In the human context, a family is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, or co-residence. It is the basic unit of social structure and whether defined as nuclear or extended, in most societies its primary functions are reproductive, economic, social and educational. The family as a unit, is the principal institution for the socialization of children. In Anguilla, like other countries worldwide, the family is still the major institution and a vital part of an individual’s physical, social, emotional and intellectual development. The dynamic character of family structures, including members’ status, their associated roles, functions and interpersonal relationships, has an important impact on a host of other social institutional spheres, prospective economic fortunes, political decision-making and sustainable futures (St Bernard 2003, 1). Families are crucial in the development of human competence and character. Research shows us that the family’s influence is even greater than we imagine. Families play a major role in how well children do in school, how well they perform on the job as adults and how well they contribute to society in general. Families have the first and foremost influence on human development in several spheres, physical, social, intellectual and economic (Jamieson, Wallace, 2010, 1). Because it is a social phenomenon, the family is charged with the development of the economic basis of society. In addition to the socialization of children, the family provides care of the aged, sick and disabled, the legitimation of procreation and the regulation of sexual conduct as well as supplying the basic physical, economic and emotional security for its members.
The family is therefore the social institution on which the foundation of a society is built. The family provides multiple sources of support for its members throughout its life cycle and is the major source for social cohesion and development. The relationship between the family and society is mutual, self-sustaining and empowering: a strong family is a fundamental asset for a good society, and a cohesive and “family friendly” society is necessary for the well-being of families (Volente, 2010).
Sociologist and other researchers on the family have found that over time the family as a system has always adapted to social change (loss of spouse/partner, migration) and economic change (unemployment, death) and new developments and new challenges for the family are always emerging. However, these changes have had an impact on the individuals, the family and society. Traditionally the male breadwinner role for example has long been viewed as essential to sustaining a successful marriage, but this is not the case today, as role differentiation is not what it used to be in the past.
Couples with traditional views on marriage and gender roles seem more likely to form stable marriages than couples with non-traditional views. Having a religious orientation is believed to enforce these views. Research indicates that many problems of individuals and society are related to dysfunctional family relationships. For example, substance abuse, youth violence, early sexual acting out, teen pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, family violence and civil unrest are known to be aggravated by problems in the family. The negative impacts on a young child’s cognitive, social and emotional well-being due to being raised in dysfunctional family environment has led social scientist to use the designation “fragile families” to describe such families.
A fragile family is described as “one in which the partnerships face greater risks than traditional families do in terms of their economic security and relationships stability” (McLanahan et al., 2011). “These families are important to academic discourse as research shows that children growing up in such families have an elevated risk of experiencing cognitive, social and emotional problems.” These families are characterized by greater risk of child neglect. Often their parents were raised in similar environments of neglect in a family constellation which reproduces the cycle that they know. Also fragile families experience greater psychological fragility. Therefore, economic and social stressors exacerbate the problems in an already fragile psychi. These stressors can trigger psychological breakdown of the individual resulting in a family crisis and the need for social and psychological intervention which is not always available. Children emotionally weakened by their environment tend to engage in attention seeking behavior act out in the classroom including fighting with other students in the classroom.
The term “fragile families” was coined in 1990 to describe the new reality of non-marital childbearing which had increased dramatically in the United States and globally during the latter half of the twentieth century, thus changing the main context in which children were raised. The term “fragile family” is used to underscore the fact than unmarried parents and their children and families are at greater risk of poverty and family dissolution than traditional families. The term “fragile” signals that the partnership faces greater risks than more traditional families do in terms of economic security and relationship stability (McLanahan, Garfinkel, Mincy and Donahue, 2011). A study on the Caribbean family noted that “a single parent who has responsibility for a number of children with very little external support is unlikely to be able to supervise the children thus placing them at risk. Neglect and abandonment of children has often been attributed to lack of time and finances and too many children to care for” (Blank, L. 2007).
A study by McLanahan (2010) of fragile families found that those unwed parents have a host of demographic and human capital characteristics that complicate getting good jobs, forming stable families, and performing successfully as parents. Unwed mothers were much younger than the married mothers in the sample; the mothers were six years younger, and the fathers, four. And even though the unwed mothers were younger than their married counterparts, about three times as many had a previous birth with another partner, leaving many children in these households to deal with a parent figure (the mother’s new boyfriend or husband) inside their home and a biological parent outside the home, an arrangement that can be stressful for all involved. Parties in the relationship are sometimes unstable themselves and have multiple cohabiting relationships, thus the connectedness necessary for family connectedness is often weakened or diffuse. Particularly in a situation where the man and woman are poorly educated, did not complete school and have a low level of skills. The behaviour of the child is due to the parents utilizing parent skills learned in an often dysfunctional environment.
Findings from studies done in the United States of America indicate that “fragile families have multiple problems and minimal resources. These fragile families are overwhelmingly poor, live in greater, relative and absolute risky environments and are often grappling with such intractable problems as substance abuse, mental illness, physical violence in the home and inadequate housing” (Bass et al., 2004). The absence of an appropriate array of services to meet the needs of these fragile families result in children being removed from birth parents to non-relative care resulting in the disruption of familial and cultural traditions.
In Anguilla a fragile family may be described as:
Sociological research shows that a child born into a fragile family may experience risk of lack of upward social mobility; suffer alienation or normlessness (Durkheim). Their alienation from society leads to the exacerbation of conflict and tension within the family; and the capacity to disrupt the social order there-by increasing tensions and conflict within society as a whole. They tend to use a disproportionate share of social service resources (time and money) due to what Oscar Lewis called “the culture of poverty”.
Although the genesis of the debate on “fragile families” seems to be American, the phenomenon is world-wide. In the 1960s Oscar Lewis had described it in the Culture of Poverty based on his study in Latin America. Also in Jamaica, Edith Clarke in her book My Mother Who Fathered Me, a seminal work on female-headed households, high unemployment, and family instability resulting from multiple relationships by both males and females addressed the issue.
Historically, in the Caribbean context many children in non-marital families knew their brothers and sister even if they came from different households, and often participated in multifamily activities, thus parenting was diffuse and extended family members played an important role in both primary and secondary socialization. Compared to today, many families are alienated from close kinship relationships enjoyed in the past. This lack of connectedness is exacerbated by new stresses and stressors such as lack of child support and lack of integration into the wider social and religious groups. In the past social, religious and other groups often compensated for what was missing in the family. Children went to church and had the supervision of the Sunday school teacher who in addition to teaching the Golden text provided supervision of the children and other support to their families. Today, fewer families attend church either because of the type of employment pursued by one or both parents or they choose not to attend. Some may attend different churches, thereby depriving themselves of a stable church base and its benefits.
Children raised in families which lack the appropriate economic, social and emotional support have a high propensity to drop out of school; experience instability in relationships; engage in high risk behaviors such as crime and delinquency; promulgate a “culture of robbery with violence” subject to sexual abuse; multiple partner relationships with exposure to sexually transmitted infections such as gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, and genetic and mental health issues.
Researchers have found that children from “fragile” home environments manifest a number of internalizing and externalizing behaviours including sadness and depression, delinquency, aggression, sex role difficulties, early imitation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy as well as poor social and adaptive functioning and low self esteem. School function is affected by behavioural problems resulting in poor performance on academic and cognitive test, disciplinary problems, higher absenteeism and drop-out rates and lower occupational attainment. Additionally, children who frequently move shifting from one residence to the other also exhibit more behavioural problems due to physical and emotional abuse than children in a household with one parent. (Samms Vaughn, 2006).
Addressing these problems require government involvement in terms of training and providing teachers with the skills required to improve the academic life chances of these children if they are to become productive citizens in the society. Therefore, resources are needed to ensure that children succeed in the education system through the provision of special education resources, probation and other law enforcement mechanisms as needed.
The family is a social institution on which the foundation of society is built. The family provides multiple sources of support for is members throughout its life cycle. It is the major force for social cohesion and development. The relationship between the family and society is mutually, self sustaining and empowering: a strong family is a fundamental asset for a good society and a cohesive and family friendly society is necessary for the well being of families( Volente, 2010).
It is because of the implications of family dysfunction for the long-term development of the family and the community that we focus on these families. The rise in fragile families begin with the increase in the number of children born into families without the emotional, social and financial resources necessary to provide the appropriate socialization required for them to become productive citizens; thus contributing to the cause of rising social problems in the community. Research shows that a child born into a fragile family:
These societal shifts and associated demographic, cultural and economic changes have required institutional changes in public policy and the formulation of new policy measures to ensure that the well-being of those persons unable to take care of themselves, particularly children, is maintained. James Comer stated that “given increasing divorce rates, the growing numbers of families in which both parents work, and the general complexity of modern life, even children of well-educated, middle-class parents can come to school un-prepared because of the stress the families are undergoing.”
It is argued that the welfare reform laws requiring the mother to enter the work-force; and the imprisonment of fathers for non-payment of child support have produced more vulnerable families. Forcing single mothers into the work-force requiring them to find child-care services, and imprisonment of delinquent fathers diminishes earning capacity thereby diminishing familial resources, and contributes to family break-up and reduces the life-chances of their children (Wilderman and Western).
Vulnerable families face greater risks in terms of their economic security, relationship stability and social, emotional and intellectual development of the children. These children have an elevated risk of experiencing cognitive, social and emotional problems. The children must adapt to the environment where life is often stressful due to the limited parental and economic resources to which they must adapt. A significant feature of vulnerable families is father absence. Therefore, children in such a family experience rejection, psychological and emotional problems.
A “vulnerable child” means a child who is unable to protect him or herself. This includes a child who is dependent on others for sustenance and protection. A vulnerable child is defenseless; exposed to behavior, conditions and circumstances that he or she is powerless to manage and is susceptible and accessible to a threatening parent or caregiver. Vulnerability is judged according to physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, mobility, size and dependence (Childrearing in the Caribbean). Other charitable organizations use a multidimensional approach in dealing with threats to children and defines vulnerability as a combination of economic, social, cultural, physical, environmental and emotional problems.
The features of a vulnerable family can therefore be describe as having negative impacts on children born into such families. Research indicates that children born into such families are susceptible to early teen sexual activity, teen pregnancy, youth suicide, runaways, substance abuse, childhood and adolescent depression, child abuse and neglect, family violence, low academic achievement, conflict with the law as a result of poor supervision and inadequate parenting. Quality parenting is the best predictor a child’s emotional and social well-being.
Fragile families are vulnerable because of their economic status. Single parent household headed by females who are un-married are at higher risk of poverty and family dissolution than traditional families. This situation may be due to high divorce rates and adults choosing not to marry. The changes that children experience are not without consequences. Amato (2005) in investigating how children in households with both biological parents differ from children in household with one biological parent found that children growing up two continually married parents are less likely to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood but also in adulthood. In further comparative analysis Amato found that children who grew up in stable two parent families with more effective parenting have a higher standard of living, are emotionally closer to both parents and are subjected to fewer stressful events and circumstances than children in households with one parent.
It observed that parenting outcomes are dependent on the nature of the parental relationship responsive vs. demanding The responsive parent is accepting of the child, is warm, patient, attentive and sensitive to the child’s needs, the non-responsive parent is cold, emotionally rejecting and frequently disregards the child. The demanding parent establishes high standards for the child and insists that the child meets these standards. The non-demanding parent makes little demands on the child and rarely tries to influence the child’s behavior (Diana Baunrud).
Findings from a study conducted in Jamaica shows that children are connected to both parents through a process of periodically moving between homes. The data shows that children who live in less stable common-law visiting unions and those in single homes with a biological mother and a surrogate parent are more withdrawn in their interaction with others. Additionally, children who move more frequently form one residence to the other, in the process of child shifting, also exhibit problem behavior. Child shifting requires children to adjust physically to their new environment, but also and of greater consequence to adjust emotionally.
The results of research by Marina Ramkissoon on two aspects of father-child relationship, physical absence and psychological absence shows that the psychological presence of the father is more important to the emotional well-being of the child. Physical presence and psychological absence can lead to expressive rejection and greater psychological damage. Taken separately, psychological presence of the father is more important to the emotional well-being of the child (Children Caught in the Crossfire, 2006).
The most profound changes in family structure and relationships center around the size of households, delayed marriage, increased rates of divorce, and single parenthood.
In fragile families parental relationships are much more fragmented, support for children may vary along a continuum from strongly supportive to non-existent.
Findings from research in the USA contend that some government programs for which unmarried mothers are eligible such as food stamps, public housing have affected union formation behavior by creating incentives for couples to live apart in order to receive benefits. These policies alter the cost and benefit of cohabitation. For mothers stronger child support enforcement reduces the cost of living apart from the father, whereas it increases the cost for the father.
The findings from these studies show that stronger enforcement lessens the chances that a couple will marry. Nearly all the effects of child support enforcement on marriage is concentrated among mothers whose partners have a child/children with a previous partners, suggesting that stronger enforcement deters marriage by reducing the income that fathers bring to the household. A study on the link between child support and domestic violence suggests that stronger enforcement reduces violence among co-habiting couples and increases violence among some groups of single mothers (McLanahan and Beck 16, 2010).
The significant findings from the United Studies on Fragile Families (McLanahan et al., 2011) which are of relevance here are:
In a conversation relating a recent incidence of criminal activity on the island the person speaking about the participant and naming him in the context of a particular family the perpetrator was described as “Dora’s son by Raymond, not described as Gertrude and Billy R’s son, for example”. This description indicated that the individual was from an environment which contributed to his vulnerability to engage in criminal activity.
Data from a report “Situational Analysis of Risks and Vulnerabilities Facing Children in Anguilla” describing the context in which children are raised in Anguilla identified the following: an increasing drug culture, sexual abuse of girls, parents described as being physically and emotionally unavailable due to socio-economic imperatives of having to or wanting to work two jobs in order to live in a “high cost society”, increasing neglect of children some of them raising themselves and other siblings assisted by uncensored television viewing of unsuitable material (Ena Trotman Stoby, 2006).
The report also identified a number of risk factors impacting the care and protection of children in Anguilla including:
Additionally, the report also identified a shortage of financial and human resources within key departments which have an educative and social work function for dealing with children at risk, were as a result making it difficult to respond contemporaneously to immediate and longer term needs. The Department of Social Development suffered from chronic shortage of sufficient numbers of skilled and professionally trained social workers at the grass roots level. The Probation Department was described as having:
The author concluded that absence of such early intervention support by the Department of Social Development “is very likely to lead to problematic offending behaviours later on” (p. 16).
Anguilla, like other countries, has recognized the importance of addressing the multiple factors that put children at risk and the potential impact on the social, economic and political development of the island.
The most obvious solutions would be to strengthen the safety net that provides cash and in-kind support to custodial and non-custodial parents and help them find work; implement prevention policies that have been shown to reduce non-marital births and revise the criminal sentencing laws and experiment with policies designed to avoid prison while integrating them into their communities.
It is against this background that governments world-wide including the Government of Anguilla are involved in social policies to protect children at risk.
There were a number of recommendations made to address the issues identified:
The conclusions that can be arrived at from this literature review is that fragile families have the potential to utilize a disproportionate amount of the island’s financial resources as a result of the social problems discussed.
Policy makers need to:
Amato, P.R. (2005) The impact of family formation, and change on the cognitive, social and emotional wellbeing of the next generation. Future Child 15(2): 75-96.
Anonymous (2002) Family Law Reform in the Caribbean Children in Focus 15 (1).
Anonymous (2005) Child Protection Programme in the Caribbean. Research Brief.
Bass, Sandra, Shields, Margie K., and Richard E. Behrman (2004), Children, Families, and Foster Care: Analysis and Recommendations, The Future of Children 14.
Blank, L. (2007), Structural Analysis of Women and Children in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Monserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, UNICEF, Barbados.
Brown, Janet (2002-2004) Gender and family in the Caribbean. Sexual Health Exchange 13-15.
Brown, J and Johnson, S. (2008) Childrearing and child participation in Jamaican families, International Journal of Early Years Education 16 (1) 31-40.
James, Jeff (2005) The Status of Social Policy and Social Development Programmes in OECS Member States, Book One, Leeward Islands. UNICEF.
Jamieson, Saralee, and Wallace, Lisa (2010) Family Strengths. University of Missouri Extension Education Unit.
McLanahan, Sara, Ron Haskins, Irwin Garfinkel, Ronald B. Mincy, and Elisabeth Donahue (2011) Strengthening Fragile Families, Brookings Institution, February 16.
Samms-Vaughn, Maureen (2006) Impact of Family Structure on Children. Jamaican Gleaner, Sunday, April 1.
St Bernard, Godfrey (2003) Major Trends Affecting Families in Central America and the Caribbean. Paper Prepared for United Division of Social Policy and Development. Dept. of Economics and Social Affairs Program on the Family. May 23.
Stormont, Melissa, Espinosa, Linda, Knipping, Nancy, and McCathren, Rebecca (2003) Supporting Vulnerable Learners in Primary Grades: Strategies to Prevent Early School Failure, Early Childhood Research and Practice 5 (2).
Trotman-Stoby, Ena (2006) Situational Analysis of Risks and Vulnerabilities facing Children in Anguilla, October.
© Jonice A. Louden and Rev Clifton Niles, 2012.
HTML last revised 13th May, 2012.
Return to Conference papers.