Investing in Children: Ideas for Action

Introduction

Canada is undergoing significant change as a result of our adaptation to an increasingly competitive and knowledge-intensive global economy. With our economic and social environments shifting to meet the challenges of globalization and the technological revolution, Canada's economic growth and health as a society are dependent on our collective ability to prepare our children for the future

Nations that are successful in the future will place a high premium on knowledge and innovation, which in turn are dependent on human resources — children who are growing up now. Governments have a responsibility to work in combination with all parts of society to bring greater coherence to policies and programs to give children increased and equitable opportunities to achieve their potential. Canadians have long recognized that communities must be able to identify their own resources and develop their own strategies to improve environments for children. Better information on how children are doing and the results of our collective efforts is essential.

Longitudinal monitoring of the health and development of Canada's children is crucial for the construction of a society that is both competent and capable of coping with change. The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) will provide researchers and policy-makers with the insight necessary to form a supportive set of government policies and programs to ensure the healthy development of our children in the future.

Human Resources Development Canada presented findings from the first cycle of NLSCY research at its national conference, Investing in Children: A National Research Conference, held in Ottawa in October 1998. The objectives of the conference were to showcase the most recent NLSCY research on Canadian children and families, and to engage researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in discussion on the application of these findings to policy and program development. This report describes the ideas for action generated at the workshop discussions — but first some background.

Background and Objectives of the NLSCY

The NLSCY is a comprehensive, longitudinal survey designed to measure the development and well-being of Canada's children and youth, tracking a large sample of children into adulthood. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) directs the development of the content, coordinates, contracts and disseminates research and Statistics Canada collects, processes and distributes the data every two years. Researchers have the opportunity to monitor potential risk factors and protective factors, as well as the impact of these factors on the development of children over time. Findings based on analysis of the survey data are already being used to inform policy decisions and activities at all levels.

The primary objective of the NLSCY is to establish a national database on the characteristics and life experiences of children and youth in Canada as they grow from infancy to adulthood. The NLSCY examines a variety of factors influencing child growth and development and has three main goals:

To provide data to support longitudinal analysis on the prevalence of various biological, social and economic characteristics and risk factors among children and youth, including the environments in which they live, and to support diagnosis of reasons for poor outcomes and predictors for good outcomes;
To support the understanding of factors affecting child development and well-being and the way they influence child outcomes in Canada;
To provide this information to policy and program officials for use in developing effective policies and strategies to help young people follow healthy, active and rewarding life paths.

Prior to the NLSCY, an information gap existed regarding the characteristics and experiences of children in Canada, particularly during the earliest developmental stages. The NLSCY will eliminate this gap by providing a framework for understanding how Canada's children are developing. Within this framework researchers will be able to examine many questions about Canada's children that are unanswered.

The first cycle of data collection and analysis is complete and the findings have provided an informed view of how Canada's population of children is doing during the early stages of development, and what types of family and community factors are influencing their young lives. Still ahead are data to be collected in future cycles, which will make an even more valuable contribution. Longitudinal data will assist our understanding of the processes that modify risk and encourage children's healthy development over time. With these insights, policy-makers and researchers can develop effective strategies and programs to help children succeed in our changing society.

The Power of Longitudinal Data

Perhaps the most exciting quality of the NLSCY is its potential over time. To fully comprehend this potential it is important to examine the research findings that are available now, in light of its potential for the future. The NLSCY research from Cycle 1 is considered cross-sectional, meaning the data were collected from a sample of a population at a single point in time. The data provide a description of how children in Canada are faring at the time of data collection in 1994-1995. Because cross-sectional data are from a particular point in time, there can be no analysis of change over time or direct examination of causal relationships.

Data is considered longitudinal when it is collected from the same children at intervals over time. In the NLSCY, the same group of children and youth will be surveyed every two years into adulthood. This longitudinal format of data collection will allow for an examination of changes over time, and provides researchers with the information they need to clarify the sequence of factors leading to particular outcomes. With longitudinal data it will be possible to trace the movement of children through various family types and life circumstances making it possible to determine the longer-term effects of such factors as poverty and single-parenthood. The subject sample has been followed in Cycle 2 and the data are now been analyzed; Cycle 3 data are currently being collected.

Cycle 1 data were collected from a substantial representative sample of Canadian children (aged 0-11), and accurately reflect important characteristics of the population. Information was collected on 22,831 Canadian children from birth to 11 years of age. In each survey household, the “person most knowledgeable” (PMK) about the child/children, usually the mother, was interviewed to solicit information about the children and their families. Children aged 10 to 11 years were the oldest subjects included in the survey, and were also asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and opinions. School teachers and principals provided additional survey information.

The analyses of the data from such a large cohort provide good estimates of developmental trends and allow for an initial examination of many child development issues. These analyses provide insight into the lives of Canadian children and their environments. Cycle 1 data are a starting point and lay the groundwork for future investigation. There are many questions relating to child development which are optimally addressed using data that have been collected at different points in a child's life. Undoubtedly, the full potential of the data set will only be realized as future cycles are completed.

Investing in Children: A National Research Conference

The Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, the Honourable Pierre S. Pettigrew, delivered the opening address to an enthusiastic crowd of over 350 participants from municipalities and community organizations, non-governmental organizations, provincial/territorial governments, universities/colleges and federal government departments.

An international panel presenting child outcome research from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom was held during the opening session. Panel participants included: Elsa Ferri, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London, England; Robert Granger, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, United States; and Shelley Phipps, Department of Economics, Dalhousie University. The Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Secretary of State for Children and Youth chaired the session. Speakers shared their knowledge of child development research, identified lessons learned from their experiences, and made meaningful international comparisons across various aspects of research, policy, and practice in the child development field.

Participants also heard from other distinguished speakers during the 3-day conference. Professor Emmy Werner, author of the seminal study Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from Birth to Adulthood, shared the wisdom of her experience and the findings of her work, as the main investigator of a 40 year-old longitudinal survey of children and youth. She began by congratulating HRDC on undertaking the NLSCY, which she described as "extraordinary in scope, duration and implications, for both professionals and policy makers. " She went on to focus on the need to study risk and vulnerability along with resilience among children, and the healing effects of the passage of time, transitions to successive life-cycle stages, supportive and loving families, community participation and involvement, self-esteem, and a myriad of other internal and external protective factors. While positive and optimistic, she concluded by suggesting that ameliorating the future of Canada's children will take time and patience.

Best-selling author Sylvia Ann Hewlett of The War Against Parents, through her dynamic stories illustrating her innumerable encounters with parents, spoke of how we, as a society, need to understand the substantial social investment that is at the heart of parenting, and the importance of giving parents the value and support they need to raise their children. This effort she said must come from all levels of society, from broad public policies down to individual community initiatives, as it is not just parents but all of society who stand to benefit.

J. Douglas Willms spoke passionately on vulnerable children, reminding the audience that the number of children who are considered vulnerable, over 25% of children under the age of 12, and at risk of diminished life chances if not addressed, is unacceptably high and that “we must expect the best for children in Canada”.

In the closing plenary, J. Fraser Mustard provided a comprehensive synthesis of the conference findings, touching on several of the many important themes that were discussed at the conference. He stressed that brain development occurs largely before the age of five, although problems often do not appear for many years. A lack of intervention and prevention strategies for children leads to much higher social and economic costs later on. However, in Canada, we invest less financially in the early years than in the later years. Mustard urged Canadians to demonstrate to the government the importance of investing early in children not only because of social good that this does — but the economic payoff is equally large.

Dr. Mustard urged that “policies and programs should be targeted at all of society and not just targeted groups to avoid creating an 'us versus them' mentality. Parenting is what matters, argued Dr. Mustard, relying heavily on NLSCY research outcomes — and parents have a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. We need to encourage the federal government to support all parents through more parent education programs, parental leave, and to support early child development programs that involve the cooperation of parents”.

The main working part of the conference was a series of eight workshops where the research papers were presented and discussions on the application of the findings took place. A total of 28 papers were presented. Papers were grouped under the workshop headings of family structure, parenting and work, school, community influences, child health, vulnerable populations, childhood experiences, and problem behaviour.

The workshop format consisted of:

brief presentations by the researchers on their findings, followed by comments on the potential application of the results by both a policy specialist and a practitioner with expertise relevant to the research area; and
participant responses to prepared workshop questions designed to stimulate discussion and identify issues raised by the research findings.

The workshop design was intended to encourage participants to draw upon their professional experiences, and generate ideas on how the information presented could be put into practice and guide policy. Representatives from various child-focused non-profit organizations and others were tasked with recording the workshop interaction. Workshop reporters were invited to include the perspective of their organization on the workshop topic in their summary.

The conference provided a unique platform for discussion by bringing together individuals from diverse backgrounds, often people who would not otherwise have first hand access to the research findings were given an opportunity to hear about it directly and respond. Ideas for Action is a reflection of the responses from the conference participants who actively participated in the workshop sessions.

Chapter Overview

Papers presented at the conference were based on findings from analysis of the first cycle of NLSCY data that was collected in 1994-1995. Papers were commissioned by HRDC from academic researchers, consultants, non-government organizations and other experts. The papers presented within each workshop encompassed a wide spectrum of topics relating to Canadian children and youth.

Each chapter is divided into four sections including a statement of the question, a short summary of the research presented, ideas for action based on the workshop discussion, and a conclusion which identifies future direction for policy and program development, and community-level action. The input and views expressed during the workshops were consolidated into each chapter, making Ideas for Action a compendium of the excellent ideas generated by conference participants.

The following sections summarize the key research findings and offer a synopsis of the ideas for action presented at each of the workshops.

Workshop 1: Family Structures

The NLSCY has provided a mass of data on lone-parent families. It confirms the general impression that children from these families fare less well than children from intact two-parent families; they are apt to have more health problems and poorer social and motor development. Children of single mothers are particularly at risk, especially if the mothers exhibit ineffective parenting behaviour. The question remains: Is lone-parenthood itself the cause of these problems, or do they result from a constellation of problems associated with lone parenthood (e. g. , poverty, parental stress, and instability)? The NLSCY also confirms that the number of two-parent families is declining relative to never-married, common-law, post-marital breakdown, or reconstituted families. Children in these families may lose touch with the non-resident parent, usually the father. It appears that the type of custody arrangements that parents arrange after a marital breakdown (one-parent custody vs. joint custody) makes no significant difference to children's outcome.

Participants called for skills-building initiatives for parents, especially home visits to new mothers. Families undergoing breakup need both social and financial support during the crisis, and parents should ensure that children are protected as much as possible from the emotional fallout. Targeted aid should be directed to lone parents with special-needs or severely ill children, and for children who lose one or both parents to severely traumatic events.

The NLSCY provides good news, as well: most single parents are doing a good job of raising their children, and most children of lone-parent families show no problems. Many thought these results should to be communicated to the public. A need was also expressed for research to determine why, in fact, so many lone parents are doing so well, and to examine the causes of ineffective parenting. Such research should involve parents and practitioners, as well as academics.

Workshop 2: Parenting and Work

Parents often find it difficult to balance family and work. The NLSCY asked a number of questions relating to this topic. Researchers found that maternal employment does not, in itself, affect the cognitive outcomes of 4- and 5-year-old children. What does affect children's outcomes is the degree of parental engagement. Parenting style and maternal employment seem to be unrelated. What matters most is the quality of time parents spend with their children. Reading together, the survey showed, is the single most important contribution parents can make to their children's education.

Child care is a necessity for parents who work or study outside the home. Much concern has focused on the quality of care: do different kinds of care — regulated day-care centres, home-based caregiving, or sitters/nannies — have different effects on child outcomes? One substantial difference is that child care outside the home seems to have positive effects for children of low-income families. These children have better vocabulary skills than children who are cared for at home or who are not in day care at all. Regulated care is more beneficial for children than non-regulated care, and these benefits are greater for low-income households.

Participants called for supplemental income for parents to compensate parents who stay home with their children, through tax credits or income supports, and for policies to help parents balance employment and parenting roles. Quality of employment is important. Workplaces should establish family-friendly employment practices, a change that could benefit employers as well as families.

Workshop 3: School

Children's educational performance depends on factors outside the schoolroom as well as within: personal and parental attitudes, neighbourhood factors, and life changes such as puberty. Children from unsafe, non-cohesive, or low-income neighbourhoods are less apt to be ready for school at age 4-5 than children from higher-income, more cohesive neighbourhoods. Children's educational outcomes depend on the child's personal characteristics, but family factors and socio-economic status have a profound influence: children from low-income, highly stressed families are less apt to succeed in school. Finally, pubescent girls are more apt than boys of the same age to have positive attitudes towards school; boys need more support.

Participants argued that an integrated approach to schooling, based on better research, is a priority. Schools should develop closer ties to students' parents, to the community at large, and to other educators, who can share “best practices”. Workplaces should make allowances for parents' need to be involved in school activities. Ways need to be found to rebuild social cohesion in neighbourhoods and to support low-income families. High-quality child care would help children prepare to enter school. Finally, boys' alienation from school must be addressed.

Workshop 4: Community Influences

As noted above, neighbourhood quality has a considerable impact on child outcomes, although it has less effect than family characteristics. Certain neighbourhoods have a high proportion of low-income lone-parent families, and children from these neighbourhoods are more apt to show emotional and behavioural problems and poor school achievement. We need stable, safe, inclusive neighbourhoods where children can grow up with a sense of security and belonging.

Repeated household moves also have a negative effect on children, weakening their attachment of school, church, and community, and stressing their parents. These moves often result either from families' search for low-cost housing or from family instability. Policies to support affordable housing and to stabilize neighbourhoods was seen as important, as was a better balance between workplace mobility and family stability. Children who undergo frequent moves need special support.

Researchers also found that sport, arts, and community programs often fail to reach the children who need them most — children from low-income families. These children may not be able to afford to participate or may face more subtle barriers, such as gender, immigrant status, or special needs. Cuts to school programs and public housing programs effectively debar many low-income children from the programs they need to develop their potential — programs that have known long-term benefits.

Workshop 5: Health

The workshop focussed on four issues: gender and health; the health of immigrant children; access to universal health care; and smoking and alcohol consumption in pregnancy. In general, boys and girls are equally healthy, although boys seem more likely to exhibit problem behaviour. We need additional research to determine what fosters resilience in children; we also need to learn more about how gender affects boys' lives. Parents need practical information on this aspect of parenting.

Immigrant children generally are in excellent health. Refugee children present special health and emotional problems. Immigrant families need timely, accessible, and culturally appropriate services. Ethnic and community organizations are key players in providing services.

Children from low-income families report more health problems, and these problems vary somewhat with region of residence. To break the cycle of disadvantage, we need to link health data directly with policy and practice and to monitor health care access and health outcomes.

Alcohol use can lead to significant damage to the developing fetus, and mothers who smoke tend to have low-birth-weight babies. Pregnant women are still smoking and drinking during pregnancy, especially low-income, young, and single mothers. Anti-smoking programs should be specifically targeted to young women and should focus on “best practices” — what actually works to discourage them from smoking. Similarly, we need more effective strategies to counter drinking during pregnancy. Pregnant women — especially first-time mothers — need to access prenatal care as early as possible. We should target prenatal health education programs from childhood on.

Workshop 6: Problem Behaviour

Bullying is a serious problem among children, with long-term consequences for both bullies and their victims. Children who bully are often involved in other aggressive or antisocial behaviour. These children often come from families under stress — families with low income, low status, and higher unemployment rates. Their victims also come from families where aggression and conflict are a problem.

Aggressive children have a negative view of themselves and those around them. They tend to be solitary and unhappy, and their school performance is lower than non-aggressive children. More boys than girls are aggressive, but aggression among girls is increasing. The NLSCY should help determine whether these children are more likely than non-aggressive children to get into trouble with the law as they grow up.

These children need early intervention, since aggression is grounded in very early childhood experiences. Good preschool programs can have a marked effect in decreasing the rate of delinquency. Programs to teach parenting skills and to foster parents' understanding of child development would help prevent the development of aggression in children. Parents also need support to deal with the social and economic stresses in their lives. Interventions should be both universal, fostering the development of all children, and targeted to identify and help at-risk children. The approach should be coordinated across sectors and disciplines, involving schools, communities, and all levels of government. It should be based on solid research and policy. Finally, participants emphasized the need to involve children themselves in solving the problem of aggression.

Workshop 7: Childhood Experiences

Adverse conditions can compromise children's development and give rise to behavioural and emotional problems. Some of these conditions include hunger, maternal heavy drinking, or frequent disruptions of care arrangements, residence, or school.

Hunger affects both those on social assistance and the working poor — some 57,000 families a year. Simply increasing their income would help, but these families also need interventions to help them learn to make the most of their food dollars. These children need school meal programs. In addition to community resources on nutrition, home visits, and support for pregnant mothers, participants stressed the importance of encouraging breast-feeding of infants.

Children of mothers who drink heavily show a range of behavioural and emotional problems. More research is needed into how to reach problem drinkers and to increase public awareness of the problem. Frequent changes in care arrangement, residence, and school not only disrupt children's lives; they lead to a loss of the relationships that help protect them from the effects of stress. Children undergoing this disruption need special support.

Nonetheless, some children seem to be able to survive adversity without developing serious problems, simply because they are more resilient — a phenomenon that needs more study. Many argued for more research into the problems faced by single mothers and how they can best be helped to cope more effectively.

Workshop 8: Vulnerable Children

Some children are at particular risk, growing up under adverse conditions that leave them more vulnerable to behavioural and emotional problems. Researchers examined the effect of multiple risk factors on child outcomes. These risks include lone-parent family, teen-parent family, parental depression, poorly educated parent(s), low-income family, and family dysfunction. As the number of risk factors rises, so does the probability of the child exhibiting problem behaviour. These children need identification and early intervention, and their families need targeted support.

Some children under stress cope remarkably well. Good sibling, teacher, and friendship relationships can have a protective effect for these children. New immigrant children also fare better than mainstream Canadian children facing equivalent stress levels. The difference may be that for immigrant families, adversity is a typical part of establishing themselves in Canada, not a permanent or cyclical state, i. e. , hope heals.

Contents