It Takes a Village… Or Does it?
There is an old proverb that goes something like this: it takes a village to raise a child. As a Global Health Corps fellow at the Children’s Health Fund, I understand the magnitude of this all too well. I have spent the year at a federally qualified health center in New York City, serving the families of the South Bronx. In a community where nearly 44 percent of residents live in poverty, it often seems that children in the South Bronx need a village and a half to become healthy, resilient adults.
The effects of poverty threaten the well being of the nation’s most vulnerable — its children. Poverty impacts a child through inadequate nutrition; housing instability; low educational attainment; family and community violence; and limited access to social support, services and economic opportunities. Despite policies and programs in place to mitigate the effects on children, there is an ever-present need for more in a child’s village: more funding, more housing, more education, more healthcare, more programs, and more policies.
Working closely with parents in the South Bronx, I have begun to better understand the “village” and what a child needs to thrive in the face of persistent poverty. While we have long focused on the importance of social programs, social safety-net policies, safe neighborhoods, healthcare access, and quality education, we have all but ignored the most powerful structure in place for a child: the family.
The family plays a critical role in a child’s social, emotional, and physical well being, from infancy through adulthood. In addition, the financial stability that often comes with the family unit has the power to protect a child against poverty. Could the family be the solution to our most persistent social issue?
While the way we define a family unit is different for all, the research surrounding the family points to its structure as the key factor in predicting childhood poverty.
In the United States, the overwhelming majority of children in poverty grow up in a single-parent household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, those children living in a single, female headed household are five times more likely to experience poverty compared to married families. The data shows that children raised in a single-parent structure are more likely to experience emotional and behavioral problems, physical abuse, poor school performance; and engage in risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking and drug use. While there is no question that children raised by a single-parent can grow to be healthy adults, the connection between family structure and life outcomes is clear.
Married families remain the most effective safeguard against poverty for children. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 11 percent of children in married households experience poverty, compared to 47 percent of children living with co-habitating parents. When it comes to child wellbeing, cohabiting families more closely resemble single-parent families than marriage. Scholars concur, “children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes.” These children have greater access to healthcare, fewer emotional or behavioral problems, higher educational attainment, and protection from physical abuse. In addition, recent research points to marriage and family structure as not only important to the economic and social wellbeing of children, but also for entire communities. While many might disagree about why marriage matters to children, it cannot be denied that it does matter.
In the same way that family structure can exacerbate existing inequities, it can also augment the good for children.
The structure of a family does not necessarily cause poverty, but rather, it reflects it. In the same way that family structure can exacerbate existing inequities, it can also augment the good for children. While there are certainly other factors that can affect the welfare of children and families — class, race, educational attainment, and the quality and stability of family life — it would be remiss to ignore family structure in the conversation surrounding child poverty.
There is value for children in promoting strong, stable families.
In recent years, the discourse around unraveling poverty tends to land in one of two places: policy or programs. While housing, education, nutrition, and healthcare reforms have been crucial to alleviating short term needs, they will never wholly fill the village needed to raise a child. The family, more than policy or programs, is the institution from which children draw the most meaning. Most current policies and programs do very little to bolster and support the family structure. Even fewer acknowledge the family as central to a child’s wellbeing.
There are no straightforward quick fixes for family structure. However, in communities like the South Bronx where poverty and single-parent households abound, it is crucial that we include efforts to support families in children’s health initiatives. For today’s children, we must include discussions around maintaining healthy relationships, effective family communication, and father involvement in policy and health programs. Initiating the conversation around the meaning of family structure and the serious economic and health consequences it can pose for a child is an important first step towards change.
But what can we do for tomorrow’s children? The family is a powerful, preventative structure that can benefit a child now and throughout their life course. In order to have truly robust conversations around poverty, we cannot forget to include discussion of the most central institution in a child’s life. Rather than focus on what is missing from a child’s village, we must recognize that the village needed to create lasting change for children may already be in place.
Monica Kavanaugh, MPH is a 2016–2017 Global Health Corps fellow at the Children’s Health Fund in New York, New York, USA.
