MOSP017 Resilience Cover art 4/3/03 11:44 AM Page 3

Raising Children in New Zealand

Family Resilience and Good Child Outcomes A Review of the Literature

Ariel Kalil MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 1

Family Resilience and Good Child Outcomes A Review of the Literature

Ariel Kalil MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Ministry of Social Development, and in particular Ross Mackay, who read several drafts of the report, offered invaluable critiques and guidance and edited the final text for publication. I would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for extensive helpful comments. Kathleen Ziol-Guest and Deborah Rhee provided valuable research assistance. Funding for this research by the Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, New Zealand is gratefully acknowledged.

Ariel Kalil

Family Resilience and Good Child Outcomes: A Review of the Literature ISBN: 0-478-25131-9

was published by Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, Ministry of Social Development, Te Manatu- Whakahiato Ora 2003

Copies of this report can be obtained from: Ministry of Social Development, Bowen State Building, P.O. Box 12-136, Wellington [email protected], (04) 916 3300, or it can be viewed on: www.msd.govt.nz

Design and print management by Skulduggery Design Ltd

Disclaimer Any opinions expressed in the report are those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Ministry of Social Development. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 3

Contents

Page

About the Author 4

Foreword 5

Overview 6

1 Introduction 7

2 Background and Key Definitions 9 2a Risk Factors 12 2b Protective Factors 12 2c Vulnerability Factors 14 2d Validity of Resilience as a Construct 14

3 Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Models Relevant for Family Resilience Studies 17 3a Psychological Models 18 3b Sociological Models 19 3c Distal vs. Proximal Factors 20

4 Empirical Evidence 21 4a Resilience in the Family as a Unit 22 4b The Family as a Protective Environment 35 4c Family Resilience in Disadvantaged Ecological Circumstances 37

5 Resilient Communities 53 5a Measuring Social Capital 54 5b Social Capital and Family Functioning 55 5c Resilience at the Community Level 55

6 Policy and Intervention 57 6a General Principles 58 6b Programme Exemplars 60

7 Summary 67

References 71 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage4

About the Author 4 Raising Children in New Zealand Demography, as such journals in appearedhave publications Her well-being. child and parent and processes family on cohabitation non-marital and arrangements living multigenerational of influence the and mothers; teenage of status psychological and work school, the children’son reformwelfare of development;impact Previously, circumstances.the studied has she social disadvantaged in development child on broadly focuses work Her Michigan. of University the from psychologydevelopmental in Ph.D. receivedher Research.KalilPoverty for Center Joint Chicago University/Universityof Northwestern the of FacultyAffiliate a also is she where Chicago, of University the at Studies Policy Public of School Harris the in Professor Assistant an is Kalil Ariel Author the About adolescents’ school performance and educational attainment. educational and performance school adolescents’ for loss job parental of consequences the on researchpolicy. conducting public currently and is She Issues Social of Journal the Journal of Adolescent Research,Adolescent of Journal . At the Harris School, she teaches graduate courses in child development child in courses graduate teaches she School, Harris the At . the Journal of Marriage and the Family,the and Marriage of Journal Child Development, Child and the and Raising Children in New Zealand Foreword 5 Raising Raising Children in . The series was established as a means of disseminating the results “Family from the Ministry’s Foreword This report is the third volume in the Ministry new of research series Social Development’s New Zealand Effectiveness” Dynamics/Family work programme, which has been funded out of the Cross-departmental This work Pool Research administered programme has by the Ministry of Science Research, Technology. and been primarily aimed at the goal of increasing understanding of factors that contribute to good children’s outcomes, with a particular focus on family characteristics and processes that operate within families. The report – commissioned from Ariel Kalil of the University of Chicago – is focused on the issue of family The resilience. central question in this field of enquiry is why it is that some families manage to cope well when facing stress or confronted with a crisis, while other families in similar circumstances fail to do The so. report draws on a wide range of literature to examine how the concept of family resilience has been defined and applied by scholars in this field and to document the research findings about how family resilience manifests itself. There is little empirical evidence available in New Zealand on such matters. For this reason, the report largely draws on the results of studies, overseas especially those based on analyses of longitudinal data sets which follow children time over as they grow and develop in the context of their family While environment. the lack of New Zealand data limits our understanding about how resilience might manifest itself among New Zealand families, the high-level findings are likely to have considerable to relevance New Zealand. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a need for increased investment in local research on family functioning and how this is linked with trajectories of child development. The report draws a number of important lessons about what distinguishes resilient families. It shows that processes that operate at the family level – including a sense of connectedness and cohesion, patterns of communication, the use of coping strategies and problem-solving techniques, and family belief systems, especially those based on spiritual or religious values – are important means by which families manage to master challenges. It affirms the importance of positive parenting as a key influence on children’s development, especially in adverse financial circumstances. It also identifies the way in which wider family can involvement assist families in straitened circumstances. non-resident In fathers particular, and other father figures have an important role to play in promoting the development of children in single-parent families, while the burden of teenage parenthood can be eased by multigenerational co-residence. Drawing on evidence from a range of recent evaluations of intervention programmes, the report also shows that approaches that work best are those that early involve intervention, that are sensitive to families’ cultures and values, and that assist in relieving families’ ecological stresses. While these findings a provide useful basis for policy to promote the positive development of children, it is clear that questions about what makes for resilient families, and to what degree it is possible to teach families to become resilient, are far from answered. It is hoped that the report will stimulate further research into these important questions. given In the particular, dearth of local research on such issues, it is hoped that New Zealand scholars will become interested in investigating how resilience might manifest itself among New Zealand families. I would like to thank Ariel Kalil for her dedication and collegiality in preparing this and comprehensive insightful report, and Ross Mackay for supporting the development of the report through thoughtful and detailed advice review, and editing work. Nicholas Pole General Manager Centre for Social and Research Evaluation MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 5 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage6

Overview 6 Raising Children in New Zealand much still remains to be learned about how best to do this. do to best how about learned be to remains still much that but families, of resilience the boost to possible be may it that suggests researchavailable functioning. Takenfamily threaten that together,risks ecological the the reduce to also but families, protect that factors the build to only values.not Thirdly,and beliefs important cultural is it families’ to sensitive be must programmes and environments family of types different for needed are Secondly,results.positive obtaining programmesto different key is intervention early First, themes. severalkey convergeson work functioning. This of modes families’ changing at aimed programmes intervention of range a of evaluationsrecent of results the of review a with concludes report The capital. social community,on the work of levelon drawingthe at apply might resilience of concept the how respectively.examines pregnancy briefly teen also report The poverty,against protectionand affordparenthood can single co-residence multigenerational and figures, father other or fathers non-residential involvementby activepractices, parentingpositive – children for outcomes better with associated are that and contexts these in adaptive as identified been have that factors identifies paper childbearing. The non-marital teenage and parenthood, single children’sstatus, for socioeconomic risk low salient – developmenta pose that circumstances family-level selected on focus specific a with manifested, is resilience which in context the examines also report the risk, of concept the to related integrally is resilience of notion the Because children. for outcomes beneficial producing in autonomy provisionof appropriate and discipline consistent nurturance, of importance the highlighted has and practices parenting on primarily focused has work children. This of development the fosters that protectiveenvironment a creates family the way the with concerned primarily is and raised are children which in setting the as family the on focuses approach second problem-solving). The and communication of patterns (including strategies coping and beliefs) religious (including systems belief family cohesion, family are work this in identified been have that processes Important level. family the at operate that processes with concerned primarily is and unit family the of property a as resilience treats approach first approaches. The two of one adopted generallyhave studies mounted have Researcherswho sparse. rather is resilience family on evidence Empirical trait. static a than rather process, dynamic a as resilience of notion the is concept the of component key A this. of face the in competence demonstratedhave they that also but adversity,to exposed been have families that only not implies adversity”. This significant of context the within adaptation positive encompassing process “adynamic as defined been has Resilience family.the of level the at applied been has concept the how on focus specific a with resilience, on literature the surveys report families. This of study the to extended been has application its recently More circumstances. adverse under children of adaptation positive the studying researchers by developed originally was resilience of concept well. The cope to manage not do circumstances similar in families other while well-being, their to challenges and threats serious to positivelyrespond families some why is – policy family and child with concerned are who those and – children and families with work who those confronts that mysteries enduring the of One Overview MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 7 1

Introduction MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage8

Introduction 8 Raising Children in New Zealand level. Finally, the review discusses the implications of implications Finally,level.the discusses review the community the at apply might resilience of notion the how discusses briefly also review parenthood. The single and income low as such circumstances adverse despite children for outcomes good produce help to found been have that factors identifies paper the discussion, this childbearing. Within teenage marital non- and parenthood single status, socioeconomic family low include development. These child and functioning family of course the affect negatively can that factors risk relevantfamily-level on information presents also paper the risk, of concept the to related integrally is resilience of concept the Because level. family the at occur that processes on focus specific a with resilience on evidence the reviews report This resilience. foster also can that families within occur that processes to attention greater devotedhave researchers years, recent more In 1998). Coatsworth and (Masten self-efficacy) of sense a or competence academic (e.g. circumstances adverse under adaptation positive with associated been have that children of attributes on focused haveresilience in Historically,challenges. these interestedof researchers face the in competence demonstrate they that also but well-being, their to challenges significant or adversity to exposed are individuals that only not implies definition 2000b). This 2000a, al. et (Lutharadversity” significant of context the within adaptation positive encompassing process “adynamic to refersResilience manifested about studies, empirical from learned, been has what and field this in scholars families to applied been has resilience of notion are addresses report this that questions The cope well under threats and challenges to their well-being. their to challenges and threats under well cope to people allows that quality the denote to – families to extended recently more and individuals to applied originally – resilience of concept the developedhave question this in interested Scholars so. R . manage to cope well, while others faced with similar circumstances do not manage to do to manage not do circumstances similar with faced others while well, cope to manage well-being, their to challenges and threats serious with faced families, and individuals some that is it why understand to sought long havepractitioners clinical and esearchers how family resilience is resilience family how how the how by research studies. research from evidence empirical in and frameworks theoretical in both reflected as outcomes, child good and resilience family in role their of terms in discussed are – ethnicity and culture race, in especially – differences individual sections, different the Throughoutintervention. to amenable are resilience foster to known processes family whether on evidence presents and policy social for research the MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 9 2

Background and key definitions MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage10

Background and Key Definitions 10 Raising Children in New Zealand R found in exceptional children (Wyman et al. 1999). al. et (Wymanchildren exceptional in found characteristic or trait static but special a of idea the connoted terms 1999). These al. et (Wyman well adjusted who children at-risk describe to “invincible” “invulnerable”and terms the used and Toth(Cicchetti circumstances Initially,and 1998). time with researcherschange may that process dynamic a but trait, static a not is Resilience 1998). Coatsworth and (Masten traumarecovery from outlook” (Hawley and DeHaan 1996, p. 293). p. 1996, DeHaan and (Hawley outlook” family’sthe and shared protectivefactors, and risk of interactivecombination the level,developmental context, the on depending ways, unique in conditions these to positivelyrespond families Resilientover time. and present the in both stress, of face the in prospers and adapts it as follows family a path “describesthe resilience: family definition, recent one to According 1995). al. et (Mangham challenges future face to functioning of patterns their re-orient successfully they when or stress or adversity significant with successfully cope they when resilient considered be Familiesmight circumstances. stressful of range a with engagement successful in assist to protectivefactors marshal can they and resilient as characterised be can that ways in risk to respond Familiescan functioning. family of study the to applied and adapted been recently have concepts relevanttheoretical the development, individual successful on was focus whose research fromemerged concept a as resilience Although attributes. or skills context-specific support or teach to need may interventions effective be to that idea the to leads and interventions effective of design the about thinking in helps another.also in It not but context, social one in resilience produce might attributes certain that understand to us helps and picture multidimensional fuller,a paints trait a of instead process a as resilience Defining 2000b). 2000a, al. et (Lutharresilience of view dynamic more a to invincibility and invulnerability of notions from movedaway have and processes developmentalgeneral of context the within resilience recently,More individual discussed haveresearchers the presence of good outcomes despite adversity,or stress despite under outcomes competence good sustained of presence the Generally,1999). by characterisedJohnson is and (Rolfresilience processes environmental and psychological biological, encompass that definitions numerous has esilience comprising two distinguishable but related family related but distinguishable two comprising as resilience particular,view In they systems. belief and rituals processes, of set a via children of resilience the promote can level family the at resilience 1997), (1991, al. et McCubbin of view the In 1997). they characterised as characterised they which family”, the of organisation the in changes requiring or causing eventstressful a or trauma a family’sfromrecover “the quickly to (2) ability and as characterised they which factors”, risk by confronted and challenged being after functioning of patterns established “maintainits to ability family’sthe (1) components: two incorporating resilience family of definition a produce in Webster’sresilience of to definition dictionary the adapted families?” They for mean resilience does “What question: the ask to first the among were 1997) (1991, colleagues his and McCubbin 1999). Masten 2000b, 2000a, al. Tothet Luthar 1999, Dekovic 1998, and Cicchetti (e.g. adversity and risk to exposure with only occurs resilience that agreedhave researchers Many risk. of evasion the than rather risk, with engagement successful a from results adversity.resilienceof that arguedface (1987) Rutter the in adaptation adequate than more or adequate entails it Instead, 1996). al. et (Cowan outcomes negativeavoiding simply beyond goes Resilience others. not and functioning of realm one in resilience display can families level, individual the at as And, events. life and challenges different face families as overtime change may and culture-specific and time- is resilience family resilience, individual with As buoyancy (McCubbin et al. et (McCubbin elasticity; Raising Children in New Zealand Background and Key Definitions 11 conceived conceived as developmental develop develop in response to changes that families as units change and units, observed time over and in in the individual family Rather, families must be Rather, Parke Parke and Buriel (1998) argued their unique contexts, to members’ life circumstances and change in the face of stress. understand how they adapt and in response to scheduled and observed in a cross-sectional study. unscheduled transitions. It is continues to grow. Nevertheless, continues this to suggests grow. that much of the important work in this domain will not involve only theory building but also explicit testing of the theories in carefully designed empirical studies. key Several concepts characterise the field of family resilience, reflecting both similarities to and differences from characterisations of individual resilience. First, family resilience is conceived not as a static, categorical trait, but rather as falling along a continuum. In other words, all families are resilient, but to varying degrees in different circumstances. family resilience cannot be Secondly, adequately necessary to observe how families cope in the short term as well it as is the evident long term. Thirdly, from the emphasis on the functioning of the family unit that family resilience is by definition an process; interactive family resilience cannot be demonstrated by the behaviour of individual family members alone and family resilience is not simply a result of the aggregated behaviours of resilient individuals According to Walsh within the family. (1996, 1998), family resilience can be conceived in terms of within resilience” “relational the family as a functional unit. This view draws on family systems perspectives that characterise development as resulting from the transactional regulatory processes of dynamic systems. In this theoretical framework, families are viewed as organised wholes with organised and interdependent sub-structures. compared with studies of individual However, resilience, research on family resilience remains , in which Families must be conceived as developmental units, observed over time and in their unique contexts, to understand how they adapt and change in the face of stress. to promote its adaptation in which the family draws to allow it to maintain its recovery factors recovery adjustment, protective factors the family draws on ability to “bounce back” and adapt in situations of family crisis (McCubbin et al. 1997). McCubbin et al. (1991, 1997) did not specify a set comprehensive of parenting behaviours or modes of family interactions that they explicitly deem to be the indicative factors of they resilience. Rather, deemed important were culled from different investigations of families facing different The crises. most prominent family factors protective they identified include family celebrations, family time and routines and family traditions, while the most prominent factors recovery include family integration, family support and esteem building, family recreation orientation and family optimism. The difficulty inherent in this endeavour is that these behaviours might be so situation-specific, or so dependent upon the family’s specific characteristics, that no common themes McCubbin could et be al. found. also However, posited a third set of characteristics – which they family called resilience “general factors” – that serve families by playing multiple roles as and protective factors. These recovery included such things as family problem-solving strategies, effective communication flexibility, spirituality, processes, equality, truthfulness, hope, social support and physical and emotional health. The existence of a set of factors which serve multiple functions suggests that the various factors that contribute to family resilience are highly interrelated and not necessarily domain- specific. One must assume that, just as the research on individual resilience has on converged a shared understanding of a common set of characteristics associated with resilience, the same process is likely to occur for the field of family resilience as it processes: processes: (1) on functioning and fulfilment of integrity, developmental tasks in the face of risk; and (2) MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 11 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage12

Background and Key Definitions 12 12 Raising Children in New Zealand divorce, death, chronic illness and infertility.and illness chronic death, divorce, poverty,loss, job include literature the in examined been have society.that wider factors risk main The family,the the and individual, community the of level the at exist risks factors. These risk as identified been have circumstances of variety a literature, resilience family the In persistent. and pervasive “chronicor areadversities”factors risk aberrations, as viewed be could events life acute whereas that, suggested press) (in Chase-Lansdale and Friedman behaviours. problem of occurrence the facilitate that variables“mediators” or are factors risk that argued similarly (1999) Luthar outcomes. problematic to leading mechanisms and processes underlying represent factors risk that suggested also he although maladjustment, or pathology to directly leads that variable a as factor risk a defined 1990) (1987, Rutter risk, individual Discussing unfavourableoutcomes. vulnerable”to person “rendersthe that something and unfavourableoutcomes later of predictor” “earlyan both as risk defined 36) p. (1999, Kaplan risk. of definitions varyingemployed haveresearchers literature,resilience and risk the Throughout research.future for area pressing a remains this development, child and functioning family for present they risks the and conditions social these prevalenceof the Given childbearing. teenage poverty,of investigationsand parenthood single among relativelyrareare resilience family of framework a using studies resilience, individual Finally,of investigationscircumstances. to contrast in cultural and social unique families’ illuminate help can that studies observational in-depth are as overtime, situations stressful to responses families’ track Moreover,that needed are studies longitudinal members. family among interchange transactional bi-directional, a as development specifies that framework theoretical a utilising by example for literature,psychology developmental the from relevantconcepts incorporated fully not has resilience family of field the addition, In 1996). DeHaan and (Hawley emerged yet not has learned or instilled be can it how and measured be can it how entails, resilience family what of account importantly,full a most Perhaps questions. empirical and theoretical unanswerednumerous are there and sparse 2a Risk Factors factors, arguing that their impact is evident only in only evident is impact their that arguing factors, protectiveof interactivequality the on elaborated (1987) Rutter protectivefactors. of influence the from results adaptation view,successful this in factors; protectiveand risk between interactions significant from arises resilience that arguingconcurred, (1999) protectivefactors. Windle and events life stressful risks, between balance the manage and with individual’scope an to in ability reflected resilience,was Wernerprotection;argued, and risk of presence dual the between act” “balancing a to alluded youth Hawaiian of study longitudinal (1989) risk. Werner’sof impact negative the cancel to factors protectiveon draw individuals resilient that suggested (1996) al. et Cowan 1999). al. et Pollard 1991, Luthar 1999, Kunz and Kalil 1993, Jessor 1999, Liddle and Hogue 1989, Hetherington 1999, al. (Fraseret outcomes and factors risk between relationship predictivethe moderate or change to risk with interact that variables “buffering” as protectivefactors viewing perspective, latter the adopted haveresearchers of majority 1999). The al. et Pollard 1998, Downey and Toth(Cicchetti outcomes) Freitasand 1998, or risk with interacting (by fashion buffering a or risk) reducing directly (by fashion compensatory a in acting as viewed commonly are Protectivefactors opportunities. new of up opening (4) and efficacy; self-esteem/self- of maintenance or development (3) events; of chains negative of reduction (2) variables; risk of impact the of reduction (1) variables: risk of effects adverse the alter to act protectivevariables which through routes potential four proposed (1990) Rutter children. and parents by systems support external of use and availability (3) and warmth; and cohesion family (2) intelligence); and temperament (including child the of attributes dispositional (1) cited: widely been since have that factors protectiveof categories of set a identified (1991) Garmezy resilience, individual of discussion a In 1991). Braswell and Masten 1999, Liddle and (Hogue programmes intervention preventionand effective of design the for utility potential their of because protectivefactors identify and define to important is It 1999). (Dekovic protectivefactors of definition the overagreement less is there factors, risk of definition the on consensus emerging the to contrast In 2b Protective Factors Raising Children in New Zealand Background and Key Definitions 13 building on success. proactive focus proactive on goals and shared responsibly, with a shared responsibly, creatively and creatively decisions are and tolerate differences, using humour and avoiding blame, and share share a wide range of feelings when problems are identified In Walsh’s view, family view, resilience In Walsh’s consistent, when family members messages are clear, true messages and are clear, is a flexible construct that functioning is achieved when collaborative problem collaborative solving. Effective family encompasses different family strengths in different contexts and at different points in the family life cycle. Thus, while this framework is meant to reflect the components of the “core” concept of family resilience and the factors protective that contribute to it, it does not imply that to be deemed families “resilient” must demonstrate all of these characteristics at all times and in all situations. Perhaps for this Walsh reason, did not suggest a “hierarchy” of factors; protective it is not clear whether she deemed any one (or any set) of these to be more or less important than the others. As will be discussed in a later section of this report, the empirical research base is strongest on the specific factors protective of family connectedness (also referred to in the literature as family cohesion) and coping strategies; therefore specific attention will be devoted to these constructs. As mentioned the above, influence of protective factors depends on context. In a discussion of individual risk and resilience, Luthar (1991) observed that, although a putative factor protective such as academic competence may help a child to overcome risk in one realm of life, this may not be the case in other realms. For example, Luthar noted that high levels of intelligence were associated with higher as the mobilisation of kin and community support networks in times of need, of provision support to vulnerable family members through the creation of multigenerational or multifamily groups and building of financial strength while balancing work and family life. communication Family processes the involve concepts open emotional expression of and clarity, Family resilience is a flexible construct that encompasses different family strengths in contexts and different points in at different the family life cycle. combination combination with a risk factor and only when the supportive resource is actually engaged – i.e. the mere presence or availability of a factor protective is not enough. While the notion of factors protective originated out of theoretical conceptions of individual risk and resilience, the concept has been extended to the field (1996, of Walsh family resilience as well. Specifically, 1998) argued that family resilience resides in processes that foster families’ ability to cope effectively with persistent stressors and emerge hardier from crises. In other words, resilience is demonstrated by successfully overcoming challenges. In this view, factors protective are those family processes that facilitate families doing so. In her theoretical overview of family resilience, based on a clinical orientation to family (1998) Walsh functioning, outlined key family processes that operate as factors. These protective include belief systems, organisational processes and communication processes. belief Family systems are further organised into three areas: (1) making meaning of adversity (e.g. normalising or contextualising adversity and distress, seeing crises as meaningful or comprehensible, achieving a sense of coherence); (2) affirming strengths and possibilities (e.g. maintaining courage and hope, remaining optimistic); and (3) transcendence and spirituality (e.g. seeking purpose in faith, rituals, creativity). organisational Family processes are organised into three sub-areas: (1) flexibility; (2) connectedness; and (3) mobilisation of social and economic resources. Flexibility refers to families’ ability to rebound and in reorganise the face of challenge and to maintain continuity through disruption. Connectedness is demonstrated in family members’ commitment to while maintaining each a other, balance with respect for individual needs and differences. It might also be demonstrated in co-operation in caregiving and other types of family partnerships. Social and economic resources are made available through processes such MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 13 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage14

Background and Key Definitions 14 Raising Children in New Zealand protective factors in cross-cultural settings. cross-cultural in protectivefactors promote and risk ameliorate to aim that programmes designing in as well as environments, high-risk in development successful to challenges counteract to aim that solutions policy and interventions developing in context of importance the consider to critical especially is It responsibilities. household and overchildrearing occur conflict of levels high when as such others, in detrimental and circumstances some in mothers teenage for beneficial are structures household multigenerational that be may it literature,resilience family the from drawn example an In contexts. those of light in protectiveprocesses and risk both of effects the evaluating of importance and TothCicchetti the circumstances, stressed (1998) socioeconomic or period developmental either of terms in context, the on depending vary may influence protectivefactor’sa that noting Also children. low-income urban of group a in loneliness of levels vulnerability factors (Kaplan 1999, Weist et al. 1995). al. 1999, Weistet (Kaplan factors vulnerability as control of locus external and depression of history a distortions, cognitive alienation, emotional treatedhave studies Some 50). (p. met” be may expectations howregarding experiences prior of absence the and expectations, significant emotionally meet to requiredare which resources of absence “the as these to referred (1999) Kaplan factors. vulnerability specific of identification to paid been has attention Relativelylittle 1999). (Kaplan dispositions (or,family) individual extension, by describe to used is vulnerability while factors, environmental to refer to used is risk researchers, some For 1990). (Rutter risk with combination in only seen is vulnerability of effect the and risk of effect the interactivefashion) an (in exacerbate 2001). Vulnerability(Masten reactivityfactors individual’sfamily’san a as or stressis concept this view to way Another “psychosocialproneness”. as vulnerability to referred (1999) Kaplan Werner1989). 1999, Masten 1999, Kaplan 1989, (Hetherington outcomes “susceptible”negativemore to becomes person a that such “enhancing”risk, as factors vulnerability described have Others 1995). al. Weistet 1996, al. et (Cowan risk of presence the in outcomes negative of probability “increase”the “amplify”or that theory,those In are factors vulnerability 2c Vulnerability Factors resilience are (or are not) demonstrated overtime. demonstrated not) are (or are resilience of patterns how demonstrate better can we that so behaviours maladaptivecurrent to link behaviours earlier how understand to order in necessary is factors vulnerability and risk of identification that arguing orientation, this criticised (1996) DeHaan and Hawley risk. to vulnerabilityfamily-level identifying to devoted been has attention little (Walsh1996), pathology and dysfunction family on prevailingfocus a challenge to part in strengths, family identifying on been has resilience family of field the in focus the Because literature.resilience the in often very reported been not have factors vulnerabilityputative and factors risk between effects interaction significant noted, (2001) Masten As maladaptation”. promote that conditions or circumstances life long-standing or enduring as regarded “typically are factors vulnerability longevity: of element the incorporated 495) p. (1998, definition and Toth’sCicchetti 1996). al. et (Cowan conditions such to limited been however,not has term the disorder; to predispositions genetic describe to factors vulnerability term the used also Researchershave ways in which the concepts are used (Kaplan 1999). (Kaplan used are concepts the which in ways inconsistent the out pointed haveresearchers note, related a On studies. different of results the comparing of difficulty the increases and field the throughout coherence of lack a engenders it because problematic is 2000b,1999). This Windleal. et Luthar 1999, (Kaplan another one from differ concepts these how overand resilience, and vulnerability protectivefactors, risk, as such concepts key of definitions fundamental overclarity of lack a is critique the of centre the At section. this of end the at discussed be will issue resilience. This individual of concept the from distinct is it whether is resilience family of concept the at specifically directed is which question A resilience. family of notion the to apply also resilience individual of field the from criticisms that apparent become may it develops,resilience family of field the as However,here. summarised briefly only be will so and resilience and risk individual on research at directed been has literature this part, most the For construct. resilience the of validity the critiques which emerged has literature of body growing a years, recent In 2d as aConstruct Validity ofResilience Raising Children in New Zealand Background and Key Definitions 15 make it clear that success in specificity of their data and to the domains of interest in fields of developmental especially important in the one particular study does not necessarily indicate psychology psychology and human in other domains. This is competence despite adversity and document the context- development, development, where small researchers researchers to acknowledge samples of convenience are often used and where random-assignment studies The are rare. effects of local conditions, although often an important part of the research question itself, render many such studies unable to generalise beyond a particular sample and context. (1999) claimed that and Vanyukov Tarter Finally, studying resilience as a construct is counter-productive because it leads to a “blame the victim” mentality by attaching negative labels to children who score low on a measure of This resilience. argument echoes criticisms of the use of the term resilience to denote a character trait that can be ascribed to individuals; doing so implies that children either have it or they don’t and hence that interventions to boost or support resilience would not be worthwhile. At the same time, identifying children as resilient can be misinterpreted as their being “invulnerable,” “invincible” or impervious to (1996) stressful Walsh circumstances. argued that this has perpetuated a myth of rugged individualism, or even of biological hardiness to stress, that fails to account for interactions between nature and nurture. Others have noted that the concept of resilience is “heavily laden” with subjective and unarticulated assumptions (Glantz and Sloboda 1999, p. 110). Luthar et al. (2000b) disagreed, arguing that scientific attention to child attributes associated with resilience and vulnerability is important for the purpose the expression of resilience is context-specific. At the same time, the results of importantseveral longitudinal studies support the argument that resilience is not necessarily a transient or ephemeral phenomenon 1993, (Werner Egeland et al. 1993, Cowen et al. 1997, Masten et al. 1999). A major challenge for the field (in the areas of individual and family resilience) is for In their review of the In their review and literature, Glantz Sloboda (1999) found no consensus on measurement, use, interpretations or findings; resilience was used interchangeably as a trait, a process and an outcome. Kumpfer Kumpfer (1999), for example, noted that researchers have used the term resilience to describe almost any variable that correlates with or predicts positive Kaplan (1999) found outcomes. that Similarly, researchers frequently apply the same terms to describe a direct influence on an outcome as well as a factor that moderates the influence of other variables on the outcome. In their review of the literature, Glantz and Sloboda (1999) found no consensus on measurement, use, interpretations or findings; resilience was used interchangeably as a trait, a process and an outcome. Another problem, noted by Luthar and her colleagues (2000a, 2000b), is that researchers have conceptualised resilience as both a personal trait and a dynamic process without distinguishing between the two uses. When resilience is viewed as a personal trait, criticisms arise that this implies a static quality rather than a dynamic process that varies across time, place, developmental stage and situational context when resilience is (Kaplan conceived 1999). However, as a dynamic, multidimensional construct, some researchers have usefulness questioned the concept’s because of a lack of uniformity in effects: some high- risk children may show competence in some areas but not in others (Luthar et al. 2000a). Preferring to discard the concept of resilience (1999) criticised and Vanyukov Tarter altogether, researchers for applying the label on “resilience” a post-hoc basis. They also noted that researchers resilience a wherever positive “discover” individual outcome occurs under conditions considered adverse (1999, based and Vanyukov on population data. Tarter p. 99) argued that the concept of resilience has, at best, heuristic “dubious” and They practical value. also contended that using resilience studies to predict future outcomes is problematic because this requires an assumption that resilience has stable and lasting effects throughout the lifespan. This assumption is most certainly flawed because development occurs in a non-linear fashion and because, as discussed above, MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 15 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage16

Background and Key Definitions 16 Raising Children in New Zealand component of family resilience. family of component critical a as connectedness and coherence on (1998) by Walshplaced emphasis the echoes sentiment “resilience”.its This of core the at are that family a by held values and attitudes shared encompassing coherence) of sense or view world a (i.e. ethos family a of construct the of development the is it argued, they new,as identified be could contribution conceptual one any If contributions. distinct or new of examples clear of number limited a with literature, existing the of refinement a representsliterature this argued, they strengths. Therefore,and stressors family on work of body established an upon builds it Instead, not. is itself concept relativelynew,the resilience”is “family label the although that suggested (1996) DeHaan and Hawley 1996). DeHaan and (Hawley construct family-level a considered be legitimately can resilience whether and general in resilience on literature the to contribution distinct and new a makes it whether is resilience family of field the facing question major A interest. of populations of variety a in interventions for provideclues can so Doing adaptation. of profiles behavioural broad illustrate that circumstances high-risk in development successful of patterns identifying of MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 17 3

Theoretical underpinnings and conceptual models relevant for family resilience studies MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage18

Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Models relevant for Family Resilience Studies 18 Raising Children in New Zealand T outcomes (Sugland et al. 1993). Indeed, as Masten as Indeed, 1993). al. et (Sugland outcomes such of predictors the and outcomes problematic on researchpsychological developmental in emphasis long-standing the with contrastsdeprivation, and stress of circumstances under particularly adaptations, positive and strengths on focus Specifically,respect. resilience family important the one in approachesdevelopmental traditional from depart also they frameworks, theoretical general these from draw studies resilience family Although studies. resilience family relevancefor have that psychologydevelopmentalfrom drawn frameworks theoretical three presents section following The 1996). al. et (Caspi course life overthe continuity developmental of notion the on drawing life, of years first the in already appear that characteristics behavioural in discerned be can disorders mental adult many of origins the that hypothesise also theories Developmental 1998). Greenberg(Weissbergdisorderand specific a produce to sufficient be may cause single no and disorder same the to lead may factors risk of combinations different is, disorders. That for pathways multiple are there that notion the introduced psychopathology Developmental age. later a relevantat be not may age one at risk indicate that factors that and age-specific be may factors risk of salience the that understand us helped have theories Developmental 1990). Seifer and (Sameroff age of regardless symptoms, and cause between connections direct with basis organic underlying an had disorder psychological each that believed was it concepts, developmental of behaviour.introductiongroup the Before or individual of science the as defined generally is and mind” the of study “the means literally Psychology focus. its of centre the at individual the has psychology disciplines, other Tothan extent greater a primary focus on risk and resilience at the individual level. individual the at resilience and risk on focus primary field’sthat of because – model medical or epidemiological the – literatureresilience and risk the in orientation theoretical important another discuss not does section this that noted be should It fields. 3a Psychological Models the family resilience literature draw from (or call for others to draw from) these theoretical these from) draw to others for call (or from drawliterature resilience family the in studies Many literature.resilience the in applied and – sociology and psychology – fields two from adopted models theoretical of relevantaspects summarises briefly section his adaptations. positive and strengths on focused historically has which 1996), DeHaan and (Hawley resilience family of field the in findings research and advancestheoretical of influence the reflect may development new 2000). This Csikszentmihalyi and (Seligman disorders these of opposite the are“sanities” that the identify to trying proposed others treatment, and measurement of purpose the for disorders on focused typically have psychologydevelopmental of field the in researchers most 2000). Whereas Csikszentmihalyi and (Seligman strengths human on build then and understand measure, to aims that one movement– psychology positive relativelynew the of themes central the underscore ideas systems. These adaptational human of functions normativefrom arising phenomenon, ordinary an is resilience stated, (2001) adaptation that have preceded the current challenge. current the precededhave that adaptation of patterns of consideration a also and adaptation of patterns long-term on focus a implies this perspective,resilience family Fromthe 292). (p. being” of state later a and former a implies back’ ‘bounce to ability “the stated, (1996) DeHaan and Hawley As time. of passage the on emphasis its in particularly resilience, family of study the into incorporated been has idea development. This of stages later overto carry will adaptation of patterns these that idea the with stages, life specific at resilience identifying in interest an to psychologistsdevelopmental led has and Toth1984). This Rutter(Cicchetti and Sroufe 1998, tasks developmentalfuture approach children which from foundation the lays tasks developmental stage-salient particular at success achieving that such overtime, competence of unfolding the in coherence general is there that hold development child Structural-organisationalon perspectives Development of Structural-organisational Theory Raising Children in New Zealand Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Models Relevant for Family Resilience Studies 19 theory of social capital has orientation. The sociological particular for relevance the study of family resilience. and cultural contexts reflects this Social Capital development development within sociology have have focused on the impact of Studies Studies of child and adolescent resilience resilience emphasis on ecological families’ access to social and networks. Clearly, the family networks. Clearly, community The resources. theory of Sociological Models Sociological 3b A simplified definition of sociology is that it is the study of groups and influences macro-level on human As such, behaviour. the analysis and assessment of environments or ecological contexts have fallen more in the domain of sociology than in that of developmental Sociology differs from psychology in psychology. that psychology tends to focus ultimately on the individual, whereas sociology tends to focus on society as a whole, often underscoring the importance of families’ connections to institutional resources and social social capital suggests that parents can enhance their opportunities for success children’s by investing in social relationships and (Furstenberg Hughes 1995). Social capital can exist within the family (through parents’ social investment in their children) and outside the family (through families’ links to the community). The notion of social capital a provides way of understanding how development differentials arise among children and youth by assessing the supports and ties that families are able to create and draw upon in their own social contexts. and Furstenberg Hughes (1995) found that most measures of social capital are related to markers of socioeconomic success the in early adulthood. Moreover, concept is related to dimensions of successful interactions that can occur at a neighbourhood level and that can foster resilience within that neighbourhood – notably through the process of collective efficacy (Sampson et al. 1997). A central aspect of family resilience entails parents’ ability to promote good outcomes in their children by shielding or buffering them from ecological stresses (Hawley and DeHaan 1996). The social capital model a provides useful lens through which to view these behaviours. A aspect of central family resilience entails parents’ ability to promote good outcomes in their children by shielding or buffering them from ecological stresses. Developmental Developmental Psychopathology Considered a special discipline within developmental developmental psychopathology examines psychology, adaptive and maladaptive functioning from the perspective of developing systems the over lifespan (Kazdin et al. 1997). Much like the transactional theory of development, this theory views developmental outcomes as a function of the interaction of genetic, biological, psychological and sociological factors in the environment (Egeland context et of al. one’s 1993). Thus, there can be multiple pathways to disordered functioning. This theory also holds that competence in resolving problems in one developmental period does not predict later competence in a linear deterministic competence at way; one rather, period is thought to help the individual adapt to the environment and prepare for competence in the next period (Egeland et al. 1993). The emphasis on relational and ecological contexts in the family resilience framework reflects these concepts. time Resilience over evolves within the context of myriad influences on development and can change time over as a function of changes in the context (Sroufe 1997). Transactional Theory of Transactional Development In the transactional theory of development, development is viewed as an ongoing interplay inherent between predispositions, the the child’s characteristics and the family’s wider environment (Bronfenbrenner 1986). Contexts (e.g. family, neighbourhood, culture) are conceptualised as consisting of a number of nested levels varying in to proximity the individual. A variety of influences at these various levels interact with each other to shape development and adaptation time over and across contexts and take on differential levels of importance at different life patterns stages. Importantly, of influence within families are seen as reciprocal and bi- directional; for example, characteristics elicit children’s and influence parents’ behaviour as much as parents’ behaviour shapes that of their children. the family systems Clearly, perspective on family resilience has this theme at its core. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 19 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage20

Theoretical Underpinnings and Conceptual Models relevant for Family Resilience Studies 20 Raising Children in New Zealand attempted to identify the important proximalfamily important the identify to attempted have studies Previous 1996). DeHaan and (Hawley resilience family of field the in concept core a is This 1990). al. et (Baldwin environment distal high-risk a in living despite proximalenvironment low-risk a creates that protectivefamily a by environment the of risks the of many from shielded be and family” resistant “stress-a in up grow can child a that hypothesis the to owing resilience family of studies in important critically is proximalrisk versus distal of concept The institutions. and adults important other and peers parents, their with havechildren interactions of types and quality the of measures by represented often are these studies psychological developmental In 1993). (Jessor experience life daily of proximalcontexts the on impact their by space life child’sthe to ultimately transmitted are immigration) of patterns education, for funding care, health to access support, child of receipt employment, and jobs to access (e.g. forces environmental distal Other 1998). (McLoydpractices parenting in disruptions or distress psychological parents’ as such factors proximalrisk children’smore throughon be effect might adjustment the income, low of case the in operates; risk distal which through pathways the identify to often is studies resilience in aim variables. The mediating of range a through influence indirect an exerts but children on impact directly not family’sdoes status socioeconomic the example, for – child “distance”greaterthe from a at being as conceptualised be can variables risk Distal parent’sthe in childrenabsence. providedfor is care child adequate that sure make to resources mobilise and employment gainful parent’sobtain a to as ability family’sthe ecology,in social proximalfactor some such through functioning family affect might assistance, cash governmentof recipients for employment mandates that policy social factor,a macro-leveldistal as a such example, Forliterature.resilience family the in reflected also are concepts outcomes. These maladaptive and variables risk distal between relation the mediate thus and individual at-risk the by experienced directly are that those arevariables proximalrisk contrast, In mediators. through act rather but individual at-risk an on impinge directly not do that those are variables risk distal (1990) al. et Baldwin to According 3c Distal vs.ProximalFactors child outcomes despite high-risk circumstances. high-risk despite outcomes child good produce to able thus are and risk distal of stresses the buffer to able are families some why understanding for critical are risks distal and proximalcharacteristics between interaction the of studies Nevertheless, 1990). al. et (Baldwin risks distal various the to related are proximalvariablesvarious the how certainty any with establish to impossible almost is it that variables, distal many so by affected are parenting, as such variables, proximal important and proximalvariables,different many so through operate status, socioeconomic as such variables, distal Unfortunately, important children’s1994). on al. et (Dodge development influence an exerts poverty which through mechanisms important as identified been have behaviours parenting behaviours. These disciplinary punitive or harsh of risk the increase and children their with interactions supportive and warm for capacity parents’ diminish co-factors its and poverty that suggests findings, empirical of array wide a by supported is which functioning, family and poverty on perspective theoretical One 1998). McLoyd1990, 1994, al. et (Conger control and warmth parental areliterature functioning family and poverty the in parenting of measures key two example, Forchildren. on risk environmental of effect the mediate may that characteristics MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 21 4

Empirical evidence MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage22

Empirical Evidence 22 Raising Children in New Zealand R members, and especially the children. the especially and members, individual its of development the fosters that protectiveenvironment providesa family the way the with concerned primarily is and raised are children which in setting the as family on focuses approach single parenthood and teenage non-marital teenage and parenthood single poverty,aredevelopment. These child and functioning family for challenging and stressful as viewed widely circumstances different three in families on focuses approach third outcomes. The child good ensure help to circumstances challenging from children buffer or shield can that parenting of particular,aspects in on and, parenting on placed been has emphasis work this above,in noted As protectiveenvironment). a as (family resilience family of concept second the illustrating Secondly,strategies. presented coping is evidence and religion) (especially systems belief family cohesion, namely,– unit family family the of level the at resilience of aspects core three on presented is evidence First, approaches. different three using resilience family on evidence empirical presents section This resilience. family of “good”studies for criteria important the of many meet therefore designs. They longitudinal employed and samples diverse used approach, ecological contextual, a adopted have studies these cases, many In resilience. family of topic the relevanceto central of are studies such of results the Nevertheless, resilience. family of studies as cast been usually not have and psychology developmental of field the in primarily conducted been have studies families. These of arrangements living the on also and behaviour parenting on placed been has emphasis protectiveenvironment), a as (family resilience family to approach second the In families. middle-class white of samples on based been have many cautioned, as Walsh(1998) and, work social or psychology clinical of fields the in conducted been have type this of studies Most (Walsh1998). patterns organisational and systems belief processes, family on placed been has emphasis resilience, family to approach first the In unit. functional a as family the of process adaptation and coping the is which resilience, of concept core the reflect approaches Both view, family resilience is considered as a property of the family as a unit. The second unit. The a as family the of property a as considered is resilience view,family this In level. family the at operate that processes with concerned primarily is approach first resilience. The family of study the to approaches general two taken have esearchers living arrangements of the family.the of arrangements living the and behaviour parenting as such development, children’sfor protectiveenvironment a afford that resilience of aspects as well as level family the at apply that resilience family of aspects include described are that protectivefactors risks. The these against buffer to found been have that protectivefactors selected on evidence with along described, are circumstances these in inherent functioning family to risks parenthood. The framework. to Walsh’saccording processes family (1998) resilient of dimensions key illustrate they because and topics specific these on literature the in evidence empirical of preponderance the to owing attention of focus the as chosen werestrategies. These coping and religion) (especially systems belief family cohesion, family – resilience family of aspects as regarded be can which stress, and adversity with cope to families help that processes three on providesevidence section This individual” (p. 85). (p. individual” the of autonomy and separateness with collaboration and unity, of counterbalance support, mutual “the as it described and cohesion term the “connectedness”term overthe preferred Walsh (1998) resilience, family on work her In 105). (p. another” one towardshave members family that bonding emotional “the as cohesion family defined (1993) Olson example, For members. family between connection emotional an of notion central the conveys concept the of version each definitions, and names multiple with endowed been has cohesion family of construct underlying the Although (Walsh1998). members family individual of well-being the ensuring for as well as functioning family daily for important process interactional an as cohesion family highlights researchFamily systems FamilyCohesion 4a Resilience intheFamilyasaUnit Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 23 affective one of six dimensions of family functioning connectedness connectedness of family members. Centripetal family members look for satisfaction within the family and centripetal families tend to have children who leave the home later than developmental norms prescribe. Centrifugal family members seek satisfaction in the world beyond family boundaries and centrifugal families tend to have children who leave home at an early age. Highly centripetal and highly centrifugal families sit at either end of a continuum of family style and, according to the model, often produce dysfunctional offspring (e.g. schizophrenic or sociopathic). Healthy families blend centripetal and centrifugal qualities. style Family interacts with family competence – “how well the family, as a unit, performs the necessary and nurturing tasks of organising and managing itself” (p. 74) – to determine the health overall of the family system. Healthy families tend to have clear emotional boundaries between members, who take responsibility for their own feelings and respect those of others. This requires a capacity to while experiencing maintain joy and autonomy, comfort in They relating to also one have an another. ability to bring positive experiences from beyond the family boundary to Like share within the the Circumplex family. Model, the Beavers Systems Model postulates that a healthy family style (with a blend of centripetal and centrifugal qualities) will enable a family to adapt its behaviour as the needs of the family and its members change time. over The McMaster Model of Functioning, developed Family in Canada (Epstein et al. 1978, Epstein et al. 1993), includes a cohesion-like dimension called involvement, seen as important physical to and a mental family’s health. Epstein et al. (1993) defined affective as involvement “the extent to which the family shows interest in and values the particular activities and interests of individual family members” (p. 150). Family members’ levels of investment and interest in one another determine their level of affective involvement. Affective ranges involvement from the absence of (very involvement low investment or interest) to symbiotic (extreme involvement or pathological interest or investment). Both extremes indicate unhealthy functioning. Empathic – involvement defined as “interest and/or investment in one another for the sake of others” (Epstein et al. 1993, p. 151) – characterises the healthiest level of family functioning, although variations within a healthy range are possible. qualities in a family – which – the ability to change power region. region. According to Olson (1993), a facilitator of family functioning). centrifugal or adaptability balanced centripetal A number of family process models employed in both research and clinical practice not only treat family cohesion as an important element of daily family functioning, but also posit its importance to families’ ability to rebound from stresses or crises. Each of the four models described below includes emotional connections between family members (which is at the core of the concept of family cohesion) as a determinant of healthy family functioning, although the models do not all refer to this dimension as family cohesion. None of the models treats family cohesion as the sole determinant of cohesion family health. Rather, is one dimension among many that has an impact on the manner in which all a family functions. Additionally, four models convey the idea that achieving a counterbalance between family connections and individual autonomy is an important aspect of families’ attempts to navigate the demands of everyday life and to weather the challenges imposed by unexpected stressors – that is, to be resilient in the face of challenges to family functioning. The Circumplex Model of Marital and Systems Family (Olson 1986, 1993) treats cohesion as one of three dimensions important to family functioning (the other two being structure, structure, role relationships and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress – and communication, According to the model, cohesion has four levels ranging from disengaged (very low) through separated and connected to enmeshed (very high). The extreme levels of cohesion (disengaged and enmeshed) are considered problematic for family functioning, while the middle levels (separated and connected) are considered optimal for family functioning and constitute the model’s balanced families can simultaneously support connections between family members and autonomy of individual family members. This simultaneity facilitates healthy family functioning. Olson further asserted that families can modify their level of cohesion to deal with situational stress and developmental changes across the life cycle (Olson 1993). The Beavers Systems Model (Beavers and Hampson 1993) introduces the notion of family style – the degree of is closely related to the idea of cohesion or MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 23 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage24

Empirical Evidence 24 Raising Children in New Zealand observational measure of family style and the Self- the and style family of measure observational an is 1993) 1990, Hampson and (Beavers Scale Style InteractionalBeavers Model. The Circumplex the on based measure observational an is 1986) al. et (Olson (CRS) Scale Rating Clinical Model. The Circumplex the of regions extreme or balanced the within fall families whether assessing measure self-report a is 1986) al. et Olson 1993, 1986, (Olson (FACESIII) III EvaluationScales Cohesion and FamilyAdaptability cohesion. The family assessing for 1996) DeHaan and Hawley methods; survey or self-report with compared (as appropriate most deemed are which methods observational adopt many addition, In work. clinical and researchtraining, for provedhaveuseful which of many models, aforementioned the of frameworks the within cohesion family assessing for exist instruments of number A operationalised. be can resilience family of concept the whether is resilience family of field the in working scholars facing issue key A arise. these when and as crises with dealing and development, continued members’ its support that tasks survival day-to-day basic including tasks, necessary of variety a accomplish to ability its involvementinfluences affective involvement.family’saffective The their to related closely is met) are needs emotional their (ensuring security and autonomy their maintain and develop members family which by process relationships). The stifling (intense, enmeshed or autonomy) others’ each respecting involvementwhile affective (high empathic met), are needs own members’ family when only (nurturant narcissistic feelings, of devoid uninvolved,interest experiences: family involvementa affective of types fivefollowing the of which determine together other each with have members family relationships the of quality and degree the involvement.is, affective That “criticalof aspects” are destructive/self-serving) or nurturant/supportive are relationships “quality”(whether and other) each involvementswith and relationships members’ family of intensity “Degree”(the 81). (p. another” one for concern and interest members’ family of quality and degree the to involvementrefers “Affectivedefinition: different slightly a offers model involvement.However,affective as dimension this cohesion-like its to refers also and Model McMaster the of those to similar origins has 1984) al. et Family(SteinhauerFunctioningof Model Process The Beavers and Hampson 1993) models. 1993) Hampson and Beavers (see Beavers and 1993) al. et Epstein (see McMaster the of framework the within exist also families non-clinical and clinical comparing studies Similar balanced. be to likely more are non-offenders of Families1989). (Carnes offender sex a contain not do which families than families extreme of rates higher include to tend offenders sex of families current and families-of-origin the both example, Forwell. as model the of regions extreme the validatedhave studies other Model, Circumplex the of region balanced the within fell which of all families, two-parent intact, of sample white predominantly a on based was study separated be to tend couples older and adolescents with connected be to tend children younger with families of majority A course. life family’sthe the in by stage demanded as perhaps cycle, life overthe cohesion of level their change to able are families balanced that found study this addition, In 1988). al. et (Olson cohesion of levelslower with families relativeto well-being higher and strains intra-family fewer experienced range balanced the within cohesion of levels higher Familieswith adaptability). and cohesion of levels mid-range displaying those (i.e. families balanced of Model’sCircumplex the conception examined US the across from families over1,200 of study a example, Forresilience. family to directly speaks studies the of none and style family particular a to families of types particular link to able been not has research However,functioning. family and the cohesion family between exist does relationship a that demonstrated has models aforementioned the Researchvalidating Functioning. Familyof Model Process the with associated measure self-report a is 2000) al. et Skinner 1984, al. et (Steinhauer Measure FamilyAssessment Finally,2000). al. et the Family(Miller Functioning of Interview Structured McMaster the and 2000); al. et Miller 1983, al. et Epstein instrument; screening clinical self-report (a Device FamilyAssessment the 2000); al. et Miller rater; trained a by used be (to Scale Rating Clinical McMaster the 2000): al. et (Miller Model McMaster the within functioning assessing family’sfor the exist measuresof style. Three perceptions members’ family documents 1993) 1990, Hampson and (Beavers (SFI) FamilyInventory Report (i.e. lower on cohesion). Although this Although cohesion). on lower (i.e. (i.e. higher on cohesion), whereas families whereas cohesion), on higher (i.e. Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 25 adaptability may be more important for remarried adaptability). Cohesion and families attempting to of cohesion (and achieve achieve healthy family functioning. Similarly, in a functioning. Similarly, small sample (n=29) of non- clinical stepfamilies, Pill associated with higher levels (1990) found that although the families tended to levels levels of family stress are experience low levels of cohesion first-married families), lower overall, higher overall, cohesion was related to greater family satisfaction. In other words, stepfamilies benefit when they can attain higher a levels of cohesion. Finally, study of 200 approximately Australian families with either elementary or secondary school children (Amato 1987) showed that intact families experienced higher levels of cohesion than single-parent families. Although a number of studies indicate positive relationships between intact family structure, family cohesion and family functioning, other research shows that the relationships might not be so straightforward. For example, Smith (1991) found similar relatively levels of cohesion between the IIIFACES norm group 1,000 (over non-clinical families sampled from across the US; Olson et al. 1985) and a random sampling of 68 remarried families, except when remarried families contained an adolescent. Remarried families with adolescents had lower cohesion scores than those without adolescents. This is consistent with the finding that a higher proportion of families with adolescents score lower on cohesion scales than families with young children (Olson et al. 1988). studies have explored the relationship between family cohesion and family functioning in the context of changes in family structure. In a comparison of remarried and first-married families (n=108 and n=106 100 respectively; percent white) using the Circumplex et Model, Waldren al. (1990) found that first-married families tend to have significantly higher levels of cohesion (and adaptability) and lower levels of stress than remarried families. In addition, the relationship between cohesion and functioning appears to differ for the two family types. For remarried families (but not Families with extremely low or extremely high levels of cohesion exhibit low levels of while healthy behaviour, healthy behaviour peaks for mid-range levels of family cohesion. The assumptions underlying these four models of family functioning, together with the research results outlined imply above, that there is a curvilinear relationship between family cohesion and family That functioning. is, families with extremely low or extremely high levels of cohesion exhibit low levels while of healthy behaviour, healthy behaviour peaks for mid-range levels of family cohesion (e.g. empathic balanced involvement, some cohesion, research mixed family style). However, has also shown a linear relationship between family cohesion and family functioning (e.g. Barber and Buehler 1996, and Farrell Barnes 1993): in these studies higher levels of family cohesion are related to better family functioning. Other studies report mixed results depending on the measurement tool employed. For example, using one sample of families, Thomas and Olson (1994) documented a curvilinear relationship using the CRS and a linear relationship using III.FACES the hypothesis of Clearly, a curvilinear relationship between family cohesion and family functioning requires further testing. Moreover, this is an area where it is essential to look at the research in light of predominant family and cultural values and contexts. In some cultures, families emphasise goals of connectedness and collective while in other identity, cultures families are more individually oriented. The extent to which independence and autonomy are valued culturally will make a great deal of difference to how these factors affect children’s outcomes. The applicability and interpretation of such theoretical constructs are likely as to “cohesiveness” depend very much on family and community values, the influence of and culture and how these family history, things influence families’ aspirations for their children. Despite its prominence in theoretical models (e.g. Walsh 1998), little relatively empirical research exists on the role of family cohesion in family resilience among low- income families or families in other adverse circumstances. For example, no studies examine the role of family cohesion in confronting the challenges of a number of However, poverty or adolescent pregnancy. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 25 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage26

Empirical Evidence 26 Raising Children in New Zealand to be done. be to remains work much research,future for area promising a is this although findings. Thus, empirical the judge to difficult it makes area this in research longitudinal of absence cycle. The life family the in stages different relevantat be might processes family of types different review,this in earlier emphasised been has as And, separateness. and closeness of levelsdifferent entail norms cultural and family Different functioning. of level its of indicative as taken be not should style functional Moreover,family’sa suggested, as Walsh(1998) families. two-parent white, of samples on based been has research the particular,of representative.In much non- and homogeneous ethnically small, be to tended have samples addition, In parenting). teenage and poverty (e.g. contexts ecological other exclude to tended have and structure family of area the in concentrated are cohesion family concerning findings empirical the resilience, family of discussions theoretical summary,in prominenceIn its despite parent. a of death the as such events life stressful of complications preventthe help to deliveredbe can interventions family-centredtargeted, that so instrument relativelysimple a using screened be can families that suggestion its is study this of contribution useful A types. family of discriminator useful a not was adaptability family contrast, In families. dysfunctional and functional discriminating at good especially being as cohesiveness family highlighted authors the assessed, functioning family of dimensions different the Of mid-range. the in fell types family two remaining“sullen” families. The and families “hostile” – dysfunctional as identified were resolution.families Twoconflict of on types scores good as well as cohesiveness on scores high had and supportive consideredwere families the of third Approximatelyone- techniques. analytic cluster using derivedwere expressiveness.typologies and These conflict cohesiveness, about questions to responses their on based families of types five identified authors the Scale, FamilyEnvironment the measure, similar a and FACEScancer.III fromthe parent Using a of death the following bereavementstate the during families 115 in functioning family of patterns examined example, for 1996b), 1996a, al. et (Kissane Study Grief FamilyMelbourne well. The as literature international the in valid be to found and tested been abovehave described cohesion family of models theoretical The pessimistic, views. At the same time, it is important is it time, same the At views. pessimistic, than rather optimistic, more hold families functioning High- resilience. in adversity,element key a is tremendous despite persist and “strugglewell” to way.activeability the in Perseverance,embodied an in these approach and challenges as setbacks or crises view to able are families Resilient changed. be can’t what accepting and possible the mastering potential, and strengths on focusing overcomingodds, in view,confidence optimistic an and hope sustaining “en-courage-ment”,and perseverance,courage and initiativeactive by characterised is outlook positive A resilience. for crucial is outlook positive a Having outlook. positive a having to Walsh,is according resilience, family in area belief key second The 56). (p. meaningful” and manageable comprehensible, as life to orientation “aglobal is that coherence of sense involvesa also adversity of meaning Making experiences. crisis of construction shared a maintaining while future, the toward looking and past the in happened has what involvesaccepting resilience framework, this In cycle. life the through progress members as and passes time as changing and growing constantly also are families functioning trust. Wellof foundation common a under operate and another one to faithful and loyal are members family where and challenge shared a as viewed is crisis where relationships, of importance the to points adversity of out spirituality.meaning and make to ability The transcendence and outlook; positive a adversity; of out meaning make to capacity a areas: three into resilience family in beliefs key the organised Walsh(1998) norms. social and culture in deeply rooted family’sis a system of belief much and identity family’sa express to serve traditions and Familyrituals life. governfamily that rules the in visible most are norms norms. These family mould beliefs shared while adversity,and crisis with copes unit a as family the how shape system family the within beliefs dominant 45). The (p. actions” guide and decisions, inform responses, emotional trigger that premises basic of set a form to coalesce which assumptions, and biases, attitudes, convictions, “values, include systems belief to Walsh(1998), According 45). resilience”(p. in forces powerfulare and functioning family all of core the at In Walsh’sresilience. “aresystems view,belief (1998) family in role important an play systems Belief FamilySystems Belief Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 27 although religious belief and practice may play a dominant role in the behaviours, feelings, interactions and well-being overall of many families, the links between religion and family functioning represent a somewhat neglected area in the empirical study of family relationships and processes. As Mahoney et al. (2001) pointed out in their recent meta-analysis, this may derive from a sense that religion is a taboo topic in (1998) Walsh suggested the that field of psychology. such topics have been neglected in the mental health field because they have not been considered the of province secular or scientific therapies. Case studies and other qualitative research have enriched and guided the direction of studies of religion, but the field has lacked data representative upon which to base firm role conclusions in or generalisations about religion’s Mahoney et al. family (2001) processes. Moreover, pointed out that researchers have, for the most part, relied on global (often single-item) measures of religiousness as for proxies religious beliefs and the ways in which beliefs may affect family life. Finally, Mahoney et al. suggested that, although theory offers many plausible links between religion and family functioning, most of these have yet to be tested empirically. Interest in the role of religion in families has increased during the past decade in the areas of adolescent marriage childrearing, gender and fertility, sexuality, roles, health behaviours and various measures of social and psychological well-being (Sherkat and Ellison 1999). The studies most pertinent to the links between religion and family functioning tend to focus on either the marital relationship or parent-child relationships. consistently in Researchers note this the field, however, gaps in knowledge and the need for continued exploration of the interactions between religion and well-being of families. have Researchers studied the relationship between religion and marriage for decades. several Research from the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. Glenn 1978, and Weaver Hunt and King 1978, Scanzoni and Arnett 1987, Schumm et al. 1982, Shrum 1980) linked religion to marital adjustment and happiness. stability, For example, Scanzoni and Arnett (1987) examined the connections between marital commitment and religious devoutness. The sample included 164 urban married couples and 61 rural married couples. The sample was 90 percent white, with a mean education level of 14 years for wives that families continue to maintain a realistic viewpoint. Resilient families also show confidence throughout an ordeal. A positive orientation operates like a self- reinforcing process: confidence in oneself and in one another “builds relational resilience as it reinforces individual efforts” 1998, (Walsh p. 66). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) contended that techniques to build positive traits will become commonplace in the future, although further research is needed to understand how this can be done. According (1998), to Walsh all studies of resilience point to the integral importance that humour plays in coping with Humour hardship. can help family members to cope with crises and accept limitations as well as reducing High- tensions in the family. functioning families are characterised by members who that “accept people have the capacity to envision perfection and yet are make destined to flounder, mistakes, get scared, and need (p. 67). reassurance” maintaining a positive outlook Finally, making involves options. the For most this, of both one’s active mastery be resilient and one acceptance must To are required. limits and understand accept what one’s cannot be changed, while putting all efforts into what can be changed. transcendent beliefs are those Finally, that supply lives, which meaning is in often people’s accomplished through spiritual beliefs or cultural heritage. Walsh maintained that “[t]ranscendent beliefs offer clarity about our lives and solace in distress; they render unexpected events less threatening and enable acceptance of situations that cannot be changed” (p. 68-69). In this families view, function best when they are connected to larger systems and take note of larger values and purposes. These belief systems are often Walsh rooted in religion and spirituality. described spirituality (which can exist either within or outside formal religious institutions) as a key process in family resilience, as it an “involves active investment in internal values that bring a sense of meaning, inner wholeness, and connection with others” (p. 70). Because of the prominence placed on religion in theories of family resilience, attention is focused below on the empirical evidence linking this to family and individual well-being. Families’ emphasis on religion is often invoked in theoretical frameworks of resilience. However, MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 27 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage28

Empirical Evidence 28 Raising Children in New Zealand opposite was true among the KoreanAmericans. The the among true was opposite depression. The and events life negative between found was relationshipnegative a beliefs, Control God of levels higher with whites Among populations. two the in correlations differentshowed study this fromResultsinternality, chance). and others powerful were others (the events life negative of Control” “God was attributions control the of One Protestants. American white 80 and KoreanAmerican 93 among distress psychological and attributions control of locus events, life negative between relationships the examined (1997) al. et Bjorck example, Forcharacteristics. key other and denomination ethnicity,culture, by vary may this and negative or positive either be may functioning family or personal and religion betweenImportantly, associations the resolution. conflict of patterns positivemore encourage may commitment religious that suggested also relationships. They family to approach altruistic more a promote may and caring and loving on centredvalues of sense a cultivate may activities religious that theorised authors The violence. domestic spousal with associated negatively was attendance church regular that found violence. They domestic involving situations to relation in specifically dysfunction, marital severein religion of role the examined (1999) al. et Ellison by study recent more A 1988, Werner1989). (Walshliteratureresilience family and individual the both in researchers other by resilience of aspect important an as identified been has control of locus internal of sense A fate. to than rather self the to relationship the overcontrol of locus attributing of likelihood greater a Finally,with associated was devoutnessreligious tactics. conflict-resolutionpositive of use the with associated also was wives of Devoutness commitment. marital to relatedpositively and significantly was devoutnessreligious that suggested findings feelings. The religious and activities religious both encompassed that scale eight-item an by measured was devoutnessReligious husbands. for years 15 and family relationships. altruistic approachto may promoteamore loving andcaring of valuescentredon may cultivateasense Religious activities fatalism and submission to authority; this might lead might this authority; to submission and fatalism of view Eastern an with mixed be might Control God on perspective Koreans’ the that speculated authors factor). The vulnerability a as operated they (i.e. depressivesymptoms and events life negative between association the exacerbated these whites’, than strongerwere beliefs Control God Koreans’ though Conversely,God. in faith eventheir of testing and growth for opportunities as eventsnegative viewed have might beliefs Control God high holding whites perhaps that speculated and adaptiveare beliefs Control God strong whites’ that suggested authors framework for coping with difficult family situations or situations family difficult with coping for framework a parents offer might religion of elements substantive cohesion. The family facilitating thus systems, valueshared promoting by or unit a as activities in engage to family the for providingopportunities by family the within capital social augment also might community.church the attendance of Church members other to links through crises unexpected with help and care child assistance, financial or instrumental support, social offer involvementcan church example, For capital. social families’ augment to serve may participation religious of elements functional functioning. The family to links different potentially offers Each religions. particular to linked practices and systems belief of content the to refers latter the whereas serve, may it purposes social or psychological the to refers former elements. The substantive its and religion of elements functional the between distinguished (2001) al. et Mahoney relationships, family to religion linking framework conceptual general children’sto a proposingand parentingIn adjustment. to religion linking evidence and theory is report Perhaps more relevant to the present the relevantto morePerhaps Koreans to believe that negative life negative that believeKoreans to individual or family functioning. family or individual events are a judgement upon judgement a areevents of religion and measures of measures and religion of them from God which could which God from them cultural differences in the study the in differences cultural importance of accounting for accounting of importance However,the highlighted it produce depression and anxiety.and depression produce actual conceptions of God. of conceptions actual A limitation of this study is that is study this of limitation A it did not gather participants’ gather not did it Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 29 The authors tested hypotheses, several including the following: that there is a positive association between mothers’ church attendance and affective relationships with their children; that there is a positive association between mothers’ ratings of the importance of religion and affective relationships with their children; that there is a positive association between increases in the emphasis that mothers place on religion time over and affective relationships with their children; that families with multiple religious members have more positive relationships; and that congruence between the importance that mothers and children place on religion promotes positive affect. They found that the importance that mothers place upon religion was a significantly better predictor of positive affect than religious attendance (although the two were highly correlated). Furthermore, mothers’ emphasis on religion was significantly related to both their own and perceptions of the but their relationship, the children’s association was stronger with the mothers’ perceptions of affect mother-child than with the adult perceptions. Congruence in the children’s emphasis placed on religion by mothers and children was also found to produce a significant increase time over in both parties’ perceptions of positive affect. Brody et al. (1996) focused on the links between religion, family processes and the development of children and adolescents. They hypothesised that parental emphasis on religion would be directly and positively related to family cohesion and also that parental emphasis on religion would be directly and negatively related conflict. These to inter-parental intermediate variables were hypothesised to affect developmental outcomes. The authors children’s theorised that parental emphasis on religion gives rise to a belief system that fosters norms that are both directly and indirectly linked to youth competence. Furthermore, they hypothesised that religiousness promotes conventional values, facilitates interaction and establishes strong social bonds and family cohesion. The sample consisted of 90 rural, low- income, two-parent African-American families with children aged nine to 12 years. Brody et al. (1996) argued that it is particularly important to assess religion in this population because African Americans tend to manifest greater emphasis on religion than whites and because of evidence that religious belief children’s problems. Religious institutions and children’s leaders also offer messages about parenting that could shape parental beliefs and attitudes (Mahoney et al. 2001). The evidence from (2001) Mahoney meta- et al.’s analysis suggests that religion may facilitate positive family interactions and that it may also lower the risk of child maladjustment (including externalising and internalising behaviour problems) and adolescent drug and alcohol use, in part by promoting effective parenting skills such as emotional supportiveness. Mahoney et al. Notably, located only 13 studies published since 1980 that link religion to parent-child relations or global family functioning and eight that link parental or family religiousness to child mental health outcomes (some of these studies were counted in both The groups). two studies elaborated on below were singled out by Mahoney et al. as particularly noteworthy: the Pearce and Axinn (1998) study because it is the only longitudinal study in the area of religion and parenting; and the Brody et al. (1996) study because it is one of only two studies to examine the pathways through which religion affects children’s adjustment. Pearce and Axinn (1998) examined the effect of religion on parent-child relationships in a population of urban, white mothers and their This children. study used longitudinal, panel intergenerational data to assess the effects of various dimensions of family religious life on both mothers’ and children’s perceptions The of the relationship. mother-child study included 863 families, spanned a 23-year period (1962-1985) and drew on interviews with mothers and later with their adult children. The authors constructed a framework based upon a characterisation of religion as and integrative encouraging of shared values, interaction, social bonds and protection from anomie. They suggested three sets of mechanisms through which religion may strengthen family relationships. First, religion promotes the idea that positive relationships among family members are The desirable. second mechanism the involves formal support that religion to provides families through services and family activities. The third mechanism the involves creation of social ties that link persons with similar family values. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 29 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage30

Empirical Evidence 30 Raising Children in New Zealand provide therapeutic strength for families. This strength families. This for strengthprovide therapeutic may congregations religiousorganised in participation or prayer meditation, of form the in capital, religious or Spiritual stress. of times in mechanism coping a as Finally,serve conflict. also intra-family may it reduce and affect parent-child and cohesion family promote may religion on emphasis family A violence. domestic with association negative the by evidenced as dysfunction, marital against protectivefactor a as act also may It commitment. and adjustment happiness, marital promote may religion that suggest to evidence some is there relativelythin, is resilience family or processes family positivepromoting in religion of role the on research although sum, In life. rural of stresses social and economic the with coping facilitate relationships these that and relationships responsivefamily and supportive involvementpromotes religious Americans’ African that prevailingtheory the support findings mothers’. These for than religion on emphasis fathers’ for stronger generallywere links problems. The internalising youth and problems externalising youth conflict, inter-parentalwith associated negatively and cohesion family with associated positively also was religion on emphasis fathers, Forproblems. externalising youth to relatednegatively and directly also was religion on emphasis Mothers’ conflict. parental inter-with associated negatively and cohesion family with associated positively was religion on emphasis mothers’ that showed findings engagement. The and harmony components: two of observation behavioural by assessed was Familycohesion church. the of importance the of ratings by as well as attendance church of frequency by measured study,was religionthis on In emphasis face. Americans African rural that stresses the with coping for mechanism important an form attendance church and commitment. adjustment and promote maritalhappiness, suggest thatreligionmay there issomeevidenceto resilience isrelativelythin, processes orfamily promoting positivefamily the roleofreligionin Although researchon (p. 89). (p. adversity” and stress to response in action into put effectively been have coping and competence which for outcomes in reflected is resilience and adaptation, successful for needed are that resources and characteristics the to refers competence adaptation, of processes “refersto coping (2001) al. et Compas to According distinct. are terms howeverthe resilience; and competence represent to invoked often is Coping events.stressful different to involvesresponsesvariable that process lifelong continuous a is Coping reactions. emotional manage to and stress of effect the lessen to seek individuals whereby process directed goal- a is coping that noted (1993) Lazarus 141). (p. person” a of resources the exceeding or taxing as appraised are that demands internal and/or external specific manage to efforts behavioral and cognitive “constantlyas changing coping defined (1984) Folkman and Lazarus 2001). al. et (Compas actions these from results that outcome successful the as seen be can resilience while resources,organise to effort the as seen be can coping perspective, family.the by resilience Fromheld resourcesa social obtained in their meta-analysis, although relativelyalthough meta-analysis, their in obtained sizes effect the that out pointing by part in area this in research further for call a supported (2001) al. Interestingly,needed. is et work Mahoney empirical more but developed, well is area this in Theory (Walsh,2002). expression artistic through or nature with connections through found be alternatively may from the psychological, economic or economic psychological, the from small (with values of r in the range the in r of values (with small represent a different domain different a represent .07 to .20), are not trivial and in and trivial not are .20), to .07 strains. These behaviours strains. These fact are comparable with the with comparable are fact predictive power of other of predictivepower response to stressors and stressors to response actions taken by the family in family the by taken actions global risk factors for negative for factors risk global family are manifested in the in manifested are family child outcomes – such as such – outcomes child Coping behaviours within the within behaviours Coping parental divorce – that have that – divorceparental Coping Strategies Coping received far more attention. more receivedfar Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 31 The four behaviours included active coping, avoidant coping, emotion-focused coping and acceptance. Active coping consists of seeking social support and planning alternatives. Avoidant coping includes denial, behavioural disengagement and alcohol and drug use to escape stressors. Emotion-focused coping encompasses venting of emotions, e.g. by crying, and seeking out emotional support. Acceptance involves mentally disengaging from the situation, reinterpreting or redefining the situation or accepting the situation. techniques have been Various employed to measure coping in childhood and adolescence, drawing on data collected by means of self-report surveys, semi- structured interviews, behavioural observations and reports from parents and teachers. Compas et al. (2001) listed and discussed commonly used questionnaires. Different measures tap different components or dimensions of coping, such as coping strategies and coping goals. One of the most often-used measures, the COPE (Carver et al. 1989), exemplifies the importance of moving beyond a simple distinction between emotion- focused and problem-focused coping and looking at more complex processes. Carver et al. (1989) developed the COPE by dividing problem-focused and emotion-focused coping into theoretically and empirically distinct coping The strategies. reliability and validity of the COPE measure was established on the basis of a large sample of college students. The 60 items of the scale are divided into 15 sub-scales measuring different aspects of coping. The 15 sub- scales are: active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, restraint coping, seeking social support for instrumental reasons, seeking social support for emotional reasons, positive reinterpretation and growth, acceptance, turning to religion, focus on and venting of emotions, denial, behavioural disengagement, mental disengagement, alcohol-drug disengagement and humour. Another widely used coping scale is the Coping Ebata Form (CRI-Y; and Responses Inventory-Youth Moos 1991). The CRI-Y is a 48-item self-report measure with eight coping strategy sub-scales focusing on both approach coping and avoidance coping. The sub-scales operationalise the concepts of cognitive approach and behavioural approach, and cognitive avoidance and behavioural avoidance. Respondents rate the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) distinguished between two types of coping strategies – problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping confronting involves the problem to reduce the effect whereas emotion-focused of the stressor, coping focuses on dealing with the emotional distress associated with the occurrence Most of the stressor. coping efforts a involve combination of the two strategies (Folkman and Lazarus 1980). According to Seiffge-Krenke (1995), coping strategies can be either functional or There dysfunctional. are two types of functional coping styles – active coping (which active involves support-seeking) and internal coping (which internal involves reflection on possible solutions). In contrast, withdrawal and denial are characterised as dysfunctional coping styles. A variety of related points of view on coping among children and adolescents in particular have appeared in the research literature. Eisenberg and her colleagues suggested that coping among children is best conceived in terms of self-control in the face of stressors (Eisenberg et al. 1997, Eisenberg et al. 1996). They distinguished between three facets of self-regulation – namely regulation of emotion, regulation of the situation and regulation of These researchers emotionally driven behaviour. also argued that coping both involves involuntary and intentional reactions to stressors (Eisenberg et al. 1997). Compas and his colleagues regarded coping as a broader group of behaviours performed in response to stressors (Compas 1998, Compas et al. 1997, Compas et al. 1999). They defined coping as a conscious, intentional response to emotion, behaviour and cognition in a stressful environment. An individual’s level of development plays a crucial role in the resources that are available for coping, as well as placing limitations on the types of coping responses the individual Compas is and able his to employ. colleagues regarded coping behaviour as a subset of self-regulation behaviours, where self-regulation includes responses in non-stressful situations that do not require coping. Phelps and Jarvis (1994) identified four types of coping behaviour among adolescents in contrast to the two types (problem-focused versus emotion- focused) typically identified in research on adults. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 31 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage32

Empirical Evidence 32 Raising Children in New Zealand coping measures used. Smaller-scale studies wereSmaller-scalestudies used. measures coping the of assessments validity or reliability include not did that those and 100 than smaller sizes sample with those excluding 1988, since conducted studies Specifically,63 competence. reviewed authors the academic and social and behaviours/problems externalising behaviours/problems, internalising – categories broad three using examined, were that adjustment psychological of measures the to according groupedwere studies the of results the Additionally coping. avoidance) (or disengagement versus coping approach) (or engagement and coping, emotion-focused versus coping problem-focused of use their to according classified were studies the coping, of measures different used examined studies various the Because coping. of measurement the to approaches different of range a used that studies recent from findings reviewed (2001) al. et Compas literature, the of survey pathology.of recent symptoms a and In proficiency academic and social factors, adjustment psychological of variety a and coping between associations the on been has adolescents and children among coping on research empirical of areaactive most The research. of areas other in use common their to contrast in coping, assessing in used been not have teachers, and parents as such observers, external from Reports processes. coping underlying determining of means best the be not may they tools, interview or questionnaires self-report validating in useful be may methods observational while that However,suggested al. et Compas children’sprocedures.of medical studies with coping in extensively used are methods Such promise. significant shownhave and reliable quite be provento have coping of measures observational that reported (2001) al. et Compas measurement. for questionnaires self-report on relied primarily has research Coping withdrawal. and coping internal coping, active coping: of sub-scales three yielded Analysis stressors. or situations severaldifferent to responses assessing items 20 of consists measure 1993). This (Seiffge-Krenke Questionnaire Situations Across Coping the is setting international an in developed questionnaire coping Finally,a of example an scale. four-pointLikert a on stressor a with cope to strategies different 48 use they which with frequency operate as systems: coping efforts by one individual one by efforts coping systems: as operate view,families this In framework. systems family a within coping discussed also (1992) al. et Compas “resilient”.labelled often are skills these display or strategies these in engage who families literature, this In well. conflict manage to ability an as well as collaborativeproblem-solving, by facilitated is functioning family positive addition, In 1990). al. et (Krysan stressorsvarious with cope or adapt to ability the promote both resources external to access and skills communication Strong support. outside get to family the organising and support spiritual seeking support, social seeking as such stress, to response in use families that strategies coping different between distinguished (1982) al. et McCubbin growth. individual promote and family the unite to helping by adaptation family positive facilitate to serve strategies coping family crisis, or stressor a to response In 1991). McCubbin and (McCubbin family the on stressors of set or stressor a of effects the manage or lessen to endeavour family entire the or family the of members individual either which by effort an as defined broadly is Familycoping adaptation. and functioning family positive facilitating in role its of because important is coping family effective of concept The unit. family the of level the to extended easily be can abovedescribed tools measurement and framework behaviour,individual theoretical of the concept the in grounded is literature this of much Although literature. coping the in gap this address to done be to needs much and accomplished been not have adjustment in coping of role causal the assess however,that noted, studies (2001) good that al. et Compas adolescents. and children of samples in competence social for and behaviours externalising and internalising for both found were associations Significant adjustment. lesser with associated be to found been have coping disengagement and coping emotion-focused while adjustment, greater with associated be to found been have coping Generally,engagement and coping problem-focused stress. to exposed are who adolescents and children of adjustment psychological the with associated significantly is coping that indicated studies the of 60 from Overall,data coping. on informants multiple of use or stressors clinical youth,underrepresented with involvedsamples they when analysis the in included Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 33 often invoked together to enable problems. These problems. processes are families to stressful overcome situations. families’ capacity to overcome are are the times when communication crisis or prolonged stress, as these is most likely to fail. Epstein et al. especially critical at times of sudden Effective Effective communication is (1993) defined communication effective effective family functioning and for generally generally as the exchange of both skills that are important both for socio-emotional and proactive/instrumental Communication Communication and problem solving, are in particular, two key coping strategies identified in the literature on positive family functioning (e.g. Compas et al. 2001, Krysan et al. 1995). 1990, Werner According to Walsh (1998) well functioning families are characterised not by an absence of problems, but rather by the presence of skills that enable them to these overcome problems. Communication and problem solving are two sets of problem-solving problem-solving information 1998). (Walsh Communication has both function a and “content” a function, where “relationship” the former the involves conveyance of factual information and feelings while the latter the involves conveyance of messages about the nature of the relationship between the communicators. (1998) Walsh suggested that in every communication, contributors support or contest the nature of their relationship. Patterson (2002b) identified two Similarly, primary types of communication: affective and instrumental. Affective communication patterns correspond to the ways in which family members show each other love and support and are crucial for fulfilling the nurturing family function. Feelings and emotions may be expressed through gestures, words and behaviours. Exposure to considerable risks can have an impact on a usual methods of family’s affective communication. Such risks include the chronic illness or loss of a family which is discussed member, in more detail below. Instrumental communication patterns correspond to the ways in which family members inform each other regarding things that need to be done. These patterns can be assessed directness in and terms of clarity, Effective communication is especially critical at times of sudden crisis or prolonged stress, as these are the times when communication is most likely to fail. , which congruence was measured by obtaining reports from adolescents, and their mothers and fathers, on the stressors that affected them personally and the coping strategies they used, as well as on the stressors and coping strategies of other family members. The key focus of their study was to “understand the processes of family environments including stressors and one coping another’s mechanisms and how they are related to the cohesive and conflictual nature of the family” (p. 23). The results imply that congruence intergenerational predicted better family environments when parents reported accurately on adolescents’ coping, but not vice versa. Furthermore, adolescents’ perceptions of the family environment were correlated with their use of different coping strategies. adolescents’In particular, perceptions of high family cohesion were correlated with active coping, while perceptions of greater conflict were correlated with avoidant coping. coping Family strategies have also been the focus of much attention in the health literature. Many of these studies address the coping patterns of families dealing with the chronic illness or death of a one. loved For example, Kissane et al. (1996a, 1996b) evaluated psychological states and family coping strategies among 115 families the over course of 13 months following the death of a parent. coping Family was measured using the F-COPES sub-scales of social support, religion, community resources, reframing and positive appraisal. which Families were classified as adaptive (i.e. supportive and conflict-resolving) made greater use of all of these coping strategies. within the family may affect other family members; the coping of an conversely, individual might be affected by the behaviours of other family members. Lohman and Jarvis (2000), using a sample of 42 adolescents ranging in age from 11 to 18, analysed information on the stressors that affected adolescents, the coping strategies they used to deal with these and their psychological health within the family context. They introduced a construct they labelled MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 33 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage34

Empirical Evidence 34 Raising Children in New Zealand Specifically, “the patterns of communication within a within communication Specifically,of patterns “the 2002a). (Pattersonprotectiveresources family-level Patterson’svital as function skills view,communication In 107). p.(Walsh 1998, points” crisis at demands new meet to change system negotiate to and concerns, and needs to respond and express to abilities members’ family increasing on focus resilience family strengthen to efforts “intervention so functioning, family all facilitate to serves communication Effective (Walsh2002). resilience family promoting in crucial are solving collaborativeproblem of use make and expression emotional involveopen clear,are that processes Communication constraints. and options stressors, problems, identifying humour.involvesshared solving Collaborativeproblem as such interactions pleasurable by as well as feelings, one’sfor responsibility of own sense a by characterised is expression emotional open Furthermore, others. way,of considerate blaming little with a in expressed areFeelings differences. for tolerance a and empathy mutual by characterised relationships in emotions, and feelings of range wide a of sharing the to refers expression emotional Open crisis. of times in important especially is clarity that out pointed family. Walsh(1998) the within relationships and rules roles, defining in important is Clarity members. family between uncertainty and misunderstanding to lead can it unclear is communication 107). When (p. honest” and specific, “direct,is clear,families healthy in communication that implies Clarity information. ambiguous clarify to need the of awareness as well as actions, and words both in messages, consistent and clear of sending the to refers Clarity solving. collaborativeproblem and clarity,resilience: expression family emotional open to key are that communication effective to components three are there that suggested Walsh(1998) 2002b). (Pattersonconversation the initiates who and whom with talks who as well as coherence, problem-resolution skills. on communicationand of conflictdependscrucially conflict wellandmanagement have theabilitytomanage resilient familiesinthatthey distinguishable fromnon- Resilient familiesare demands, how they see themselves internally as a unit a as internally themselves see they how demands, these meeting of capability their and with faced are they demands the judge they how is that – families in meaning-making of process the to central being as recognised is Communication risk. to vulnerability increase can communication poor but families, protectivefor be can communication of methods many (2002b) Patterson to According crises. unexpected from arising problems as well as problems daily solve to ways develop to Familiesneed skills. resolution problem- and communication on crucially depends conflict of management and well conflict manage to ability the have they that in families resilient non- from distinguishable also are families Resilient providers. service with dealings in example for world, professional the with relationships to transfers also family the within skills communication effective of Development families. for protectiveprocesses as identified are that processes coping family nine of one is competence communication developing where disabilities, with children with families in resilience of reviewliterature a in work own her cited deal with the illness; however,illness; is the affect negativewith if deal to effort an in affect negativesuppress may members family illness, chronic of case the in that suggested (2002b) Patterson loss. or illness chronic of cases in role important particularly a plays Communication 242). p.2002b, (Patterson functions” family core the accomplishing for as well as flexibility and cohesiveness about expectations shared at arriving for dimension facilitating the are family affective and instrumental. Patterson (2002a) Patterson instrumental. and affective repressed over a period of time it time of period overrepresseda communication processes, both processes, communication may “contributebehavioral may to develop successful develop risk can assist families to families assist can risk undermine protectiveundermine disturbances and thereby and disturbances exposure to risks can risks to exposure processes (such as (such processes management of a substantial a of management communication). Furthermore, communication). this as an example of the way the of example an as this undermine other family other undermine Patterson (2002b) adduced (2002b) Patterson processes” (p. 242). (p.processes” Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 35 Parenting Parenting Style Within the family environment, parents create a micro- development context that affects children’s (Bronfenbrenner 1986). According to developmental psychologists, the triumvirate of parenting “good” behaviours consists of parental nurturance, consistent discipline and appropriate of provision autonomy (Maccoby and Martin 1983). Six specific dimensions of family resilience focuses on the ways that parents, often in partnership with other adults in the household or extended kin network, cope with adversity and stress and develop their collective strength to respond to challenges at different points in the family life These course. studies focus on how successful engagement with risk benefits the well- being of adults in the family as well as that of the children. Numerous studies in developmental psychology have identified family-level factors protective that are associated with adaptive outcomes in at-risk children. Oft-cited factors include having a supportive family and a positive relationship with at least one parent or other (Baldwin relative et al. 1990); warm, supportive parenting practices (Wyman et al. 1991); and the availability of useful and positive social support from extended family and adults outside of the family that fosters positive ties to the wider community (Garmezy and mothers 1991, Werner Smith of 1982). Similarly, more resilient children are less psychologically distressed, use less rejecting parenting strategies and are able to mobilise their families and their social networks more effectively to seek and obtain support 1998). and Taylor (Myers The literature on family-level factors protective can be classified into two broad categories: (1) parental attitudes and behaviours (often dealing with issues of intra-familial processes); and (2) family socioeconomic characteristics (often dealing with issues of access to The extra-familial resources). following section takes up the issue of parental attitudes and behaviours and their impact on This well-being. will be followed by children’s a consideration of socioeconomic factors – specifically by examining resilience among families facing the single parenthood challenges and of non- poverty, marital teenage childbearing. The Family as a Protective Environment 4b Researchers generally Researchers have viewed the family as an important context in which much of children’s socialisation takes place. In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in family-based prevention, fuelled in part by an increased awareness of the crucial role played by the family in shaping the development of children (Hogue and Liddle 1999). there is Most growing recognition importantly, that the family is the primary setting proximal through which community influences on children’s development are transmitted. As Baldwin and his colleagues (1990) noted, because the family is the seat of so many of the direct variables proximal in a life, the family child’s may be able to a provide environment protective for the child, despite a high- risk distal environment. on Research this aspect of and how they see themselves in relation to the outside world. Communication is also important to the development of a sense of shared decision-making, achieved through negotiation (by discussing points of view and working toward a shared goal), compromise these processes help to Together, and reciprocity. strengthen the family as a environment protective for children, a topic that will be elaborated upon in the next section. the research results In in summary, this area show that coping is significantly associated with the psychological adjustment of children who have been exposed to stress. Coping predicts lower levels of internalising and externalising behaviours and higher levels of social competence among children. In particular problem-focused coping and engagement coping have been found to be associated with better adjustment, while emotion-focused coping and disengagement coping have been found to be associated with lesser adjustment. At the level of the family unit, communication and problem solving are two key coping strategies that help families to manage stresses. Effective patterns of communication allow families to make sense of the challenges they are facing and develop a sense of shared decision- making as they attempt to these resolve challenges. Effective communication is also crucial to the management of conflict. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 35 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage36

Empirical Evidence 36 Raising Children in New Zealand use of discipline – are collectively deemed the deemed collectivelyare – discipline of use in autonomy,clarity psychological and consistency and provisionof appropriate warmth, parental – parenting successful of hallmarks controlled. The status socioeconomic and IQ with even adolescence, in social) and conduct (academic, domains competence three predictiveof longitudinally was and childhood in conduct to related significantly was quality parenting that found (1999) colleagues and Masten children, urban 205 of study a In 1999). al. et (Masten adversitychronicovercoming serious for important children’sparticularly be may that development for advantagegeneral a is style parentingeffective An literature.developmental the in repeatedly demonstrated been have findings 1999). These al. (Furstenberget situations children’srisky for and dangerous to exposure implications important has environments extra-familial children’stheir monitor and and organisesocial to ability Parents’ 2000). (Steinbergcompetence academic and problems behaviour of levelslow development,psychosocial positive esteem, self- high predictlives children’sinvolvementin and monitoring parental of levelsappropriate developmentally and relationships child parent-positiveparenting, supportive and warm example, For 1994). Laub and Sampson 1994, al. et Connell 1994, al. et (Conger adolescence and childhood middle in success academic and behaviour positive competence, social promote and self-regulation, and development children’sfor foundation emotional successful the lay caregivers,which their to attachments securedevelop to children young and infants help behaviour parents’ of aspects 2001). These Pittman and (Chase-Lansdale traditions and routines family of creation (6) and home; the outside world the of management (5) behaviours; and values attitudes, of modelling (4) stimulation; cognitive provisionof (3) supervision; and limit-setting responsiveness;(2) and warmth (1) parents’ include parentingeffective the context. differs dependingon certain parentingstyles that theeffectiveness of overlook thepossibility or pooreradjustment parenting leadtobetter certain methodsof Simple conclusionsthat and Steinberg 1999). Thus, excessiveparental Steinberg1999). Thus, and (Gray other the at leniency parental is as functioning, poor with associated is extreme, one at intrusiveness, non-linear.be Parentalmay well-being youth and control parental between relationship the that suggest to Interestingly,evidence adjustment. some child is there positive for ones optimal average,the on are, parenting, warmth) on high and control on (lowpermissive and warmth) on low and control on (low indifferent warmth), on low and control on (high authoritarian to opposed as warmth), on high and control on (high parenting authoritative by characterisedFamily environments 2000). (Steinberg1990, “authoritativestyle parenting” that it incorporated physical restraint and punishment. and restraint physical incorporated it that in effective as described traditionally methods parenting from deviated parenting of style affection. This and warmth of levels high with along punishment, physical of use the including control, parental of levels high of consisted and researchers the by parenting “no-nonsense”called was parenting of type This US. southern the in mothers single African-American rural, low-income, among observed parenting successful of style a discussed Similarly,(1998) al. et Brody sub-group.high-risk successful the restrictivenessof higher the necessitate might pregnancy) early delinquency,(drugs, children high-risk by faced risks the of some of seriousness and nature the that suggested al. et Baldwin families. low-risk among warmth and policy of democracy to more related was success contrast, In counterparts. low-risk their of those than children’stheir monitoring in compliance vigilant more were and policies their in authoritarian restrictiveand successful high-risk children were morewerechildren high-risk successful monitoring may also affect children affect also may monitoring risk families found that the families of families the that found families risk in 152 children from high-risk and low- and high-risk from children 152 in negatively.the echoes finding This al.’s (1990) study of cognitive success cognitive al.’sof study (1990) earlier findings of non-linearity in the in non-linearity of findings earlier Tothet Baldwin example, For 1998). behaviours play a role (Cicchetti and (Cicchetti role a play behaviours in relation to what outcomes these outcomes what to relation in relationship between family cohesion family between relationship to specify under what conditions and conditions what under specify to and family functioning. family and parenting behaviours, it is important is it behaviours, parenting negative influence of different of influence negative However,or positive the discussing in Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 37 Family Resilience in Disadvantaged Ecological Circumstances 4c lower lower aggression and externalising scores in children. Baldwin et al. (1993) also argued that African- American families have developed childrearing techniques that are different and more effective in combating disadvantaged circumstances. Deater- Deckard and Dodge (1997) suggested that rather than the use of physical discipline per se, the major environmental construct implicated in the development of externalising behaviour problems has been parenting, especially poor-quality capricious, harsh and punitive This discipline. conclusion was reinforced by their finding that physically abused children, regardless of race, exhibited higher levels of externalising problems than their non-abused counterparts (see also Dodge et al. 1990 for similar findings). Poverty, single parenthood and early Poverty, childbearing are known demographic risk factors for family functioning This development. section focuses on and children’s what is known about these risk factors as they affect family functioning and child The development. discussion also includes an examination of factors that could serve a function protective for family and child well-being in the face of these risks. In the case the role of of parenting as poverty, a factor protective is discussed. (Later sections of this report discuss family-level interventions to help support parenting and also to families’improve economic circumstances.) In the case of single parenthood, the function protective of of involvement non-resident biological fathers and the role of “father figures” (i.e. men who act like a father to a child but who are not biological themselves father) the are child’s highlighted. In the case of early childbearing, the focus is on the role of multigenerational co-residence as a As potential Pool et factor. protective al. (1998) pointed out, an absence of survey data on family formation and family structures of the sort available in Europe, North America and Australia has impeded New Zealand research on these demographic issues. This lack of data has impeded comprehensive analyses of the causes of family change and the socioeconomic consequences of new family forms, in Therefore, much of particular. the empirical evidence Thus, simple conclusions that certain methods of parenting lead to better or poorer adjustment overlook the possibility that the effectiveness of certain parenting styles differs depending on the context. the cultural context of Finally, parenting, in addition to the environmental context in which that parenting occurs, must also be For example, accounted for. Chatters and Jayakody (1995) asserted that explicit cultural norms and values inform conceptions of family among black Americans. Some researchers hypothesise that black mothers in the US socialise their children from an perspective that “Afrocentric” emphasises group in sameness and family loyalty, contrast to the “Eurocentric” perspective that emphasises the individual (Cauce et al. 1996). This suggests the potential for race and ethnic differences in normative role expectations and behaviours (see and Wilson 1990). As Parke and also Tolson Buriel (1998) noted, in the recent past, cultural deficit models were popular explanations for the socialisation and child outcome differences observed between ethnic minorities and whites. An assumption inherent in many of the conclusions of these studies was that ethnic minorities needed to assimilate or become “like whites” to correct deficiencies in their development. the focus But on more ethnic recently, minority families has shifted away from majority-minority differences in developmental outcomes toward an understanding of the adaptive strategies ethnic minorities develop in response to both majority and minority cultural influences on their development. the In effect particular, of physical punishment in different environmental or cultural contexts has been the subject of much debate. Some have suggested that the use of physical punishment predicts behaviour problems in children (e.g. Baumrind 1996). other researchers have suggested that However, the magnitude of the influence of physical discipline on behaviour problems depends on the severity of the discipline, the cultural group in which the discipline occurs (and the meaning it conveys in this cultural context), the parent-child relationship context in which the discipline occurs, and the gender of the parent and and child Dodge (Deater-Deckard 1997). In fact, and his Deater-Deckard colleagues (1996) found that the use of physical discipline that was non-abusive (i.e. spanking) in African-American families led to MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 37 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage38

Empirical Evidence 38 Raising Children in New Zealand the US. the in conducted researchfrom drawn is areas these in associations between poverty and children’sand poverty between associations physical, negative documented consistently has research 1997). The Brooks-Gunn and (Duncan outcomes developmentalnumerous for poor up growing of consequences deleterious the with concerned been long have makers policy Researchersand poverty.of rates higher significantly Ma measures all On 1998. in poor were households single-parent all of percent 13 and children all of percent seven households, all of percent four lower: significantly was poverty of incidence the measure, this On income. disposable household equivalent median of percent 50 – thresholdlower a using poverty of incidence the reported Waldegravealso (2001) and Stephens percent). (45 measure this to according poverty of risk particular at were households poor.were that Single-parenthouseholds in lived children of percent 20 and measure this to according poor were households all of percent 15 1998, In income. disposable household equivalent median of percent approximately60 to equated figure resulting The 1996). Waldegraveal. et 1995, al. et Stephens Waldegrave2001, and (Stephens threshold poverty a set to these used and living of standard adequate minimum a achieve to needed money of amount the about opinions group focus gathered study important poverty.of incidence the One on reporting when figures of range a use to tended haveresearchers reason, this For adopted. be to were poverty of measure single a if be, might measure appropriate an what about consensus strong no is there and Zealand New in measure poverty official no is therehalf, a and decade past overZealandthe New in poverty about debate public significant been has there Although Effects its and Poverty - ori and Pacific Island people have people Island Pacific and ori development. social-emotional physical, cognitiveand poverty andchildren’s associations between documented negative Research hasconsistently below. As in New Zealand, ethnic minority families minority ethnic Zealand, below.New in As elaborated be will findings 1994). These Laub and (Sampson behaviours problem or delinquent and 1998), McLoyd1990, 1994, al. et (Dodge adjustment psychosocial and problems conduct difficulties, peer 1994), Ramey and (Campbell drop-out school and retention gradeachievement, school by measured as adjustment behavioural and emotional children’sto linked and achievement academic been havecorrelates its and poverty example, Fordevelopment. social-emotional and cognitive and cognitive impairment, and experience reduced experience and impairment, cognitive and height-for-age)low weight-for-height),(i.e. stunting low (i.e. wasting of risk heightened at are children poor that showed also (1995) al. Korenmanet 1995). al. (Korenmangrowthintrauterineet inadequate or birth premature either to owing birth at short be to or birth-weight low a have to likely more are poverty into born children example, Forrace. minority and achievement, educational and ability academic maternal low age, maternal structure, family as such characteristics background family other for used are controls when even significant are effects adverse these and effects developmental and nutritional negative significant to subject are poverty into born Children performance. children’sschool with and ability learning interferes Malnutrition childhood. early and infancy in care nutritional proper is developmentcognitive normal of blocks building fundamental the of One causality.demonstrate cannot studies experimental non- from results that mind in bear to important However,itself. income of is effects it discrete the out partial to order in possible as confounds in the US are over-representedare US the among in control for as many observable many as for control utilises regression models to models regression utilises those in poverty and also and poverty in those correlational techniques or techniques correlational experience more persistent and persistent more experience extant literature either adopts either literature extant recent experimental recent programmes (described in a in (described programmes subsequent section on section subsequent interventions), much of the of much interventions), with the exception of some very some of exception the with (McLoyd 1998). Importantly,(McLoyd1998). extreme forms of poverty of forms extreme Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 39 term infants followed longitudinally from birth to age They five. found that children who were persistently poor had higher deficits in IQ and more behaviour problems at age five than children who had The children experienced in only transitory poverty. the latter group in turn experienced higher IQ deficits and more behaviour problems than children who These results remained significant were never poor. even when controls were used for family structure and maternal The schooling. associations with IQ scores were stronger for black children than for white children, although much of the difference was found to be due to differences in family structure, income levels and parents’ education. Duncan and Brooks- Gunn (1997) also reported that poor children are more likely than non-poor children to experience both developmental delays and learning disabilities and that they are twice as likely as non-poor children to repeat a grade or to drop out of school. children from poor families Finally, are at greater risk of suffering from behavioural or emotional problems, including higher rates of antisocial behaviour, depression and difficulties with self-regulation and although the effects impulsivity, of poverty on emotional well-being and behaviour children’s are generally less strong than the effects of poverty on cognitive development and academic children’s achievement (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn 1997, McLoyd 1998). These emotional and behavioural difficulties may exacerbate the cognitive disadvantages described above. Pathways Pathways Linking Economic Hardship to Child Outcomes In general, although adverse outcomes associated with economic hardship are widely recognised, much less is known about the mechanisms by which economic well- conditions are linked to children’s being, the factors which moderate these links and the complex ways in which these processes interact. Economics, developmental psychology and sociology all offer useful frameworks for examining these questions. • Economic Theory: Resource Allocation A basic economic model of child development is one of resource allocation: families “invest” purchased inputs and their well- own time in their children’s rates rates of physical growth in early childhood. Long- term, or chronic, poverty is more strongly associated with stunting than wasting and children from chronically poor families have a slower rate of height change than do children from higher-income families. Other scholars have documented a host of additional health risks to children in poor families (e.g. Brooks- Gunn Defense and Fund Duncan 1997, Children’s 1994, Gershoff et al. (in press)). Poor children are twice as likely as non-poor children to have health problems, including increased rates of diarrhoea, anaemia, colitis, oral asthma, health iron deficiency, problems and partial or complete blindness or rates of injury deafness. from Additionally, accidents are higher among poor than non-poor children. et Korenman al. (1995) assessed the cognitive development of poor children in a national US sample using a variety of standardised tests, including the McCarthyAbilities, Scale of Children’s Revised (PPVT) Test the Vocabulary Peabody Picture and – the Peabody Individual Tests Achievement Math, Reading Recognition and Reading and PIAT-RR Comprehension Subscales (PIAT-M, In respectively). their analyses, low income PIAT-RC was associated with poorer scores on all outcomes, and PIAT-RR especially on PIAT-M the PPVT, indicators. For example, children from families with incomes average greater than three times the poverty line had PPVT scores that were on average six times those of children from families with incomes average below half the poverty line. poor nutritional status (as Moreover, measured by degree of stunting at the time of measurement) affected scores on four out of the seven measures of cognitive development. For example, children who were stunted scored on four average percentiles than comparable children lower who on the PIAT-M were not stunted. All of these results were more dramatic for children whose families were poor in all years of their childhood than for children whose families were poor in some, but not all, years. In similar research, Duncan et al. (1994) examined the effects on child development of persistent poverty (poverty in all years since birth) versus transitory poverty (poverty in only some years since birth) in a sample of 895 low birth-weight and pre- MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 39 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage40

Empirical Evidence 40 Raising Children in New Zealand warmth. parental in than environment physical and learning the of quality the in deficits larger with associated was poverty that found (1995) al. et Brooks-Gunn Similarly,interactions. parent-child and behaviours parenting on than home the in resources learning provisionof the on effect stronger a has poverty that found (1997) Davis and Miller 1997). al. et (Smith characteristics background family of range wide a for controls with evendisadvantages,cognitive their of one-half to one-third for account children poor lower-qualityof environmentsthat home suggested study One 2001). al. et Linver 2000, Harris children’son and (Guo development intellectual poverty of effects the for part large in account visits museum and books as things such in investments parents’ in variations that found have Inventory HOME the using Analyses libraries. or museums like places to children their take they often how and CDs) and books (e.g. own they objects oriented child- of number the about parents asks which 1979), Bradley and (Caldwell Inventory HOME the is used widely is that assessments such making for tool receive.One children that stimulation cognitive of level the children’sassessing by capital human their in investment parents’ examine studies Many life. in well less do to likely are families children’ssuch from Children capital. human their in invest to capacity lower a have incomes lower Familieswith skills). and information education, as (such resources non-material and books) and toys stimulating cognitively and food housing, as (such resources material both in deficit a have may family poor A information. and education as such resources non-monetary also but income, only not include can Resources time. parents’ of value the also but – care child high-quality of cost the example, for – prices market only not include children in investments of Prices investments. child of “prices” the and parents to available time resources, family by determined is that constraint budget a by shaped is behaviour investment family model, economic the to According child. a to resources and time more allocating children’saugment can Parentsby well-being child’sa health. include emotional to broadly more defined be can it but 1991) (Becker capital” “human as to referred sometimes is well-being being. This expectations. children’sdepress turn, in would, own this that suggests theory the accomplishments, future children’stheir regarding expectations parents’ diminishes poverty example, for If, chances. life and children’stheir about beliefs opportunities future parents’ affect may hardship economic and Poverty expectations. and beliefs their through expression given is which reality”, of “interpreters as roles their through attainment educational and performance theory,children’sinfluence parents school this to According 1998). al. et (Eccles children for opportunities and resources providersof and models rolereinforcement, of sources as parents of importance the emphasises model motivation. This children’sof model expectancy-value achievement the in emphasised also is behaviour Parental (McLoyd1990). children the in adjustment poorer to leads parenting ineffective turn, In style. parenting withdrawn or disengaged a promote may this and constrained is effectivelychildren their discipline and nurture to ability their diminished, areresources psychological parents’ health. When mental parents’ diminish to posited is unemployment or loss income example, For 2001). al. et Linver 2000, Harris and (Guo children’stheir to respond parents needs which in ways the affect can conditions economic adverse model, this to According development. child and conditions social between links key as behaviours parenting and resources psychological parents’ stress, family emphasises model process family The below). Behaviour Parenting on section the (see relationships parent-child and behaviour parental on havestress associated its and poverty that effects deleterious the through part large in well-being, emotional children’sand poverty linking mechanisms important as highlighted been have behaviours parenting these literature,development child and poverty the In 4b). above(Section summarised are behaviour parental of aspects Important lives. children’sinvolvementin active by characterised is that parenting of importance the highlights psychologydevelopmental of area the Researchin FamilyProcess Developmental The Theory: • and Expectancy-value Models Expectancy-value and Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 41 section discusses findings on children’s This well-being. children’s the links between economic al. 1994, Sampson and Laub 1994). However, this also 1994). However, between between economic stress and means that interventions that focus on parenting have the on child development (Dodge et potential to break the link stress, stress, parenting behaviours and the impact of economic hardship children’s outcomes. This will set the children’s Parenting Parenting behaviour is one mechanism that links well-being. As economic has stress and children’s been discussed the above, family context represents the environment proximal through which the effects of distal environmental stresses are mediated. It is hypothesised that poverty and its correlates reduce parents’ capacity for warm and supportive interactions with their children and increase the use of harsh and punitive discipline. The research has shown that parenting behaviours mediate much of Parenting Parenting Behaviour and Social Support as Factors Protective context for later sections of this report which discuss the efficacy of intervention programmes aimed at parental improving behaviour as a means of boosting family The resilience. present section also discusses the role of social support as a factor in the resilience of low-income families. It is important to that keep in mind, however, parental behaviour is not likely to be the whole story as far as the link between poverty and child outcomes is concerned. As discussed in the preceding section, other important mechanisms are the investments that parents make in their children’s human capital and the advantages that children derive from the social connections their parents have All three outside mechanisms the are likely family. to operate simultaneously to create the association between poverty and adverse child outcomes; they are also likely to make distinct contributions to the disparities in outcomes for children across families with different levels of income (Linver et al. 2001). It is also possible that there are other pathways and For example, mechanisms it in may play. be that part Children’s life chances Children’s can be influenced by their parents’ connections to other adults and institutions in the community. Sociological Theory:Sociological Social Capital As an alternative to viewing poverty and wealth in purely economic terms, the theory of social capital highlights parents’ resourcefulness for the purpose of helping their children succeed and (Furstenberg Hughes 1995). The notion of social capital refers to the value which is created by investing in relationships with others, through and processes of trust and reciprocity, which can subsequently be drawn on (Coleman 1988). Astone and colleagues (1999) proposed three conceptual dimensions to social capital: (1) the quantity social of relationships; an (2) individual’s the quality of those relationships, which includes the distinct dimensions of interaction, shared activities and affect; and (3) the value of the resources that partners in social relationships can potentially make available to an individual. These relationships can provide access to information and they can also be a source of social, economic or emotional life chances support.can thus Children’s be influenced by their parents’ connections to other adults and institutions in the community and (Furstenberg Hughes if poorer children reside in 1995). Theoretically, lower- income neighbourhoods characterised by weak social ties and lower levels of social cohesion, they will be less likely to benefit from links between the family and the community or from processes that occur at the community level. In trying to explicate the mechanisms through which development and poverty family might affect children’s well-being, each discipline uses different language, adopts different approaches and emphasises different components of influence. Despite this, a common theme is the importance of investments in These children. can include investments of money and time, “emotional investments” in the form of parenting, and investments in social well- capital. Poverty might affect children’s being by diminishing all of these forms of parental The investments. role of social capital in creating and maintaining resilient communities is discussed in more detail later in this report. • MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 41 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage42

Empirical Evidence 42 Raising Children in New Zealand families. low-income among resilience of well-springs the into insight providegreater may question this Addressing so? do to unable are others while have they income limited the manage to able families some are arise. Why differences these how or incomes limited similarly with families among are strain economic in differences the big how studies existing from clear However,se. not per is income, lowit than difficulties parenting and distress psychological parental of predictor significant more a as emerged has construct this severalstudies, In income. limited with meet ends making or managing in have they difficulty the of reports their on “economicbased strain”, of experience parents’ is mechanism mediating key A 1994). al. (McLoydchildrenet in distress psychological predictiveof significantly turn, in was, which distress psychological of levels higher reported also hardship severeeconomic more experiencing Mothers behaviours. childrearing ineffectual and poor predicted hardship economic associated and Unemployment neighbourhoods. urban in mothers single black among behaviours parenting on poverty of effects the investigating by work of vein this extended (1994) al. et McLoydstress. this with dealing in support social or marital of lack a by compounded stress, economic of out arising distress emotional increased parents’ by about broughtwere behaviours parenting negative particular,In these parenting. withdrawn and inconsistent harsh, predicts time, on bills pay or meet ends make to inability an and income low by indexed pressure, economic families, farm Iowa of study Elder’sand Conger (1994) in developedframework theoretical the In McLoyd1998). 1994, Sandefur and McLanahan 1994, al. et (Conger counterparts non-poor their than less children their monitor children’sand their involvedin supervise and lives less are children, their for opportunities fewer providebehaviours, discipline their in erratic more are parents poor that shown has research Empirical mechanisms. different of range a involveto and complex be to likely is outcomes child and poverty between connection causal the short, In 1997). (Mayer outcomes child poor and income low both cause that characteristics background family other of out arises association this of heightened conflict among family members (Conger members family among conflict heightened and relationship marital the of quality the health, mental parents’ options, future their on have might it that impact the family’sand situation economic children’sinclude the could about These worries intervention. for targeted be could hardship economic of experience families’ of facets different Many effective. be could income low of impact emotional the with cope families helping to gearedprogrammes Alternatively, interventions. policy through altogether – poverty is, that – stressremove the to important moreeven be may it that argued (2002) Seccombe resilience,cultivate to help can unit family the on focusing solutions individual-levelresilience. While foster to needed tools the with providefamilies can income family increasing at aimed policies that suggested (2002) Seccombe distress. psychological concomitant and strain economic of perceptions lessening by well-being emotional families’ affect also could they investments, child-specific in declines minimise and consumption smooth to families help programmes such might only Not 1999). al. et (Conger management money effective in education or training job as things providesuch or skills search job parents’ promote to aim might they or families to assistance financial involvedirect might programmes Such stress. economic of face the in resilient more be to families help also might it precipitate that events the or income low of shock economic the mitigating at aimed programmes of types Other 6b). Section (see report the in later discussed areprogrammes such of Examples parents. to available supports the and skills parental enhance to aim which developed been has programmes intervention of range a 1991). Thus al. et (Cowen outcomes child negative and hardship financial high or income family low between association the mitigate can that – discipline consistent and age-appropriate of use parents’ and years school elementary and preschool the in relations child parent-positive including – parenting with associated protectivefactors identified have Severalstudies children’sfacilitate can this development.challenges, facing families among parenting in disruptions or distress psychological parental minimise help to availableareresources or supports that extent the to that is findings these of implication The Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 43 build the capacity to provide their children with cognitively that help low-income parents stimulating experiences and academic success, programmes programmes programmes that provide development development and consequent children children with these types of for children’s intellectual for children’s experiences in extra-familial importance of such stimulation children receive children and receive the environments environments could be cognitive cognitive stimulation that of poverty on the level of particularly fruitful. Finally, given the substantial effects Finally, of maternal warmth, mother-child play, maternal of maternal warmth, play, mother-child teaching and frustration tolerance. Mothers who parenting received support such as help with child care were less and restrictive punitive with their children than those who did not. Single Parenthood Single-parent family structure is recognised as a significant risk factor for parental well-being and adjustment. trends Overall in reproductive children’s behaviour and family structure in New Zealand fit broadly with those recorded in Europe, North America and Australia (Pool et al. 1998). The most important changes have been a drop in fertility to below- replacement rates and a shift to later childbearing. Furthermore, as in other countries, New Zealand is experiencing a shift away from legal marriage and toward cohabitation as the type of first union entered (Pool et al. research shows that 1998). Importantly, children being raised in cohabiting-couple households have developmental outcomes that are similar to those of children raised in single-parent homes; in other words, they do not fare as well as children in married-parent households and (DeLeire Kalil 2001). In New Zealand, as in the US, many single mothers reside in multigenerational families. At younger ages a in high particular, proportion of all single parents are living with (and presumed to be receiving support from) their in own families New of origin. Moreover, Zealand, the proportion of single-parent families living Programmes that help low- Programmes that build the income parents their capacity to provide children with cognitively stimulating experiences and programmes that provide children with these types of experiences in extra-familial environments could be particularly fruitful. et al. 1999). As well as servicesproviding to families programmes could make referrals to, or directly, information provide about, other sources of assistance, such as mental health services. Satisfaction with social support also appears to be a key factor that underlies some of the variation in psychological well- being among low- income parents. Both the quality of intimate relationships and the quantity of social ties are related to psychosomatic symptoms. In a study of 52 low-income single mothers, Olson et al. (1994) found that those with higher levels of perceived and actual support scored better on several indicators of psychological adjustment than their counterparts who were dissatisfied with their sources of support. In a longitudinal study of 833 low-income single mothers, having an intimate, confiding relationship was found to be inversely related to feelings of sadness (Thompson and Ensminger 1989). Community networks, church attendance and group affiliations may also protect against depression (Cohen and Wills 1985, Gladow and Ray 1986, Hall the et extent al. that 1985, Stack To 1974). psychological distress is associated with less effective parenting behaviour and poorer quality of family relationships, these findings useful provide suggestions about potential factors protective that might help to boost family resilience in the context of (1990) McLoyd examined the low income. Similarly, ways in which low-income parents’ social networks moderate emotional strain and its consequent effect She on found parenting behaviour. that emotional support reduced negative symptomatology among poor parents. Practical support, including information was provision, also important. The of provision useful information and advice about parenting practices and home management was associated with higher levels MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 43 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage44

Empirical Evidence 44 Raising Children in New Zealand third of Ma of third one- but parents, single Pakeha of one-quarter than less US); the in does it (as groups ethnic between variesstructures household multigenerational in Differences in family economic resources have been haveresources economic family in Differences outcomes. child in differences produce families parent two- and single-parent between differences economic substantial that hypothesises perspectivedeprivation economic 1994). The Sandefur and McLanahan 1992, (Haurin stress and socialisation deprivation, economic explanations: theoretical primary three by guided been has homes two-parent from children average,than on well, less fare homes parent single- from children why examining researchPrevious 1995). al. et (Chase-Lansdale life later in childbearing non-marital and poverty health, mental poor as such problems of risk heightened a have also life in early divorceparental of effects the to exposed are who Children Steinberg1987). 1994, Sandefur and McLanahan 1985, al. et Dornbusch 1991, al. et (Cherlin activities deviant or behaviours problem in engaging of likelihood greater and 1991) (Dawson problems health to vulnerability increased (Steinberg1987), pressure peer negative to susceptibility greater 1986), Zill and Peterson 1992, Clingempeel and Hetherington 1991, Dawson 1990, Hetherington and Chase-Lansdale 1996, (Aseltine distress psychological increased 1994), Sandefur and (McLanahan achievement school and aspirations educational lower display to likely more are homes single-parent from Children childbearing. teenage to relation in report this of section subsequent a in discussed be will resilience family in structure family multigenerational the of particular,role in the parents young relevanceto its Given 1998). al. et (Pool census 1991 the of time the at households multiple-family in livedparents, ¯ ori and almost half of Pacific Island single Island Pacific of half almost and ori their children. a protectivefactorfor might potentiallyserveas involvement fathers’ children’s lives,thenthe active participantsintheir resident fathersremain arrangement wherebynon- successfully negotiatean never livedtogethercan separate orwhohave If biologicalparentswho potentially serve as a protective factor for their for protectivefactor a as serve potentially involvementmight children’sfathers’ the then lives, their in participants activeremain fathers resident non- whereby arrangement an negotiate successfully can together livednever have who or separate who parents biological If development. emotional and children’son have they impact cognitive the and lives children’stheir in play fathers non-resident role the on focus increasingly interests policy Researchand ProtectiveFactorsas FathersFathersSocial Non-resident and mechanisms could be operating interactively.operating be could mechanisms different and simultaneously operating be could severalmechanisms exhaustive; exclusivenor neither are mechanisms Kelly1980). These Wallersteinand 1990, Hetherington and (Chase-Lansdale monitoring and control communication, decreased and discipline Finally, the stress theory emphasises the effects of effects the Finally,emphasises theory stress the home. two-parent a in model role male a of presence the from benefit children that further and monitoring and supervision as such functions parenting important out carrying for crucial are parents two that hypothesises perspective socialisation 1994). The Sandefur and (McLanahan counterparts dual-parent their and families single-mother between outcomes developmental child in differences the of half approximatelyone- for account to study one in shown demonstrate reduced affection, inconsistent affection, reduced demonstrate family structure changes. Changes changes. structure family parents are hypothesised to hypothesised are parents in family structure are structure family in the process of separation, of process the children’sresidence of place hypothesised to increase to hypothesised associated with changes in the in changes with associated and school. These changes are changes school. These and arrangements are also are arrangements posited to have a cumulative a have to posited et al. 1997). Moreover,1997). al. et during Disruptions in family in Disruptions disequilibrium in family in disequilibrium outside the family as well. as family the outside relationships with others with relationships relations and to disrupt to and relations negative effect on children’son effect negative (Aquilino 1996, Wu 1996, Wu1996, Wu (Aquilino developmental outcomes developmental Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 45 be important, the child outcomes likely to be most sensitive to father the involvement, probable pathways of influence and the potential contextual moderators of father of Frequency involvement. for example, be contact, may, a for proxy the quality of relationship with the the father’s child or it may reflect the quality of the relationship between the mother which and could the also father, influence child outcomes. Fathers’ economic contributions have obvious direct links to child development, but could also operate indirectly via maternal characteristics by, for example, reducing financial strain on mothers. The emotional tie between father and child is likely to be the relationship dimension with the most significant implications for child well-being and, as discussed parenting above, practices such as warmth, and involvement firm discipline behaviours can be practised by absent fathers to increase the likelihood of positive behavioural outcomes among children. meta-analysis Amato that revealed and Gilbreth’s absent fathers contribute most to children’s adjustment by paying child support and engaging in authoritative parenting behaviours (e.g. providing high levels of support and moderate levels of non- coercive control). Economic support was especially academic importantoutcomes and, for to children’s a lesser extent, for emotional The outcomes. relationship dimensions of father were involvement positively associated with academic outcomes and with scores on measures of externalising and the findings internalising in symptoms. this However, area were not straightforward. In general, frequency of contact was not associated with children’s development and most studies found only a modest, albeit significant, link between feelings of closeness and child These well-being. findings suggest the need to go beyond simplistic notions of father involvement and to increase the focus on ways that families operate collectively to support positive caregiving by both parents. In addition to expanding their understanding of the role that fathers play in families, researchers in the field of family resilience are in the process of expanding their view of who might play a role as a father figure. Biological father absence does not necessarily mean that children lack a father figure. Particularly in social contexts where rates of non- children. children. Evidence on the influence protective of absent biological father is involvement discussed in this section. Many early studies of “father absence” focused simply on whether a father was present in the household or not. Later studies focused on father- child visitation frequency and on fathers’ payment of formal child support. The most recent studies have looked not only at informal economic contributions to the support of the child at but, the more importantly, socialisation practices of absent fathers and at the quality of relationships between absent fathers and their children. in Researchers this field seem to be in agreement that father needs involvement to be conceptualised as a multifaceted concept. Barring a few recent exceptions, previous work on absent fathers has focused on fathering following divorce, primarily among white, middle-class families. Studies that have examined fathering in African-American families have relied on small samples. Almost no studies have examined fathering” “social (i.e. the role played by a male relative or family associate who demonstrates parental behaviours and is “like a father” to the child) in any population This sub-group. may be a particularly important phenomenon in cultures or ethnic groups characterised by fluidity in and adult in, involvement responsibilities for, childrearing activities. Socioeconomic factors such as education, income and employment status are consistent predictors of absent biological father Among involvement. non-resident fathers, those who are more educated, financially better off and employed are more likely to contribute financially and to stay engaged emotionally with the and child (Greene and Moore 2000, Tamis-LeMonda Cabrera 1999). In to proximity addition, the father’s the child (e.g. whether he lives in the same city or state), of provision support for the child by the family of origin father’s and a positive relationship between the biological father and mother are associated with a greater likelihood that the father will remain (Coley involved and Chase-Lansdale 1998). According to (1999) Amato recent meta- and Gilbreth’s analysis, most of the research in this area has been so lacking that in we theory, know little about why certain dimensions of father are involvement likely to MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 45 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage46

Empirical Evidence 46 Raising Children in New Zealand formulations have emphasised the importance of a of importance the emphasised have formulations theoretical Although members. family male positive with relationships supportive of development the facilitates (4) and functioning; autonomous of degree some for allows (3) environment; family structured providesa (2) approach; disciplinary effective an maintains and implements (1) mother: his if risk” “low be still may family single-mother a in lives who boy a that suggested findings the boys, teenage Latino and African-American income low- of study colleagues’ his and Florsheim In 1998). al. et (Florsheim household two-parent or mother single- a in live they whether as well as important is models role male with relationships boys’ of quality the that point the underscoring problems, behaviour in variance of proportions distinct for account member family male positive a of absence the and motherhood single that shown Researchhas outcomes. child positive with associated improvementschildren.may, These their be turn, in providefor mothers environment home the of quality the and behaviour parentingimprove maternal to helping thereby assistance, and providingsupport by health mental maternal on influence positive a have may fathers social them, with interactions children’sto own make their throughmay well-being they contribution direct the to addition In adjustment. children’sto indirectly emotional and and cognitive directly both contribute fathers social that possible is it fathers, biological absent with As issue. this on guidance providesome frameworks Theoretical children’sto related be father adjustment? social a involvementof and presence the might How fathers. social from contributions important potentially miss involvementfather biological non-resident on solely children’son focus impact that Studiesdevelopment. potential their and fathers social to literature the in paid been has However,role.attention little yet as parental a play may mothers single of boyfriends or Additionally,children. partners male cohabiting with relationship close a or interaction regular have may who uncles, or grandfathers as such members, family male be may fathers Social father”. “sociala of presence the from benefit may children roles, “non-traditional”parenting play often women and men adult and high are childbearing marital to behaviour problems or poor adjustment among the among adjustment poor or problems behaviour to lead and dynamics family in tension cause may this figures, father as partners their nominate wishfully mothers when or fathers like act who partners male have mothers when hand, other the On role. father’sabsent the fill would person this perhaps children’simprovingthe behaviour, that thinking or stabilising of hope the in model role male a introduce to likely more be may children adjusted well- less have who mothers hand, one the On effects. of direction the discern to Kalil and Jayakody allow not did data the of nature cross-sectional The adjustment. emotional of levelslower significantly mother’sthe partner,was romantichad children figure father the found. Where was pattern different children’sto respecta With adjustment, social materials. learning stimulating cognitively and books with child providethe also relativesmay Male enjoyable. more time that make or children their with time more mothers poor single, allow which activities in engage may figures relativefather male example, For ways. stimulating cognitively and warm in children the with engage to mother’sthe ability supports or behaviour parenting grandfather,a appropriaterelative,perhaps models male the whereby function supportive a reflect could mothers. This providedby environment home the of quality the by mediated be to found was relationship howeverthis readiness; school of levels higher with associated was figures relativefather male of presence was. The figure father the who on depended association the of nature the that but outcomes, child with associated was presence father social that found researchers design. These cross-sectional a on relied but size, sample large its for notable was study children. The preschool black approximately700 among adjustment emotional and readiness school on presence father social of effects the on study a completed recently (2002) Kalil and Jayakody child. the of gender children’son fathers the by variesdevelopment social of influence the whether about conclusions firm draw to differences sex on research enough Currently,1999). Gilbrethnot and is there(Amato child the of sex the by vary to appeared generally not involvementhave father of effects the on findings particular,empirical in the boys for model role male Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 47 their They parenting. also appear to use more punitive childrearing practices (Field et al. 1980) and to display more physically intrusive behaviour (Lawrence et al. 1981) than older mothers. Finally, early childbearing appears to be associated with some negative outcomes among offspring, although research now suggests that the effects on children are not as deleterious as was once thought (Levine et al. 2000). The possible presence of selection effects – that is, the extent to which the negative outcomes observed among young mothers are in fact a result of teen childbearing itself or whether they are due to factors that pre-date the childbearing – is a pressing issue in this research. Results from recent studies have begun to challenge the view that negative life outcomes observed among teenage mothers are attributable to early childbearing, per se. For example, in Fergusson (2000) New Zealand study of and Woodward’s 520 young women observed from birth to 21 years, those who became pregnant by age 18 had significantly lower rates of school achievement and post- secondary education than their peers who postponed once pre-pregnancy measures of However, pregnancy. behaviour and academic family ability, circumstances were included in the regression model, the association between pregnancy and post-secondary education became non-significant (see also Geronimus newer 1997, Hoffman 1998). Similarly, research using methodological techniques such as fixed-effect models, and research that has capitalised on natural experiments (e.g. by comparing teenagers who gave birth with those whose pregnancy ended in a miscarriage) to capture the effects of unobserved background characteristics also tend to yield findings that suggest a lesser role for the timing of childbearing than previously thought (Hoffman 1998, Hotz et al. 1997). In other words, young girls from disadvantaged backgrounds may have limited life outcomes (on in average) young adulthood, regardless of whether they had a child as a teenager. Nevertheless, although the negative effects of teenage childbearing are reduced when background factors are taken into account, some scholars have found that statistically significant (and substantively important) associations persist (although others have not) (Hoffman 1998, Hoffman et al. 1993). And simply Teenage Childbearing Teenage childbearing has been Teenage found to be associated with an array of negative outcomes for both the young mothers and their children. On average, teenage mothers have lower levels of educational attainment than do other women. Adolescent mothers, are especially those in poverty, at greater risk than their non-parenting peers of negative educational outcomes such as school drop- out and curtailed educational attainment et (Furstenberg al. 1987, Mott and Marsiglio 1985, Upchurch 1993). Only 64 percent of teenage mothers complete high school, compared with 90 percent of all teenage women (United States General Accounting Office 1995). With respect to mental health, although many do not experience psychological distress, on teenage average mothers – when compared with adolescents or young adults who do not have children – display significantly elevated levels of symptoms depressive (Leadbeater and Linares 1992). In one recent study of 2,000 approximately young women, all of whom had been teenage mothers, one-half over met a commonly used criterion indicating risk of clinical depression (Quint et al. 1997). In contrast, less than ten percent of non-childbearing adolescents meet diagnostic criteria for depression and (Leadbeater teenage Linares 1992). mothers Not with surprisingly, higher levels of symptoms depressive display less effective parenting behaviours and their children display greater adjustment problems and (Leadbeater Bishop 1994). Depression also predicts lack of employment among low-income single mothers (Danziger et al. 2000) and is associated with rapid- repeat pregnancy among adolescent mothers (Gillmore et al. 1997). Compared with older mothers, studies have also found teenage mothers to be less sensitive (Ragozin et al. 1982), less responsive (Jones et al. 1980) and more (Coll restrictive et al. 1986) in children. children. Male partners might also compete with children time for and the attention. mother’s the study Unfortunately, was not able to gather information on the quality of the relationship between the children and their social fathers. given the potentially important However, impact of adjustment, social this father presence on children’s question should be pursued in future research. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 47 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage48

Empirical Evidence 48 Raising Children in New Zealand the Ma the 20. While of age the under women 1,000 per births 34 of rate fertility a to equates Zealand. This New in births all of percent seven for accounted births teen 1995, of end the By fallen. has rate the then, Since 1970s. and 1960s the in percent 12 about of peak a to 1960 to prior Zealand New in births all of percent five about from grew births teen that indicate (1995) Health of Ministry the and Zealand New Statistics from Figures US. the to only second and Woodward2000), Fergusson1998, Baragwanath and (Dixon world developed the in pregnancy teenage of rates highest the of one has Zealand New disadvantage. economic considerable of circumstances in living are mothers young many that fact the negate not does children their and mothers young for “cause”outcomes poor not does childbearing teenage that establishing young women in this study left school before the before school left study this in women young the of All satisfaction. parenting and styles parenting support, financial of sources attainment, educational their examined that mothers adolescent 120 of 1996) (Dixon study Zealand New recent a is exception One 286). (p. unit” obstetric the fromdischarged are they once child her and mother adolescent the of plight the investigated which researchZealand New no been recently until has “there noted, Baragwanath and Dixon As 1998). Baragwanath and (Dixon scant been has Zealand New in children their and mothers adolescent by experienced difficulties the Researchon standards. international by high remains this Evenso, 2002). Zealand New (Statistics 20 of age the under women 1,000 per 28.1 to fallen had rate fertility teenage the 2001), December 31 ending year the (for figures recent most the In 20. under aged women 1,000 per births 82 about at 1995, in level relativelyhigh a at remained it 1970s, the since ¯ ori rate has also fallen also has rate ori full-time enrolment. policies requiring and inflexibleschool newborn children to beapartfrom child care,notwanting including expensive this optionformany, there werebarriersto from areturntoschool, children) couldbenefit mothers (andtheir Although teenage New South Wales Department of School Education School of South WalesDepartment New security.financial the and fromresearch Australian independence economic gain to mothers adolescent of inability the in role significant a play education of levelslow that noted (1998) Baragwanath and Dixon education. secondary of years four and three between completed having majority a children, their of births and Baragwanath 1998). Although teenage mothers teenage Although 1998). Baragwanath and (Dixon Zealand New in mothers young of education the with dealt that governmentpolicy no was there 1998, in that, noted Baragwanath and Dixon 300). (p. school” to back child and mother both “bring to is society involvedin actively children their and mothers adolescent keep to which by mechanism the that asserted (1998) Baragwanath and Dixon mothers. these of education continuing the for responsible was who to as agreement no pregnancy,on was place there in and policy written a had they that noted sample the in schools 99 school’sHowever,programme.the health of two only the in goal key a preventionwas pregnancy thought sample the in schools the of all Almost birth. giving after school to returned mothers disadvantaged these of percent nine only and locales status socioeconomic low in schools attending were study her in mothers teen the of percent Eighty-five school. secondary in girls all of percent 40 almost and schools (1996) indicates that many that indicates (1996) in a study that encompassed 99 encompassed that study a in adolescents who become who adolescents Zealand mothers (aged under 16) under (aged mothers Zealand of schooling of young New young of schooling of the continuation or truncation or continuation the pregnant assume that they will they that assume pregnant Baragwanath (1996) examined (1996) Baragwanath mothers in New Zealand. New in mothers disadvantage of adolescent of disadvantage for the educational the for may be a plausible explanation plausible a be may evidence suggests that this that suggests evidence Zealand, but anecdotal but Zealand, research on this in New in this on research not be welcome at welcome be not there is no comparable no is there Baragwanath (1998) noted that noted (1998) Baragwanath conventional schools or are or schools conventional available to them. Dixon and Dixon them. to available unaware of the options the of unaware Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 49 Multigenerational Multigenerational Co-residence as a Factor Protective Multigenerational co-residence has long been thought to help single mothers, and teenage mothers in to navigate particular, the challenges of early most teenage mothers parenting. live with Generally, their own mothers. Multigenerational co-residence is more likely when the is mother unmarried, is younger, has fewer children and has fewer economic resources of her own, and when the grandmother has provided social support during pregnancy the young mother’s (Gordon 1999, Gordon et al. 1997). A number of studies have examined how multigenerational family structure is associated with young mothers’ economic progress, parenting competence and the development of the young mothers’ however, children. Notably, these studies have not attempted to correct for selection factors that predict living arrangements. Thus, results from these studies are likely to be biased, although the extent and direction of bias are unknown. Multigenerational living arrangements can benefit adolescent mothers’ socioeconomic outcomes, especially if grandmothers help the young mothers to acquire more education et (Furstenberg al. 1987, Unger and Cooley 1992). Short-term co-residence appears to be particularly beneficial in this regard. In mothers who were (1987) study, et Furstenberg al.’s unmarried and remained living in their parents’ homes first five years during of their life children’s were more likely to have returned to and finished high school, worked and not welfare received than their unmarried counterparts who out moved of their parents’ homes. and Harlan Trent (1994) used cross-sectional national data to link multigenerational co-residence to educational progress and better economic well-being among teenage mothers. The greater availability of child care and social support for young mothers in multigenerational households may account for some of the positive effects on socioeconomic outcomes (East and Felice 1996, Spieker and Bensley 1994). In contrast, increasing numbers of developmental psychological studies show that multigenerational co-residence is detrimental to teen mothers’ parenting competence and behaviours, particularly among African-American families (Black and Nitz 1996, Chase- Lansdale et al. 1994, East and Felice 1996, Spieker and ori or Pacific Island ethnicity. The ori or Pacific Island ethnicity. ¯ (and their children) could benefit from a return to school, there were barriers to this option for many, including expensive child care, not wanting to be apart from newborn children and inflexible school policies requiring full-time enrolment (Dixon and Baragwanath 1998). Dixon and Baragwanath (1998) noted that, unless they could afford child care, the only other option for young mothers was to study by correspondence, which led to a loss of contact with friends from school. This was especially hard on disadvantaged teens at a vulnerable time in their Without lives. an opportunity to continue their schooling, these young people were likely to become marginalised from their peers and to suffer irrevocable loss of their basic education, which was likely to have a serious and permanent negative impact on them and their children. In response to these issues, in 1994 November the first educational programme for adolescent mothers in New Zealand was set up under the of governance Porirua College in Cannons Creek ward, the poorest This initiative, ward He in Huarahi the country. (A Chance for Children), Tamariki is an alternative education programme for young mothers and was based in part on the work of Susan Baragwanath who observed 56 education programmes during a study tour of the US (Dixon and Baragwanath, 1998; currently has He Tamariki Huarahi www.hht.school.nz). a roll of 50 over students, including both teenage mothers and teenage fathers. The majority of the students are of Ma administers the Trust programme, He Tamariki Huarahi along with the Griffin School for Early – Learning which for provides the preschool-aged children of young – parents and attending an He Huariki Tamariki in the Outreach Teachers Outreach Programme. visit Programme expectant or new young mothers in their homes to encourage them to continue going to programme has been school. The He Tamariki Huarahi deemed “highly successful” by the Ministry of Education and the Educational Review Office although the (www.hht.school.nz), programme has not been subject to a formal evaluation. Since the He initiative, a number of Tamariki other Huarahi teen parent classes have been set up in other locations around New These Zealand. classes are resourced by the Ministry of Education on the basis of identified local need. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 49 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage50

Empirical Evidence 50 Raising Children in New Zealand mothers’ emotional well-being when conflict occurs conflict when well-being emotional mothers’ young with associated negatively be may co-residence multigenerational that suggested have studies Psychological groups. ethnic or cultures different in differ might that life family of facet another suggests finding households. This multigenerational in mothers teenage black) not (but white among depressivesymptoms more with associated were child) her and mother teen the (about making decision- in participation grandmother of levels higher that showed (2000) Kalil and Schweingruber grandmother.the and mother adolescent the between conflict of degree high a is there if particularly distress, psychological increased with associated be might co-residence grandmother that showed (1998) al. et Kalil results. mixed producedhave studies these and well-being psychological mothers’ teen to structure family multigenerational linked have studies of handful a only but practices, parenting of determinant known a is adjustment Psychological priority.research top a is children, and adults for outcomes with connection their and households, multigenerational within interactions intra-familial of study the pursuing resilience, family of notion the to processes family of types these of importance the Given 1996). al. 1998, Wakschlaget al. et Kalil 1996, Felice and East 1999, al. et Lansdale Chase- 1996, (Burton grandparents and parents as identity mid-life grandmothers’ and adulthood to transition mothers’ young to salient processes family other and childrearing for responsibilities shared intergenerationalconflict, of effects negative the to point Some arise. might effects negative such why on provideevidence studies Few not. were who those from differ not did origin of family their with living were who mothers teen of behaviours parenting Additionally,did. family the outside adult an from support receiving those while levels,stress maternal lowerhave not teen’sdid the – includes mother own usually which – origin of family their with living were who mothers adolescent that showed findings teen’sthe providedby mother.that own than The valuablemore be may family immediate the outside adult an by offered support emotional that suggests family.immediate her with study lives This she if impeded be mother’smay development skill parenting adolescent an that showed 1996) (Dixon Zealand New in researchrecent Furthermore, 1994). Bensley parenting behaviours. In the case of teen-parent of case the In behaviours. parenting optimal less predict also may it families, teen-parent multigenerational among stability economic greater with associated be may co-residence grandmother while contrast, In behaviours. parenting optimal more and stability economic greater both with associated generally are structures family dual-adult families, single-adult with compared example, For effects. of pathways complex potentially suggests evidence however,mothers; teen existing of arrangementsthe living and structures family the of study the to application has 1994). This Sandefur and (McLanahan behaviours parenting and well-being economic via aredevelopment child to structure family linking pathways key two that suggests development child and parenthood single on literature broader the above,fromresearch mentioned As influence. of pathways and outcomes, child and maternal in domain-specificity arrangements, living alternative of effect the arrangements, living in transitions of effect the duration, or timing its on depending varyco-residence multigenerational of protectivefunctions the whether include childbearers teenage among resilience family to pertains it as literature the by neglected topics Important issue. this on conclusions definitive draw to studies few too are there present, At 1992). Cooley and Unger 1996, Felice and (East outcomes same these on effects negative found have others and 1993) al. et Pope 1994, Bishop (Leadbeaterand development emotional and cognitive preschoolers’ on co-residence grandmother of effects positive found have studies few a whereas effects, of pattern discernible no found (1987) al. Furstenberget mixed. are studies existing of handful the from results households, multigenerational within mothers young of children the of development the to regardWith behaviour.parenting and arrangements living between association spurious a producing thus homes, parents’ their leave to resources psychological the lack also may skills parenting poorest the with mothers e.g. associations, these in role a play however,may mind, factors selection that in bear to important is It 1996). al. Wakschlaget 1996, Felice and East 1996, (Burton seeking autonomy- and individuation adolescent and care child responsibilities, household of division overthe Raising Children in New Zealand Empirical Evidence 51 quality of relationships, would be to assess the clues for future research, but patterns of shared a family resilience potentially fruitful approach sectional data some provide perspective perspective demands longitudinal data. Another childrearing childrearing and methods of facilitated over facilitated time. over Cross- facilitating young mothers’ and young young mother and her child is their children’s development as their children’s they are negotiated and implemented within the family time. over Ethnicity, Culture Resilience and Family Ethnicity, In evaluating research on the effects of family well-being, it is structure on importantchildren’s to be alert to family-level differences that may influence how children fare in the face of family disruption and in their experience of living in different family This structures. is particularly important in any discussion of family resilience. Much of the work in this area has focused on the role of families’ race or ethnicity and its interaction with family structure. Although there is very little research comparative on the factors that predict resilience across different ethnic groups, there are good reasons to suspect that the meaning of resilience and the mechanisms by which it operates differ in different cultural or ethnic contexts. For example, in a discussion of black and white American families, Wilson (1986) argued that the meaning of, and processes in, involved marriage, marital dissolution and single parenting differ in families he of different ethnic groups. Specifically, argued that black mothers might adjust more successfully than white mothers to single parenthood the family’s part the to family’s opportunitiesprovide for young mothers to feel competent as parents. there are virtuallyUnfortunately, no studies that track the adjustment of young mothers in multigenerational families time, over assessing, for example, how they adjust to the transition to parenthood and how the development of both the There are good reasons There are good to suspect that the meaning of resilience and the mechanisms by which it operates differ cultural or in different ethnic contexts. families, in which multigenerational family structures may give rise to trade-offs in these domains, it is not known which of these two influences is more relevant development or for for maternal young children’s This well-being. is also likely to be contingent on other factors, such as the quality of the mother- grandmother relationship and the nature of other intra-family processes. In addition, as discussed earlier in this report, the family resilience framework points to resilience as something that can change and develop time; over the factors that promote well- being at one stage in the life course may be different from those that promote well-being at a later or characterise earlier point. To a family as resilient in this context suggests a pattern of positive adaptation a life course time. perspective over also Moreover, entails a consideration of each family member’s position in the context of his or her own stage of (1996) life development. course Burton’s perspective suggests that developmental life stages, generational positions and family roles are often blurred in multigenerational families involving early childbearing and that this has implications for the influence of parental authority and for adolescents’ These perceptions of age-appropriate behaviour. findings suggest that associations between co-residential living arrangements and developmental outcomes may differ by maternal age. Among young teenage mothers, co-residence may be seen as normative and a needed support system for adolescent well-being. According to 1980 US Census data, 66 percent of non-married teenage mothers lived in three-generational households when their children were newborn, but this number declined time over (Gordon 1999). Chase-Lansdale et al. (1994) hypothesised that the poorer parenting behaviours they observed among co-residing young mothers of might be three-year-olds due to a developmental delay in establishing an independent household, increased conflict resulting from a diffusion of responsibility for parenting the child or an inability on MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 51 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage52

Empirical Evidence 52 Raising Children in New Zealand differ by race). Merriwether-de(1996) race). al. by Vrieset differ not does sample national US a in mothers single to born children of lives the involvementgrandparentin that evidence for [1996] Aquilino see but 1986; (Wilson interactiverole an in functioned have and 1985) al. et (Chatters system family the of part integral an been Historically,development. havegrandmothers black children’sand well-being parental for protectivefactor a as viewed been long has family generation three- the communities minority ethnic many In families). intact from those than outcomes negative experience to likely morewere counterparts, white their like families, female-headed black from girls (although girls black than white among pronounced more significantly was childbearing adolescent of probability the on disruption marital of effect negative the that demonstrated (1988) Bumpass and McLanahan example, Forgroups. ethnic and cultures across differ may structure family in disruptions of children on effects the 1998). Thus, al. et (Pool effects birth-cohort and period by as well as factors, cultural by mediated are trends these that and marriage legal for substitute a becoming is cohabitation unions, first of case the in that, suggests literatureZealand New the Furthermore, Mitchell-Kernan1995). and (Tuckerwhites among pronounced less substantially been has marriage in decline 1986). The (Wilson education post-secondary lack who those for jobs remuneratedwell of pool shrinking a from stemming particular,in populations black urban American in “marriageablemen” of number the in decrease a to part in due be to hypothesised is transformation demographic type. This family normative the as marriage replace may cohabitation, as such forms, relationship other that and now community American black the in normative necessarily not is marriage Tuckerthat Mitchell-Kernansuggested and (TuckerIndeed, families Mitchell-Kernan1995). and black for dramatic especially been have changes these women, American all for increasedhave mothers never-marriedof number the and dissolution marital of rates whereas example, For 1988). Schwebel and (Fine community white the in than community black the in normativemore be may status single-parent that fact the to part in due be might women black among parenthood single to resilience observed This 1993). Fine McKenryand 1988, Schwebel and (Fine for an exception). an for 2000 Kalil and Schweingruber see (but groups ethnic and racial across differ life family multigenerational of consequences and correlates the how about however,known, still is Little 1987). al. Furstenberget 1994, al. et Chase-Lansdale (e.g. families black with conducted been have families multigenerational teenage of studies psychologicaldevelopmental Most independence. of norms family white of violation its to owing members its by preferred nor expected neither – aberrant as family white generation three- the characterises that research described (1991) Eggebeen and Hawkins contrast, In grandchildren. their to parents surrogate or co-parents either as served haveparents black many that suggested MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 53 5

Resilient communities MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage54

Resilient Communities 54 Raising Children in New Zealand T discussion also considers how resilience might manifest itself at the level of the community.the of level the at itself manifest might resilience how considers also discussion functioning. The family with connected is capital social how and capital social of measurement the concerning issues examines discussion following discussion. The this to central is capital social of idea measures of the of measures on studies many in reliance a to pointed also Stone measures. unidimensional on rely studies many yet concept, multidimensional a is capital social example, For 2001). Stone, in cited as 1999 (Paxton, questionable been have date to used capital social of measures that arguedhave researchers other and measurement and theory between chasm the emphasised also has work Prior capital. social of outcomes and measures meaning, the regarding confusion discrepancy,to leads turn, in work. This empirical in measured been actually has capital social which in ways the and capital social of underpinnings theoretical the between discrepancy a is there that asserted She framework. this using capital social of measures existing reviewed and capital social of measurement the for framework based theoretically a created (2001) Stone question. first the on centred findings preliminary the of Most communities. across capital social of distribution the and families; and individuals among capital social of distribution the capital; social of nature the issues: specific three on focused (2001) Hughes and Stone distributed. and generated is capital social how on research in gaps the address to wereproject this of goals primary Australia. The in adults 1,506 of survey Project, the from findings initial presented (2001) Hughes and Stone dimensions). key arereciprocity and trust which (of relations social of quality the on and structure) and type size, their as (such networks social of characteristics the on based capital social of measurement the to approach systematic indicators 5a Measuring SocialCapital which involved a nationally representativenationally involveda which Families an important role in one’s ability to overcome challenges (Wandersman and Nation 1998). The Nation one’s(Wandersmanand in overcomerolechallenges to ability important an play lives one which in neighbourhood the and community the Specifically members. individual its and family the of well-being the influence can lives family a which in society larger he of social capital. She suggested a suggested She capital. social of outcomes , Social Capital & Citizenship & Capital Social of social capital as capital social of reciprocity within the network. the within reciprocity or trust of levels with associated not was network a of size the that found also authors relations. The social of spheres related distantly more in trust of levels between correlationslower and relations social of proximatespheres in trust of levels between correlations higher with effect”, “ripple a indicate may this that suggested authors institutions. The in trust and members family household in trust between and trust, generalised and members family household in trust between found werecorrelations institutions. Weakerin trust and trust generalised between and respondent), the to known personally generally,moreare people who those beyond in trust is, “generalised”(that and trust familiars in trust family,between workmates), and friends extended wider the of members is, (that “familiars” in trust and members family household in trust of levels between correlationspositive significant wereThere mixed.were findings levels. The other at trust spawns level one at trust whether examined also authors The ties. institutional have and organisations to belong to likely morewere networks informal large with people Furthermore, individual’snetwork. informal non-familial the of size the individual’sand an network family of size the between correlationpositive strong a found authors organisation. The the in someone with contact personal a government),through the or company large a media, the police, the as (such institution powerful a to tie one least at having reported percent 93 and group or organisation community of kind some to belonged sample survey the of percent Eighty-six varies. networks their of size the although family,co-workers, or neighbours friends, with ties informal of form some have people most that suggested capital social of nature the on Results Raising Children in New Zealand Resilient Communities 55 particularly important for families facing personal and adults outside the family can be economic disadvantages connections to institutions and educational needs (Wandersman and Nation 1998). These to meet children’s social and to meet children’s (Sampson et al. 1997). can be connected to one another a social network in which adults Tomison and Wise (1999) looked at Tomison exposed to positive influences and community-level community-level mechanisms context in which children can be Resilience at the Community Level 5c through through which occurrences of child maltreatment can be The reduced. authors described current trends in and prevention discussed some mechanisms within a holistic framework for Importantprevention. in this discussion is the whole-of-community approach, where partnerships are formed between governments, health and education agencies, non-government agencies, religious organisations, private businesses, advocacy groups and families. These programmes take different forms in various locations, but all are grounded in the idea of cross-sectoral partnerships to promote the development of healthy communities. Researchers have Researchers also become interested in the ways that communities can manifest resilience and in the ways that families interact with their communities to produce well–adjusted children. Communities are characterised as when “resilient” they respond to a crisis or to significant adversity in a way that its resources and strengthens the its community, Recently Recently the literature on family functioning has broadened its scope of reference beyond child-, parent- and family-related factors to look more closely at the societal and community context of the family and how this might affect family functioning. Supportive relationships with other community members, such as church leaders or teachers, help to strengthen families’ ties within their communities and resources, in part bolster by children’s a providing Supportive relationships with other community members, such as church leaders or teachers, help to strengthen families’ ties within their communities and bolster resources. children’s Social Capital and Family Social Capital Functioning 5b Winter Winter (2000) noted that the connections between social capital and family functioning have been examined in two distinct ways: the creation of social capital within family networks and its impact on developmental outcomes; and the role children’s of families in creating social capital outside of family networks (see and Furstenberg Hughes 1995 for a similar conceptualisation). According to Winter (2000), social capital within the family is characterised by “bonding … within the informal, intense and durable, face-to-face connections of the household, resulting, in private- typically, regarding outcomes” (p.7). Social capital beyond the family corresponds to patterns of family life that are associated with norms of both trust and reciprocity in the larger community. Viewed from this perspective, social capital typically results in public-regarding outcomes. Current understanding of the relationship between family functioning and social capital is limited. Winter (2000) discussed the creation of social capital within the the way in family, which social capital at the family level may bridge across to the community level and factors that mediate this bridging process. He identified factors that are associated with each of 2, p. 14). these Parent-to-child ratio processes (Table appears to be the primary factor associated with the development of social Higher capital within the family. levels of education, lower levels of economic hardship and being married with children are factors that facilitate the connection between social capital at the family level and at the community level. Finally several mediating factors exist at the level of the neighbourhood that affect the degree to which social capital at the family level can contribute to social capital at the community level: these include locality type, the income crime rate, ethnic homogeneity, polarisation and the nature of local service provision. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 55 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage56

Resilient Communities 56 Raising Children in New Zealand the well-being of socially isolated families. isolated socially of well-being the threaten that risks associated of range a reduce to help may level community the at support social promoting 1999). Thus Bowes and (Fegan consequences negative other among self-esteem, low and isolation of sense a loneliness, to lead can connectedness of Lack life. of quality their and cope to ability members’ community affect may connectedness Conversely,social of lack a expectations. community by affected positively is behaviour their which through and norms learn they which through children, of socialisation collective of kind a to lead may capital social strong with community a of part being that posited (1999) Bowes and Fegan 1999). (Lutharenvironments their of dangers the from children their shield to attempts active made also and development child and life family for contexts as neighbourhoods their with satisfaction greater experienced rates maltreatment expected than Conversely,lower with neighbourhoods in parents necessary.were interventions when agencies public formal on relying instead supports, informal of use little made neighbourhoods these in parents that found alone. They conditions socioeconomic on based expected be would than maltreatment child of rates higher had that neighbourhoods some identified 1980) Sherman and Garbarino (see colleagues his and Garbarino outcomes. poorer with associated be to found been has networks informal of types these of lack A 1999). Bowen and (Nash activities delinquent or deviant in engage they when intervening and people young of activities the monitoring by norms these on act to residents of readiness the (2) and victimisation; criminal from residents neighbourhood protecting on value place that norms of sense shared a (1) dimensions: two includes control social Informal 1997). al. et (Sampson members community among develop that control of networks informal through expressed is which efficacy”, “collectiveof sense a of development the is arise effects these which through process important One 1995). al. et (Mangham participation community of level high a and challenges meeting in success of expectations collective high support, mutual include and resilience family produce to help that factors the to similar are level community the at resilience to contribute may Factorsthat 1995). al. et (Mangham cope to capacity MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 57 6

Policy and intervention MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage58

Policy and Intervention 58 Raising Children in New Zealand degree to which it is possible to help families to become resilient. become to families help to possible is it which to degree the on evidence the reviews briefly section press). This in Chase-Lansdale, and (Friedman intervention early as well preventionas of importance the to speak considerations these of Both families. and children for trajectoriesdevelopmental change to trying in inherent difficulties the recognise should policy-makers time, same the At adversities.chronic to exposure their limit to is families R 12 prominent risk factors associated with eight major eight with associated factors risk prominent 12 specified He adolescents. and children for programmes preventionsuccessful from protectivefactors and risk severalcommon identified (1998) Durlak studies, outcome 1,200 almost of review 1997 his on Based interventions. educational to opposed as interventions skills-oriented using practices, parenting on focus a and guidelines developmentalnormative of use factors, protectivefamily of identification parents, of issues psychosocial the to attention retention, and recruitmentintensive including intervention, of type this of implementation for techniques standard stipulated Liddle behaviour.and Hogue antisocial childhood to relation in specifically results good produce to shown been have interventions family-based (5) and outcomes; antisocial of probability the influence and adolescents and children affect processes interpersonal and contexts ecological (4) provideprotectivesupport; and children influence positively can parents (3) behaviour; externalising of development the on impact an have can factors related family- (2) programmes;individual-level from benefit not may people young some (1) preventionmodels: family-based towardtrend the spawned have may that insights five to pointed programmes. They of range the across differentwere that elements programme and similar were that elements programme identified and preventive interventions family-based of range a for information supporting of examination an conducted (1999) Liddle and Hogue interventions. community-based or school-based individual-based, of instead or to addition in prevalent,either increasingly become have Family-basedpreventive interventions 6a General Principles negative experiences or failures (Cowan et al. 1996). One clear way to promote well-being in well-being promote to way clear One 1996). al. et (Cowan failures or experiences negative cumulative by eroded be can it hand, other the on skills; coping new refine and develop to families or individuals help that experiences positive by enhanced be can esilience that there are many common risk and protectivefactors and risk common many are there that is finding important An support. social and self-efficacy skills, social and personal relationships, parent/child good modelling, peer positive schools, quality high- policies, social effective norms, social positive child’secology.social included protectivefactors The the in analysis of levelsvarying at occurred also factors programmes. These intervention successful in factors protectivecommon eight identified also Durlak factors, risk on focusing simply of Instead effects. multiplicative have factors risk that suggested also Durlak outcomes). particular with associated specifically not are factors risk (i.e. common in factors risk have outcomes negativedifferent (2) and analysis); of level one only at risks with associated is outcome no (i.e. discussed outcomes major the of each for analysis of levels multiple at exist factors risk (1) factors: risk these of analysis the Twofromemerged patterns teachers. and peers parents, on effects its through indirectly or directly children affect may and levels all at arise “stress”.may Stress labelled Durlak which “other” category generalised a as well as areas), other in problems and problemtarget the of onset (early individual the and childrearing) psychopathology,punitive and discord marital parental status, socioeconomic (low family the rejection), peer and pressure peer (negativegroup peer the (poor-qualityschools), school the policies), social ineffectual and neighbourhood the impoverishmentof were factors risk the (where community the ecology.included social analysis of levels The child’sthe in analysis of levelsvarious at occurred factors risk The pregnancy,AIDS). and use drug injury,physical abuse, health, physical physical poor failure, school problems, (behaviour outcomes negative Raising Children in New Zealand Policy and Intervention 59 problem problem mastery (i.e. gaining confidence through collaborative efforts).collaborative Clearly, the clinician (or intervention) efficacy through successful will need to track stressors and individual self-esteem and (i.e. risk factors) and coping crisis); and (4) bolstering family processes processes (i.e. protective factors) over time over and be mindful of the reorganising in reorganising the aftermath of a family’s culture, history and family’s background. background. In addition, it is important to understand the meaning the family itself makes out of the crisis. Is this framework useful for identifying and promoting family resilience among very vulnerable, multi-need families? This question is especially for relevant those who are concerned with families in socioeconomic distress. As a starting point, any intervention needs to recognise the environmental forces that threaten such families; clinicians and others must also work to change families’ deleterious ecological circumstances 1998). (Walsh Nevertheless,argued Walsh that many of the same principles apply: a family-centred programme must work to: (1) identify and build on family strengths; (2) take a family-centred approach to individual problems; (3) flexible, provide holistic services; (4) emphasise and prevention early intervention; and (5) help build community-based and collaborative partnerships among professionals and between professionals and families. Another set of intervention models takes the approach of trying to strengthen the family as a protective environment that promotes the prospect of achieving good child outcomes. Although these programmes have tended to treat the individual child as the focus of the intervention, they have also recognised the importance family of and the many child’s subscribe to (2) reducing negative chain reactions that heighten the risk of stress and further crisis (i.e. altering maladaptive coping strategies and developing the capacity to rebound from setbacks); (3) strengthening family protective processes and reducing vulnerabilities (i.e. mobilising resources and A family resilience approach to intervention has strengthening families’ capacity to master adversity through collaborative at its core. efforts for the negative outcomes discussed and that programmes designed to address multiple risk factors drawing on multiple factors protective may be more successful. A call for more programmes comprehensive Durlak qualified his may However, therefore be in order. findings by noting that, because many of the intervention preventive programmes had multiple components, it was not possible to conclude which specific components had contributed to the different outcomes. The causal relationships and mechanisms underlying these findings are therefore not well understood. In addition, he acknowledged that not all risk and factors protective were measured in the various studies included in his review, especially those that are genetic in origin. A family resilience approach to intervention has strengthening families’ capacity to master adversity through effortscollaborative at its core 1998). (Walsh Much of the literature approaches this topic from a clinical perspective, although an effort has been made throughout this report to present the ideas in a more general perspective. According (1998), to Walsh as a first step clinicians should focus on identifying strengths even among vulnerable families. Similarly, Munford and Sanders (2001), in the context of a study of home-based family support services, discussed the importance of moving from a deficit model of family functioning to one that seeks to identify families’ (1998) framework competencies and skills. Walsh’s outlining key family resilience processes (presented in Section 2b of this report) can serve as a useful guide for this. A core principle for strengthening family resilience is recognising not only that serious crises have an impact on but the also whole that family, family coping processes influence the and recovery resilience of the family as a unit and all its individual members. (1998) Walsh offered a (1987) modification of Rutter’s framework of principles for interventions with individuals that can be applied to the family resilience family view, resilience can be field. promoted In Walsh’s by: (1) decreasing risk factors (i.e. reducing exposure to risk and increasing capacity to cope with stress); MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 59 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage60

Policy and Intervention 60 Raising Children in New Zealand mean that intervention in school-age years and beyond and years school-age in intervention that mean not does this three, age to prior development early of importance the to points literature science brain early the although And, effects. bigger demonstrate to tended have studies better the – equally created are all not but programmes, intervention of effectiveness term long- the of evidence below,consistent producedhave summarised are which of examples studies, all Not traditions. and practices beliefs, cultural families’ to sensitiveare (7) and yielded; intervention the that progresspositive the child’smaintain the cannot that “regular”environment extent the to fade to likely are interventions early of effects positive initial the that recognise (6) principle); risk” “atgreatest (the others do than more benefit children some that recognise comprehensive;(5) more are (4) intense; more are (3) longer; continue (2) development; in earlier begin (1) interventions: successful that are“principles” resilience. The individual on frameworks existing fromextensively drawn has resilience family of field review,the this in elsewhereMoreover, resilience.noted been has as family of field the to application useful potentially have to appear principles the Nevertheless, level. family the at resilience boosting at aimed interventions improvingchildren’s behaviour,to opposed as at aimed programmes of consideration a fromemerged principles these that noted be should It “principles”. certain follow they if succeed to likely areprogrammes intervention (1998), Ramey and Ramey to According behaviour. parents’ changing by indirectly and directly both being well- improvingchild of goal the with unit, a as family the target that those or directly child the target that those are interventions successful most the whether about debate However,some be to continues there 112). (p.life” of years early the in stimulation adequate providenot do families whose children in development intellectual poor and retardation preventmental to essential deemed is “early intervention (1998), Ramey adversity.facing and Rameyfamilies to in According up growingchildren young for programmes intervention early of results the around centred has attention of flurry a years, recent In literature.resilience family the in described as principles of set similar a Australia. TerritoryNorthern the of in people Aboriginal young – group ethnic particular a among building capacity promote to aims that programme a examining community.by the concludes to discussion ties The their strengthening by capital social families’ boost to aim that programmesare discussed Also status. employment and income their namely – families of attributes other at aimed programmesmoves to then discussion the of focus parents. The their through indirectly than rather them, to directly services providingby childrendisadvantaged of well-being the improveto aims that programme model a providedof then is description A resources. access to them helps and problems through them guides that management case through well, parent to parents supporting by resilience promote to aim that programmes of examination an with begins discussion resilience. The of notion the with connected is that functioning or behaviour family of aspect some targeted another,or way each one in component; family a included they because chosen wereprogrammes Rather,exhaustive. be different to the intended means no by is summary resilience. This family of notion the reflect that families with working of ways different exemplify that programmes intervention recent of handful a summarises section This services. intervention programme’sof the fromset particular benefit to families for difficult it renderedhave may conditions risk other of number large a experiencing and poor being that arguedresearchers The risks. of number large a to exposed were who those for than factors risk of numbers moderate to low to exposed were who children poor for benefit morehave to found was programme the children, birth-weight lowlow-income, of scores IQ improvethe to designed Brooks-Gunn’sintervention an of evaluation (1994) and Liaw In effect. this find programmes intervention However,resources.of studies intervention all of not targeting the for implications has this disadvantaged; especially are who children for pronounced most be to appear effects the that is programmes these of some from resultFinally, effective. be important cannot an 6b Programme Exemplars Raising Children in New Zealand Policy and Intervention 61 development development or on rates of consistent effects on child health-promoting health-promoting behaviours. Some programmes have had control control families in any of the none has produced large or assessed domains (early families when compared with negligible effects. In particular, significant impact on programme the CCDP had no statistically childhood education, child and the incidence of neglect or abuse, family health, parenting, family economic self-sufficiency or maternal on parenting behaviour and lessened Importantly, it should Importantly, be noted that results from the set of home visiting programmes listed varied above widely across programme models, across sites within programme models and even across families at a single site (Gomby 1999). In general, although several programmes have produced positive effects life course) (St. Pierre and Layzer 1999). As yet, researchers have not been able to explain why some programmes succeed while others fail; nor have they been able to determine which types of families are likely to benefit from such interventions. In part, this may be due to the failure of administrators to implement services as intended and to establish effective connections with families. For example, across these different types of programmes, families only received about half of the number of services the programme was intended to deliver and many (sometimes a majority of) families dropped out of the programme before its scheduled end. Gomby et al. (1999) concluded that, despite the successes of some individual programmes, any benefits which may have been found to derive from a particular programme cannot be generalised to other types of programmes and that the home visiting model is in need of and/or improvement redesign. Duncan and Magnuson (2001) similarly concluded, from their review of the experimental evidence, that with a few noteworthy exceptions most parenting programmes appear ineffective at improving Linver et al. (2001) outcomes. Moreover, children’s Results from home visiting programmes varied widely across programme models, across sites within programme models and even across families at a single site. Parent-based Parent-based Interventions Parent-based intervention strategies focus on enhancing parental skills or resources in the hope that these enhancements will translate into child improved outcomes. Such programmes may be aimed at parental improving income, parental education or parental behaviours (Duncan and Magnuson 2001). The specific nature of the intervention varies from programme to programme and may encompass home visits, group support and informational sessions. Some interventions include a child component in addition to a parent component. Home visiting programmes, for example – which typically serve pregnant women and families with young children – have many different goals, including the promotion of good parenting skills, of prevention child abuse and neglect, school readiness and healthy and children’s improving a lesser development extent, (Gomby these To 1999). programmes aim to maternal improve well-being by promoting maternal education and employment and deferral of subsequent pregnancies. Recently Healthy Startevaluated programmes include Hawaii’s which Program, serves families identified as highly stressed or at risk of child abuse; Healthy Families America, which is a child abuse programme prevention Healthy modelled Starton Hawaii’s the Program; Nurse Home Visitation a Program, three-site demonstration programme developed by David Olds that is now being replicated nationally; the Parents as programme, which promotes early (PAT) Teachers childhood development; the Home Instruction (HIPPY), for Program Youngsters Preschool which aims to school improve readiness in three- to five-year-old children; and the Child Comprehensive Development (CCDP), Program a federal demonstration programme that works with poor families to promote children’s development, good parenting behaviours and family self-sufficiency (Gomby 1999). MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 61 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage62

Policy and Intervention 62 Raising Children in New Zealand years of the child’s life by registered nurses and cost and child’snurses registeredthe by of life years two first the during visits 23 and pregnancy during visits nine averageof involvedprogrammean the reported, (2001) Moreover,Magnuson and Duncan as most. it from benefit would that sub-groups the to targeted be should programme the scale, larger a on implemented if that, suggests population. This broader the for benefit providedlittle and sub-groups high-risk the in concentratedwere effects positive the However, partners. of sexual most fewer had had and less, drank and smoked convictions, and arrests fewer had had children these 15, aged were they when well; as mothers young these of children the for found were effects Long-termworkforce. the moveinto and support social gain mothers helped and pregnancies subsequent of deferral a in resulted ingestions, and injuries childhood of rates reducedprogramme the resources),psychological fewer had also who those particular,(in mothers young unmarried low-income among that, showed 1999) al. et Evaluations(Olds providers. service human and relevanthealth with up mothers the linked they and networks social establish to mothers helped visitors home Nurse childbearing. rapid-repeat and neglect, and abuse child outcomes, birth poor – outcomes aboverisky the of all were factors risk the functioning, healthy affect could that children the in behaviour antisocial early-onset for and childbearing; rapid-repeat was factor risk the outcomes, course life maternal poor for isolation; social and incapacities psychological mothers’ were factors risk the neglect, and abuse child for substances; to exposure pre-natal was factor risk identified the birth-weight, low as such outcomes birth poor For outcomes. child negative of range a with associated factors risk modifiable identified above.programmelisted The others the of any than effects positivemore showedprogramme intensive 1999). This al. et Program(OldsHome Visitation Nurse the – intervention parent-based a of example well-known a is conclusion this to exception An development.behavioural children’son impacts positive or with cognitive associated consistently not are parenting on impacts positive these families, low-income in parenting on effects positiveproduce can interventions home parent-focused although that, suggested child, as well as on the intensity of the intervention. intervention. the of intensity the on as well as child, the of age the on depend to appears interventions individual-focused such of Importantly,success the 2002). al. et Campbell 2001, al. et (Campbell parenthood delayed have to likely more were and university four-yearor a college attended have to likely as times three nearly werescores, test averagehigher had still group treatment preschool the from children impact: enduring an had had intervention the that showedresults 21. The age at assessed been recentlyhave infants) 111 original the of (104 children study insignificant. The or small were children school-age for intervention the of effects the contrast, In school. entered they once treatment further receivedthe also they not or whether placement, education special and retention grade of rateslower as well as achievement, school and ability cognitive of tests on scores higher had programme preschool the in children the that showedresults The 15. aged were they when up followedwere children years. The three of period further a for school the and parents the between liaison a as acted and instruction ResourceSchool Teacher”providedadditional who “Home- a had other the and intervention further receivedno group one – groups two into assigned randomlyentry,again school werechildren At the retardation. mental of risk at deemed wereproject this in children the of All services. receivethese not did that group control a or five, age to birth from year,a weeks 50 day,week, a a hours days eight five to up for services care child centre-based enriched receivedthat group treatment a into assigned randomlywerechildren birth, At 2000). Ramey and (RameyProject Abecedarian the is children at targeteddirectly programme a of example known well- One change. for mechanism the as behaviour parentaltargeting than outcomes child on impact stronger a have may children at directly intervention the targeting that suggest findings research Some Children TargetedInterventions at Directly national or regional programme.regional or national “scaled-up”a in possible be would what than higher substantially are cost and quality the that contended Magnuson and Duncan participant. per $6,000 Raising Children in New Zealand Policy and Intervention 63 or extracurricular structured, structured, formal child care activities not only because their participation in such programmes programmes (Huston et al. 2001). Children in the experimental group increased their parents were spending increased increased participation in more more time at work, but also have have been due to the children’s because they had modestly more Another approach is taken by programmes that aim to generate social capital at the neighbourhood or community level by helping families to expand their social networks with the goal of their improving resilience. As noted Durlak above, (1998) identified the availability of social support as a major protective factor that is associated with positive outcomes for children and adolescents. As a result of findings such as this, agencies government are developing policies aimed at child improving outcomes that stress the important role of social support. An example is the Pathways to Demonstration Prevention Project, an initiative of the Queensland state in government Australia (www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/ crimeprevention/safer.pdf). This project was founded on the premise that early intervention programmes are an effective means of reducing the risk of future criminal offending. The immediate goals of the programme had a narrow relatively focus: to enhance readiness for school through two children’s complementary programmes aimed at reducing Community-based Interventions programme programme and was not subject to work requirements (Knox et al. 2000). An important pathway of influence was through the programme’s financial incentives, which led to increased income another experimental Similarly, and reduced poverty. work-based income-supplement programme – New Hope – school improved performance and social behaviour among school-age boys. In part this may income to pay these for such activities. Interestingly, intervention programmes had few relatively effects on parents’ mental health or parenting behaviour. Interventions early in life Interventions early can help children attain the developmental skills they need to take advantage of opportunities later in life. Interventions Aimed at Boosting Families’ Financial Position In contrast to programmes that aim to improve human parenting or capital, to a boost children’s different type of intervention seeks to family improve well-being and child development by moving parents into work and boosting their incomes. A set of recent experimental interventions has identified generally positive outcomes of mandated work programmes for welfare families, particularly when the programmes not only require participants to work but also work “make pay”. In the Minnesota Family Investment (MFIP),Program children of single- parent, long-term welfare recipients showed positive outcomes on measures of school performance and behaviour problems compared with a control group that participated in the traditional welfare In Duncan and Magnuson’s (2001) In review Duncan of and the Magnuson’s experimental evidence, intensive programmes that target preschoolers were found to have had the most success. In contrast, less intensive programmes have had more mixed success and programmes targeted at adolescents (e.g. programmes that focus on school preventing drop-out or pregnancy) show very little evidence of being effective. Interventions early in life can help children attain the developmental skills they need to take advantage of opportunities later in life. It is likely that this is part of the explanation for early interventions being more effective than later interventions – because they have the capacity to set children on a different trajectory that has enduring effects the over life course. Duncan and Magnuson (2001) also contended that interventions early in life are likely to be more cost-effective since the cost of participants’ time is lower (because preschoolers have few competing demands on their time) and since there are more years which over the benefits of the programme can be enjoyed. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 63 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage64

Policy and Intervention 64 Raising Children in New Zealand completed a demographic questionnaire, the questionnaire, demographic a completed also Parentschildren. their involvementwith parents’ the about information recorded and Checklist Behavior Child Revised the completed teachers and Parents taken. weremeasures post-treatment and pre- Toprogramme’sthe evaluateof range a effectiveness, years. two for follow-ups monthly in participate to continue and graduate families weeks, eight the play.of quality end one the At one-to- and group; parent self-help a in participation time; couple table; family a at played games communication meals; family shared activities: key five on focusing and families of groupsinvolving meetings weekly involvesprogrammeeight self-esteem. The hyperactivity,lowbehaviours, or concentration poor problem display they if teachers by referredare ten to four aged delinquency,Children drop-out. school and and violence abuse, substance and alcohol of issues address to specifically designed is programme life. The daily in experience children and parents that stress the reduce to and members; family other and children by abuse preventsubstance to failure; school experiencing from preventchildren to functioning; family enhance four-fold:areto goals programme programme. The the of part as children around protectivefactors build to seeks it that in programmes preventivemany from differs FAST teachers. their by identified as failure, school of risk at are who children aroundlevels multiple on protectivefactors build to is FAST of aim problems. The behavioural child including difficulties, multiple experiencing families assist to designed is and schools primary in based is (www.wcer.wisc.edu/fast/).Canada and Australia FAST both in severalsites at adopted been has and US the in proveneffectivehas concept, this on based programme Schools TogetherFamiliesand world. the a (FAST), around preventionefforts to integral more becoming are ties community strengthen Programmesthat Project.Demonstration the fromavailable yet are results No schools. and groups cultural specific betweenimprove links and isolation social reduce to initiatives including developed, be will programmes of range broader a however,progresses,that project intended is it the As families. to support providingpractical and children’sproblems behavioural and communication physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs and needs spiritual and emotional mental, physical, basic have humans all that was course the of premise peers. The their and themselves both support to skills coping develop to wanted who people young and people; young support to skills coping develop to wanted who members family work; their in principles programme the use to wanted who professionals stakeholders: of groups three of needs the meet to designed was course empowerment 1997. The of part latter the Territoryin Northern Australia of the in people Aboriginal young among suicides attempted and suicides of numbers increased to response in developed was programme The (Tseylives overtheir control2000). Everygreater and take to them assisting by people, Aboriginal among capacity build to designed was course empowerment community.FamilyAustralian WellBeing The ethnic particular a “capacityamong building” of idea the on focuses exemplarprogramme final The Interventions Capacity-building problem behaviours among children. among behaviours problem total and excess motor anxiety/withdrawal, problems, disorder,conduct attention aggression, socialised of rates parents.in Teachersdecreases reported also with contact personal and communication telephone programme.in week Teachers increase an reported eight- the in participation their following networks support social from isolation less and stress parental Additionally,measures.less reported parents these of both on range normal the in scored had parents intervention, the to Prior intervention. the following scale FACESIII the on adaptability and cohesion both in increase an also was Scale. There FamilyEnvironment the by measured as conflict, family in decreases expressivenessand and cohesion family in increases reported parents Furthermore, children. their among behaviours problem total behaviour,psychoticand excesses motor problems, attention anxiety/withdrawal, aggression, disorder,conduct in socialised declines significant statistically reported Parents sites. programmefive in families 60 for availablewere data post-treatment and Pre- (1999). McDonald and Sayger in reported are programme FAST Australian the of evaluation the of Results FACESIII. and Scale Environment Familythe of sub-scales Dimension Relationship Raising Children in New Zealand Policy and Intervention 65 Key Themes in Key Intervention Programmes In sum, much of the theoretical work and empirical evidence described seems above to on converge key several themes. First, the developmental stage of the target population is important. Whereas intensive programmes for preschoolers have shown positive effects, programmes that target adolescents generally despite theoretical frameworks have not. Secondly, that stress the importance of positive parental behaviour for successful child development and that highlight disruptions to parenting as a key mechanism linking economic hardship to negative child outcomes, 1992), seven of the Stage 4 graduates were asked to express in form narrative the specific context in which they had used the skills that they had learned in the The programme. three WellBeing contexts Family of the workplace interest were and the family, the Participants reported in community. improvements their sense of worth, confidence and ability to make effective change. While there appeared to be great personal empowerment, the same could not be said for workplace or wider community empowerment. analysis Overall of the suggests narratives that participants had begun using their new sense of personal engage empowerment to “constructively structural challenges” (p. 513) at work and in the there was no evidence of However, any community. effects at a wider organisational or community level. and Every (2000) asserted Tsey that the success of the programme confirms WellBeing the Family importance of Aboriginal people developing their own programmes and addressing their own community concerns. The programme was not expected to have an immediate impact on youth suicide and no such the effect course was was found. found However, to be effective in assisting participants to enhance their awareness, resilience and problem-solving abilities. The authors noted that, if the programme were to be sustained and extended, it would be expected, in the longer term, to have an eventual effect on overall health outcomes by encouraging people to use their newly developed skills and knowledge in making lifestyle choices. As Munford and Sanders (2001) noted, individual control daily over challenges is important in determining health. overall that failure to satisfy these needs results in behavioural The problems. course developers contend of that Aboriginal removal children from their homes, as well as forced communal living, has given rise to denial of basic human needs. This is said to explain, at least in part, the high levels of suicide, substance abuse and domestic violence among the Aboriginal The of prevalence such destructive community. behaviours among the adult Aboriginal population means that children are in turn being denied basic needs, because they compromise the quality of parenting for provided WellBeing The children. Family programme was developed primarily to meet the special needs its of an indigenous However, group. underpinnings draw from a wide range of cultural traditions and therefore it is considered highly adaptable to the needs of different cultures. The programme is conducted in four stages, with each stage lasting for ten weeks. Participants attend one session four-hour per The week. nationally accredited course participantsprovides with formal counselling qualifications. Stage 1 learning involves about the qualities understanding of conflict a and counsellor, emotions and how to deal with these, and understanding how beliefs and attitudes affect choices in life. Stage 2 managing involves change, developing inner quality and strength, understanding loss and how to deal with it, and learning about counselling practice. Stage 3 caring involves for oneself, understanding family violence and how to deal with it, establishing emotional health, and understanding the Stage process 4 of healing. Finally, understanding involves relationships, balancing the mind and emotions, body, being centred and focused, and comprehending the essence of family well-being. The evaluation of the programme focused on three issues: (1) the theoretical validity of the intervention as a youth suicide policy; prevention (2) the nature and process of empowerment of participants as a result of the course and the implications of participant empowerment for the health and well-being of youth in the community; and (3) strategies for sustaining and extending the programme. At the time of writing there were 12 Stage 4 graduates. formula (Wallerstein Based on Nina Wallerstein’s MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 65 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage66

Policy and Intervention 66 Raising Children in New Zealand experimental evaluation. experimental to subject been not have and rare still are but promise, hold ties family-community increase to aim that frameworks capital social fromderived programmes Finally,effects. positiveproduce to shown been havedirectly children young target that programmes intensive addition, In children. younger among children’simprovementsin especially development, yield to appears resources economic families’ poor particular.in programmes Thirdly, boosting contrast, in home-visiting the among effects beneficial consistent for evidence of lack the explaining in factors important be may intended as programmes implement to administrators of failure the and participants among rates drop-out High attrition. be to appears programmesparenting random-assignment scale, larger-the of However,many scale. in problem key a widespread a on adopt to unfeasible be to likely are that programmes – expensive very and – intensive very improvingchildren’s include Exceptions outcomes. at ineffective appear programmesparenting most MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 67 7

Summary MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage68 68 Summary Raising Children in New Zealand note that different aspects of family resilience might be might resilience family of aspects different that note to important also is It 1990). al. et (Krysan conditions economic and social families’ to attention enough paid not has resilience family on research that sense however,general,particular. In in a cohesion is there family of role the highlighted has literature empirical resilience. The promote to unit family the of level the at operate that identified been has factors of range A well-being. of indicators specific with association one-to-one or cause-effect simple a have not do typically and complex interrelated, are factors These families. resilient or healthy characterise principle, in that, factors those about agreement general is there stage this at Nevertheless, 1996). Haan de and (Hawley base knowledge scientific the to contribution unique own its made has level family the at resilience on work of field the that demonstrated been yet has it whether question commentators some studies), longitudinal representative,and large-scaleon based is which that (particularly evidence empirical of lack this of because that, noted be should It evidence. empirical of body consistent and large a for than theory of articulation its for notable more is present at and development of stage early an in still is resilience family of field The 1998). (Walsh1996, perspectivestrengths a in roots its has resilience family of field the 1990), 1987, Rutter alcoholism; schizophrenia,parental (e.g. pathology family of face the in resilient are members family individual how on focused has and psychopathology developmental in rooted been traditionally has resilience individual on research while that is fields two the between distinction important An resilience. of conceptualisation its of terms its in and origins and roots its of terms in both resilience, individual of study the from ways fundamental in differs resilience however,family theme, of of study commonality the this Despite share. fields two the themes common the given latter the of foundations theoretical the on build to position good a in is former the although resilience, individual on literature the with compared sparse quite still is resilience family of field the in literature The children’sdevelopment. A and in terms of how the family serves as an important protective environment for protectiveenvironment important an as serves family the how of terms in and stress to responds unit a as family the how of terms in – ways distinct two in resilient as families characterises that emerging is resilience family of model theoretical new tenets involves the use of local family resource centresresource family local of use involvesthe tenets these incorporates that approach an of example Another (Walsh1998). approach of type this of example one are programmes education Familylife members. community other and kin to linkages building by resources mobilise to family the help can they and processes; interaction family strengthening by stress against families buffer can they circumstances; ecological their modifying by families by faced risks the lower to help can preventivePreventiveapproach.programmesa as useful be may processes communication and problem-solving facilitate to designed programmes and workshops community-based that suggested needs. Walsh(1998) unique families’ reflecting “treatment” with organised, flexibly more be to have may systems delivery Service schools). as (such systems larger with linkages mobilise and networks social their develop families help to need may families with work who others and Clinicians circumstances. stressful in behaviour family of modes adaptive identify to endeavour to need researchers and clinicians that implies orientation resilience family A stress. such of face the in resilient be to ability families’ for and well-being family for implications important have might distress financial eased that supports crises, economic facing families for that, suggests se. This per income, has than behaviour parenting and health mental parents’ to related strongly more be to shown been has construct income. This limited their on meet ends make to is it difficult how of perceptions parents’ “economicor strain”,of concept the is behaviour parental and hardship economic between link the in implicated is that factor One stressors. ecological other or hardship economic of conditions under outcomes child good produce to help can that practices parenting of kinds the investigated specifically has psychology,developmentaland of established better is field the in primarily “protectivelocated environment”, a as family the on base research the contrast, In challenges. different facing families relevantfor less or more Raising Children in New Zealand Summary 69 family structures are now much more complex, as a result of increases in the of prevalence separation and divorce, lone parenthood and blended families. This is an equally pressing argument for an examination of influences outside the immediate family circle (that is, those who whether normally this live is together, a a lone-parent family nuclear or family, some other form of family). As and Lewis Feiring (1998) noted, in order to study children and their families, we need to go beyond the study of the relationship to mother-child encompass relationships with fathers, siblings, grandparents, other extended family members and kin “fictive” (e.g. peers, teachers, in babysitters). Work this area must also be certain to attend to families’ religious, ethnic and cultural heritage. A virtually unexplored issue in the area of family resilience is the influence of genetic factors. Until efforts to understand recently, the contributions of biology to childhood behaviour problems (and, by extension, family functioning) have been constrained by the of invasiveness biological assays and by fears that biological research would engender deterministic conceptions of individual behaviour (Campbell et al. 2000). Rende and Plomin (1993) argued that genetic influences (such as a family history of psychopathology) should be considered as potential risk proximal factors. They noted that resilience is often considered largely to reside in environmental factors such as protective the possibility of parent-child interactions; however, genetic in involvement resilience also merits attention. O’Connor et al. (2000) noted that associations between parental divorce history and indicators of self-esteem, social competence and academic competence in children might be partly genetically influenced. an From empirical perspective, there is at present a tension between the methods seemingly required for studying family resilience and the data that are available. Assessing family resilience requires in-depth, longitudinal data (perhaps based on observation), knowledge of how a family functions before, during and after a stressful life event, and collection of data from multiple family members across a range of families in different cultural and ecological circumstances. Clearly, no one data set can satisfy all of these requirements (and even if it could it would be prohibitively The expensive). preponderance of studies, particularly on the family process aspects of family resilience, has that are easily accessed and that information provide on a wide range of services to support and strengthen as noted earlier families. in However, this report, intervention programmes that target parents as well as children – home-visiting programmes were singled out as an example – have produced mixed results when subjected to rigorous evaluations. Attrition of service as provision, well as attrition in rates of participation by families, is a particular problem in these types of interventions. knowledge Several gaps exist in the field of family resilience. In general, the individual perspective, which ignores the potential for resilience at the family or community level, predominates (Mangham et al. 1995). More research is needed on factors that predict resilience in families and communities, on potential avenues for fostering resilience and on cross-cultural, cross-ethnic and cross-socioeconomic group variation in resilience. Mangham et al. called for a particular focus in future research on studies of families at risk – especially single parents, teenage parents and families with heavy caregiving responsibilities for In relatives. general, few studies have examined the long-term effects of many of the risk factors outlined in this including review, the experience of living in a single- parent family during childhood, being exposed to poverty during early childhood and giving birth to a child as Nor a have many teenager. studies identified factors that can boost resilience among families that have been exposed to these risks across the life cycle. A second need is to conceptualise “family” influences beyond the circle of Indeed, the in immediate family. many studies in the field of developmental psychology, the measures of are, “parenting” in fact, measures of what mothers They do. do not often include measures of paternal behaviour (even in dual-parent families), nor do they attempt to model complex processes of parental interactions (within or outside the immediate family). While studies of families often thus furnish an incomplete picture of what goes on within the family circle, they also often omit any reference to what occurs beyond the boundary Given of the the immediate family. important influences on family functioning outside the immediate family in different cultural and ethnic sub- groups, widening the view of family influences beyond the immediate family circle is a pressing issue for future research. Of is equal the importance,fact that however, MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 69 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage70

Summary 70 Raising Children in New Zealand behaviours. These dimensions of parenting are central are parenting of dimensions behaviours. These parental key as autonomy provisionof appropriate and discipline consistent nurturance, identified has children their for protectiveenvironment a create help to do can parents what on focuses Researchthat mothers. lone upon burdens parental easing by part hardship,in economic facing children of development successful the support to opportunities offer can them, within occur that processes different and arrangements, family different which in ways the Researchhighlights families. mother lone- and low-income in resilience facilitating in part a play also roles members’ family of flexibility the and families of arrangements living strategies. The coping family and religion) (especially systems belief family cohesion, family include unit family the of level the at resilience family of aspects Important environment. external the in risks high despite children, for protectiveenvironment a create to help that behaviours parental as well as unit, a as family the of level the at occur that processes encompass resilience family of Keyaspects circumstances. stressful of range a under successfully cope to them assist to environment, wider their in and unit family the within both protectivefactors, upon draw can families which in ways adversity, important highlighted has of context the in functioning successful on focus its with summary,literature,resilience In family the members. family among influences transactional bi-directional, recognises that and overtime unfolds that process a as eventsstressful to adaptation family tracks that context-specific, and longitudinal is Finally,that interventions. needed is research effective of design the to critical are studies Such evaluations. experimental more from benefit would and life family of aspects developmental and dynamic the on focus stronger a needs resilience family of field the Researchin 1990). al. et (Krysan techniques observational time-consuming and expensive via measured best be to thought are communication) adaptability,(conflict, resilience and cohesion family of aspects key the Unfortunately,of some parents. of self-reports on relies also work this of Much homogeneous. culturally and socioeconomically be to tended have that settings, clinical from drawn often samples, small on rely to tended learned about how best to do this. do to best how about learned be to much remains there families, of resilience the boost to possible be may it that appears it While them. beset might that problems future any with cope to need they skills the them teach also but problems, current with cope to them help only not will that – difficulties with families assist to interventions of design the for basis better providinga by policy social inform to help can resilience family of area the in work development and research Further understood. poorly remainprogrammes experimental such in children to accrue effects positive which through pathways the present, At children. young on especially effects, positiveshown has employment and income parental boosting by children for environmentdevelopmental improvingthe at aimed programmes Conversely,experimental of set recent a implementation. costly,wider as for well scale-up to as difficult, be may that programmes home-visiting expensive very include Exceptions unsuccessful. been have practices parenting modifying by behaviour children’schange to aimed have that interventions most children, on effects its exerts disadvantage economic which through conduit important an as behaviour parental stress that frameworks theoretical the despite resilience, family of field the to values. Thirdly,and relevancebeliefs especial of and cultural families’ to sensitive be must programmes and environments family of types different for Secondly,results. needed areprogrammes different positive obtaining to key is intervention early First, severalthemes. convergeson work resilience. This family of malleability the on evidence providesome outcomes childhood boosting and interactions of modes families’ changing at aimed programmes intervention recent of range a Evaluationsof community. family,the wider outside the relationships within social of creation the via is children their for protectiveenvironment a create can parents which by means another that suggests area this in research resilience. The family fostering in role a play also can Communities children. to transmitted are conditions environmental harsh of effects the of much that behaviours parents’ through is it for outcomes, child good and resilience family between connection the to MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 71

References MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage72

References 72 Raising Children in New Zealand Coping and Resiliency in Children and Familiesand Children in Resiliency and Coping Families”in Poverty: The Infant Health and Development Program”.Development and Health Infant Poverty: The Academic Abilities: Growth Curves from an Early Childhood Educational Experiment”. Experiment”. Educational Childhood Early an from Curves Growth Abilities: Academic Development and Education, University of Arkansas. of University Education, and Development Mothers”. African American Families”.American African American Protestants”. American and the Familythe and Capital”. (2nd ed.) edited by F.by edited ed.) (2nd York: Walsh.New Press. Guilford The Family, 37: 133-48. 37: New York:Press.New University Cambridge Psychopathology of Development the Factorsin Outcomes”. and the Familythe and Zealand in Adolescence” in “Parenting (1998). S. Baragwanath, and R. University.Dixon, Massey in cited As Adolescence”. C B B C B B B B B B A A B A B A A B B A B B B B a a m s q m d s u r r r r l e r j a a e a e a a o a o o o o o e t l m u c r l r l a a u a r d a o a c d d r a b n d o d o t l k v v i m i c t o k p t w t r n l w w g e f k k y y e e e i i k o o , e , n n b n e r w

, , r s s r e

r r i i , , , V

i n M , , n n , e s s , e

o - -

G G n l

61: 557-73. 61:

a J

P P G G . l b B L , , G , , , l N . , d

, edited by V. Adair and R. Dixon. Auckland: Addison WesleyLongman.Auckland: Dixon. by V.R. edited and Adair . . .

n l ,

. . a .

r W W

H H u u R Population and Development ReviewDevelopment and Population A A . ,

W .

. M , B a a K e

L S (1987). “Family Processes in One-Parent, Stepparent, and Intact Families:Child’sIntact The of View”.and Stepparent,One-Parent, Point “Familyin Processes (1987). a n M

n n F Journal of Adolescent Health Adolescent of Journal . . . . . D n e . t . . n L L . n , , . d . . .

n n R R (1996). “Pathways Linking Parental Divorce with Adolescent Depression”. Adolescent with DivorceParental Linking “Pathways (1996). h

S . d Families, Risk, and Competence and Families,Risk, A e . a . Journal of Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage of Journal . n a F S d (1991).

, (1996). “The Timing of Childbearing, Family Structure, and the Role Responsibilities of Aging Black Women”in Aging of ResponsibilitiesRole the Familyand Structure,Childbearing, of Timing “The (1996). , , , , . . , D .

,

n

(1996). “The Discipline ControversyRevisited”.Discipline “The (1996). l .

e n

t N N

B B J J o , a a S G , 49: 327-37. 49: , , 58(2): 433-42. 58(2): , (1996). “The Lifecourse of Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: Childhood Living Arrangements and Youngand Arrangements Adult Living Childhood Mothers: Unmarried to Born Children of Lifecourse “The (1996). o Y d Development and Psychopathology and Development i r

. . d x P r

, a n n a a i , . n i .

a

t

, o l

B t K l u l d d B U

z (1996). a b e n d d h D n , n r

l u n m . r d

H H w w e a a . , K e g e d (1986). “Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development”. Human for Context a Familyas the of “Ecology (1986).

b n A Treatise on the FamilyA Treatisethe on d a a a R a i i D t . e h

n n a h s l m m n n C . l (1996). “Grandmother Co-Residence, Parenting, and Child Development Among Low Income, Urban TeenLowIncome, Among Development Child and Parenting,Co-Residence,“Grandmother (1996). u e l , ,

o l n , e d , o (

o

y n p p

C C n E American Journal of Community Psychology Community of Journal American o J r Z

h , , . c s s School Age Mums: What About their Education? their About Mums: What Age School N , . . d ,

v G .

e P P

E a R o o

C , C e s a . n

. . n . n n . . . P u

, P . n (1999). “Nonresident Fathers and Children’sFathersand “Nonresident (1999). Meta-Analysis”. Well-Being:A , ) a Developmental PsychologyDevelopmental

A , , (1979). (1996). “Family Cohesion and Enmeshment: Different Constructs, Different Effects”. Different Constructs, Different Enmeshment: and “FamilyCohesion (1996).

K . G b . .

d L n

, . R R a (1998). a a

, .

. d M

F J . . n u s S . B B (1997). “Control Beliefs and Faith as Stress Moderators for KoreanAmerican Versusfor ModeratorsStress Caucasian Faith as and Beliefs “Control (1997).

l s C d m o i c (1997). “The Effects of Poverty on Children”. on Poverty of Effects “The (1997). . . l e

o h r l (1993). “Measuring Family Competence; The Beavers Systems Model” in Model” SystemsBeavers FamilyCompetence; The “Measuring (1993). (1990). L , e , r l

o

i , e E r D Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment the of Measurement for Observation Home a

e - T , . w J .

n The Family in Aotearoa New Zealand New Aotearoa Familyin The . o R (1998). “Coparenting Processes and Child Competence Among Rural African-American Rural Among Competence Child and Processes“Coparenting (1998). , (1996). “Parental Religiosity,“Parental (1996). RuralYouthFamilyand Two-ParentProcesses,in Competence , ,

h , 18: 218-26. 18: , .

Z R E F n a . . . s Successful Families: Assessment and Intervention and Families:Assessment Successful

x (1995). “The Learning, Physical, and Emotional Environment of the Home in the Context of Context the in Home the of Environment Emotional and Learning,Physical, “The (1995). (1990). “Stress-Resistant Families and Stress-Resistantin “Stress-ResistantChildren”Familiesand (1990). a o , n

. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.University Harvard Cambridge: . n M edited by M. Lewis and C. Feiring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, Feiring. C. Lewisand M. by edited d ,

.

, 25: 1-31. 25: , S K , , 58: 293-310. 58: , edited by E.M. Hetherington and E. Blechman. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. NJ: Mahwah, Blechman. E. and Hetherington E.M. by edited

. S i , edited by J. Rolf, A.S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K.H. Nuechterlein and A.S. Weintraub.and Nuechterlein K.H. Cicchetti, D. Masten, Rolf,A.S. J. by edited m

a B , 5: 741-61. 5: , r , u

n Y r e c . J r h . o , 32: 696-706. 32: , i Children and Youth Services ReviewYouthand Children Services (1999). “FamilyDemography,(1999). Social Theory,Social in Investment and f n f a ,

l M l ,

. M FamilyRelations

a . n

a d n

S d , 25: 61-72. 25: , e

R i f a e m r ,

e Research Affiliate Scheme Report (No. 9). Palmerston North: Palmerston 9). (No. Report Scheme ResearchAffiliate R . Auckland: Addison WesleyLongman.Auckland: . y . , (1993). “Contextual Risk and Resiliency During Late During Resiliency and Risk “Contextual (1993).

C The Future of Children Futureof The , 5: 405-14. 5: , . T . (2001). “The Development of Cognitive and Cognitive of Development “The (2001). Developmental PsychologyDevelopmental Journal of Health and Social Behaviour Social and Health of Journal Developmental PsychologyDevelopmental , 17: 251-76. 17: , . New York:New . W. W.Norton. . Little Rock: Center For Child For Center Rock: Little . The Family in Aotearoa New Aotearoa Familyin The , 7(2): 55-71. 7(2): , Journal of Marriage and the and Marriage of Journal Normal FamilyProcessesNormal Risk and Protectiveand Risk Journal of Marriage of Journal Journal of Marriage of Journal , 37: 231-42. 37: , , 22: 723-42. 22: , Stress, , Raising Children in New Zealand References 73 Adult , 12(1): . Journal of Handbook of Child International Journal of , 98: 310-57. The Future The of Future Children , 94 (Supplement): S95-S120. (1991). “Longitudinal Studies of .. JJ

,, rr ee ll tt ii ee edited by B. Leadbeater and N. Way. edited by B. and Leadbeater N. Way. TT

dd nn Psychological Psychological Bulletin aa

, 53: 1033-39. .. DD

,, , 252: 1386-89. nn oo (1999). “Young Black (1999). Multigenerational in Families “Young ss ii (2002). “Early Adult Childhood Education: Young .. rr JJ .. rr

,, SS oo

(1996). “Black Mothers and their Adolescent Daughters: nn ,, , 7: 230-35. , 6(1); 42-57. Science MM .. nn nn

,, uu American Journal of Sociology KK oo ..

,, ss GG PP --

ee nn ,, ss vv hh ss kk Coping With Coping With Divorce, Single Parenting, and Remarriage: A Risk oo oo nn rr oo JJ ii -- oo GG bb rr

rr , 51: 667-76. , 65: 373-93. oo ee dd ll BB ll . Minneapolis, MN: Comp-Care Publications.

RR nn ii

,, dd aa ..

MM nn ..

, 12: 467-88. KK , 66: 1614-34. aa

KK

dd ,,

.. , 65: 684-98. ,, nn nn LL (1994). “Young African (1994). American “Young Multigenerational in Families Poverty: edited by V. Bengston, K. edited Schaie by V. and L. Burton.Springer Publishing New York:

nn Archives Archives of General Psychiatry aa aa ,, ..

nn .. nn gg ii JJ SS rr

.. FF aa (1996). “Behavioral Observations at Predict Adult Age Psychiatric 3 Years ,, ee ll -- EE ii ..

gg nn hh ,, KK AA nn cc

aa yy .. ii (1995). “The Long-Term Effects (1995). of “TheParental Divorce on the Long-Term Mental Health of Young ,, (5th ed.) edited by W. (5th Damon, ed.) John Wiley I.E. edited & Siegel by W. New York: and K.A. Renninger. ll ss yy .. kk PP .. rr

kk LL ss RR (1989). “Assessing (1989). Coping “Assessing Strategies: Theoretically A Based Approach”. ,, aa .. KK

aa

,, aa .. (1990). “The Impact of Divorce On Life-Span Effects” Development: Short and Term Long pp ,, mm (1986). “Maternal and Environmental Affecting Factors Developmental Outcomes of PP .. Child Development

vv .. KK WW aa (1985). “Size and Composition of the Informal Helper Network Mobilized in Response to SS nn .. ,, ll NN

.. (2000). “Early Externalizing Behavior Problems: Toddlers (2000). and “Early Preschoolers at Externalizing Risk Behavior Toddlers for Problems:

ii

,, JJ ZZ aa ,, .. ee Applied Developmental Science ,, MM ..

.. .. ll WW SS .. ,, nn

SS

ss dd aa RR PP .. ,, rr edited by P. Baltes, D. Hillsdale, Featherman NJ:and edited R. by Lawrence Lerner. Erlbaum. P. EE bb MM

.. JJ ee dd

nn ,, dd Child Development

ee hh ll ,, ,, uu EE ,, ii nn yy ss aa

aa Child Development nn

OO aa ,, nn aa KK (2001). “Welfare (2001). Reform and “Welfare Parenting: Reasonable Expectations”. ee

.. nn mm zz (1998). “Adolescent (1998). Pregnancy and “Adolescent Parenthood: Recent Evidence and Directions”. Future rr

ll oo JJ oo oo Urban Girls: Resisting Stereotypes, Creating Identities .. tt .. aa

dd oo nn tt ll .. dd oo ,, ii ss ll LL nn LL LL , 56: 267-83. LL nn ll oo gg ..

ii nn -- CC nn .. ll kk ee ,, Wasting America’s Future: The Children’s Defense Fund Report on The the Children’s Future: Costs of Child America’s Poverty Wasting

aa ii nn ee GG aa DD cc ee

,, Developmental Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics nn PP ii gg

nn

.. ..

GG rr ,, .. ss ,, aa JJ ,, uu nn

.. aa WW JJ

RR ee aa

AA nn

,, ee

uu dd GG

DD ll ,, Journal of Marriage and the Family (1995). “Commentary: SupportIntergenerational Within Black Concepts Families: and Methods” in hh mm hh aa ,, dd -- dd

nn PP nn tt tt ,, aa nn ..

ss (1994). “Effects of Early Intervention on Intellectual and Academic Achievement: A Study Follow-Up of CC nn nn nn aa tt ,, aa edited by E.M. Hetherington. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

mm ss ii ee ii dd oo

kk .. .. RR ,, ll aa aa ..

ee

..

ss mm rr HH PP (1994). dd ww TT oo ,, .. SS .. (1998). “Perspectives (1998). on “Perspectives and Research Practice in Developmental Psychopathology” in

ff

.. vv FF SS rr

, 22(2): 231-37. JJ nn ee .. ff ee yy

FF oo .. ,, .. .. dd dd aa ,, .. CC oo rr aa hh Development Development and Psychopathology dd oo (1985). “Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis”.

dd yy rr NN , 53: 152-66. SS DD RR nn nn gg ,, LL

GG BB CC nn .. ee oo MM HH ,, rr -- ,, ,, ,, GG

aa aa yy

..

,, ,, ,,

TT rr uu kk ,, ee ,, ee hh ,, ...... ee

mm ww .. EE rr .. FF tt ,, oo aa ss .. bb LL LL LL LL LL

ll aa aa ee ...... RR ss YY Contrary to Love: Contrary Helping to the Love: Sexual Addict yy mm oo aa TT ii nn ..

ll ee yy

RR hh ll PP ,, PP PP PP PP aa aa TT hh

,, ee ee ss

ii aa

JJ BB tt SS aa ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, tt

RR CC dd hh

nn TT tt ,, dd

ss ,, ee ee ee ee ee gg

ii WW dd ,, cc rr nn ee .. ll ll ll ll ll ,, rr

(1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”. ff nn (1998). “An (1998). Agenda “An For Coping and Theory:Research Basic and Applied Developmental Issues”. .. dd ff aa .. nn ff hh SS aa aa aa aa aa aa uu BB rr dd aa .. .. AA

nn ee ..

ii aa oo .. ,, .. oo FF dd dd dd dd dd MM

.. nn EE SS .. aa

.. .. DD FF .. SS FF (1989). ..

HH ss ss ss ss ss VV ,, aa

JJ MM

.. DD SS

.. LL LL

,, ,, ,,

..

,, BB nn nn nn nn nn .. ,,

ss .. ll ll ll LL ,, ,, ,,

.. .. ,, ,, ’’ AA ll ll ll .. .. ii PP ,, aa aa aa aa aa

GG SS nn

ss ss tt AA nn ,,

GG

ee ee ee ss LL LL LL LL LL ,, RR AA

rr rr tt ,, .. ,, aa

------,, ee nn ss aa bb bb bb rr ,, ,, ee ee ee ii rr nn CC ee ee ee ee ee ii ee ll tt tt ee

pp yy mm ee pp pp pp hh ee ,, dd rr ss tt ss ss ss ss tt cc pp vv nn ll ee ll ee cc ii ee aa aa aa aa aa aa aa ll ll hh ll mm mm mm mm rr uu ss rr Life Span Development and Behavior cc oo oo oo ii hh oo oo hh hh hh hh hh hh hh aa aa aa hh aa aa aa aa CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC American Psychologist Infants of Adolescent Mothers”. Behavioral Behavioral Development Psychology: Vol. 4. Vol. Child Psychology: Psychology in Practice Sons. Boston: Beacon Press. the Effects of Divorce on Children in Great Britain and the United States”. in Intergenerational Relations: Intergenerational Effects of Societal Change Company. 167-85. Quality of Mothering and Grandmothering”. Closeness, Conflict, and Control” in New York: New York University Press. New York New York: Children From Low-Income Families”. Families”. Children Low-Income From Poverty: The Poverty: Contexts, Exchanges, and Processes of their Lives” in and Resiliency Perspective Serious Personal Problems”. Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project”. Adults: A Developmental Perspective”. Later Maladjustment”. Personality Personality and Social Psychology Disorders: Disorders: Longitudinal Evidence from a Birth Cohort”. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 73 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage74

References 74 Raising Children in New Zealand Coping with Chronic Stress” in Stress”Chronic with Coping Erlbaum. in Development” in Stress to Responses Involuntary and Coping in Child Health Child in Coping and and Adolescence: Problems, Progress, and Potential in Theory and Research”.and in Theory Potential Progress,and Problems, Adolescence: and Developmental Problems of Adolescents”. of ProblemsDevelopmental and Outcomes in School”. in Outcomes and Child Health”. Child American Journal of Community Psychology Community of Journal American Children and Familiesand Children R. Cherry and W. Cherry York:Foundation.New Rodgers.R. Sage Russell of Welfarein EmploymentRecipients” the to “Barriers by Culture, Context, and Gender”. and Context, Culture, by and Stress-Resilient Urban Children”.Stress-Resilient Urban and Adjustment”. American Mothers: Links to Children’sto Links Behaviors”. Mothers: Externalizing American Adolescence Conduct Problems”. Conduct Dixon. Auckland: Addison WesleyLongman.Auckland: Dixon. in Aotearoa New Zealand New Aotearoa in in Adolescence” in “Parenting (1998). S. Baragwanath, and R. Dixon, in cited As Auckland. of University Dissertation, Ph.D. Strategy Children Who Have Experienced Major Life Stress”. Life Major Experienced HaveChildren Who C C C C C C C C D C C D D C D D D D D D D D o o o o o o o o o o o a e e e i e e o i o a x x n m m m m n n w n w w w k a a n L p d d o o e g n g g o t t z a g g a e e s p p p p n n e e i i e e e e v r e e o n n n g r , a a a a , r r t i r r r l

e , , - n - , , , m c e R l s s s s R , , ,

D D , ,

K K , P E E , , , , , r

. R R R . . Available online at www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/crimeprevention/safer.pdf.at Availableonline .

e

J T , S e e

M . . D . . . B B B B .

a . . . A A L L , n . P S c c .

D D

. C . . . . n . . a . C . . t k k E E E E . . (1996). , , , , . .

(1991). “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data From the 1988 National Health Interview Survey On Survey Interview Health Children’sNational “Familyand Structure1988 From(1991). the and Well-Being:Data Health . , d K n

(1999). “Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Problem Behavior During Adolescence”. During Behavior Problem of Development the ProtectiveFactorsin and “Risk (1999). a

a o , , o . . . . , 28: 667-85. 28: ,

W W P B

, , , , a S

d . r r w C G f

Demography B , e d W n C d C C a

p Journal of Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage of Journal

y y

o t e E C a a t t d , , o o o h m m e t n

o e , l n r o K K

n n n i

n d e a g K s X r t a a , r n n n . .

c , e

s g , c e

a , . P n n C

The Adolescent Mother and Her Child: Determinants of Parenting Behaviour and Infant Development Infant and Behaviour Parenting of Determinants Child: Her and Mother Adolescent The

e a o o o h

, r G o w J r l D

, , r . , . Child Development Child r n i r r E r , a

r e

. E l , P P

a a , , - G o S a d , l m K

edited by E.M. Hetherington and E.A Blechman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, Blechman. E.A and Hetherington E.M. by edited

m S .

M d n n . . J J d

n . . A

A A . . . a m

H D , a e d J K K i g , a

. . . . . e n

N t r B .

, o , , . e . n M i edited by V. Adair and R. Dixon. Auckland: Addison WesleyLongman.Auckland: Dixon. by V.R. edited and Adair (2001). “Good Things Come in Threes: Single-Parent Multigenerational Family Structure and Adolescent Familyand StructureMultigenerationalSingle-Parent in Threes: Come “Good Things (2001). S h , r ,

d , , t

M W W

d . . , Child Development Child , 39(2): 393-412. 39(2): ,

d h J G , c

L

O S a

edited by A.M. La Greca, L.J. Siegel, J.L. Wallander and C.E. Walker.J.L. Wallanderand Siegel, L.J. York:Greca,New Press.La Guilford A.M. by edited . r

a K g P

, , h . S a n o o . . B a

s

n e . e H D J u a t . d r r (1994). l A o a . d , t t t k k K n . a l

(1998). “Parenting in Adolescence” in Adolescence” in “Parenting (1998). Coping with Chronic StressChronic with Coping

h . t w z t , z K

C , , , n i d

e . A m

e

, t J , i . a W W B

s z r

, e b A w M E S

. a b i , Psychological Inquiry Psychological a G c , e g .

. . y a s

n i J C C . t k L r n . e (1997). “Externalizing Behavior Problems and Discipline Revisited: Nonlinear Effects and VariationEffects Nonlinear Revisited: Discipline and Problems Behavior “Externalizing (1997). . , , e l , S , E

(1996). “Thinking about Risk and Resilience in Families”in in Resilience and Risk about “Thinking (1996). . . i o

t

e r Familiesin Troubled Times

S ,

, L s H z Development and Psychopathology and Development J . . a ,

r t . . D , K

. m e , (1994). “Socialization Mediators of the Relation Between Socioeconomic Status and Child and Status Socioeconomic Between Relation the of Mediators “Socialization (1994). (1990). “Mechanisms in the Cyclethe of Violence”.in “Mechanisms (1990). L n . S S

, 65: 649-65. 65: ,

, J (1992). “Conceptual and Developmental Issues in Children’sin in Stress”Issues Developmental with and Coping “Conceptual (1992). i . n . Q d

. . . m a

T E H

a z (1994). “Educational Risk and Resilience in African American Youth:American Action, Self,African Context, in Resilience and Risk “Educational (1994).

a n u h P . , , n Child Development Child .

n ,

e , o , 27: 519-41. 27: , a a F J

d

d H . e H n . m r Y

O

, 65: 493-506. 65: , k n W . d e E . , s e , s .

f

l

e T e P l d l r F a i a , l h n , 53: 573-84. 53: , a n e e n

c n G o , g t , r h d

d

t , m A American Journal of Community Psychology Community of Journal American . e C ,

i ,

G S Soothing and Stress and Soothing t . (1991). “Developmental and Family Milieu Correlates of Resilience in Urban in Resilience of Correlates FamilyMilieu and “Developmental (1991). n .

A s , H A , i

. ,

e Prosperity For All? The Economic Boom and African Americans African and Boom Economic All?For The Prosperity . m G H

K . u D

n (1997). “Effortful and Involuntary Responses to Stress: Implications for Implications Stress: to Responses Involuntary and “Effortful (1997). , 8: 161-75. 8: , . a . a s o S , . , n t

l B

n J . i A r edited by B.H. Gottlieb. New York:New Gottlieb.Press. B.H. Plenum by edited d l r . s a , (1996). “Physical Discipline Among African American and European and American African Among Discipline “Physical (1996). . .

, H a l W A

(1999). “Pathways of Economic Influence on Adolescent Adjustment”. Adolescent on Influence Economic of “Pathways (1999). i R n a . , 65: 541-61. 65: , .

a , . d . a

L d L . New York:New . Gruyter. WalterDe (2000).

n Developmental PsychologyDevelopmental . M e s d (1994). “Economic Stress, Coercive Family Processes, and FamilyCoerciveProcesses,Stress, “Economic (1994). v w a

i W g n o n e The Family in Aotearoa New Zealand New Aotearoa Familyin The r a t u , d h

s J s Safer: Newsletter of the Queensland Crime PreventionCrime Queensland the of Newsletter Safer: , . ,

, w M

edited by M. Lewis and D. Ramsey.LawrenceD. Lewis and NJ: M. Mahwah, by edited , 9: 565-77. 9: , K R o . . o r B (1999). “Getting Specific about Coping: Effortful and Effortful Coping: about Specific “Getting (1999). t s . h e (1997). “Follow-Up Study of Youngof “Follow-UpStudy (1997). Stress-Affected Psychological Bulletin Psychological , n

M ,

D . E . , .

S (2001). “Coping with Stress During Childhood During Stress with “Coping (2001). e Science e f e l d , 32: 1065-72. 32: , t ,

, 250: 1678-83. 250: , K , 19: 405-26. 19: , . Stress, Coping, and Resiliency in Resiliency and Coping, Stress, ,

S i e f , 127(1): 87-127. 127(1): , e r t ,

K edited by V.R. edited and Adair .

a n d

Journal of Youthof Journal and T o l m edited by edited a n , . Unpublished .

R . The FamilyThe Stress (2000). Raising Children in New Zealand References 75 , Child Journal of Handbook of edited by W. Damon edited W. by Journal of Family , 69: 1437-47. , 5: 517-28. , 8: 141-62. Journal of Health and Social Journal of Marital and Family Journal of Applied Developmental Journal of Marriage and Family American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (1985). “Single Parents, Extended .. Child Development RR

(1996). “The Relations of Regulation and Children, Families, Children, and Families, Communities: ,, .. ss edited by and S.A. Wolchik J.N. Sandler. ss KK

oo ,, rr hh GG uu

SS dd

, 55: 119-32. nn dd aa

nn .. aa

AA . New York: Russell . Sage New Foundation. York: ..

Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3 Vol. Handbook of Child Psychology, ,, RR ff

rr ,, Development Development and Psychopathology oo nn tt . Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ee ss rr aa gg , 51: 426-36. HH (1993). “The McMaster Model: View of Healthy Family , 62: 147-61. Development Development and Psychopathology

mm ,, .. ll .. , 56: 326-41. II .. oo HH

GG HH ,,

,, ,, nn .. rr aa ee PP

,, nn mm tt rr kk ii zz (1980). “Teenage, Lower-Class, Black Infants: Mothers and Lower-Class, their (1980). Pre-Term “Teenage, ee ee ss “Are There Religious Variations in Violence?” Domestic Variations There Religious “Are .. dd KK ii aa ..

EE

)) ee “The McMaster Assessment Family Device”. dd ,, MM LL 99 ff ..

nn ff )) ,, ,, 99 .. aa .. oo 33

99 tt .. (1994). “Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development”. CC PP 88 11 ..

Child Development aa .. ,, (( 99 WW

BB rr nn .. .. KK

Child Development (1998). “Family (1998). Relationships, “Family Parenting Practices, the Availability of Male Family 11 II .. ,, ee Journal of Marriage and the Family gg (( LL

.. tt

II .. yy ,, PP ..

tt

rr ii DD KK hh ,,

dd SS

ee ,, .. RR vv ,, pp ll nn

(2nd ed.) edited by F. Walsh. New York: The Guilford Press. New Walsh. York: (2nd ed.) edited by F. ll rr (1997). “Coping with The Stress: Roles of Regulation and Development” in hh ,, oo Consequences Consequences of Growing Up Poor nn DD ii aa (1978). “The McMaster Model of Functioning”. Family .. tt (1993). “Resilience as Process”.

uu

.. ii nn oo ,, (1998). “Motivation to Succeed” in .. II .. Individual and Parent-Based Intervention Strategies for Promoting Human Capital and .. SS MM

ss aa

.. pp

MM ,, SS mm ,, SS rr AA . Available online at www.wcer.wisc.edu/fast/. . online Available at www.wcer.wisc.edu/fast/. ,,

ll bb .. oo .. UU ,, (2000). “Teenage Pregnancy and (2000). Female Educational “Teenage A Underachievement: Study Prospective ee ,, ,, ll ee SS

.. ii ee LL rr EE -- hh ,, .. II

rr aa ll nn dd ..

JJ ,, ee ii ss nn ee ,, .. hh ii KK nn CC ll Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting ww vv ee gg

(1997). tt aa

LL ee ff BB AA ,, ee

ii Journal of Marriage and the Family ee hh nn .. dd uu

,, ff rr ii uu (2001). JJ mm nn LL ss

nn rr

dd dd ee dd rr GG (1993). “Family (1993). Systems “Family and Social of Support: the Effects A Test of Cohesion and Adaptability on hh oo .. ,, aa ii uu tt

rr tt aa (1988). “An (1988). Emergent Explanation“An of Differing Racial Reactions to Single Parenthood”. rr nn nn dd oo ..

yy nn KK hh edited by J.M. Bowes and A. Hayes. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. SS dd aa BB .. uu ..

aa aa nn (1980). “An (1980). Analysis “An of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample”. SS

GG JJ cc nn

II ,,

RR

,, nn ,, MM

.. ..

.. aa ww .. GG ...... ,, uu nn ,,

SS

dd aa (1996). JJ dd

.. .. PP AA dd ,,

RR

nn GG oo MM

.. .. nn ..

GG MM ,, .. nn

.. dd ,, (1999). “Isolation in Rural, Remote, and Urban Communities” in JJ SS SS oo ,, .. -- ss nn ,, ll

.. aa .. AA EE AA hh aa LL nn ss ,, (1991). “Coping and Adjustment in Distressed and Healthy Adolescents”. ..

oo ss ...... SS

ss

tt uu uu ee ii .. JJ

DD DD .. ii ,, aa

.. uu kk

,,

ee RR RR nn

kk bb EE ,, GG WW rr MM ,, ,,

PP nn rr ..

oo RR

-- ,, ,, nn

ss mm ii gg ss ee ,,

aa ,, pp pp ,, ee rr AA ss oo ,, ss ss dd ss aa ee zz

nn ww ee ww ll rr yy oo oo ww nn aa ss ,, kk ee ee nn rr aa cc oo . Unpublished Manuscript, Northwestern University. oo ww aa dd aa hh hh hh BB MM ii oo BB dd oo bb bb aa ll ll tt aa LL

ss ll

ll

cc ss ss oo

ll rr Normal Family Normal Processes Family oo oo aa aa .. ii aa ii mm oo CC dd dd ee ee dd rr rr SS dd

BB aa FF FF ii

TT dd FF BB BB

BB ,, nn nn

aa MM nn ff MM

ii

.. nn BB ,, , 65: 296-318. ,,

BB .. ,, dd ,, ,, ,,

aa dd aa .. .. aa

CC gg .. aa ...... dd ,,

SS

,, ii dd (1998). “Common Risk and in Factors Protective Successful Programs”. Prevention

nn WW ...... DD nn

, 12: 33-54. .. ,, .. , 4: 19-31. NN NN PP ..

nn

JJ JJ JJ ,, BB BB BB .. nn

aa

.. ,, aa ,, ...... PP WW ,, ,,

GG ,, .. aa

SS hh aa ..

BB .. ..

..

AA nn

, 50: 219-39. GG GG GG ,,

gg gg NN NN NN .. cc ,, .. ..

..

,, , 9: 171-80. mm CC AA rr rr MM JJ oo ,, ,, ,, MM JJ ss ,, ,, LL ,, , 11: 1-23. ii

..

.. nn MM

AA

.. dd ss ,, ee ee

,,

,, , 20: 87-113. nn nn nn ,, nn nn nn uu ee TT aa ,, ll ,, ss ii ii ii nn PP

nn kk bb bb MM ss aa aa aa ll

bb hh ,,

nn aa ee ee ee uu aa ,, aa oo mm ,, nn nn cc cc cc ee ee ss tt ll tt tt tt nn ll tt aa dd ll ss gg rr rr kk ee ee ee ll nn nn nn rr rr aa ss ss ss ee ii ss ll cc rr gg rr ll ss ss oo ee nn oo uu uu uu uu aa bb cc gg ii ii ll pp pp pp ii aa ee ee ll oo ii DD DD DD DD EE DD EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE FF Households, Households, and the Control of Adolescents”. FF FF FF FF FF FF Development 68: 512-20. Positive Positive Behavior Psychology and N. John Wiley & Eisenberg. New Sons. York: Children’s Coping and Research, with Intervention Common Stressors: Linking Theory, Children’s Plenum Press. New York: Emotionality to Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children”. Therapy Issues Counseling of a New Zealand Birth Cohort”. Functioning” Functioning” in Families and Schools Together (FAST) and Families Schools Together Contexts and Consequences the Functioning of Parents and Adolescents”. Members, and the Behavior Families”. of Boys in Inner-City Single-Mother and Two-Parent Divorce Behavior An Intervention and Developmental Follow-Up”. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 75 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage76

References 76 Raising Children in New Zealand WorkPractice”. Family 263-85. Demography YoungChildren”. Applied Developmental Science Developmental Applied Families”.American African in Coresidence Multigenerational to Relate Contexts Household and Neighborhood How Apart: Living Relations Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage on Welfare”. Adaptations Journal of Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage of Journal ed.) edited by M. Rutter and E. Taylor.and Rutter M. by edited ed.) edited by R.M. Lerner,Publications. R.M. Sage by edited F.CA: Oaks, D. Wertlieb. Thousand and Jacobs in Policies” and 40: 269-82. 40: Success Scientist Child Development Child 405-30. and the Familythe and The Future of Children Futureof The F F F F H H G G G G G G F G G G F G G G G G G r r u r u u o r l u a o l r e l o i a e o a a e a i l a a e a e r r r e r r r u r l l m r m r o s i s s s d n n l m m y o b e s d d t d , r , e t t t a t

n h o b , b

n n i a o o m e e e L o

G z e r n s M , w o y y e r i n n , n n n . , , 54: 846-60. 54: ,

r z m , , . i

a A

, , N f ,

e ,

M n , b b b , y M

.

R f A a . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chicago of University Chicago: .

n

D . D

A u , , R . R , 34: 416-30. 34: , o , N e e e , a

n

D . . . ,

, 35: 113-23. 35: ,

. M . . s . E J N , L . W

. r r r W D n . D S d . R

A . g g g ,

(1999). “Understanding Evaluations of Home Visiting Programs”.Home VisitingEvaluations of “Understanding (1999). . . J (1999). “Multigenerational Coresidence and WelfareCoresidencePolicy”. “Multigenerational (1999).

. d a

T . .

(1992). “Patterns of Childhood Residence and the Relationship to Youngto RelationshipOutcomes”. the Adult and Residence Childhood of “Patterns (1992). . . . . a . . , , , A i a

R H ,

J , , (1991). “Resiliency and Vulnerability to Adverse Developmental Outcomes Associated with Poverty”. with Associated Outcomes and VulnerabilityDevelopmental“ResiliencyAdverse (1991). to n l

edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L Johnson. New York:Publishers. New Academic/Plenum Johnson. Kluwer J.L and Glantz M.D. by edited . , 37: 431-48. 37: , a Marriage and FamilyReview and Marriage

a a n

.

F F F l S . n , C . R a C

i d n

n n , . . . d a a t (1997). “Teenage Childbearing and Personal Responsibility: An Alternative View”.An Responsibility: Personal “Teenage and (1997). Childbearing , 57: 580-92. 57: , A d u

F F F r h i

d e d L d n

m c r R Social WorkResearch

b . . . l Promoting Positive Child, Adolescent and Family Development: A Handbook of Program and Policy InnovationsPolicy Programand of Handbook A FamilyDevelopment: and Adolescent Child, PositivePromoting W a D e i

i

, ,

h r

d a S s n a e

S M American Journal of Public Health Public of Journal American s o s w B C m o

e , y n b r l , h e C s

, 51: 188-98. 51: , o o

, o r w a i , K d e C -

a s e h s

o b o J o v L M . r n

, n , . r . a o H

e o a k

g L A r m , 9(1): 4-26. 9(1): , (2000). “The Mechanisms Mediating the Effects of Poverty on Children’son Poverty of Development”. Effects Intellectual the Mediating Mechanisms “The (2000). P e S , s . e k r . n , d ,

u . y

. J e

. ,

a s , (1986). “The Impact of Informal Support Systems on the Well-Being of Low-Income Single Parents”.Low-Income Single the Well-Beingof on Systems Support Informal of Impact “The (1986). a T L s L , 61: 574-87. 61: , . a ,

a g

, - M C -

n K

d . n . . , L L n h G G

D

. , . a d a (1999). “Unpacking Authoritative Parenting: Reassessing a Multidimensional Construct”. Multidimensional a ReassessingParenting:Authoritative “Unpacking (1999). o a Z . d N e

A u .

. D n l n

. h a ,

s . e . n R (1998). “Resilience: A Dynamic Perspective”.Dynamic A “Resilience: (1998). G

d . s (1999). “Analysis and Reconceptualization of Resilience”in of Reconceptualization “Analysis and (1999). r , n E , (1978). “A Multivariate, Multisurvey Study of Marital Happiness”. Marital of Study “A Multisurvey Multivariate,(1978). (2000). “Nonresident Father Involvement and Child Well-being Among YoungChild Well-beingFamiliesAmong FatherInvolvementand in “Nonresident Children (2000). n a

, d r

(1980). “High-Risk Neighborhoods and High-Risk Families: The Human Ecology of Child Maltreatment”. Child of Ecology Families:Human High-Risk The and Neighborhoods “High-Risk (1980). M d c

P B , e v M a c

, 1: 89-106. 1: ,

e . J e e . G l l L . E . e r e n h

J . a a , . . s , , , 57: 536-50. 57: , b

r

l ,

n C (1995). “Social Capital and Successful Development Among At-Risk Youth”.At-Risk Among Development Successful and Capital “Social (1995). , m i

M P e

S n d . J . r C . , 23: 131-43. 23: , a s a p L

g , M . k n

. t e , E j (in press). “Child Poverty in the U.S. An Evidence-Based Conceptual Framework for ProgramsFrameworkfor Conceptual Evidence-Based An U.S. the in Poverty “Child press). (in y

, (in press). “Chronic Adversities” in Child and Child in Adversities”“Chronic press). (in n a o R l

, d R , 29(2-3): 159-80 29(2-3): , c s

r . M g e e S k . E r r a o . . . , , J n ,

(1985). “Supports, Stressors and Depressive Symptoms in Low-Income Mothers of Low-IncomeMothers in DepressiveSymptoms and Stressors “Supports, (1985).

.

(1999). “Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations – Analysis and Recommendations. and Analysis ProgramEvaluationsRecent“Home Visiting:– (1999). G M , J (1999). “Risk, Protection, and Resilience: Towardand Protection, Social “Risk, Frameworkfor (1999). Conceptual a

. . P L . H S . .

. . a , (1987).

a n , 75: 518-22. 75: , J r n d .

d

a B

n W r d o h Adolescent Mothers in Later Life Later in Mothers Adolescent

o S i k t a e s m , -

G R e u . r o n (1997). “Rapid Repeat Pregnancies Among Adolescent Mothers”. Adolescent Among PregnanciesRepeat“Rapid (1997). f n f , ,

J A . . (1997). “Young Mothers Living with Grandmothers and Grandmothers with “YoungLiving (1997). Mothers (1999). Journal of Community Psychology Community of Journal International Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentBehavioral of Journal International The Future of Children Futureof The Managing to Make It: Urban Families and Adolescent Familiesand Urban It: Make to Managing Adolescent Psychiatry: Modern Approaches Modern Psychiatry: Adolescent Resilience and Development: Positive Life PositiveDevelopment: and Resilience . New York:Press. New University . Cambridge Journal of Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage of Journal Political Science Quarterly Science Political , 9(1): 27-43. 9(1): , Journal of Marriage and the and Marriage of Journal , 27: 525-49. 27: , Journal of Marriage of Journal American Behavioral American Journal of Journal , 22(2): , , 112(3): , Family (4th , Raising Children in New Zealand References 77

dd nn aa

.. Journal of JJ

,, , 23: 197-208. hh , 48(2): 117-26. cc , 30: 1-13. ii mm , 60: 1-14. oo . Monographs of the Family Planning Family RR Resilience Resilience and

,, .. , 17: 399-406. KK

,, nn Resilience Resilience and Development: oo ss Demography uu nn gg (1996a). “The Melbourne Family , 153(5): 650-58. aa .. Social Work Research Social Work SS MM ..

,, Child Development CC .. American Psychologist

,, CC

ee ,, cc nn aa oo ll ll , 153(5): 659-66. ss (1981). “Aggressive Behaviors (1981). in Young “Aggressive aa bb .. ii LL WW ..

(1996b). “TheII: Melbourne Grief Family Study, GG

AA .. ,, dd

.. ,, LL nn .. DD nn aa

ii

DD ,, ..

,, yy ww PP .. ee bb dd ll ss DD ww aa

oo ,, oo . Washington, D.C.: . Washington, Child Trends. rr BB ee

DD ii CC

dd zz ,, (1997). “Contributions of to Research Risk-Factor dd .. nn nn .. nn , 47(4): 433-41. aa RR ee

RR aa .. ,, ..

KK .. American Journal of Psychiatry yy PP cc DD .. rr

DD , 53: 958-72. tt ,, .. CC MM

ss

dd ii ,, RR ,,

rr , 17: 375-406. .. ,, nn The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ii MM oo rr PP

ff ,, ee ,, ff ww .. , 15: 443. aa dd dd OO CC ll

.. yy nn American Journal of Psychiatry aa dd ee nn VV

BB nn hh ,, SS

,, aa gg ,, dd

...... Family Relations Family yy nn JJ PP PP .. .. oo .. OO

LL DD (1998). “Effects of Living Family Arrangements and Quality of Relationships on the HH ,, DD

cc

, 69: 278-93. .. ,, .. ,, Coping with Marital Transitions: Coping A Systems with Family Perspective Marital Transitions: ,, rr rr LL DD ee MM

.. ee ee

ii ,, edited by R. D.C.: Washington, Maynard. Urban Institute Press. ,, ff zz tt RR kk .. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Work: and Welfare SummaryRewarding Reforming of the Final Report on the

II JJ pp ss Available Available online at www.hht.school.nz ,, nn

ii ,, , 17: 127-51. rr ,, uu ee rr (1993). “Reevaluating the Costs of Teenage Childbearing”. (1993). the “Reevaluating Costs of Teenage .. ss ee JJ KK hh .. KK ..

Research on Research Successful Families oo dd (1992). ,, cc cc FF Pediatric Pediatric Research edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L. Kluwer Johnson. Academic/Plenum New Publishers. York: .. ll

(1995). “Long-Term Poverty and Child Development (1995). in “Long-Term the United States: the Results From yy MM BB .. ii ,,

CC . New York: Manpower Demonstration . Corporation. Research online Available New York: at www.mdrc.org. (1980). “Maternal of Responsiveness Primiparous Mothers during the Postpartum Period: MM .. (1997). “TheChildbearing on Impacts the of Teenage Mothers and the Consequences of those nn ,, ,, .. gg

JJ GG .. WW ,, ..

..

rr (2000). SS nn

.. RR ,,

RR ,,

ee RR dd .. SS ,, ee

ll ,, PP dd

.. Clinical Psychology Review .. tt ,, LL

bb ,, nn rr ee rr

,, aa LL DD AA ,, ss (1990). .. aa ee nn tt

ee

ee aa

ll rr ,, ,, nn ss .. .. ee DD pp .. gg ss nn ee ss tt

(1996). “Toward a Definition (1996). of Resilience: “Toward Family Integrating Life-Span and Perspectives”. Family aa aa SS ,, NN ss (1991). “Are Fathers Fungible? Patterns Fathers (1991). of “Are Coresident Adult Men in Maritally Disrupted and Families ii nn ee RR ss ss Journal of Marriage and the Family

dd

mm .. aa .. tt , 72: 318-36. ,, rr ee ,, ee aa .. jj hh uu nn ll rr ee ee rr GG GG ll uu Kids Having Kids KK , 65: 579-84. gg aa SS ww aa .. DD

ii ee gg

nn FF

,, rr GG ,, (1999). “Family-Based Preventive Intervention:(1999). Preventive “Family-Based An Approach to Substance Preventing Use and Antisocial LL nn oo

,, ZZ kk SS

nn ..

dd nn yy (1978). “Religiosity and Marriage”.

,, KK ii edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L. Kluwer Johnson. Academic/Plenum New Publishers. York: ,, .. (2002). “Social in Fathering African Low-Income With American Preschool Children”. Families dd nn ee

.. DD OO ll CC ee ee nn ii .. dd dd

JJ .. nn .. AA ee nn ,, ,, .. dd CC aa nn .. pp nn nn GG .. .. BB

aa

ee AA aa HH rr

.. nn GG ..

aa aa SS HH SS dd SS aa

JJ ,, .. bb

,,

aa

dd

aa

,,

ll .. ..

,, ,, rr ,, ,, MM nn (1999). “First Births Among Adolescent Girls: Risk and Factors”. Protective ,, , 64(2): 504-16. ii EE ee HH nn .. .. nn

nn

ll rr ee SS KK ee ,, aa (1989). “Coping with Family Transitions: Winners, Winners, Losers, and (1989). Survivors”. “Coping Transitions: with Family hh hh .. ,, gg ee

aa

ll AA

VV JJ aa aa ee

rr cc cc ,, ,, MM

.. gg ..

Pediatrics gg cc ll ..

dd mm cc DD ,, ,, KK ll yy ee ee oo oo

,, nn EE

ii zz ll ll ee CC tt nn dd ii nn rr MM MM rr

MM oo

ii dd .. ..

dd ss aa ,, nn rr ee uu oo BB ee BB KK , 35(3): 283-98. dd ,, MM LL ll nn EE rr

rr EE

.. (1999). “Factors (1999). and “Factors Processes Contributing to The Resilience: in Resilience Framework”

nn oo cc ee uu

,, ,, oo DD nn ,, EE aa ,, ee ,, .. .. rr dd KK

FF (1999). “Toward an Understanding of (1999). Resilience: “Toward A Critical Review of Definitions and Models” in aa .. .. dd AA nn

, 30: 236-39 and 243. ll KK American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

,, (1998). “Teenage Childbearing (1998). is “Teenage Not So Bad After All … Or Is It? A Review of the New Literature”. aa

cc .. .. ll

nn nn MM ,, nn ,, LL ..

.. (2001). “Work-Based (2001). Anti-Poverty “Work-Based for Programs Parents Can Enhance the School Performance and Social Behavior of .. GG nn ee SS ii

.. WW WW ......

RR oo RR Child Development oo dd ,, aa ...... CC ,, MM aa RR BB ,, pp

..

.. EE tt (1993). “Successful Adolescent in Development High-Risk Among Youth Settings”. tt .. .. SS KK AA

SS

.. ,, MM .. nn ..

.. ,, AA ,, DD DD nn SS

gg .. gg DD ,, ,, ,, ,,

..

AA AA ee

,, aa HH MM AA AA

yy ,,

,, ,, JJ aa .. AA rr ,,

..

Children and Youth Services Children and Youth Review

.. ss

nn nn ,, RR nn cc nn ,, ..

.. .. ,, ,, ii ,, ii FF

aa dd ee ee ,, ee VV yy nn

,, aa RR aa rr nn rr nn mm rr ff VV nn AA

AA nn ii nn ,,

oo nn nn ee rr

,, ee ii ,, ee ee ee oo nn ,, uu pp aa ,, ,, ss aa ll kk mm kk mm aa aa tt uu oo rr xx tt ll tt ll ll dd zz ff hh hh ff ee ss ii ii ee ss ss aa ss ss nn ff tt gg ff tt tt ww ww mm rr oo ll zz ll pp nn ww yy ss ss nn yy ss uu oo uu oo ee oo aa ee oo aa aa oo aa aa rr uu nn ii aa ii ee aa oo aa ee HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH LL HH KK KK KK KK KK JJ KK JJ KK VV JJ KK KK KK Impacts for in Government” Perspectives Society for in Research Child Development, 57 (2-3, Serial No. 227). Behaviour”. He Huarahi Tamariki: A Chance for He Children. Tamariki: Huarahi Family Process Family Young Children’s Well-Being”. Well-Being”. Children’s Young Positive Positive Life Adaptations Age Differences”. Minnesota Family Minnesota Investment Family Program Mental Health of Adolescent Low-Income Mothers”. Development: Development: Positive Life Adaptations Marriage and Family NLSY”. NLSY”. Mothers: Markers of Morbidity?” Future Children”. Children”. Psychosocial Psychosocial Morbidity and Grief in Families”. Bereaved Grief Study, I: Perceptions of Functioning in Family Grief Bereavement”. Study, Developmental Developmental Psychopathology”. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 77 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage78

References 78 Raising Children in New Zealand From Research on Successful Children”. Successful FromResearchon Review and Conceptual Analysis of Links between Religion, Marriage, and Parenting”. and Marriage, Religion, between Links of Analysis Conceptual and Review Pathways to Resilience and Maladaptation from Childhood to Late Adolescence”. Late to Childhood from Maladaptation and Resilience to Pathways and Psychological Science: An IntegrativeApproach An Science: Psychological and Publishers. Adaptations Life PositiveDevelopment: and Resilience Alcohol and Other Drugs Unit, Health Canada. Health Unit, Drugs Other and Alcohol by D.H. Olsen, H.I. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A.S. Larsen, M. Muxen and M. Wilson. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota of UniversityPaul: St. M. Wilson. and Muxen M. Larsen, A.S. Barnes, H. McCubbin, H.I. Olsen, D.H. by Postpartum”. Postpartum”. John Wiley & Sons. & John Wiley Psychology,Personality,Socialization, Vol.Development4. Social and Puerto-Rican Adolescent Mothers”. Adolescent Puerto-Rican Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lawrence NJ: Mahwah, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of American, Los Angeles, Ca. Angeles, Los American, of Association Population the of Meeting Annual the at presented Paper 71: 573-75. 71: Development”. Available online at www.cyfernet.org/research/resilient.html.at online Available Child Development Child Childhood Context”. M M M M M M M M M L M L L L L L L M L L L L L L a e e e i a e u i u u o u a n a a a a a a a c c a a z z w v a a h t t t t w C C v y s s s n s s h c h h h h a a i d d m i n e c t t t t t e u u g o a a a a r r , s b b e e e e e

o e r u u r a b b h r r r , r n F , e e n n n n n ,

, , , , , b s s

n

b b . M a e

M a a , , S , , ,

S S S S J , , y ,

a

m i i y

. t t A A

A A A n n . . R , R A . . . . . B e e n ,

S S S S ,

. . Journal of Youthof Adolescence Journal and , a . . , (1997). . , E . . Unpublished Manuscript, Columbia University.Columbia Manuscript, Unpublished . . .

r r A d S S

S S . S

S S , . . . . F n C H H J , , .

, ,

.

. . . E . . . u P (1991). “Vulnerability and Resilience: A Study of High-Risk Adolescents”. High-Risk of Study “VulnerabilityA Resilience:(1991). and (1999). .

. B d , B B .

, . . C C

a , . (2001). “Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development”. in ProcessesResilience Magic: “Ordinary (2001). (1999). “Resilience Comes of Age: Reflections on the Past and Outlook for the Next Generation of Research”in of Generation Next the for Outlook and Past the on Reflections Age: of Comes “Resilience (1999). a a

I I l o (1993). “Coping Theory and Research: Past, Present, and Future”.and Present,Research:Past, and “Coping Theory (1993). a P

H r . . Development and Psychopathology and Development . . i i i n F M n n a

o g , , n l c c a a a

u l e Journal of Clinical Child Psychology Child Clinical of Journal n d d d c c L M n o d a r c n n i b h h d

a g i k c r

G J B C What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’sand FamilyIncome Chances Buy: Can’t Life Money What d d , c F b i e e a

r k a s

n M r o C

o r s A , 71: 543-62. 71: , a t r t , - m L B a a Poverty and Children’sand Poverty Adjustment g

e t t a v u l G . r i H a k t i i i s

, n i d n t e b , , s a h u

s r m w s

. C a , , n h t D D b n

, , n w

a i

r . e A J t a o d n i P P . . n . e n , n

o

l (1998). “The Child and its Family”in its and Child “The (1998). J n . p

,

a a . . , l s . S K d B ,

, A r

, , , , J

n n

J ,

t

.

M . . R r

L . . S G S h C

, A d d O o a

. (1994). “Cumulative Familial Risks and Low-Birthweight Children’sLow-Birthweight and FamilialBehavioralRisks “Cumulative and (1994). Cognitive e (2000). “Adolescent Stressors, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Health Studied in the Familythe in Studied Health Psychological and Strategies,“Adolescent Coping Stressors,(2000). . , . o T e . .

o n .

A (1991). “Developmental Psychopathology: An IntegrativeFramework”in An Psychopathology:“Developmental (1991). B B i (1984). J a s (1994). “Predictors of Behavior Problems in Preschool Children of Inner-Cityand Afro-Americanof ChildrenPreschool in Problems Behavior of “Predictors (1994). m (1983). “Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent-Child Interaction” in Family:Interaction”Parent-Child the of Context the in “Socialization (1983). d k d (1992). “Depressive Symptoms in Black and Puerto Rican Adolescent Mothers in the First 3 Years3 First the in Mothers Adolescent Rican Puerto and Black in “DepressiveSymptoms (1992). . . e e t r D , , s

, f a

c c O

o T - . G S k k k G h r (1998). “The Development of Competence in Favorable and Unfavorable Environments: LessonsFavorableUnfavorableEnvironments: in and Competence of Development “The (1998). l . e e e . s t

u D o a , s r r Child Development Child o

n , , m . n h M n

, n Stress, Appraisal and Coping and AppraisalStress, B B

d w , p T . ,

. .

E

D s a e S J American Psychologist American (2000b). “Research on Resilience: Response to Commentaries”. to ResponseResilience: “Researchon (2000b). (2000a). “The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines For FutureFor Guidelines Work”.Evaluationand Critical A Resilience: of Construct “The (2000a). . . o r l . t l H , (2000). (2001). e n e

N . w , g , 29(1): 15-43. 29(1): ,

. (1982). “Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales” in EvaluationPersonalScales” Oriented “FamilyCrisis (1982). A e a

a n . r I n t , . ,

, d

A

M H

, 4: 451-68. 4: , How Do Parents Matter? Income, Interactions, and Intervention During Early During Intervention and Interactions, Income, Matter? Parents Do How . Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Among the Children of Youngof Children Mothers the Among Outcomes Behavioral and Academic S , a , 23(4): 360-72. 23(4): , .

w G n (1995). edited by P.R.by York:edited New PergamonPress.Martin. , a a

S r n . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sage CA: Oaks, . Thousand , 65: 638-48. 65: , m edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L Johnson. New York:New Academic/Plenum Johnson. Kluwer J.L and Glantz M.D. by edited k . - , e Y

A z .

y . a Resiliency: Relevance to Health Promotion: Detailed Analysis Detailed Promotion: Health RelevanceResiliency:to , (2001). “Religion in the Home in the 1980s and 1990s: A Meta-Analytic A 1990s: and 1980s the in Home the in “Religion (2001). n

N Families, Risk, and Competence and Families,Risk, d . , 53: 205-20. 53: ,

A a l n l e . New York:New . Springer. d n

R ,

a C edited by E.M. Hetherington (Series Ed. P.H.Ed. (Series York:Hetherington New E.M. Mullen). by edited m . T i . r (1997). e z ,

American Psychologist American M Psychosomatic Medicine Psychosomatic . (1999). “Competence in the Context of Adversity: of Context the in “Competence (1999). Development and Psychopathology and Development Families under Stress: What Makes Them Resilient? Makes Them Stress:Families What under . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.University Harvard Cambridge: . Child Development Child Journal of FamilyPsychology of Journal edited by M. Lewis and C. Feiring. C. Lewisand M. by edited , 56: 227-38. 56: , Handbook of Behavior Therapy of Handbook , 55(3): 2324-47. 55(3): , , 62: 600-16. 62: , Child Development Child FamilyInventories Handbook of Child of Handbook , 15: 559-96. 15: , , 11: 143-69. 11: , . Ottawa: . , . edited Raising Children in New Zealand References 79 , Social , 18: 5-12. Journal of Journal of Marriage . St. Paul, MN: Journal of Comparative Normal Family Normal Processes Family , 65: 562-89. , 53: 185-204. . Cambridge: Harvard University American Journal of Sociology The Family The in Family Aotearoa New Zealand Family Inventories Family , 25: 337-51. , (2nd ed.) edited by H.I. McCubbin and , 17(1/2): 49-66. Family Planning Family Perspectives (1986). (1999). “Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation .. Child Development )) .. .. ss RR

dd ,, EE mm American Psychologist (( Family Process Family

uu .. aa MM bb

ll ,, ee nn tt , 36: 429-37. oo aa ss ll TT , 23: 171-86. ii

dd WW

nn aa dd

.. nn (2000). “TheAssessment, McMaster Approach Theory, to Families: aa RR

.. .. ee BB ll .. MM

oo ,, NN

CC ,, nn

(1994). “Unemployment Interruption and Work Among African American ,, ee nn .. .. ii (1996). “Early Parenting and Relationships Family within Intergenerational JJ St. St. Paul, MN: Social Family Science, University of Minnesota. As cited in Smith, xx JJ

ee Journal of Divorce and Remarriage .. ,, ,, uu tt (2000). “Are Associations Between Parental Divorce and Children’s Adjustment Associations (2000). Between “Are Parental Divorce and Children’s LL ee edited by J. Graber, edited J. by Brooks-Gunn and J. A. Graber, Petersen. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. zz (1996). Young Mothers in (1996). Young Education. New DepartmentSouth Wales of Education , 22(2): 168-89.

ss , 9: 44-65. .. ,, MM dd , 61: 311-46. ee ..

pp CC nn ,, oo uu .. nn .. EE rr JJ oo

qq oo ii AA ,, nn ii rr

dd Social Work Research Social Work tt tt ,, ss ee oo ee nn aa nn ll ee kk aa ii BB FACES III.FACES cc

ee ee cc

Developmental Developmental Psychology rr .. uu ss gg EE FF dd

rr Growing Growing Up With A Single What Parent: Hurts, What Helps SS dd ,, gg ee (1988). “Types (1988). of “Types and Families Response Family to Stress Across in the Life Cycle” .. nn aa .. EE EE .. aa DD DD

LL

II HH

ll

.. ..

.. ,, dd dd oo .. RR nn pp HH nn

nn oo (1985). HH ,, aa ,, oo aa

(1991). “Family Theory(1991). Stress “Family and Assessment: The Resiliency Model of Stress, Family aa .. hh

,, oo

nn hh .. .. ll mm (1994). cc .. ii (1988). “Intergenerational (1988). Consequences “Intergenerational of Disruption”. Family YY ss II ll ss

LL zz .. .. ii SS AA

bb ,, .. ee tt aa

,, Family Assessment Family Inventories For and Research Practice ii edited by D.M. Klein and The J. Guilford Press. Aldous. New York: LL ,, ee ff BB HH GG bb nn Child Development bb

ii

nn rr KK ,, ee ,, ,, ,, oo uu ee

pp

.. oo rr aa ss vv ,, The Future The of Future Children nn II tt CC tt CC ss rr ii .. ss uu aa rr

BB cc JJ nn (2001). “Working (2001). Effectively “Working with online Available Families”. at ff

,, aa , 24: 99-111.

bb aa LL (1993). “Parenting Following (1993). Divorce: A “Parenting Following Comparison of Black and White Single Mothers”. GG ,, .. uu (1999). “Perceived (1999). Crime “Perceived and Informal Social Control in the Neighborhood as a Context for Adolescent ,, ee

..

ee .. CC Journal Therapy of Family (1985). “Early Childbearing and Completion of High School”. MM .. bb pp (1998). “Family (1998). Contributions “Family to Risk and Resilience in African American Children”. JJ .. ,, EE

II ..

BB

dd dd ...... rr

.. mm uu RR .. ,, AA LL ,, dd .. mm nn tt TT nn .. ee .. RR .. ss HH CC

SS rr

nn

WW aa CC uu rr

aa ,, nn ,, (1997). “Poverty History, Marital History, and Quality of Children’s Home and Environments”. Quality Marital of History, (1997). Children’s “Poverty History, cc CC

,, GG

,, aa MM tt

aa

,, .. ,, ee ee

SS BB rr nn ii

,, .. ,, nn JJ

,, pp ii .. MM ii oo

nn dd nn ss oo ee

nn ii ,, DD ee ee dd dd tt ll YY ll bb

oo nn rr ee mm

ee KK dd ,, yy nn aa ii nn nn Transitions Through Through Adolescence Transitions ,,

DD gg ss bb aa ee ii oo rr rr ,,

ii ss nn rr aa aa aa ww ee ll .. ii FF uu SS nn

ss ss aa aa VV

ee TT

.. .. oo ee tt vv

PP

CC rr

CC yy ee

..

rr dd dd vv dd ll aa SS SS , 59: 996-1007. , 29: 215-29. ,, ee BB aa ,, cc dd aa .. ..

.. oo AA nn aa nn nn aa JJ (1990). “The Impact of Economic Hardship On Black and Families Children: Psychological Distress, Parenting, and (1998). “Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development”. nn DD .. DD nn

SS SS dd

MM MM LL PP aa GG ee aa -- ,, .. ..

aa

(1993). “Circumplex Model of Marital and Systems: Family Assessing Functioning” in Family (1986). “Circumplex Model VII: Validation (1986). Studies “Circumplex and Model VII:III”.FACES Validation .. aa

WW ,, ,, rr nn ,, dd ,, ,, .. MM

.. CC

CC CC HH yy dd ......

.. .. TT .. ..

.. .. ee nn nn aa nn ,,

PP RR ,, hh

RR FF nn ,,

HH

HH HH HH HH .. aa aa VV hh .. VV VV

tt .. aa nn ,, rr .. ,, ......

,,

aa tt ii LL ,, ,, ,, hh hh ..

.. yy uu KK HH .. oo dd DD DD DD .. DD DD ee II JJ .. bb rr

aa aa dd

dd rr dd

oo JJ ,, nn FF ,, ,, ,, DD ,, ,, ,, ,,

bb nn

yy ww yy yy nn nn

oo ,, ss rr SS rr nn ii ,, ,, nn nn nn nn nn ff

ee uu rr aa oo aa oo oo tt rr hh ee ee oo ss oo oo oo oo oo nn tt ll ll rr ee LL CC LL LL KK LL LL ww ss ll ll dd ss ss CC ss ss ss cc cc cc cc cc cc cc ee ii uu yy oo ii ’’ ll ll ll ll ll ll ee aa MM MM MM MM MM MM MM NN NN MM MM OO MM MM OO OO MM OO MM OO OO OO 94: 130-52. Press. Comparative Family Studies Comparative Family Socioemotional Development”. A.I. Thompson. A.I. Thompson. Wisconsin: Madison, Stress, Coping, Family and Health Project, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Adjustment, Adjustment, and Adaptation” in Behaviour: A Risk and Resilience Perspective”. Family Studies Family Single Mothers: Effects on Parenting and Adolescent Socioemotional Functioning”. Black Families” Black in Families” edited by V. Adair and edited R. by V. Dixon. Auckland: Longman. Addison Wesley and Training. As cited and Training. in Dixon, R. and Baragwanath, S. (1998). “Parenting in Adolescence” in www.massey.ac.nz/~wwspsw/research/workingwithfamilies.pdf. Genetically Mediated? An Adoption Study”. (2nd ed.) edited by F. Walsh. New York: The Guilford Press. New Walsh. York: (2nd ed.) edited by F. and the Family Treatment and Research”. Treatment Stress Stress and Development Family by Nurses: Recent Findings”. T.A. (1991). Cohesion “Family in T.A. Remarried Families”. Family Social Family Science, University of Minnesota. MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 79 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage80

References 80 Raising Children in New Zealand ReproductiveReprise”in Adjustment in Low-Income Single Mothers”. Low-IncomeSingle in Adjustment 105(1): 88-127. 105(1): Marriage and the Familythe and Marriage Vol. 3. Child Psychology in Practice in Psychology Child Vol.3. Sociological Review Sociological Coping”. Outcomes in Adolescence?” in Outcomes Children Association Development”. Child on Grandmother with Co-residency of Effects Mothers: Adolescent to Born Developmental PsychologyDevelopmental Children from Birth to College to Birth from Children Psychopathology University Press.University Psychopathology University Press.University Psychopathology of Positive Life Adaptations Life Positive Classic Study”. Classic Science P P P P P P O P P P P P R Q R R R R S R S R S a i a a a e h o e o o a a a a u a u a e o l u l s x t t r a t l m m m g m p m l o n e l t t i , l t t f e o k t t n t r

l a o l d e , e e e e C o p p e p e e , r e c n

t r , z

e J r r s r r , e n r . y y I ,

s s s d , . s s i

, , J S

. , o o

E J n , , , , o o

, . R ,

S o o , .

M M

R

n . , 277: 918-24. 277: , f .

L C C , , S P n n (1990). “Stepfamilies: Redefining the Family”.the Redefining“Stepfamilies: (1990). J K . . New York:New ResearchCorporation.. DemonstrationManpower

J n n . f

a , D a . . , . , A B Journal of Youthof Adolescence Journal and . . . . , , . . (1999). “Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator Assessment”. Indicator Multiple A States? United the in Declining Capital Social “Is (1999). .

A , , .

D

B c n J a K

, A . a a R (1990). “Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms” in ProtectiveMechanisms” and Resilience “Psychosocial (1990). (1987). “Psychosocial Resilience and ProtectiveMechanisms”. and Resilience “Psychosocial (1987). R . o . J J

.

k . S n d L . W . . , 269(11): 1396-400. 269(11): , , i a . n n

. s .

M M e

s J a .

. J d a

n H d d . ,

a , . J o s h

n

a

n ,

o . . d a J

n a B

P c n i R R d . n R d h (2002b). “Understanding FamilyResilience”.“Understanding (2002b). (2002a). “Integrating Family Resilience and FamilyStress and Family Theory”. Resilience“Integrating (2002a). n t

w h d Child Development Child l a , B a e

d a a

o a n

d A n

J s N k n , 5: 529-40. 5: , s u m m

L a u m s edited by J. Rolf, A.S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K.H. Nuechterlein and S. Weintraub. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge S. Weintraub.UK: and Cambridge, Nuechterlein K.H. Cicchetti, D. Masten, Rolf,A.S. J. by edited

Z x i h i i S d a . r c o r d n d i i

e e a i i v k u n a l

e , 63: 810-28. 63: , e n n e s e P l y y edited by J. Rolf, A.S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K.H. Nuechterlein and S. Weintraub. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge S. Weintraub.UK: and Cambridge, Nuechterlein K.H. Cicchetti, D. Masten, Rolf,A.S. J. by edited m i , n b n i , l s , , , n ,

, , f

o ,

E

d N , , e , ,

J J R b L S S

l

R . . . W J r

P i R . D L . u . , . . D . t , 48: 295-307. 48: , , . ,

. .

, . (1986). “Marital Disruption, Parent-Child Relationships, and Behavior Problems in Children”. in Problems Behavior and Relationships,Parent-Child Disruption, “Marital (1986).

B (1993). “Families at Risk for Psychopathology: Who Becomes Affected and Why?”. Affected Becomes Psychopathology: Who for Risk “Familiesat (1993). s . The Family in Aotearoa New Zealand New Aotearoa Familyin The (1998). “Early Intervention and Early Experience”. Early and Intervention “Early (1998). (2000). “Early Childhood Experiences and Developmental Competence” in Competence”Developmental and Experiences Childhood “Early (2000). (1994). “Urban Poverty and the Family Context of Delinquency: A New Look at Structure and Process in a in Process and Structure at Look New A Delinquency: of FamilyContext the and Poverty “Urban (1994). . edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L. Johnson. New York:Publishers. New Academic/Plenum Johnson. Kluwer J.L. and Glantz M.D. by edited A R

i B B (1998). “Socialization in the Family: Ethnic and Ecological Perspectives”in Ecological and Family:Ethnic the in “Socialization (1998).

G (1999). “Opening Doors to Resilience Intervention for PreventionResearch”in for Intervention Resilience to Doors “Opening (1999). D c h a a . . . r , 18: 627-34. 18: , k . , . n , n o (1994). “Coping in Adolescence: Empirical Evidence for a Theoretically Based Approach to Assessing to Approach Based a Theoretically for Evidence Empirical Adolescence: in “Coping (1994). (1990). “Early Contributors to Developmental Risk” in Risk” Developmental to Contributors “Early (1990).

Social WorkResearch s S (1998). “The Impact of Family Religious Life on the Quality of Mother-ChildRelations”.of Quality the on Life FamilyReligious of Impact “The (1998). C (1997). d y o o . a r

edited by S. Danziger and J. Waldfogel. New York:J. Waldfogel.New and Sage. RussellDanziger S. by edited k W n A n r s , r d i

- . c t J

G , h , . a

, 65: 523-40. 65: , V u u K n (1998). “Family Formation and Structure: The Implications of Cradle Conservatism and Conservatism Cradle of Implications Structure: The “Familyand Formation(1998). (5th ed.) edited by W. Damon and N. Eisenberg. New York:Sons. New Eisenberg.& by W.John WileyN. edited and ed.) Damon (5th . n r d New Chance: Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers in Poverty and their and PovertyYoungComprehensiveProgram for in a Mothers on Report Final Chance: New .

, A a n

E M n . , ,

a d

J . G . r W

, l C r

s K e , 23(3): 359-71. 23(3): , . e , e e

(1999). “Risk and Protection: Are Both Necessary to Understand Diverse BehavioralDiverse Understand to Necessary Both AreProtection: and “Risk (1999). b F American Journal of Orthopsychiatry of Journal American n l a . l e b l (1997). “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy”. Collective of StudyMultilevel A Crime: and Violent “Neighborhoods (1997). l h e o e r , g

, 23: 145-58. 23: , r R , ,

. K M (1994). “Socioenvironmental and Individual Correlates of Psychological of Correlates Individual and “Socioenvironmental (1994). . . J FamilyRelations T . , .

R a i n c d k Journal of Clinical Psychology Clinical of Journal e

R r edited by V. Adair and R. Dixon. Auckland: Addison WesleyLongman.Auckland: Dixon. by V.R. edited and Adair t o , b

V i n . I s . , o

B n r , , 39(2): 186-94. 39(2): ,

a N d American Journal of Orthopsychiatry of Journal American . l M e Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Development the ProtectiveFactorsin and Risk American Psychologist American y . , (1982). “Effects of Maternal Age on Parental Role”.Parental on Age Maternal of “Effects (1982).

R . H , 64: 317-31. 64: , . Journal of Marriage and Familyand Marriage of Journal Risk and Protective Factors in the Development the ProtectiveFactorsin and Risk

a n d

C a s , 58(3): 233-46. 58(3): , e y ,

P . Journal of the American Medical American the of Journal H . , 53: 109-20. 53: , (1993). “Low-Birth-WeightInfants (1993). Securing the Future: Investing in Future:Investing the Securing Handbook of Child Psychology: Child of Handbook American Journal of Sociology of Journal American Resilience and Development: and Resilience Development and Development , 57: 316-31. 57: , , 64: 349-60. 64: , American Journal of Journal , Raising Children in New Zealand References 81 Child Annual Review Journal of Marriage Scandinavian Journal , 55: 5-14. , 9: 251-68. , 55: 17-29. , 21: 135-47. Canadian Journal of . Presidential Address, Biennial edited by V. Adair and edited R. V. by Dixon. . Melbourne: International. Fast , 17(1/2): 49-66. American Psychologist Child Development At The the Threshold: Developing Adolescent edited by G.J. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn. New York: Review Review of Religious Research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. , 10: 236-41. . New York: Harper . and New York: Row. . Wellington: Government Printer. As cited in Printer. Government . Wellington: Dixon, R. Development Development and Psychopathology , 8: 136-56. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage The Family The in Family Aotearoa New Zealand A Picture of Health (1984). “The Process Model of Functioning”. Family .. HH

, 30: 102-11. (1997). “Consequences of Living in Poverty for Young Children’s (1997). Cognitive and Verbal “Consequences of Living in Children’s Poverty for Young ,, (1995). rr .. .. (2000). “Family (2000). Assessment “Family Measure and (FAM) the Process Model of Family ee KK . (1982). “The ‘Marital Conventionalization’ Argument: Implications for the Study of hh .. .. nn tt Journal of Issues Family PP ll GG PP nn ..

ii aa ,, ,, Consequences of Growing Up Poor AA kk ee

ss vv ,, SS , 22(2): 190-210. (2000). “Positive Psychology: An Introduction”. oo oo HH

hh ii

Evaluation Report Evaluation for Australian FAST Schools. Report #4 .. nn ff cc dd Journal of Psychology and Theology nn ii aa oo nn MM rr ee

bb rr aa ,, uu yy

ii JJ ee aa rr ..

ll tt tt yy JJ ii

ll dd ss KK ,, (2000). “Decision-Making Parent Households”. and Symptoms Depressive in Teen Multigenerational

ii aa SS nn aa

(1999). (1999). “Recent Developments and in Current Controversies the Sociology of Religion”. .. nn dd hh rr aa ii ii dd .. ..

nn AA , 14: 556-69. aa .. (1994). “Roles of Living Arrangements and Grandmother Social Support in Adolescent Mothering and

LL nn aa ,, GG MM

mm bb .. RR

ll .. (1999). “Using Home Visits for Multiple Purposes: The Comprehensive Child Development Program”. ,, aa tt rr .. .. ii

(1987). “Enlarging the Understanding of Marital Commitment via Religious Devoutness, Gender Role

LL JJ ll dd . (1984). “The Domain of Developmental Psychopathology”. CC .. .. dd

nn Stress, Stress, Coping, and Relationships in Adolescence aa

SS

.. JJ ll ,, aa ,,

,, nn

PP ee (2002). “Fewer (2002). Births“Fewer Author. Wellington: and More Deaths”. Press release, 1 February. ,, BB MM aa ,,

yy CC nn aa nn KK zz

--

,, rr

.. nn

,, ee nn ,, rr ss nn oo , 9(1): 134-51. aa ll rr ee tt aa dd dd dd oo tt ee We Know We Some Things: Parent Adolescent Relations in and Retrospect Prospect tt kk ss ss uu zz ee ii ii Developmental Developmental Psychology nn nn nn nn uu tt ee DD ll mm yy nn GG ss ll tt ll aa aa aa aa cc aa -- nn aa ee ll ll

ll CC EE (1995). (1993). “Coping Behavior of Finnish Adolescents: Remarks on a Cross-Cultural Comparison”. uu rr .. ss SS

hh LL

aa aa oo BB

MM

All All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community .. .. RR

AA kk

HH ,, dd nn dd ee ee II II

BB

.. ii dd

dd oo ,, dd nn ZZ ZZ nn ,, ,, dd dd ,, ee rr nn

DD (2002). “‘Beating the Odds’ Resilience, and ‘Changing Policy”. Family the Versus Odds’: Poverty, , 33: 301-14. Journal Therapy of Family .. nn oo nn aa tt aa ee ee .. nn nn , 58: 269-75. (2000). (1990). “Autonomy, Conflict, and Harmony in in (1990). the Relationship” “Autonomy, Family (1987). “Single Parents, Stepparents, and the Susceptibility of Adolescents to Antisocial Peer Pressure”.

aa ee rr

.. aa ww ww RR aa ..

, 25: 371-87. kk kk .. SS PP (1997). “Psychopathology as an Outcome of Development”. aa

aa ......

.. .. bb

BB

.. (1991). “Family (1991). Cohesion “Family in Remarried Families”. KK ee ee .. EE nn nn ,,

(1980). “Religion and Marital Instability: Change in the 1970’s?” ,, LL LL LL .. ..

.. JJ , 64: 384-94. MM .. RR uu .. ,,

, 29: 77-88.

,, JJ .. .. rr

VV WW ee ee

NN NN .. .. ,, ,, ,, rr

AA AA ,,

..

(1974). (1974). ,, rr rr ee ,, DD ee .. HH .. AA SS ,, gg gg gg

gg ii RR

.. ss ss TT nn ee .. LL LL ,, WW .. bb KK KK uu ,, rr rr rr ,,

rr

nn nn cc cc JJ TT tt -- -- ,, aa rr mm rr CC ,, ,, ,, ii ii ii

aa

ee ee ee rr

rr mm ,, oo ,, aa ee ee tt tt ee ee ,, ee ee ee ee hh bb bb bb mm mm ee zz mm ff ff ss ss kk ii oo hh hh gg gg kk nn kk ii ii nn nn nn nn ff ff rr tt tt gg ww uu gg cc nn uu uu uu PP ii tt tt ii ii ii cc ee ii ii ii ff ff nn

ee ii rr ll ii ii cc yy ii hh hh aa oo oo ee .. aa aa ee ee ee aa ee kk cc mm ee hh ee tt ee aa tt pp cc cc rr tt tt hh rr mm tt tt tt tt SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS Journal of Psychology Family of Psychology and Family of Sociology Religiosity Religiosity and Marital Satisfaction”. Psychiatry Functioning”. Functioning”. Infant Attachment”. Available Available online at www.wcer.wisc.edu/fast/research/research3b.pdf. The Future The of Future Children Russell Russell Sage Foundation. Ability and Early School Achievement” in Meeting of the Society For On Research Adolescence. Chicago, IL. Preferences, and Preferences, Locus of Marital Control”. edited by S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Development and Baragwanath, S. (1998). “Parenting in Adolescence” in Auckland: Addison Wesley Auckland: Longman. Addison Wesley MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 81 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 FamilyResilienceart4/3/0311:13AMPage82

References 82 Raising Children in New Zealand Intergenerational Relationships and Parenting in Young African American Families”.Youngin ParentingAmerican and IntergenerationalRelationshipsAfrican The Case of Familyof Wellbeing”.Case The Promotion Health of Householders to Monitor Social Policy Impacts”. Policy Social Monitor to Householders Child Development Child Washington, DC: Author (GAO/HEHS/PEMD-95-202). Author Washington,DC: of Research on Adolescence Researchon of Structures”. Families: Relationships with Family Stress and Coping Style”.Coping Familyand Stresswith Families: Relationships Health Zealand Journal of Public Health Public of Journal Zealand Prevention Life Adaptations Life Journal Development Social Policy Report, 13(2). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development. Child Researchin for Arbor,Society Ann 13(2). MI: Report, Policy Social Development Framework www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/RP24.pdf. Life Community Familyand in 5: 88-112. 5: www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/papers/stone3.html. Survey Citizenship Journal of New Zealand New of Journal W W W T U U W T W U T T T T T T T S S S S S o o r h u s h a a t t t u t p n n a a a a a e o o e e e r m m l c o o g g i c s l l l l k t n p p n t n y k m m l d l d h l e e e o i i s e e t a , h h e e e s s e r u r , r

d n c r a p r n K ,

, e r e e - , o , g s r s K

h , 13: 546-52. 13: ,

L , , s s d W W , 2(1): 36-44. 2(1): , n n n R . c S D n

t t r l e

. , T M o h e , e a , s s a a

, . t .

M .

a . . V

E n a

i , , i B , v T n g

F A . a n n

n (2001). a . . B , t e R R D . . , National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues Paper Published by the Australian Institute of FamilyStudies. of Institute Australian the by Published Paper Issues Clearinghouse Protection Child National , d , o . . Paper Prepared for the Fordand WilliamFoundation T.the PreparedFoundation.for Child Trends.PaperGrant Washington, D.C.: .

. n

, e , ,

n d

W a a M M , .

a

. . L

n . d

N s

J B Social ForcesSocial

, d E

n M n C a . n . a

H d .

. .

S S W v

. e d d , G

C n . n d H a .

a a a , e . . l (1992). “Powerlessness, Empowerment, and Health: Implications For Health Promotion Programs”.Promotion Health For Implications Health: and “Powerlessness,Empowerment, (1992).

Z

d o

e d

,

l a , V O (1993). “Early Schooling and Childbearing Experiences: Implications for Postsecondary School Attendance”. School Postsecondary for Implications Experiences: Childbearing and Schooling “Early (1993). n r n u S r W

a , a

o l

n edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L. Johnson. New York:Publishers. New Academic/Plenum Johnson. Kluwer J.L. and Glantz M.D. by edited C

y l

C a d d g M a t l W n d N s Measuring Social Capital: TowardsCapital Social ResearchingSocial FrameworkMeasuring for Measurement Informed a Theoretically l e , s h u i . . Paper Presented At ‘Competing Visions’ National Social Policy Conference, Sydney,Conference, Policy Social July. National 4-6 at Availableonline ‘Competing Visions’ At PresentedPaper . n

h n e

l d l , 61: 416-28. 61: , e

W E . o r A i o s a a a a y J e , y t

a g , 6(3): 197-205. As cited in Tsey,cited As 197-205. 6(3): , Every,and Programs:Empowerment“EvaluatingK. Aboriginal (2000). A. n .

n o . w K c l s r n u , s , S i l d r t s

s h , e n (2000). “Evaluating Aboriginal Empowerment Programs: The Case of Familyof Wellbeing”.Programs:EmpowermentCase “Evaluating Aboriginal The (2000).

d e k , a M P , ,

. A e m

e

D - e , , 16: 77-107. 16: , l o

J v S M e (1994). “Teenage Mothers in Nuclear and Extended Households”. Extended and Nuclear “Teenagein (1994). Mothers

L g c l C , . . l M e . y v i

e l a . c r H n S a (2001). (1992). “Partner and Grandmother Contact in Black and WhiteTeenBlack in Families”.ParentContact Grandmother and “Partner (1992). - .

, , , 67: 715-30. 67: , , a o k n a

K .

b g . . a J M C v , u n s (1990). “The Impact of Two- and Three-Generational Black Family Structure on Perceivedof Two-FamilyClimate”.Familyon Impact Structure Black and Three-Generational “The (1990). . e e r (1999). “Community-Based Approaches in Preventing Child Maltreatment”. PreventingChild in Approaches “Community-Based (1999).

(1994). “Circumplex Model: Curvilinearity Using Clinical Rating Scale (CRS) and FACES III”. FACESIII”. and (CRS) Scale Rating Clinical Using Curvilinearity Model: “Circumplex (1994). n , 3: 423-43. 3: , B e . d C n e d r .

r d , . Working Paper No. 24, Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available online at Availableonline FamilyStudies. of Institute Australian Melbourne: 24, No.. WorkingPaper a

. n a , . r t

(1999). “Re-Visiting the Validity of the Construct of Resilience”in of Construct “Re-Visitingthe Validitythe (1999). of

W S

i a C n (1980). a l M W n Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Public of Journal Zealand New and Australian e , t d . n , 24(5): 509-14. 24(5): , .

g e , . The Nature and Distribution of Social Capital: Initial Findings of the Families, Social Capital & Capital Families,Social the of Findings Initial Capital: Social of Distribution and Nature The N

i (2001). “The Effectiveness of the Transferof Effectivenessand Tax 1998”. in Poverty“The Reducing (2001). in System

,

a n

F p P

(1989). “Psychological Well-Being Among Mothers with School-Age Children: EvolvingFamilyChildren: School-Age with Mothers “Psychological Well-BeingAmong (1989). O . C n r q h . a (1999). f . L d u e f t . (1995). i

i n e

c S s a Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope With DivorceCope WithParents and Children How Breakup: the Surviving r s e t o n , ,

.

r N

d P R e (1995).

o . . l B l r Perspectives on Father Involvement: Research and Policy FatherInvolvement:Researchand Perspectiveson (1995). “Measuring Poverty in New Zealand”. New in Poverty “Measuring (1995). (1996). “Participation in Poverty Research: Drawing on the Knowledge of Low-Incomeof Knowledge the on Research:DrawingPoverty in “Participation (1996). , r d

The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans African Among Marriage in Decline The o G ,

o . C T k . . s WelfareSchool Help Teenageto Work:ApproachesHigh That Complete Mothers Social Policy Journal of New Zealand New of Journal Policy Social (1993). Risk, (1993). (1990). “Cohesion and Adaptability in Post-Divorce Remarried and First Married First and Post-DivorceRemarried in Adaptability and “Cohesion (1990). - G u n n ,

J . (1996). “Not Just ‘Ghosts in the Nursery’: Contemporaneous Nursery’: the in ‘Ghosts Just “Not (1996). Journal of Divorce and Remarriage and Divorce of Journal Vulnerability,Conceptual a Youth:of Among ResilienceSearch and In , 24(5): 509-14. 24(5): , Child Development Child , 7: 191-206. 7: , Social Policy Journal of New Zealand New of Journal Policy Social Journal of FamilyIssues, of Journal . New York:Foundation.New Sage . Russell Resilience and Development: PositiveDevelopment: and Resilience , 14(1); 13-28. 14(1); , . Society for Research in Child Researchin for Society . , 67: 2131-47. 67: , Issues in Child Abuse Child in Issues . New York:New Books. . Basic Australian and New and Australian Journal of Adolescent of Journal American Journal American 15: 309-37. 15: The FamilyThe Social Policy Social Journal , . Raising Children in New Zealand References 83 . New York: American Sociological American Journal of . Institute for on Research , 19: 405-26. , 51: 130-37. , 22: 246-58. Development Development and Resilience Resilience and Development: Positive , 4(3): 81-85. , 35(3): 261-81. Family Relations Family . Working Paper . Working No. 21. Melbourne: Australian (1999). “Caregiving and Developmental Factors .. BB .. DD

,, (1995). “Urban Youth Under (1995). Stress: Empirical “Urban Youth nn ee .. TT gg Developmental Developmental Psychology .. Family Process Family aa LL

FF

,, yy dd tt nn rr , 24: 705-21. aa ee

.. hh (5th ed.) edited by W. (5th Damon, ed.) I.E. edited Siegel by W. and K.A. Renninger. BB aa .. ll FF KK

,, dd ss , 53: 647-56. nn uu American Journal of Community Psychology aa

nn .. JJ gg .. aa EE

,, MM

rr (1991). “Developmental and Milieu Family Interview Correlates of Resilience ,, ee .. .. LL hh RR

.. cc ,, ss ss Current Current Directions in Psychological Science GG rr

. New York: The Guilford . Press. New York: ee ,, ee rr oo yy rr ee ee PP kk

rr ,, MM .. aa -- Family Structure, Early Sexual Behavior, and Structure, Early Family Premarital Sexual BirthsBehavior, AA tt PP ..

yy dd DD oo

American Psychologist ,, nn HH zz

aa ,,

tt (1998). “School and Community Competence-Enhancement and in Programs” Prevention ii .. .. Journal of Youth and Journal Adolescence of Youth Vulnerable but Invincible: Vulnerable A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth .. CC CC (1997). ww .. .. RR .. .. ee LL WW WW kk

MM (1998). “Urban Neighborhoods and Mental Health: Psychological Contributions to Understanding ,, ,, ss ,,

,, .. ss kk kk aa gg rr rr ss PP MM rr (1982).

aa

oo oo ,, ,, ee .. .. pp nn bb WW WW SS

HH .. mm oo ,, ,, nn .. ii .. .. RR ee uu tt AA

LL LL

,, .. .. ee aa ,, BB rr

EE EE hh nn NN

tt dd

GG ,, ,, ii aa

nn dd nn nn , 70: 645-59. dd mm mm aa nn ee ee

Towards a Theorised Understanding of Life Family and Towards Social Capital nn , 5: 503-15. Strengthening Family Resilience Strengthening Family SS .. dd edited by M.D. Glantz and J.L. Kluwer Johnson. Academic/Plenum New Publishers. York: aa

ww ww

aa , 59: 72-81. ee AA ..

dd

oo oo .. ee ,, AA nn rr CC CC

PP nn

,, .. FF aa (1989). “High-Risk Children in Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study from Birth To 32 Years”. (1989). “High-Risk Adulthood: Children A 32 in Years”. Young Longitudinal Study from Birth To (1993). “Risk, Resilience, and from Perspectives the Recovery: Kauai Longitudinal Study”. (1995). “Resilience in Development”. ii ,, ,,

ll .. .. nn RR ,, ...... (1999). “Critical Conceptual and Measurement Issues in the Study of in Resilience” rr (1986). “The Black Extended An Family: Analytic Consideration”.

.. aa AA AA ,, EE EE EE EE .. ee ...... (2000). .. (1996). “The Concept of Resilience: Family Crisis and Challenge”. (1998). (2002). “ThePractice Applications”. Innovative Resilience Family Framework: ...... DD gg mm .. hh PP PP (1996). “Effects of Family Instability, Income, (1996). and “Effects Income of Instability, Instability Family on the Risk of a Premarital Birth”. EE rr .. EE EE EE ...... MM

MM

II ss

,, ,, CC

FF FF FF .. ,, ee ,, ,, ,,

, 61(3): 386-406. ,, rr MM

,,

,, rr rr rr rr

,, nn nn LL ,, ,, ,, bb rr ee ee ,, .. .. nn ee ee ee ee ll aa aa tt ss hh hh hh ee LL LL dd oo nn nn nn nn

dd tt ss ss ss ss ss ,, ,, ss ii rr ii rr rr rr nn ll ll ll mm mm ll nn nn yy yy uu ee ee ee ee ee ii ee ii aa ii uu aa aa aa WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW Differentiating Young At-Risk Urban Stress-Affected Outcomes: Differentiating Young Children A Versus Showing Resilient Replication and Extension”. Child Development in Urban Who Children Have Experienced Major Life-Stress”. Poverty Poverty Discussion Paper No. 1125, University Wisconsin, of Madison. Identification of Factors”. Protective McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill. Orthopsychiatry Review Life Adaptations Psychopathology Institute of Studies. Family Handbook of 4. Child Vol. Child Psychology: Psychology in Practice New York: John Wiley & New Sons. York: Toxicity, Resilience, and Interventions”. Toxicity, MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 83 Page AM 11:13 4/3/03 art Resilience Family MOSP017 MOSP017 Family Resilience art 4/3/03 11:13 AM Page 84 MOSP017 Resilience Cover art 4/3/03 11:44 AM Page 2

Centre for Social Research and Evaluation

ISBN: 0-478-25131-9