RISK AND RESILIENCE

IN CHILDHOODJo Boyden and Abhijeet Singh

Young Lives, University of Oxford

Rudolph Schaffer:

“Whatever stresses an individual may have encountered in early years, he or she need not forever more be at the mercy of the past. . . . children’s resilience must be acknowledged

every bit as much as their vulnerability”

‘Social Development: an Introduction’ (1996:47)

Understanding risk and resilience

• Risk: a stressor (deficit or ‘insult’) experienced by an individual that

heightens probability of developmental or behavioural pathology

• Cohort studies in LMICs highlight loss of developmental potential due to

risk exposure: • the first 1,000 days of life are critical, when exposure heightens

severity & persistence of effects• synergy between developmental domains compounds effects

• Yet, Rutter (1972) argued that genetically influenced variations in

environmental susceptibility may be important

• ‘Ego resilience’ (Gamezy 1983) :

• good outcomes despite high-risk status • sustained competence under threat • recovery from trauma (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990)

• Rutter has found that risk itself can lead to the development of protective

processes that enhance resilience in children: Steeling effects

Evidence on risk and resilience

• Resilience is highly influenced by “protective processes” in the wider environment (proximal and distal)

• Risks and protective processes are context specific:

• Structural dynamics – risk burden varies widely according to children’s social attributes (ethnicity, religion, gender, caste), location & HH economic status

• Ideational systems – cultural norms & subjective understandings of risk and resilience make a significant difference

• Sociality – relationships and institutional membership are key

• Risks are domain-specific: some competencies (e.g. social & emotional) are far more responsive to environmental stimuli than others (e.g. sensory & motor functions)

• Risks and resilience are both sensitive to timing

• Questions that need answering:

• Is recovery, partial or complete, possible?

• What are the factors behind such recovery? Limitations?

• Which are the critical ages for domain-specific interventions?

• Conversely, which are the most critical domains for each age group?

• Interdisciplinary, mixed methods, comparative study of a dual birth

cohort that is researching the determinants & outcomes of childhood

poverty

• Following nearly 12,000 children in Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh &

Telangana), Peru, Vietnam, started 2001 & ends 2018

• 80 sites selected non-randomly - pro-poor & representing country

diversity (rural-urban, livelihoods, ethnicity etc.)

• Respondents selected randomly as representative of their cohort at

sentinel site level; roughly equal numbers of boys and girls

• 5 survey rounds combine explanatory variables at the child, caregiver &

community level with child outcome indicators ( + measures from

international test batteries) - plus school surveys

• 4 waves of qualitative research with a sub-sample of 200 children

Young Lives

Ethiopia India Peru Vietnam

Younger

cohort (b.

2000/1)

Round 1 (2002)

Round 2 (2006)

Round 3 (2009)

1 year old

5 years old

8 years old

Round 4 (2013) 12 years old

8 years old

12 years old

15 years old

19 years old

Round 5 (2016) 15 years old 22 years old

Older

cohort (b.

1994/5)

Full sample of

children &

caregivers, plus

selected younger

siblings &

community

representatives

Structure of panel

Example 1: Catch-up from stunting

• Children in developing countries born close to developed

country norms but falter in the first two years of life

(Victora et al. 2010)

• Faltering is often thought to be irreversible

• Panel data show however that a number of stunted

children do ‘catch-up’ i.e. recover from stunting.

• Cebu (Adair, 1999), Young Lives in Ethiopia, India, Peru and

Vietnam (e.g. Crookston et. al. 2010, Crookston et. al. 2013)

• Surprisingly children who have recovered from stunting

and never stunted show no difference in cognitive skills

(Crookston et. al. 2010)

• So, perhaps stunting not as hopeless as believed.

Catch-up growth: Why it matters

• Factors that correlate with catch up are similar to those which prevent stunting in the first place• The initially worst-off are the most vulnerable (similar to risk in

other domains, e.g. Dercon 2002)

• Those stunted earliest least likely to catch-up (Adair, 1999)

• Policy may have a role: • early remediation most effective, but some hope still for those

left behind

• A concrete illustration: Singh, Park and Dercon (2014) show that India’s Midday Meals help compensate for nutritional effects of droughts in early childhood• So catch-up may be manipulable by policy tools.

• Focusing entirely on risks denies possibility of remediation

Understanding the ages for intervention:

learning divergence• Two key questions relevant for child outcomes:

• When do gaps emerge between advantaged and

disadvantaged children?

• This may indicate where remediation/prevention should focus

• What are the sources of the gaps?

• Indicates which domains should be targeted.

• I study these questions focusing on learning divergence

between children in four YL countries

• Learning levels differ widely across countries and with

direct relevance to growth and inequality

Learning from 5-8 years

p10 p90

400

450

500

550

60

0M

ath

score

s (

20

09

)

300 400 500 600 700CDA scores (2006)

Ethiopia India

Peru Vietnam

Timing and sources of gaps

• 5-8 years a period of major divergence in learning levels• For observationally equivalent children

• The quality of schooling, measured as learning gain per year of schooling, the major source of divergence:• Equalizing that wipes out divergence between Peru and Vietnam

• Closes 70% of divergence between Vietnam and India

• (Results based on value-added models and regression discontinuities)

• Why this is important:• Early years undoubtedly important (achievement at 5 an important

factor) but not all lost

• Large randomized experimental literature explores channels of intervention

• Panel-based overview highlights possibilities and domains of interventions – a conceptual underpinning of risk and resilience.

Understanding gender gaps: Dercon and Singh

2013

• Gender differences frequently context-specific:• Academic outcomes pro-boy biased in India and Ethiopia, pro-girl

biased in Vietnam, and no distinguishable bias in Peru

• Frequently domain-specific: • Nutritional outcomes (esp. BMI-for-age at15) pro-girl biased in most

countries including where educational investments are distinctly pro-boy biased

• Changing in nature:• A decade ago, gender bias in India was on enrolment (Kingdon 2005)

but now it is in private schooling (Maitra et. al.)

• Dynamic in emergence:• Agency at 12 predicts agency at 15 and educational outcomes

• The type of foundational work that observational data (esp. panels) yield which precede (experimental) program-based planning

Coming back to the questions

• Is recovery, partial or complete, possible?

• What are the factors behind such recovery?

Limitations?

• Which are the critical ages for domain-specific

interventions?

• Conversely, which are the most critical domains

for each age group?

• These should be questions where there is a

clear advantage for panel-based designs.