Children in Big Cities:

Possible Lessons for Developing Countries From an International Perspective.

Prof. Sheila B. Kamerman

Co-Director, Institute for Child, Youth, and Family Policy,  Columbia University, USA

Sam33@columbia.edu

Introduction

Observers are acutely aware of the deprivation and poor life prospects that many children face in large cities.  While some major pockets of deprivation are located in rural areas, often widely dispersed geographically, large numbers are concentrated in the big cities.  Although resources are often more available in cities than in rural areas, the concentration of deprived, disadvantaged, poor children is more visible in the cities.  And cities often include large numbers of children who have come from rural areas, on their own, ending up as street children without homes or families.

The problem of children living and being reared in large cities is certainly not unique to either the developing countries or the developed.  According to UNICEF, by 2025, 6 out of 10 children in developing countries will live in urban areas.  In comparison, about 8 out of 10 children in the developed world are already living in cities. One difference is that about half of the children in developing countries will be poor (with incomes under $1 US a day) while 11.8 percent were poor in the OECD countries in the 1990s, using 50 percent of median income as the poverty threshold (UNICEF, 2000) or 26 percent, using the US absolute poverty threshold (estimated as $14.40 US per day in Smeeding, 1997).

As stated in the background memorandum for the “Conference on Children and the City,”[1] about half the population of the MNA region in 1998 were children and youth under the age of 18.  Over 60 percent of these children live in urban areas and the proportion is rising.  At least one-third to one-half are poor, depending on the definition used. The overall rates have been stable since the mid 1980s, rising in some of the developing countries and declining in many of the developed countries. Girl children are especially vulnerable to a wide range of social risks.  A sub-set of children, including street/homeless/orphan children, children engaged in harmful labor, adolescents in conflict with the law, and those children experiencing violence, are particularly disadvantaged.  There has been some progress over the last two decades, especially with regard to infant mortality rates, immunization rates, primary school enrollment, and fertility rates, but many major problems remain.

Health care, compulsory education, income poverty reduction, employment, housing, are all critical issues and important responses to the problems of children in big cities.  However, the charge to which this paper is responsive, is to focus on local initiatives, including services for troubled children and their families, early childhood education and care services for all children, and family support and parent education services.  I will describe some current trends and patterns with regard to vulnerable and disadvantaged children in other regions/countries, refer to relevant research, describe some exemplary programs, and suggest some possible directions for exploration by developing countries and by cities in the MNA countries.  I will focus largely on young children.  The geographic regions covered for these purposes include the US, several other advanced industrialized European countries, Turkey, and a sample of ASEAN (Southeast Asian) countries.

Disadvantaged Children and their families in big cities:  The U.S.experience

American cities house large groups of poor children and immigrant children and manifest extensive racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity. Children in the central cities are particularly disadvantaged in the US (in comparison to children in suburban areas) and almost half of all poor families with children are found there (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999; Kahn and Kamerman, 1996; Sawhill and Chadwick, 1999).  The data about infant mortality, reading and math scores, crime, violence against children, teenage pregnancy, drugs, school dropouts, and lack of job readiness among children and youth in big cities are revealing.  Many of the families are “multi-problem,” with children and parents experiencing several problems simultaneously.  The scale and severity of community, family, and child pathology and deprivation call for distinctive and fresh approaches to solving these problems.

The Casey Foundation, a private foundation in the US, has been especially concerned about the situation of children in big cities, both young children and adolescents (AECF, 1999 and 2001).  It has stressed in its work the proposition that “children do best when their families do well, and families do better when they live in supportive neighborhoods…  Kids fare the worst when families are weak” and families are weakest when they lack income, social supports, quality public education and social services (Nelson, 1999, p. 6).

In two US studies of effective services for troubled children and their families, directed by myself and a colleague, the first begun in the late 1980s and the second in the mid 1990s, we highlighted the problems of children in big cities and the obstacles they faced to obtaining help (Kamerman and Kahn, 1989; Kahn and Kamerman, 1996).  Drawing on the findings of the first study, our point of departure was the well-being of children and their families in large cities.  By “children” we mean children in the family and neighborhood context.  And by “families” we mean families with children, also in a neighborhood context.  In the course of these studies, we explored possible pathways to developing a supportive environment for children and their families living in big cities.  We paid particular attention to meeting the needs of vulnerable and high-risk children and their families.

Although we found no exemplar city, we found several overarching themes and several innovative programs that seemed to be successful in improving the situation of the children they were designed to help.  One key theme is the importance of a community or neighborhood base in delivering both supportive and therapeutic services to children and their families.  We identified communities and neighborhoods in various parts of the country that had tried different types of local mobilization and reorganization.  A second key theme was “child and family centeredness” and the importance of involving families in all child-related interventions.  Our focus, thus, was on identifying effective child-  and family-centered services in the context of comprehensive, local, community- or neighborhood-based initiatives.

What would a supportive neighborhood/community for all families with children in an industrialized urban society look like and how would it respond, in particular, to the needs of vulnerable and high-risk children and their families?  We identified three different types of programs, both public and private non-profit:  (1) comprehensive service programs involving several service systems (health, education, social services, justice, employment, housing); (2) categorical problem-oriented service programs, such as child welfare (foster care) services; and (3) categorical and more or less universal programs (early childhood education and care and family support/parent education services).

One nationally-recognized example of a comprehensive community-based child and family service program is located in a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City.  The program began in child welfare (foster care and protective services) and played a major role in subsequent city-wide social service reforms.  The program’s mission is to sustain children and youth in their homes by enhancing the capacities of parents and helping to build community resources.  It encompasses both the establishment of (1) basic community infrastructure (early childhood education and care for preschool-aged children; after-school programs, summer camps and other recreation services for school-aged children, teen evening programs, parent workshops, summer youth employment, and so forth); and (2) a variety of child and family counseling services, foster care, and much else.  The program center is located in a residential area within walking distance of a large part of the one square mile neighborhood that the program serves.  It also operates a job placement program, an emergency food program, and three school-based programs for children, adolescents, and their families.  The services are free to neighborhood residents who have at least one child under 18.  The program serves about 5,000 neighborhood residents, largely Asian and Hispanic.  It is directed by two nuns and operated under religious auspices but serves people of all religions.  It is open from early morning to evening; and because the directors live on the premises, they are on call for emergencies at any time, any day.

The agency (and evaluators) have found that providing children with foster care placements near their birth parents, their extended family members, school and friends, has greatly facilitated reuniting children with their families after temporary placements in foster care (McGowan and Hess, forthcoming; Citizens Committee for the Children of New York [CCC], 2002).  A second major finding is that providing a wide range of services for parents as well as children aids in preventing many of the problems that contribute to inadequate parenting.

This program is considered an exemplar in child and family services and is now a national model.  A new book will be published shortly describing the program and why it has been so successful (McGowan and Hess, forthcoming).  It is funded primarily from contracts with the City’s public child welfare service agency, a few small government grants, and about 30 percent from private foundations and individual and corporate donors.

A second exemplar is a community-based categorical program, funded by the private foundation mentioned earlier, the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF, web site).  It is targeted at the most disadvantaged children, those who have been abused and neglected.  The child welfare staff must provide these children, who have been traumatized by family crises or by removal from parents, with safe and stable foster care – and do this all as quickly as possible.

The program’s primary objective is to ensure the safety of the child.  Thus, first, it aims to prevent abuse and neglect.  If it is not able to achieve this, its goal is to intervene in such a way as to avoid removing the child from his/her home or, if removed, to return the child to his/her family or place them in a permanent new family through adoption.

One of the program’s major strategies is recruiting foster parents from within the neighborhoods where at-risk and disadvantaged children live.  Another key feature of the program is training these foster parents to become partners with the child’s biological parents, in the child’s own home, and training them to become a source of practical help and emotional support to the child’s birth parents.  A third core strategy is to create a child-centered team including birth parents, foster parents, social workers, and staff from other relevant organizations such as schools or health services, to help provide other kinds of help for the child and the biological parents, either to avoid removal from the home or, if removed, to help in reunifying the child with his/her parents.  As a result of these two strategies, the number of children taken from their homes and placed in out-of-home foster family care has been reduced significantly.

For the relatively small number of children who are unlikely to be reunified with their parents or adopted, long-term foster care may be the best option.  These children, largely older adolescents, are provided with help in preparing them for independent living.

A third program is a publicly-funded child-parent center that provides comprehensive educational and family support services to poor children from preschool through early elementary school.  The children are largely African-American, disproportionately from lone-mother families, and living in inner city neighborhoods in Chicago.  The program provides half-day preschool to 3-4 year olds, half-  or full-day kindergarten to 4-6 year olds, and after-school services to 6-9 year olds.  It operates through 23 centers, through the public school system. The primary objective is to ensure school readiness and enhance primary school achievement.  In order to enroll a child in the preschool program, parents must agree to work with the program for a half day each week.

The premise that undergirds the program is that school success is facilitated by a stable and enriched learning environment beginning with preschool.  Stress is placed on early intervention to prevent the development of school problems. As a result, enrollment beginning with preschool is emphasized.  In addition, the program stresses active parent involvement, strong links with the community, a staff member who makes at least one home visit for each child (and more if indicated) and provides continuity of support that facilitates the child’s transition form preschool through kindergarten and early elementary school.

The Center’s preschool and kindergarten programs are affiliated with the elementary schools in the neighborhoods where the children live, but are located in separate buildings.  The programs operate all year, both through the school year and the summer.  Parents are strongly encouraged to read to their children, attend parent-teacher conferences, and enroll in parent education classes.  Primary school classes are smaller than in the local schools and the staff are well-trained and qualified.  The program also provides health screening and referrals, speech therapy, nursing services as well as free breakfast and lunch, which is available to both children and parents.  A rigorous evaluation found that among the long-term effects are higher rates of secondary school completion, lower school drop-out rates, lower rates of school problems, fewer cases of juvenile arrests and violent crime, and less need for special education.

Early childhood education and care in the OECD  Countries          

Early childhood education and care services (ECEC)[2] are an especially important service for preschool-aged children and are becoming universal in most of the OECD countries, especially for 3-4-5 year olds (OECD, 2001).  Integrating care and education is, increasingly, an overarching theme, as the need for out-of-home care grows and the recognition of the value of a good quality group socialization and education experience for all children rises, as well.

Three different models characterize these services in the advanced industrialized countries (Kamerman, 1999; OECD 2001). The most extensive provision is in urban areas: 

1.                            Services to protect vulnerable, disadvantaged children under compulsory school age, including compensatory education, and usually delivered under social welfare auspices.  This function was key to the initial ECEC developments in all the OECD countries but has declined in importance over time.  It remained dominant in all the Anglo-American countries until relatively recently and still has a role to play, as we have just seen in the description of the Child-Parent centers and in Head Start programs in the US (see below).

2.                            Services under education auspices, covering the normal school day, for children aged  from 2 ½ or 3 to compulsory school entry, to prepare them for primary school including, more recently, services that promote child development and general well-being.  France and Italy are the exemplars of this type.

3.                            Services for children under compulsory school age, beginning at the end of a paid and job-protected leave following childbirth for working parents, designed to facilitate women’s labor force participation as well as to promote child well-being.  The Nordic countries are the exemplars.

A review of 36 US studies supports earlier findings that quality ECEC programs can produce short-term cognitive and academic benefits for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Barnett, 1995).  A review of relevant research covering other OECD countries as well confirms these findings (Kamerman, Neuman, Waldfogel, and Brooks-Gunn, forthcoming).  There is strong evidence that participation in these programs is linked to lower rates of school problems, higher rates of school achievement and secondary school graduation, and lower delinquency rates.

I have already described one example of the first model.  In addition, perhaps the prototypical compensatory education program is the Head Start program in the US, a free (to participating children), voluntary, part-day, compensatory education program that stresses parent participation and provides education, health, nutrition and other services to children from poor and disadvantaged  families.  It is funded by grants from the federal government to local public and private non-profit organizations.  Britain, also, has a similar recently established program (Sure Start).

Preschool Programs

An exemplary universal, publicly-funded and largely publicly-operated preschool program is the French ecole maternelle (Kamerman and Kahn, 1994; Richardson and Marx, 1989; Cooper, 1999).[3]  It is a world-renowned program because, among other attributes, it has the most extensive coverage of any preschool program in the world, with almost all 3-4-5 year olds enrolled on a free and voluntary basis.  In addition, more than 35 percent of the two-year olds (largely those aged 2 ½) are enrolled as well and there is a growing demand for more places for the two-year olds.  The programs are located in or near local primary schools and are administered as part of the education system.  Although it does not constitute the highest quality (by the standards of some scholars) largely because of its large classes and lower staff:child ratios than in some other countries (see below), it involves highly qualified teaching staff and is viewed by many French as the jewel in the crown of their education system.  Research indicates that participation in the program has significant positive impact on primary school readiness, on lower rates of school failure, and higher rates of secondary school completion.  Moreover, there is strong evidence that two-year olds who are enrolled in the maternelle, are far more successful in primary school and more socially adept than those who do not participate.  The impact is especially strong on poor and disadvantaged children.

The core program covers the normal school day (8:30 am – 4:30 pm) and school year, is voluntary, and consists of three morning and three afternoon hours of language arts, developmentally appropriate literacy and numeracy skill exercises, crafts, games, dance, singing, physical exercises and play, and follows a national curriculum.  Lunch is provided as well.  All teachers have training that is the equivalent of a master’s degree in early childhood pedagogy.  The class size averages about 25 students of whom about 22 normally attend.  A teacher is usually assisted by a half-time assistant and there is extra help available at lunch time and nap time for the younger children The lunch time program provides dramatic evidence of how national culture can be introduced in a non-academic context as, for example, in the attitude towards food taste, aesthetics, and style.  Of particular importance, there is evidence that the maternelle plays an important role in promoting social cohesion and integration of immigrant and minority children by emphasizing immersion in French language and culture at an early age.

To accommodate the needs and schedules of working parents, most programs are open from early morning to evening and provide services that cover before-  and after- school hours when parents’ work hours go beyond the school day and on school holidays and vacations.  These supplementary services are available at subsidized and income-related fees.

The maternelle is free for the core school day.  The annual cost for a place in the before and after school program for a child in Paris was about US $5,500 in 1999 according to French government figures (Cooper, 1999).  The national government pays for and trains the teachers and local government pays for the school buildings and for the supplementary services.

Facilitating Women’s Employment and Promoting Child Well-Being

If France has the most extensive ECEC coverage for 3-4-5 year olds, Denmark has the most extensive coverage for children from age 6 months and older.  (Working parents are at home on paid and job-protected parental leave for 1–2 years following childbirth.)  About 60 percent of children aged 6 months to 3 years and 85 percent of the 3–6 year olds are enrolled in publicly-funded, publicly-regulated, and publicly-provided or  -supervised centers or family day care homes.  About 60 percent of the under-3s are cared for in “family day care,” the term used to describe care by a woman delivered in her home rather than that of the child; the remainder – and almost all the 3-6 year olds – are in group care.  The quality of Danish ECEC programs, along with those in Sweden, is outstanding (See OECD 1999 and 2000).  In the context of the usual criteria used to assess quality, group size is small, staff:child ratios are high, staff are well trained and highly qualified, and staff turnover is low.  The programs are administered under social welfare auspices.  (Of some interest, since the mid-1990s the Swedish programs are administered under education auspices. This is a growing trend in Europe.)

Facilitating female labor force attachment and supporting and enhancing children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development are the primary objectives.  For Danes, the story is clear cut:  almost all parents of young children, whether married or single, are in the labor force.  Parents need and expect a full supply of excellent quality ECEC services.  The government policy guarantees a place for all children aged one and older whose parents are in the labor force or who are students, and who wish their children to participate.  Municipalities are responsible for funding and administering the system.  Local mayors have been quoted as saying that sufficient and good quality ECEC attracts businesses and residents.

Virtually all children in the day nurseries (for the under-3s) and preschools (for the 3-6 year olds) and in the programs that cut across both age groups, attend full time, typically for 7-8 hours a day and sometimes for as long as 9-10 hours.  The program operates 12 months a year and is closed for only a few major holidays.  The programs are expensive (about US$15,000 a year for a center place and less for family day care) but parent fees are heavily subsidized by the government and represent only about 20-25 percent of the actual costs.

The physical facilities are spacious and attractive and there is extensive equipment.  Staff are paid at about an average salary for the country.  There is no formal “curriculum” as such; children play a leading role in determining how each day is organized.  Most children arrive at about 7:30 in the morning, have breakfast (which is provided free), and play informally for a while before beginning the more structured activities. Many programs are “age integrated” with the children in groups that cut across the ages (“sibling groups”) rather than groups organized by chronological age.

The family day care programs in Denmark and Sweden are also interesting because of their high quality.  Some parents prefer this more informal type of service program, especially for their very young children (ages 1 and 2).  These are publicly supervised and regulated and not necessarily a cheaper service.[4]

Family support services[5]

In the late 1980s, several OECD countries developed innovative programs offering a socialization and educational experience for parents (overwhelmingly mothers), grandparents, caregivers, and very young children (Kamerman and Kahn, 1994).  The objective is to provide a diversity of group experiences to meet the needs of very young children and their parents, available when parents are not employed or when they are at home on parental leave.  These programs offer an opportunity for parents to learn more about parenting and child development in a safe and nurturing environment.  The context is often a search for improving the conditions of childhood, being sensitive to the needs of new parents, and responding to social-family-gender role changes.  It is often an opportunity, as well, to help immigrant parents make an easier transition to a new culture.  Included among these programs are part-day centers, part-week centers, mother-toddler groups.  These are not an alternative to ECEC programs but a supplement to reduce the social isolation of new mothers and to provide more opportunities for them to become more responsive to the needs of their children.

The Time for the Family Center (Mantovani, 2001; Kamerman and Kahn, 1994) is one of several such new initiatives that emerged in several cities in north and north-central Italy.  (Variations have emerged in France, Britain, and the US.)  The Time for Family Centers, established first in Milan, have been replicated in other cities in Italy.  Their primary focus is on providing socialization and educational experiences for children under age 3 and their mothers or caregivers.  They are designed to attract young, shy, insecure, isolated, and immigrant mothers.  The program provides an opportunity for these women to meet one another, discuss common problems and concerns, learn what to expect regarding their own young children, and participate in activities with their children – all under the guidance of trained staff.  The program is free.  Mothers come for a few hours in the morning or afternoon, and a few days a week they may come out of their own needs or in response to their perception of their children’s needs.  The programs are designed to respond to “normal” needs and concerns, not specifically to problems; but they are viewed as helping to educate parents about their children’s developmental processes.  They provide a substitute for what was earlier provided by the extended family – information, advice, role modeling, encouragement, and support.  They also help prepare mother and child for when the child is three and makes the transition into the universal Italian preschool that almost all 3-4-5-year olds attend.

Parent education and family support

Parent education and family support is another form of ECEC service.  A Turkish child development scholar, Kagitcibasi (1996 and 1997),  describes these services as a cheaper but equally effective alternative to the more formal services just described and especially important for developing countries where  resources may not be adequate to establish extensive ECEC group services. She refers to research in Latin American countries (in addition to the US and UK studies) showing a reduced rate of school failure and school problems as a consequence of ECEC center-based initiatives and she notes the higher gains experienced by the most disadvantaged children in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, and Mexico through participation in these programs, and in Turkey, also.  She refers to studies by Myers which provide examples of child development services that are being integrated into existing community development processes.  She states that: 

“In many developing countries, early childhood education programs follow [the] traditional Western pattern and are conceptualized in formal preschool terms.  However, because preschools tend to be expensive, a limited number exist in developing countries, and they mainly serve urban, middle-class families who can afford to pay.  Slowly, other models such as the parent education and support model, are gaining favor…” (Kagitcibasi, 1997, p. 250).

Dr. Kagitcibasi  describes her studies of a demonstration program in Istanbul (the Turkish Early Enrichment Project)  and the interventions used.  Its two core components were home- and community-based cognitive training of mothers and other supports for mothers, with the goal of enhancing cognitive, social, and emotional child development.  Mothers who had only a primary school education or less were trained through a network of paraprofessional field workers who had a secondary school education.  The training alternated between a week at home and a week in a group setting at a community center or at their workplace.  The mothers worked on the cognitive materials provided by the paraprofessionals and then used these materials, focusing on teaching pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills at home to their children, acting as teacher/trainers to their children.  The Mother Support program focused on bi-weekly group discussions, covering the health, nutrition, and psychological needs of their children and on such subjects as how to discipline their child.  The goals were to support mothers in their parenting role, to sensitize them to their children’s development, and to help them to cope with problems better.  The project had positive effects on the children’s overall development and on their school achievement as well as positive effects on the mothers and their parenting.

Both  short-and long-term evaluations of the program revealed the effectiveness of early intervention via home and community-based parent education and center-based child education, but the strongest effects were from the mother training program.  Kagitcibasi concludes that the best investments in early child development, especially in developing countries, appear to be (1) programs focused on mothers rather than children and (2) “programs with multiple outcomes (cognitive and socio-emotional development; better school adjustment, performance, and attainment; better social adjustment; better parenting; increased women’s status; and better spousal relations and family interactions) and multiple beneficiaries (children, parents, and families).  The short- and long-term results of TEEP include all of these outcomes.” (p. 267)

ECEC and family support in the Asian countries[6]  

The main focus in this section is on ECEC and related policies and programs and the major trends and issues.  The countries covered are Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.[7]

Most of these countries explicitly stress the importance of education, a highly regarded value in much of Asia.  Although the major stress is still on primary and secondary education, there is growing interest in developing ECEC programs for children under compulsory school age.  The model followed is largely that of the Western industrialized countries and is designed to respond to a series of social, family, and gender role changes as well as to prepare children for primary school and aid in child development.

All these countries have limited resources to invest in ECEC and major social problems that are in urgent need of attention.  Infant mortality and morbidity, limited access to health care, poverty and low rates of basic adult literacy are severe problems requiring attention.  At best, indicators of well-being for Thailand and Malaysia