College-Bound Children of Immigrants

Posted on by

Though the nation’s financial woes and other recent changes have left net Mexican migration to the US at around zero, past decades have seen rapid growth in the population of immigrants, including children and adolescents who are now approaching adulthood. Of the more than 68 million young adults in the US in 2010, about 30 percent were foreign-born or had foreign-born parents. Moreover, young adults made up about half of the estimated 11.6 million undocumented immigrants in 2008.

As these young people prepare to enter the labor market, those who are undocumented often experience greater adversity, even though many have grown up on US soil. Future of Children author Marcelo Suarez-Orozco tells NBC Latino that immigrant parents are motivated to offer their children better opportunities, but those who are undocumented are blocked from access to supports and services that children could benefit from. For example, Silvia Rodriguez, who immigrated to the US with her parents at age two, learned what it meant to be undocumented as she prepared for college. “When it came time to apply for scholarships and financial aid, that was the moment it really, really hit me,” she said.

Future of Children authors Robert T. Teranishi, Carola Suárez-Orozco, and Marcelo Suárez-Orozco argue that increasing immigrant children’s educational attainment and economic productivity should be a national priority and that community colleges are an important means to this goal. They suggest outreach programs to help prospective students learn about the application and financial aid processes. They also argue that researchers and community colleges should collaborate to find and implement the most effective strategies for intervention programs. For the latest research on this topic, see the Future of Children issues on Immigrant Children and the Transition to Adulthood.

To Reduce Delinquency, Prevention is Key

Posted on by

As a New York Times editorial noted recently, although the number of incarcerated juveniles is at a 35-year low, the US continues to lead developed nations in the number of young people it locks up. Incarceration has serious consequences for ex-offenders, including poorer health, lower earnings, and family breakup; thus many states have begun investing in more effective strategies to reduce delinquency. As Peter Greenwood explains in the Future of Children, “The most successful programs are those that prevent youth from engaging in delinquent behaviors in the first place.”

The Future of Children says that the best evidence points to early intervention, including home-visiting programs aimed at pregnant teens and their at-risk infants, early education programs for disadvantaged young children, and school-based initiatives to prevent drug use and dropping out. Moreover, community-based programs that focus on the family and improving parenting skills have been shown to effectively deter young offenders from future involvement with the justice system.

In the Washington Post this week, Future of Children Senior Editor Ron Haskins urged politicians, educators, community leaders, ministers and parents to teach young people that the decisions they make as they transition to adults will greatly influence their circumstances later in life. He cited research showing that of US adults who finish high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to get married and have children, only about 2 percent live in poverty and about three quarters have joined the middle class. Thus, investing more in prevention than incarceration should more effectively reduce delinquency and improve life outcomes for young adults. See the Future of Children issues on Juvenile Justice, Fragile Families, and School Readiness to learn more about this topic.

ADHD and the Transition to Adulthood

Posted on by

Future of Children researchers Janet Currie and Robert Kahn find that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is almost three times more likely than asthma to contribute to childhood disability. Indeed, more than one in five parents of a child with a disability report that ADHD is an underlying condition. However, Neal Halfon and colleagues note that ADHD is not limited to children, and recent studies underline its growing prevalence across the lifespan.

Recently, Fox News highlighted findings of the first population-based study to follow children with ADHD into adulthood. The Mayo Clinic study found that nearly a third of children diagnosed with the disorder still had ADHD by age 27. Furthermore, among those who still had the disorder as adults, 81 percent also had at least one other psychiatric disorder. Some research has suggested that children with ADHD may be somewhat more likely to experience setbacks such as repeating a grade or going to prison.

These findings have important implications for practitioners and policymakers who are concerned with children’s mental health. Future of Children authors Liam Delaney and James P. Smith report that although we have strong evidence that medication combined with behavioral interventions can alleviate some symptoms of ADHD, we know little about the long-term consequences. For vulnerable populations making the transition to adulthood, including children with mental health problems, D. Wayne Osgood and colleagues recommend strengthening programs and improving existing systems of care for children and adolescents. See the Future of Children issues on Children with Disabilities and the Transition to Adulthood for more information.

Children and the Prison Boom: Finding Solutions

Posted on by

The era of skyrocketing US incarceration rates since the 1970s has been dubbed the “Prison Boom,” and rightfully so. Future of Children authors Christopher Wildeman and Bruce Western report a fivefold rise, from about 100 to 500 prisoners for every 100,000 people. A major concern for policymakers and children’s advocates is that many of those incarcerated are parents. Among African American children who grew up during the Prison Boom, one in four had a parent (most often a father) incarcerated at some point during childhood.

As the New York Times wrote recently, families and children with an incarcerated father can face considerable hardship, apart from the challenges associated with the father’s criminality. While identifying a causal relationship between incarceration and various child and family outcomes is difficult, quality research continues to develop in this area. Recent studies find a link to child behavioral problems and school readiness, as well as housing insecurity and homelessness.

There is much discussion about ways to reduce the prison population, from increasing the number of police on the streets, to drug-treatment or faith-based programs. Based on the best research available, the Future of Children’s policy recommendations focus on drug offenders and parole violators. Solutions include intensive community supervision, drug treatment when necessary, and more effective responses to parole violation. The White House highlights one program recommended by Wildeman and Western. Project HOPE in Hawaii significantly reduced drug use and other offenses by administering swift, certain, but very short jail stays to probation violators.

As local, state, and federal leaders seek more effective alternatives to long jail and prison sentences, they should look to quality research to guide policy. See the Future of Children issue on Fragile Families for more information on this topic.

High-Quality Early Education

Posted on by

In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama called on states to help him make high-quality preschool available to every child in the US. He said, “Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.”

A recent New York Times Op-Ed by David Brooks explains that the existing federal preschool program, Head Start, has yielded null or weak results since its start in the 1960s. But several states, including Georgia, Oklahoma, and New Jersey, have tried in recent years to establish more effective alternatives, with higher performance standards and better-trained teachers.

Although these state programs are in their early stages, studies confirm that high-quality early education can improve literacy (see the Future of Children issue on Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-first Century) and even close racial-ethnic gaps in school readiness. In the Future of Children issue on School Readiness, experts describe what effective programs should look like. First, they should have a high-quality education component, meaning well-trained teachers, a high teacher-student ratio, and a rigorous curriculum. Second, they should train teachers to identify children with behavioral or health problems to help them receive the care they need. Third, they should emphasize the role of parents in student learning. Finally, they should have strong ties to kindergarten programs to ensure that children make a smooth transition to elementary school.

As states act on President Obama’s call, the implementation and practice of these programs should be based on the best evidence to date. Visit the Future of Children website for a summary of research findings and policy recommendations.

IEP Should Prepare Teens for Adulthood

Posted on by

Education is important for all children, but even more so for children with disabilities, whose social and economic opportunities may be limited.

The special education system has given children with disabilities much greater access to public education, established an infrastructure for educating them, helped with the earlier identification of disabilities, and promoted greater inclusion of these children alongside their nondisabled peers.

Once a child is identified as eligible for special education services, a team that includes the child’s parents and representatives of the public education system is charged with developing an individualized education program (IEP). The IEP outlines academic goals and incorporates all the services and supports necessary to meet the child’s unique needs.

The services and supports can include transportation, speech-language pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy and many other individual services according to the child’s unique needs (The Future of Children: Children with Disabilities, Spring 2012).

Most parents of children with disabilities, educators and physicians are familiar with the IEP, but not all are aware that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates that an individualized transition plan (ITP) must also become part of the IEP once the child reaches his or her sixteenth birthday. (In some states, the age is even lower.)

The ITP prepares disabled youth for the transition to adulthood. One of the major differences between an IEP and an ITP is that the student becomes part of the ITP planning team. Parents and multidisciplinary representatives of the public school system continue to be a part of the team.

The types of goals differ once the ITP is included in the IEP. Federal law requires that the IEP be revised yearly to include goals for academic and school-related progress for the coming year. The ITP expands the time frame and range of goals. The team must consider skills and behaviors that will be required by the student for adulthood, as well as the student’s interests. As the goals being set will assist the student’s transition into adulthood, they often need to be long-range goals that won’t be completed in a given year.

One critical goal is determining whether the student will graduate with his or her classmates. Other transitional goals could include training opportunities that would strengthen skills needed for living in the community (general housekeeping, hygiene, public transportation skills and skills that would promote inclusion in recreational activities). Students with chronic illness need to learn medical self-management.

“Transition to adult life presents challenges and opportunities for practitioners guiding families of children with disabilities.” Thoughtful planning, beginning at a young age and supported in the home, can increase the chances that these young folks will be prepared to take on adult roles and responsibilities (AAP News, Nathan J. Blum, MD, FAAP & Stephen H. Contompasis, MD, FAAP).

Underprivleged Youth and the College Dream

Posted on by

Written by Jonathan Wallace, Managing Editor.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, underprivileged youth who achieve their dream of enrolling in college too often end up with crushing debt and no degree to show for it. In fact, Future of Children author Susan M. Dynarski tells the Times, the gap between the share of poor Americans who earn a bachelor’s degree and the share of affluent Americans who do so has grown dramatically in the past 30 years. So despite an increase in access to college for the poor and minorities, the Times concludes, college is actually serving to perpetuate social stratification rather than enhance social mobility. Dynarski weighs in on “Financial Aid Policy: Lessons from Research” in the Future of Children‘s forthcoming issue on postsecondary education, scheduled for release on May 7, 2013.

Children with Disabilities: Medical Care, Education, and Cost

Posted on by

A recent Child Trends Research Brief, “Children with Disabilities: State-Level Data from the American Community Survey,” uses data to look at the diverse needs of children with disabilities. Several critical findings and topics were also noted in the Future of Children’s recent issue on Children with Disabilities.

Both the Child Trends research brief and the Future of Children note that there is little consensus in defining children with disabilities. “Researchers tend to focus on the individual causes of disability such as autism, asthma, cystic fibrosis, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder” (Future of Children). Regardless of the definition, children with disabilities need more specialized care medically, environmentally, and educationally. Parents of these children “often need to advocate for their child across multiple domains, from managing the child’s medical care, to ensuring an appropriate and individualized educational plan is in place, to meeting significant expenses that may arise due to the disability” (Child Trends).

“During 2008-2010, there were 2.9 million U.S. children with one or more disabilities. These comprised four percent (one in every 25) of all non-institutionalized children, ages birth to 17. Nearly one in three disabled children (31 percent) were living in poverty (compared with 20 percent of all children). Most children with disabilities (94 percent) were covered by health insurance; more than half (58 percent) were covered by public insurance programs.” (Child Trends)

As Child Trends notes, health insurance is vital for children with disabilities. The Child Trends brief cites Peter Szilagyi’s Future of Children chapter, “Health Insurance and Children with Disabilities,” which observes that the number of children with disabilities covered under private insurance declined by about 10 percent during from 2000 to 2008, while public insurance coverage increased. The two main public health insurance programs are Medicaid and SCHIP (known since 2009 as the Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP). Nearly half of children with special health care needs who have insurance are covered by one of these two programs; 90 percent are enrolled in Medicaid, the other 10 percent in CHIP. These are among several programs that provide health services for children disabilities. As Child Trends points out, “children with disabilities who are insured get more timely and comprehensive care, and that their parents are more satisfied with their child’s health care than are parents of children with disabilities who lack insurance.”

Mark Stabile and Sara Allin, in their Future of Children chapter, “The Economic Costs of Childhood Disability,” calculate that the direct costs to families, the indirect costs through reduced labor supply, the direct costs to disabled children as they age into the labor force, and the costs of safety net programs for children with disabilities all together average $30,500 a year per family with a disabled child. They note that the cost estimates on which they base their calculation vary widely depending on the methodology, jurisdiction, and data used.

Regarding education advances, Future of Children’s Laudan Aron and Pamela Loprest point out in their article, “Disability and the Education System,” that the special education system has given children with disabilities much greater access to public education, established an infrastructure for educating them, helped with the earlier identification of disabilities, and promoted greater inclusion of these children alongside their nondisabled peers. Despite these advances, many problems remain, including the over- and under-identification of certain subgroups of students, delays in identifying and serving students, and bureaucratic, regulatory, and financial barriers that complicate the program for everyone involved.

Despite improvements in recognition, early intervention, diagnosis, and a range of treatment and intervention programs, significant social disparities persist. The negative implications for health care, dependency, and educational costs of a growing number of disabled children lend urgency to our efforts to better understand and address, this growing health, economic and social liability (Future of Children).

The Importance of Dads

Posted on by

In a recent New York Times letter to the editor, professor Sara McLanahan disputes how her research has recently been portrayed in the New York Times opinion pages.

Two recent opinion articles cite my research to support their claims that fathers aren’t necessary for a thriving household (“In Defense of Single Motherhood,” by Katie Roiphe, Aug. 12, and “Men, Who Needs Them?,” by Greg Hampikian, Aug. 25). That does not fairly describe my work.

Income security is very important. But fathers in most cases are critical contributors to family income. And income security is only half the story.

Emotional security — which children develop from living in stable families where they can form lasting relationships with adults who stick around for the long run — is also important. Stable homes with one parent are rare. More often in single-mother households, children meet, attach and then say goodbye to men who are only temporarily connected to the family.

Two parents committed to each other and to raising a child together are more likely to provide the economic and emotional security children need. That large numbers of fathers cannot provide economic and emotional security constitutes a serious social problem.

SARA McLANAHAN
Princeton, N.J., Aug. 28, 2012

Categories: Uncategorized

Growing Inequality for Single Parents

Posted on by

“As rates of nonmarital childbirth have increased in the United States in the past half-century, a new family type, the fragile family, has emerged. Fragile families, which are formed as the result of a nonmarital birth, include cohabiting couples as well as noncohabiting, single mothers. Such families evoke public concern in part because they are more impoverished and endure more material hardship than married-parent families and have fewer sources of economic support.” Future of Children: Fragile Families- “Mothers’ Economic Conditions and Sources of Support in Fragile Families”

Jason DeParle asserts in his article in the NY Times that changes in family structure have helped to broaden income gaps. Americans who are college educated are more likely to marry one another, which brings the advantage of higher dual-income earnings. Women who have not finished college or who are less educated are becoming less likely to marry at all. Not only do they have lower paychecks themselves when compared to the college-educated, but they also lack the advantages of dual-income.

As DeParle writes, “estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns–as opposed to changes in individual earnings–may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.”

In his Economic Inequality and the Changing Family blog, DeParle states, “Inequality has grown much faster for households with children than it has for households over all.” Future of Children editor-in-chief Sara McLanahan points out that, “the people with more education tend to have stable family structures with committed, involved fathers. The people with less education are more likely to have complex unstable situations involving men who come and go. I think this process is creating greater gaps in these children’s life chances.”

As DeParle points out, “No one has suggested that single parenthood is the sole or even main force driving the increases in inequality, just an important one that is sometimes overlooked. Had single parenthood not continued to increase, there would be less inequality now.”

Over all, it is important for policy makers to recognize that with rates of nonmarital childbirth at their current level, and potentially rising still, fragile families are likely an enduring fixture among U.S. families. It is thus essential to strengthen policies that both support their economic self-sufficiency and alleviate their hardship during inevitable times of economic distress. Future of Children: Fragile Families- “Mothers’ Economic Conditions and Sources of Support in Fragile Families”