From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being

Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research Series Volume 1
Series Editor:
ASHER BEN-ARIEH Paul Baerwald School of Social Work & Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Editorial Board:
J. LAWRENCE ABER Ney York University, USA JONATHAN BRADSHAW University of York, U.K. FERRAN CASAS University of Girona, Spain ICK-JOONG CHUNG Duksung Women’s University, Seoul, Korea HOWARD DUBOWITZ University of Maryland Baltimore, USA IVAR FRONES University of Oslo, Norway FRANK FURSTENBERG University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA ROBBIE GILLIGAN Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland ROBERT M. GOERGE University of Chicago, USA IAN GOUGH University of Bath, U.K. AN-MAGRITT JENSEN Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway SHEILA B. KAMERMAN Columbia University, Ney York, USA JILL E. KORBIN Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA DAGMAR KUTSAR University of Tartu, Estonia KEN LAND Duke University, Durham, USA BONG JOO LEE Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea JAN MASON University of Western Sydney, Australia KRISTIN A. MOORE Child Trends, Washington, USA BERNHARD NAUCK Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany USHA S. NAYAR Tata Institute, Mumbai, India WILLIAM O’HARE Kids Counts project, Annie E. Casy Foundation, Baltimore, USA SHELLY PHIPPS Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada JACKIE SANDERS Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand GIOVANNI SGRITTA University of Rome, Italy THOMAS S. WEISNER University of California, Los Angeles, USA HELMUT WINTESBERGER University of Vienna, Austria

This new series focuses on the subject of measurements and indicators of children’s well being and their usage, within multiple domains and in diverse cultures. More specifically, the series seeks to present measures and data resources, analysis of data, exploration of theoretical issues, and information about the status of children, as well as the implementation of this information in policy and practice. By doing so it aims to explore how child indicators can be used to improve the development and the well being of children. With an international perspective the series will provide a unique applied perspective, by bringing in a variety of analytical models, varied perspectives, and a variety of social policy regimes. Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research will be unique and exclusive in the field of measures and indicators of children’s lives and will be a source of high quality, policy impact and rigorous scientific papers. For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8162

Sheila B. Kamerman · Shelley Phipps · Asher Ben-Arieh
Editors

From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being
An International Perspective on Knowledge in the Service of Policy Making

123

Editors Sheila B. Kamerman Columbia University School of Social Work 1255 Amsterdam Avenue New York NY 10027 USA sbk2@columbia.edu Asher Ben-Arieh Hebrew University of Jerusalem Paul Baerwald School of Social Work & Social Welfare Giv’at Ram 91905 Jerusalem Mount Scopus Israel benarieh@cc.huji.ac.il

Shelley Phipps Dalhousie University Dept. Economics Halifax NS B3H 3J5 Canada Shelley.Phipps@dal.ca

The editors will like to thank the W.T. Grant foundation for their support of the editorial work on this book. ISBN 978-90-481-3376-5 e-ISBN 978-90-481-3377-2 DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3377-2 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York
Library of Congress Control Number: 2009937017 c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

This chapter provides a brief overview of the book highlighting the modest progress from child welfare to child well-being reflected in these chapters, and the parallel movement in Kahn’s career and research, as his scholarship developed over the years. It then moves to explore the relationship between two overarching themes, child and family policy stressing a universal approach to children and social protection stressing a more targeted approach to disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals including children and the complementarity of these strategies.

Introduction
To a large extent Alfred J. Kahn was at the forefront of the developments in the field of child welfare services (protective services, foster care, adoption, and family preservation and support). Over time his scholarship moved to a focus on the broader policy domain of child and family policy and the outcomes for child wellbeing. His work, as is true for this volume, progressed from a focus on poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable children to a focus on all children. He was convinced that children, by definition, are a vulnerable population group and that targeting all children, employing a universal policy as a strategy would do more for poor children than a narrowly focused policy targeted on poor children alone, As we first argued more than three decades ago (Not for the Poor Alone; “Universalism and Income Testing in Family Policy”), one could target the most disadvantaged within a universal framework, and this would lead to more successful results than targeting only the poor. The history of the last 50 years of child welfare is a history of this movement, from a deficit-oriented policy to a developmental model, from a targeted and selective strategy to a universal approach, from child welfare to child well being. Kahn began his academic career in the 1950s, confronting the main issues in the child welfare field at that time. His focus in his early work, as in the early chapters in this book, was on the U.S child welfare field. Under the auspices of the Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, he prepared a report published in 1953 on the Children’s Court in New York, providing an unprecedented look at the background and workings of the Court. He called the system “a dream still unrealized” that
v

vi

Preface

needed to focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. In 1957 he published a report entitled For Children In Trouble highlighting the inadequacies of the city’s efforts at helping children in trouble. In the 1960s, the report entitled A Dream Deferred, called for a reorganization of social services to help families cope better with emergencies. He was among the early advocates of community—based social services rather than institutional or foster care and an early advocate, as well, for child allowances, urging a universal policy regime in support of the economic wellbeing of all children and their families. The book begins with an essay by Kahn on how children, youth, and families have changed over time and the implications of these changes for children’s life experiences and the opportunities they may have. How we are organized in the public and private sectors around children’s problems, is his first overarching question. He reminds us that we should no longer focus just on the social problems of adolescents, but rather seek out positive and productive roles for them. Nonetheless, dysfunctional families will exist and still need help, and the need for substitute families remains, as we can see now in Africa, with regard to children orphaned as a consequence of HIV AIDS and the growing number of child-headed households. He concludes by raising the question: Should we work at improving the link between childhood, foster family care, and adoption by better integrating child welfare programs or should we address a broader range of social policies affecting children? Should we advance across-policy domains (income transfers, health, education, personal social services) rather than remain in one, by adopting a holistic strategy, sustaining the treatment of children within a child and family policy agenda? Families are changing and the experiences of youth are changing. Will we provide new opportunities for them? Will youth still be labeled “dysfunctional” and in need of rescue or will we stress, instead, their potential for creativity and productivity? Ben-Arieh continues and supplements this discussion by describing the childhood social indicator movement, and the progress being made from a focus on poor and suffering children to promoting children’s well being. He lays out several different theoretical frameworks, including: – – – – – – Ecological theories of child development The concept of children’s rights The new sociology of childhood Children as the unit of analysis Children’s quality of life Attention to child and family policy.

Different sources of data are now available and used, in assessing child well being. These include administrative data, census data, survey data, longitudinal data, and other large scale data bases, providing data as the target for extensive and rigorous quantitative studies as well as comparative data bases offering new insights with regard to child well—being in Europe, described subsequently by Richardson.

Preface

vii

Ben-Arieh reminds us of the role indicators play in providing policy-relevant data and the progress that has been carried out with regard to a changed view of children and childhood, including: – A growing emphasis on child well being rather than just on survival – A growing emphasis on enhancing positive outcomes rather than confronting negative impacts – A focus on children’s current well being rather than their future development – A focus on the voices of children rather than only adult perspectives. Ben-Arieh concludes by reminding us of the explosion in the number of “state of the child” reports that have been published since the 1980s, and the emerging global interest in childhood social indicators. The next cluster of chapters focuses specifically on the traditional child welfare system. McGowan’s history of child welfare leaves us with a sense of how little has been achieved in movement towards a developmental model. She reminds us that the field is very much on the public agenda today. Yet some of the tensions that have pervaded the field in the past, still remain. Among the ongoing issues, still debated, are child saving versus family preservation, the extent to which the state should assume responsibility for problems in family life, local or state versus federal responsibility for standard setting, public versus private sector dominance in social service delivery, categorical versus integrated social service programs. She concludes by noting that the child welfare field continues to struggle with these contradictions. Courtney’s chapter highlights the need for more attention to youth transitioning out of foster care, the need for normative supports for these older adolescents, and suggests strategies for achieving a broader basis for improving the outcomes for the 18–21 year olds. Fallon et al explores three different systems for carrying out child maltreatment surveillance while Zeira reminds us of the value of practice wisdom and learning from practice in child welfare. This cluster ends with a chapter on New York City and the need for sharply honed advocacy skills to achieve political goals. Although addressing issues in New York, Nayowith provides a case history of the efforts needed to mobilize advocacy efforts, aimed at affecting child policy and doing better by children. She points out the importance of gathering the facts to provide an evidence base for mobilizing support for legislation, or opposition to proposed laws, depending on the issue. Following this are several chapters on different theoretical perspectives, from Bruyere and Garbarino, discussing the ecological perspective coupled with a child rights perspective, both essential to an understanding of the factors shaping child well being. Staller offers us a discussion of how social problems can be deconstructed in different ways leading to various definitions of any social problem, with an intriguing review of the different ways children leaving home may be viewed: as runaway youth or missing children. The runaway youth movement was framed from the youth’s perspective and took a child’s rights’ approach. In contrast, the missing children movement took a parents’ rights approach and worried parents sought help

viii

Preface

in locating children. The policy responses take very different forms depending on which definition is favored. Staller’s objective is to apply her analytic framework to how any problem has been shaped and responded to. Coulton and Fischer focus on the development and application of child wellbeing indicators at the local level, referring to sub-state geographic areas or political jurisdictions, also referred to as community or neighborhood indicators. They discuss the infrastructure needed to sustain local indicators work, including both the production of child wellbeing indicators and how they are used to address policy and program. They conclude by providing several case studies that demonstrate how child wellbeing indicators have been developed and applied in selected locales. Aber et al., focus on the range of indicators in one particular domain, namely education while Burton and Phipps turn to a different type of indicator, namely the subjective responses of children to questions about the quality of their lives. They look, in particular, at child reports of current happiness and life satisfaction for Canadian 12–17 year olds. In contrast, Gatenio-Gabel takes a very different tack. She provides a global perspective and focuses, especially, on how developing countries consider children and what kinds of policies are relevant in environments with far more limited resources. What can be expected in the way of social protection in developing countries and what does a child rights’ perspective contribute? One could certainly argue that at the heart of the book are the several chapters on economic support for child and family well-being. Kahn, in his own work and the research he carried out in the 1970s and 1980s with Kamerman, turned increasingly to a focus on the economic situation of families with children, applying a model of hypothetical families and their experiences with earnings at different levels and different national income transfer systems. Their major finding was that comparative policy studies focused on children and their families underscored the laggard status of the U.S. with regard to the economic well being of U.S. children and their families. Here we have a series of chapters reaching similar conclusions. The Danzigers describe child poverty in the U.S., the limitations of U.S. anti-poverty policies, and the lessons learned from research and cross-national policies. Garfinkel and Nepomnaschy discuss one particular policy, namely child support. They describe the vulnerability of lone mother families and the inadequacies of U.S., policies; and they end with some international comparisons from Europe, underscoring the better situation for the children in these families in several European countries. They point to the financial support provided in many European countries that guarantee a minimum level of financial support to children in lone parent families, when the non-custodial parent fails to pay support, pays it irregularly or not at all. And they note the relevant discussion of these policies by Kamerman and Kahn (1988). Phipps concentrates here on policies affecting very young children in Canada, those under age 3. She stresses the role of maternity and parental leave policies cross nationally, and compares the Canadian policies with those available in eight other rich countries. She concludes that although Canadian income transfers play a vital role in reducing the depth of poverty experienced by very young children, the

Preface

ix

full package of cash transfers in other countries leaves more very young children in poverty in Canada than in most of the other countries in this study. While using the LIS data base, Gornick and Jantii discuss the role of employment and earnings on childrens’ economic well being and the importance of labor market behavior and government tax and cash transfers. They suggest that demographic differences across countries are less vital for child poverty outcomes than earnings and transfers. Bradshaw, Richardson, and Saunders each write about international developments in child and family well being, drawing on several large scale data sets for their analyses and focusing in particular on economic well-being. Bradshaw provides an introduction to the study of child benefit packages and illustrates their value using the model family methodology employed earlier by Kahn and Kamerman (1983). In his chapter, Bradshaw describes the methods involved in using this approach to compare child benefit packages. Hypothetical (model) families of different types are assigned a specified level of earnings and the specified package of cash and tax transfers they would qualify for in different countries. The outcomes for children and their families are compared cross-nationally. Richardson focuses on the changes in child well being in Europe, between 2003 and 2006. He reminds us that child well being is an increasingly important topic in research and policy circles at the European level and points out that European policy makers are looking beyond income poverty measures to assess childrens’ well being. Other issues addressed include the work/family balance and human capital investment in future generations. He discusses the outcomes for children across multiple dimensions of well being, beyond income or material well being, including health, education, subjective well being, risk and safety, and housing. The final chapters advance the agenda moving toward discussion of child well being: in France, in Europe, and internationally with regard to ECEC and family policies. In this context, earlier, Kamerman and Kahn (1991) highlighted the special problem of providing care and support for very young children and their families, reminding us of the need to link maternity and parental leave policies with ECEC policies and programs, to understand the importance of policies affecting the very young, an issue addressed by both Fagnani and Moss. Fagnani reminds us that along with the Nordic countries, France leads the European Union—indeed the world—in public childcare provision and benefits aimed at reducing child care costs for families. OECD has also shown that family spending has the greatest focus on childcare services in France and the Nordic countries. As a matter of fact, the progressive arrival of mothers in the labor market since the 1970s influenced French family policy decision makers to introduce a whole range of services for parents in paid employment, which has in turn enabled a growing number of mothers to gain access to jobs. This has helped to place the question of the work/family life balance firmly onto the policy agenda. She concludes that, while couched in terms of the “best interest” of the child, French child and family policy is in fact the result of the combined forces of labor market pressures and demands for a mother’s right to paid work.

x

Preface

In these years Kahn and Kamerman also explored the role of services in a child and family policy package (ECEC), along with time for parenting (leaves) and money (cash and tax benefits). Obviously, there are gaps here. An almost 60 year history of scholarship (40 of which was joint) covering a range of policies affecting children and their families, cannot be covered in one book. The themes mentioned above are pervasive. In addition, there are others, including: the importance of a strong role for government despite the significance of the voluntary sector and the market, especially in the social service field; the role of federalism; the impact of gender role changes and the impact of demography, both aging and fertility; the importance of political will; and, finally, the need for a holistic approach to social policy (services integration? family policy? social protection policy?) rather than a cluster of disparate categorical silos. The book covers a remarkable range of issues and scholarship, and so did Alfred Kahn’s scholarship and career. Sheila B. Kamerman New York, USA

References
Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1983). Income transfers for families with children: An eightcountry study. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1988). Child support: From debt collection to social policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1988). Social policy and children in the U.S. and Europe. In J. L. Palmer, T. Smeeding, & B. B. Torrey (Eds.), The vulnerable (pp. 351–380). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1991). Child care, parental leave, and the Under 3s. Policy innovation in Europe. New York: Auburn House.

Alfred J. Kahn (1919–2009)

Alfred J. Kahn, Professor Emeritus at the Columbia University School of Social Work and worldrenowned social policy scholar and educator. Kahn received his B.S.S. in 1939 from the City College of New York, his Masters of Social Work in 1946 from Columbia University School of Social Work. Dr. Kahn was the recipient of the first social work doctorate awarded by the School in 1952, and the first in New York State, as well. He taught at the Columbia University School of Social Work for 57 years, from 1947 to 2004. Those who studied, social services, child welfare, family policy, poverty and its causes and impacts, and social policy generally will remember the monumental comparative work of Dr. Kahn, who along with Professor Sheila Brody Kamerman, shaped the discourse in many fields for decades. Program and policy recommendations advanced by Dr. Kahn and Dr. Kamerman were embraced by many international NGOs and were brought to life in social welfare programs around the world. His ideas also contributed to the development of graduate social work education. Dr. Kahn was a passionate advocate for children and their families. As an advocate, he favored universal social benefits and services, rather than means-tested, saying that they ought to be “good enough for every American, not for the poor alone.” He was a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, international organizations, and foreign governments. In this role, he shared his expertise on family policy, cash benefits and social service programs, local community social service planning and coordination, and issues of equality and equity. Dr. Kahn was also an author and co-author, editor and co-editor, producing more than 25 books and 300 articles and chapters that have continuing relevance and a palpable impact worldwide. Early in his research career, “the one-man watchdog organization who monitored the social services offered by the city and state of New York”, as he was called in The New York Times (February 21, 2009), Dr. Kahn served as a consultant to New York’s Citizens Committee for Children (CCC). In this capacity, he provided leadership to
xi

xii

Alfred J. Kahn (1919–2009)

research staff and community lay leaders, and authored some 15 studies of city and state programs concerned with truancy, youth, police, children’s courts, protective services, and child guidance programs for at-risk youth. The widely-publicized and discussed results offered blueprints for reform at the local and national levels. They were also the foundation for a 1963 volume, Planning Community Services for Children in Trouble, with a foreword by Eleanor Roosevelt, board member. Among his special roles, Dr. Kahn, was the United States participant and rapporteur in a 1967 U.N. “Expert Group on Social Policy and Level of Living in the Nation” and a 1969 U.N. “Expert Group on Training Social Welfare Personnel for Development Planning.” In the early 1980s, Dr. Kahn chaired the influential Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy of The National Academy of Science. He was the recipient of awards and honors from various universities and professional associations in recognition of his pioneering work in cross-national child and family policy research. Dr. Kahn’s remarkable work in the academic and policy making fields’ through out the years will continue to influence and guide professionals, researchers and social-policy advocates for many years to come.

Contents

Part I Opening Chapters From “Child Saving” to “Child Development”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfred J. Kahn From Child Welfare to Children Well-Being: The Child Indicators Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asher Ben-Arieh 3

9

Part II Child Welfare An Historical Perspective on Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Brenda G. McGowan Testing Practice Wisdom in Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Anat Zeira Understanding Child Maltreatment Systems: A Foundation for Child Welfare Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Barbara Fallon, Nico Trocm´ , John Fluke, Bruce MacLaurin, e Lil Tonmyr, and Ying-Ying Yuan Fact-Based Child Advocacy: The Convergence of Analysis, Practice, and Politics in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Gail B. Nayowith Using Early Childhood Wellbeing Indicators to Influence Local Policy and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Claudia J. Coulton and Robert L. Fischer
xiii

xiv

Contents

Social Policy and the Transition to Adulthood for Foster Youth in the US . 117 Mark E. Courtney

Part III Theoretical Perspectives The Ecological Perspective on the Human Rights of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Edmund Bruyere and James Garbarino Social Problem Construction and Its Impact on Program and Policy Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Karen M. Staller The Development of International Comparative Child and Family Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Shirley Gatenio Gabel Using Child Indicators to Influence Policy: A Comparative Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Lawrence Aber, Juliette Berg, Erin Godfrey, and Catalina Torrente In Children’s Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Peter Burton and Shelley Phipps

Part IV Economic Support Assuring Child Support: A Re-assessment in Honor of Alfred Kahn . . . . . . 231 Irwin Garfinkel and Lenna Nepomnyaschy Child Poverty and Antipoverty Policies in the United States: Lessons from Research and Cross-National Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Sandra K. Danziger and Sheldon Danziger Income Support for Families and the Living Standards of Children . . . . . . 275 Peter Saunders An International Perspective on Child Benefit Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Jonathan Bradshaw

Contents

xv

Canadian Policies for Families with Very Young Children in International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Shelley Phipps Child Poverty in Upper-Income Countries: Lessons from the Luxembourg Income Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Janet C. Gornick and Markus J¨ ntti a Part V Issues in Child Well-Being Early Childhood Education and Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Peter Moss Childcare Policies in France: The Influence of Organizational Changes in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 Jeanne Fagnani Regional Case Studies—Child Well Being in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Dominic Richardson Part VI Conclusion Child, Family, and State: The Relationship Between Family Policy and Social Protection Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 Sheila B. Kamerman

Contributors

Lawrence J. Aber Institute for Human Development and Social change, New York University, New York, NY, USA Asher Ben-Arieh Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel Juliette Berg Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, USA Jonathan Bradshaw Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, UK Edmund Bruyere Center for the Human Rights of Children, Developmental Psychology Loyola University, Chicago, USA Peter Burton Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Claudia J. Coulton Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA Mark E. Courtney School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Sandra K. Danziger School of Social Work and Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Sheldon Danziger National Poverty Center, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Jeanne Fagnani Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne-Team Matisse, University of Paris, France Barbara Fallon Centre for Research on Child and Families, McGill University, Canada
xvii

xviii

Contributors

Robert L. Fischer Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA John Fluke American Humane Association, Englewood, CO, USA Shirley Gatenio Gabel Graduate School of Social Services, Fordham University, New York, USA James Garbarino Center for the Human Rights of Children, Developmental Psychology Loyola University, Chicago, USA Irwin Garfinkel School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA Erin Godfrey Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, USA Janet C. Gornick Luxembourg Income Study; Political Science and Sociology, The Graduate center, City University of New York, USA Markus J¨ ntti Luxembourg Income Study, Swedish Institute for Social Research, a Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Alfred J. Kahn School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA Sheila B. Kamerman School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA Bruce MacLaurin Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Brenda G. McGowan School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA Peter Moss Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education University of London, London, UK Gail B. Nayowith Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund, New York, NY, Gnayowithe Lmt, illumination, Fund.org. USA Lenna Nepomnyaschy School of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Shelley Phipps Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Dominic Richardson OECD Social Policy Division, Paris, France Peter Saunders Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Karen M. Staller School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Lil Tonmyr Injury & Child Maltreatment Section, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Contributors

xix

Catalina Torrente Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, USA Nico Trocm´ Centre for Research on Children and Families, School of Social e Work, McGill University, Canada Ying-Ying Yuan Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, USA Anat Zeira Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful