Child and Family Outcomes in New York and Tel AVIV: Using Social Indicators in a City Level Comparative Analysis

This article presents a comparative study in which social indicators were employed as a means to examine differences in living conditions and family and children outcomes on a local level. The study obtained household-level data on the well-being of children and families in two cities: New York (NYC) and Tel Aviv (TLV). Data were collected using computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) technology and random digit dialing (RDD). Telephone interviews were conducted with the randomly selected adults in English, Spanish and Chinese in NYC and in Hebrew in TLV. The study reported here documented differences in family and child well-being between the two cities. It further documented that family size and caregiver level of education play a similar role in both cities and their importance in regard to child and family outcomes. The significant differences found in adults’ and especially children’s outcomes were analyzed by the caregiver’s level of education and further support the need for policies that alleviate the burden of less educated caregivers and aim to improve the well-being of them and their families. The study demonstrates the relevance of social indicators at the local level, not only for measuring outcomes among specific populations, but also in regard to their possible implications for social policies, a most timely task in an era of social services devolution.     

Native American kids: American Indian children’s well-being indicators for the nation and two states

American Indian/Alaska Native well-being, survival-based data are rare. This study explores the question of whether or not it is possible to produce such well-being information using secondary data sources. The answer is yes, with some limitations. Hence, Native American data for 10 well-being indicators nationally and for New Mexico and South Dakota, using a model like Kids Count (Annie E. Casey Foundation: 2003a, 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book: State profiles of child well-being (Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD)) are reported; thereby reducing the gap in survival indicators for U.S. Indigenous children and youths. Comparisons between all children and American Indian children demonstrate that Native American children have comparatively worse well-being rates at the national level and in South Dakota, whereas New Mexico Native kids compare favorably to their non-Native peers. Policy recommendations conclude the paper. This research was funded by Casey Family Programs (Seattle, Washington) and the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Baltimore, Maryland) with partnership from the National Indian Child Welfare Association (Portland, Oregon). Charlotte Goodluck, Ph.D. collaborated with me on previous work that this study builds upon. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, this paper is much improved because of their efforts. Angela A. A. Willeto is an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation.     

A Sociodemographic Risk Index

In this paper, we conceptualize and develop an index of sociodemographic risk that we hypothesize will be an improvement over the standard poverty measure as a measure of risk for children’s development. The poverty line is widely used in government statistics and in research but is also widely acknowledged to have multiple shortcomings. Using recent data from the National Survey of America’s Families, we develop and examine a Sociodemographic Risk Index for two potential purposes: (a) to serve as a summary indicator of children’s environments that affect their well-being, and (b) to serve as a variable that can be used to identify at-risk subgroups of children whose well-being should be examined separately in indicator reports. Based on substantial research on children’s development, we chose five variables for the index: family income, family structure, parent education, family size, and home ownership. An additive sociodemographic risk index using these variables is strongly associated with multiple measures of child well-being in both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Hence, it serves as a good marker of risk for children and therefore as an indicator that could be monitored over time, across groups, and across places, as well as a variable that could be used to identify subgroups of at-risk children whose well-being should be monitored. However, analyses do not indicate that it performs better at identifying at-risk children than the current poverty measure. Therefore, we recommend the Sociodemographic Risk Index primarily as an additional summary indicator to be monitored, rather than as a replacement for the poverty measure.