The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: implications for prevention.

Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
American Psychologist (Impact Factor: 6.87). 05/2012; 67(4):272-84. DOI: 10.1037/a0028015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article considers the implications for prevention science of recent advances in research on family poverty and children's mental, emotional, and behavioral health. First, we describe definitions of poverty and the conceptual and empirical challenges to estimating the causal effects of poverty on children's mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Second, we offer a conceptual framework that incorporates selection processes that affect who becomes poor as well as mechanisms through which poverty appears to influence child and youth mental health. Third, we use this conceptual framework to selectively review the growing literatures on the mechanisms through which family poverty influences the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children. We illustrate how a better understanding of the mechanisms of effect by which poverty impacts children's mental, emotional, and behavioral health is valuable in designing effective preventive interventions for those in poverty. Fourth, we describe strategies to directly reduce poverty and the implications of these strategies for prevention. This article is one of three in a special section (see also Biglan, Flay, Embry, & Sandler, 2012; Muñoz, Beardslee, & Leykin, 2012) representing an elaboration on a theme for prevention science developed by the 2009 report of the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a systematic review of studies that examined the effect of interventions combining a child development component with a nutrition one; in some cases the nutrition interventions also included health-promotion components. Only papers with both child development and nutrition outcomes and rated as moderate-to-good quality were included. Eleven efficacy and two nonrandomized trials, and eight program evaluations were identified. Only six trials examined interventions separately and combined. The trials showed nutritional interventions usually benefited nutritional status and sometimes benefited child development. Stimulation consistently benefited child development. There was no significant loss of any effect when interventions were combined, but there was little evidence of synergistic interaction between nutrition and stimulation on child development. Only three trials followed up the children after intervention. All at-scale program evaluations were combined interventions. Five benefited child development, but one did not, and two showed deficits. There was generally little benefit of at-scale programs to nutritional status. We found no rigorous evaluations of adding stimulation to health and nutrition services at scale and there is an urgent need for them. There is also a need to establish quality-control mechanisms for existing scaled-up programs and to determine their long-term effects. There is also a need to determine if there are any sustained benefits for the children after programs finish.
    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 01/2014; 1308(1):11-32. · 4.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: he aftermath of the global recession has encouraged policy makers to confront the staggering public burden of crime (Cohen, 1988, 2005; Ludwig, 2010;McCollister, French, and Fang, 2010;Miller, Cohen, and Rossman, 1993). In this context, there is growing acceptance that many “tough-on-crime” policies have become primary drivers of crime’s increasing societal cost (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Artello, 2013; Becker, 1968; Braga andWeisburd, 2011; Cameron, 1988; Cohen, 2005; Paternoster, 2010; Rikard and Rosenberg, 2007; Vitiello, 2013). Policy makers have responded with growing interest in making strategic investments in youth that prevent the development of lifetime offenders, instead of continuing to institute harsher punishments that lead to costly mass incarceration (Dodge, 2001; Farrington, 1994; Heckman, 2006; Homel, 2013; O’Connell, Boat, and Warner, 2009). In response, innovative strategies for preventing crime and controlling costs are being engaged (Barnett andMasse, 2007; Guyll, Spoth, and Crowley, 2011;Welsh and Farrington, 2010). At the forefront are developmental prevention programs that intervene early in life to reduce risk factors for delinquent and criminal behaviors (Durlak, 1998; Eckenrode et al., 2010; Hawkins, Catalano, andMiller, 1992; Hawkins and Weis, 1985; Reynolds, Temple, White, Ou, and Robertson, 2011). As a growing body of evidence illustrates, when implemented appropriately, these developmental prevention efforts not only effectively prevent crime but also are cost-effective solutions that save public resources (Crowley, Hill, Kuklinski, and Jones, 2013; Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg, and Spoth, 2012; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and Yavitz, 2010; Klietz, Borduin,and Schaeffer, 2010; Kuklinski, Briney, Hawkins, and Catalano, 2012; Reynolds et al., 2011).
    Criminology & Public Policy 01/2013; 12(2):353.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Families with low incomes experience an array of health and social challenges that compromise their resilience and lead to negative family outcomes. Along with financial constraints, there are barriers associated with mental and physical health, poorer education and language. In addition, vulnerable populations experience many services as markedly unhelpful. This combination of family and service barriers results in reduced opportunities for effective, primary-level services and an increased use of more expensive secondary-level services (e.g., emergency room visits, child apprehensions, police involvement). A systematic review of effective interventions demonstrated that promotion of physical and mental health using existing service was critically important.
    BMC Health Services Research 05/2014; 14(1):223. · 1.77 Impact Factor


Available from
May 23, 2014