家庭和以家庭为中心的计划和政策的作用

4区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
Lawrence M. Berger, Sarah A. Font
{"title":"家庭和以家庭为中心的计划和政策的作用","authors":"Lawrence M. Berger, Sarah A. Font","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Families influence their children’s health in two ways that are amenable to public policy— through their financial and other investments in children, and through the quality of care that they provide. In general, children who receive more resources or better parenting are healthier than those who don’t. Public policies, therefore, might improve children’s health either by giving families more resources or by helping parents provide better care.When it comes to financial resources, write Lawrence Berger and Sarah Font, the research is straightforward—programs that add to disadvantaged families’ incomes, whether in cash or in kind, can indeed improve their children’s health. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, has been linked to higher birth weights and greater cognitive achievement.When it comes to programs that target quality of care, however, the picture is more complex. At the low end of the spectrum, poor parenting shades into neglect or abuse, which can seriously harm children’s health and development. Thus we might expect that the child protective services system, which has the power to intervene and protect children in such cases, could also improve children’s health in the long run. But Berger and Font find that the system’s ability to affect children’s health is limited, largely because it becomes involved in children’s lives only after damage has already occurred.Other programs, however, have the potential to improve parenting, reduce maltreatment, and thus enhance children’s health and development. Home visiting programs show particular promise, as do large-scale, community-level primary prevention programs.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"155 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0007","citationCount":"59","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of the Family and Family-Centered Programs and Policies\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence M. Berger, Sarah A. Font\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/FOC.2015.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summary:Families influence their children’s health in two ways that are amenable to public policy— through their financial and other investments in children, and through the quality of care that they provide. In general, children who receive more resources or better parenting are healthier than those who don’t. Public policies, therefore, might improve children’s health either by giving families more resources or by helping parents provide better care.When it comes to financial resources, write Lawrence Berger and Sarah Font, the research is straightforward—programs that add to disadvantaged families’ incomes, whether in cash or in kind, can indeed improve their children’s health. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, has been linked to higher birth weights and greater cognitive achievement.When it comes to programs that target quality of care, however, the picture is more complex. At the low end of the spectrum, poor parenting shades into neglect or abuse, which can seriously harm children’s health and development. Thus we might expect that the child protective services system, which has the power to intervene and protect children in such cases, could also improve children’s health in the long run. But Berger and Font find that the system’s ability to affect children’s health is limited, largely because it becomes involved in children’s lives only after damage has already occurred.Other programs, however, have the potential to improve parenting, reduce maltreatment, and thus enhance children’s health and development. Home visiting programs show particular promise, as do large-scale, community-level primary prevention programs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future of Children\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"155 - 176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0007\",\"citationCount\":\"59\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future of Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0007\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Children","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

摘要

摘要:家庭通过两种符合公共政策的方式影响其子女的健康——通过其对儿童的财政和其他投资,以及通过其提供的护理质量。一般来说,获得更多资源或更好的教育的孩子比那些没有得到的孩子更健康。因此,公共政策可以通过给家庭更多的资源或帮助父母提供更好的照顾来改善儿童的健康。劳伦斯·伯杰(Lawrence Berger)和莎拉·方特(Sarah Font)写道,当涉及到财政资源时,研究结果很直截了当——增加弱势家庭收入的项目,无论是现金还是实物,确实可以改善他们孩子的健康。例如,劳动所得税抵免(Earned Income Tax Credit)与较高的出生体重和更高的认知成就有关。然而,当涉及到以护理质量为目标的项目时,情况就复杂多了。在较低的范围内,不良的养育方式演变为忽视或虐待,这可能严重损害儿童的健康和发展。因此,我们可以期望,在这种情况下有能力干预和保护儿童的儿童保护服务系统,也可以从长远来看改善儿童的健康。但伯杰和丰特发现,该系统影响儿童健康的能力是有限的,主要是因为它只有在损害已经发生之后才会介入儿童的生活。然而,其他项目有可能改善养育方式,减少虐待,从而促进儿童的健康和发展。家访计划和大规模的社区一级预防计划一样,显示出特别的希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of the Family and Family-Centered Programs and Policies
Summary:Families influence their children’s health in two ways that are amenable to public policy— through their financial and other investments in children, and through the quality of care that they provide. In general, children who receive more resources or better parenting are healthier than those who don’t. Public policies, therefore, might improve children’s health either by giving families more resources or by helping parents provide better care.When it comes to financial resources, write Lawrence Berger and Sarah Font, the research is straightforward—programs that add to disadvantaged families’ incomes, whether in cash or in kind, can indeed improve their children’s health. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, has been linked to higher birth weights and greater cognitive achievement.When it comes to programs that target quality of care, however, the picture is more complex. At the low end of the spectrum, poor parenting shades into neglect or abuse, which can seriously harm children’s health and development. Thus we might expect that the child protective services system, which has the power to intervene and protect children in such cases, could also improve children’s health in the long run. But Berger and Font find that the system’s ability to affect children’s health is limited, largely because it becomes involved in children’s lives only after damage has already occurred.Other programs, however, have the potential to improve parenting, reduce maltreatment, and thus enhance children’s health and development. Home visiting programs show particular promise, as do large-scale, community-level primary prevention programs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Future of Children
Future of Children Multiple-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Future of Children is a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The mission of The Future of Children is to translate the best social science research about children and youth into information that is useful to policymakers, practitioners, grant-makers, advocates, the media, and students of public policy. The project publishes two journals and policy briefs each year, and provides various short summaries of our work. Topics range widely -- from income policy to family issues to education and health – with children’s policy as the unifying element. The senior editorial team is diverse, representing two institutions and multiple disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信