by | March 23, 2012

Of Dandelions and Orchids

Nature or Nurture?  If you went to school when I did, that was a “heavy” question.  By the time I hit graduate school it was Nature and Nurture, or even an interaction (whoa!): Nature x Nurture.

But that’s so then; this is now.  The fields of genetics and neurobiology, as well as the sophistication of research methods, have upended our understanding of many things—including child development.  The new science has raised new questions about how children process experience, about the malleability of characteristics previously thought of as genetic or biological “givens,” and about the potential for intervention with severely challenged children and families.

These issues are far from being simply a puzzle for philosophical pondering.  Estimates are that three million-plus children in the U.S. are abused or neglected every year.[i]  Additional children experience other kinds of trauma or adversity (deep poverty; exposure to domestic and community violence; parents’ substance abuse, mental illness, or incarceration; etc.).  These children present huge challenges to the school system, the foster care system, the health care system, the juvenile justice system—not to mention their parents (who have often been damaged themselves).  And, often, the scars are carried into adulthood where they continue to take a toll on personal life, and on society.[ii]

Our new scientific knowledge shows that genetic “blueprints” in fact are altered (for good and bad) by experience.  But neither can “experience” be understood except as an ongoing, reciprocal interaction between an environment and a brain.  And brains differ.  Some differences are inborn, but some are not.

One of these important differences is the degree of plasticity or resilience.  Some children are more reactive to changes, both positive and negative, in their environment.  So, to the Nature/Nurture nexus we must add differential susceptibility (itself a product of Nature and Nurture; still with me?)  Of course, central to the environment of childhood is relationships, particularly with parents and other caregivers.

Adult support (as well as the lack of it), then, is a critical component in outcomes for children. And it is where many promising programs are designed to intervene with children who have been exposed to what is sometimes termed “toxic stress.”  Some of these programs address parenting skills, some work with preschool teachers, and some work with both adults and children to alter ways they experience and respond to stress.[iii]

There are limits to what can be achieved along these lines.  For example, studies of severely deprived children who were institutionalized, often from birth, in Ceausescu’s Romania support the idea that the first two years are critical for certain domains of development, and that some early damage cannot be reversed.[iv]

And limits are narrower for some children than they are for others.  Some children are like dandelions: given a modicum of soil, light, and water, they grow (and spread) widely, even in somewhat harsh environments; but, then, they’re dandelions.  However, others are more like orchids: their needs are complex, they require a good deal of special handling, and even then they survive only in select environments.  But when they do, the results are exquisite.  All other things equal, exceptionally reactive children are more prone to life’s harms, but also are more responsive to life’s gifts.

So, as you remember to stop and smell the flowers this spring, be grateful for both dandelions and orchids.

David Murphey
Senior Research Scientist

[1] DeVooght, K., McCoy-Roth, M., and Freundlich, M. (2011).  Young and vulnerable: Children five and under experience high maltreatment rates.  Early Childhood Highlights, 2(2).  Washington, DC: Child Trends.  Available at http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2011_04_29_ECH_YoungVulnerable.pdf

[1] Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., and The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.  (2011).  The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Technical Report.  American Academy of Pediatrics.  Retrieved from www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2011-2663.

[1] For example, Brotman, L. M., Calzada, E., Huang, K-Y, Kingston, S., Dawson-McClure, S., Kamboukos, D., Rosenfelt, A., Schwab, A., and Petkova, E.  (2011). Promoting effective parenting practices and preventing child behavior problems in school among ethnically diverse families from underserved, urban communities.  Child Development, 82(1), 258-276.

[1] Fox, N. A. (2012).  The effects of early adverse experiences on development: Lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Study.  Presentation to the meeting, Stress, Neurodevelopment,and Programs that Promote the Well-Being of Children and Families.  Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, U.S. Administration for Children and Families, March 13, 2012, Washington DC.

1 Comment

Filed under Child Development, David Murphey, Maltreatment, Parenting, Poverty

by | February 22, 2012

Sorting Through the Data on Nonmarital Births

Here at Child Trends, we spend a lot of time analyzing  trends in childbearing, including childbearing within and outside of marriage.  You may have read one of our key findings in the New York Times, that for women under the age of 30, most births now occur outside of marriage.

This statistic has drawn quite a lot of attention, from across the political spectrum. Some are focusing on the wide discrepancies in births outside of marriage by women’s education level; others are focused on what the statistic may mean for the institutions of marriage and family, while others are worried about the impact on children.

Child Trends analyzed 20 years of Federally-collected birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System, and we found that the percent of all births to women under age 30 that occur outside of marriage:

  • Varies significantly from state to state. The percent of all births to women under age 30 that occurs outside of marriage ranges from 24 percent in Utah to 64 percent in Mississippi.
  • Exceeds 60 percent in six states. The percent of births to women under age 30 that occurs outside of marriage is over 60 percent in six states: Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.
  • Increased in every state over the past decade.Every state saw an overall increase in the percent of all births occurring to unmarried women between 2000 and 2009.
    • The largest increases were:
      • Texas – 39% increase
      • Vermont – 34% increase
      • West Virginia – 38% increase
      • Kentucky – 32% increase
  • The smallest increase was in Colorado with a 1.2% increase.

This trend is not just among young women. Nonmarital births have been on the rise among all women in the United States over the past several decades, in part because of the increasing percentage of couples who have a birth within cohabiting relationships.

Child Trends researchers have been examining childbearing trends for 25 years.  Based on our experience and insights, we know there are not one- size- fits- all answers to what drives these trends.  As an organization focused on child well-being, we take a particular interest in what these trends mean for  children,   We do know that positive parental relationships are associated with better outcomes for children and families regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or family structure.  (See our brief from last year.)   We also know that, on average, children born to unmarried parents are more likely to be poor and to face multiple risks to their health and development, even when born to parents who live together in a cohabiting relationship.

But statistical probabilities are not destiny.  There are children raised by unmarried mothers or  fathers who excel.  And there are children raised by married parents who struggle and fail.  The data highlight important trends and vulnerable populations.  What we do with that information is up to all of us.

-Carol Emig
President, Child Trends

1 Comment

Filed under Children

by | January 24, 2012

Eat and Be Merry… Together at the Dinner Table

As the 2011 holiday season becomes a memory, research suggests that at least one tradition – family meals – benefits children and youth year-round. A new factsheet by Child Trends summarizes state-by-state variations in the frequency of having meals together, for children ages birth to five years old, ages six to eleven, and twelve through seventeen.

We know that shared meals do more than satisfy appetites.  Family meals demonstrate and build connectedness, as family members use this opportunity to report on their recent activities; to share troubles and triumphs, big and small; to discuss current events; and to teach, plan, laugh, and dream together.

Numerous studies have shown that children and adolescents who eat meals frequently with family members experience better outcomes than their counterparts who do so only infrequently or not at all.  These associations hold up even after taking account of other child and family characteristics, including even other forms of family togetherness.

The positive child outcomes identified thus far in the research (see Child Trends’ Databank) include fewer behavior problems, and a lower likelihood of depressive symptoms, substance abuse (including cigarette smoking), fighting, and suicidal thoughts.  Teens who regularly have meals with their families also tend to do better in school, and are more likely to delay initiation of sexual activity.

The experience of eating meals together as a family also seems to affect the quality of the food children and teens eat.  Some studies find that when parents join their children at mealtimes, children consume more fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, and are less likely to skip breakfast (a meal critical for optimal academic achievement).  For some subgroups of children and teens, the benefits may extend to reduced likelihood of being overweight or obese, or for developing an eating disorder.

What about watching television during mealtimes?  Although many families do this occasionally and some do regularly, the available evidence suggests that regular viewing may not be a good idea.  For one thing, having the television on inhibits the breadth of conversation that might otherwise occur.  Teens, when asked what’s the best part of a family dinner, are most likely to mention the sharing, talking, and social interaction with family members.  Television-viewing while eating, according to some evidence, is associated with reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables, and, perhaps even more importantly, with decreased attention (among both adults and children) to the cues that normally let us know when we’re “full”.

It’s important to note that while, in general, sharing meals is associated with benefits, cultural factors, such as race, ethnicity, and class, may strengthen, or weaken, some of the value of families’ eating together.  For example, if families buy fast-food to share for their dinners, these meals are not likely to help children maintain a healthy weight.  Clearly, the quality of the food families serve is also important to overall child well-being.

So, while the holiday season may have come to a close, it is important to remember the benefits both of eating well and spending quality time together over the dinner table.

-David Murphey
Senior Research Scientist

1 Comment

Filed under Children, David Murphey, early childhood data, Nutrition, Obesity

by | December 16, 2011

Trends in marriage and fertility

New federal data on births and marriages shed some light on high levels of births outside of marriage in the U.S.[1]  A research brief from Child Trends, Childbearing Outside of Marriage: Estimates and Trends in the United States, documents that 41% of all births in 2009 were outside of marriage.  This percentage rises to more than half (53%) of all births to women under age 30.[2]  Part of the reason for high numbers and rates of nonmarital births is due to increases in the median age at marriage.  Currently, the median age at first marriage – the age at which half of all women get married for the first time– is a year older than the median age at first birth.[3],[4] The Pew Charitable Trusts reports the median age at marriage is 26 for women, while recent birth data shows the median age at first birth is age 25.[5],[6]  These numbers reflect greater delays in marriage than in births in the past several decades.  For comparison, in 1980, the median age at marriage was one year younger than the median age at birth (at age 22 vs. age 23).[7],[8]

These trends in marriage and fertility have important implications for children. Their likelihood of being born to unmarried parents has increased from 18% in 1980 to current levels of 41%.[9],[10]  The large proportion of children that are born outside of marriage face challenges due to their greater likelihood of growing up in poverty and with family instability, leading to greater cognitive and behavioral problems, such as aggression and depression.[11]

While more than half of these nonmarital births (52%) occur to women who live with the father of the baby in a cohabiting union,[12] these unions are less stable than marriages.[13] Children born to unmarried parents are more likely than those born to married parents to be poor and to see their parents’ union end.[14]

–Jennifer Manlove, Senior Program Area Director and Senior Research Scientist
–Elizabeth Wildsmith, Research Scientist

[1] Hamilton, B.E., Martin, J.A., Ventura, S.J. (2011). Births: Preliminary Data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports 60(2). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf

[2] Berger, A. (2011). Child Trends’ analysis of National Vital Statistics System birth data. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March and Annual Social and Economic Supplements. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf

[4] Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Mean age of mother, 1970–2000. National vital statistics reports; vol 51 no 1. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_01.pdf

[5] Taylor, P., Parker, K., Cohn, D., Passel, J.S., Livingston, G., Wang, W., Patten, E. (2011) Barely half of U.S. adults are married- a record low. Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/12/marriage-decline-final.pdf

[6] Berger, A. (2011). Child Trends’ analysis of National Vital Statistics System birth data. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

[7] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March and Annual Social and Economic Supplements. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf

[8] Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Mean age of mother, 1970–2000. National vital statistics reports; vol 51 no 1. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_01.pdf

[9] Ventura, S. J., & Bachrach, C. A. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999.  National Vital Statistics Reports (vol 48, no. 16). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf

[10] Wildsmith, E., Steward-Streng, N. R., & Manlove, J. (2011). Childbearing outside of marriage: Estimates and trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_11_01_RB_NonmaritalCB.pdf

[11] McLanahan, S. (2011). Family instability and complexity after a nonmarital birth: Outcomes for children in fragile families. In M. J. Carlson, & P. England (Eds.), Social class and changing families in an unequal America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[12] Wildsmith, E., Steward-Streng, N. R., & Manlove, J. (2011). Childbearing outside of marriage: Estimates and trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_11_01_RB_NonmaritalCB.pdf

[13] McLanahan, S. (2011). Family instability and complexity after a nonmarital birth: Outcomes for children in fragile families. In M. J. Carlson, & P. England (Eds.), Social class and changing families in an unequal America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[14] McLanahan, S. (2011). Family instability and complexity after a nonmarital birth: Outcomes for children in fragile families. In M. J. Carlson, & P. England (Eds.), Social class and changing families in an unequal America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Childbearing, Children, Elizabeth Wildsmith, Jennifer Manlove, Marriage

by | December 14, 2011

The new poverty measure and what it means for children

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a fascinating panel on poverty at the Urban Institute on recent changes to the poverty measure. The new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) includes government benefits, such as food stamps, housing assistance and tax credits, reflects housing costs for each state, and deducts expenditures for critical goods such as health care.

We were charged with discussing what the new measure means for children and the elderly, and for state and federal safety net policies. Even with the new SPM, poverty rates are high for American children. The research tells us that poverty really matters for child development and their outcomes. As a result, how we measure poverty also matters, and we must do it fully and accurately.

At the panel, I shared five observations about what the SPM really means for children, which you can find here.

Essentially, the supplemental measure makes several important changes noted above, and as a result, the proportion of children living in families that are in deep poverty decreases from 10 percent under the official measure to 5 percent with SPM. That is a substantial reduction.

Still 1 in 20 children are in deep poverty (below 50% of the poverty line).

No matter which measure is used, children were the age group most likely to be poor in the U.S.A. in the year 2010.  And the proportion has been increasing over the past several years.

A little more than one in five lived in poverty using the official measure.

A little less than one in five lived in poverty using the supplemental poverty measure.

No matter what the exact percentage is, the research is very clear that children living in poverty suffer a variety of negative outcomes:

  • poorer educational outcomes,
  • poorer health,
  • less positive social and emotional development, and
  • more problem behaviors.

Some of these outcomes reflect disadvantages of the parents, of course – poor children are more likely to live in single parent households, to have less educated parents, and to be born to young, unmarried parents.

However, some recent analyses by Child Trends found, as these studies generally do, income is strongly related to children’s subsequent well-being and development on nearly every child outcome examined, over and above the effects of other factors.

So, while there may be fewer children in poverty under the new SPM, the rates continue to rise, and the deleterious outcomes for children are well known.  What we can do about these rates should continue to be a source of concern and focus for us all.

-Kristin Anderson Moore
Senior Scholar

2 Comments

Filed under Child Poverty, Kristin Anderson Moore

by | November 17, 2011

Children and the Great American Smokeout Day

Thirty-four years ago, I came home from first grade and asked my father, who had been a smoker since his teenage years, to quit smoking. At school, we’d learned about a new campaign, the Great American Smokeout Day, which was coming up, and about the harmful effects from smoking.  I remember feeling terrified about what his daily smoking meant for his health.  My father quit smoking the next day, on the third Thursday in November 1977.

Back then, more than one third of Americans were smokers and about 29 percent of high school seniors reported smoking daily.  Today, the latest data tell us that significant progress has been made.  Just one in five adults report being current smokers, and the percentage of high school seniors who smoke daily has dropped to 10.7 percent in 2010. (See Child Trends’ recent Indicator Brief on Adolescent Daily Cigarette Use by my colleague, David Murphey, for more information.)

Despite these declines, more than 8.2 million young people between the ages of 12 and 20 currently use some form of tobacco.[1] According to a newsletter from the U.S. HHS Office of Adolescent Health, more than six million of today’s adolescents and young adults will eventually die a preventable death from tobacco.[2]

For many social problems, those of us involved with policy and research often turn to data to better monitor and describe troubling trends or to identify promising solutions.  In this case, the data are clear: overwhelming scientific evidence confirms that tobacco use is harmful to health. Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States.[3] The tobacco industry has been required to invest substantial resources in educating the public about these ills, cigarette advertising to youth has been restricted, and prices for cigarettes have gone up (Child Trends’ Adolescent Daily Cigarette Use). In many states, smoking has been banned from public buildings, spaces and private businesses.

The Great American Smokeout Day movement combined with efforts to increase public awareness, and smart public policies have all contributed to the overall decline in smoking in the United States.

And yet, each day, 3,800 adolescents will try a cigarette for the first time. Research shows that the earlier adolescents begin smoking cigarettes, the more likely they are to become addicted to nicotine.[4] According to results from a nationally representative health survey, nearly 90 percent of adults who smoke started smoking during adolescence, or earlier.[5]

So what can we do, those of us who monitor children’s health outcomes to inform policy and practice, when the data are clear and the policies align with the intended outcomes, and yet the problem persists?

We keep on.  The Office of Adolescent Health newsletter reports that for every one percentage-point reduction in the youth smoking rate, it is estimated that 172,000 of today’s high school students will not start smoking and 56,000 will not die a tobacco-related death.[6]

Today, on the Annual Great American Smokeout Day, I’m hoping that we not only can encourage our young people who are smoking to quit, but that we can do more to prevent our children from ever starting.

Marci McCoy-Roth
Senior Policy and Communications Director

This blog was written using data prepared by my colleagues here at Child Trends for a variety of briefs and reports (cited where possible though some are pending). Special thanks to David Murphey, Lina Guzman, Jennifer Manlove, Megan Barry and Brigitte Gavin for their outstanding and ongoing research.

[1] Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Studies. (2010). Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Tables 2.2A-2.5A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Service,. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/tabs/Sect2peTabs1to10.pdf

[2] Hahn, E. J., Rayens, M. K., Chaloupka, F. J., Okoli, C. T. C., & Yang, J. (2002). Projected smoking-related deaths among U.S. youth: A 2000 update. ImpacTeen Research Paper Series, No. 22.

[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, & National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010). Health topics: Tobacco use and the health of young people. Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/tobacco/facts.htm.

[5] National Survey on Drug Use and Health cited by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. (2010). Tobacco use among youth. Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0002.pdf

[6] Campaign from Tobacco-Free Drugs. (2010). Benefits and savings from each one percentage point decline in the USA smoking rates. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0235.pdf

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

by | November 8, 2011

Cost of Living Relates to Child Development

As everyone knows, it costs a lot more to live in some places in the United States than others. New findings indicate that these cost of living differences have implications for the well-being of young children in families with lower incomes.

A new analysis using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), a nationally-representative sample of children entering kindergarten in 1998, found that the local cost of living is correlated with child development outcomes.[i]  Higher cost of living was related to lower academic achievement in first grade, even after controlling for family income and a comprehensive set of social and demographic variables.  This effect was found only for families with incomes below 300% of the federal poverty threshold (i.e., below $66,339 for a family of four). It may be that families with higher incomes are not as sensitive to geographic variations in cost of living.

Basic expenses for necessities such as housing and child care vary dramatically across locales. For example, rent for a typical two-bedroom apartment in the Washington, DC, area is $1,324 a month, compared with $555 for a similar apartment in Casper, Wyoming (2007 Basic Family Budgets, Economic Policy Institute). Likewise, costs for child care for a two-parent, two-child household typically run $1,512 a month in DC, and $683 in Casper. Family income also varies across regions, but not as much as costs vary: the median income in Washington, DC, is $40,342, compared with $29,506 in Wyoming (Mapping the Measure of America). The minimum wage in Washington DC is $8.25, compared with $7.25 in Wyoming (U.S. Department of Labor).  Thus, while in this example wages/incomes are about 15-30 percent higher in DC than in Wyoming, major cost-of-living drivers are more than double.

Why might living in a higher-cost area have negative consequences for child development? Because parents living in such areas have to spend more on basic needs, such as housing and child care, they may have less financial resources left over to make other “investments” in their children’s development (e.g., to buy books, enroll children in extracurricular activities, buy a home computer). Indeed, we found that, for families living below the poverty threshold, a higher cost of living (independent of family income) was related to lower levels of parental “investments” in these types of activities. In spite of big differences by geographic location in a family’s expenses on basic needs like housing and child care, the official federal poverty threshold is applied uniformly across the nation. The federal poverty guidelines (somewhat different from, but based on, the threshold methodology) are used by 85 government programs serving over 22 million people yearly to determine eligibility for receiving assistance.

A new measure  of poverty  released by the Census Bureau on Monday, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), takes strides towards improvement by making geographic adjustments to the poverty threshold. However, because the old measure will still be used in determining eligibility for government programs, some families and children who have exceptional cost burdens because of their living in higher-cost areas will continue to be ineligible for assistance, because their incomes are marginally too high. Although eligibility for some government assistance programs, such as child care subsidies and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), does vary by state, many families living in high-cost areas are struggling to make ends meet, yet have incomes too high to qualify for assistance. This is all the more troublesome in light of these study findings showing that children in these families may suffer negative consequences.

- Nina Chien, Research Scientist
- David Murphey, Senior Research Scientist

[i] Chien, N., & Mistry, R. (in press). Geographic Variations in Cost of Living: Associations with Family and Child Well-Being. Child Development.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, David Murphey, Early Childhood, Nina Chien

by | October 25, 2011

Arming Schools to Fight Bullying

A recent spate of suicides linked to bullying at school and in cyberspace (using email, Facebook, and text messages, for example – a form of bullying known as “cyberbullying”) have drawn public attention to this growing problem among teens. The latest data on teens ages 12 to 18 suggest that bullying at school has increased, with the percent of teens reporting having been bullied during school (in school, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school) rising from 14 percent in 2001 to 32 percent in 2007. Among these students, about 4 out of 5 report being bullied inside the school building.

This October marks the sixth annual Bullying Awareness Prevention Month, a campaign introduced to raise awareness and inspire action across communities nationwide to prevent and stop bullying however, complementary anti-bullying efforts are most likely needed. The federal government seems to agree. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education gave federal funds to 11 states for activities under the Safe and Supportive Schools competitive grant program, which requires the administration of a survey to measure school climate and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote a positive school climate, including school safety, and to combat bullying.

These grants will build upon other recent national efforts. Last summer, the Department of Education hosted the first-ever National Bullying Summit and the StopBullying.gov website was launched. Recently, the Health Resources and Services Administration launched a campaign called “Stop Bullying Now!” This past March, the White House hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, weeks after a series of suicides (or “bullycides”) committed as a result of alleged incidents of bullying. The majority of teens involved in these incidents were gay and lesbian, heightening public attention to the problem of bullying of homosexual youth and to the association between being bullied, depression, and suicidal behavior (for more on this, go to GLSEN). Most recently, the Office of Adolescent Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a series of fact sheets with the latest data on national and state bullying as part of its efforts to support healthy relationships for adolescents.

In this context, it is critical to identify and share approaches that show the most promise for being able to effectively combat bullying in schools. To this end, Child Trends is currently conducting a review of bullying prevention programs to be released in early 2012. It will join similar syntheses of evaluation literature found on Child Trends’ website at www.childtrends.org/whatworks. The bullying synthesis will draw from out-of-school time programs evaluated using intent-to-treat, randomized-controlled trials and present information about programs and practices found to prevent or stop bullying.

Assessments are also important. To intervene most effectively, educators and parents must also be able to identify signs of bullying and assess whether bullying is affecting their students or children. School climate assessment tools that include measures of bullying are available at safesupportiveschools.ed.gov. Hopefully, through ongoing assessment and the implementation of evidence-based programs and policies, the upward trend can be reversed. Only time will tell.

-Mary Terzian
Research Scientist

1 Comment

Filed under Bullying, Mary Terzian

by | October 10, 2011

A Look at ‘Communities that Care’ and Evidence-Based Programs

Kristin Anderson Moore

Kristin Anderson Moore speaks at the annual Child Trends' lecture in her honor.

The United States (and the world) have faced some particularly daunting challenges as of late.  From the economy to wars to the weather and natural disasters, it’s been a tough couple of years.

But the news is not all bad.  Those of us seeking to develop, evaluate, and disseminate evidence-based programs to improve lives for children feel like this is a golden era. Evidence-based approaches have long been considered essential in the public health field.  For example, we want people to take safe and effective medications based on good evidence. And, now, those same high standards of evidenced-based approaches are being applied to social interventions for children.

To me, this is a deeply important trend.  It implies an emerging consensus among decision makers that child well-being matters and that we want to invest in intervention programs that actually work. This implies a growing recognition that children’s positive development is important, not only for children, but also for our nation’s long-term well-being.

Fortunately, the array of programs that have been rigorously evaluated is growing. At Child Trends, we have reviewed and summarized more than 530 experimentally-evaluated social interventions for children in our What Works LINKS database.  Increasingly, as we mine this database to learn from studies of programs that work, and those that do not, we are developing knowledge about effective practices as well as effective programs.

Many of us have figured out that there is no silver bullet, no single program or approach can have the kind of large and life-changing effects that funders desire.  Impacts tend to be small, and they fade over time.

So, researchers are asking:

What if we had multiple programs in a community? And what if those multiple programs were evidence-based programs?

The work done by Doctors Rico Catalano and David Hawkins and their colleagues at the Social Development Research Group over a period of more than a decade on the Communities that Care project is quite remarkable in anticipating so many of the ideas that have just recently become widespread.

I recently invited Prof. Richard Catalano to be our keynote speaker at Child Trends’ annual Kristin Anderson Moore Lecture.  Dr. Catalano shared an overview of the Communities that Care model and the findings of their rigorous evaluation.

The Communities that Care program:

  • Employs carefully selected evidence-based programs.
  • Implements multiple programs in a community.
  • Is a place-based intervention, like Promise Neighborhoods and other recent approaches.
  • Works with the community to collect data and to select programs that are appropriate for a particular community.
  • Has been carefully and rigorously evaluated and found to have positive impacts.

This is a remarkable project and a source of not just guidance but hope that we can combine what we know about approaches that work to improve the lives of children.

-Kristin Anderson Moore
Senior Research Scholar, Child Trends

1 Comment

Filed under Children, Evidence-based programs, Kristin Anderson Moore

Tagged as ,

by | August 31, 2011

Back to School …. Is Everybody Ready?

It’s back to school time.  And those of us concerned about the very youngest of children turn our thoughts to whether this year’s kindergarteners are ready for school.  Of course, we are well aware that the skills and abilities needed to thrive in kindergarten – and beyond — can and should be nurtured from the very beginning of life.   Fortunately, more and more practitioners and policymakers understand this and are embracing early learning.  At the state level, an increasing number of education researchers and child care administrators have been working to develop effective ways to measure children’s readiness for school.

Child Trends has tracked the Early Learning Guidelines (ELGs) states are using to help define what children should know and be able to do upon school entry. This brief also identifies the extent to which states monitor the number of children statewide who are, indeed, ready for kindergarten.  As states work diligently to meet the October 19 application deadline for Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge grants, states’ use of ELGs and kindergarten readiness assessments will play an important role in helping states address the criteria mandating that applicants should “develop common standards within the State and assessments that measure child outcomes,” as outlined in the Early Learning Challenge press release.

Over half of the states utilize an assessment to gain a better understanding of children’s skills and abilities when they enter kindergarten. In most states, the information gathered from these assessments is used to inform a child’s individual instructional plan. Only a few states conduct a school-readiness assessment to track the percentage of children statewide who are “ready for school,” “in progress,” or “not ready for school.” Examples of these states include Alaska,  Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,  Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The statewide kindergarten assessment approach may be growing. This past school year, Washington state launched a pilot of the Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills. Ohio has plans to develop a kindergarten readiness assessment with funding it received as part of its successful K-12 Race to the Top application. And, California passed legislation in 2010 that established a voluntary statewide kindergarten readiness assessment tool. Illinois has also released a report that describes a process they have developed for implementing a new readiness assessment.

As states move forward with this important work, research can shed light on a few best practices. First, school readiness is not as simple as knowing letters and numbers. Young children not only need to be ready for early academics, they need to be socially, physically, and emotionally ready for school. Assessments that can capture the readiness of the child holistically will not only be more informative, they will be more appropriate for this young and developing population. States also have to be clear about reasons for assessing young children. Each purpose, whether to monitor individual developmental progress, inform state policy, or screen for developmental delay, has its own unique set of appropriate practices and implications for data use that have to be carefully considered. For more information, see this Child Trends brief: Early Childhood Predictors of Early School Success.

Even after all schools are in session, the spotlight will continue to shine on early learning as states prepare their proposals for the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge.  As the RTT states are selected, we will no doubt learn of new, innovative approaches to monitoring school readiness across states.

Sarah Daily, Research Scientist

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Early Childhood, Early Childhood Education, Race to the Top, Sarah Daily, School Readiness