhood experience of separation and adult wealth.

In Australia, about one-third of marriages end in divorce. Separations between cohabiting parents are more frequent.

Another study from the USA, in 2019, found an even bigger differential in wealth between adults who had experienced parental separation in childhood and those who had not. Perhaps the bigger difference in the USA is explained by the fact that less support is available for separating families than in Australia.

The post How divorce affects children’s future wealth, not just ability to earn appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Preschool care should be universally available and offer the services that families need from pregnancy.

Every country should rethink its strategy for the care of preschool children, particularly those aged under three. Recent learning from developmental psychology and neuroscience, as well as the need to make workplaces productive and economies successful, all demand a fresh look at family supports from pregnancy onwards.

The contemporary ad hoc approach to developing preschool children has been rendered obsolete by recognition that the first three years of life witness a never-to-be-repeated explosion in brain development. As a result, what happens in these first years determines, to a considerable extent, infants’ future social relationships, experiences, personalities, behaviours and outcomes.

The preschool years are vital not only for individuals but for nations, their economies and their societies. Yet current public policy continues to reflect an outdated assumption that mothers are financially able to stay home and are willing and sufficiently skilled to provide all the care and stimulation needed to make the most of this early period of dramatic development.

This false premise helps explain the hotchpotch of inadequate or, often, nonexistent provision for preschool children almost everywhere – with the United States well down the league table. This approach should be replaced by a well thought-out system of psychosocial care for our youngest children, mirroring the commitment of schools to provide a wide range of services and universal availability for older children.

Cost of poor care for preschool children

The losses caused by existing preschool strategies are considerable. In the US, despite economic growth over the past 40 years, we have seen population-level declines, albeit modest, in children’s health, well-being and social relationships, according to the Duke Child Well-Being Index. Educational attainment has been flat. Children’s kindergarten readiness skills have increased only modestly over the past 25 years. In the past two decades, the rate at which infants are born underweight has actually increased.

“In the US, there have been population-level declines, albeit modest, in children’s health, well-being and social relationships.”

These failures have been compounded by inadequate progress for preschool children living in poverty, which has led not only to underdevelopment of their potential, but also to increasing disparities with children from better-off backgrounds. These better-off children are getting much more of what they need when they can benefit most from it – in those crucial early years. The differential outcomes for poor children often change, and disadvantage, their lives forever.

Some countries, notably in Scandinavia, as well as New Zealand and the Netherlands, have an approach to preschool support that is more coherent for fostering child development from infancy. They support parents being at home and access to high-quality childcare and education. But the US has only pockets of preschool programs that hint at the possibilities of a more systematic approach: typically Head Start, home-visiting programs that serve only a fraction of young children in a community, maybe a food bank, prekindergarten for some children, and perhaps a church-based program directed toward the most vulnerable families. The resulting preschool menu might look good on paper, but the kitchen runs out of food before parents know what to order.

Too little is spent on preschool children

We spend many more tax dollars per person as children get older, despite scientific certainty that neuronal development and brain plasticity reach their peak in early life during the preschool years – as does the likelihood of intervention success. Ask any parent when in their child’s life they need money most, and they will say the earliest years, when parents’ income is lowest. In the US, we spend $12,401 annually on each school-aged child, but only $2,566 per year on each child from birth to age five, according to the 2018 study ‘Cradle to kindergarten: A new plan to combat inequality’ by Ajay Chaudry et al.

We know how to tackle the problem: we could create a preschool system for this youngest group that is both universal and comprehensive. After all, the US has the best-regarded and accessible higher education system in the world, and it established the world’s first universal public school system 200 years ago. However, this system didn’t —and still doesn’t — recognise what we now know: namely, that the most crucial years have already passed by age five.

Photo: Community Services Calgary. Creative Commons.

Our public school system offers a guide for reformers of preschool care in its provision of wide-ranging services. Children receive more than education for literacy. Children in need are given free nutritional support. When counselling is required, it can be provided. A school nurse is usually on hand. If a child is being abused, a social worker has been trained to detect it. So schools are good examples of how to focus on the whole child and how to address a breadth of needs.

Piloting a pre-school psychosocial system

Of course, we don’t want to replicate public schools for one-year-olds. But we have learned that we need a two-barrelled approach for preschool care that provides both investment in community resources from the top down and ways for every family to access the resources it needs from the bottom up.

We have tested two key ingredients that would be essential in developing a psychosocial preschool care system from pregnancy and infancy up to school age. The system would require, first, an expansion in the capacities of evidence-based community resources. Second, there would have to be a way for all parents and children to navigate these resources to ensure access to the help they need.

Some communities are creating innovative, experimental models of universal preschool psychosocial care. The Family Connects program in Durham, North Carolina, for example, has developed an infrastructure of community agencies that are committed to supporting families during their children’s preschool years.

From the top down, the community has aligned itself through an electronic directory that includes 400 professional, paraprofessional and volunteer agencies providing preschool support to families. From the bottom up, a trained nurse greets every mother in the birthing hospital to welcome the family into the community and to communicate that every child and parent can be successful but everyone needs some help.

“We know how to create a pre-school care system for this younger group that could be both universal and comprehensive.”

From there on, the program is entirely voluntary. The nurse makes one to three home visits to listen to the family and determine exactly what the family needs and what resources could help them. The assessments cover healthcare, family safety, financial stability, parenting and parental mental health. In about half of the cases, the nurse works with the family to figure out how to meet their needs. In other cases, the nurse connects the family to community resources that can help tackle problems such as maternal substance abuse, financial crises and depression. In all cases, the nurse links the record to the family’s paediatrician for continuing care.

Four independent evaluations have shown that the preschool intervention is associated with parent satisfaction, improved outcomes for infants at six months, better connections to community resources, more positive parenting, increased father involvement, lower maternal anxiety and enhanced home safety.

The first randomized controlled trial showed that at age five, a significantly lower rate of child-abuse-investigated cases and emergency department visits had been recorded for the Family Connects group of children than for a control group. Each evaluation has shown promising results, but each has also found areas where the program could improve. Evaluations need to continue so that Family Connects 2.0 will be even better than the current version.

Better data on preschool children

A lack of effective data systems for young children can create a barrier to connecting families with community agencies. Imagine healthcare today without your electronic health record. We are designing a digital, family-level information system that could become a child’s cumulative psychosocial record of screenings, interventions and assessments. This record could be the psychosocial equivalent of an electronic health record, an invaluable tool for focusing supports for each child’s preschool care.

The tool also enables aggregation of measures to chart population-wide improvement. If we create such records for every consenting child in a community, we will have a comprehensive assessment of family needs. If we compare that assessment with a map of available community resources, our leaders can identify community-specific gaps in resources so that we can deploy public resources in a more economically-efficient manner. The result would be a 21st-century system of preschool care for young children.

The post We need a comprehensive psychosocial care system for preschool children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.