|
Today a major gap exists between basic research on children’s development and the public policies and practices that affect children and their families. One reason for this gap is that researchers have failed to direct adequate scholarly attention to topics of direct relevance to society’s concerns about children. Researchers have focused on children’s development without adequate consideration for the ecological context in which children grow and relate to society. As a result, even though knowledge is growing about children’s development, an understanding of optimal strategies for society to solve children’s problems lags behind. For example, knowledge is growing regarding the effects of unsupervised peer interaction on children’s adjustment, but knowledge lags behind regarding optimal after-school care arrangements for children with working parents. Knowledge is growing regarding the processes through which children become chronically violent, but less is known about strategies to intervene to prevent these problems. Knowledge is growing regarding the epidemiology of mental illness in children, but knowledge lags behind regarding policies for the community-wide provision of appropriate mental health services.
A second reason for the gap is that many policy makers and practitioners have failed to take into account relevant scientific knowledge that already exists. At one level, policy analysts have not yet found it relevant to inquire about scientific information when formulating child and family policy. For example, since 1993, 43 states have softened their policies regarding the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts, but these changes have been made without consideration of the scientific knowledge of cognitive abilities of adolescents nor of empirical findings regarding the probable effects on outcomes for offenders. As another example, custody of children in divorce cases is often awarded without regard to the scientific knowledge about the effects of various arrangements on children’s development. At a second level, when policy makers have directed their attention to the scientific literature, they have been dissatisfied with the high degree of translation and generalization that is required to reach policy-relevant conclusions. This problem reflects the dissociation between child development research and contemporary social problems noted above. At a third level, policy makers have not been sufficiently willing to engage in the scientific process themselves. That is, in order to acquire relevant knowledge for child and family policy formulation, policy makers may have to participate in social experiments and somewhat intrusive research studies. Experiments in child and family policy have been rare.
Exceptions in the child and family policy area enhance the point being made here. Perhaps the leading example comes from Project Head Start, which is the largest government-supported child social program in the world. The origins of this program come from scientific experiments by university-based child developmental researchers in the 1960s, such as Susan Gray. Those experiments have been cited by Ed Zigler and Sargent Shriver as the basis for President Lyndon Johnson’s approach to the war on poverty in children and the reason for the program’s early success. Furthermore, the gradual drift away from this scientific grounding over the past two decades has been cited as a reason for subsequent declines in Head Start’s effectiveness. Finally, recent allocation of federal funds to conduct contemporary research on Head Start children is testimony to the continued relevance of basic scientific research for this program.
Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy is poised to fill the gap between researchers and child and family policy makers. The Center is embedded in one of the strongest groups of researchers in the country in the area of children’s social and behavioral development. Strong programs of research are flourishing across campus on topics such as children’s peer relations (Martha Putallaz), social cognition and peer influence (Phil Costanzo), aggressive behavior (John Coie), and developmental epidemiology (Jane Costello and Adrian Angold), among others. The Center is housed in one of the leading institutes of public policy, with prominent faculty whose work is relevant to education policy (Helen Ladd) and adolescent gun and drug policies (Phil Cook). The Center fosters communication and debate among these groups, toward the goal of interdisciplinary collaboration on novel projects.
|
|
