Investing in Children: Ideas for Action

Workshop 4: Community Influences

Reporting organization:	Laidlaw Foundation
Workshop Chair:	Jean-Pierre Voyer Human Resources Development Canada
Presenters:	Michael H. Boyle Centre for Studies of Children at Risk Chedoke-McMaster Hospital David DeWit Social Evaluation and Research Department Addiction Research Foundation Yvonne Racine Centre for Studies of Children at Risk Chedoke-McMaster Hospital
Commentators:	Kathy Flanagan-Rochon Health and Social Services, Government of PEI Leslie McDiarmid Better Beginnings, Ottawa

4.1 The Issue

Although in theory, we know that children's surroundings are important to their well-being, the influence of neighbourhood on child development has received less attention than individual, child and family characteristics. Yet it is clear that moving from one community to another can affect child development and even cause behaviour problems, by weakening the child's emotional attachment to school, church, and community.

We also know that an enriching environment and a wide range of experiences furthers child development. Unfortunately, many children lack such supportive environments; children who most need sports, arts, and community programs are often the ones least likely to get them.

Some neighbourhoods have a high proportion of children with problems. This may result from the neighbourhood's own inadequacies or from a higher-than-normal concentration in the neighbourhood of families with multiple problems. Though the causal relationships are not clear, it is likely that both of these contribute to the problems. Regardless of the source, these neighbourhoods need resource allocation and policy interventions.

We need to answer some key questions:

• What can be done to make communities better places to raise children? Who are the key players? How can they work together?
• How can we provide stability and consistency in children's lives, as well as healthy variation and stimulation in schools and neighbourhoods? What role should professionals take? The family? Social institutions?
• How can we affirm the role of culture and recreation in child development? What policies and programs could help ensure that all children have a chance to excel, to express themselves, and to reach their full potential?

4.2 Workshop Themes

Presenters focussed on the following areas:

• The effects of neighbourhood on child development (presenter: Michael Boyle);
• The effects of moving on child behaviour (presenter: David DeWit); and
• Children's participation in sports, the arts, and community programs (presenter: Yvonne Racine).

A. The effects of neighbourhood on child development

In “Do Places Matter?”, Michael Boyle and Ellen Lipman examine NLSCY data to explore whether the neighbourhood in which a child lives may affect the child's development, adjustment, and outcomes. The study aims to answer the question: which influences childhood behaviour more strongly: the characteristics of the child's family (e. g. , household poverty) or the characteristics of the child's neighbourhood (e. g. , the proportion of families in the neighbourhood who live in poverty or are lone-parent families)?

In spite of strong theoretical arguments that children's surroundings are important, the influence of neighbourhood has been studied less frequently than individual, child and family characteristics and peer group pathology. For example, several studies have found that children living in low-income families with poorly educated parents tend to exhibit a higher prevalence of emotional problems, poor academic achievement, and behavioural problems.

Boyle and Lipman's study concluded that the strongest predictors of child problem behaviour were: lone-parent family status, low socio-economic status (income, level of education of respondent and partner, prestige associated with occupation of the respondent and partner) and the concentration of lone parents in the neighbourhood. The researchers found that the characteristics of the neighbourhood by itself seemed to have less relationship to child outcomes. Characteristics of the family and the child account for more variation than do neighbourhood characteristics.

The authors conclude that programs aimed strictly at addressing socio-economic deficits may have limited impact on the behavioural outcomes among children. Remedial programs should focus on families, not neighbourhoods, and should target lone-parent families in particular.

B. The effects of moving on child behaviour

In “What Does Moving Do To Your Children?”, David DeWit, Dan Offord, and Kathy Braun explore the relationship between household moves and children's behaviour, using Social Control Theory (Hirschi, 1969) as an explanatory framework. Social Control Theory (also called Social Bonding Theory) posits that problem behaviours occur when a child's attachments to important agents of socialization (or social control) are disrupted or broken.

The DeWit, Offord, and Braun study hypothesized that frequent and recent household moves increase the likelihood of problem behaviour among children, by weakening their parents' ability to supervise and discipline them and by disrupting their attachments to family, school, church and community. Identifying the mechanisms by which relocation influences childhood behaviour would allow us to develop effective school and community programs to deal with these children.

The study found that frequent geographic moves had a negative impact on a wide range of behavioural outcomes for all groups, except for children who exhibited anti-social behaviour. Compared with non-movers, children who had moved three or more times in their life experienced a two- to threefold increase in the risk of childhood problem behaviours. On the other hand, children who had moved only once or twice showed almost no difference in risk. If the move was recent, children were apt to have fewer significant relationships. Frequent moves were, however, less important to problem behaviour than factors such as living arrangements, family socio-economic status, and the nature of the neighbourhood.

Overall, multiple moves weaken children's attachments to family and school, and this in turn heightens the risk of behavioural problems. These results tend to support the common view that frequent moving intensifies risk factors that already exist in the family. An alternative explanation is that frequent family moves are simply a “marker” for highly stressed or dysfunctional families. (Of course, some families relocate frequently because the parents' work or profession involves high mobility; the armed forces are a case in point. )

The study suggests the need to revise mental and physical health screening and intake forms to include questions on family relocation history, and to provide treatment and prevention programs for at-risk children.

C. Children's Participation in Sports, the Arts, and Community Programs

In “Which Children Don't Participate in Sports, the Arts and Community Programs?”, Dan Offord, Ellen Lipman, and Eric Duku found that these activities fail to reach large numbers of children. Over two-thirds of children aged 6 to 8, were reported to have “almost never” participated in programs in the past year. With the exception of the arts, girls were less apt to participate in these programs than boys were. Because the data are cross-sectional, the study could not establish causal inferences between the rate of low participation in sports, the arts and recreation programs and the rate of child psychosocial problems.

In general the children who need these programs the most are the ones least likely to get them. Rates of participation vary directly with income level: the very poor were most likely to report that children “almost never participate” in these activities, while the well-off were most likely to be involved. Current municipal preoccupations with finances mean that all too often, programs are targeted to children and families that are the easiest to reach. The authors doubt that municipal recreation has the will to get things right for socially and economically disadvantaged children. They call for community-based voluntary organizations to work with high-risk children and their families.

If we agree that children benefit from participating in sports, the arts and community programs, then unequal participation rates in different subgroups of children should be a concern. Initiatives in sports, arts and community programs should be judged by their ability to attract high-risk children, particularly children from poor families. Universality in sports, the arts and community programs must have three characteristics: equal access, equal participation, and equitable outcomes. Such programs need to be monitored to determine their outcomes. In addition, we need further studies to determine how to reach high-risk groups.

4.3 Ideas for Action

Presenters and participants both expressed strong concern about the limitations of the preliminary data presented at this session on community influences. Cross-sectional analysis of the data suggested that none of the factors in question — quality of neighbourhoods, family socioeconomic status, or number and recency of moves — could adequately explain poor outcomes for children. Participants firmly expressed the requirement that programs and policies be based on Canadian values of social and economic justice.

Making a neighbourhood a good place to raise children requires both motivation and resources. It is comparatively easy to identify neighbourhoods with lower-than-average resources and income and higher-than-average numbers of lone-parent families, especially mother-led single-parent households. Low-income families and neighbourhoods have been hit hard by cuts to disposable income and services, as earnings have decreased and government income transfers have been slashed. What is particularly distressing is the lack of public outcry, as the poor and marginalized are abandoned to advocate on their own behalf.

Participants identified the following ideas for research, program and policy action:

• accessibility to stable, affordable housing;
• overcoming barriers to recreational programs; and
• mobilizing communities and neighbourhood stabilization

A. Accessibility to Stable Affordable Housing

Community workers dealing with families in social/public and rental housing report that frequent household moves are often associated with the following factors:

• the family's inability to pay rent;
• out-of-home foster care placement;
• domestic violence;
• loss of primary caregiver due to illness or death;
• marital separation and divorce;
• parent's new job; or
• school expulsion

Many participants did not find it surprising that low-income lone parent families tend to concentrate in certain areas. An effective intergovernmental social housing policy, involving the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, could help create more mixed income neighbourhoods. In Ottawa, for example, subsidized housing is distributed throughout the city and single-parent households are not concentrated in large blocks.

Many participants noted a contradiction between government policies that claim a commitment to children's well-being and the lack of any policy to provide accessible, affordable permanent housing for low- and moderate-income families. Between 1993 and 1996, urban poverty has risen sharply. In Edmonton, the Food Bank reports that 73% of its users are paying more for accommodation than they receive in shelter allowance and that 56% do not have a telephone. Moreover, in recent years the responsibility for social and public housing has shifted to the provinces/territories and municipalities. The result has been an increased burden of suffering for children. We need federal initiatives to support co-op housing, which has a wide and well-established record of building and revitalising community.

School closings have a profound effect on urban neighbourhoods. A neighbourhood's school is a physical centre, a hub from which a variety of programs and services can be extended. Schools must not be limited to a single user group. Continued public support for public education is also critical to the preservation of neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood stability matters. Neighbourhoods with low turnover and stable tenancies also show more stakeholder commitment to neighbourhood security and social development. The sense of safety and security in turn stabilizes households and reduces family stress. Low income and immigrant residents need to be educated about their rights as tenants. Residents who see themselves as long-term tenants or householders are more likely to establish relationships with neighbours and take an interest in the well-being of neighbourhood children.

On the other hand, families that are constantly uprooted are likely to fail to set roots in their communities, for fear of being uprooted again, or simply because they are so stressed that they have little energy to invest. They are unlikely to commit to neighbourhood and community development.

In a dynamic labour market people are changing jobs all the time and therefore moving on a regular basis. Governments encourage mobility, particularly in response to high regional unemployment. Families are not given much choice. An apparent conflict would seem to exist between national and regional labour market and child best-interest strategies. An example: in rural areas of Alberta, where job opportunities are scarce, local authorities have threatened to reduce or stop benefits to families receiving social assistance. Many of these families have been forced to move to the cities and live a transient life, with little stability and few connections.

It is important that we recognise the costs and penalties to children of a labour market that emphasises mobility. Children's interests are rarely factored into cost-benefit analyses of labour market strategies. Mobility weakens social control and bonding for children. Can we quantify the burden of suffering and the cost of remediation to assist children and families with the difficulties associated with moving?

While multiple moves are characteristic of military life, most military housing and facilities are at least standardized and the military recognizes the problems and provides support for families. Family resource centres work actively to help families with their move. Support for relocating families helps parents find out what resources (e. g. resource centres and referral agencies) exist in the new community before they move. Children have an opportunity to ask concrete questions. The literature suggests that there are still high rates of mental health problems associated with moving, but that the burden of suffering on the children and youth is reduced through outreach, sensible planning, and pre-move visits. Some research has been done on the impacts of programs for children of transferred executives. Most of this information is anecdotal and results are mixed.

Some moves are especially traumatic to children, for example moving as the result of family violence, family breakup, or the arrival of a new sibling or family member. Frequent or long-distance moves are more disruptive, but short-distance moves may be the result of family breakup or a job change. The effects of moving also vary with age: children under seven and adolescents are particularly vulnerable.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is engaged in a family violence program to provide shelter enhancements for victims of family violence. Shelters are being located closer to neighbourhoods to reduce disruption for family and child networks. Transportation arrangements/subsidies must also be considered to enable children to stay in the same school.

The frequency of moves and the resulting harm to children in foster and group care who are being shunted about must be addressed. Children who have been abused tend to be moved around more frequently in the care system and are more likely to demonstrate academic underachievement. Our most vulnerable children are often forced to relocate to new schools with some frequency. Open boundaries for school registration on a city-wide basis would offer greater stability to children and youth bounced from placement to placement. Children who are placed in care also need to retain links to their communities of origin.

The NLSCY did not survey children on reserve, and in general, Aboriginal children are underrepresented in the survey. Sixty percent of aboriginal children do not live on reserves. Native Friendship Centres are thought to be doing a good job in helping Aboriginal households with their resettlement in the urban community. But there is no information on how many urban Aboriginal families and children turn to Friendship Centres for support.

B. Overcoming Barriers to Recreational Programs

Participants drafted the following declaration: “Each child must be given multiple opportunities to shine, to express him/herself, to demonstrate competence. Children must be given the opportunity to develop their innate talents and potential in non-school settings. Accessible cultural and recreational opportunities should be a universal entitlement for all Canadian children. ”

Children from low-income families face a formidable list of barriers to their participation in sports, arts, and community programs: registration fees, the cost of sports equipment, materials and uniforms, the lack of private transportation and the costs and difficulties of public transportation (when it exists). In addition, gender, immigrant status, and physical and mental disabilities can restrict children's involvement. Working parents may be unable to take time off to transport children to activities. Parents who do not feel that they are part of the community are less likely to encourage their child's participation in community programs.

Public schools which previously provided universal access to all children have cut back their sports, cultural and recreation programs. Participants felt very strongly that these policies need to be reversed. Schools are a site of children's attachment. Activities need to be child-centred. Programs must offer more than skill development.

Broad recreation policy is generally set at the provincial level, yet it is the municipalities that determine the recreation programs offered in their own communities. Participants noted that in the past year in Ontario, the devolution of public housing to municipalities has resulted in significant cuts to recreation budgets in public housing. These programs had been supported by the provincial housing ministry. In Toronto, the municipal recreation department has not picked up these costs. While these budgets have been slashed, the city has found money to increase the number of security staff in public housing projects.

The Toronto City Council is currently reviewing recreation user fees in an effort to harmonize fees across the recently amalgamated municipality. Instead of beginning with a broad social development plan, one that would put recreation in its human and social development context and assure broad accessibility and stability, the city has opted to focus on revenue flows from user fees. Fees from permits or increases to the property tax base are not being discussed. In taking this approach the Council acts contrary to Dr. Dan Offord's findings.

According to Offord, municipal recreation programs generally do not report to the public on access and participation rates. Nor do they seem to be interested in equality of outcomes. For example, the former City of Toronto, with its “no recreation fees” policy, collected the municipal addresses of recreation users at registration yet did not undertake any analysis of the postal codes to assess who is participating. Outreach efforts are generally not evaluated.

User fees charged by municipalities in Ontario could probably be eliminated by a provincial transfer to municipalities of under $140 million. Instead the Ontario Government recently made a commitment to allocate $100 million annually, a relatively small percentage of the revenues from gaming, to the Trillium Foundation to disburse in the areas of building community capacity in social development, the environment, the arts and recreation.

Participants asked whether municipal recreation programs should be universal or targeted to the so-called “at risk”? Does this make for programs that are segregated or judgmental? Participation depends on a sense of inclusion. Labelling children “at risk” in order to get access to subsidies decreases their self-esteem. No one wants a handout. On the other hand, young people themselves often use blunt labelling language to describe the social divisions within a neighbourhood, assigning other youth to various social categories (e. g. , hicks, jocks, nerds, dirty people, skids, etc. )

Many YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs have successfully used youth workers to connect with disaffected youth. Youth are given opportunities to increase personal sense of pride. Continuity of funding and staff has contributed to the positive outcomes. One identified outcome to date has been a reduction in vandalism in these communities.

“When children participate and gain skills in the sports and the arts, not only is their present life quality enriched, but there appear to be long term benefits extending into adult life. ” We need to ensure that programs are of a high quality, tied to child development goals and strategies and are attractive to all children and young people. A national promotion campaign featuring star athletes and artists endorsing the joy of sports and the arts should be considered.

C. Mobilizing Communities for Healthy Families and Children

What is a good neighbourhood? A good neighbourhood is one in which neighbours know one another, recognise and care about other families, and connect to families with children. Good neighbourhoods provide children with such necessary blessings as good schools with caring teachers, varied and accessible recreational opportunities, and people who are ready to volunteer.

A good neighbourhood has well-maintained parks and safe space for both active and passive play. It has architecture on a human scale that encourages people to engage in front- and back-porch socializing. Its streetscapes are physically appealing, comfortable, and safe to walk. Studies have shown that in New York neighbourhoods that had undergone major property rehabilitation and an increase in neighbourhood security, the homicide rate dropped.

A good neighbourhood is outreaching and inclusive. Schools and parent associations need to make a particular effort to reach families who have recently moved into the neighbourhood. Neighbourhood organizations need to understand and accommodate parents (many of them low-income) who cannot come out to public meetings because they cannot afford to take time off work. Such a neighbourhood focuses on building connections between individuals (particularly for new residents and young people), families and groups rather than on making referrals. It recognises that it is not families and children that are hard to reach. It is often the services that are inaccessible.

Intergenerational activity and reciprocity is one mark of a good neighbourhood. One example that was cited was PROJECT L. O. V. E. (Let Older Volunteers Educate), a program in which seniors provide children with 5-10 minutes of reading support on a regular and sustained basis.

We need to create environments where children are valued. The community must find the means to engage everyone in the community, including all public systems players, in order to improve children's futures. Schools should work harder at keeping children in school by identifying what each child is good at. The number of school expulsions must be reduced.

Bedroom communities outside large urban areas often lack any real community infrastructure, and young people have too little to do. Special youth advisory councils are needed to identify ways of developing civic neighbourhoods. Youth should be encouraged to come together to identify issues and barriers and propose solutions. For example, at Sudbury's Better Beginnings site, young people created a wall of helping hands and placed it in a local park. This activity helped to build spirit and a sense of ownership by the local youth and has led to the creation of a Youth Advisory Council.

Family resource centres/networks have demonstrated that they can play an important role supporting families who are new to the neighbourhood. Family Resource Centres need to be actively promoted and to receive on-going public support. For example, a network of community resource (health) centres exists in Ottawa. Community organizers from each centre go out into the community, working with residents to identify issues, build networks, and address social concerns.

Participants recounted lessons they had learned from the Healthy Communities Movement. Each Healthy Community had to work at making its neighbourhood friendlier. What works? Storytelling was one way to engage children and young people. People who make a difference to the neighbourhood, identified through an open nomination process, were celebrated and recognized.

Individual municipalities have examples to offer. Montreal's 1-2-3 GO program, supported by Centre-Aide and other funding partners, promotes the wellbeing of children. In 1-2-3 GO, neighbourhoods mobilize the whole community to provide children with a caring environment. Local parents and residents establish programs using whatever skills they can bring to bear. The community works to identify and make people aware of child development values. Children come to learn that people care about them.

In Vancouver, the community development of neighbourhoods has been decentralized. In some communities, business organizations have become partners with local social organizations and have promoted neighbourhood activity, although in other neighbourhoods businesses have not been engaged.

A former municipal councillor identified ways to approach municipalities to get these concerns heard. Interested parties should contact:

• the Federation of Canadian Municipalities;
• municipal associations in each province;
• the Healthy Communities Network; and
• public housing authorities.

4.4 Conclusion

A. Accessibility to Stable Affordable Housing

Affordable housing is a critical public policy issue. But federal and provincial governments however have stopped funding social housing. Private market accommodation tends to be more expensive and of poorer quality and offers less security than subsidized non-profit housing. The Progress of Canada's Children 1998 reports that more young and lone-parent families feel vulnerable to housing problems. The federal government must provide national leadership if we are to meet our international obligations.

B. Barriers to Recreation

Canada is failing to provide healthy environments for all of Canada's children. Extracurricular and non-school activities are not really “extras” but the keys to keeping a young person motivated and interested in school activities (Search Institute). Recreation promotes healthy development, physical and mental health, resiliency, and a sense of involvement and self-worth.

Youth serving organizations can be critical to young adolescents learning the skills and developing the confidence they need to enter the adult world. While a community cannot compensate completely for a lack of a young person's personal assets, it can - and does -have a positive impact on those youth who are most lacking the kinds of internal and family supports that nurture healthy development. ” (Carnegie Corporation)

Yet by imposing user fees and failing to reach out to the groups that most need these programs, municipal governments are turning away the very children and youth that these programs are so well equipped to serve.

Several policy-research and program interventions HRDC might consider:

• We need comprehensive surveys to assess opportunities (types of recreation and their availability), participation, costs, and other factors affecting accessibility to active physical activity, including sports, dance, outdoor activities, etc.
• More youth are holding down part-time jobs and parents are working longer hours. What are the implications for recreation programming? Are these trends having a deleterious affect on participation rates for some groups?
• An alarming decline in physical activity among children and youth has been reported in recent national health surveys. Two-thirds of Canadian children are not physically active enough. Television, video games, movies, and the new information technology are likely to make the situation worse.
• Very little research has been done in Canada on the effects of participation in informal and organized recreation.⁴ We need to determine the effects of these activities on attitudes and habits of effective citizenship. Do they, in fact, help instil tolerance and appreciation of others, self-discipline and commitment to education?
• We tend to see arts programs for children as a frill. Yet imagination, inspiration, creativity and ambition are essential skills for today's workplace. Arts programs promote cognitive development, alternate ways of thinking, and students' motivation and engagement in school. Music and dance performances help create a team spirit and social bonds.⁵ A recent U. S. study⁶ shows that student involvement in the arts is linked to higher academic performance, increased standardized test scores, more community service, and lower drop-out rates, regardless of the economic status of the students surveyed. A similar survey should be carried out in Canada.

C. Mobility and Family Instability

Having to pay too much of their income for housing, coupled with employment insecurity, put many families under acute stress. Combine this problem with changes in family structure resulting from separation or divorce and it is hardly surprising that many families must keep moving household.

A recent U. S. study⁷ concluded that disruptive events during the high school years (e. g. , family breakdowns or changing schools) affected school attendance and participation in the short term and college entry in the long run. Children and youth who undergo these experiences need to be helped to stay engaged and active in school. They may need more help with the costs of post-secondary education. A similar study might be conducted by the NLSCY in future.

Labour market mobility is a cornerstone of Canada's macro-economic development. Wealth creation, competitiveness, manpower training, trade, attraction of foreign investment, and the portability of employment insurance, health care insurance and social assistance are all elements of this policy. This trend fails to take into account children's need for stability, security, and continuity in their daily lives. The NLSCY should explore this issue further.

D. Mobilizing Communities for Healthy Families and Children

We know that consistent, stable, and caring relationships with adult figures, both inside and outside the family, and close peer relationships are major protective factors for children and youth (Jenkins/Keating). Schoolchildren are not autonomous. They need to be supported and given opportunities to form and maintain lasting relationships. Sports, arts and recreational programs give them a chance to build and maintain lasting, healthy peer relationships. These programs rely on such sites as community schools, playgrounds and parks. Budget-cutting measures like closing neighbourhood schools not only cripple these programs, but put stress on community cohesion. Extracurricular activities are not universally available, nor are they compulsory in provincial school systems. Local government and non-profit structures cannot offer this kind of programming during non-school hours.

Neighbourhood safety and security is critically important. The theme of a recent meeting of North American Police Chiefs of large urban communities was “Fight Crime — Invest in Kids. ” Community safety councils throughout North America have made it clear that one of the most important ways to address the root causes of crime at the neighbourhood level is to provide social and recreational programs, especially for young people and other high-risk groups. A recent Toronto Task Force on Community Safety reported:

The hallmark of parks and recreation programs must be accessibility, potential to reduce social distance between groups, cultural appropriateness, and effective collaboration. Accessibility must include the need for programs to be financially accessible to those members of our communities most at risk, the need for facilities and programs to be accessible to those with disabilities and differing levels of independence, and the need for programs to be geographically accessible to those most in need.

HRDC should look for opportunities to work with the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, The National Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Canadian Recreation Association, in order to document and evaluate best models of practice.

---

⁴ Bruce Kidd and Peter Donnelly, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, U. Toronto

⁵ Ontario Arts Council, 1997. “Making the Case for Arts Education. " Toronto.

⁶ James Catterall, 1998. “Involvement in the Arts and Success in Secondary School,” Americans for the Arts

⁷ University of Wisconsin at Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1998. “Disruptive Events During High School Years and Educational Attainment. ”

Previous

Contents

Next