Jennifer Zwicker

Jennifer Zwicker is Director of Social Policy and Health at the School of Public Policy, associate professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Canada Research Chair (II) in Disability Policy for Children and Youth, and Chief Scientist for Kids Brain Health Network. Her research program assesses interventions and informs policy around allocation of funding, services, and supports for youth with disabilities and their families. Strong stakeholder and government collaboration has been critical in the translation of peer-reviewed publications to policy papers, op-eds and briefing notes for provincial and federal ministries and senate committees. Her work recently informed the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences National Autism Strategy Working Group and Royal Society of Canada Expert Working Group to develop disability inclusive policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. She has been recognized for her policy leadership as an Action Canada Alumni, Governor General Leadership Forum, and Canada’s Top 40 Under 40.

Annie Pullen Sansfaçon

Annie Pullen Sansfaçon holds a PhD in Ethics and Social Work (De Montfort University, UK, 2007) and has been focused on anti-oppressive approaches and ethics since the beginning of her career. Building on these themes, she developed a research focus aimed at better understanding the experiences of oppression and resistance among gender-diverse youth, such as transgender and non-binary youth, Two-Spirit youth, and youth who detransition, as well as the development of best practices to support them. She is also interested in parental and social support and its impact on these different groups of young people. The research projects she leads, both nationally and internationally, have been published in numerous scholarly articles and five books on the subject. She co-founded and currently co-directs CRI-JaDE (Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la justice intersectionnelle, la décolonisation et l’équité; Centre for Research on Intersectional Justice, Decolonization, and Equity), and is an affiliated researcher with the School of Social Work at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.

Simona Bignami 

Simona Bignami is a demographer specializing in quantitative methods and family dynamics. Broadly speaking, she is interested in the relationship between social influence, family dynamics, and demographic outcomes and behaviours, and the extent to which empirical evidence helps us understand this relationship. Her most recent work focuses on migrants’ and ethnic minorities’ family dynamics, attempting to improve their measurement with innovative data and methods, and to understand their role for demographic and health outcomes. Her research on these topics takes a comparative perspective, and spans from developing to developed country settings. Although her research is quantitative, she has experience collecting household survey data and conducting qualitative interviews and focus groups in different settings.  

Robin McMillan

Robin McMillan has spent her career of over 30 years working in the early learning sector. For the first eight years, she worked as an Early Childhood Educator with preschool children. She left the front line to develop resources for practitioners at the Canadian Child Care Federation (CCCF). She has been with the CCCF since 1999 and worked her way from Project Assistant to Project Manager to her present role as Innovator of Projects, Programs and Partnerships. Highlights of her career with CCCF have been managing over 20 national and international projects, including a CIDA project in Argentina and presenting a paper with the Honourable Senator Landon Pearson to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, Switzerland.  

Robin served as a board member on the Ottawa Carleton Ultimate Association for two years, as well as participated in organizing numerous local charity events. She founded and facilitated a local parent support group, Ottawa Parents of Children with Apraxia, and a national group, Apraxia Kids Canada. She is married and has a 17-year-old son with a severe speech disorder, childhood apraxia of speech, and a mild intellectual disability, which launched her into the world of parent advocacy. She was the recipient of the Advocate of the Year Award in 2010 from the Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association of North America. 

About the Organization: We are the community in the early learning and child care sector in Canada. Professionals and practitioners from coast to coast to coast belong in our community. We give voice to the deep passion, experience, and practice of Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) in Canada. We give space to excellent research in policy and practice to better inform service development and delivery. We provide leadership on issues that impact our sector because we know we are making a difference in the lives of young children—our true purpose, why we exist—to make a difference in these lives. What gets talked about, explored, and shared in our community is always life changing, and we know that. We are a committed, passionate force for positive change where it matters most—with children.

Gaëlle Simard-Duplain 

Gaëlle Simard-Duplain is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at Carleton University. Her research focuses on the determination of health and labour market outcomes. She is particularly interested in the interaction of policy and family in mitigating or exacerbating inequalities, through both intrahousehold family dynamics and intergenerational transmission mechanisms. Her work predominantly uses administrative data sources, sometimes linked to survey data, and quasi-experimental research methods. Gaëlle holds a PhD in Economics from the University of British Columbia.

Andrea Doucet

Andrea Doucet is a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work, and Care, Professor in Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies at Brock University, and Adjunct Professor at Carleton University and the University of Victoria (Canada). She has published widely on care/work policies, parental leave policies, fathering and care, and gender divisions and relations of paid and unpaid work. She is the author of two editions of the award-winning book Do Men Mother? (University of Toronto Press, 2006, 2018), co-author of two editions of Gender Relations: Intersectionality and Social Change (Oxford, 2008, 2017), and co-editor of Thinking Ecologically, Thinking Responsibly: The Legacies of Lorraine Code (SUNY, 2021). She is currently writing about social-ecological care and connections between parental leaves, care leaves, and Universal Basic Services. Her recent research collaborations include projects with Canadian community organizations on young Black motherhood (with Sadie Goddard-Durant); feminist, ecological, and Indigenous approaches to care ethics and care work (with Eva Jewell and Vanessa Watts); and social inclusion/exclusion in parental leave policies (with Sophie Mathieu and Lindsey McKay). She is the Project Director and Principal Investigator of the Canadian SSHRC Partnership program, Reimagining Care/Work Policies, and Co-Coordinator of the International Network of Leave Policies and Research.

Liv Mendelsohn

Liv Mendelsohn, MA, MEd, is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence, where she leads innovation, research, policy, and program initiatives to support Canada’s caregivers and care providers. A visionary leader with more than 15 years of experience in the non-profit sector, Liv has a been a lifelong caregiver and has lived experience of disability. Her experiences as a member of the “sandwich generation” fuel her passion to build a caregiver movement in Canada to change the way that caregiving is seen, valued, and supported.

Over the course of her career, Liv has founded and helmed several organizations in the disability and caregiving space, including the Wagner Green Centre for Accessibility and Inclusion and the ReelAbilities Toronto Film Festival. Liv serves as the chair of the City of Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee. She has received the City of Toronto Equity Award, and has been recognized by University College, University of Toronto, Empowered Kids Ontario, and the Jewish Community Centres of North America for her leadership. Liv is a senior fellow at Massey College and a graduate of the Mandel Institute for Non-Profit Leadership and the Civic Action Leadership Foundation DiverseCity Fellows program.

About the Organization: The Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence supports and empowers caregivers and care providers, advances the knowledge and capacity of the caregiving field, and advocates for effective and visionary social policy, with a disability-informed approach. Our expertise and insight, drawn from the lived experiences of caregivers and care providers, help us campaign for better systems and lasting change. We are more than just a funder; we work closely with our partners and grantees towards shared goals.

Deborah Norris

Holding graduate degrees in Family Science, Deborah Norris is a professor in the Department of Family Studies and Gerontology at Mount Saint Vincent University. An abiding interest in the interdependence between work and family life led to Deborah’s early involvement in developing family life education programs at the Military Family Resource Centre (MFRC) located at the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Halifax. Insights gained through conversation with program participants were the sparks that ignited a long-standing commitment to learning more about the lives of military-connected family members—her research focus over the course of her career to date. Informed by ecological theory and critical theory, Deborah’s research program is applied, collaborative, and interdisciplinary. She has facilitated studies focusing on resilience(y) in military and veteran families; work-life balance in military families; the bi-directional relationship between operational stress injuries and the mental health and wellbeing of veteran families; family psychoeducation programs for military and veteran families; and the military to civilian transition. She has collaborated with fellow academic researchers, Department of National Defense (DND) scientists, Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) personnel, and others. Recently, her research program has expanded to include an emphasis on the impacts of operational stress on the families of public safety personnel.

Susan Prentice

Susan Prentice holds the Duff Roblin Professor of Government at the University of Manitoba, where she is a professor of Sociology. She specializes in family policy broadly, and child care policy specifically. She has written widely on family and child care policy, and a list of her recent publications can be found at her UM page. At the undergraduate and graduate level, she teaches family policy courses. Susan works closely with provincial and national child care advocacy groups, and is a member of the Steering Committee of the Childcare Coalition of Manitoba.

Shelley Clark

Shelley Clark, James McGill Professor of Sociology, is a demographer whose research focuses on gender, health, family dynamics, and life course transitions. After receiving her PhD from Princeton University in 1999, Shelley served as program associate at the Population Council in New York (1999–2002) and as an Assistant Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago (2002–2006). In the summer of 2006, she joined the Department of Sociology at McGill, where in 2012 she became the founding Director of the Centre on Population Dynamics. Much of her research over two decades has examined how adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa make key transitions to adulthood amid an ongoing HIV/AIDS epidemic. Additional work has highlighted the social, economic, and health vulnerabilities of single mothers and their children in sub-Saharan Africa. Recently she has embarked on a new research agenda to assess rural and urban inequalities and family dynamics in the United States and Canada. Her findings highlight the diversity of family structures in rural areas and the implications of limited access to contraception on rural women’s fertility and reproductive health.

Isabel Côté

Isabel Côté is a full professor in the department of social work at Université du Québec en Outaouais. She holds the Canada Research Chair on Third-Party Reproduction and Family Ties, is a member of Partenariat Famille en mouvance (a research partnership on the changing family) and of the Réseau québécois en études féministes (RéQEF) (a Quebec network for feminist studies). Her research program aims to develop a global understanding of third-party reproduction that brings together the viewpoints of all parties, including parents, donors, surrogates, the children conceived this way, and the extended families. Using innovative qualitative methodologies, her work draws on the theoretical contributions of sociology of the family, kinship anthropology, and feminist and LGBTQ studies, and takes a fresh look at contemporary family realities. In an innovative way, her work considers children as full agents in the construction of knowledge about families created thanks to third-party reproduction. Lastly, the results of her work provide material, based on empirical data, to inform the social debate about the issues raised by third-party reproduction while also suggesting courses of action to better support the wellbeing of the people concerned.

Denise Whitehead

Denise Whitehead is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sexuality, Marriage, and Family Studies, and cross-appointed in Sociology and Legal Studies, at St. Jerome’s University, in the University of Waterloo. Denise is a trained lawyer (Osgoode Hall, Bar of Ontario) and social scientist (PhD, Family Relations and Human Development, University of Guelph). Denise conducts socio-legal research on practice and policy issues related to separation and divorce that affect all members of the family system. Denise’s teaching covers a wide breadth of topics including parents and children; relationship formation and dissolution; family law; family policy; conflict in close relationships; and caregiving.

From Toddlers to Teens – Examining Mobile Work and Its Impact on Family Evolution: Amber’s Story (Families, Mobility, and Work)

Summary of a chapter on the impacts of work-related mobility on family relationships

November 8, 2022

The chapter “From Toddlers to Teens – Examining Mobile Work and Its Impact on Family Evolution: Amber’s Story” is based on a life narrative distilled from multiple conversational interviews with a woman living in rural PEI. Her story describes the evolution of her personal  and family life during 12 years of her husband’s out-of-province rotational work and as her children grew from “tots to teens.” The chapter talks about entry into rotational work, its prolongation and challenges, and the strategies the family developed to overcome those challenges.

This chapter is one of many rich contributions included in Families, Mobility, and Work, a compilation of articles and other knowledge products based on research from the On the Move Partnership. Published in September 2022 by Memorial University Press, this book is now available in print, as an eBook, and as a free-open access volume available in full on the Memorial University website.

“Amber’s narrative provides key insights into the experiences and reflections of women as they adjust and adapt to their diverse roles as parents and partners as these are repeatedly negotiated and dependent on whether a loved one is coming or going for mobile work. These insights relate to time, place, and relationship, and show that Eddie’s participation in mobile work shaped all aspects of Amber’s life as a parent and partner, as well as the evolution of their family lives.” – Christina Murray, PhD, Hannah Skelding, and Sylvia Barton, PhD

Access Families, Mobility, and Work

Chapter abstract

Central to this chapter is a narrative representation of six conversational interviews conducted over seven weeks with one individual, Amber, as part of author Christina Murray’s doctoral research in rural Prince Edward Island. That research consisted of similar interviews with four women whose husbands had been working in other provinces over a period of several years. The contribution opens with a brief description of the research objectives and methods that informed the larger research. This is followed by “Amber’s Story,” where one of the study participants reflects on the evolution of her marriage and family over the 12 years during which her husband, Eddie, had been travelling for work from rural PEI to northern Alberta. He originally left when their children were two and four and was only gone in the winter. Shortly after that, he began working away year-round. At the time of the conversations, the children were 14 and 17 and the son had just spent his first summer working in Alberta with his dad. The story provides an understanding of how labour migration came to permeate Amber’s personal and family life. It touches on pivotal research themes such as specific roles and responsibilities, family evolution and transitions, communication and belonging, and marriage and community relations. The contribution concludes with some recommendations arising from the doctoral research for better support for women and families who have loved ones travelling long distances for employment and information on programming implemented in direct response to these recommendations.

About the authors

Christina Murray, BA, RN, PhD, is an Associate Professor with the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Prince Edward Island. Her nursing practice has been grounded in public health and community development. Since 2015, Dr. Murray has been leading a program of interdisciplinary, collaborative narrative research focusing on labour migration and its impact on the health of individuals, families, and communities. She was the principal investigator on the Tale of Two Islands study and the Families, Work and Mobility community outreach project and is currently leading a project focused on grandparents raising their grandchildren on PEI. Dr.  Murray is also the recipient of the Vanier Institute’s 2018 Mirabelli-Glossop Award.

Hannah Skelding is passionate about exploring the relationships between social, economic, and environmental systems. Hannah attended McMaster University, where she graduated with a Combined Honours in Arts & Science and Environmental Science. She went on to complete her Master’s in Global Affairs through the University of Prince Edward Island and the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. During her time at UPEI Hannah met Dr. Christina Murray and was exposed to the implications of interprovincial labour mobility. Hannah is currently at the University of Alberta in the Department of Resource Extraction and Environmental Sociology.

Sylvia Barton, PhD, is Professor and Chair of the School of Nursing at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, British Columbia. Throughout her career, she has integrated professional practice, research, teaching, and leadership. Since coming to academia, the focus of this integration has been in three areas: researching health-specific stories and life narratives of human experience, particularly with Indigenous populations; developing innovative change in priority areas of health; and implementing inter-professional clinical teaching and learning models. As a result of her aspirations and goal-oriented stance, she has sought to exhibit excellence through partnership, relevancy, and inspiration.

 

Grandparents Supporting Families Affected by Mobile Labour (Families, Mobility, and Work)

Summary of a chapter on labour mobility and intergenerational relationships.

October 25, 2022

In Families, Mobility, and Work – a collection recently published by Memorial University Press that explores the intersection between family lives and work-related mobility – researchers Dr. Christina Murray, BA, RN, PhD; Dr. Doug Lionais, PhD; and Maddie Gallant, BScN, RN, share insights on intergenerational family experiences of labour migration in Atlantic Canada.

Their chapter, “‘Above Everything Else I Just Want to Be a Real Grandparent’: Examining the Experiences of Grandparents Supporting Families Impacted by Mobile Labour in Atlantic Canada,” highlights qualitative research findings on the challenges and opportunities experienced by grandparents who have stepped up to support their younger generations when one or both parents travel long distances and/or are separated from family for work.

This chapter is one of many rich contributions included in Families, Mobility, and Work – a compilation of articles and other knowledge products based on research from the On the Move Partnership. Published in September 2022 by Memorial University Press, this book is now available in print, as an eBook, and as a free open-access volume available in full on Memorial University website.

“All participating grandparents identified challenges related to three overarching themes: increased roles and responsibilities; a struggle between their idealized/anticipated vision of grandparenting and life after retirement and their lived reality; and challenges related to negotiating their relationships with other extended family members.” – Christina Murray, Doug Lionais, and Maddie Gallant

Access Families, Mobility, and Work

Chapter abstract

Until recently, research on interprovincial labour migration in Canada has paid limited attention to the experiences of the family members left behind. The Tale of Two Islands project was a multi-year narrative study that examined how long-distance commuting for work between Cape Breton Island and Prince Edward Island (PEI) and western Canada impacted intergenerational family members, including workers and their spouses and grandparents. As part of this study, conversational interviews were carried out with individual members of ten intergenerational families in PEI and Cape Breton including with thirteen grandparents. Three focus groups including one with grandmothers (N12) and another with grandfathers (N5) were carried out in PEI. This chapter explores the challenges and opportunities experienced by grandparents impacted by long-distance, interprovincial labour migration and their reflections on how this affects their daily lives. Key themes emerging from the interviews and focus groups involving grandparents included the multiple roles and responsibilities grandparents assume as they strive to support their adult children and grandchildren impacted by labour migration; the contrast between their ideal of grandparenting and their lived reality; and the familial and financial pressures they experience. Focus groups included multiple grandparents who have ended up caring for their grandchildren full-time due to parental mental health and addiction problems often linked to mobile work. Their challenges are highlighted, along with recommended steps to help address these challenges.

About the authors

Christina Murray, BA, RN, PhD, is an Associate Professor with the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Prince Edward Island. Her nursing practice has been grounded in public health and community development. Since 2015, Dr. Murray has been leading a program of interdisciplinary, collaborative narrative research focusing on labour migration and its impact on the health of individuals, families, and communities. She was the principal investigator on the Tale of Two Islands study and the Families, Work and Mobility community outreach project and is currently leading a project focused on grandparents raising their grandchildren on PEI. Dr.  Murray is also the recipient of the Vanier Institute’s 2018 Mirabelli-Glossop Award.

Doug Lionais, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Shannon School of Business at Cape Breton University, where he teaches within the MBA in Community Economic Development (CED) program. He received his PhD in Economic Geography from Durham University (UK) after earning a BBA from Cape Breton University. Dr. Lionais’ research focuses on understanding processes of uneven development and the production of depleted communities, local and regional economic development, and forms of alternative economic practice that respond to depletion.

Maddie Gallant, BScN, RN, is a practising obstetrical registered nurse and a passionate advocate for evidenced-based practice and improving patient experiences and outcomes in all areas of health care. Maddie Gallant has played a role in the Tale of Two Islands research study as a research assistant for the duration of the study. She continues to delve into the data uncovered by the study in order to disseminate and translate important findings to other healthcare professionals in the hope of improving patient care for families experiencing labour migration.

Report: COVID-19 and Parenting in Canada

September 3, 2020

Download the report (PDF)

In June 2020, the Vanier Institute prepared the report Families “Safe at Home”: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Parenting in Canada for the UN Expert Group Meeting Families in Development: Focus on Modalities for IYF+30, Parenting Education and the Impact of COVID-19. Now available in English and French, this report highlights family experiences, connections and well-being during COVID-19, as well as the current resources, policies, programs and initiatives in place to support families and family life.

Families “Safe at Home” details federal, provincial and territorial resources created to offset, mitigate or alleviate the financial impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on families. In addition to government responses, a summary is provided of the diverse range of available services that support families from pre-parenthood to adolescence and that serve parents across Canada, including those who belong to Indigenous, 2SITLGBQ+ and newcomer communities.

The Expert Group Meeting was organized by the Division for Inclusive Social Development (DISD) of the UN Department of Economic and Social affairs (UN DESA), where experts from diverse fields from around the world connected virtually to discuss COVID-19 impacts, assess progress and emerging issues related to parenting and education, and plan for upcoming observances of the 30th anniversary of the International Year of the Family (IYF).


Families “Safe at Home”: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Parenting in Canada

Nora Spinks, Sara MacNaull, Jennifer Kaddatz

Toward the end of 2019, news began to spread around the world about the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Like many other countries, Canada was facing the possibility of weeks and months with families living in isolation in their homes, changes to school and work schedules, and unknown impacts on family connections and well-being.

In 2020, global citizens around the world are living in and adapting to new ways of life while remaining “safe at home” during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians have been striving to respect physical and social distancing guidelines implemented by our governments and based on the recommendations of public health officials since March 10, 2020. For many families, the past three months have included parenting in close quarters with high levels of uncertainty and unpredictability while managing work commitments, fulfilling care responsibilities inside and outside the home, and homeschooling children of all ages. Despite the inability to plan and the unknowns about what the next few weeks and months might look like, most families are maintaining good physical and mental health, taking care of one another and weathering the storm with their neighbours and communities at a distance.

During these unprecedented times, the Vanier Institute of the Family has adjusted its focus to understanding families in Canada in a time of drastic social, economic and environmental change. The daily activities of individuals and families in Canada, what they are thinking, how they are feeling and what they are doing are all important factors to be addressed and understood in the short, medium or long term.

Accordingly, representatives from the Vanier Institute were co-founders of the COVID-19 Social Impacts Network, a multidisciplinary group of some of Canada’s leading experts along with some of their international colleagues. The network has identified important issues, key indicators and relevant socio-demographics to generate evidence-based responses addressing the social and economic dimensions of the COVID-19 crisis in Canada. As well, to understand the experiences of families during the pandemic, the Vanier Institute has internally mobilized knowledge from other available sources, including quantitative data from both government and non-governmental agencies, such as Statistics Canada and UNICEF Canada, as well as qualitative information from individuals, families and organizations across the nation. Analyses of these findings illuminate characteristics of family life both before and during the pandemic, providing insight into what Canadians fear and what they look forward to after public health measures are lifted.

Consistent with its core principles, the Vanier Institute honours and respects the perspectives of diverse families by applying a family lens and Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+), whenever possible.1 By examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and any of its associated “costs and consequences,” including fertility patterns, parenting, family relationships, family dynamics and family well-being, the Institute mobilizes knowledge to those who study, serve and support families to make sound evidence-based decisions when designing and implementing policies and programs for all families in Canada.

COVID-19 Pandemic Experience in Canada

As of May 31, 2020, 1.6 million people have been tested for COVID-19 in Canada (approximately 4.5% of the total population). Among them, 5% have tested positive for the virus, with 8% resulting in death.2 Seniors in long-term care facilities who have died of COVID-19 represent approximately 82% of all deaths linked to the virus.3

Families are like all other “systems” during the pandemic – their strengths and weakness are magnified, amplified and intensified as relationships, interactions and behaviours adapt to changes in routine, habits and experiences. Family connections, family well-being and youth experiences have all been dramatically affected.

Family Connections

  • Approximately 8 in 10 adults (aged 18 and older) who are married or living common-law agreed that they and their spouse were supporting one another well since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1). This figure varies only slightly for those with children or youth at home (77%) compared with those without children under the age of 18 in the household (82%).4
  • Fewer than 2 in 10 adults in committed relationships said they had been arguing more since the start of the pandemic (Fig. 1).5
  • Six in 10 parents reported they were talking to their children more often than before the lockdown began.6
  • When young kids were in the house, adults were almost twice as likely as those with no children or youth at home to have increased their time spent making art, crafts or music.7

On the other hand…

  • One-third of adults said that they were very or extremely concerned about family stress from confinement.9
  • 10% of women and 6% of men were very or extremely concerned about the possibility of violence in the home.10, 11
  • About 1 in 5 Canadians had senior relatives living in a nursing home or facility, with 92% of females and 78% of men being very or somewhat concerned for their health.12

Family Well-Being

  • More than three-quarters of Statistics Canada’s crowdsource participants reported either very good or excellent (46%) or good (31%) mental health during pandemic, in a survey conducted April 24–May 11, 2020.13
  • Nearly half (48%) of Statistics Canada’s crowdsource participants said that their mental health was “about the same,” “somewhat better” or “much better” than it had been prior to the start of the pandemic.14
  • About half of adults said they felt anxious or nervous or felt sad “very often” or “often” since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.15
  • Regardless of age group or week surveyed, women expressed being more afraid than men that they would contract the virus or that someone in their immediate family would contract it (Fig. 2).16

  • Canadians were more afraid of a loved one contracting COVID-19 than they were of contracting it themselves. Adults who were “very” or “extremely”concerned about:
    • their own health: 36%
    • health of someone in household: 54%
    • health of vulnerable people: 79%
    • overloading the health care system: 84%18, 19
  • More than 4 in 10 of adults living with children under the age of 18 in their home said they “very often” or “often” have had difficulty sleeping since the beginning of the pandemic.20
  • When asked to describe how they have been primarily feeling in recent weeks, Canadians were most likely to say they were worried (44%), anxious (41%) and bored (30%); fully one-third (34%) also said they were “grateful.”21
  • Women were considerably more likely than men to report experiencing anxiety or nervousness, sadness, irritability or difficulty sleeping during the pandemic.22
  • Adults across all age groups continued to exercise during the pandemic, as two-thirds of adults aged 18–34 reported that they were exercising equally as often or more often during the pandemic than they were before it started. The figures were similar for adults aged 35–54 (62%) and aged 55 and older (65%).23
  • Younger adults (aged 15–49) were more likely to report an increase in junk food consumption than older adults.24
  • Food banks saw a 20% average increase in demand, with some local food banks, such as those in Toronto, Ontario, seeing increases as high as 50%.25
  • More than 9 in 10 people aged 15 and older said that the pandemic had not changed their consumption of tobacco nor cannabis.26 Just under 8 in 10 reported that the pandemic had not affected their drinking habits.27

Youth Experiences

  • Youth aged 12–19 said they got most of their information about COVID-19 and public health measures from their parents.28
  • Older youth, aged 15–17, were more anxious than younger youth, aged 12–14.29
  • Among youth aged 15–17, 50% reported that the pandemic had had “a lot” or “some” negative impact on their mental health, compared with 34% of youth aged 12–14. Approximately 4 in 10 youth aged 12–17 reported “a lot” or “some” negative impact on their physical health.30
  • Approximately half of children and youth across all age groups missed their friends the most while in isolation.31
  • Though 75% of youth claimed to be keeping up with school while in isolation, many were also unmotivated (60%) and disliked the arrangement (57%) (i.e. online learning; virtual classrooms).32
  • Many youth said they were doing more housework or chores during the pandemic.33
  • Older teens (aged 15–17) were having more difficult sleeping, feeling more anxious or nervous, sad and irritable. Younger teens (aged 12–14) were more likely to feel happy than older teens (Fig. 3).34

COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada

Since March 2020, the provincial, territorial and federal governments have announced diverse benefits, credits, programs, initiatives and funds to support families across Canada. The purpose of these recent resources is to offset, mitigate or alleviate the financial impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on families during this period of uncertainty, including the following:

Temporary Increase to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB)

The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under the age of 18. The amount of the benefit varies depending on the number of children, the age of the children, marital status and family net income from the previous year’s tax return. The CCB may include the child disability benefit and any related provincial and territorial programs.36

For families already receiving the CCB, an additional $300 per child was added to the benefit in May 2020. For example, a family with two children received $600, in addition to their regular monthly CCB payment, which could be up to a maximum of $553.25 per month per child under the age of 6 and $466.83 per month per child aged 6–17.37, 38

Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)

In April 2020, Canada’s federal government established the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) to support workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CERB provides $2,000 every four weeks to workers who have lost their income as a result of the pandemic. Eligibility includes adults who have lost their job or who are sick, quarantined or taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19. It applies to wage earners, contract workers and self-employed individuals who are unable to work. The benefit also allows individuals to earn up to $1,000 per month while collecting CERB.39

As a result of school and child care closures across Canada, the CERB is available to working parents who must stay home without pay to care for their children until schools and child care can safely reopen and welcome back children of all ages.

As of early May 2020, more than 7 million Canadians had applied for CERB since its introduction.40

Mortgage Payment Deferral

Homeowners across Canada who are facing financial hardship due to lack of work or decreased income during the pandemic may be eligible for a mortgage payment deferral of up to six months.

The payment deferral is an agreement between individuals and their mortgage lender, which includes a suspension of all mortgage payment for a specified period of time.41

Special Good and Services Tax Credit

The Goods and Services Tax credit is a tax-free quarterly payment that helps individuals and families with low and modest incomes offset all or part of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that they pay.42

In April 2020, the federal government provided a one-time special payment in April 2020 to those receiving the Goods and Services Tax credit. The average additional benefit was nearly $400 for single individuals and close to $600 for couples.43

Temporary wage top-up for low-income essential workers

The federal government is providing $3 billion to increase the wages of low-income essential workers. Examples of essential workers (though variable by province or territory) may include health care professionals, long-term care facility employees and grocery store employees.

Each province or territory is responsible for determining which workers are eligible for this support and how much they will receive.44

Emergency Relief Support Fund for Parents of Children with Special Needs (Province of British Columbia)

To support parents of children with special needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of British Columbia created a new Emergency Relief Support Fund. The fund will provide a direct payment of $225 per month to eligible families from April to June 2020 (three months).

The payment may be used to purchase supports that help alleviate stress, such as meal preparation and grocery shopping assistance; homemaking services; caregiver relief support and/or counselling services, online or by phone.45

COVID-19 Income Support Program (Province of Prince Edward Island)

In April 2020, the Government of Prince Edward Island announced financial support for individuals whose income has been impacted as a direct result of the public health state of emergency, as well as additional protocols to keep residents safe.

The COVID-19 Income Support Program will help individuals bridge the gap between their loss of income and Employment Insurance (EI) benefits or the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) by providing a one-time, taxable payment of $750.46

Support for Families Initiative (Province of Ontario)

In April 2020, the Government of Ontario announced direct financial support to parents while Ontario schools and child care centres remain closed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new Support for Families initiative offers a one-time payment of $200 per child aged 0–12 and $250 for those aged 0–21 with special needs.47

Emergency Allowance for Income Assistance Clients (Northwest Territories)

For Income Assistance clients registered in March 2020, the Government of the Northwest Territories provided a one-time emergency allowance to help with a 14-day supply of food and cleaning products as the stores have them available.

The Income Assistance (IA) program is designed for residents who are aged 19 and older and who have a need greater than their income. The emergency allowance received by individuals was $500 and for families it was $1,000.48

Parenting in Canada: Government Priorities, Policies, Programs and Resources

The Government of Canada and the provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments provide support to parents in Canada in myriad ways. In addition to the supports provided to assist families during the COVID-19 pandemic, as described in the previous section, a selection of current priorities, policies, programs and resources that are current and existed pre-pandemic are highlighted below.

Early Learning and Child Care

Early learning and child care needs across Canada are vast and diverse. The Government of Canada is investing in early learning and child care to ensure children get the best start in life. As a first step, the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for early learning and child care have agreed to a Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework. The new Framework sets the foundation for governments to work toward a shared long-term vision where all children across Canada can experience the enriching environment of quality early learning and child care. The guiding principles of the Framework are to increase quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility and inclusivity. A distinct Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework was co-developed with Indigenous partners, reflecting the unique cultures and needs of First Nation, Inuit and Métis children across Canada.49, 50

Before- and After-school Care

Canada’s federal government priorities currently include working with the provinces and territories to invest in the creation of up to 250,000 additional before- and after-school spaces for children under the age of 10, at least 10% of which would allow for care during extended hours. Priorities also include decreasing child care fees for before- and after-school programs by 10%.51

Just for You – Parents

“Just for You – Parents” is a federally created web-based list of resources for parents on topics, including alcohol, smoking and drugs; child abuse; childhood diseases and illnesses; educational resources; family issues; healthy living; mental health; parenting tips (childhood development); school health; and work–life balance. Each topic includes a range of subtopics that direct parents through links to the most up-to-date information available in Canada on issues of importance to them and their children.52

Guaranteed Paid Family Leave Program

In 2019, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was tasked to work with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion to improve and integrate the existing Employment Insurance-based system of maternity and parental benefits and work with the province of Quebec on the effective integration with its own parental benefits system.53

  • Maternity and Parental Benefits Administered through the Employment Insurance (EI) program in Canada (excluding Quebec), maternity and parental benefits include financial support (i.e. income replacement for eligible workers) to new mothers and parents following the birth or adoption of a child. The number of weeks and amount paid to each parent varies depending on the type of benefit, number of weeks and maximum amount payable (as determined by the government).54 In Quebec, the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) administers the maternity, paternity, parental and adoption benefits. The amount received by parents is also dependent on the type of benefit, number of weeks and maximum amount payable (as determined by the provincial government). In 2019, the average weekly standard parental benefit rate in Canada reached $464.00 per month.55, 56

Modernizing Canada’s Federal Family Laws

On June 21, 2019, Royal Assent was given to amend Canada’s federal family laws related to divorce, parenting and enforcement of family obligations. The first update to family laws in more than 20 years, this initiative will make federal family laws more responsive to the needs of families through changes to the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. The majority of the amendments to the Divorce Act will come into force July 1, 2020, while amendments to the other Acts will take place over two years. The legislation has four key objectives: promote the best interests of the child; address family violence; help to reduce child poverty; and make Canada’s family justice system more accessible and efficient.57

Provincial and Territorial Child Protection Legislation and Policy

The federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada recognize the importance of surveillance in providing evidence about the contexts, risk factors and types of child maltreatment to inform policy, program, service and awareness interventions. Through their child welfare ministries, the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for assisting children in need of protection; they are also the primary source of administrative data and information related to reported child maltreatment. Preventing and addressing child maltreatment is a complex undertaking that involves the engagement of governments at all levels and in various sectors, including social services, policing, justice and health. At the federal level, the Family Violence Initiative brings together multiple departments to prevent and address family violence, including child maltreatment. The Department of Justice is responsible for the Criminal Code, which includes several forms of child abuse. As the Criminal Code currently stands – which has been debated by advocates and parents alike – section 43 legally allows for the use of corporal punishment on children by select individuals as long as does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.58, 59

Nobody’s Perfect

Introduced nationally in 1987 and currently owned by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Nobody’s Perfect is a facilitated parenting program for parents of children aged 0–5. The program is designed to meet the needs of parents who are young, single, or socially or geographically isolated, or who have low income or limited formal education, and is offered in communities by facilitators to help support parents and young children. It provides parents of young children with a safe place to build on their parenting skills, an opportunity to learn new skills and concepts, and a place to interact with other parents who have children the same age.60

Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities

The Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC) Program is a national community-based early intervention program funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. AHSUNC focuses on early childhood development for First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and their families living off-reserve. Since 1995, AHSUNC has provided funding to Indigenous community-based organizations to develop and deliver programs that promote the healthy development of Indigenous preschool children. It supports the spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical development of Indigenous children, while supporting their parents and guardians as their primary teachers.61

Parenting in Canada: Pre-Parenthood to Adolescence62

For expectant parents (or those considering parenthood), the months leading up to the birth or adoption of a child can be exciting and overwhelming. There are many things to prepare for – including the unexpected – in advance of the little one’s arrival. Support in Canada often includes regular and free visits with an obstetrician-gynecologist, a midwife or other registered health care professionals to ensure healthy growth and development. Programs and services are also available in communities across Canada to prepare and plan for parenthood.

  • 2SITLGBQ+ Family Planning Weekend Intensive This two-day program is structured to explore pathways to parenthood and strategies for achieving one’s vision of kinship and family. Participants are encouraged to ask questions, gather information and build community, while exploring topics such as co-parenting, multi-parent and single parent families, pregnancy, kinship struggles and self-advocacy. (LGBTQ+ Parenting Network)
  • Preparing for Parenthood Geared toward parents-to-be, this program offers information about how to remain healthy during pregnancy and what to expect during the early days and weeks of parenthood. (EarlyON Child and Family Centres)
  • Mommies & Mamas 2B/Daddies & Papas 2B This 12-week course is geared toward gay/lesbian, bisexual and queer men/women who are considering parenthood. The course includes resources and discussions to explore practical, emotional, social, ethical, financial, medical, legal, political and intersectional issues related to becoming a parent. Topics explored include co-parenting, surrogacy, parenting arrangements, non-biological and adoptive parenting, fertility awareness, pre-natal care options and legal issues. (LGBTQ+ Parenting Network)

Newborns and Infants

Caring for a newborn or infant comes with many triumphs and challenges. For parents, programs and services are offered across the country, many free of charge, including visits with pediatricians and registered health care professionals. Postnatal care services vary across regions and communities, which may include informational supports, home visits from a public health nurse or a lay home visitor, or telephone-based support (e.g. Telehealth) from a public health nurse or midwife.63 Organizations across the country also offer drop-in programs for parents, grandparents and caregivers to support healthy child development and attachment.

  • Roots of Empathy At the heart of the program are an infant and parent who visit a local classroom every three weeks over the course of the school year. Along with a trained Roots of Empathy Instructor, students observe the baby’s development and feelings. This program provides opportunities for parents and infants to take part in teaching emotional literacy and empathy to children aged 5–12, while strengthening their own bonds to each other. (Roots of Empathy)
  • Parenting My Baby Tailored to new parents to provide opportunities to learn, participate in discussions on various topics related to infancy, child development and parenting, as well as opportunities to meet fellow new parents. (EarlyON Child and Family Centres)
  • Bellies & Babies This drop-in group is geared toward pregnant women and new parents with babies from birth to one year. The group provides individual and peer support for pregnant women and postnatal mothers and provides resources and support to new parents. Resources include topics such as the importance of early secure attachment, nutrition, breastfeeding, mental health, infant development and parenting. (Sunshine Coast Community Services Society)
  • Young Parents Connect This informal support group is geared toward parents and parents-to-be under the age of 26. It provides an opportunity to meet other young parents, ask questions and share concerns. Each session also includes a fun, interactive activity for children and parents together. (EarlyON Child and Family Centres)

Toddlers and Preschoolers

Programs for toddlers and preschoolers include a variety of activities to engage both children and their parents to support healthy child development and parent–child attachment. Programs may include drop-in activities, such as those offered by the Boys and Girls Club of Canada or through municipal recreation centres. The drop-in program – offering dancing, story time, arts and crafts and much more – provides opportunities for parents, caregivers and grandparents to take part in learning activities to create, explore and play. Drop-ins welcome moms, dads, grandparents and caregivers, while also providing opportunities to meet and connect with others within the community.

  • Parenting Skills 0–5 This online parenting class is designed for families experiencing challenges, providing parents with a foundational understanding to raise their children during the first five years. Topics in this class include child development and personality, discipline, sleep and nutrition. Parenting skills classes are also available for parents with children aged 5–13 and 13–18. (BC Council for Families)
  • Fathering Tailored to fathers, including new dads, those experiencing separation or divorce, teen dads and Indigenous dads, this series of resources provides information on how to navigate the various stages of childhood while providing practical tips in support of both fathers and their children. (BC Council for Families)
  • Dad HERO (Helping Everyone Realize Opportunities) This project consists of an 8-week parenting course (offered in select correctional institutions in Canada) and a Dad Group both inside the facility for incarcerated fathers and in the community for fathers who were previously incarcerated. This project was designed to educate and teach fathers about parenting, child development and growth, and their role in their children’s lives. Dad HERO provides parenting education and support connecting fathers with their children and improve their mental health and well-being. (Canadian Families and Corrections Network)

School-Aged Children

As children begin and progress through the formal education system in Canada, they encounter various people (i.e. peers, educators) and influences (i.e. social media). Programs and services for parents of school-aged children provide practical tips, informative resources and opportunities to meet and engage with fellow parents in their communities.

  • Parenting School-Age and Adult Children This resource was created to support newcomer parenting programs and address some of the challenges that newcomer parents and caregivers may have with parenting in Canadian society. The goal of the program is to gain effective communication skills, better understand the Canadian school systems and create a safe space for parents and caregivers to address their questions and concerns relating to children integrating into the wider Canadian society and culture. (CMAS)
  • Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting This workshop series promotes non-violent discipline and respects the child as a learner. It is an approach to teaching that helps children succeed, gives them information and supports their growth from infancy to adulthood. (EarlyON Child and Family Centres)
  • Newcomer Parent Resource Series Available in 16 languages (e.g. Urdu, Arabic and Russian), this resource series explores various topics of interest tailored to meet the unique needs of immigrant and refugee parents of young children. Topics include Keeping Your Home Language, Guiding Your Child’s Behaviour, Helping Your Child Cope with Stress, Children Learn Through Play, and Listening to and Talking with Your Child. (CMAS)
  • Parenting after Separation: Meeting the Challenges This six-week program is geared toward parents who have recently experienced separation from their partner. Parents meet once a week to discuss the challenge associated with parental separation and divorce and learn practical strategies to support their children. (Family Service Toronto)
  • Foster Parent Support This program provides direct, outreach-oriented support to foster parents/caregivers and the children/youth in their care. Support workers work directly with the family in their home, in the community or via phone. This program is intended to be flexible in meeting the unique needs of each foster family and can offer a variety of supports, including teaching conflict resolution skills, de-escalation techniques, collaborative problem solving and using strength-based and trauma-informed approaches. (Boys and Girls Club of Canada)

Adolescents

Parenting a teen can be challenge, especially in the rapidly evolving era of technology. Adolescence can also be a difficult time for teens who may be questioning their identity, their purpose and envisioning their goals for the future. Programs for parents of teens recognize the importance of supporting children through adolescence as they transition into adulthood.

  • Parents Together This is an ongoing professionally facilitated education and group support program for parents who are experiencing challenges while parenting a teen. This program helps parents address their feelings (e.g. guilty, isolation) and provides opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge that can help decrease conflict in the home between parents and their teen. (Boys and Girls Club of Canada)
  • Transceptance This is an ongoing monthly peer support group for parents and caregivers of transgender youth and young adults. The support provides support and education, reduces isolation and stress, and shares information, including strategies for dealing or coping with disclosures. (Central Toronto Youth Services)
  • Parenting in the Know This 10-week education and support program to learn more about adolescent development, teen mental health and other common issues that parents experience. Local guest speakers, community resources, practical ideas and connections with others experiencing similar issues help parents feel better equipped to parent their teen. (Boys and Girls Club of Canada)
  • Families in TRANSition (FIT) This 10-week program is geared toward parents/caregivers of trans- and gender-questioning youth (aged 13–21) who have recently learned of their child’s gender identity. The program provides support to parents/caregivers to gain tools and knowledge to help improve communication and strengthen their relationship with their youth; learn about social, legal and physical transition options; strengthen skills for managing strong emotions; explore societal/cultural/religious beliefs that impact trans youth and their families; build skills to support their youth and family when facing discrimination, transphobia and/or transmisogyny; and promote youth mental health and resilience. (Central Toronto Youth Services)

Looking Ahead

Families are the most adaptive institution in the world. They are resilient, diverse and strong.

As countries around the world begin to focus on the post-pandemic future, families and family experiences will continue to evolve and adapt. Parents may return to work outside the home, when children return to school and child care, and many will continue to work remotely. Some extracurricular activities will return, while classes like martial arts may continue to be delivered online.

While predicting the future has never been easy, the impact and realities of the global pandemic on families is not yet known, and programs and services may require adjustments in order to support the physical, mental, emotional and social well-being of parents and their children through a trauma-informed lens. Though many families may have been safe at home, some experienced an increase in violence, stress, isolation and anxiety.

Policy and program development, benefits, resources, supports and services will require a comprehensive understanding of families in Canada, their experiences and aspirations; thoughts and fears; and hopes and dreams during this period in time which has evolved and may forecast what lies ahead. The research and innovation behind the many initiatives, including those included in this paper, will help guide evidence-informed decisions; the development, design and implementation of evidence-based programs, policies and practices; and evidence-inspired innovation at all levels of government, community organizations, workplaces and faith communities to ensure families in Canada thrive now and into the future.

Nora Spinks is CEO at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Sara MacNaull is Program Director at the Vanier Institute ofthe Family.

Jennifer Kaddatz is a senior analyst at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Published on June 23, 2020

______________________________________________________________________________

This report was originally published on June 23, 2020 on the UN Department of Economic and Social affairs (UN DESA) website as part of the Expert Group Meeting on Families in Development: Focus on Modalities for IYF+30, Parenting Education and the Impact of COVID-19. This event was organized by the Division for Inclusive Social Development (DISD) of UNDESA to convene diverse experts from around the world virtually to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on families, assess progress and emerging issues related to parenting and education, and plan for upcoming observances of the 30th anniversary of the International Year of the Family (IYF).

Appendix A: Organizational and Program Overview

Founded in 1977, the BC Council for Families (BCCF) has been developing and delivering family support resources and training programs to professionals across the province of British Columbia as a way to share knowledge and build community connections. The BCCF offers online classes, resources and programs to support parents and children from infancy to adulthood.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada offer educational, recreational and skills development programs and services to children and youth in communities across Canada. The Clubs strive to provide safe, supportive places where children and youth can experience new opportunities, overcome barriers, build positive relationships and develop confidence and skills for life. Many Clubs also offer programs and services to parents to support child development and attachment.

__________

Founded in 1992, Canadian Families and Corrections Network (CFCN) aims to build stronger and safer communities by assisting families affected by criminal behaviour, incarceration and reintegration. Their work includes developing resources for children, parents and families to understand the correctional system and process in Canada and to support families as they manage the experience of having a loved one incarcerated.

__________

The Central Toronto Youth Services (CTYS) is a community-based, accredited Children’s Mental Health Centre that serves many of Toronto’s most vulnerable youth. Their programs and services meet a diversity of needs and challenges that young people experience, such as serious mental health issues; conflicts with the law; coping with anger, depression, anxiety, marginalization or rejection; and issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

__________

Founded in 2000, CMAS focuses on caring for immigrant and refugee children by sharing their expertise with immigrant serving organizations and other organizations in the child care field. They currently identify gaps in service and work to create solutions; establish and measure the standards of care; and support services for newcomer families through resources, training and consultations.

__________

EarlyON Child and Family Centres provide opportunities for children from birth to age 6 to participate in play and inquiry-based programs, and support parents and caregivers in their roles. The goal of the EarlyON is to enhance the quality and consistency of child and family programs across Ontario.

__________

For more than 100 years, Family Service Toronto has been supporting individuals and families through counselling, community development, advocacy and public education programs. This includes direct service work of intervention and prevention such as counselling, peer support and education; knowledge building and exchanging activities; and system-level work, including social action, advocacy, community building and working with partners to strengthen the sector.

__________

Founded in 2001 and housed at the Sherbourne Health Centre (in Toronto, Ontario), the LGBTQ+ Parenting Network supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer parenting through resource development, training and community organizing. The Network coordinates a wide range of programs and activities with and on behalf of LGBTQ parents, prospective parents and their families, including newsletters, print resources, support groups, social events, research projects, advocacy and training.

__________

For more than 30 years, Roots of Empathy has strived to build caring, peaceful and civil societies through the development of empathy in children and adults. The goals of Roots of Empathy are to foster the development of empathy; develop emotional literacy; reduce levels of bullying, aggression and violence; promote children’s pro-social behaviours; increase knowledge of human development, learning and infant safety; and prepare students for responsible citizenship and responsive parenting.

__________

Since 1974, Sunshine Coast Community Services Society (SCCSS) has provided services for individuals and families along the Sunshine Coast (British Columbia). Programs are focused around child and family counselling; child development and youth services; community action and engagement; domestic violence; and housing.


Notes

  1. GBA+ is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability. Link: https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html
  2. Government of Canada. “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Outbreak Update” (May 31, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html
  3. Marc Montgomery, “COVID-19 Deaths: Calls for Government to Take Control of Long Term Care Homes,” Radio-Canada International (May 25, 2020). Link: https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/05/25/covid-19-deaths-calls-for-government-to-take-control-of-long-term-care-homes/
  4. A survey by Leger, the Association for Canadian Studies and the Vanier Institute of the Family, conducted weekly starting in March (beginning March 10–12), through April and May 2020, included approximately 1,500 individuals aged 18 and older, interviewed using computer-assisted web-interviewing technology in a web-based survey. Some weekly surveys included booster samples of specific populations. Using data from the 2016 Census, results were weighted according to gender, age, mother tongue, region, education level and presence of children in the household in order to ensure a representative sample of the population. No margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample (web panel in this case). However, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 1,512 respondents would have a margin of error of ±2.52%, 19 times out of 20.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Statistics Canada. “Canadian Perspectives Survey Series 1: Impacts of COVID-19,” The Daily (April 8, 2020). Link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200408/dq200408c-eng.htm
  10. Ibid.
  11. Though data varies, reports have claimed that consultations by the federal government reveal a 20% to 30% increase in violence rates in certain regions which is supported by organizations such as Vancouver’s Battered Women Support Services that has reported a 300% increase in calls related to family violence during the pandemic. Links: https://bit.ly/2OKYsK0, https://bit.ly/2ZOiF8f.
  12. Survey by Leger, the Association for Canadian Studies and the Vanier Institute of the Family.
  13. Statistics Canada. “Canadians’ Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic” (May 27, 2020). Link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200527/dq200527b-eng.htm
  14. Ibid.
  15. Survey by Leger, the Association for Canadian Studies and the Vanier Institute of the Family.
  16. Ibid.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Canada’s healthcare system is publicly funded, which means that all Canadian residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without paying out-of-pocket. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-health-care-system.html
  20. Survey by Leger, the Association for Canadian Studies and the Vanier Institute of the Family.
  21. Angus Reid Institute. “Worry, Gratitude & Boredom: As COVID‑19 Affects Mental, Financial Health, Who Fares Better; Who Is Worse?” (April 27, 2020). Link: http://angusreid.org/covid19-mental-health/
  22. Survey by Leger, the Association for Canadian Studies and the Vanier Institute of the Family.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Statistics Canada, “Canadian Perspectives Survey Series 1: Impacts of COVID-19.”
  25. Beatrice Britneff, “Food Banks’ Demand Surges Amid COVID-19. Now They Worry About Long-Term Pressures,” Global News (April 15, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3boEHRe.
  26. On October 17, 2018, the use of cannabis for recreation and medicinal purposes among adults became legal in Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/
  27. Michelle Rotermann, “Canadians Who Report Lower Self-Perceived Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic More Likely to Report Increased Use of Cannabis, Alcohol and Tobacco,” StatCan COVID-19: Data to Insights for a Better Canada (May 7, 2020). Link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00008-eng.htm.
  28. The Association for Canadian Studies’ COVID-19 Social Impacts Network, in partnership with Experiences Canada and the Vanier Institute of the Family, conducted a nation-wide COVID-19 web survey of the 12- to 17-year-old population in Canada from April 29 to May 5. A total of 1191 responses were received, and the probabilistic margin of error was ±3%. Link: https://acs-aec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Youth-Survey-Highlights-May-21-2020.pdf
  29. Ibid.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Angus Reid Institute. “Kids & COVID-19: Canadian Children Are Done with School from Home, Fear Falling Behind, and Miss Their Friends” (May 11, 2020). Link: http://angusreid.org/covid19-kids-opening-schools/
  32. Ibid.
  33. The Association for Canadian Studies’ COVID-19 Social Impacts Network.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Ibid.
  36. Canada Revenue Agency. “Canada Child Benefit” (April 8, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/canada-child-benefit-overview.html
  37. Government of Canada. “Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan” (May 28, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html
  38. Government of Canada. “Canada Child Benefit: How Much You Can Get” (January 27, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca
    /en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/canada-child-benefit-overview/canada-child-benefit-we-calculate-your-ccb.html
  39. Government of Canada. “Expanding Access to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and Proposing a New Wage Boost for Essential Workers” (April 17, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2020/04/expanding-access-to-the-canada-emergency-response-benefit-and-proposing-a-new-wage-boost-for-essential-workers.html.
  40. Catherine Cullen and Kristen Everson, “Canadians Who Don’t Qualify for CERB Are Getting It Anyway – And Could Face Consequences,” CBC News (May 2, 2020). Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cerb-covid-pandemic-coronavirus-1.5552436
  41. Government of Canada. “Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan.”
  42. Government of Canada. “GST/HST Credit – Overview” (May 28, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/goods-services-tax-harmonized-sales-tax-gst-hst-credit.html
  43. Government of Canada. “Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan.”
  44. Ibid.
  45. Province of British Columbia. “Province Provides Emergency Fund for Children with Special Needs” (April 8, 2020). Link: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020CFD0043-000650
  46. Government of Prince Edward Island. “Province Announces Additional Income Relief, Stricter Screening Measures for Travelers” (April 1, 2020). Link: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/news/province-announces-additional-income-relief-stricter-screening-measures-travelers
  47. Government of Ontario. “Ontario Government Supports Families in Response to COVID-19” (April 6, 2020). Link: https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/04/ontario-government-supports-families-in-response-to-covid-19.html
  48. Government of Northwest Territories. “Backgrounder and FAQs | Income Security Programs” (n.d.). Link: https://www.gov.nt.ca/sites/flagship/files/documents/back_grounder_faq_income_assistance_measures_en.pdf
  49. Employment and Social Development Canada. “Early Learning and Child Care” (August 16, 2019). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care.html
  50. Government of Canada. “Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework” (September 17, 2018). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/indigenous-early-learning/2018-framework.html
  51. Government of Canada. “Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Mandate Letter” (December 13, 2019). Link: https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2019/12/13/minister-families-children-and-social-development-mandate-letter
  52. Government of Canada. “Just for You – Parents” (April 20, 2020). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/just-for-you/parents.html
  53. Liberal Party of Canada. “Choose Forward: More Time and Money to Help Families Raise Their Kids.”
  54. Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. “Maternity and parental leave benefits” (August 17, 2017). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/starting-family/maternity-parental-leave-benefits.html
  55. Government of Québec. “Québec Parental Insurance Plan: What Types of Benefits Are Available to Me?” (May 30, 2017).
  56. Government of Canada. Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report for the Fiscal Year Beginning April 1, 2017 and Ending March 31, 2018 (June 1, 2019). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/monitoring2018.html
  57. Department of Justice. “Strengthening and Modernizing Canada’s Family Justice System” (August 29, 2019). Link: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/cfl-mdf/01.html
  58. Government of Canada. Provincial and Territorial Child Protection Legislation and Policy – 2018 (May 13, 2019). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/health-risks-safety/provincial-territorial-child-protection-legislation-policy-2018.html#2
  59. Kathy Lynn, “The Canadian Debate on Spanking and Violence Against Children,” The Vanier Institute of the Family (November 15, 2016).
  60. Nobody’s Perfect. Parent Information (n.d.). Link: http://nobodysperfect.ca/parents/parent-information/
  61. Public Health Agency of Canada. “Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC)” (October 23, 2017). Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/childhood-adolescence/programs-initiatives/aboriginal-head-start-urban-northern-communities-ahsunc.html
  62. Additional information about the organizations mentioned in this section that deliver programs or services to parents can be found in Appendix A.
  63. The Vanier Institute of the Family. “In Context: Understanding Maternity Care in Canada” (May 11, 2017).

 

COVID-19 IMPACTS: Youth Well-being in Canada

Edward Ng, PhD, and Nadine Badets

August 27, 2020

Download this article (PDF)

Spring and summer 2020 have been a unique time for children and youth in Canada, as families across the country have been adapting their routines, plans and activities in light of physical distancing and other public health measures in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With schools closing their doors and moving online in the spring, nearly 5 million children and youth across the country were no longer spending their days near their friends and peers as they and their families adapted and reacted to the evolving situation.1

While surveys have shown that most youth are adhering to public health measures and have demonstrated resilience, this disruption had been difficult for many. In a poll conducted by UNICEF Canada, the toughest aspects cited by youth have been not being able to leave the house, go to school and spend time with friends.2 This matters for the well-being of children and youth, since research shows that social interaction is fundamental in youth development, as positive influences by and among peers are important for students’ academic achievement and success later in life.3

Youth more concerned about family contracting COVID-19 than themselves

While youth have mostly been homebound and self-isolating themselves, some of their immediate family members have continued commuting to work, and therefore risking infection and transmission.

In the COVID-19 Social Impacts Youth Survey conducted in mid-May jointly by the Association for Canadian Studies, Experiences Canada and the Vanier Institute of the Family, nearly 4 in 10 (39%) youth aged 12 to 17 surveyed expressed concerns of contracting COVID-19 themselves,4 compared with more than half (56%) of adults who were surveyed in early May.5 This may be in part due to the current understanding regarding the perceived lower likelihood of experiencing complications and risk with COVID-19 among younger age groups. As well, the same sets of polling data showed that the fear of someone in one’s immediate family catching the virus is higher for both youth and adults (71% and 67%, respectively).

Most youth bored, but also happy, under public health measures and physical distancing

In the same youth survey, more than 80% of youth reported being bored but, interestingly, a similar proportion also reported being happy (89% among youth aged 12 to 14 and 84% among those aged 15 to 17).6 This may be in part due to shifting time use patterns due to school closures. Nearly 7 in 10 of surveyed youth reported they were relaxing more than before the pandemic, with the common activities including watching videos/movies/television or listening to podcasts (78%), spending time on social media (63%), listening to music (59%) and playing electronic games (51%). Youth who reported feeling bored or happy during the pandemic were more likely to report that they spend more time watching videos/movies/television during the pandemic than before it (79% and 81%, respectively).

Technology may be playing a larger role in many people’s lives, but it is not the only way youth are keeping busy. Nearly half (45%) of youth reported helping with chores around the house more than before, while slightly more than one-third of youth were doing arts or crafts (36%) or puzzles (35%) more so than before the pandemic.7

Meanwhile, even before the pandemic, parents had already been expressing concerns about youths’ preoccupation with technology.8, 9 During the lockdown, approximately 64% of the parents who responded to a Statistics Canada crowdsourcing survey were worried about their children’s amount of screen time use.10 According to UNICEF, however, the most robust studies suggest that moderate use of digital technology tends to be positive for children and youths’ mental well-being, while no use or too much use can have a small negative impact.11 Internet and digital technology, while providing a positive source of help and a sense of inclusion, can also open up possibilities of cyber-bullying, impact mental health and exacerbate sleeping problems.12

More than one-third of surveyed youth experienced a negative impact on their mental health

Prior to COVID-19, youth were known to experience higher rates of mental illness and poor mental health than older age groups in Canada. For example, the rate of depression among youth aged 15 to 24 was higher than any other age group.13 A recent study of Canadian Community Health Survey data show that among youth aged 12 to 17, there was a decline of 6% in reporting excellent or very good mental health from 2015 to 2019 (78% and 73%, respectively).14 Further compounding the issue of youth mental health is that, in 2018, suicide was the leading cause of death among male youth aged 15 to 19 and was the second leading cause of death among female youth in Canada.15

In mid-May, more than one-third (37%) of respondents in the youth survey reported that they have experienced negative impacts to their mental health.16 When compared with adults aged 18 and older surveyed in early May,17 youth aged 12 to 17 were more likely to report feeling sad (57% versus 45%, respectively) and irritable (65% and 39%) than adults, and were more likely to report having trouble sleeping (50% versus 35%).

Another survey of youth and young adults aged 14 to 27, conducted April 10 to 14, 2020 for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), also found a decline in reported mental health early in the pandemic, both for those with pre-existing mental health issues and those without.18

One immediate effect of the mental health repercussions of the pandemic has been an increased demand for mental health and support services for youth. The Kids Help Phone, a 24/7 national support and crisis line for children and youth, saw a jump in the number of calls and texts for help in mid-March 2020, double that of the previous year, with close to 2,000 calls or texts per day.19 The number of crisis calls has also increased, resulting in more interventions by emergency services than usual, with the organization making 8 to 10 calls to emergency services per day since the pandemic started.

Youth spending more meaningful time with their family, but they miss their friends

The shift to working and schooling from home and the disruption of regular routines and schedules have provided families with more opportunities to connect. The youth survey data from mid-May showed that two-thirds (67%) of youth reported having more meaningful conversations with their families during the pandemic than before.20 By comparison, only 50% of surveyed adults in early May reported having meaningful conversations with their spouse or partner.

In terms of family relationships, close to one-quarter of parents reported spending more time with children under lockdown (24%).21 For both youth and adults, the vast majority reported that they are supporting each other well within the family during the lockdown (74% and 81%, respectively). However, around 43% of youth reported arguing more with their families, while only 19% of adults reported arguing with their spouse or partner.

On the other hand, youth are feeling a strong loss of connection to their friends. About 70% of youth reported that they have been homebound during the pandemic, with the exception of going out for necessities, with only 24% reporting that they visited friends and family during the week before the survey.22

According to Angus Reid, youth reported that missing their friends has been the worst part about being stuck at home (54%).23 More than half of youth indicated that the COVID-19 lockdown has had a negative impact on their relationships with friends (53%).24 Statistics Canada’s crowdsourcing survey also provided the parents’ perspective. Almost three-quarters of participating parents (71%) were concerned about their children’s lack of engagements to socialize with friends, and 54% of parents were concerned about their children’s social isolation.25

Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A painful lesson?

The virtual home school arrangement has been challenging for many families and teachers across Canada. This pandemic-induced online learning has been described as the biggest distance learning experiment in history.26 Amid the abrupt shutdown of schools, teachers had to adjust their teaching styles with little training or resources.

More than half (51%) of youth indicated that the pandemic has had a very negative effect on their school year and/or their academic success.27 Only 27% reported that they “totally agree,” and another 43% partially agreed, that they are doing a good job at getting schoolwork done from home.

About 41% of youth aged 12 to 17 reported missing going to school “a lot,” and another 31% said they “somewhat” missed school. Lack of access to peer/school/academic resources, motivation, time management and online settings make up just some of the challenges of distance learning.28 Though 75% of youth claimed to be keeping up with school while in isolation, many were also unmotivated (60%) and disliked the arrangement (57%) (i.e. online learning and virtual classrooms).29

Distance learning requires Internet access, and while the 2018 Canadian Internet Use Survey found that 94% of Canadians had home Internet access, there nonetheless exist inequities in the ability of school children to actively participate in online education. The reasons among those who did not have Internet access included affordability of the Internet service (28%), equipment (19%) and unavailability of Internet service (8%).30

In addition, while around 8 in 10 youth said they always have enough money to meet their basic needs, such as for food, clothing, health care and housing,31 meeting basic needs and having access to a comfortable study environment at home during the pandemic may be even more difficult for youth and families living with low-income or newly experiencing job and income loss. In addition, closures of schools may impact food security, as some school meal programs were designed to alleviate family food insecurity for those students in low-income situations.32

Long-term monitoring of COVID-19 impacts important for youth well-being

Without school, extra-curricular activities and other opportunities to see peers, youth are missing out on important and valued time for socializing with friends, classmates, teachers, coaches and more – all of which could be fundamental in their scholastic and character development. Although alleviated somewhat through social media, texting, calling and other communication technologies, the mental health of youth in Canada has been greatly impacted during COVID-19.

Previous studies on the impact of school interruptions, such as teachers’ strikes and school closures during the 1916 polio pandemic, have shown short- and long-term negative effects on academic development and knowledge acquisition.33, 34, 35 A recent study on the potential impact of the pandemic on youth education in Canada highlighted that the adverse effect might increase the socioeconomic skills gap by as much as 30%.36 As provincial authorities and school boards consider how to proceed to re-open schools in a safe way to control COVID-19 spread,37 innovation and adaptation in our education system will be important in avoiding or mitigating gaps in academic achievement, now and in the years to come.

Edward Ng, PhD, Vanier Institute on secondment from Statistics Canada

Nadine Badets, Vanier Institute on secondment from Statistics Canada

 


Notes

  1. Erin Duffin, “Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Canada in 2017/18, by Province,” Statista (October 29, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/311SjPn.
  2. UNICEF Canada, U-Report Canada: Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Young People in Canada – Poll 2: Examining the Issues (May 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/2FvZg41 (PDF).
  3. Shqiponja Telhaj, “Do Social Interactions in the Classroom Improve Academic Attainment?” IZA World of Labor (June 2018). Link: https://bit.ly/3hPqGzR.
  4. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth (May 21, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3jlmZn3 (PDF). The Association for Canadian Studies’ COVID-19 Social Impacts Network, in partnership with Experiences Canada and the Vanier Institute of the Family, conducted a nationwide COVID-19 web survey of the 12- to 17-year-old population in Canada April 29–May 5, 2020. A total of 1,191 responses were received, and the probabilistic margin of error was ±3%.
  5. A survey by the Vanier Institute of the Family, the Association for Canadian Studies and Leger, conducted May 1–3, 2020, included approximately 1,500 individuals aged 18 and older, interviewed using computer-assisted web-interviewing technology in a web-based survey. Using data from the 2016 Census, results were weighted according to gender, age, mother tongue, region, education level and presence of children in the household in order to ensure a representative sample of the population. No margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample (web panel in this case). However, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 1,526 respondents would have a margin of error of ±2.52%, 19 times out of 20.
  6. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Monica Anderson and Jingjing Jiang, “Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018,” Pew Research Center (May 31, 2018). Link: https://pewrsr.ch/30aWglE (PDF).
  9. Wesley Sanders et al. “Parental Perceptions of Technology and Technology-Focused Parenting: Associations with Youth Screen Time,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (May–June 2016). Link: https://bit.ly/30gsCeV.
  10. Statistics Canada, “Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Families and Children,” The Daily (July 9, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3gIzM0U.
  11. Daniel Kardefelt-Winther, How Does the Time Children Spend Using Digital Technology Impact Their Mental Well-Being, Social Relationships and Physical Activity? An Evidence-Focused Literature Review, UNICEF (December 2017). Link: https://bit.ly/33b3TKQ (PDF).
  12. OECD, “Children & Young People’s Mental Health in the Digital Age” (2018). Link: https://bit.ly/3jXBFcg (PDF).
  13. Leanne Findley, “Depression and Suicidal Ideation among Canadians Aged 15 to 24,” Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-003-X, Health Reports, Vol. 28, no. 1, 3–11, (January 18, 2017). Link: https://bit.ly/3ffdt1A.
  14. Statistics Canada, “Understanding the Perceived Mental Health of Canadians Prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Canadian Community Health Survey, 2019 (August 6, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/33VJPwj.
  15. Statistics Canada, “Table 13-10-0394-01 Leading causes of death, total population, by age group” (Accessed August 13, 2020). Link: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310039401-eng.
  16. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  17. Association for Canadian Studies. A survey by the Vanier Institute of the Family, the Association for Canadian Studies and Leger, conducted May 1–3, 2020, included approximately 1,500 individuals aged 18 and older, interviewed using computer-assisted web-interviewing technology in a web-based survey. Using data from the 2016 Census, results were weighted according to gender, age, mother tongue, region, education level and presence of children in the household in order to ensure a representative sample of the population. No margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample (web panel in this case). However, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 1,526 respondents would have a margin of error of ±2.52%, 19 times out of 20.
  18. Robert Cribb, “Youth Mental Health Deteriorating Under Pandemic Stresses, New CAMH Study Reveals,” The Star (May 28, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3ikLMaf.
  19. Jeff Semple, “Kids Help Phone Calls for Back Up Amid Record Demand – and Canadians Respond,” Global News (June 28, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3gbeDMr.
  20. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  21. Ibid.
  22. Ibid.
  23. Angus Reid Institute, Kids & COVID-19: Canadian Children Are Done with School from Home, Fear Falling Behind, and Miss Their Friends (May 11, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3kVRReK.
  24. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  25. Statistics Canada, “Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Families and Children,” The Daily (July 9, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3gIzM0U.
  26. Paul W. Bennett, “This Grand Distance-Learning Experiment’s Lessons Go Well Beyond What the Students Are Learning,” CBC News (May 11, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/33bNEgo.
  27. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  28. UNICEF Canada, U-Report Canada: Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Young People in Canada (May 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/2CUd9Z9 (PDF).
  29. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  30. Statistics Canada, “Canadian Internet Use Survey,” The Daily (October 29, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/3hWlwSN.
  31. Association for Canadian Studies, Social Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Youth.
  32. Canadian Medical Association Journal, “Indirect Adverse Effects of COVID-19 on Children and Youth’s Mental, Physical Health,” EurekAlert (June 25, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/2BWMvOr.
  33. Michael Baker, “Industrial Actions in Schools: Strikes and Student Achievement,” Canadian Journal of Economics (March 2011). Link: https://bit.ly/3gaona6.
  34. Michèle Belot and Dinand Webbink, “Do Teacher Strikes Harm Educational Attainment of Students?” (2010) Labour Economics 24(4): 391–406. Link: https://bit.ly/3aYuJI3.
  35. Keith Meyers and Melissa A. Thomasson, “Paralyzed by Panic: Measuring the Effect of School Closures During the 1916 Polio Pandemic on Educational Attainment,” NBER Working Paper Series 23890 (September 2017). Link: https://bit.ly/3hSzswU (PDF).
  36. Catherine Haeck and Pierre Lefebvre, “Pandemic School Closures May Increase Inequality in Test Scores,” Research Group on Human Capital Working Paper Series (June 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/30elgbN (PDF).
  37. Carly Weeks, “Rising Rates of COVID-19 in Children, Adolescents Spark Concerns About Back to School Plans,” The Globe and Mail (June 23, 2020). Link: https://tgam.ca/3hTmFuk.

 

In Conversation: Lucy Gallo on Access, Adaptation and Resilience Among LGBTQI2S Youth

Gaby Novoa

June 29, 2020

Download the article (PDF)

The financial, physical and mental well-being of LGBTQI2S communities in Canada has been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A national survey found that 42% of the LGBTQI2S community reported significant impacts on their mental health amid the crisis, compared with 30% of non-LGBTQI2S people.

On June 23, 2020, we connected with Lucy Gallo, Youth Services and Housing Director of Friends of Ruby, to learn about how LGBTQI2S youth in Toronto have been navigating the past few months, and how their organization has adapted to continue to serve and support these youth.


Tell us about how Friends of Ruby has adapted and reacted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to continue serving and supporting LGBTQI2S youth. 

We closed our drop-in on a Friday and, on the Monday, our counsellors were on the phone connecting with our youth – they jumped right into service and care. Counsellors quickly moved online and have been offering – and are still quite busy doing – phone sessions and video sessions, and we are excited to have just launched a chat counselling program. All staff have now been fully trained to also provide counselling through chat.

We realized there were youth who still live with their families, some of whom they’re not out to, and so they did not have private space to access counselling over the phone. This chat option is now giving them the opportunity to be able to access support, with maybe their parents thinking they’re just texting a friend. This was a feature that we have always wanted to do but never went there because we didn’t have the resources. So, COVID made the push and provided the opportunity to say “we have to react to this right now.” I quickly got the staff trained in two half-days, and they can continue to receive assistance by someone experienced in chat counselling.

As our drop-in program wasn’t available to the youth we serve, one of the themes that we heard in conversations with them at the beginning of the pandemic was the difficulty of accessing food. We responded by providing gift cards, and we were also able to send meals in partnership with an organization, which allowed us to deliver two meals a week to some of our youth.

In adapting to the pandemic, we’ve also tried to provide virtual groups daily to allow youth to continue to have as much access to us as possible. It gave us a chance for people to come together online, connect and share what was going on in their lives. Our Black, Indigenous, People of Colour (BIPOC) discussion group has been a very important one to be running, especially given the amount of racism and what is happening right now in the world. It’s been a difficult time for Black youth. When Toronto started announcing that they were going to card people if they were outdoors when the pandemic first started, and that people could tell on others, a lot of BIPOC youth did not want to come out to the centre; they did not want to experience more racism. We’ve also added some extra check-in times, specifically with our Black staff to support our Black youth.

Some of the other programs we’ve been continuing to run include our art therapy group, virtual drop-ins, gaming and art for change. Also, with the support of the Centre for Mindfulness Studies, two of our counsellors successfully ran a group called Mindfulness-Based Skills for Coping with Stress and Anxiety.

We have begun moving to doing some in-person supports and opportunities for interaction as well. We’ve opened the drop-in again, operating under our own version of “phase two.” We’re providing essentials so people can come in to pick up things like takeaway meals, harm reduction kits, menstrual kits and more. They can now access case management in person – we’ve created a room with enough distance – and plexiglass – and we’ve set up the space in such a way that we could have at least up to six people right now. We’ve also realized that if a youth can’t access their counsellor from home or they don’t want to chat online, they can come to our space and have the privacy to connect with their counsellor virtually.

A lot of the services we’ve been developing or strengthening in the past few months will now also be available post-pandemic. The goal is to offer this new form of modality to all of our youth and also for youth anywhere in Canada who want to access our counselling and/or connect online.

Tell us about any common themes that you’ve observed during the pandemic among the LGBTQI2S youth you serve.

I think a big one is a sense of loneliness. With not being able to access our space, there was a lot of anxiety in the beginning around what does this all mean. How does this affect everyone? Not being able to have our regular sense of community has been difficult, especially when not all youth feel they have the privacy, space or safety at home with their families.

Tell us about some of the lessons you’ve learned while adapting Friends of Ruby to continue serving youth. Have there been any surprises or “aha” moments?

One thing that was interesting, and I’ll just use this as one example of many, is that if someone is experiencing suicidal ideation and you have them in the space, you can do an assessment and hopefully you can de-escalate, as you have them there safe with you. But what I realized was when you’re online and you don’t know where somebody is, how do you provide a sense of safety?

We had to quickly create documents and ask the youth to read them over first and agree to provide information on where they are – such as their address and how to contact them if the line gets disconnected. This protocol also applies in many cases. Even when running our virtual therapeutic groups, how do we know if it was just that someone’s line broke out and that they’re not upset – that they didn’t purposefully drop the call because of something in the group that upset them. So, these are just some of the “aha” moments. When you have someone in person, it’s such a different way of working. These were some of the things that we had to adopt and make available for everyone’s safety.

Tell us about any unique experiences and/or stories of adaptation or resilience from the youth you serve.

There’s been incredible resilience among our youth throughout all this. The folks that we’ve had trouble accessing have been our most transient youth, because they didn’t have contact information for us to reach them when we closed. Because they usually come to see us just by dropping in, being closed made that hard, although a couple of them did come in to say hi and to tell us they’re doing quite well. Obviously, we haven’t been able to see everyone, but the folks we have seen have been demonstrating lots of resilience and coping.

The counsellors have spoken about how a lot of the youth weren’t so sure about doing online counselling. However, one person, for example, has still been working during the pandemic and said they actually liked this option because they can commit to counselling without having to travel to and from the organization. It makes accessing counselling easier for some.

What do you hope to see or do you anticipate in the months ahead?

Right now, we’re planning on opening the drop-in a little bit more, as the city opens more things. The goal is that we will let more people into the space and hopefully foster a greater sense of community again. Each counsellor has a couple of people who are waiting to be seen in person. We’re looking at planning for those counsellors to come in, just to see the specific people who can’t or don’t want to do online counselling. For the BIPOC discussion group, we’re looking at running it virtually, but also in person.

People could come into the space during that time to be part of the group, while others are also connected virtually, so we can meet the needs of people both offline and online. As mentioned earlier, we’re looking to start running another round of Mindfulness-Based Skills for Coping with Stress and Anxiety, hopefully around mid-July. In the next few weeks, staff will continue to talk about the ways that we can expand, and we will continue on with takeaway meals and case management, in person and virtually.

Connect with Friends of Ruby on social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn) to stay up to date as they continue to offer more services and programs. 

Gaby Novoa, Families in Canada Knowledge Hub, Vanier Institute of the Family

This interview has been edited for length, flow and clarity. 

 

Parenting in a Pandemic: A Story and the Stats

Jennifer Kaddatz

April 21, 2020

While trying to ensure that their children are safe, showered and schooled during the COVID-19 pandemic, many parents in Canada, as in other countries, are currently experiencing stress and sleepless nights. According to a survey conducted April 9–12, 2020,1 42% of surveyed adults living with children or youth said that they often/very often had difficulty sleeping since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am one of those parents.

My own family includes three boys (pre-teen and teen), and soon I will be faced with a big credit card bill and some added stress, since the boys left their running shoes in their school lockers on March 12. Having worn boots to school that day, they now having nothing appropriate to wear on a warm Ottawa spring day.

My family has, so far, been extremely lucky in this pandemic. I continue to have a paid job and, like approximately 6.8 million Canadians surveyed by Statistics Canada in the last week of March (39%),2 I’ve been working from home, where it’s easier to avoid germs.

My parents and in-laws are living in isolation on the other side of the country, well cared-for within each of their relationships, like 81% of those in committed couples who say they and their spouse are supporting each other well during the crisis.3 My husband and I also count ourselves within the 79% of couples with kids at home who are supporting each other well during these unusual times.

For my family, the biggest ongoing stressor during the COVID-19 pandemic has, in fact, been related to school – or, more precisely, homeschooling. There are three generations of teachers on my maternal side, but I am not one of them. My boys are attending homeschool on their own for the duration of this pandemic. Elementary and secondary school teachers represent only about 2% of Canada’s labour force,4 which means that the rest of us are not likely qualified for the job.

According to Statistics Canada, 32% of Canadians are very or extremely anxious about family stress resulting from confinement due to the coronavirus.5 I can’t help but wonder what proportion of this anxiety is directly or indirectly related to the effort involved in trying to be a teacher, as well as a parent, while schools are closed.

Some families do not have the resources to enable stress-free homeschooling

Fortunately – or unfortunately, from the perspective of my 14-year-old son – a “pandemic” home education can now be delivered online in most parts of Canada. However, getting this education requires a) a stable, high-speed Internet connection with adequate bandwidth; b) access to a device or, preferably, multiple devices; c) a child who can focus, concentrate and be self-directed; or d) all of the above. The answer here is, of course, d). The question that remains is, therefore, “Is an online education achievable for children in all families across this country?”

A review of available data from official sources provides insight into the family characteristics that may result in greater challenges when it comes to obtaining an online elementary or post-secondary school education during the COVID-19 pandemic and, accordingly, where increased vulnerability might result in a long-term educational gap:

  • Low-income households, rural households and Indigenous households are less likely to have the Internet access/speed required to complete online school activities at home. In 2017, only 24% of households in Indigenous communities and 37% of rural households had access to Internet at the minimum speed required to take full advantage of online opportunities, whereas 97% of urban homes had access at that speed or higher.6 In 2018, approximately 4% of households in the lowest income quartile did not have any Internet at home.7
  • Low-income families are less likely to have a device other than a mobile device, which could make doing online school work challenging. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of households in the lowest income quartile reported using only mobile devices for accessing the Internet in 2018, three times higher than the share among households in the highest income quartile (8%).8
  • Many families have more than one child who is required to complete school work at home, and yet the majority of households may not have enough devices to accomplish this easily. Close to 6 in 10 households (58%) that had Internet access as of 2018 had less than one device per household member.9 This figure was highest (63%) among households in the lowest income quartile.
  • Like shoes, assistive devices may not have been sent home before schools were closed, which could impact the ability of children and youth with disabilities to undertake certain educational activities at home. Half of youth with a disability require at least one aid, assistive device or educational accommodation to follow their courses, according to the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability.10
  • Some children do not live in families were the environment is conducive to online learning:
    • Almost 19,000 children were victimized by a family member in Canada in 2018 and in 59% of cases, the child was victimized by one of his or her own parents, who most often lived in the same residence.11
    • Household food insecurity, which contributes to both poor mental and physical health, is when households cannot afford the quality or quantity of food needed for good health. Not surprisingly, data from 2017–2018 show high rates of food insecurity among households reliant on social assistance (60%) and Employment Insurance or Workers’ Compensation (32%).12

The statistics above only just begin to cover the myriad of intersecting barriers that can impede home learning, not to mention overall well-being, for families in Canada.

For many children and parents, school provides benefits over and above an education – benefits like social and emotional support, nutrition, increased physical exercise and a safe space to be themselves.

I, for one, have seen how many advantages my boys are missing out on since the start of the COVID-19 crisis just by virtue of the fact that they are no longer in school. And, as much as I love having them here at home with me, I cannot wait for them to go back.

Jennifer Kaddatz, Vanier Institute on secondment from Statistics Canada


Notes

  1. The survey, conducted by the Vanier Institute of the Family, the Association for Canadian Studies and Leger on March 10–13, March 27–29, April 3–5 and April 9–12, 2020, included approximately 1,500 individuals aged 18 and older, interviewed using computer-assisted web-interviewing technology in a web-based survey. The March 27–­29, April 3–5 and April 9–12 samples also included booster samples of approximately 500 immigrants. Using data from the 2016 Census, results were weighted according to gender, age, mother tongue, region, education level and presence of children in the household in order to ensure a representative sample of the population. No margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample (web panel in this case). However, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 1,512 respondents would have a margin of error of ±2.52%, 19 times out of 20.
  2. Survey data from Statistics Canada show that during the week of March 22–28, 6.8 million Canadians worked from home (39%), including 4.7 million who don’t usually do so. Link: https://bit.ly/2yqH9t1.
  3. April 9–12 survey by the Vanier Institute of the Family, the Association for Canadian Studies and Leger (see note 1).
  4. Statistics Canada, Occupation – National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2016 (693A), Highest Certificate, Diploma or Degree (15), Labour Force Status (3), Age (13A) and Sex (3) for the Labour Force Aged 15 Years and Over in Private Households of Canada, Provinces and Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2016 Census – 25% Sample Data, 2016 Census data tables, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-400-X2016295. (November 29, 2017). Link: https://bit.ly/2wSFdsD.
  5. Statistics Canada, “How Are Canadians Coping with the COVID-19 Situation?,” Infographics, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-627-M (April 8, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/2wVzkuL.
  6. Minister of Rural Economic Development, High-Speed Access for All: Canada’s Connectivity Strategy, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Link: https://bit.ly/2XQNecT.
  7. Statistics Canada, Data to Insights for a Better Canada COVID-19 Pandemic: School Closures and the Online Preparedness of Children, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 45-28-0001 (April 15, 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/2zh73Qh.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Statistics Canada, “Educational Experiences of Youth with Disabilities,” Infographics, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-627-M (September 10, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/2RSInUN.
  11. Statistics Canada, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2018, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-X (December 12, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/2VlogAG.
  12. Valerie Tarasuk and Andy Mitchell, Household Food Insecurity in Canada 2017–2018, Toronto: Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity (PROOF) (March 2020). Link: https://bit.ly/3cFHDKB.

In Conversation: Lucy Gallo on Chosen Family Day and LGBTQI2S Youth

Nathan Battams

February 13, 2020

As many families across Canada come together for Family Day on Monday, preparations will be under way for another special observance – Chosen Family Day. On Saturday, February 22, Friends of Ruby – an organization focused on supporting the progressive well-being of LGBTQI2S youth through social services and housing – is launching Canada’s first annual Chosen Family Day to raise awareness of the experiences and challenges faced by these youth, to remind those who need support that help is available, and to celebrate the chosen families who provide them with love, care and support.

To learn more about Chosen Family Day and the importance of this unique family form to LGBTQI2S youth, Nathan Battams, Communications Manager at the Vanier Institute, joined Lucy Gallo, Director of Youth Services and Housing at Friends of Ruby, in conversation.


Tell me a little bit about Friends of Ruby, its history and what you do.

Research shows, and through our work we have seen, that LGBTQI2S youth experience barriers to employment and housing, and have significantly higher rates of family rejection, homelessness, poverty and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t identify with our community. There is a serious need for housing and social services focused on this community.

So, in 2014, with the support of a donor, Egale Canada opened Egale Youth Services, a little centre that served as a drop-in with multiple resources, as well as a little kitchenette where LGBTQI2S youth could have some snacks and food.

It was clear from the beginning that a) there was indeed a significant need for this kind of space, and b) the youth needed more than just housing. Individually and as a group, LGBTQI2S youth have diverse and unique experiences, and they benefit from having a place where they can build connections and relationships of love, care and support.

We’ve moved several times over the years to increasingly large spaces to accommodate this growing community. In 2019, we decided to design our new drop-in space based on our experience with the youth, in order to better support them. This is the space where we are currently located (i.e. 489 Queen Street East). At the same time, we were using our experience to build our emergency and transitional house (at the time called Egale Centre).

It had always been Egale’s plan to spin direct services off when it reached a certain maturity so, in November 2019, Egale Youth Services and Egale Centre merged to become Friends of Ruby, an independent organization that continues to focus on the progressive well-being of LGBTQI2S youth through social services and housing.

Since we started, our programming has expanded. We now offer barrier-free one-on-one counselling – both shorter-term crisis counselling as well as a built-in counselling structure where youth can see a counsellor for up to 20 sessions, and there aren’t huge wait lists (which is pretty amazing for counselling in general).

In addition to therapeutic groups, we also run psychologically beneficial social groups. For example, there’s an Art for Change group, which came from the youth about three years ago and it hasn’t stopped running, which facilitates expression through arts and crafts and community-building in a safe and inclusive environment. Soon, we’ll be launching a group called Skills for Safer Living, and it’s for folks who have experienced regular suicidal ideation.

We now have a weekly afternoon at the drop-in only for youth who are part of the Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) community. This is only for BIPOC youth and is staffed by people from the BIPOC community, which develops a whole other layer of safety and an opportunity for folks to talk about their intersecting identities. We run a discussion night that’s run by one of our staff and one of our partner agencies to unpack some of these intersections, which has been very well received.

Our drop-in centre has since extended due to significant demand, and because we recognize that there’s critical need for this space for some people such as trans youth, who may not feel safe to going into a shelter by virtue of their identity. Research shows that some shelters are not safe environments for trans people, who are commonly rejected based on their gender identity and aren’t given access to shelters that match the gender with which they identify, so we offer them a safe place to come in the morning, somewhere to rest and have a warm cup of coffee and something to eat, especially in the winter. The drop-in provides food security, with access to three meals a day, plus a snack in between lunch and dinner.

We also offer support with gender identity or transition, and help accessing housing, health care, and employment. Later this year, we’ll be opening a new programming centre with safe, transitional housing for up to 33 LGBTQI2S youth. The house has a purpose-based design with accessible single- and double-occupancy rooms, embedded mental health supports and case management, and a rooftop terrace for quiet reflection.

In all this growth, we’ve managed to support more than 900 youth, prevent 470 mental health crises and visits to hospital emergency rooms, and save an estimated $300,000 in health care costs, while providing approximately 2,500 one-to-one counselling and case management sessions and serving more than 4,500 meals per year.

Tell me about Chosen Family Day, and why the notion of chosen family is important at Friends of Ruby.

Chosen Family Day was actually inspired by what LGBTQI2S youth at Friends of Ruby were telling us when we asked them what this space means to them. Themes of relationships, connections, friendship, care and family – chosen family – clearly emerged.

We heard that it’s not like receiving services elsewhere, such as at the doctor, where you go have your appointment and leave. Here, there’s an added – and very important – layer of relationships that provides a sense of family that some youth aren’t used to having. It can be particularly important during such times as the holidays, when many people get together with their families, or in the dark months of winter, and now with Family Day. Many LGBTQI2S youth don’t have relationships with their biological families, some of which want nothing to do with them because of their identity, and it can serve as a painful reminder.

This sparked the idea to start Chosen Family Day, which will take place on the Saturday following Family Day every year, giving those who live in these incredibly diverse and unique communities a day to acknowledge and celebrate their chosen families. This idea of chosen family is so powerful — it brings energy and some light to what family itself means to other people.

How would you complete the phrase “Wouldn’t it be great if…”?

It would be amazing if organizations and spaces like ours, which focus on the LGBTQI2S community, didn’t need to exist. If they didn’t need to exist because we could be accepted and feel comfortable in any space.

I say this, of course, as a proud member of the chosen family at Friends of Ruby! I’m glad that we exist and that this space exists – there hasn’t been anything like this in the city before. When I was coming out, there was nothing like this, and to have this now for the youth is exciting.

But it would be great if we didn’t have to have these separations, build our own spaces because our trans youth actually can’t feel safe or comfortable in any other shelter or any other transitional housing. Wouldn’t it be great if all the other transitional houses and shelters that do exist were equally welcoming of youth for who they are, unique and precious like uncut ruby gems?

Chosen Family Day will be celebrated on Saturday, February 22, 2020.

Learn more about Friends of Ruby

 

Lucy Gallo is the Director of Youth Services and Housing at Friends of Ruby.

Nathan Battams is the Communications Manager at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

This interview has been edited for length and flow.

 

In Conversation with Lisa Wolff, Director, Policy and Research, UNICEF Canada

Nathan Battams

Download In Conversation with Lisa Wolff, Director, Policy and Research, UNICEF Canada

November 20 is National Child Day and United Nations Universal Children’s Day, special observances commemorating the adoption of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. For those who study, serve and support children in Canada, these observances provide an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the diverse and unique contributions of children to society while promoting and raising awareness about their well-being.

As the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s signing of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2019 marks a special year for understanding children and youth. This understanding has been strengthened through the publication of Where Does Canada Stand?, the baseline report for the Canadian Index of Child and Youth Well-being.

Lisa Wolff, Director of Policy and Research at UNICEF Canada, recently joined Vanier Institute Communications Manager Nathan Battams to discuss this innovative and groundbreaking snapshot of child and youth well-being, its development and future directions.


How did the Canadian Index of Child and Youth Well-being come into being?

For decades, we’ve been tracking the state of children in Canada and around the world using population-level data to help understand where progress is being made on child and youth well-being, where challenges remain and where there might be no progress or things might be getting worse. This data facilitates the work of policy-makers, researchers, advocates and influencers in creating better conditions for children and youth to grow up in.

More than 30 years ago, UNICEF started the State of the World’s Children reports, which have been influential in terms of measuring child and youth well-being. Since then, there have been many “state of” reports on many different conditions that also use indicators and population data.

In more recent years, UNICEF started to focus on high-income countries as well and, in 2007, established an Index of Child and Youth Well-being, which brought together a number of indicators of how children in rich countries are doing in different aspects of life into one composite number and ranking. We’ve since published iterations of that. In the most recent, 2017 index, Canada ranked 25th of 41 countries in overall child and youth well-being.

Through this index, we discovered that Canada’s ranking among our peer countries – rich countries that have similar resources to spend on children and should therefore be getting reasonably similar outcomes and can be compared in regard to how they’re doing – is consistently in the middle and making very little progress relative to some other countries who were able to actually advance their standing over time.

This prompted us to question how some countries such as the United Kingdom were able to move up the rankings with a fair degree of speed and why we were stuck in the middle. At the same time, we were finding that many organizations were keen to use the UNICEF rankings in their own advocacy and in creating their own statistical dashboards for children and youth. For example, the Growing Up in BC project was inspired by the UNICEF Index.

We also recognized that Canada has data about children and youth that can’t be compared to other countries, because it’s unique to Canadian surveys, and that this rich data could provide additional valuable insight into what’s going on in children’s lives and how things are changing. There was already the example of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, which does that at the general population level as well as compares how social progress relates to economic progress. So, we decided that we would create a Canadian Index of Child and Youth Well-being, inspired by the UNICEF model and the Canadian Index of Wellbeing – one that would bring together richer, focused data and insights about how children are doing and, if we could iterate the index over time, would look at progress and gaps.

The first thing we did was to assemble an advisory group. It was a large and diverse group that grew over the three-year period when we were developing the index. We started with around 40 advisors from across Canada – multidisciplinary, coming from research and government and community organizations from across the country, to ask them about their thoughts on what an index should do.

Our resulting vision has two purposes. First, we want it to serve as a communication tool for Canadian decision makers and influencers across the country – one that highlights how our youth are doing and identifies opportunities for change and progress. Second, by compiling diverse data points, not just in a dashboard but as a comprehensive view across different dimensions of children’s lives, we can look for patterns and focus on some of the big actions that could really “move the needle” on child and youth well-being and focus on what actions might actually address big gaps.

The index, therefore, takes a comprehensive view of childhood, one that isn’t based solely on the indicators that have mattered traditionally to adults (and are therefore more likely to be funded in population surveys), such as education outcomes and health status. Those things really matter to adults, and they matter to young people too, but what our advisors and what the youth themselves told us (because young people were an instrumental part of the index development process) is that their lives have a lot of other important aspects as well. For example, how much play and leisure time they have? How much do they get to participate in their families and in society? What relationships are important to them and how are they doing? How do they feel about school – not just in terms of grades, but about the experiences of school itself?

The index takes a comprehensive view of childhood, one that isn’t based solely on the indicators that have mattered traditionally to adults (and are therefore more likely to be funded in population surveys).

We settled on nine dimensions representing broad, conceptual aspects of children’s lives that are measured by a total of 125 statistical indicators. Although it’s a lot of indicators, this approach provides a more comprehensive view of their well-being, and by organizing them into dimensions, we’re able to define child and youth well-being in a broader way and elevate some things that are important to young people as well as to some of the adults who were involved in the project.

The process to get there brought together several strands of inquiry. We looked at how others were creating indices and measuring child and youth well-being in Canada and around the world. We did a scan of practice, exploring some of the innovative and exciting approaches being taken, as well as some of the things that were already agreed upon that were important to measure and were validated in the research. We explored a lot of the literature, including research and knowledge brought into the development by our advisors, and we incorporated the lived experience of young people by asking them what’s important in their lives. A prototype of the index was created, which we brought back to young people to ask what they liked about it, what we were missing and what was problematic about our approach – it was an iterative process.

In some cases, the views of adults and youth clashed, and when this occurred, we let the young people decide. Family meals came up as an example. Some of the indicators you often see cited when people are talking about youth health ask if they have regular family meals. We know through research that has been validated, that young people who tend to eat more meals with their families often have a better sense of belonging, better mental health, fewer risk behaviours and better grades.

In some cases, the views of adults and youth clashed, and when this occurred, we let the young people decide.

But in talking to young people – and we made sure we talked to those furthest from opportunity, including First Nations communities and youth in closed custody facilities, where youth often have severed relationships with their families – many told us that family meals feel a bit too normative, are stigmatizing and made them feel badly about their lack of family relationships or otherwise weren’t realistic. This was true even for some in higher-income families, in which we heard statements such as “We don’t do that, we’re too busy.” Instead, we focus on measuring the outcomes – Are kids healthy? Do they feel they belong? – and less on what contributes to that. We can explore that in other ways.

Another clash was around the importance of pets. A research expert might say, “Well, pets were never really studied as important to well-being,” though there’s some emerging evidence in some other countries. But time and time again, when you ask young people about the important relationships in their lives, they go beyond what research has focused on in terms of parents, teachers, peers and other supportive adults in the community.

Time and time again, when you ask young people about the important relationships in their lives, they go beyond what research has focused on.

The children frequently made statements such as my pet is what makes me feel good, my pet is one of the primary relationships in my life. So, we included an indicator for it, because we want to track it over time to see how many youth are caring for pets and have this important relationship in their lives. Their pets can become important to stave off loneliness and to create a sense of acceptance. It may be that pets become more important as an indicator when other relationships are more difficult. It was something interesting that we heard way too often to omit – so it’s included in the index to honour that.

What did your team do to ensure that diverse experiences were captured, such as those of Indigenous children or immigrant youth?

Predating the development of the index, we held a series of roundtables, similar to the Vanier Institute’s Families in Canada Listening Tour events, with child-serving organizations and leaders. One roundtable was focused specifically on Indigenous organizations and leaders. We asked the question “What does well-being mean to you?” to get a community definition, since there is no single, official definition of well-being. That really centred the kinds of things we chose to measure.

There was also a lot of diversity in the advisory group, and not just in terms of culture, age and social and economic location in Canada, but also in disciplines and academic approaches.

From Indigenous leaders, we heard about the importance of access to culture and the integrity of the ecosystem and environment in all their relations around children and youth. So that shows up in the index in a dimension called Are we connected to our environment?, which was actually a fairly uncommon inclusion in measuring child and youth well-being, and there are measurable climate-related indicators such as exposure to air pollution and access to natural spaces. That environmental sensibility didn’t surface at any of the other roundtables – only the Indigenous perspectives. It’s also validated by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which we also measure in the index with indicators that are aligned to the child-focused SDGs.

There was also a lot of diversity in the advisory group, and not just in terms of culture, age and social and economic location in Canada, but also in disciplines and academic approaches.

What are the next steps, and what is your vision on how the index will be used?

We would like to see governments at the provincial, territorial and federal levels track a broader set of indicators and dimensions of children’s lives and focus just as much on things like their freedom to play and participate as we currently do on academic performance and drug use. Better benchmarking and monitoring of the state of children and youth can help guide decision makers and policy-makers with evidence-based insights.

In fact, the index is already being used, for instance, in the Region of Waterloo, which comprises a number of municipalities and rural communities. They voted on a new set of goals for children in the region aligned with the nine dimensions of the index, to broaden the scope of their focus and progress at the regional level. There are hundreds of organizations that come together in a child and youth planning table in the region and work together on providing services for children and informing policies, and this provides them with a wider lens.

Partners such as the Ontario Trillium Foundation are working with us to create a local survey tool aligned with the index. Any community could implement this survey to gather data about children and youth, which is really hard to come by on a local scale. This data tends to be missed in the big national surveys, either due to being overlooked entirely or because the sample size is too small. If communities choose to, they could benchmark how their youth are doing against other communities or against the national averages.

Better benchmarking and monitoring of the state of children and youth can help guide decision makers and policy-makers with evidence-based insights.

The Foundation of Greater Montreal has already started to do that. For instance, they created a Montreal-based report on the state of children using the UNICEF index of well-being in 2017, and they found that they were lagging behind the national average on food security. As a result, that has localized greater attention and more programs, and efforts are under way to address food and security in the region.

So these are some of the ways UNICEF’s data and analysis are being used across Canada, and we’re glad it’s resonating and opening new ways of thinking about ourselves, because this wider and more comprehensive lens on children and youth can facilitate and strengthen policies and programs to have a significant impact on well-being for children and youth across the country.

Lisa Wolff is Director of Policy and Research at UNICEF Canada, where she promotes public policy and practices that align with the principles and standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lisa leverages UNICEF’s global strengths, including data and innovation, and works across sectors with diverse partners to advance the rights of children in Canada – work for which she received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

 

“Virtual Parenting” After Separation and Divorce

Rachel Birnbaum, PhD, RSW, LLM

Download “Virtual Parenting” After Separation and Divorce (PDF)

The rapid increase in the use of communication technologies, such as text messages, instant messaging, email, social networking sites, Skype, FaceTime and webcams, has provided a variety of new ways for parents to maintain their relationships with their children and manage family responsibilities after separation and divorce. At the same time, the increased use of these methods has also created a new area of discussion and debate about the risks and benefits of this type of “virtual parenting.” Issues such as safety and vulnerability, the ability to use technology, and privacy and confidentiality for the child and each parent are only some of the considerations both for the family justice professionals who recommend virtual contact and for the courts that decide on these types of parent–child contact orders.

Families use technology to maintain ties after separation and divorce

Despite the increasing use of smartphones and online communication technologies, there are few studies about whether this “virtual” contact has an impact on children and their parents after separation and divorce, and what the nature of this impact could be.

Research to date has found that many parents report that using technology has a positive impact because it allows them to be able to stay connected to their children, though some negative aspects were discussed as well, such as sadness about being a “virtual parent,” and the challenges in navigating tensions in keeping the communications private from the other parent and not interfering in the daily activities of the other parent’s household.

One study found that children and youth preferred face-to-face contact and reported difficulties maintaining contact regardless of the type of virtual technology used (e.g. Skype, email, texting, FaceTime). This was due to factors such as issues with phone lines, a lack of immediacy with email contact and time differences as a result of the geographic distances.

The results of these studies highlight both the strengths and challenges parents and children experience in using technology to maintain their contact after separation and divorce. However, they don’t provide a complete picture, as they do not differentiate between parents who communicate well with each other and those who have more conflictual communication resulting from factors such as problem-solving difficulties, a lack of trust and instances where there may be family violence concerns after their separation and divorce.

Diverse perspectives provide fuller insights on “virtual parenting”

A 2018 study provided new insight by incorporating the perspective of legal and mental health professionals, who were surveyed on their views and experiences of using virtual technology after separation and divorce. They found mixed results, particularly with high-conflict families that could not cooperate and in situations where there was interference with the former partner’s parenting time during virtual parent–child contact.

As part of a broader research agenda examining children’s participation in separation and divorce matters, two follow-up studies funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) were performed exploring the use of virtual technology to maintain contact between parents and children after separation and divorce. The first study surveyed 166 family justice professionals (e.g. mental health professionals and lawyers) about their experiences with online technology in general and their views on virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact.

Two key questions provided unique insights into experiences with virtual technology after separation and divorce:

  • What do family justice professionals believe are the challenges and benefits regarding the use of technology as a means of parent–child contact?
  • What types of conflicts, if any, do adults and children report as a result of using any type of technology for parent–child contact?

The second study explored the same topics from the perspective of parents and children, aiming to shed light on how modern families maintain and manage relationships after separation and divorce.

Research to date has found that many parents report that using technology has a positive impact because it allows them to be able to stay connected to their children.

While the sample sizes were small in both studies, they are the only ones to date that explore the multiple perspectives (e.g. mental health professionals, lawyers, children and parents) using multiple research approaches (e.g. surveys and interviews) to learn more about the views and experiences of children and parents who use virtual communication to maintain contact after separation and divorce.

Children and parents see benefits and challenges associated with virtual contact

One of the recurring themes in the discussion with parents on the benefits was that it can reduce conflict between the parents. As one respondent said, “[I]t cuts down the number of conflicts that can be brought up, which tends to happen when you have swaps…” As with previous research, parents reported that technology has facilitated contact with their children:

“…once we started using this technology [FaceTime], it made all the difference in the world, because she can see me, I can see her, we talk […] if I am away at work, I can show her where I am and make her feel she’s there with me.”

Despite this benefit, parents also reported several sources of conflict, ranging from relatively minor (e.g. when the resident parent interrupts a child’s contact time with the non-resident parent) to more serious concerns about safety (e.g. non-resident parent having access into the resident parent’s home) and confidentiality (one parent said they were “not sure [they like their] child being online and an open communication as there is no real privacy and worry about pictures being taken and then sent somewhere”).

Interview questions about the experiences of children also provided valuable insight into the use of virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact after separation and divorce. Feelings of closeness to the non-resident parent were reported, along with reservations about virtual contact. “While it is really great to see my dad,” one child was reported to have said, “I want to feel him near me as well.” Another echoed this sentiment of longing for the non-resident parent: “One thing I don’t like about this [virtual contact] is I can’t actually see him in person… it’s sad, but good at the same time.”

Using technology to maintain parent–child contact can bring benefits, but also safety and privacy concerns.

Interference with access time and privacy also emerged as themes (“My mom is always asking me how it’s going and how long will I be online with my dad”), as well as availability of the non-resident parent (“I am supposed to call [FaceTime] on Monday and Wednesday; most of the time I can’t really make it, but it creates problems for my dad, who gets upset”).

Family justice professionals see risks and rewards in “virtual contact”

Family justice professionals were also asked to comment about the benefits and challenges of the use of communication technologies as a means of facilitating contact between separated and divorced parents and their children. Below is a snapshot of some of their comments on the risks and rewards:

“Technology can be a valuable tool for facilitating communication and connections when used properly, while at the same time presenting a heightened risk when used improperly and in an unsupervised manner, particularly for young or impressionable children who are caught up in their parents’ conflict deliberately or inadvertently.”

“I think it would be helpful in maintaining a parent–child relationship when one parent lives a significant distance away from where the child resides.”

“Challenge – privacy. Benefit – staying connected in real time.”

“It is a source of evidence about the parent’s ability to cooperate and whether they can reasonably make decisions about the child’s best interests. More rarely, it is also used to establish a prior inconsistent statement. The benefits are significant, since the lack of physical presence can assist clients to calm down in high-conflict cases. At the same time, some clients incorrectly try to use the medium to set up traps for the other parent or engage in what they see is a strategic manoeuvre in litigation.”

Parent and children reports to family justice professionals

To explore the issue of conflict in the parental relationship that may or may not facilitate virtual contact, all family justice professionals were asked to report how often, if ever, their adult and child clients report conflicts (e.g. privacy concerns, safety, confidentiality) during virtual contact such as Skype, FaceTime and WhatsApp.

The parents reported to family justice professionals that the majority of conflicts occur more often as a result of the other parent listening in on their conversation with the child (60%); the other parent alleging that the child is busy doing something else at the designated time (35%); the child not being available for the call at the designated time (41%); and the other parent saying that they do not know how to use or set up the technology (4%).

When asked to identify any other types of conflicts raised by parents, they said that conflicts also occur over the costs of the use of technology and who pays for it; concerns over rural areas where technology is unreliable or too expensive versus urban areas; one parent using the child to harass the non-custodial parent about child support issues; and some parents reporting that they do not want their child using technology because of safety and confidentiality concerns.

The results of this survey are similar to the 2018 study by Saini and Polak, who found that while there were benefits reported by the family justice professionals about using technology to maintain parent–child contact after separation and divorce, there were also challenges such as privacy concerns, safety issues and families experiencing high conflict who may require specific protocols to be put in place to mitigate these concerns.

When surveyed about their child clients, the majority of lawyers and mental health professionals reported that children said they “sometimes” experience conflict over the use of Skype, FaceTime and so on, with the most common conflict being that they’re busy and “do not want to talk at that time” (55%); the child(ren) not having a lot to say to the other parent and the other parent getting upset (45%); and the other parent listening to their conversation during parent–child contact (39%).

When asked to identify any other types of conflicts raised by their child clients, they reported that conflicts also occur over the non-resident parent asking the child questions about the resident parent; the parents arguing with one another during the call; the other parent not being available when the child calls; and the number of text messages and inappropriate content being sent to the child, including both verbal and emotional abuse by the non-resident parent.

Shining light on diverse experiences after separation and divorce

This is the first study incorporating multiple perspectives on virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact after separation and divorce from parents, children and family justice professionals. The findings highlight both risks and rewards depending on the different perspectives (i.e. mother, father, children, mental health professional, lawyer). They also highlight the need for more direction in their family law practices at a time when virtual contact is being increasingly recommended by family justice professionals and the court as a means of parent–child contact after separation.

A number of concerns were highlighted by parents reporting to their lawyers about virtual parent–child contact. These were related to the other parent listening in on the conversation as well as having to be responsible for making sure the child is available at the specified time. In the parent telephone interviews, the greatest concerns centred on safety and the resident parent feeling vulnerable during virtual parent–child contact as well as on privacy issues. That is, parents raised concerns regarding being blocked from access to the technology being used by the non-resident parent and the child, invasion of privacy and feelings of being monitored (e.g. the resident parent as well as the non-resident parent) and the unfettered virtual access to the resident parent’s home as a result of the use of technology. This latter theme raises particular concerns for high-conflict parents and especially for those families in which there may also be issues of domestic violence (e.g. stalking).

Nevertheless, there were also a number of benefits highlighted as a result of virtual contact in both the parental reports to their lawyers as well as in the parent interviews. The greatest benefit raised by each parent is that the child is that it facilitates an ongoing parental relationship and and that it can provide reduced hostilities between the parents, because they have no contact with one another other than organizing the call if the child requires adult assistance.

While it is important to hear diverse perspectives (e.g. children, parents, lawyers, family justice professionals) about this use of technology, more research is needed to determine what impact, if any, there is in relation to factors such as cultural nuances, barriers to using technology (e.g. rural versus urban areas) and the relative burdens and cost (i.e. emotional and financial) to parents providing the technology. It is equally important to examine the safety risks underlying the use of virtual communication tools, especially when high-conflict cases and family violence are of concern.

Our understanding can also benefit from unpacking some of the underlying assumptions about parenting via the virtual world. For example, what does “virtual parenting” mean to children and young people in particular?

Finally, the two studies raise important cautions and considerations for family justice professionals and the court when virtual technology is being recommended as a means of contact after separation. That is, at minimum, consideration should be given to factors such as the child’s age and the length of the contact time; the degree of parental assistance required to facilitate virtual parent–child contact; whether the child has any special needs and resulting degree of parental support required; the type and degree of conflict between the parents; the type and degree of domestic violence concerns (e.g. stalking); financial costs; the separation of aspirational from practical and feasible parenting plans; children’s views on virtual parent–child contact before court orders or agreements are made; and mechanisms to follow up on whether and how virtual contact is working for the children.

Rachel Birnbaum, PhD, RSW, LLM, is a Social Work Professor, cross-appointed between Childhood Studies (Interdisciplinary Programs) and Social Work at King’s University College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. She has written, presented and conducted research on many aspects of family justice issues, with a particular emphasis on children’s participation post separation. She thanks the children, parents and family justice professionals who participated in this research for their valuable time in sharing their views and experiences with virtual technology in parenting disputes after separation. Dr. Birnbaum gratefully acknowledges the Social Sciences and Research Humanities Council (SSHRC) in providing funding support to this important and timely area of research.

This article is a reprint of a three-part series featured in The Lawyer’s Daily.

 

Source information available on the PDF version of this resource.


Published on November 12, 2019

Research Recap: School Experiences of Children in Military Families

Emily Beckett

Download Research Recap: School Experiences of Children in Military Families

There are more than 64,000 children growing up in military families in Canada.1 Many of these children experience high mobility, as studies show that military families move three to four times more often than their civilian counterparts.2 While most military families are highly adaptive and resilient during relocations, a growing body of research has found that these frequent moves can have an impact on family well-being.3

Nearly three in 10 surveyed military spouses (27%) report they have been relocated at least four times due to military postings.4

While frequent moves can affect multiple aspects of family life, some research suggests that the greatest disruption on youth is related to school and school-related activities.5 Parents in military families are aware of these disruptions, with more than half (54%) of surveyed military spouses agreeing that “military children are at a disadvantage because civilian public schools do not understand military life.”6 However, research also shows that a child’s school environment can facilitate the transition and have a positive impact on the well-being of youth in military families.

In recent review of available literature, School Participation and Children in Military Families: A Scoping Review, Heidi Cramm, PhD, and Linna Tam-Seto, PhD(C), explored existing research on how transition affects the well-being of children and youth in military families with regard to school participation. Through an examination of 112 academic articles, they found that experiences common in military families, such as separation from a deployed parent, relocation, parental deployment in dangerous conflict situations and changes to family dynamics during and after deployments, can all shape the quality and quantity of children’s participation in school-related activities. While the vast majority of the articles in the literature review are based on U.S. data, military families in Canada seem to share many of the same experiences and concerns, as reflected in data from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Community Needs Assessment: 2016 Overall Results report.7

Resettling into a new community takes time

While starting at a new school doesn’t necessarily mean a child from a military family will experience academic difficulties, research in the literature review suggested that it takes students approximately four to six months to academically re-establish themselves each time they move. Though this period is temporary, these disruptions can have a long-term effect on opportunities later in life, specifically in regard to a child’s willingness to take risks or pursue challenges.

Based on the predominantly American research, Cramm and Tam-Seto noted that difficulties in transition among students were found to be associated with the duration of deployments (total number of months that the child’s parents are away on deployment), the mental health of the non-deployed parent and decreasing resiliency. Research also acknowledges the potentially difficult period of reintegration of a military member into family structures and routines after their deployment. Given that there is some evidence that the accumulation of months deployed is associated with these types of negative effects, it will be critical to determine what the experience is for military families in Canada.

Academic experiences and access to supports can be impacted by military life

Cramm and Tam-Seto found that students in the research, who were primarily from U.S. military families, can experience negative impacts on their academic performance (e.g., academic gaps and redundancies) when they move across jurisdictional boundaries: factors such as standards, credit requirements and the age of kindergarten can change from region to region. They also found that stress at home during deployment and reintegration can often affect in-school behaviour and class dynamics, as these students may act out emotionally and experience difficulties with concentration, anxiety and conflicts with peers. Though the survey doesn’t specify whether the problems exhibited in the children of the respondents to the CAF Community Needs Assessment were associated solely with mobility, 13% of respondents reported that their child exhibited emotional or behavioural problems at school in the past year. Further research is needed to provide a greater understanding and focus on military families in Canada.

In 2016, more than 1 in 7 surveyed CAF members (13%) reported that their child exhibited emotional or behavioural problems at school in the past year.

Studies found an association between behavioural and emotional adjustment and academic performance (e.g., conduct, attendance, attitudes toward school and approaches to learning). The difficulties associated with transitioning to a new school can be compounded when a student requires access to special education resources.8 Many of the 8.2% of surveyed CAF families who report having children with special needs9 require access to resources and supports, and the process of accessing them can be disrupted with every move.

Like any family with a member with special needs, many military parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can face difficulties navigating health care and education systems, not only to acquire appropriate resources but to secure assessments and diagnoses as well.10 Obtaining a diagnosis can be difficult as families can spend months or even years on a wait-list, which can result in military families relocating before they receive care or services.

Many special education resources cannot be accessed without a diagnosis, and Cramm and Tam-Seto found that schools may delay providing resources based on the assumption that a student’s academic struggles are related solely to military life or a temporary reaction to a deployed parent. Alternatively, special education resources are occasionally provided rather than taking the larger step of addressing gaps in education due to relocation. Many U.S. school staff report that they feel unable to appropriately identify students in military families for clinical referrals.

Building community in the face of high mobility

Research shows that in the context of high mobility, military students can experience difficulties initiating and maintaining meaningful personal relationships and building social circles with children their age. Many civilian peers may not understand or be able to empathize with parental deployment or frequent moves, which can have an impact on relationships with military children. Social connections between military and civilian youth are common, since 85% of military families in Canada now live off-base in civilian communities, compared with only 20% in the mid-1990s.11

Cramm and Tam-Seto found that children of military families living in U.S. civilian communities are particularly vulnerable to feelings of isolation and loneliness – important measures, since the connection between strong social networks and well-being has been well established in research.12 Conversely, research shows that a sense of community belonging can be a factor in protecting mental health and enhancing resiliency.13

Participation in extracurricular activities can be affected by mobility among youth in military families. For example, opportunities for a child in a military family to sign up for a soccer team may have passed by the time they move, as the tryouts may have already been held and the team was set before the beginning of the academic year. Higher levels of sports teams or leadership programs may pass over military students to avoid complications that could arise if the student needs to relocate again.

The 2016 CAF Community Needs Assessment report found that among respondents who cited their child’s well-being as the most significant problem in the past year, nearly three in 10 (29%) reported requiring help with activities (e.g., bolstering fitness, stress relief, family bonding) to aid in the child’s well-being. Circumstances may not allow a parent to organize transportation to extracurricular activities or manage without the student’s support at home due to increased child care responsibilities during parental deployment, as 23% of all respondents reported experiencing issues with child care, such as quality, distance, expense and hours of availability.

Educational professionals have unique opportunities to facilitate transitions

Research suggests that teachers, counsellors and other educational professionals have unique opportunities to facilitate transitions for military youth. American research in the review suggested that the school environment can act as a protective factor during relocation, and that educators can support students in military families by strengthening the child’s resiliency and adaptive coping skills.

Due to the inherently disruptive nature of relocation and the potential loss of stability and routine in their lives, military families and students can be particularly reliant on school personnel and structure for social and emotional support. Among surveyed CAF parents who selected child well-being issues to be the most significant problem in the past year, more than one-third (34%) reported requiring emotional or social support. When families are able to get involved in their child’s schools, studies suggest it can enhance school engagement, academic success and their likelihood of graduating and pursuing post-secondary education.

However, Cramm and Tam-Seto also found that many U.S. educational staff report feeling overwhelmed by the magnitude of their students’ needs and struggle to deal with military family-specific issues, such as repeated transitions, parental deployment, fear of death or injury of a deployed parent, and how to meet those needs and communicate effectively with military families.

While many of the studies and research explored and cited by Cramm and Tam-Seto were from abroad, the findings are important in better understanding military families in Canada, who share many of the same “military life stressors” as their American counterparts – in particular, high mobility, frequent periods of separation and risk.14 The research in this scoping review study suggests that schools and educational professionals with a high degree of military literacy (awareness of these stressors and military family experiences) can play a major role in facilitating transitions among youth. Canadian-specific research with school communities will be important in the coming years.

Resources and information facilitate support for military youth

Enhancing military literacy among educational professionals can play an important role in supporting military youth and their families, and many have expressed a desire for resources to help them with this goal. Resources such as School Counsellors Working with Military and Veteran Families, published in 2017 in collaboration with the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association and the Canadian Military and Veteran Families Leadership Circle, can play an important role in creating and strengthening “military-literate” teams of school counsellors (and their colleagues) in schools across Canada by providing information about the military and Veteran lifestyle and sharing tailored resources.

Military and Veteran families are strong, diverse and resilient, and they make unique and valuable contributions to communities across the country. Many experience high mobility, which affects the well-being of military-connected children and youth, and, in turn, on the well-being and operational effectiveness of serving CAF members.15 Enhancing understanding of their experiences and the “military lifestyle” among educational professionals and others who study, serve and support families will be key to ensuring that communities and workplaces are inclusive environments in which these families can thrive.

 

Read the full study:

Heidi Cramm, PhD, and Linna Tam-Seto, PhD(C), “School Participation and Children in Military Families: A Scoping Review,” Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention (March 1, 2018). Link: https://bit.ly/2qiWfcU.

 

Download Research Recap: School Experiences of Children in Military Families


 

Emily Beckett is a professional writer living in Ottawa, Ontario.

Published on May 22, 2018

This article was reviewed by Col. (retd) Russ Mann, Special Advisor to the Vanier Institute of the Family and former Director of Military Family Services, as well as Heidi Cramm, PhD, and Linna Tam-Seto, PhD(C).

Notes

  1. Heidi Cramm et al., “The Current State of Military Family Research,” Transition (January 19, 2016).
  2. Kerry Sudom, “Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 2008/2009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses,” Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Chief Military Personnel (August 2010). Link: http://bit.ly/2b8Hp3U.
  3. Learn more with A Snapshot of Military and Veteran Families in Canada.
  4. Sudom, 2010.
  5. Pamela Arnold et al., “Needs of Military-Connected School Divisions in South-Eastern Virginia,” Old Dominion University Center for Educational Partnerships (September 2011), link: https://bit.ly/2EQGs9F; Angela J. Huebner et al., “Parental Deployment and Youth in Military Families: Exploring Uncertainty and Ambiguous Loss,” Family Relations 56(2) (April 2007), link: https://bit.ly/2qT6zrH; and Kristin N. Mmari et al., “Exploring the Role of Social Connectedness among Military Youth: Perceptions from Youth, Parents, and School Personnel,” Child and Youth Care Forum, 39(5) (October 2010), link: https://bit.ly/2vm4aey.
  6. Sanela Dursun and Kerry Sudom, “Impacts of Military Life on Families: Results from the Perstempo Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses,” Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Chief Military Personnel (November 2009). Link: http://bit.ly/1pbjBgC.
  7. Prairies Research Associates, CAF Community Needs Assessment: 2016 Overall Results (September 2017).
  8. Cramm, 2016.
  9. Heidi Cramm, “Health Care Experiences of Military Families of Children with Autism,” Transition (November 6, 2017).
  10. Cramm, 2017.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Maire Sinha, “Canadians’ Connections with Family and Friends,” Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General Social Survey, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 89-652-X (page last updated November 30, 2015). Link: https://bit.ly/1waJ2MQ.
  13. Statistics Canada, “Community Belonging,” Healthy People, Healthy Places, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 82-229-X (January 2010). Link: https://bit.ly/2Jl4MmX.
  14. National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, “On the Homefront: Assessing the Well-being of Canada’s Military Families in the New Millennium,” Special Report to the Minister of National Defence (November 2013). Link: https://bit.ly/2q6hi2a.
  15. National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, 2013.

 

Families in Canada Interactive Timeline

Today’s society and today’s families would have been difficult to imagine, let alone understand, a half-century ago. Data shows that families and family life in Canada have become increasingly diverse and complex across generations – a reality highlighted when one looks at broader trends over time.

But even as families evolve, their impact over the years has remained constant. This is due to the many functions and roles they perform for individuals and communities alike – families are, have been and will continue to be the cornerstone of our society, the engine of our economy and at the centre of our hearts.

Learn about the evolution of families in Canada over the past half-century with our Families in Canada Interactive Timeline – a online resource from the Vanier Institute that highlights trends on diverse topics such as motherhood and fatherhood, family relationships, living arrangements, children and seniors, work–life, health and well-being, family care and much more.

View the Families in Canada Interactive Timeline.*

 

Full topic list:

  • Motherhood
    o Maternal age
    o Fertility
    o Labour force participation
    o Education
    o Stay-at-home moms
  • Fatherhood
    o Family relationships
    o Employment
    o Care and unpaid work
    o Work–life
  • Demographics
    o Life expectancy
    o Seniors and elders
    o Children and youth
    o Immigrant families
  • Families and Households
    o Family structure
    o Family finances
    o Household size
    o Housing
  • Health and Well-Being
    o Babies and birth
    o Health
    o Life expectancy
    o Death and dying

View all source information for all statistics in Families in Canada Interactive Timeline.

 

* Note: The timeline is accessible only via desktop computer and does not work on smartphones.


Published February 8, 2018

A Snapshot of Men, Work and Family Relationships in Canada

Over the past half-century, fatherhood in Canada has evolved dramatically  as men across the country adapt and react to social, economic, cultural and environmental contexts. Throughout this period, men have had diverse employment experiences as they manage their multiple roles inside and outside the family home. These experiences have been impacted by a variety of factors, including (but not limited to) cultural norms and expectations, family status, disability and a variety of demographic characteristics, as well as women’s increased involvement in the paid labour force.

While many fathers in previous generations acted exclusively as “traditional” breadwinning father figures, modern fathers are increasingly likely to embrace caring roles and assume more household management responsibilities. In doing so, dads across Canada are renegotiating and reshaping the relationship between fatherhood and work.

Highlights include:

  • Men are less likely than in previous generations to fulfill a breadwinner role exclusively. In 2014, 79% of single-earner couple families with children included a breadwinning father, down from 96% in 1976.
  • Men account for a growing share of part-time workers. One-quarter (25%) of Canadians aged 25 to 54 who worked part-time in 2016 were men, up from 15% in 1986.
  • The proportion of never-married men is on the rise. In 2011, more than half (54%) of men in Canada aged 30 to 34 report never having been married, up from 15% in 1981.
  • Canada is home to many caregiving men. In 2012, nearly half (46%) of all caregivers in Canada were men, 11% of whom provided 20 or more hours per week of care.
  • Many men want to be stay-at-home parents. Nearly four in 10 (39%) surveyed men say they would prefer to be a stay-at-home parent.
  • Many men engage in household work and related activities. Nearly half (45%) of surveyed fathers in North America say they’re the “primary grocery shopper” in their household.
  • Flex at work can facilitate work–life balance. More than eight in 10 (81%) full-time working fathers who have a flexible schedule say they’re satisfied with their work–life balance, compared with 76% for those without flex.

 

This bilingual resource will be updated periodically as new data emerges. Sign up for our monthly e-newsletter to find out about updates, as well as other news about publications, projects and initiatives from the Vanier Institute.

Download A Snapshot of Men, Work and Family Relationships in Canada from the Vanier Institute of the Family.

The Canadian Debate on Spanking and Violence Against Children

Kathy Lynn

Just as families have evolved across generations, so too have our ideas about parenting, children and the social norms regarding discipline. While there is always diversity in what people feel is appropriate, there has been a significant shift across generations away from authoritarian parenting styles toward a more compassionate view that treats children as rights-bearing individuals rather than property.

Despite this societal shift, the use of corporal punishment in the form of “spanking”1 is legally protected under section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code, also known as the “spanking law.” Section 43 reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. R.S.C., 1985, c. C-4

This defence first appeared in the Criminal Code in 1892 and has changed little since.2 Discussions about what to do with section 43 have an interesting and active history stretching back to the 1970s and earlier, but it is still on the books today.

“Spanking” in the Courts

Section 43 has been challenged a number of times over the past 30 years. In 1998, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law started a rights-based legal action in the Ontario Superior Court to challenge the constitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code on the basis that it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The challenge was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Despite the dismissal, the government argued that physical force should be discouraged as a normative technique of correction. The case then moved on to the Supreme Court of Canada, but, in its January 2004 decision, the Supreme Court held that section 43 did not infringe on the Charter. It did, however, set out a series of judicial limitations (which do not appear in the Criminal Code) on corporal punishment:

  • Only parents may use reasonable force solely for purposes of correction.
  • Teachers may use reasonable force only to “remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal punishment.”
  • Corporal punishment cannot be administered to children under two or to teenagers.
  • The use of force on children of any age “incapable of learning from [it] because of disability or some other contextual factor” is not protected.
  • Discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable.
  • Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected, including conduct that raises a reasonable prospect of harm.
  • Only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature may be used.
  • The physical punishment must be “corrective, which rules out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive personality.”
  • The gravity of the precipitating event is not relevant.
  • The question of what is “reasonable under the circumstances” requires an objective test and must be considered in context and in light of all the circumstances of the case.3

The current legal context has led to confusion and conflict due to contradictions between the definitions of assault outlined in criminal law and definitions of child abuse found in provincial and territorial law, as outlined by the Ontario Public Health Association:

“… a provincial or territorial child welfare authority may investigate a report of parental physical abuse of a child, conclude that she is at risk in her family and apprehend her. When this happens, police may lay a charge of assault. However, section 43 provides parents with a legal defence against such a charge. This has led to situations which seem to defy logic, in which the definition of “a child in need of protection” in provincial and territorial law leads to the child’s apprehension, but the protection afforded to parents under section 43 of the Criminal Code leads to their being acquitted of assault.”

There have been many legislative attempts to have section 43 repealed or amended, with 17 private member’s bills being tabled in Parliament since 1994, though none have succeeded. Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette has introduced numerous bills; however, to date, all have died at various stages of reading due to elections and prorogations of Parliament.4

Pressure to repeal section 43 has also mounted from the international stage since Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 2 of the Convention states that signatories “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.”5

In response to reports from Canada regarding the action it has taken to meet the requirements of the Convention, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that physical punishment of children in schools and families be prohibited and that section 43 be removed from the Criminal Code. However, no action was taken and the law remains on the books. To date, 51 countries have banned the physical punishment of children in all settings.

Most recently, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommended repealing section 43 as the sixth of its final report’s 94 calls to action. “The Commission believes that corporal punishment is a relic of a discredited past,” it reads, “and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.”6 The federal government has since committed to accepting all calls to action outlined in the TRC report.

“…corporal punishment is a relic of a discredited past, and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.”

– Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

 

“Spanking” Research

A most compelling body of research has been developed around the question of physical punishment of children. In June 2016, Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff, Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Michigan, published a literature review that includes a wide range of studies on corporal punishment of children. They found that the research has been consistent. Spanking is at best ineffective and at worst harmful to children.7

A series of meta-analyses have demonstrated that in addition to increases in aggressive behaviour in children, spanking has been associated with increases in mental health problems into adulthood, impaired parent–child relationships, delinquent behaviour and criminal behaviour in adulthood.8 There is also research showing that a risk that initial “corrective” spanking can progress to child abuse.9

The research shows that hitting children is ineffective – instead of teaching children the reasons their behaviour needs to change, it simply causes the child pain and engenders fear. Studies have shown that children need to internalize reasons for behaving in appropriate ways.10 Spanking teaches them to behave in order to avoid physical punishment. When the threat of physical punishment is gone, children find no reason to behave appropriately. Spanking can lead to some children considering violence toward others as a problem-solver. A violent attitude can also work to reduce family cohesion.

The Future of “Spanking” in Canada

Evidence shows that children do not learn appropriate behaviour from being physically hurt. While children need to be accountable for their behaviour, modelling positive behaviours and teaching them to self-regulate, communicate their feelings and ask for help are more effective. Parents play an important role in socializing children, teaching how certain actions and behaviours are not acceptable and providing opportunities to develop the skills to function well in society.

For teaching children to grow and mature into responsible, capable and contributing adults, spanking is not the way. Violence against children should be against the law, not defined by it. We know there are more compassionate and effective ways to raise children to be capable young adults.

 

Corinne Robertshaw: A Committed Advocate

Corinne Robertshaw was a lawyer with the federal government in the 1970s. She became concerned about injuries and deaths of children caused by parents. She determined that section 43, which provides legal defence for assault against children, was a factor contributing to these injuries and deaths. She produced a study on child deaths caused by physical punishment (Discussion Paper on Child Protection in Canada, February 1981).

In 1990, she retired and dedicated the rest of her life to seeing the repeal of section 43. She created a national, multidisciplinary committee to mobilize Canadians interested in the issue and to continue to develop evidence and arguments in favour of repeal. She died in January 2013 and Corinne’s Quest: End Physical Punishment of Children was formed to continue her work and honour her legacy.

 

Notes

  1. The term “spanking” is used in this article to include corporal punishment and the use of “corrective” physical force against children.
  2. Laura Barnett, “The ‘Spanking’ Law: Section 43 of the Criminal Code,” Parliamentary Information and Research Service (June 20, 2008), http://bit.ly/2d3ZvWi.
  3. “What’s the Law?” Corrine’s Quest, accessed September 27, 2016, http://bit.ly/2dwYIJ2.
  4. Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, “Physical Punishment Update #16,” Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth (March 2016), accessed September 27, 2016.
  5. United Nations, “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Treaty Series (November 20, 1989), http://bit.ly/1fGCcXV.
  6. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “Canada’s Residential Schools: The Legacy,” The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (December 2015).
  7. Elizabeth Gershoff and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, “Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses,” Journal of Family Psychology, 30:4 (June 2016), doi:10.1037/fam0000191.
  8. Elizabeth Gershoff, “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 128:4 (July 2002), doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.539.
  9. Joan Durrant et al., “Punitive Violence Against Children in Canada,” Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare (March 31, 2006), http://bit.ly/2czf1mO.
  10. Elizabeth Gershoff, “Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children,” Child Development Perspectives 7:3 (July 10, 2013), doi:10.1111/cdep.12038.

Kathy Lynn is a parenting speaker, author and chair of Corinne’s Quest.

This article was reviewed by Rina Arseneault, C.M., Associate Director of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research (MMFC) at the University of New Brunswick.

Published on November 15, 2016

Building Resilience at Home with Distance Coaching

While we all strive to ensure positive mental health and well-being for ourselves and our families, mental health conditions affect most households at some point, directly or indirectly. Children are no exception, with an estimated one in five schoolchildren living with mental health, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders.1

Both early intervention and quality, evidence-based care are essential to supporting children with these conditions and building their resilience. For some families, however, it isn’t always possible to access face-to-face intervention services. Lengthy clinic wait times, fear and/or experience of stigma and long travel distances can make it challenging to access appropriate services.

This can be particularly true for military families, in which a parent may have unpredictable schedules that often involve a greater amount of travel, separation, routine disruptions, transitions and overall stress than their civilian counterparts. Due to their high mobility and frequent moves, military families also commonly experience difficulties maintaining continuity of care for their children.2

Flexibility can facilitate mental health care for families

Clinic-based mental health services offer a variety of programs and supports to youth, but many lack the flexibility that families require to support these children while managing other family and work responsibilities. Children’s school schedules often don’t align with available mental health services, and repeated absences due to the need to attend regular appointments at a clinic can have an impact on children’s academic performance and their social relationships with friends and peers.

It may also be difficult or impossible for many parents to take the necessary time off work to bring a child to face-to-face appointments, either because they lack the necessary flexibility at work or because doing so would incur financial hardship. Nearly 7 in 10 couple families with at least one child under 16 have two employed parents, and in three-quarters of these couples, both parents work full-time.3 For single-parent families, the impact of missing work to accommodate appointments can be particularly difficult. Flexibility can be all the more important when seeking support for their children in military families, which often experience high mobility and deployments.

The Strongest Families Institute provides family-centred mental health care

Founded in 2011, the Strongest Families Institute (SFI) is a not-for-profit corporation designed to provide flexible, evidence-based and stigma-free mental health support to children customized to their needs and family realities. Based on six years of research at the Centre for Research in Family Health at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, SFI programs and modules are now accessible across the country. SFI has been nationally recognized for social benefits by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2012) and was the recipient of the Ernest C. Manning Encana Principal Award (2013).

SFI programs use a family-centred approach, directly engaging and involving family members throughout the process. Families can play a powerful role in facilitating quality mental health care because of their familiarity with the child’s circumstances. They also have a unique ability to provide valuable feedback to service providers throughout the engagement process.

Developing skills to build resilience… from a distance

SFI programs are focused on skill-based learning that fosters mental health and resilience skills through the use of psychologically informed educational modules that help families manage behavioural conditions or difficulties (e.g. not listening, temper or anger outbursts, aggression, attention deficits or hyperactivity) and anxiety (e.g. separation, generalized, social, specific fears).

SFI employs a unique distance coaching approach, utilizing technology to directly support families over the phone and the Internet in the comfort, privacy and convenience of their own home.4 Research has shown that distance coaching can result in significant diagnosis decreases among children with disruptive behaviour or anxiety conditions.5

“[My coach] has taught me a lot of skills that I was not aware of – especially in the conditions of the ever-changing military family life situation – and helped us deal with a lot of challenges. [My child] is more patient and approachable now. He knows how to deal with stress when his father is away [deployed]. His grades and behaviour at school have improved as well, he has fewer outbursts and the teachers have noticed the difference as well.”

– Parent of a 9-year-old participant in the Active Child program (Behaviour)

SFI’s Parenting the Active Child Program focuses on child behaviour for ages 3 to 12. In this program, parents and their children work together to create structured plans to help manage specific challenges a child may experience during particular times or activities. For example, parents and children can work together to develop a plan to make outings such as a trip to the grocery store or long trip in the car more enjoyable by using program skills. Through this simple but structured and guided approach, parents together with their children and the coach can work toward and reward good behaviour. By using the family home as a base for learning rather than a clinic setting, many of the issues of stigma are avoided. Families receive a series of written materials and skill demonstration videos, delivered either through handbooks or by smart-website technology, which teach one new skill per week to implement as part of their daily living activities.

The SFI anxiety program for 6- to 17-year-olds, Chase Worries Away, helps family learn life skills to defeat worries such as separation anxiety, performance issues, social anxiety and specific fears that are commonly related to the challenges of military life. SFI also runs a program for children ages 5 to 12 called Dry Nights Ahead, which helps with nighttime bedwetting.

Coaches ensure stability and guidance throughout the program

Children and families are supported and guided throughout the SFI programs by highly trained and monitored coaches. These coaches engage in structured weekly telephone calls that follow protocolized scripts, complementing the material families receive. During each session, the family’s coach reviews the skill that has been developed throughout the week and uses evidence-based strategies, such as role-playing and verbal modelling, to practise the skills and assess progress.

Schedules are flexible and customizable to accommodate families regardless of where they are located or where they move. This flexibility and focus on distance coaching can be particularly valuable for military families, bridging the geographical divide during separations resulting from postings so that the continuum of care is maintained. Moreover, during a posting, coaches help the families plan for the transition and they remain available during and after to encourage the maintenance of skills. This focus on planning supports families during potentially disruptive transitions, such as during a change of school or daycare.

The coach can be a familiar, centralized contact/support for the family, regardless of the move location. Coaches have high military literacy – understanding of the unique experiences of military families and the “military life stressors” that can have an impact on military families, such as high mobility, extended and/or unexpected separation and risk. Care and support is customized to the realities and needs of each family.

“[The program] helped me quite a bit, especially in everything anxiety, I still have other issues, but in terms of anxiety it has become less of a problem for me, socially, being independent, things I wouldn’t have done before, school stress has reduced quite a bit. They were the main things I was focused toward, and this has decreased stress for me.”

– 16-year-old participant in the Chase Worries Away program (Anxiety)

 

Transferable learning: Flexible support for diverse and unique families

SFI programs have demonstrated success, with families reporting high satisfaction. Rigorous testing and randomized trials show positive outcomes, with lasting effects one year later, targeting mild and moderate conditions. Programs have been found to have an 85% or better success rate in overcoming the child’s presenting problems, with an attrition rate of less than 10%. Data shows a strong impact on strengthening family relationships, parental mood/stress scores and child academic performance.

Families and their children are unique, and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to manage mental health or behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. Flexibility in SFI program design and availability can enhance the use and effectiveness of mental health supports, since families can receive support outside of traditional clinic settings and schedules. By using distance coaching and continued family support through structured calls with coaches, families engaged with SFI can receive care that is flexible, effective and respectful of their experiences and realities.


About the Strongest Families Institute

The Strongest Families Institute (SFI) is a national, not-for-profit organization that delivers distance, evidence-based programs to children and families who face issues impacting mental health and well-being. Founded in 2011, SFI seeks to provide timely delivery of services to families when and where they are needed by using technology, research and highly skilled staff.

Over the years, SFI has formed many partnerships to improve its services. Some of these partnerships have helped them deliver services to military and Veteran families, including Military Family Services – Ottawa, Bell True Patriot Love Foundation (Bell Let’s Talk) and a project collaboration with CIMVHR.

 

Notes

  1. Ann Douglas, Parenting Through the Storm (Toronto: HarperCollins, 2015).
  2. Heidi Cramm et al., “The Current State of Military Family Research,” Transition (January 19, 2016).
  3. Sharanjit Uppal, “Employment Patterns of Families with Children,” Insights on Canadian Society (June 24, 2015), Statistics Canada catalogue no. 75-006-X, http://bit.ly/1Nen7gR.
  4. Patricia Lingley-Pottie and Patrick J. McGrath, “Telehealth: A Child-Friendly Approach to Mental Health Care Reform,” Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 14 (2008): 225–26, doi:10.1258/jtt.2008.008001.
  5. Patrick J. McGrath et al., “Telephone-Based Mental Health Interventions for Child Disruptive Behavior or Anxiety Disorders: Randomized Trials and Overall Analysis,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 50, no. 11 (2011): 1162–72, doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.07.013.

It’s Time to Care for Our (Young) Carers

Andrea Breen, Ph.D.

When I type the words “Millennials are” into Google, four options pop up: “Millennials are lazy,” “Millennials are useless,” “Millennials are entitled” and “Millennials are narcissistic.” What doesn’t pop up is a search term to suggest the reality that we increasingly rely on our young people to provide unpaid care for adults in our families and communities. Data from Statistics Canada’s 2012 General Social Survey indicate that 1.9 million Canadians between 15 and 29 (27% of those in this age group) are “young carers”: young people who provide unpaid care for others for reasons of illness, disability, addiction or injury.

The statistics are surprising: the amount of time young people aged 15–24 spend caring for others is similar to that of their counterparts in the 45- to 54-year-old age range.1 Like middle-aged adults, most young carers provide care for just a few hours or less per week, but approximately 5% of young carers spend more than 30 hours per week caring for others. Young carers most typically look after their grandparents (40%), parents (27%) friends and neighbours (14%) and siblings or extended family members (11%). Nearly one in five (19%) of young carers report caring for three or more people.2

Canada is behind the US, UK, Australia and Sub-Saharan Africa in public awareness and policy development related to young carers.3, 4 Many Canadians aren’t familiar with the term young carers; as such, their struggles and needs remain largely invisible. At the federal level, supports that have been developed for carers, such as the caregiver credit and Compassionate Care Benefit, are intended for working adults.5 While the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal prohibits family status as grounds for discrimination, we do not yet have precedent for young carers, nor do we have explicit policies for supporting and accommodating young carers in our schools and post-secondary institutions.

Most of what is known about young carers in Canada comes from the recent work of a few researchers and a small handful of forward-thinking community organizations. There are important questions that we have only begun to ask about caregiving and its impacts on young Canadians’ psychological and social development: How might caregiving responsibilities shape or constrain identity development, relationships, educational opportunities, career development, leisure pursuits and personal and financial trajectories? How does caregiving impact on young carers’ mental health and well-being? What kinds of policies and practices need to be in place in our schools, communities, workplaces and post-secondary institutions to support young carers?

Early research suggests that caregiving can be beneficial when caregivers are supported: providing care for others can enhance social and emotional development, build a sense of competence and self-efficacy, and nurture empathy and compassion.6 I’ve seen some of the benefits reflected in my university students who are young carers. I’ve had several students who have pursued careers in gerontology because they provide care for an ailing grandparent, students who are passionate about working with children who have special needs because of their experiences caring for a sibling and students who are dedicating their professional lives to careers in mental health because they care for a parent who struggles with mental illness. In cases such as these, early experiences with caregiving can shape young carers’ identities in positive ways and orient them to a future that is focused on making meaningful contributions to others’ lives.

But caregiving also takes a toll. Young carers are especially vulnerable to social isolation, mental health challenges and lower educational attainment.7 For the estimated 47% of young carers who attend school,8 chronic lateness, absenteeism, insufficient time for assignments, anxiety and problems focusing can make balancing school and caregiving a challenge.9 One teenager I know in Nunavut recently left school to care for her dying grandmother, a situation that is much more common than most of us realize. Nationwide, an estimated 7% of young carers leave school early10 and the situation may be especially urgent in Northern Canada; in 2006 an estimated 46% of youth in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut provided some form of unpaid care to others.11 I wonder how many teachers and administrators are aware of this reality in their students’ lives?

Supporting young carers is a complex undertaking. Young carers are a diverse group, with varied experiences and needs. There are subgroups of young carers who are likely to be especially vulnerable, including those who devote significant time to caregiving, those with few social supports as well as young carers from marginalized communities who may face intersecting vulnerabilities to isolation and invisibility. We also need to be concerned about our youngest caregivers – Statistics Canada collects data on caregivers over the age of 15 only, which means that we know almost nothing about children and young adolescents who provide care for others.

Several years ago, I worked with a 12-year-old boy who had been suspended from school for severe behaviour problems. Over time, we learned that this boy and his slightly older brother were providing care for their mother, who struggled with depression and alcoholism. The boys took care of household tasks, shopping and preparing meals, and were doing their best to find help for their mother. These boys faced the same struggles as many adult carers – exhaustion, constant worry for someone they love, a sense of helplessness in the face of illness, limited time for other activities, mental health issues and deepening poverty and isolation. But they were especially vulnerable because they were children. They lived in fear that their situation would be discovered and they would be removed from their home. They were worried for themselves and also for their mother, who they thought wouldn’t be able to survive without them.

This family’s situation is an example of the shortcomings of intervention approaches and funding models that target individuals – we could “treat” the boy’s behavioural issues in isolation, but until someone provided real, meaningful help for his family, the boy’s risks for mental health challenges, poor physical health, school failure, criminality and other potentially devastating outcomes would likely only increase over time. How many youth are there like this in our communities? How many children look after their parents and guardians who are too ill, injured or disabled to take care of themselves? So far, we don’t have the answers – because we haven’t really been looking.

I had first heard the term “young carers” in a CBC Ontario Today interview with Vanier Institute CEO Nora Spinks and I was eager to know where she thinks those of us who are researchers should be focusing our attention. Her answer? One important area of focus is caregivers who are under the age of 10. She is concerned that digital technologies may be increasing possibilities for really young caregivers to be hidden from society; she points out that it can be relatively easy to conceal when families are falling apart because so many of our interactions now occur online. We can bank online and order food online – as long as they have access to a credit card, no one sees that it is a 9-year-old who is taking care of these tasks.

Demographic trends including an aging population, smaller families, more skip-generation parenting and geographical dispersion mean that the number of young carers in Canada is rising.12, 13 We need to focus attention on young carers in order to move people into awareness and action. There is a great deal of work to be done to develop research, programs and policies that can help us recognize and nurture the caregivers we depend on. Most importantly, we all need to look more closely at the children, youth and young adults in our schools and communities to recognize the hidden challenges they face and the remarkable contributions that so many of them are making.

 


Andrea Breen is an Assistant Professor of Family Relations and Human Development at the University of Guelph. Her research focuses on storytelling and implications for well-being, resilience and social change; and the use of technology to enhance well-being in children, youth and families. Dr. Breen has extensive experience developing innovative educational programs in school, mental health and detention settings and she served as Chief Scientist for the parenting app, kidü. Dr. Breen completed her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology and Education at OISE/UT. She also holds a master’s degree in Risk and Prevention from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a Bachelor of Education degree from McGill University.

 


SOURCES

Action Canada Task Force (2013), Who Cares About (Young) Carers? Raising Awareness for an Invisible Population.

Battams, Nathan (2013), “Young caregivers in Canada,” Fascinating Families 59, The Vanier Institute of the Family.

Bleakney, Amanda (2014), Young Canadians Providing Care, Statistics Canada.

Charles, Grant, and Tim Stainton and Sheila Marshall (2012), Young Carers in Canada: The Hidden Costs and Benefits of Young Caregiving, The Vanier Institute of the Family.

Stamatopoulos, Vivian (2015a), “Supporting young carers: A qualitative review of young carer services in Canada,” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 

Ibid. (2015b), “One million and counting: the hidden army of young carers in Canada,” Journal of Youth Studies.

 


NOTES

1 Battams (2013).

2 Bleakney (2014).

3 Becker (2007).

4 Stamatopolous (2015a).

5 Ibid.

6 Charles, Stainton, and Marshall (2002).

7 Charles et al. (2012).

8 Bleakney (2014).

9 Charles et al. (2012).

10 Bleakney (2014).

11 Stamatopoulos (2015b).

12 Stamatapoulos (2015a).

13 Stamatapoulos (2015b).

 


Further Reading

Programs and Networks:

Cowichan Family Caregivers Support Society Young Carers’ Network

Hospice Toronto Young Carers Program

Powerhouse Project: Young Carers Initiative

Young Carers Project of Waterloo Region

 

(Still) Eating Together: The Culture of the Family Meal

Paul Fieldhouse

For most Canadians, eating is a daily event so routine, so ordinary that it is taken for granted. But it is also a central part of social relationships and cultural rituals, as well as a symbolic and a material means of coming together. Across cultures and time, food sharing is an almost universal medium for expressing fellowship; it embodies values of hospitality, duty, gratitude, sacrifice and compassion. The shared meal is an opportunity not only to eat, but also to talk, to create and strengthen bonds of attachment and friendship, to teach and learn. Not surprisingly, the family meal is often celebrated as a supremely important component of family life.

The modern family meal

In order to understand “family meals,” it is important to first clarify what the term means. The phrase seems simple enough, but upon examination, the notion of the “family meal” is revealed as convenient shorthand for an idea that may be more imagined than real.

A common image that might come to mind is a happy nuclear family of mom, dad and kids sitting around a nicely laid table enjoying the fruits (and other products) of a largely invisible kitchen production process. Certainly this is an image perpetuated, if not created, by mid-20th-century advertising and popular TV and magazine culture. It has firmly established itself as a cultural ideal, something to be aspired to and emulated – the ultimate symbol of perfect family unity and stability.

It doesn’t take much of a historical read to see that this nuclear concept of the family meal is a fairly modern phenomenon. In Victorian Britain, the children of aristocratic and wealthy families were more likely to eat in the nursery or kitchen with their nanny or the servants, or to eat in communal dining rooms at boarding schools, than to sit at the “family table.” In low-income households, there might not even be a table to sit around.

For young children, “table talk” may be the main source of exposure to family conversation and the expression of thoughts, ideas and emotions.

In North America, “proper” family mealtimes became part of the middle-class consciousness during the second half of the 19th century. During the economic growth and prosperity of the post-war years, the “traditional” idea of the family meal became, perhaps briefly, the norm across social classes.

There are, of course, many types of families and household relationships. What does this mean then for what can be considered a family meal? Does everyone in the family have to be present? Do they have to be eating the same foods? Do they have to be sitting around a table? Does the food have to be prepared from scratch, or at least in the home? Does everyone have to be part of the same household? What if friends or visitors are present – is it still a family meal?

Some attempts to define a family meal include formulas such as at least one adult and one child eating together, two or more people eating together, or members of the same household eating together. Each of these definitions may be necessary but not sufficient to define the family meal and, without common definitions, assessing how common family meals are – and if and how they are changing – becomes very difficult.

The rhythm and role of the family meal

As an everyday ritual, the family meal can be seen as a symbol of shared family life. It organizes the family, regularly bringing family members together and contributing to their physical, mental and social well-being. It provides a rhythm and predictable structure to the day, which can be psychologically reassuring. On the physical or biological level, it is a way to manage the nutritional needs of family members. The extent to which it is successful in so doing depends on a large number of factors, including access to affordable and nutritious food, nutritional knowledge, and food buying and food preparation skills.

The appearance of a meal on the family table represents the outcome of time-consuming and skilled activities that involve both mental decision making and physical work. This work of “deciding and doing,” which applies to all steps of getting a meal, from planning menus to shopping, preparation and serving, is largely invisible and taken for granted.

While this work is still predominantly performed by women, men are increasingly taking on a larger role in family meal preparation than in the past. Cooking a family meal can be an enjoyable and fulfilling task, but it also demands trade-offs in time, money and emotional capital.

With all the work involved, the provision of a family meal is a symbolic demonstration of the care of the meal provider. It may veer more toward love or toward duty, but it always shows commitment to the family group. By sharing meal-related tasks, from shopping to food preparation, table-laying and clearing-up, all family members can participate in this exercise of responsible family solidarity. Failure to do so may be a source of family tension. On the other hand, research has shown that being unable to regularly produce the idealized family meal may provoke feelings of inadequacy and frustration.

Children and teens benefit from family meals

The dinner table is an important place for the socialization of children. The family meal is a prime setting for their introduction to the rules and norms of accepted behaviour and family values and expectations. For toddlers and preschoolers, it teaches what is considered culturally acceptable food and, on a more basic level, what is considered food and non-food.

From a nutritional perspective, family meals provide opportunities for exposing children to a variety of healthy food choices and for modelling healthy eating behaviours, encouraging new tastes and learning to respect appetite as a guide to satiety. But just as healthy choices can be modelled, so can unhealthy ones. If the typical family meal consists of starchy, fatty or high sugar items, with fruit and vegetables making rare appearances, then this pattern will be learned and likely continued.

At family mealtimes, children learn developmental skills, such as holding a cup or manipulating chopsticks, and acquire and develop language and literacy skills through the flow of conversation. For young children especially, “table talk” may be the main source of exposure to family conversation and the expression of thoughts, ideas and emotions.

The lament for the lost family meal may actually be a reaction to perceived or feared change in family structures and arrangements.

Through the exchange of stories, anecdotes and news, children learn about the adult world and the interests and attitudes of their parents, while adults get to learn about the interests and attitudes of their children’s world. At family mealtimes, parents know where their kids are; they can gauge their moods and needs, and uncover and help solve problems.

Research has also suggested that the family meal has a “protective effect.” Children and adolescents who eat more frequently with the family may consume better quality diets and are less likely to be overweight. They have fewer emotional problems and greater academic achievement, and they may be less likely to adopt risky behaviours such as drug and alcohol abuse.

It is not clear what it is about the family meal that is protective. Furthermore, it is difficult to isolate family mealtime from other familial influences. A recent study by two U.S. sociologists suggests that most of the associations between family meals and positive outcomes for youth can be traced to family socio-economic characteristics that make it more likely that they will actually have family meals.

Family meals are changing as families change

Throughout history, the family meal has come to represent the family itself in the public mind, and there is evidence that every generation has lamented its demise. Even in the 1920s, worries were being expressed about how leisure activities and the rise of the car were undermining family mealtimes!

Sociologist Anne Murcott has suggested that the “ideal” is closest to reality among middle-class families, the group that is most anxious about its perceived loss. The family meal represents stability during times of change. The lament for the lost family meal may actually be a reaction to perceived or feared change in family structures and arrangements.

Market research survey polls provide wildly varying data on family meals, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. For example, in 2013 a commercial market research company provided a report to their clients that showed eight out of 10 Canadians families had a family meal at least four times a week. In Quebec, this was nine out of 10. In a survey performed for a different client in 2014, the same company reported that only two out of 10 families eat family meals more than twice a week and that 5% of families never had family meals.

While market research data may be contradictory, academic studies and government data on family meals are relatively scarce. Evidence from the U.S., the U.K. and Scandinavia has pointed to family meals happening about half the time. U.S. data for 2003–2013 from the Child Trends Data Bank showed little change in frequency of family meals reported by children, which for six to seven days a week remained at around 55% for 6- to 11-year-olds and 30% for 12- to 17-year-olds. A 2010 U.K. survey suggested that 25% of families ate together nearly every day, while one in 10 families never had an evening meal together and one in five spent less than 10 minutes at the table together.

Instead of mourning the demise of the family meal, we can look for ways to reinvigorate our relationship with food and thus with our families, friends and wider community through intentionally eating together.

Canadian data for the period 1996–2005 showed that workers were spending less time on family activities, including family meals, and were more likely to eat at least one meal alone. The 2010 General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada reported that Canadians spent about one-quarter of their waking hours on food-related activities (eating meals at home or at restaurants as well as cooking/washing up), of which 60–70 minutes was devoted to eating meals in the home, with younger people spending the least amount of time on this activity. Another consumer report in 2011 claimed that 55% of Canadians spent 15 minutes or less on preparing a meal.

While this data suggests that time for family meals has diminished, it doesn’t indicate directly whether the number and type of family meals are changing. However, demographic changes in living arrangements are likely to have an impact. In 2011, according to the Canada census, one-person households made up 27.6% of all homes, a threefold increase since 1961 that is especially notable in Quebec.

It is little wonder then that eating alone is becoming common. Recent U.S. polling data suggests that even outside of the home, six out of 10 meals are eaten alone.

What does seem to hold true is that the majority of people still want and value family meals, however they define them. In the U.K. study mentioned above, three-quarters of people wanted to make more effort to sit down together for a family meal. At the same time, many people admit to facing a multitude of barriers in putting this into practice.

Lack of time, work demands, busy social lives, scheduled activities – especially after-school activities for children – and increased opportunities for eating away from home are among the factors militating against the family meal. Lunch has largely disappeared as a family meal, and breakfast may not be far behind as parents report a lack of time to prepare breakfast for their children before school.

People are more inclined to eat when and where they want to in more informal and unstructured ways.

A 2012 workplace consultant report revealed that three in 10 workers don’t take lunch breaks and four in 10 eat alone at their desks. The picture is quite different in France, where the ritual of the shared meal is still a core element of collective everyday life, and in Italy, where three-quarters of the population sit down to lunch in their own homes.

Whereas snacks and mealtimes are spread throughout the day in North America, in France there are three big spikes at morning, noon and night, indicating that traditional meal patterns are strong. At 1 p.m., almost half the French are sitting down to lunch; at 8:15 p.m., more than one-third are having supper. Whether it is a family meal or a meal shared with friends or co-workers, 80% of meals are eaten in the company of others.

Statistics about family meals don’t describe anything about the nature and quality of those events. It is evident that eating patterns are changing in response to changing societal arrangements, including work roles and technology. The concept of set mealtimes to be eaten in the company of specified family members, such as the “three meals a day” pattern familiar to many older people – particularly of European heritage – has largely given way to a less structured, more ad hoc system, aptly described as “grazing.”

At the same time as there are increasing barriers to sit-down, at-home, all-family-members-together meals, food is increasingly available, especially in urban centres, on a 24/7 basis outside the home at restaurants, malls, drive-ins and even non-food outlets, such as big box stores and garden centres. People are more inclined to eat when and where they want to in more informal and unstructured ways.

Future of the family meal

Families may still eat together – though this is often at malls, in fast-food restaurants or in cars en route to the basketball game or dance rehearsal – but to what extent do these constitute family meals? The common elements of food and family are still there, but what may be missing are some of the symbolic and culturally meaningful dimensions of the home-based family meal, some of the cultural learning opportunities and the structure that family mealtimes can bring to the day. When eating in the family car, for example, a parent may not be able to demonstrate the loving and responsible role of provider in the same way, it could be harder for them to teach food manners while in motion and this setting may not invoke the same sense of a refuge from the public sphere or reminder of family unity.

Eating together, whatever and wherever that may be, can help build and strengthen bonds between family members.

Even here, though, care must be taken when making assumptions. Is it not possible to have a conversation about one’s day or to enquire about homework while on the road or sitting around the fast food restaurant table? Some critics have doubted this, yet other studies suggest that when families eat out, they behave in ways very similar to home.

Eating together, whatever and wherever that may be, can help build and strengthen bonds between family members. Perhaps instead of mourning the demise of the family meal, we can look for ways to reinvigorate our relationship with food and thus with our families, friends and wider community through intentionally eating together.

We can take what we believe is good about family meals and put it into practice every time we eat. We can re-envisage mealtimes as a time for conviviality and social bonding. Forsaking the lonely desk lunch and the solo car meal, we can seek out company to share food and community.

 


Paul Fieldhouse is an adjunct professor in the Department of Human Nutritional Sciences at the University of Manitoba and a nutrition policy and research consultant for the Manitoba government. He has an Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Food and Religion.

This article is a reprint of (Still) Eating Together: The Culture of the Family Meal, originally published in Transition magazine (Vol. 45 No. 1).

The Online Lives of Canadian Youth

Matthew Johnson

November 2–6 is Media Literacy Week, an event that highlights the importance of teaching children and teens digital and media literacy skills to ensure their interactions with media are positive and enriching. In this week’s blog post, Matthew Johnson from MediaSmarts discusses the online behaviour of Canadian youth and the role of parents in their lives on the Web.


 

Digital natives. Tech-savvy. Narcissistic. Innovative. Mean. There are a lot of assumptions about kids online, but the labels we use are often misleading and out of step with what young people are actually doing with networked technologies. In order to better understand the online lives of Canadian children and youth, MediaSmarts – a Canadian not-for-profit charitable organization for digital and media literacy – conducted an extensive national survey of students in Grades 4 through 11 as part of the Young Canadians in a Wired World research series, which began in 2000.

It goes without saying that eight years is a long time on the Internet. Between 2005, when MediaSmarts published Phase II of its Young Canadians in a Wired World research, and 2013, when it conducted the national student survey for Phase III, the Internet changed almost beyond recognition: online video, once slow and buggy, became one of the most popular activities on the Web, while social networking became nearly universal among both youth and adults.

Young people’s online experiences have changed as well, so MediaSmarts surveyed 5,436 Canadian students in Grades 4 through 11, in classrooms in every province and territory, to find out how. The first report drawn from this survey, Life Online, focuses on what youth are doing online, what sites they are going to and their attitudes toward online safety, household rules on Internet use and unplugging from digital technology.

Nearly all youth have access to the Internet

One finding, which is unlikely to be a surprise, is that nearly all youth are going online. In fact, 99% of students surveyed have access to the Internet outside of school using a variety of devices. The biggest change since the last survey is the proliferation of mobile and portable devices, such as tablets, smartphones and web-enabled MP3 players, which give youth constant – and often unsupervised – online access. In the previous Young Canadians in a Wired World report, in 2005, the majority of students accessed the Internet through shared desktop computers at home (which were often kept in the family room or kitchen so parents could keep an eye on the online activities of their children), whereas now portable and personal networked devices, such as tablets and smartphones, are the primary access point for many of these students.

Portable, private access to the Internet was found to increase with age, while reliance on shared computers has decreased: 64% of Grade 4 students report using a shared family computer to go online outside of school, but this drops to 37% by Grade 11. Ownership of cellphones and smartphones, on the other hand, is reported by 24% of students in Grade 4, 52% of students in Grade 7 and 85% of students in Grade 11. Perhaps not surprisingly, ownership of these devices is correlated with family affluence: a greater proportion of more-affluent students compared with medium-affluent students report access to portable computers (74% vs. 61%), cellphones (49% vs. 41%) and game consoles (45% vs. 38%).

Not only are students getting connected, they are staying connected: more than one-third of students who own cellphones say they sleep with their phones in case they get calls or messages during the night. This is true of both girls and boys (39% and 37%, respectively, of those who own cellphones). The trend increases across grades to peak at just over half (51%) of Grade 11 students, but one-fifth of all students in Grade 4 also report that they do the same.

Students are well aware that they are frequently “plugged in”: 40% of girls and 31% of boys report worrying that they spend too much time online. When asked how they would feel if they could not go online for anything other than school or work for a week, just under half (49%) say they would be upset or unhappy. Interestingly, English-language students outside of Quebec are more likely to be upset than French-language students in Quebec (51% vs. 40%). However, 46% of all students indicate they would not care one way or the other and 5% report that they would be relieved or happy to go offline.

Many students try to balance their online and offline activities, saying that they sometimes choose to go offline in order to spend more time with friends and family (77%), go outside or play a game or sport (71%), read a book (44%) or just enjoy some solitary quiet time (45%). Only 4% say that they never choose to go offline to do any of these things.

Youth go online to learn, play games and socialize

What are Canadian youth doing when they are online? For many, the Internet is a tool for learning and sharing information: half (49%) of students in all grades have gone online to find information about news and current events and half of students in Grades 7–11 have sent links to news stories or current events to others. However, relatively few have participated in online debates, either by posting comments on a news site (71% of Grades 7–11 have never done so) or joining an activist group (65% of all grades have never done so).

Students report looking for information on the Internet on sensitive topics, such as mental health issues, sexuality, physical health issues and relationship problems.

Children and youth are not just interested in learning about news and current events, however. Many report going online to learn about health and well-being, whether it’s to learn about physical health (20% of girls and 16% of boys), mental health (14% of girls and 9% of boys) or relationship problems (18% of girls and 9% of boys). The percentage of students who use the Internet as an information source increases from Grade 4 through to Grade 11.

Compared with students in younger grades, a higher percentage of students in Grades 7–11 report looking for information on more sensitive topics, such as mental health issues, sexuality, physical health issues and relationship problems. However, nearly one-quarter (22%) of students report that they do not use the Internet to find information about any of these things. Close to one-third of students report having gone online to ask an expert (30%) or other kids (33%) for advice about a personal problem, although only a small percentage report frequently doing so.

Two-thirds of students report that they play online games, with this activity being significantly more popular among boys (71%) than girls (47%). Unlike other online activities, which increase with age, the proportion of students who report playing online games decreases over time, from a high of 77% in Grade 5 to a low of 42% in Grade 10.

Not surprisingly, social networking is also a popular activity, particularly among older students in the survey. The increased participation in social media-related activities is consistent with developmental literature that suggests that social connection becomes more important as young people move from childhood to their teen years. Between Grade 4 and Grade 11, reading others’ profiles increases from 18% to 72%, tweeting increases from 5% to 42%, following friends/family on Twitter rises from 8% to 39%, posting on one’s own profile rises from 19% to 50% and following celebrities on Twitter rises from 5% to 32%. Girls are more likely than boys to report using social media to communicate with family and friends (45% posted on their own social networking site, compared with 36% of boys).

Many parents regulate the online lives of their children

Parents have continued to be involved in their children’s online lives, with 84% of surveyed students reporting that they have household rules to follow regarding their online activity. The most common rules are about posting contact information online (55%), talking to strangers online or on a cellphone (52%), avoiding certain sites (48%), treating people online with respect (47%) and getting together with online acquaintances (44%).

There have been changes involving household rules regarding online activities since the 2005 survey. Although MediaSmarts’ 2012 focus groups with parents and youth showed parents were more concerned than ever about what youth were doing online, the average number of household rules has actually declined since 2005. For example, in the earlier survey, 74% of students had a rule at home about meeting people whom they first met online, compared with only 44% today. Regarding personal information, 69% of students in 2005 had a rule about giving personal information online, whereas 55% in 2013 had a rule about posting contact information.

84% of surveyed students report that they have household rules to follow regarding their online activity.

Consistent with our previous research, household rules have a significant positive impact on what students do online, reducing risky behaviours such as posting contact information, visiting gambling sites, seeking out online pornography and talking to strangers online. In general, though, the number of household rules takes a sharp dive after Grade 7 and at all ages girls are more likely to report having rules about their online activities than boys. For example, girls are more likely than boys to report having online rules about talking to strangers (61% of girls vs. 40% of boys), getting together with someone they have met online (52% vs. 35%), telling their parents about anything that makes them uncomfortable online (46% vs. 30%) and treating people online with respect (54% vs. 40%).

The greater number of rules placed on girls may be based on a sense that girls are generally more vulnerable, but it may also relate to the fact that the Internet is a very different place for girls than for boys. Girls are less likely to agree with the statement “The Internet is a safe place for me” and more likely to agree that “I could be hurt if I talk to someone I don’t know online.” Despite these differences, both boys and girls feel confident in their ability to look after themselves, with nine out of 10 agreeing with the statement “I know how to protect myself online.”

Youth learn about online life from a variety of sources

Students do see their parents as a valuable resource for learning about the Internet: nearly half (45%) of students say they have learned about issues such as cyberbullying, online safety and privacy management at home. However, parents aren’t their only source of information about online issues, with students also reporting learning about these issues from teachers (41%), friends (18%) and online sources (19%). As students get older, they are less likely to report having learned about these issues from parents and more likely to learn from teachers: for example, students in Grades 4–6 were more likely to report having learned about how to be safe online from parents (75%) than teachers (50%). A worrying number of students have not learned about these topics from any source. For example, more than half of students in Grades 4–6 have not learned any strategies for authenticating online information either at home or at school.

Life Online has raised many issues that call for more in-depth study. However, the evidence is clear at this early stage that despite their confidence with digital tools – or perhaps because of it – Canadian youth, and particularly elementary-aged children, need instruction in digital literacy skills, and parents and teachers need to be given tools and resources to help them provide that instruction.

 


This article was originally featured in Transition magazine in fall 2013 (Vol. 43, No. 3).

Matthew Johnson is Director of Education at MediaSmarts, Canada’s centre for digital and media literacy.

For resources and information about digital and media literacy, visit the MediaSmarts and Media Literacy Week websites.

When Cupboards Are Bare: Food Insecurity and Public Health

Nathan Battams

(Updated September 6, 2017)

Food security is an issue that is deeply intertwined with the health and economic well-being of families. It is a serious social, economic and public health concern, felt not only by the estimated 1.3 million households in Canada that reported experiencing food insecurity in 2014 (12% of households, home to 3.2 million people), but also by the communities in which they live. When families face obstacles in securing the quantity and quality of meals they need to thrive, it becomes all the harder for them to be healthy and live productive, happy lives.

When the Canadian Medical Association consulted Canadians about public health issues in a series of town hall meetings in 2013, food insecurity was identified as one of the main social determinants of health. Without a stable and healthy food supply, people are more likely to develop a range of health issues, such as heart disease, diabetes, stress and even food allergies.

While there are multiple contributing factors to food insecurity, including geographic isolation, food literacy and transportation issues, economic insecurity is at the heart of the matter.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008, families have increasingly depended on food banks and other community supports for essential support securing the quantity and quality of food they need. According to Food Banks Canada, the number of people who accessed food banks across the country in March 2016 (863,492) was 28% higher than in 2008, and more than 40% of households receiving food were families with children.

Some individuals are more likely than others to experience food insecurity. Food insecurity rates were higher than the national average in 2014 for people with an Aboriginal identity (26%) and for Black people (29%). A 2016 study also found that some households are more likely than the national average to experience food insecurity, including (but not limited to):

  • Households with children under age 18 (15.6% versus a 10.4% food insecurity rate for households without children)
  • Lone-parent families headed by women (33.5%)
  • Households in Nunavut (60%)
  • People living in rented households (25%)
  • Households with an income below the Low Income Measure (29.2%)

Research from Statistics Canada has suggested that adults experience food insecurity at higher rates than children (8.2% compared with 4.9%) because parents are protecting their youngsters from food insecurity by reducing the variety and quantity of their own meals so their children can eat better. Despite this, children across Canada are affected by food insecurity, with children and youth accounting for 36% of those helped by food banks in March 2016.

Food banks and community supports were never intended to be permanent solutions to food insecurity. Many organizations providing food to families are feeling the pressure resulting from the economic downturn. Faced with increased demand, some food banks have had to reduce the assistance they provide – a reality with serious consequences for the health and well-being of families in Canada.

There are multiple contributing factors to food insecurity, including geographic isolation, food literacy and transportation issues, but economic insecurity is at the heart of the matter. Families can’t eat when they don’t have the power to buy. Rates of food insecurity vary widely across Canada, reaching as high as 47% in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories in 2014. Some people face disproportionately high rates of low income, such as sole-support mothers and Indigenous people, and are therefore also more likely to experience higher levels of food insecurity.

Food bank users typically make do with limited financial resources, which is reflected in patterns of food bank use: nearly half (45%) of households who accessed food banks in March 2016 relied on social assistance as their primary source of income. However, Canadians who earn the majority of their income through paid labour are also accessing food banks, accounting for 15% of those assisted in the same month.

Whether it comes as a result of improving the health or increasing the wealth of Canadians, access to the quality and quantity of food we need is essential for living well and reaching our full potential.


This is an edited and updated version of an article that was originally featured in Transition magazine in spring 2013 (Vol. 43, No. 2).

Nathan Battams is responsible for publications, communications and social media at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Family Finances: Investments in Education

Stacy Yanchuk Oleksy and Nathan Battams

(Updated November 20, 2017)

Decisions surrounding post-secondary education can have a significant impact on the lives of young adults and their families. A degree or diploma can open doors to employment and the possibility of higher earnings; however, higher education doesn’t come cheap! Tuition fees are increasing at a rate much higher than inflation, and they are compounded by a combination of other student expenses, such as housing, transportation and groceries. For many young Canadians, the short-term pain of post-secondary education costs can seem greater than the long-term gain of having a degree, even with student loan programs in place to support their academic pursuits. Initially – or when students find themselves short on the resources they need to enroll or stay in school – most turn to their families for support, and families adapt in diverse and creative ways to provide this support.

Post-secondary education is a family investment

While post-secondary education is widely seen as a valuable investment, student costs must be well managed to fully realize a return on investment. According to Statistics Canada, the average annual university tuition fee for undergraduate students is nearly $6,600 for the 2017–2018 academic year – that’s nearly three times as much as their parents would have paid in the 1970s. These costs, particularly when combined with other student expenses, add up quickly. The 2015 National Graduates Survey found that half of students in a bachelor’s program finish school indebted, owing an average $26,000 upon graduation. Slightly fewer (43%) college graduates finished school with debt, averaging $15,000 upon completion of their program.

Many students work part- or full-time to generate income to pay expenses, supplement student loans or augment family financial assistance. However, employment can compete with academic commitments, making them more difficult to fulfill. So, many students turn to their families for assistance to help finance their education. The nature and amount of assistance provided is shaped by the family’s financial situation and circumstance, as well as attitudes and beliefs surrounding who is ultimately responsible for post-secondary financing. Some families have the means to cover the entire cost and others provide partial support, while some cannot afford to provide any financial assistance. Each of these scenarios has an impact on the student’s finances, money management strategies and family relationships. By looking at the relationship between educational aspirations and family financial assistance, we can learn about the broader complexity of family finances and the diverse ways families provide support.

Without help from family, a student will likely have to take out student loans or live on easy-to-access student credit to cover the costs. This often happens even when families do provide financial assistance. Some post-secondary education costs can be offset if students work part-time during their studies, but this can be difficult – students have to balance the workload and the pressures of class while managing employment. Sometimes students may extend the duration of their program to leave time so they can work enough to pay for expenses.

Family financial support is common

Some families pay for the full cost of their child’s post-secondary education and related expenses. These costs can be covered by family income or through longer-term savings strategies. According to Statistics Canada, nearly seven in 10 (68%) Canadians aged 17 and older had savings set aside for college or university in 2013.

Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) were the most common savings approach for educational pursuits: in 2013, 77% of those with savings had an RESP – up from 69% in 2008. Parental education can shape expectations and saving behaviours for their children’s post-secondary education. Among children whose parents had a high school diploma or less, just over half (52%) had savings set aside, compared to 78% among children whose parents had a university degree. Not surprisingly, family income also plays a big role: in 2013, 44% of children living in households with an annual income of less than $30,000 had parents who were saving compared to 82% of children living in households earning $100,000 or more.

Many families aspire to cover the costs of a child’s post-secondary education, but they are not in a financial position to directly cover the full cost through income transfers or RESPs. Students can help reduce financial pressures through rigorous budgeting, but this can only go so far until it eventually threatens their food or housing security. Parents sometimes offer support by co-signing credit (e.g. loans, lines of credit, credit cards) to help their student cover the costs of schooling. However, this strategy is not without its risks, as the co-signer is responsible for the entire debt if the student fails to make his or her payments, even if the student files for bankruptcy.

Family financial support is complex

Family finances are complex, as are the diverse ways in which families adapt to provide support when access to money is limited. If a student is attending a post-secondary institution near the family home (or the home of another relative), support sometimes takes the form of free room and board throughout the school year, and the student may or may not be left responsible for other costs, such as books, tuition and possibly food. As life and school costs have increased over the past 30 years, so too has the proportion of young Canadians aged 20 to 24 living in the parental home – rising from 42% in 1981 to 59% in 2011.

Students sometimes receive non-financial forms of family support even if they aren’t living in the family home. Many students will do laundry or stick around for family meals when they visit their parents, allowing them to save money while nurturing their family relationships. Parents sometimes bring care packages, furnishings or simply money-saving advice when visiting their children during the school year.

Providing support can affect family finances and family relationships

Parents may be making significant financial sacrifices to help provide financial support – sometimes at the cost of their own aspirations. In a 2013 CIBC survey carried out by Leger Marketing, 33% of parents with children under age 25 reported that they had incurred additional debt as a result of financing their children’s education, and 36% said they would need to delay their own retirement as a result. While most are quite happy to provide this support, it can have an impact on their plans.

Tensions may arise between parents and students if the financial support being provided puts strain on the household. Direct financial support can put additional pressure on the parents’ finances that they might not have previously planned for, which can impact their ability to pursue their own aspirations (such as retiring). When a student continues living in (or returns to) the parental home to help reduce costs, the impact may also be felt in the relationships between those living in the parental home – particularly if this living arrangement had not been planned in advance. Finally, the student may feel a psychological impact, as he or she might feel the weight of expectations regarding academic performance resulting from guilt felt for continuing to rely on parental support.

When parents contribute financially to post-secondary expenses, it may create some pressure on students to meet parents’ expectations with regard to studying, grades and even attendance. Students are accountable not only to themselves and their education, but to their families. This scenario may create tension between family and student by not allowing the student to pursue his or her goals without a feeling of pure independence or to experience the peaks and valleys of adult decision-making.

Family support is priceless

Despite the pressures and financial tension that may arise from supporting the costs of education, families are highly resilient and adaptable problem-solvers, and all parents want their children to succeed. Communication and expectations between parents and students are crucial, as is providing the freedom to let the student learn from managing his or her new academic and financial responsibilities.

Families provide much more than just financial resources for post-secondary education. They provide emotional and social support for the student and encouragement to grow and learn from challenges and mistakes, and they cheer the student on as he or she starts the journey into a meaningful career. That’s something money can’t buy.

 


Stacy Yanchuk Oleksy is Director of Education and Community Awareness at the Credit Counselling Society. Nathan Battams is a writer and researcher at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

 

SOURCES

Statistics Canada, “Tuition Fees for Degree Programs, 2017/2018,” The Daily (September 7, 2016), accessed November 20, 2017, http://bit.ly/2wIaVV2.

Nicole M. Fortin, “Rising Tuition and Supply Constraints: Explaining Canada–U.S. Differences in University Enrollment Rates,” Higher Education in Canada (2005), accessed July 21, 2015, https://bit.ly/3BNgzX3.

Statistics Canada, National Graduates Survey, Student Debt from All Sources, by Province and Level of Study (Table 477-0068), accessed July 20, 2015, http://bit.ly/1DqnCPH.

Statistics Canada, “Survey of Approached to Educational Planning, 2013,” The Daily (October 29, 2014), accessed November 20, 2014, http://bit.ly/1wcNmhO.

Statistics Canada, “Living Arrangements of Young Adults Aged 20 to 29,” Census Analytical Products, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-312-X-2011003 (September 2012), accessed December 4, 2013, http://bit.ly/18Frq5X.

CIBC/Leger Marketing, Parents Delaying Retirement, Taking on Debt to Help Kids Pay for Education (August 2013), accessed November 20, 2014, http://bit.ly/1e3jE92.

Timeline: 50 Years of Families in Canada

Today’s society and today’s families would have been difficult to imagine, let alone understand, a half-century ago.

Families and family life have become increasingly diverse and complex, but families have always been the cornerstone of our society, the engine of our economy and at the centre of our hearts.

Learn about how families and family experiences in Canada have changed over the past 50 years with our new timeline!

Download the 50 Years of Families in Canada timeline.

Strength in Diversity: Positive Impacts of Children with Disabilities

Michelle R. Lodewyks

Download (PDF)

When it comes to exploring the experiences of families raising children with disabilities, studies tend to focus on the perceived negative impact of the disability on the family. These families are commonly viewed as “victims” who face excessive caregiving demands, emotional distress, physical and/or financial burdens and interpersonal difficulties, while the children are portrayed primarily as sources of stress and anguish. This tragedy dialogue supports an assumption that families with children with disabilities experience “chronic sorrow” and perpetuates the perception of disability as something to be avoided or eradicated. These perceptions have a major influence on today’s assumptions about – and reactions to – disability, including how professionals respond to children with disabilities and how society views and responds to children at birth. Consequently, the general public tends to overlook many positive impacts and meaningful contributions that children with disabilities make within their families, communities and society in general.

In order to explore the positive impact disability can have within families, a qualitative, interview-based study was performed to add narrative depth to the research. All of the parents and children interviewed identified a variety of positive effects the children have had on their families and contributions the children have made to family life. The most unsurprising discovery was the affirmation that a child with a disability can have some of the same positive effects on their families and make some of the same contributions as any other child. Highlighting these similarities is critical, given the tendency for children with disabilities to be distinguished from other children and viewed as less likely to affect their families in positive ways. Yet perhaps even more meaningful was the discovery that children with disabilities can also have unique positive effects and make unique contributions to families and family life.

Raising a child with a disability provides opportunities for personal growth

Parents in the study reported an ability to more readily recognize and appreciate the value, potential and strengths of a person with a disability as a result of their parenting experiences. Many described how their experiences left them with a greater acceptance of diversity, a stronger belief that there is an inherent and intrinsic value in people and a “more balanced appreciation for what people are about.”

One participant said her experience gave her a new perspective on how to help individuals she works with; she learned not to place limits on people or tell them what they can or cannot do, but instead help them strive for self-improvement. Siblings of children with a disability experienced attitudinal changes brought about by this family relationship. For these siblings, increased exposure to disability in their family environment made them more comfortable around other children with a disability, and they discovered a new-found enthusiasm for getting to know people with disabilities in general.

Children with a disability often exceeded expectations and did not necessarily comply with what is typical for their diagnoses, often being nothing close to the worst-case scenarios predicted by some doctors. As one participant stated, “I don’t know what my parents would have thought about people with disabilities before I came around, but I think it’s just… shown them that it really doesn’t mean that much… you can still be productive and still have goals and not really let anything stop you, as hard as that is sometimes.”

All of the parents in the study perceived themselves as having acquired new or enhanced positive character attributes as a result of raising a child with a disability. Attribute changes included family members learning to open their hearts and to be more loving, warm, caring, creative, balanced, gentle, calm, outgoing, responsible, independent and less selfish.

The positive attribute change most commonly reported by parents of a child with a disability was that they became more tolerant and accepting. As family members learned to be more accepting of diversity and of people’s behaviours, they cultivated a greater respect for other families of children with disabilities and experienced more compassion toward people in general.

Several parents commented that their child made them an overall “better person,” “better parent” or made other family members “better people.” Some of these effects carried over into the workplace: one participant perceived himself as a “better person at work” because of the understanding his son has given him about autism. This understanding has enabled him to relate to staff and other people in a different way; he supports his colleagues by helping them understand and interpret the behaviour of a co-worker who also has autism.

Parents experience pride, joy and strengthened relationships

All parents in the study reported positive emotions their children have fostered in them. A sense of pride was the most common. One parent recognized that some of the things that evoke a sense of pride “may not be the same as what other people [her son’s age] are doing,” yet she maintained she had numerous reasons to be proud. Parents expressed pride in, or were impressed by, their children’s knowledge or creativity, their sense of right and wrong, their methods for overcoming fears, their ability to put their minds to something and take a chance, and for being their own advocates. Additionally, all 10 children reported the positive emotions they also felt they evoked in family members – more than half believing they made their family proud.

One mother insisted she derives more excitement from the little things in life than many other people and that she “celebrate[s] things that other people don’t even think about celebrating” because of her daughter. Another explained her pride in her daughter as follows: “Disability-wise, I’m very proud of her because she hasn’t let her disability control her life. She’s got multiple disabilities… And she doesn’t let that slow her down… It would be too easy to say, ‘Oh, I can’t do this’ and give up… She’s always willing to push the limits and do the best that she can.”

Many parents talked about having met people, gained friendships and made new connections thanks to their child. While any child can expand a family’s social network, certain examples were attributed to the family’s particular circumstances. For one couple, connecting themselves to other families through the creation of a support network for parents with similar experiences has been valuable, as they have been able to offer support to other parents who have approached them for advice and guidance.

Despite one parent noting that having a child with a disability may make some families “fall apart,” many parents perceived that their child strengthened their marriage or made the parents and/or family stronger. Two of the parents felt they had become better at communicating and sharing with their spouse thanks to their child. The father in this couple talked about the difficulty he and his wife experienced when their son was first diagnosed and described the role each played in helping the other get through the “tough parts.” Their experience, he explained, has made him and his wife “more free to talk about things and feelings,” thus improving their communication.

A few parents mentioned how their child added a fresh perspective and/or insight to the family. One father commented on the value of his son’s insight and identified this as something he appreciates most about him: “His insight into things is so different than anybody else. He thinks differently than we do… and I love hearing his insight. He adds such a dimension to our house… I just can’t imagine not having that dimension in our home. It’s… such a core of who we are in this house. He’s so amazing.”

Referring to his natural gifts when it comes to writing and composing music, one of the children insisted that having autism has given him the ability to be hyperfocused and successful with music. He concluded, “I think the music is a positive impact. It can impact everyone else, too, if they hear it.”

When asked how she makes a difference in her family, another one of the children replied, “I suppose it would be a little less lively without me. There wouldn’t be as many interesting dinner conversations.” She also referred to “the whole yin and yang thing” and how she counterbalances the mellowness in her family.

Families learn from their unique experiences and seek to share their knowledge

Before concluding the interviews, all participants were asked what they would like other people to understand about them, their family and/or their experience. Parents shared that their experiences are “not all rosy” – that there have been “challenges,” “struggles,” “obstacles” and “tough times.” Yet parents did not necessarily hold the child responsible for any negative aspects of their experience. One parent admitted that her struggles adjusting to her child’s disability had less to do with the child than with other people’s preconceptions and the parents’ own feelings regarding what their experience would be like. She explained, “There was no question, that period of time where you struggle with it – a bit of a denial thing. Well, you almost grieve, but you come to the conclusion that those feelings are more about you, and what you thought, or what other people might be thinking.”

Other parents agreed that any anger, stress, anxiety and/or crises they may have experienced resulted from having to deal with the ignorance of other people and a general lack of societal understanding rather than from the child. One mother requested that people reconsider their use – or misuse – of certain labels, explaining that, while people with intellectual disabilities are often labelled as hindered in some way, “the hindrance is very often on the so-called ‘normal’ people for lack of understanding them.”

These findings coincided with those from an earlier study in which parents suggested that the sorrow they experienced originated largely from having to deal with recurring messages of negativity and hopelessness from other people, such as professionals, the health system, other family members and friends. This suggests a source of stress and negativity outside the child and that a family’s perceptions about their child may be determined, at least in part, by the surrounding cultural beliefs about disability. Therefore, if society holds negative attitudes toward disability and the surrounding cultural perceptions are largely negative, negativity can be transmitted to the family – to parents’ views of, and beliefs about, their children and to their parenting.

The parents in the study also wished to dispel negative assumptions others might associate with their child and place any negativity in context of the bigger picture. Some described their experience “as a gift instead of a burden,” and insisted it is not a source of anything negative to have a child with a disability in the family, emphasizing that they are not sorry for the way their child has changed their lives. While acknowledging the stress, hard work and commitment required to raise a child with a disability, other parents commented on the unfortunate nature of other people not realizing how rewarding the experience can be. One father reframed his experience raising his son in the following way: “You want a catastrophe? You want tragedy? You know what, let me pick up a paper and show you about somebody who died in a car accident. Let me show you about a young mother that was killed. Let me show you about the tsunami. Those are tragedies. This is a curveball. All you’ve got to do is learn how to hit curves and you’ll be fine… And it’s not easy, but you learn to grow with it.”

Among the most common requests from parents were that assumptions not be made based on disability and that people recognize each child’s ability and potential. Parents insisted that their children can give a lot to society and deserve respect and requested that people make an effort to learn from their children. Elaborating, one parent cautioned, “I was just thinking in terms of the impact of… people with Down syndrome on the world… We’ve been trying to basically eradicate this group of people by all the blood testing and stuff. It devalues the lives that they have. And they have something to offer… They’ve got something really special that we need to sit up and take note of because we could learn a lot from them.”

When asked what they wanted to share with others, similarly powerful messages came from the children. One of the children wanted others to “understand that I have disabilities, but I’m not a worse person for it.” Another child offered the following take-away message: “Lots of people have the perception that I’m kind of slow… I want them to know that I really do know a lot about the world and what’s going on, and it hasn’t stopped me – having cerebral palsy, being in a wheelchair – I’m not an unaware person. I have big ambitions and a bright future. I don’t want them to feel sorry for me, because I think I’m going to have a really good and interesting and fun life!”

The positivity of embracing diversity goes beyond the family

Learning from families who view their circumstances in a positive light, making these perceptions more readily available to the general public and coming to view the experience of raising a child with a disability as one that is not necessarily tragic – but rather enriching and rewarding – can have a variety of positive implications. These findings can provide medical professionals (particularly those involved in prenatal screening and diagnosis) with practical information to share with families when a diagnosis is given. These findings might also benefit other parents currently raising a child with a disability by encouraging them to focus more closely on what their child adds to their life.

In presenting these findings, this study is not denying the existence of challenges and negative family experiences. Sharing these findings is also not suggesting that everything will automatically improve for families who struggle raising a child with a disability. Yet the belief is that appreciating the strengths and positives has potential for beneficial change. There is also evidence that focusing on the children’s positive impacts and contributions may serve to control the meaning and level of stress associated with the experience. This could be helpful in the adaptation process. If more families see their experiences in a positive light, perhaps they can assist in altering widespread perceptions of the impact of disability, provide support to new parents and relieve some of the fear and anxiety around the idea of raising a child with a disability. In doing so, the hope is that a more affirmative way of viewing disability could be promoted.


 

Michelle Lodewyks is an Instructor in the Disability and Community Support Program at Red River College as well as a graduate of the Master’s Program in Disability Studies at the University of Manitoba.

SOURCES

Fotheringham, J. B., Skelton, M., & Hoddinott, B. (1971). The Retarded Child and His Family: The Effects of Home and Institution. Toronto, ON: Institute for Studies in Education.

Gupta, A., & Singhal, N. (2004). Positive Perceptions in Parents of Children with Disabilities. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 15:1. http://bit.ly/ZSm1oU (accessed October 9, 2014).

Kearney, P. M., & Griffin, T. (2001). Between Joy and Sorrow: Being a Parent of a Child with Developmental Disability. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34:5.

Kharasch Behr, S. (1989). Underlying Dimensions of the Construct of Positive Contributions That Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Make to Their Families: A Factor Analytic Study. University of Kansas (unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The Structure of Coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 19.

Stainton, T., & Besser, H. (1998). The Positive Impact of Children with an Intellectual Disability on the Family. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 23:1. http://bit.ly/1s01wQt (accessed October 9, 2014).

Summers, J. A. (1988). Family Adjustment: Issues in Research on Families with Developmentally Disabled Children. In V. B. Van Hasselt, P. S. Strain and M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an Affirmation Model of Disability. Disability & Society, 15:4. http://bit.ly/1ycgl7r (accessed October 9, 2014).

Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Woolfson, L. (2003). Disabled Children, Parents and Society – A Need for Cognitive Reframing. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 11:1. http://bit.ly/1uGHSuW (accessed October 9, 2014).