From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being

7/30/2019 From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being

1/18


2/18

Childrens Well-Being: Indicators and Research Series

Volume 1

Series Editor:ASHER BEN-ARIEH

Paul Baerwald School of Social Work & Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Editorial Board:

J. LAWRENCE ABERNey York University, USAJONATHAN BRADSHAWUniversity of York, U.K.

FERRAN CASAS

University of Girona, SpainICK-JOONG CHUNGDuksung Womens University, Seoul, KoreaHOWARD DUBOWITZUniversity of Maryland Baltimore, USA

IVAR FRONESUniversity of Oslo, Norway

FRANK FURSTENBERGUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,USAROBBIE GILLIGAN

Trinity College, Dublin, IrelandROBERT M. GOERGEUniversity of Chicago, USA

IAN GOUGHUniversity of Bath, U.K.AN-MAGRITT JENSENNorwegian University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim, Norway

SHEILA B. KAMERMANColumbia University, Ney York, USAJILL E. KORBIN

Case Western Reserve University,Cleveland, USA

DAGMAR KUTSARUniversity of Tartu, EstoniaKEN LANDDuke University, Durham, USA

BONG JOO LEE

Seoul National University, Seoul, KoreaJAN MASONUniversity of Western Sydney, AustraliaKRISTIN A. MOOREChild Trends, Washington, USA

BERNHARD NAUCKChemnitz University of Technology, Germany

USHA S. NAYARTata Institute, Mumbai, IndiaWILLIAM OHAREKids Counts project, Annie E. Casy

Foundation, Baltimore, USASHELLY PHIPPSDalhousie University, Halifax, NovaScotia, CanadaJACKIE SANDERSMassey University, Palmerston North,New ZealandGIOVANNI SGRITTAUniversity of Rome, ItalyTHOMAS S. WEISNERUniversity of California, Los Angeles, USA

HELMUT WINTESBERGERUniversity of Vienna, Austria

This new series focuses on the subject of measurements and indicators of childrens well being and theirusage, within multiple domains and in diverse cultures. More specifically, the series seeks to present measuresand data resources, analysis of data, exploration of theoretical issues, and information about the status ofchildren, as well as the implementation of this information in policy and practice. By doing so it aims toexplore how child indicators can be used to improve the development and the well being of children.

With an international perspective the series will provide a unique applied perspective, by bringingin a variety of analytical models, varied perspectives, and a variety of social policy regimes.

Childrens Well-Being: Indicators and Research will be unique and exclusive in the field of measures

and indicators of childrens lives and will be a source of high quality, policy impact and rigorous scientificpapers.

For further volumes:http://www.springer.com/series/8162


3/18

Sheila B. Kamerman Shelley Phipps Asher Ben-Arieh

Editors

From Child Welfare to Child

Well-BeingAn International Perspective on Knowledgein the Service of Policy Making

123


4/18

Editors

Sheila B. KamermanColumbia UniversitySchool of Social Work1255 Amsterdam Avenue

New York NY [email protected]

Asher Ben-AriehHebrew University of JerusalemPaul Baerwald School ofSocial Work & Social WelfareGivat Ram91905 JerusalemMount Scopus

[email protected]

Shelley PhippsDalhousie UniversityDept. EconomicsHalifax NS B3H 3J5Canada

[email protected]

The editors will like to thank the W.T. Grant foundation for their support of the editorial

work on this book.

ISBN 978-90-481-3376-5 e-ISBN 978-90-481-3377-2DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3377-2Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009937017

c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without writtenpermission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purposeof being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)


5/18

Preface

This chapter provides a brief overview of the book highlighting the modest progress

from child welfare to child well-being reflected in these chapters, and the parallel

movement in Kahns career and research, as his scholarship developed over the

years. It then moves to explore the relationship between two overarching themes,

child and family policy stressing a universal approach to children and social protec-

tion stressing a more targeted approach to disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals

including children and the complementarity of these strategies.

Introduction

To a large extent Alfred J. Kahn was at the forefront of the developments in the

field of child welfare services (protective services, foster care, adoption, and family

preservation and support). Over time his scholarship moved to a focus on the broader

policy domain of child and family policy and the outcomes for child wellbeing. His

work, as is true for this volume, progressed from a focus on poor, disadvantaged and

vulnerable children to a focus on all children. He was convinced that children, by

definition, are a vulnerable population group and that targeting all children, employ-

ing a universal policy as a strategy would do more for poor children than a narrowlyfocused policy targeted on poor children alone, As we first argued more than three

decades ago (Not for the Poor Alone; Universalism and Income Testing in Family

Policy), one could target the most disadvantaged within a universal framework,

and this would lead to more successful results than targeting only the poor. The

history of the last 50 years of child welfare is a history of this movement, from

a deficit-oriented policy to a developmental model, from a targeted and selective

strategy to a universal approach, from child welfare to child well being.

Kahn began his academic career in the 1950s, confronting the main issues in the

child welfare field at that time. His focus in his early work, as in the early chaptersin this book, was on the U.S child welfare field. Under the auspices of the Citizens

Committee for Children of New York, he prepared a report published in 1953 on the

Childrens Court in New York, providing an unprecedented look at the background

and workings of the Court. He called the system a dream still unrealized that

v


6/18

vi Preface

needed to focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. In 1957 he published a

report entitled For Children In Trouble highlighting the inadequacies of the citys

efforts at helping children in trouble. In the 1960s, the report entitled A Dream

Deferred, called for a reorganization of social services to help families cope betterwith emergencies. He was among the early advocates of communitybased social

services rather than institutional or foster care and an early advocate, as well, for

child allowances, urging a universal policy regime in support of the economic well-

being of all children and their families.

The book begins with an essay by Kahn on how children, youth, and fami-

lies have changed over time and the implications of these changes for childrens

life experiences and the opportunities they may have. How we are organized in

the public and private sectors around childrens problems, is his first overarching

question. He reminds us that we should no longer focus just on the social prob-

lems of adolescents, but rather seek out positive and productive roles for them.

Nonetheless, dysfunctional families will exist and still need help, and the need for

substitute families remains, as we can see now in Africa, with regard to children

orphaned as a consequence of HIV AIDS and the growing number of child-headed

households. He concludes by raising the question: Should we work at improving

the link between childhood, foster family care, and adoption by better integrating

child welfare programs or should we address a broader range of social policies

affecting children? Should we advance across-policy domains (income transfers,

health, education, personal social services) rather than remain in one, by adopting a

holistic strategy, sustaining the treatment of children within a child and family pol-icy agenda? Families are changing and the experiences of youth are changing. Will

we provide new opportunities for them? Will youth still be labeled dysfunctional

and in need of rescue or will we stress, instead, their potential for creativity and

productivity?

Ben-Arieh continues and supplements this discussion by describing the child-

hood social indicator movement, and the progress being made from a focus on

poor and suffering children to promoting childrens well being. He lays out several

different theoretical frameworks, including:

Ecological theories of child development

The concept of childrens rights

The new sociology of childhood

Children as the unit of analysis

Childrens quality of life

Attention to child and family policy.

Different sources of data are now available and used, in assessing child wellbeing. These include administrative data, census data, survey data, longitudinal data,

and other large scale data bases, providing data as the target for extensive and rig-

orous quantitative studies as well as comparative data bases offering new insights

with regard to child wellbeing in Europe, described subsequently by Richardson.


7/18

Preface vii

Ben-Arieh reminds us of the role indicators play in providing policy-relevant data

and the progress that has been carried out with regard to a changed view of children

and childhood, including:

A growing emphasis on child well being rather than just on survival

A growing emphasis on enhancing positive outcomes rather than confronting

negative impacts

A focus on childrens current well being rather than their future development

A focus on the voices of children rather than only adult perspectives.

Ben-Arieh concludes by reminding us of the explosion in the number of state of

the child reports that have been published since the 1980s, and the emerging global

interest in childhood social indicators.

The next cluster of chapters focuses specifically on the traditional child welfare

system. McGowans history of child welfare leaves us with a sense of how little

has been achieved in movement towards a developmental model. She reminds us

that the field is very much on the public agenda today. Yet some of the tensions

that have pervaded the field in the past, still remain. Among the ongoing issues,

still debated, are child saving versus family preservation, the extent to which the

state should assume responsibility for problems in family life, local or state versus

federal responsibility for standard setting, public versus private sector dominance

in social service delivery, categorical versus integrated social service programs. She

concludes by noting that the child welfare field continues to struggle with thesecontradictions.

Courtneys chapter highlights the need for more attention to youth transitioning

out of foster care, the need for normative supports for these older adolescents, and

suggests strategies for achieving a broader basis for improving the outcomes for the

1821 year olds. Fallon et al explores three different systems for carrying out child

maltreatment surveillance while Zeira reminds us of the value of practice wisdom

and learning from practice in child welfare. This cluster ends with a chapter on

New York City and the need for sharply honed advocacy skills to achieve political

goals. Although addressing issues in New York, Nayowith provides a case historyof the efforts needed to mobilize advocacy efforts, aimed at affecting child policy

and doing better by children. She points out the importance of gathering the facts

to provide an evidence base for mobilizing support for legislation, or opposition to

proposed laws, depending on the issue.

Following this are several chapters on different theoretical perspectives, from

Bruyere and Garbarino, discussing the ecological perspective coupled with a child

rights perspective, both essential to an understanding of the factors shaping child

well being. Staller offers us a discussion of how social problems can be decon-

structed in different ways leading to various definitions of any social problem, withan intriguing review of the different ways children leaving home may be viewed: as

runaway youth or missing children. The runaway youth movement was framed from

the youths perspective and took a childs rights approach. In contrast, the missing

children movement took a parents rights approach and worried parents sought help


8/18

viii Preface

in locating children. The policy responses take very different forms depending on

which definition is favored. Stallers objective is to apply her analytic framework to

how any problem has been shaped and responded to.

Coulton and Fischer focus on the development and application of child well-being indicators at the local level, referring to sub-state geographic areas or polit-

ical jurisdictions, also referred to as community or neighborhood indicators. They

discuss the infrastructure needed to sustain local indicators work, including both the

production of child wellbeing indicators and how they are used to address policy

and program. They conclude by providing several case studies that demonstrate how

child wellbeing indicators have been developed and applied in selected locales.

Aber et al., focus on the range of indicators in one particular domain, namely

education while Burton and Phipps turn to a different type of indicator, namely

the subjective responses of children to questions about the quality of their lives.

They look, in particular, at child reports of current happiness and life satisfaction

for Canadian 1217 year olds. In contrast, Gatenio-Gabel takes a very different

tack. She provides a global perspective and focuses, especially, on how developing

countries consider children and what kinds of policies are relevant in environ-

ments with far more limited resources. What can be expected in the way of

social protection in developing countries and what does a child rights perspective

contribute?

One could certainly argue that at the heart of the book are the several chapters on

economic support for child and family well-being. Kahn, in his own work and the

research he carried out in the 1970s and 1980s with Kamerman, turned increasinglyto a focus on the economic situation of families with children, applying a model

of hypothetical families and their experiences with earnings at different levels and

different national income transfer systems. Their major finding was that compara-

tive policy studies focused on children and their families underscored the laggard

status of the U.S. with regard to the economic well being of U.S. children and their

families.

Here we have a series of chapters reaching similar conclusions. The Danzigers

describe child poverty in the U.S., the limitations of U.S. anti-poverty policies,

and the lessons learned from research and cross-national policies. Garfinkel andNepomnaschy discuss one particular policy, namely child support. They describe

the vulnerability of lone mother families and the inadequacies of U.S., policies;

and they end with some international comparisons from Europe, underscoring the

better situation for the children in these families in several European countries. They

point to the financial support provided in many European countries that guarantee

a minimum level of financial support to children in lone parent families, when the

non-custodial parent fails to pay support, pays it irregularly or not at all. And they

note the relevant discussion of these policies by Kamerman and Kahn (1988).

Phipps concentrates here on policies affecting very young children in Canada,those under age 3. She stresses the role of maternity and parental leave policies

cross nationally, and compares the Canadian policies with those available in eight

other rich countries. She concludes that although Canadian income transfers play a

vital role in reducing the depth of poverty experienced by very young children, the


9/18

Preface ix

full package of cash transfers in other countries leaves more very young children in

poverty in Canada than in most of the other countries in this study.

While using the LIS data base, Gornick and Jantii discuss the role of employment

and earnings on childrens economic well being and the importance of labor marketbehavior and government tax and cash transfers. They suggest that demographic

differences across countries are less vital for child poverty outcomes than earnings

and transfers.

Bradshaw, Richardson, and Saunders each write about international develop-

ments in child and family well being, drawing on several large scale data sets

for their analyses and focusing in particular on economic well-being. Bradshaw

provides an introduction to the study of child benefit packages and illustrates

their value using the model family methodology employed earlier by Kahn and

Kamerman (1983). In his chapter, Bradshaw describes the methods involved in using

this approach to compare child benefit packages. Hypothetical (model) families of

different types are assigned a specified level of earnings and the specified package

of cash and tax transfers they would qualify for in different countries. The outcomes

for children and their families are compared cross-nationally.

Richardson focuses on the changes in child well being in Europe, between

2003 and 2006. He reminds us that child well being is an increasingly impor-

tant topic in research and policy circles at the European level and points out that

European policy makers are looking beyond income poverty measures to assess

childrens well being. Other issues addressed include the work/family balance and

human capital investment in future generations. He discusses the outcomes forchildren across multiple dimensions of well being, beyond income or material

well being, including health, education, subjective well being, risk and safety, and

housing.

The final chapters advance the agenda moving toward discussion of child well

being: in France, in Europe, and internationally with regard to ECEC and family

policies. In this context, earlier, Kamerman and Kahn (1991) highlighted the special

problem of providing care and support for very young children and their families,

reminding us of the need to link maternity and parental leave policies with ECEC

policies and programs, to understand the importance of policies affecting the veryyoung, an issue addressed by both Fagnani and Moss.

Fagnani reminds us that along with the Nordic countries, France leads the

European Unionindeed the worldin public childcare provision and benefits

aimed at reducing child care costs for families. OECD has also shown that family

spending has the greatest focus on childcare services in France and the Nordic coun-

tries. As a matter of fact, the progressive arrival of mothers in the labor market since

the 1970s influenced French family policy decision makers to introduce a whole

range of services for parents in paid employment, which has in turn enabled a grow-

ing number of mothers to gain access to jobs. This has helped to place the questionof the work/family life balance firmly onto the policy agenda. She concludes that,

while couched in terms of the best interest of the child, French child and family

policy is in fact the result of the combined forces of labor market pressures and

demands for a mothers right to paid work.


10/18

x Preface

In these years Kahn and Kamerman also explored the role of services in a child

and family policy package (ECEC), along with time for parenting (leaves) and

money (cash and tax benefits). Obviously, there are gaps here. An almost 60 year

history of scholarship (40 of which was joint) covering a range of policies affectingchildren and their families, cannot be covered in one book. The themes mentioned

above are pervasive. In addition, there are others, including: the importance of a

strong role for government despite the significance of the voluntary sector and the

market, especially in the social service field; the role of federalism; the impact of

gender role changes and the impact of demography, both aging and fertility; the

importance of political will; and, finally, the need for a holistic approach to social

policy (services integration? family policy? social protection policy?) rather than a

cluster of disparate categorical silos.

The book covers a remarkable range of issues and scholarship, and so did Alfred

Kahns scholarship and career.

Sheila B. Kamerman

New York, USA

References

Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1983). Income transfers for families with children: An eight-

country study. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1988). Child support: From debt collection to social policy.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1988). Social policy and children in the U.S. and Europe. In J. L.

Palmer, T. Smeeding, & B. B. Torrey (Eds.), The vulnerable (pp. 351380). Washington, DC:

Urban Institute Press.

Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1991). Child care, parental leave, and the Under 3s. Policy

innovation in Europe. New York: Auburn House.


11/18

Alfred J. Kahn (19192009)

Alfred J. Kahn, Professor Emeritus at the Columbia

University School of Social Work and world-

renowned social policy scholar and educator.

Kahn received his B.S.S. in 1939 from the City

College of New York, his Masters of Social Work

in 1946 from Columbia University School of Social

Work. Dr. Kahn was the recipient of the first social

work doctorate awarded by the School in 1952, and

the first in New York State, as well. He taught at

the Columbia University School of Social Work for

57 years, from 1947 to 2004. Those who studied,social services, child welfare, family policy, poverty

and its causes and impacts, and social policy gener-

ally will remember the monumental comparative work

of Dr. Kahn, who along with Professor Sheila Brody Kamerman, shaped the dis-

course in many fields for decades. Program and policy recommendations advanced

by Dr. Kahn and Dr. Kamerman were embraced by many international NGOs and

were brought to life in social welfare programs around the world. His ideas also

contributed to the development of graduate social work education.

Dr. Kahn was a passionate advocate for children and their families. As an advo-cate, he favored universal social benefits and services, rather than means-tested,

saying that they ought to be good enough for every American, not for the poor

alone. He was a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, international orga-

nizations, and foreign governments. In this role, he shared his expertise on family

policy, cash benefits and social service programs, local community social service

planning and coordination, and issues of equality and equity.

Dr. Kahn was also an author and co-author, editor and co-editor, producing more

than 25 books and 300 articles and chapters that have continuing relevance and a

palpable impact worldwide.Early in his research career, the one-man watchdog organization who monitored

the social services offered by the city and state of New York, as he was called in The

New York Times (February 21, 2009), Dr. Kahn served as a consultant to New Yorks

Citizens Committee for Children (CCC). In this capacity, he provided leadership to

xi


12/18

xii Alfred J. Kahn (19192009)

research staff and community lay leaders, and authored some 15 studies of city

and state programs concerned with truancy, youth, police, childrens courts, protec-

tive services, and child guidance programs for at-risk youth. The widely-publicized

and discussed results offered blueprints for reform at the local and national levels.They were also the foundation for a 1963 volume, Planning Community Services for

Children in Trouble, with a foreword by Eleanor Roosevelt, board member. Among

his special roles, Dr. Kahn, was the United States participant and rapporteur in a

1967 U.N. Expert Group on Social Policy and Level of Living in the Nation and

a 1969 U.N. Expert Group on Training Social Welfare Personnel for Development

Planning.

In the early 1980s, Dr. Kahn chaired the influential Committee on Child

Development Research and Public Policy of The National Academy of Science. He

was the recipient of awards and honors from various universities and professional

associations in recognition of his pioneering work in cross-national child and family

policy research.

Dr. Kahns remarkable work in the academic and policy making fields through

out the years will continue to influence and guide professionals, researchers and

social-policy advocates for many years to come.


13/18

Contents

Part I Opening Chapters

From Child Saving to Child Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Alfred J. Kahn

From Child Welfare to Children Well-Being: The Child

Indicators Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asher Ben-Arieh

Part II Child Welfare

An Historical Perspective on Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Brenda G. McGowan

Testing Practice Wisdom in Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Anat Zeira

Understanding Child Maltreatment Systems:

A Foundation for Child Welfare Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Barbara Fallon, Nico Trocme, John Fluke, Bruce MacLaurin,

Lil Tonmyr, and Ying-Ying Yuan

Fact-Based Child Advocacy: The Convergence of Analysis,

Practice, and Politics in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Gail B. Nayowith

Using Early Childhood Wellbeing Indicators

to Influence Local Policy and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Claudia J. Coulton and Robert L. Fischer

xiii


14/18

xiv Contents

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

Mark E. Courtney

Part III Theoretical Perspectives

The Ecological Perspective on the Human

Rights of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Edmund Bruyere and James Garbarino

Social Problem Construction and Its Impact

on Program and Policy Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Karen M. Staller

The Development of International

Comparative Child and Family Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Shirley Gatenio Gabel

Using Child Indicators to Influence Policy:

A Comparative Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Lawrence Aber, Juliette Berg, Erin Godfrey, and Catalina Torrente

In Childrens Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Peter Burton and Shelley Phipps

Part IV Economic Support

Assuring Child Support: A Re-assessment in Honor of Alfred Kahn . . . . . . 231Irwin Garfinkel and Lenna Nepomnyaschy

Child Poverty and Antipoverty Policies

in the United States: Lessons from Research

and Cross-National Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Sandra K. Danziger and Sheldon Danziger

Income Support for Families and the Living Standards of Children . . . . . . 275

Peter Saunders

An International Perspective on Child Benefit Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Jonathan Bradshaw


15/18

Contents xv

Canadian Policies for Families with Very Young Children in

International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Shelley Phipps

Child Poverty in Upper-Income Countries: Lessons from the

Luxembourg Income Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Janet C. Gornick and Markus Jantti

Part V Issues in Child Well-Being

Early Childhood Education and Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Peter Moss

Childcare Policies in France: The Influence

of Organizational Changes in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Jeanne Fagnani

Regional Case StudiesChild Well

Being in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Dominic Richardson

Part VI Conclusion

Child, Family, and State: The Relationship

Between Family Policy and Social

Protection Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

Sheila B. Kamerman


16/18

Contributors

Lawrence J. Aber Institute for Human Development and Social change, New YorkUniversity, New York, NY, USA

Asher Ben-Arieh Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare,

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Juliette Berg Department of Applied Psychology, New York University,

New York, USA

Jonathan Bradshaw Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of

York, York, UK

Edmund Bruyere Center for the Human Rights of Children, Developmental

Psychology Loyola University, Chicago, USA

Peter Burton Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova

Scotia, Canada

Claudia J. Coulton Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development,

Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University,

Cleveland, OH, USA

Mark E. Courtney School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle,

WA, USA

Sandra K. Danziger School of Social Work and Gerald R. Ford School of Public

Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Sheldon Danziger National Poverty Center, Gerald R. Ford School of Public

Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Jeanne Fagnani Centre dEconomie de la Sorbonne-Team Matisse, University ofParis, France

Barbara Fallon Centre for Research on Child and Families, McGill University,

Canada

xvii


17/18

xviii Contributors

Robert L. Fischer Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development,

Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University,

Cleveland, OH, USA

John Fluke American Humane Association, Englewood, CO, USA

Shirley Gatenio Gabel Graduate School of Social Services, Fordham University,

New York, USA

James Garbarino Center for the Human Rights of Children, Developmental

Psychology Loyola University, Chicago, USA

Irwin Garfinkel School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA

Erin Godfrey Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New

York, USAJanet C. Gornick Luxembourg Income Study; Political Science and Sociology,

The Graduate center, City University of New York, USA

Markus Jantti Luxembourg Income Study, Swedish Institute for Social Research,

Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Alfred J. Kahn School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA

Sheila B. Kamerman School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York,

USA

Bruce MacLaurin Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Brenda G. McGowan School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York,

USA

Peter Moss Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education University of

London, London, UK

Gail B. Nayowith Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund, New York, NY, Gnayowithe

Lmt, illumination, Fund.org. USA

Lenna Nepomnyaschy School of Social Work, Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, NJ, USA

Shelley Phipps Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and Department of

Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dominic Richardson OECD Social Policy Division, Paris, France

Peter Saunders Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales,

Sydney, Australia

Karen M. Staller School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,

USA

Lil Tonmyr Injury & Child Maltreatment Section, Public Health Agency of

Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada


18/18

Contributors xix

Catalina Torrente Department of Applied Psychology, New York University,

New York, USA

Nico Trocme Centre for Research on Children and Families, School of Social

Work, McGill University, Canada

Ying-Ying Yuan Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, USA

Anat Zeira Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Documents

From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being