Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Overcoming Adversity
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A March 29 COSSA breakfast seminar, Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Overcoming Adversity, brought three leading social scientists to Capitol Hill to discuss their research findings before an audience of 60 congressional and federal agency staff and others.
Emmy E. Werner, Research Professor in Child Development at the University of California, Davis, summarized the findings of a 40-year study that followed a multi-ethnic cohort born in 1955 on the island of Kauai of Hawaii. The subjects generally faced multiple biological, social, and economic risk factors. Two-thirds of this group developed criminal or mental health problems, but she said that what surprised her was that one-third did not, despite the adversity. According to Werner, those in that one-third were characterized by: an affectionate, outgoing temperament, a recruiting of others in the community to help them move forward, good reading skills, and qualities and activities “that brought them solace in life” and friends and self-esteem. They were also affected by protective factors and interventions, such as: sibling spacing that provides for a period of greater attention, and extended family providing positive guidance, the opportunities to care for other family members in need, and teachers and others in the community serving as mentors.
Of the group that developed problems, Werner said that nearly all stabilized over time. Over ninety percent of school dropouts later achieved a high school diploma or GED. Teenage mothers ended up with a similar amount of children as those whose child-rearing started later. According to Werner, the policy implication of these findings is that “the dire predictions about the fate of delinquents and teenage mothers simply do not come true.” Werner concluded by calling for greater research and evaluation on programs that foster resiliency and policies that provide effective intervention and prevention program for at-risk-youth.
Unraveling Contexts Important
Suzanne M. Randolph, Associate Professor in the Department of Family Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, discussed the challenges facing research and evaluation on resiliency. Randolph based her remarks on her experience coordinating a Howard University study that followed 100 full-term and pre-term African-American infants and their families from birth to age three. She said that when examining risk and protective factors, one finds they often are “inextricably tied to mothers.” The challenge for researchers, she said, is to unravel the contexts in which these factors exist. With large contextual variables, such as poverty, it is difficult to single out a particular adverse circumstance.
For many African-American families, Randolph said, a protective factor is attributing their adversity to institutional racism. Mothers who perceive that their situation results from racism have higher psychological well-being and seem better off than those who blame themselves, she said. Randolph commented that institutional racism should be more strongly considered in research and evaluation on resiliency. She said that religiosity among African-American families is also a strong factor, but that the context should be more broadly defined to encompass a broader range of activities. Another research challenge she cited was the child’s temperament,which she said is a “tricky kind of research problem” because it is significantly affected by a mother’s perception of the child. Similarly, a mother’s expectations for child development affect both her own assessment and treatment of the child, but also the child’s risk for injury. Randolph concluded by calling for research and evaluation that more greatly encompasses cultural and community variances.
Ann S. Masten, Associate Professor of Child Psychology and Associate Director of the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota, highlighted the findings of three major resiliency projects she has conducted: Project Competency, which followed 205 ordinary urban school children, homeless children; and Cambodian-American youth who survived the Pol Pot regime and now live in Minnesota. From these studies, she has concluded that “In most cases, it takes more than adversity to bring down a child endowed with normal human qualities. It seems to require significant failures in the basic protective systems of human development, the nurturing of body and soul by adults, opportunities to learn, to play, to be safe.” Masten’s studies have shown that the resilient have “a knack for getting into healthy contexts for development” and have made positive choice in their lives.
Need for Combined Strategies
Masten said that her research implicates three intervention strategies: risk prevention or reduction, asset enhancement strategies for families, schools, communities, and facilitating protective systems. As high-risk youth have many risk factors, these strategies need to be combined, she said. Yet, no single or combined strategy is best for all situations or all children, she added. A challenge for the future, she said, is to see if deliberate protective efforts can turn young lives around. Masten concluded by saying, “the great danger I see in the idea of resiliency is in expecting children to overcome the deprivation and danger on their own . . . we cannot stand by as the infrastructure for child development collapses in this nation, expecting miracles.”
A lively question and answer period followed, discussing issues such as the mixture of natural endowments and environmental factors, federal support for resiliency research, and measuring outcomes of resiliency programs.