Lift Kids Out of Poverty, Protect Their Brains
UBC researcher adds to growing data on physical cost of being young and poor.
Stress can alter pre-frontal cortex: study
Growing up in poverty can physically harm a child's brain development, suggests a new study co-conducted by a University of British Columbia researcher.
Add that to a growing stack of findings that child advocates are using to argue the B.C. government needs to do more to tackle child poverty in a province that trails the rest of Canada in that category.
UBC pediatrician Tom Boyce worked with colleagues at the University of California and Stanford to measure how differences in a child's family socioeconomic status determine differences in neurological functioning in the pre-frontal cortex -- the part of the brain associated with executive functions and reasoning.
Their resulting study, to be published in MIT's Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, found that poorer children's pre-frontal cortexes were more likely to exhibit signs of damage or "altered" functioning identified with shortened attention spans and other learning problems.
Child and youth advocates say the new research is consistent with other studies finding that poverty sickens kids and impairs their development.
A study recently released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information reveals that low income Canadians are at elevated risk for mental health hospitalization, diabetes and childhood asthma.
Not about blaming parents
"There is already a lot of research that shows that the lives of children who grow up in poverty are not as good as those who grow up in better circumstances -- with more morbidity, behavioral disorders and earlier deaths. Our study shows that pre-frontal functioning is altered in low socioeconomic status children," Boyce told The Tyee in a recent phone interview.
Dr. Boyce's new research compares the EEG readings taken from two groups of San Francisco Bay Area children as they performed an experimental task. (The Tyee was able to obtain a pre-publication uncorrected proof of the study.) The children from homes with a mean average annual family income of $27,000, with parents who had not completed college (designated as low socioeconomic status) were compared with a group of children from homes with a mean average annual family income of $96,000 and parents who had completed college or post graduate degrees, who were designated as high socioeconomic status.
On key measures, the children from poor homes showed reductions in prefrontal-dependent electrophysiological measures of attention compared to those for kids who grew up in wealthy homes. The pattern of reduced attention seen in the poorer children is similar to that seen in patients with lateral prefrontal cortex damage.
Dr. Boyce emphasized to The Tyee that he and his fellow researchers were concerned that their findings not be used to "blame the victim" by suggesting that the differences in poor children's brain functioning were the fault of their parents. There are many factors associated to growing up in poverty that may contribute to the measured differences, he said, including greater levels of stress and lack of access to cognitively stimulating materials and experiences, factors that are very hard for poor parents to correct without changes in their own economic conditions and life circumstances.
Boyce said his research leads him to support the policy changes advocated by BC's First Call organization, the group that recently publicly criticized the province's government for failing, over five years' time, to lift B.C. out of its status as Canada's worst province for child poverty.
"Kids in poverty live with more stress. That comes with financial adversity. Income redistribution that benefits kids has documented efficacy," Boyce said.
'More kids in poverty, less services'
Joyce Preston, who served the B.C. legislature as its child youth and family advocate from 1995-2001, told The Tyee that the province had gone backwards in recent years.
"We're seeing more kids in poverty and less service for children and families," Preston said. "B.C. is failing our most vulnerable residents. Dr. Boyce's research reinforces what we know from other investigators like J. Fraser Mustard and Clyde Hertzman.
Kids need stimulation and security. The more they get, the more synapses will develop."
Adrienne Montani, First Call's provincial co-coordinator, who has also served as chair of the Vancouver School Board and Child and Youth Advocate for Vancouver, says that the province should address child poverty more effectively not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes economic sense.
"What kind of society allows avoidable harm to come to children? Besides, it is cheaper to invest in growing healthy kids and functional adults than it is to pay for services later for those who are damaged," she told The Tyee.
'Demands that we take steps': Tupel-Lafond
B.C.'s representative for children and youth, Ellen Turpel-Lafond, told The Tyee that she supports the set of policy reforms being pushed by First Call, but thinks that even more action by B.C.'s government is necessary.
"The Boyce research is another piece of evidence that factors beyond the control of parents can have big impacts on child development. I am particularly impressed with other research I have seen that shows high levels of the stress chemical cortisol in the children of traumatized mothers. It doesn't mean every child in poverty will fail to find educational success, but it does demand that we take steps to improve the environment in which children grow up and see children have access to good resources."
The First Call proposals don't go far enough, though, in Turpel-Lafond's view.
"I want to see a provincial plan on child poverty, with goals and targets and with a way of determining whether we are making any progress. We don't yet have that plan. Evaluation is very important. The province has some good programs, but the uptake on them is limited. We need to find ways to identify and remove the barriers that keep vulnerable young mothers from accessing programs."
An Environics poll taken this fall suggests that a majority of Canadians would support the kind of plan that Turpel-Lafond advocates.
Mismeasurement: the conservative critique
Conservatives have countered calls for such policy changes by saying child poverty is being mismeasured in B.C. and across Canada. The right-leaning Fraser Institute has issued a number of critical papers on this topic, most relying on the work of Chris Sarlo, professor of economics at Nipissing University at North Bay, Ontario. Sarlo argues that Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut Off (LICO) figures are not a true measure of poverty because they identify only comparative poverty, and not real deprivation. He has written that real poverty, therefore, is much rarer in Canada than anti-poverty advocates claim.
First Call's Montani calls the Fraser Insitute's critique "uninformed criticism."
"It is true that LICO is a relative, not an absolute measure, but it legitimately identifies real poverty and inequality. Research shows that the gap, the inequality is one of the most harmful things. Social cohesion studies show you get more damage when there is a big gap between the rich and the poor and people in poverty feel out of control of their lives, which adds to their stress. Inequality kills, and it makes you sick along the way."
The Tyee sought comment from Tom Christensen, minister of Children and Family Development. His media spokespeople declined to comment. Attempts to reach Premier Campbell met with no success. A media spokesperson with Rich Coleman's Ministry of Housing and Social Development said in an e-mail:
"B.C. is moving people out of low-income situations almost three times faster than the national average from 2002 to 2006 -- declining by 3% and accounting for over 50 per cent of the national reduction. Stats Canada numbers show that the number of children in a low income family in 2006 was lower than in 2003 and 2004 (159,000 to 133,000 -- a 15 per cent reduction)."
This contrasts with what Turpel-Lafond, representative on children and youth, told The Tyee. She said child poverty has gone up in B.C. each year, with a one per cent increase last year.
First Call's Montani dismissed the numbers offered by Minister Coleman's office. So did Seth Klein, B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and co-author of "A Poverty Reduction Plan for BC."
"[Coleman] can say that B.C. has had a higher rate of reducing child poverty, as he does, comparing 2006 to 2003 and 2004, but that doesn't recognize that B.C.'s rate of child poverty was higher than Canada's in all those years. Because we started from a higher rate, our rate of reduction is higher, but in 2006, B.C. child poverty rates were over 16 per cent and national rates were around 11 per cent. The B.C. rate for child poverty in 2006 is higher than in 2005 and higher than it was in 2001 when the Liberals came to power."
Dr. Penny Parry, a psychologist who served as Vancouver's child and youth advocate from 1992 until 1996, called for implementation of all of the First Call policy reforms, saying, "We need to have our attention re-focused on supporting families, and providing the conditions that allow parents reduced stress and more time with their kids."
Last month, UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, issued a report card rating 25 developed countries on how well they have achieved 10 basic benchmarks for quality child care. Canada ranks at the bottom of the list together with Ireland, having only accomplished one of the 10 desirable goals.
Related Tyee stories:
- Gov't Kept Kids in Unsafe Homes Says Watchdog
Children left to live with known abusers; probe planned. - Poorest to Pay for Campbell Plan?
BC already has highest poverty rates in Canada. The premier's new economic program does nothing to change that. - Cody's Death: How Deep an Investigation?
The Fontaine toddler died in a troubled home after social worker cutbacks. But the Liberals killed the Children's Commission -- and its power to investigate government fault.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
05-01-2009
Don't Diss Mama!
The reigning psychological paradigm does not allow one to conclude the nature of a child's relationship with his parents (mother, especially), *primarily* determines the child's mental/emotional growth.
These days (for it wasn't always this way) paragraphs like this are *expected* in psychological circles once one discusses abused children:
"Dr. Boyce emphasized to The Tyee that he and his fellow researchers were concerned that their findings not be used to "blame the victim" by suggesting that the differences in poor children's brain functioning were the fault of their parents. There are many factors associated to growing up in poverty that may contribute to the measured differences, he said, including greater levels of stress and lack of access to cognitively stimulating materials and experiences, factors that are very hard for poor parents to correct without changes in their own economic conditions and life circumstances."
(He says this, by the way, in part because he is aware that there is a lot of research which suggests that the earliest regulation of emotion in a specialized amygdalan-prefrontal-orbital network, arises out of mother-infant mutual gaze dialogues.)
But you know, if the parents are poorly attendant, it may just because they too weren't well attended to as children, and therefore also have inhibited pre-frontal cortex (the higher brain "centre") development--they too aren't emotionally healthy human beings, and are therefore incapable of giving the love to their children their children desperately need. In short, it needn't be anyone's fault. We still don't get that, though. So instead we in effect, spread the blame...
G West
05-01-2009
So Patrick
You conclude poverty is 'good' for children in a world ruled by bourgeois values?
Surely there's a range of contributing factors and, I'd think, eliminating child poverty would be a good and decent place to start.
If the studies 20 years down the road happened to show that maladaptation had been lessened by the exercise - as, 20 years down the pike it 'seemed' that the availability of abortion has had a 'positive' outcome on youth criminality.
ref:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
Seems to me it'd be worth a try.
ME2
05-01-2009
It's supposed to be dog-eat-dog, isn't it?
Mr Sandborn can write about poverty-related problems until the cows come home, but in the present economic climate, his words will effect little change.
This is not because sufficient money to correct poverty-related problems cannot be found, but rather because the will of officialdom to do so is not there.
One is tempted to ascribe that lack of will to simple hard-heartedness, but I think the real reason is that true believers in "The Market" are certain that if their guard is let down, very soon the losers would have all the money that rightfully belongs to the rich, and so destroy the system.
At least that is the theme which resonates within what our resident neocons submit to these Tyee threads.
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
06-01-2009
G West
Never concluded that poverty is good for anyone. Being poor adds stress, as the study shows. The goal is to eliminate poverty, which is entirely possible.
How to do this? Well, the study is again one which suggests this is done mostly by making people aware, by just getting out the bad news. People need to know the harm poverty causes, and then they'll surely do what's needed to end it. I don't believe this is the case, for I believe if you are someone who grew up in an environment which did not encourage healthy pre-frontal development, in a somewhat or entirely loveless environment, for reasons I won't get into here, you can actually very much want others to suffer--especially the poor/weak. To appreciate why this is the case, we need to go to back to looking at the research done by the likes of psychiatrists like R.D. Laing (who saw schizophrenia [for example], as a psychic defensive "stance," undertaken by kids of abusive, contradictory, impossible to please, parents), who would draw us to look very closely at how parents interact with their kids, at what draws kids to hate themselves, to best understand why the world seems absurdly tolerant with suffering.
(Did you really think I was okay with poverty? I'm surprised by that.)
G West
06-01-2009
Patrick
I'm not sure what 'exactly' you think.
I simply don't believe that mother love, self-awareness and a knowledge of what 'poverty does' OR, (how do you tend to put it?) the ubiquity of healthy pre-frontal development during the formative years will be the key to solving the problems in our society and culture.
I know all about R. D .Laing and his disciples. Psychology is 'interesting' but far from normative. At least that’s the way I see it. Fads go in and out of style – just like Freudians.
I also know all kinds of people from straightened and unloving environments who live and have lived wonderful, fulfilled and caring lives and I don't believe that there are really, at bottom, all that many sociopaths around outside of business and politics.
I don't 'know' whether you're okay with poverty or not.
But when you write the kind of dismissive (in my view) stuff you did above here (and have written elsewhere) I must say I wonder.
Citizens need to start acting on a broad range of initiatives to address the problems of the last 30 - 40 years. Most research I'm familiar with indicates that there is a strong correlation between the political and economic policies we adopted since then for family breakdown, stress, poverty and growing inequality.
I think your psychological evidence is a symptom far more than a cause.
Just as, solving homelessness first requires homes for the people living on the streets - not just shelters (as Rich Coleman would have us believe) when it's cold outside.
A lot of business men and politicians, from whatever environment, seem perfectly capable of subsuming the operation of their 'altruism' gene. Building society is not a simple thing and one of the first requirements is a change in our economic philosophy.
I think you come across as someone who has considered 'some' of the facets of our problems and that you tend to ignore other facets more or less entirely.
No worries though, I think you'll probably 'get it' eventually.
And I think we need to start with addressing the reality that child poverty in this province (I don't know the Ontario situation well enough to comment) has NOT improved under the neocon BCLiberal administration.
The best thing BC people can do about child poverty is to vote out the current government - my view.
southdeltawalker
06-01-2009
Child poverty = Disenfranchised adults.
I worked for "welfare" for years in East Vancouver. I saw the effects of poverty on children firsthand. In fact after becoming an employment counselor, saw some of those children as young adults.
Some of the kids did not have any books at home, rarely if ever went to the library, had poor nutrition and did not get the so called "normal" childhood activities like being read to or other activities which would stimulate their brains. Junk food and TV were the norm in a lot of homes.
As young adults they had very low levels of literacy, could not do "simple things" like apply for B.C. Medical etc. I thought of them as disenfranchised people. It broke my heart as I could still see the child in these stressed out young adults.
There is a very good documentary-"Citizen's Shame"-produced in B.C. which documents the effects of childhood poverty. Knowledge Network may have it. It should be required watching for all politicians.
We all pay for childhood poverty in the end. As long as we elect governments whose policies victimize the poor-it is "our shame" too.
alda
06-01-2009
Biologically speaking,
Biologically speaking, childhood brains have been proven in studies to be damaged by:
1. Poor nutrition: junk fat-and-sugar-based diet with little fresh vegetables or fruit
2. Too much TV at an early age: using the idiot box as babysitter (affecting neurological development)
3. Exposure to pesticides, plastics, and toxins
Those conditions are a reflection of a consumption-based society, and are exacerbated by low income. Unfortunately, the less educated the family, the more likely the parents are to expose their childrens to those dangers.
Thus, I agree with G West who says there's "a strong correlation between the political and economic policies... (and)... family breakdown, stress, POVERTY and growing INEQUALITY." A change in political power towards governments with social integrity is the most critical step in changing this corporate-led dynamic.
Yammer
06-01-2009
How about NOT having kids
...until you've gotten your life, education, and career somewhat together?
Just a thought.
cboo44
06-01-2009
Effects of Poverty on Children
Let's not forget the effects of Fetal Alcohol/Drug Syndrome, generational histories of poor decision-making, generational histories of lack of work ethic, absentee responsible male influence and a total lack of a background of "personal responsibility".
G West
06-01-2009
Don't go there
Some of this stuff smacks of typical proto-eugenics blame the victim nonsense.
Too bad that legacy of the first half of the 20th century wasn't buried with its 'statesmen' and its history.
Yammer
06-01-2009
Gwest
In case you were aiming that "eugenics" comment at me, I want to elaborate.
No one wants children to live in poverty, or to have unprotected brains.
In a civil society, all children (indeed all people) are well-fed, are given appropriate intellectual engagement, are not burdened with fear and stress.
Money and services are part of the solution. But alleviating poverty through external support, though necessary, is not sufficient. Parental skill, will, luck, and resources are all key ingredients, IMO.
I don't think that is eugenics.
G West
06-01-2009
Nope yammer
I have my views about what you posted but, the 'eugenics' part of my comment was not directed at you.
Have a look just below your comment.
You'll figure it out. The idea that humanity is perfectible is, to my way of thinking, just the flip side of blaming the victim….
It takes effort and education to make strong families...the fact of the matter is that the 'family' as an institution and a vehicle to bring up children properly is already almost dead.
No one is immune to being human and making mistakes and it's naive to suggest that the victims of what you and I might call immature and irresponsible behavior should be made to suffer the consequences.
My reasoning is exactly on a par with my views about 'solving' homelessness. You start with homes, clothing, food and health care and build (or help others build for themselves) a strong foundation.
With upwards of 20% of British Columbia's children living in poverty I think I'm safe to say we haven't really put in the necessary effort to call ourselves a 'civil' society.
snert
06-01-2009
Perpetual victims.
I don't think your solution addresses this issue adequately. Is it really "human" to continuously make bad judgement calls throughout ones life? Break this cycle and you may actually have some luck.
anarcho
06-01-2009
Talk minus action equals zero
"No one wants children to live in poverty, or to have unprotected brains."
OK. Why are there so many of them, billions of them in fact? Why if this is so, is not this situation treated as seriously as they treat having a war or spending a trillion dollars a year on military foolishness?
dorothy
06-01-2009
Good question, but...
"Why are there so many of them, billions of them in fact? Why if this is so, is not this situation treated as seriously as they treat having a war or spending a trillion dollars a year on military foolishness?"
The problem is that you can really only hold people responsible for fixing things on which they had an influence to begin with.
What would 'taking this seriously' constitute in your opinion? Who should do something about it, how should it be done, and in what way would we enforce the decisions regarding it? Some people would even include the question, why? It is taken for granted, I am not in doubt, that the answers to these questions ought to be self-evident, like some religious revelation, but they are not at all self-evident, as down through history, people have not even considered it their issue to change things for others, when they had nothing to do with how things got to be that way in the first place. And, you must admit, Canadians living here today have had little infuence on the fact that 'there are so many of them', no?
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
06-01-2009
Not (genes or) genotype--but phenotype
G West: Not going to tackle your (a bit patrician and conservative) talk of "fads that come and go," right now. (You'll know I'll have something to say at some point about that, though.) Don't really have it in me right now either to talk about why I think it so important that the left stop looking aglance at the amount, and the effect, of all the parental sadism and abandonment out there, to stop romanticizing impoverished parents' actual interest in their children (well, maybe a little bit: it's going to make the right wingers' effort to discredit government programs to help the poor, easier than it could be). For now, instead, this:
The article does not direct us to look at genes; it does not encourage us to talk about human nature: instead, it directs us to attend to phenotype (the history of how a gene works or does not work to develop into its mature form), and to imagine human beings as potentially, physically, biologically, very disparate from one another. If you grew up in stressed conditions, you will not possess the same brain as those who grew up in less stressed conditions (regardless of genotype). The discussed study emphasizes the effect of stress on our intellectual abilities--things like, for instance, our ability to pause and think about our actions (the cartesian brain that can control the passions). But those who grow up in stressed conditions, don't just have difficulty controlling things like their anger, they grow up just plain angrier. (They have, for instance, lower serotonin levels, which is correlated with high rates of homicide, suicide, arson, antisocial disorders, self-mutilation, and other disorders of aggression.) I believe that the majority of people out there have had stressed childhoods--stressed enough that they find themselves drawn to vote in politicians with equally polarized mindsets as their own, equally driven to try and solve everything through violence, hate, self-sacrifice. For me, then, getting the politicians that we progressives want in to enact the humane reforms you advocate, is going to require something more than just educating the public. (And spreading the news of just how much damage current "policies" are causing, might in fact just wet the public appetite for more of the same. [Watch how Don Cherry reacts to soldier deaths, and you'll probably feel that at some level, he is peculiarly *attracted* to the whole battlefield drama, its tale of sacrifice and sorrow--that at some level, as horrible as this might sound, he kind of *wants* soldiers to die.])
G West
06-01-2009
Patrick - with respect
I still don't think you've got it.
I don't disagree that there is plenty of stress around. Look at what I wrote.
In fact, I believe it is a symptom of a wider societal malaise and not a prime cause of maladaptive and destructive behavior.
Furthermore, I agree it is more than a problem of education, or medication; in fact, it's also question of, as I said, economics, politics and morality among other things – including the role of government and corporate regulation.
I am about the most non-violent person you could ever meet and although I dislike Don Cherry with a passion; I don't have to invent nonsense about him 'wanting' anyone to die on any level to justify my dislike of his form of pathology – any more than I have to ‘blame’ it on his parents or arrested development.
As I said, people - you and I included - have to rise beyond their limitations and grow up and part of that maturation is recognizing the shared humanity of all peoples and every community. Relative to serotonin levels, I think that kind of speculation is, respectfully, mildly interesting - like most 'fads' it is based on very thin empirical evidence when applied to the behavioral field. Just like Laing and Maslov, Skinner and Pavlov, I won’t be hanging my hat on any of their theories exclusively.
How familiar are you with the history of psychology and the beginnings of IQ testing?
You should do a little research if you aren't - and discover what American psychologists found out when they did the first mass IQ testing of inductees into the American expeditionary force for the First World War.
A lot of the early conclusions about testing turned out to be completely wrong.
Would that be considered just another passing fad? Maybe like the research of racialist Philippe Rushton...someone else whose theories need to be taken with a veritable lick of salt.
And that other conclusion of yours' - the one about my being either 'conservative' or 'patrician'...well, you're so far off base as to have given me a decent chuckle anyway.
We should lift kids out of poverty by recognizing ourselves in them and their families - and do it because it's the moral and humane thing to do - and because, were we in their shoes it's what we'd hope and expect from life ourselves.
Responding to those 'real' needs with hope and compassion and burying the instinct to 'blame' anyone or anything (even in the courtroom) is the only approach that means anything to me.
Bobby Peru
07-01-2009
Poor kids
The inferences are so self-evident that I wonder if there is even a need to conduct so much research. Of course, poverty affects the academic and entire future development of children. Who can't see that a stress out and impoverished household only spawns more woes? The real issue is what can truly and practically be done, especially in BC, about this problem.
Telling poor people to not have children until they're ready is not only illogical, but an impractical policy to formulate and manage.
Practical plans like subsidized schooling, busing and dining for poor kids are a positive step. But, they're incomplete because it's hard to study at home when both or a single parent is unable to support a household.
Poverty and all the problems that flow from it are challenging because of the many sources. There are two approaches: redistribution of income and job creation (or a combination of the two). Govt programmes or just plain writing big welfare cheques to the poor would certainly work. But, would there be enough money to go around, would the poor use it well and could the govt create and run enough programmes to solve poverty? And if you decided to tax the rich too much, the rich would leave BC. No matter how much you hate the rich, you need them more than they need you.
There's nothing like honest work to instill pride in a family. Welfare should be a transitional platform, not a permanent way of life.
G West
07-01-2009
If the rich don't like it
They can leave. The solutions are self-evident and they work - BC under the current regime prefers a different approach and this, ...No matter how much you hate the rich, you need them more than they need you., is completely wrong.
Where could such an idea have come from?
It's not a question of hating the rich though - just requiring them to stop sponging off people who do 'real' work.
How long do you suppose jimmy the p would last if he had to start cleaning up after himself?
The first thing that Gordon Campbell should have done it to increase the minimum wage to the point where jobs so paid would actually provide 'real' workers with enough funds to actually reach UP to the poverty line.
As for who uses money well....no comment necessary.
dorothy
07-01-2009
Here's a spade, so we can call it something, maybe a spade?
"..increase the minimum wage to the point where jobs so paid would actually provide 'real' workers with enough funds to actually reach UP to the poverty line."
The 'paradigm' we must attack here is the sense of entitlement in the middle class that makes it think there should be a servant class to do for it, so that relatively cheaply, we can get waited on, sewed for, sent parcels, etc., etc.
If we paid the people doing these things, so that they could actually afford a home and family on even two such pay-cheques, a large part of the middle class would have to give up the pretense of being middle class and join ranks with their scrub woman.
This I believe is the reason for all of us not screaming bloody murder, when the politicos repeat in their usual uncritical dope-head fashion, that we must have 'more immigration'. Everyone thinks it is the turbanned and so on people, who want gradmother and cousins to join them, but I believe it is the middle class who want to keep up the pretense of being plushed up by the 'cheapies' constantly being
imported.
It of course breaks down in the next generation, when the children of these people bypass our own offspring in high school grades (maybe because many are more, eh, work-oriented?) Then we have reason to resent them, but we will still import more, since these now no longer will be under-dogs.
Like Ed Deak said: Prove me wrong.
Bobby Peru
07-01-2009
An Inconvenient Truth
The truth is that all people are not created equal; some are more successful than others through hard work, connections and sheer determination. Life isn't fair. And no amount of govt legislation and equalization will change human nature. Or the desire of individuals to succeed and exceed their fellow man.
We need to pursue a combination of gov't welfare policies and economic growth to solve poverty. Raising the minimum wage is not enough.
Frank
07-01-2009
Illuminating
So people that got their start by their relatives finding them a job or covering their tuition can't understand why there's have-nots.
Tomorrow we'll be told the environment is fine from people living in the woods and on Friday Conservatives will tell us 37% is a majority.
Stay tuned.
Chris H
07-01-2009
Time to get to work.
Imagine a government that actually provided services to low-income individuals instead of trying to find some way of disqualifying them for support.
Cutting off income assistance when your child turns three?
Cutting of thousands of parents from childcare subsidies?
Slashing MCF budgets so that social workers couldn't effectively do their jobs anymore.
Is there any wonder why child poverty remains a big problem in BC? We have the BC Liberals to thank for that!
Advocacy BC
07-01-2009
More Action, Less Talk
The research presented here is not surprising. When people live in deprivation of their basic necessities and human rights, developmental stimulation and opportunities to reach their highest potential, of course their health is compromised in many ways and this impacts them in longlasting ways.
These are some concrete things we can do to decrease child poverty and the negative impacts on our kids and improve outcomes:
- Increase the stock of a continuum of affordable and subsidized housing and facilitiate “communities of support” and a cooperative environment to increase social support for vulnerable individuals & families;
- Increase minimum wage, index it to cost of living;
- Increase the rate for income assistance & disability & decreae barriers to accessing both;
- Create universal and flexible childcare opportunities from infant, preschool, daycare and afterschool care;
- Create all-day kindergarten and enriched developmental environments, especially in high-risk neighbourhoods and communities;
- Fund more “headstart,” best babies community programs, early intervention assessment & services;
- Fund more parenting programs, support, prevention & early intervention services. Don't wait until situations become "child protection" to offer support;
- Volunteer with kids and families in your community (and seniors and disabled...);
- Donate food, clothes, money, and time to child & family serving organizations;
- Join community and faith organizations, which support children & families (many service clubs are on the brink of extinction because people are “too busy” or uninterested in volunteering);
- Teach your children to donate their toys, their time to other children and to treat other children with respect whether they've got the latest cool clothes or Iphone, or not (ask any adult the pain of what it’s like to grow up poor, it stays with you);
- Model and teach your children values of respect, civility and dignity for all and teach them empathy & care for others. Those things are becoming diminished in this 'dog eat dog' world.
- Fund teacher’s aides, alternative school programs;
- Improve child & youth mental health accessibility and increase cultural competency in serving children and families;
- Increase vocational and educational opportunities for parents;
- Increase prevention & intensive supports to at-risk youth;
- Stop researching and talking so much and TAKE ACTION;
- Get out and volunteer, campaign and get involved in the next election.
- On May 12th 2009 Vote for the candidate in your riding who is progressive, who will make a positive difference in the lives of constituents and who has a track record of service and action in the interests of all citizens.
dorothy
08-01-2009
That is a lot
..of funding going on there, so much that I don't think you can call for it without telling us where the funds will come from. I am not saying that these are not worthy purposes per se, but we need to watch the piggy-bank, too. It is so easy to lay more on the back of that little donkey, but mind you don't break its back.
One aspect that is often forgotten in this kind of consideration is, that the very best progress is made, when people themselves can take ownership of the effort to improve their lot. Community-based organizing is therefore the number one priority, as isolation or a sense of isolation is often the most severe issue for people who are struggling financially and otherwise. I know whereof I speak. My family and I were in dire straits, just when the idea started to come up with 'clubs' for everything, and it helped us greatly to join a few and compare notes with others. Just knowing you were not alone had an amazing effect of breaking the paralysis one can experience when being in a bad spot.
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
08-01-2009
G West--Thanks for taking
G West--Thanks for taking the time to try and make sure I didn't take offense, and for trying to move me to see things more fairly and more clearly.
I really do believe you when you write that you're not damning me, and I sense and appreciate your respect for me, but when you write "although I dislike Don Cherry with a passion; I don't have to invent nonsense about him 'wanting' anyone to die on any level to justify my dislike of his form of pathology – any more than I have to ‘blame’ it on his parents or arrested development," since I did in fact argue that Cherry at some level wants there to be soldier deaths, and since I more-or-less communicated that I always look to how loving or unloving a person's relationship with his/her mother was in order to understand him/her adult behavior, what you wrote felt, at least, like an attack--it felt like I was being mocked, some.
Where I am always coming from, G West, is a rooted belief that the particular nature of our earliest relationship with our parents (mothers especially), determines all else--the economic structure we adopt, the politics we practice, the religions we embrace--everything. It's an immensely reductive way of looking at things, I know, which makes it easily dismissed in company of those who believe that to be sophisticated, to have any chance of being right, you must know that the reasons for things are always myriad and complex, but it is what I believe, and you can see how it makes it bit difficult for me to "cooperate" when people direct me to explore or integrate (ostensibly) "other" influences like economics, politics or religion. From conservatives, we of course here plenty about the primary importance of the family in determining the nature of the society we live in, but amongst progressives, the tendency has been about the opposite, that is, to instead talk about how other, stronger influences outside the home (e.g. the sort of things Alda refers to in her response) most powerfully determine the nature of our family situations, and who we are.
I *experience* those who talk about "other factors" affecting a person's growth, as people who are dancing (or maybe running) away from what is *most* important. This gets exasperating after awhile, and this is certainly why I got quite angry at yet another study which does what it can to direct attention away from the stress that occurs to the child in the home owing to his/her fears of being harmed or abandoned by those s/he depends on the most--her/his parents.
G West
08-01-2009
I know
I know you sincerely believe that Patrick and it is an important consideration - but it's only one of many and what we learn and understand as time goes on will change the way you feel today - just as, as I pointed out, the DSM has evolved in its evaluation of the causes and symptoms of mental illness over the years..
I'm not dismissing what you say - in fact I absolutely agree more that a loving and nurturing home environment is vital...but it's not the 'only' important thing and, in my view it's no more normative than a whole range of other factors to a decent and well adjusted populace in a caring country.
I meant, as I think you now realize, my remark about Cherry to be light hearted...although, I still think you were way out on a limb to make the connections and draw the conclusions you did about his parents and upbringing...let alone the imagined and sublimated 'desire' to have Canadian soldiers come back to Petawawa in boxes. Cherry is an idiot – it’s not necessary to pretend he’s a monster too. My view.
And, to turn this around on you somewhat, I worry that your concentration on children and homes may tend to distract you from a lot of other progressive things you could be learning about and concentrating (at least some of the time) on.
I wouldn't want you to end up being a creature like Ann Coulter - blaming all America's problems on single parent families:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/07/coulter-on-today-show-its-the-bastards-stupid/2
Irony alert....this is meant to be funny too - although I don't believe Coulter means it that way.
Cheers.