Analiza Bronfenbrenner Pentru Educatori Care Lucreaza Cu Familii Stresate

8/2/2019 Analiza Bronfenbrenner Pentru Educatori Care Lucreaza Cu Familii Stresate

1/8

An Analysis of Bronfenbrenners Bio-Ecological Perspectivefor Early Childhood Educators: Implications for Workingwith Families Experiencing Stress

Kevin James Swick1,2 and Reginald D. Williams1

Todays families face many stressors during the early childhood years. Particular stressors like

homelessness, violence, and chemical dependence, play havoc with the family system. Urie

Bronfenbrenners bio-ecological perspective offers an insightful lens for understanding andsupporting families under stress. This article presents the key elements of Bronfenbrenners

perspective and applies this perspective to strategies for effectively helping families under

stress.

KEY WORDS: Bronfenbrenner; bio-ecological perspective; stressed families; supporting families understress.

Understanding families as they experience stress is

important to early childhood educators. It is critical

that as professionals we reach out to help families

and to base this help on understandings that are re-

search based and of value to enhance families (Swick,

2004). Urie Bronfenbrenners (1979, 2005) bio-eco-

logical perspective offers insights that can enhance

our understanding of families. It also provides con-

cepts we can use in crafting empowering relations

with families. It is important to note that in our

advocacy and support of families we must use

Bronfernbrenners constructs with his own caution of

do no harm to families. Thus, we must avoid cat-

egorizing, stereotyping, and impeding families

through the work and relations we develop with them

(Swick, 2004). Instead, we need to use these concepts

in ways that strengthen our relations with families.

Bronfenbrenners approach to understanding

families is helpful because it is inclusive of all of the

systems in which families are enmeshed and because

it reflects the dynamic nature of actual family rela-

tions (Garbarino, 1992). It is also based on the idea of

empowering families through understanding their

strengths and needs. Thus, we first examine the key

elements of Bronfenbrenners systems thinking with

regards to family functioning.

BRONFENBRENNERS BIO-ECOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE: THE KEY ELEMENTS

As presented in his Ecology of Human Develop-

ment (1979), Bronfenbrenner explicates that the

world of the child (and indeed all of us) consists offive systems of interaction: (1) Microsystem, (2)

Mesosystem, (3) Exosystem, (4) Macrosystem, and

(5) Chronosystem. Each system depends on the con-

textual nature of the persons life and offers an

evergrowing diversity of options and sources of

growth. For example, because we potentially have

access to these systems we are able to have more

social knowledge, an increased set of possibilities for

learning problem solving, and access to new

1Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education,

University of South Carolina Columbia, Columbia, SC 29208,

USA.2Correspondence should be directed to Kevin James Swick,

Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education,

University of South Carolina Columbia, Wardlaw 107, Colum-

bia, SC 29208, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, April 2006 ( 2006)DOI: 10.1007/s10643-006-0078-y

3711082-3301/06/0400-0371/0 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.


2/8

dimensions of self-exploration. As Garbarino (1992)

reminds us, the involvement of children in ever

increasing complex settings offer children rich possi-

bilities for having caring and nurturing relations. This

same principle holds true for parents and other family

members; we grow from these new opportunities too(Pipher, 1996).

The Microsystem

Consisting of the childs most immediate envi-

ronment (physically, socially and psychologically),

this core entity stands as the childs venue for initially

learning about the world. As the childs most intimate

learning setting, it offers him or her a reference point

of the world. It may provide the nurturing centerpiece

for the child or become a haunting set of memories of

ones earliest encounters with violence (Rogoff,

2003). The real power in this initial set of interrela-tions with family for the child is what they experience

in terms of developing trust and mutuality with their

significant people (Pipher, 1996). The family is clearly

the childs early microsystem for learning how to live.

The caring relations between child and parents (and

many other caregivers) can help to influence a healthy

personality (Swick, 2004). For example, the attach-

ment behaviors of parents offer children their first

trust-building experience (Brazelton & Greenspan,

2000).

The Exosystem

The close, intimate system of our relations within

families creates our buffer and nest for being with

each other. However, we all live in systems psycho-

logically and not physically; these are exosystems.

For example, parents may physically be at work but

psychologically they are very present in the child-care

center their child attends. Likewise, the child in first

grade goes to work with the parents in the sense

that they wonder about and seek experiences with

the work of the family they never really physically

experience (Galinsky, 1999). Exosystems are the

contexts we experience vicariously and yet they havea direct impact on us. They can be empowering (as a

high quality child-care program is for the entire

family) or they can be degrading (as excessive stress

at work is on the total family ecology). In so many

cases exosystems bring about stress in families be-

cause we do not attend to them as we should. Our

absence from a system makes it no less powerful in

our lives (Garbarino, 1992). For example, many

children realize the stress of their parents workplaces

without ever physically being in these places

(Galinsky, 1999). We all need to seek to be involved

in our exosystems, encouraging more family-friendly

practices.

The Macrosystem

The larger systems of cultural beliefs, societal

values, political trends, and community happen-

ings act as a powerful source of energy in our lives.

The macrosystems we live in influence what, how,

when and where we carry out our relations

(Bronfenbrenner, 2005). For example, a program like

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) may positively

impact a young mother through health care, vita-

mins, and other educational resources. It may

empower her life so that she in turn, is more affective

and caring with her newborn (Swick, 2004). In a

sense, the macrosytems that surround us help us tohold together the many threads of our lives. Without

an umbrella of beliefs, services, and supports for

families, children and their parents are open to great

harm and deterioration (Garbarino, 1992).

Mesosytems

The real power of mesosystems is that they help

to connect two or more systems in which child, parent

and family live (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). They help to

move us beyond the dyad or two-party relation. So

mesosystems are or should permeate our lives in ev-ery dimension. For example, the friend at church who

links you up to parent night out and then in turn,

watches your baby while you attend an evening adult

education course is indeed a powerful mesosytem

agent. As Mary Pipher (1996) cautions, commu-

nity must become a concrete reality for young chil-

dren and their parents. There must be loving adults

beyond the parents who engage in caring ways with

our children. In the ritualistic symbols of many native

American people there is a thing called tiospaye

which means to be in community with each other.

This is what mesosystems are aboutbeing in rela-

tion with each other in ever expanding circles of tri-ads and even more expansive relations. Without

strong mesosystems families tend to fall into chaos

(LAbate, 1990).

Chronosystems

Framing all of the dynamics of families is the

historical context as it occurs within the different

372 Swick and Williams


3/8

systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). For example, the

history of relationships in families may explain

more about parent-child relations than is evident in

existing dynamics (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Another

example is the powerful influence that historical

influences in the macrosystem have on how familiescan respond to different stressors. Bronfenbrenner

(1979) suggests strongly that, in many cases, families

respond to different stressors within the societal

parameters existent in their lives. During the Great

Depression of the 1930s many families simply were

ecstatic to have food and did not have the luxury to

worry about the nutritional value of the food they

had on the table. Yet they were concerned but the

macrosystem elements present in their lives that

established the limited vision they could have

regarding these issues (Swick & Graves, 1993).

All of the systems influence family functioning,

they are dynamic and interactivefostering a frame-

work for parents and children. Our understanding

of the contexts in which family stressors occur can

help us in being effective helpers.

APPLYING THE BIOECOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE TO FAMILY STRESS

SITUATIONS

Each family and each person experiences stress

in unique ways. However, we have learned insights

related to how many families respond to different

stressors, thus increasing our potential to assistfamilies in their challenges (Garbarino, 1992).

Because family stressors are varied and have multiple

elements, it is impossible to stereotype families in

relation to their stress dynamics (Bromer, 2002). We

can gain insights related to patterns of family

responses to various stress syndromes but must be

cautious as to how we use these generalizations in our

work with families. We must always follow the

admonition do no harm as we seek to understand

and support families (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Three stress syndromes that create serious

problems within families are: (1) chemical depen-dency, (2) family violence, and (3) homelessness. We

use these stress contexts as examples of how the

ecology of family life is influenced and indeed

challenged by such powerful forces.

Chemical Dependency

Often referred to as drug abuse, chemical

dependency is a complex set of forces that seem to

create a pattern of parasitic, dependent behaviors in

the abusive use of drugs (Pittman, 1987; Peled, Jaffe,

& Edeleson, 1995). While the abuse of drugs is an

individual act, it is embedded within many social

structures: family, friends, community, and society

(Bancroft, 2004). Such dependency behavior patternsoften end up distorting the entire microsystem of the

child (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). For example, a family

may forego some rituals such as going to church to

avoid the community learning about our problem.

Or, in some cultures the children may be sent to a

relatives house to avoid having them exposed to the

negative influences of this situation (Marsiglia, Miles,

Dustman, & Sills, 2002). Thus, adaptive family pat-

terns aim to protect the child from harm but often

short circuit the healthy relations needed for the

development of secure and happy children (Bancroft,

2004). These adaptive behaviors do serve to buffer the

family from further emotional harm but also create

patterns of behavior that impede needed communi-

cations and relations.

Sadly, the chaos that initially begins in the mi-

crosystem of families where drug abuse exists typi-

cally expands to the exosystem and mesosystem

dynamics of these families (Garbarino, 1992). For

example, Rosier (2000) describes how a single parent

mother deteriorated so badly from her alcoholism

that her parents became the childs legal guardians.

This family was indeed transformed by the alco-

holism, with the grandparents taking on the parent-

ing roles. Other situations are seen where parentaldisconnects are so severe the childs health and

well-being are in serious jeopardy (Swick & Graves,

1993). In another situation, the chemical dependency

of the father may erode the healthy relations of the

marriage. Thus both partners experience stress, hav-

ing less energy to devote to family maintenance

activities (Fals-Stewart, Fincham, & Kelley, 2004).

Often the marriage itself is ended.

Thus, as early childhood professionals we can

gain three key insights relative to our relations with

families challenged by chemical dependency syn-

dromes: (1) the chemical dependency pattern changesthe nature and substance of daily family dynamics;

(2) drug abuse syndromes challenge families to pro-

tect each other from the results of this abuse such as

violence; and (3) the tremendous drain on family

energy that chemical dependency creates often influ-

ence the need for much more family support (Peled

et al., 1995). Early childhood educators can act on

these insights, using three key strategies (Swick,

2001):

373Implications for Working with Families Experiencing Stress


4/8

(1) Encourage the family to access needed education and

counseling to address the challenges of chemical addiction.

(2) Support the family with needed resources and help that

empower them to respond effectively to the special chal-

lenges they face.

(3) Involve the family in learning ways to promote healthy

life styles in every family member.

Family Violence

Violence is any intentional act that aims to harm

others (Heretick, 2003). It should not be surprising

that family violence is on the increase as our society

itself is more violent. We are more likely to experience

violence in our families than any other place in our

society (Gelles, 1994). For children and families vio-

lence is dangerous not only because it causes imme-

diate harm to someone but it also has a powerful

influence on our future interactions (Swick, 2005).

Thus, the reality that many children experience vio-

lence even before birth is alarming.

Family violence is shaped by the personal and

marital histories of the parents, children, and others

who comprise the family (Groves, 2002). Each of us

has in some way experienced or witnessed violence.

But it is the chronic and recursive violence that

families experience that creates dysfunction. For

example, one of the parents (often the father) may

have entered the marriage with a history of violence

and lack any other tools for dealing with stress and

problems (Gelles, 1994). His only response to stress is

to use force (physical, psychological or social pres-sures) to resolve conflicts or respond to stress. Within

such a violence prone socio-personal context, a cycle

of violence is likely to occur and recur (Bancroft,

2004). For example, the baby will not quit crying

which stresses the father who in turn conveys his

negative reactions to mother. As the tension builds

the mother tries everything to calm the baby but it

only gets worse. Ultimately the father explodes hit-

ting the mother and shaking the baby. Screaming and

yelling prevail until the crisis passes. The next day the

father apologizes and assures mother he will never hit

her again. But the cycle starts over and extends tonew situations such as burnt food or other aggrava-

tions, thus creating a violent microsystem.

While the actual abuse is horrific and very

damaging, sometimes resulting in serious harm to the

victim, the long-term damage is even more serious.

As Bancroft (2004) suggests, the mindset of the

family changes to one of focusing on who is in con-

trol as opposed to a framework of sharing and

helping. The syndrome of selfish and self-centered

behaviors by the abuser eventually dominate the

entire family ecology. Control, abuse, disrespect,

manipulation, intimidation, isolation, and degrada-

tion become the common elements of the family

relationship system (Bancroft, 2004, Gelles, 1994).

When violence is the prevailing factor in thefamily, little or no social competence development

occurs. Parenting, parent-child relations, parental

work performance, and involvement in school and

community are impeded (Swick, 2005). For children

and adults the emotional trauma caused by family

violence is indeed powerful. Perry (1997) says we have

early childhood windows where our emotional

fabric is impacted by our social and emotional

experiences. When these early experiences are posi-

tive, nurturing, and enriching, we develop in healthy

ways. However, violence and abuseespecially

chronic abuseis devastating to children. Young

children learn violent behavior toward others when

parents or other relatives prominently display such

behaviors in front of them (Berger, 2005). Indeed,

chronic violence may actually alter the shape of the

brain, creating in us a proclivity toward violence. It

may be that violent men were trained by their

fathers to be violence prone (Karr-Morse & Wiley,

1997).

Violence in families also alters the relationship

paradigm to that of focusing on power and control to

the extent that normal bonding and attachment

behaviors are impeded. The time families spend on

responding to abusive behaviors is time lost in nur-turing each other. It changes the ways families

interact and function (Massey, 1998). Mary Cather-

ine Bateson (2000) reminds us that the center of our

individual identity emerges within our family context.

Thus as boys are nurtured to be caring they are less

likely to be violent. Violence shatters the identity of

people putting in its place a sea of terror that blocks

the growth of caring people. Even peaceful people are

impacted by violencethey report losing some of

their incentive to care when they witness violence

(Swick & Freeman, 2004b).

As early childhood professionals we can focus onthree insights that may help us to be more under-

standing of the situations many children and parents

experience: (1) violence is prevalent in families; (2)

family violence creates a psychology of fear in the

victims; and (3) early intervention in the form of

counseling and therapy can be of great value in

breaking the cycle of violence (Swick, 2005). Two

strategies we can use to empower families experienc-

ing violence are (Hallowell, 2002):



5/8

(1) Engage them wherever possible in developing and using

their caring behaviors.

(2) Connect them to supportive professionals who can help

them address the issues and challenges they face.

Homelessness

Families experiencing homelessness typically

face other stressors too! Homelessness results from

multiple sources: natural disasters, poverty, eviction

from home or apartment, domestic abuse, unem-

ployment, and other challenges (National Coalition

for the Homeless, 1999). We need to also consider

that many families while not technically homeless are

indeed truly homeless in that they have no choice on

doubling or tripling up with a relative or friend

(Nunez, 1996). Another dimension of the homeless

stressor is that some families may not be physically

homeless but on the verge of becoming homeless and

in need of major supports (Heyman, 2000).

Family dynamics are impacted in serious ways

due to homelessness: loss of privacy, lack of control

over daily routines, isolation from needed support

people, loss of social and economic resources, loss of

self esteem, disruption of communication systems,

high stress because of being homeless, constant

mobility, and other factors (Swick, 2004a). Another

impact is when homelessness is linked to family vio-

lence; thus creating a major stress syndrome in the

family (Garbarino, 1992).

How do families respond to the stress of beinghomeless? A great deal depends on the familys sup-

port system and how effective their supportive people

are in helping them address the challenges they face

(Swick, 1997). For example, parents who have bene-

fited from having their children enrolled in a child-

care center for homeless children and families report

that they are better able to deal with work and family

stressors (Swick, 2004a). They say that the program

allows them to work, finish schooling, and get

involved in solving some of the problems that influ-

enced their being homeless. This is true also of

women who seek shelter in places where they canescape abuse and find helpful people who relate to

them in caring ways.

We must keep in mind that each homeless family

is unique and yet often experience similar economic,

social, and related problems. They are also impacted

by the community context in which they live as well

as their own personal resources for responding to

problems (Dail, 1990). Clearly, we must relate to each

family in a way that helps them in becoming more

powerful in dealing with their challenges. Swick

(2004a) identifies four insights we can use in forming

positive and effective relations with families who are

homeless: (1) develop an empathetic understanding of

the familys situation; (2) be responsive and sup-

portive in your relations with the parents and chil-dren; (3) create an inviting ecology at the center,

school or site being used to work with families;

and (4) empower the parents and children with

meaningful educational and social activities.

HOW EARLY CHILDHOOD PROFESSIONALS

CAN BE SUPPORTIVE AND CARING

Our first effort in the caring process must be to

seek to understand the situations families are experi-

encing, inclusive of the cultural, social, economic, and

educational dynamics that are a part of their various

systems (Powell, 1988). The interaction of families

with their various ecological niches explains more

than any particular event or isolated activity we

might have with families. We must be astute

observers and willing to see people in their milieu as

we put on different lenses. As Payne (1996) suggests,

our understanding of families must be broad enough

to include sensitivity to cultural forces that may be

hidden beneath the surface of daily life activities. For

example, a mothers refusal to allow her child to go

outside and play may seem rigid and not reflective of

the desired child rearing values many of us cherish.

However, when we talk with the mother we find outher motivation is one of protection. Two kids were

injured last summer by drive-by shooters. No way I

can let him out, I let him find things to do here and

then on Saturdays I take him some special places.

Payne (1996) also reminds us that certain cultural

forces may buffer the family from the immediate

danger of street life and yet seem dysfunctional to us

because we are not living in that context. For exam-

ple, a homeless family may waste what little money

they have on a frivolous activity but to them it is a

memory of their being close together in a positive

way.Likewise, we might be astounded to see an

abused mother leave a family abuse shelter to return

home to the abusive spouse. But we must put on her

lens and see this situation from her mental frame-

work. She likely still has hopes of changing the situ-

ation. She is also likely to want the normalcy and

security of the economic and social structure that

has provided for her and the three children for several

years. So we need to continue our supportindeed



6/8

increase our support and seek to assist this mother in

finding more empowered ways of living. This may call

for case management where the entire family receives

treatment or it may be nurturing the mother toward

independence as she is able to put that lens on as she

interacts with the world. Regardless, as caring earlychildhood professionals we can be caring in ways that

support this mother and the children in becoming

more effective each day of their lives (Jacobson &

Gottman, 1998).

In particular, three caring perspectives can help us

nurture families under heavy stress (Swick, 2005): (1)

gain the parent and family perspective on the nature

and dynamics of the stressors; (2) partner with the

parent and family in exploring ways that might

help them address these stressors; and (3) provide

empowering early interventions that offer total family

systems the tools and resources for building caring

lifestyles.

A second element of our helping relationship

with families needs to center in our approaches to

working and relating with families (Swick, 2004). It is

common for many professionals to work from deficit

perspectives where the total energy is on what is not

working in the family. What we often fail to see is that

most families under stress show tremendous courage

in crafting strategies that, while lacking in the finer

nuances of healthy functioning, are effective in

responding to immediate crises (Coloroso, 2000). For

example, a homeless mother shared with the authors

that she sent part of her small salary from a fast foodstore to her mother who was sick with cancer and

needed the funds for medicine. While the money was

clearly needed to first get her and her two children out

of homelessness, her perspective showed a level of

caring few people could match in their lives.

As we shape our helping strategies we need to

consider the personal, cultural, and community-based

elements of the families we are helping (Swick, 2004).

For example, child-care center staff may recognize

that many parents of the children they serve are

stressed by poverty, thus limiting the choices they

have regarding social and economic activities. Withthis knowledge staff may develop support resources

that help to empower families such as making edu-

cational opportunities available, helping parents get

needed assistance with transportation needs, and/or

linking families with needed health care (Pipher,

1996).

We also need to be sensitive to the linguistic

differences in our families and children, which may

create obstacles to their full participation in

the learning process. Providing bilingual services,

involving parent leaders from the Hispanic commu-

nity, and integrating bilingual teaching and learning

into the early childhood program are some helpful

strategies (Swick, 2004). Valuing the closeness of

family and the sharing spirit that many Hispanic andother first generation American families exhibit is

important to their building trust in us as their helpers

(Powell, 1998).

We can emphasize three behaviors in our

attempts to be sensitive to personal, cultural, and

social attributes of families: (1) Responsiveness to the

expressed needs of the families we serve; what is it that

they see as their needs? (2) Development of a part-

nership approach in all of our relations with families;

seeking to create leadership among the parents and

families to provide the long-term structure for suc-

cess. (3) Continuing reflection on our relations with

parents, children and families; are we listening to and

gaining perspectives on the strengths of the families

we serve. One parent noted when my childs teacher

went out of her way to find out my ideas about my

childs talents I was amazed. No one had ever asked

me anything about my child before! Caring

behaviors by early childhood professionals can and

do help families under severe stress regain needed

energy and support for functioning in healthy ways.

RECOMMENDATIONS: A SYNTHESIS

OF HELPFUL APPROACHES FOR

EMPOWERING STRESSED FAMILIES

Five recommendations provide the major ele-

ments for our helping relations with families facing

serious stress. These recommendations are linked to

the insights shared in this article and interrelate with

the five systems explicated by Bronfenbrenner (1979;

2005) in his bioecological perspective. They are not

exhaustive but rather symbolic of how a systems

perspective of the family can generate many viable

strategies and approaches that are empower-

inghelping stressed families find new hope and

renewed purpose.(1) Help families develop caring and loving

microsystems. The strongest antidote to violence is

caring (Swick, 2004a). Caring, loving family relations

can provide a foundation where parents and children

develop the bonds that enable them to be more

responsive in dealing with stress (Erickson &

Kurz-Riemer, 1999). For example, many homeless

families report that the bonding rituals they estab-

lished early in family life serve them well under the



7/8

stress of being homeless (Swick, 2004a). One mother

noted we keep our daily hugs going and we keep our

concern for each other going all the time!

(2) Assist families in becoming more empowered in

their exosystem relations (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). For

example, you can educate parents about what theirchildren experience in your early childhood pro-

gramthus increasing their comfort level with the

childs daily activities in your classroom or center.

We can use the same thinking in helping children so

they better understand their parents lives during the

day. Exosystems are only fearful when we lack an

understanding of how we can be an important part of

them (Garbarino, 1992).

(3) Nurture in families ways they can use

mesosytems to help them better respond to the specific

stressors they face (Heretick, 2003). A mother dealing

with an alcoholic husband may find a support

group of others experiencing the same stress very

helpful. Homeless parenting women with children

have found parenting groups empowering in ways

that assist them in moving toward independence

(Nun ez, 1996). Families facing chronic abuse syn-

dromes benefit from therapeutic programs them

empower them to find peaceful coping skills (Gelles,

1994).

(4) Advocate for stronger family support strategies

and policies in the macrosystem contexts in which

young families live (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000).

Every early childhood professional can put forth a

small concept that ultimately impacts importantsocietal and cultural gains for families (Swick, 2004).

For example, we can seek local housing improve-

ments such as city council support for more moderate

priced homes. Or we can vote for family-friendly

people and policies.

(5) Help families learn from their personal, family,

and societal, historical lives (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

We can engage families in practical assessments of

how they can better use their local resources to

empower the family. During the early childhood

years, parents are eager to improve themselves so

they can help their children. Thus, we can capitalizeby offering parent education in various forms.

REFERENCES

Bancroft, L. (2004). When dad hurts mom. New York: G.P.Putnams Sons.

Bateson, M. C. (2000). Full circles, overlapping lives. New York:Random House.

Berger, L. (2005). Income, family characteristics, and physicalviolence toward children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(2), 107133.

Brazelton, T., & Greenspan, S. (2000). The irreducible needs ofchildren. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Bromer, J. (2002). Extended care: Family child care, familysupport, and Community development in low-income neigh-borhoods. Zero to Three, 23(2), 3337.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals ofChild Development, 6, 185246.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioeco-logical Perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Coloroso, B. (2000). Parenting through crisis. New York: HarperCollins.

Erickson, M., & Kurz-Riemer, K. (1999). Infants, toddlers, andfamilies: A framework for support and intervention. New York:The Guilford Press.

Fals-Stewart, W., Fincham, F., & Kelley, M. (2004). Substance-abusing Parents attitudes toward allowing their custodialchildren to Participate in treatment: A comparison of mothersversus fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 666671.

Ford, D., & Lerner, R. (1992). Developmental systems theory: Anintegrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Galinsky, E. (1999). Ask the children. New York: William Morrow& Company.

Garbarino, J. (1992). Children and families in the social environment(2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gelles, R. (1994). Family violence, abuse and neglect. In P.McKenry, & S. Price (Eds.), Families and change: Coping withstressful events. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Groves, B. (2002). Children who see too much: Lessons from thechild witness to violence project. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hallowell, E. (2002). The childhood roots of adult happiness. NewYork: Ballantine.

Heretick, D. (2003). The empowered family: Raising responsible andCaring children in violent times. Toledo, OH: Mercy HealthPartners.

Heymann, J. (2000). The widening gap: Why Americas working families are in jeopardy and what can be done about it. NewYork: Basic Books.

Jacobson, N., & Gottman, J. (1998). When men batter women: Newinsights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Karr-Morse, R., & Wiley, M. (1997). Ghosts from the nursery:Tracing the roots of violence. New York: The Atlantic MonthlyPress.

LAbate, L. (1990). Building family competence. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Marsiglia, F., Miles, B., Dustman, P., & Sills, S (2002). Ties thatprotect: An ecological perspective on Latino urban preado-lescent drug use. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity inSocial Work, 11, 191 .

Massey, M. (1998). Early childhood violence prevention. ERICDigest (Online) Available: http://www.ericeece.org/pubs/digests/1998/massey98.html.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (1999). Why are peoplehomeless? Washington, DC: Author NCH Fact Sheet #1.

Nun ez, R. (1996). The new poverty: Homeless families in America.Plenum Press, New York: Insight Books.

Payne, R. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. High-lands, TX: Aha Process.

Peled, E., Jaffe, P., & Edleson, J. (Eds.) (1995). Ending the cycle ofviolence: Community responses to children of battered women.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pence, A. (Ed.) (1988). Ecological research with children andfamilies. New York: Teachers College Press.

Perry, B. (1997). Incubatedin terror:Neurodevelopmentalfactorsinthe cycle of violence. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Children, youth, andviolence: The search for solutions. New York: Guilford Press.



8/8

Pipher, M. (1996). The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our families.New York: Ballentine Books.

Pittman, F. (1987). Turning points: Treating families in transitionand crisis. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Powell, D. (1988). Client characteristics and the design of commu-nity-based intervention programs. In A. Pence (Ed.), Ecolog-ical research with children and families. New York: Teachers

College Press.Powell, D. (1998). Reweaving parents into the fabric of early

childhood Programs. Young Children, 53(5), 6067.Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New

York: Oxford University Press.Rosier, K. (2000). Mothering inner-city children: The early school

Years. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Swick, K. (2001). Nurturing decency through caring and serving

during the early childhood years. Early Childhood EducationJournal, 29(2), 131138.

Swick, K. (2004). Empowering parents, families, schools andcommunities during the early childhood years. Champaign, IL:Stipes.

Swick, K. (2004a). The dynamics of families who are homeless:Implications for early childhood educators. Childhood Educa-tion, 80(3), 116120.

Swick, K. (2005). Promoting caring in children and families as

prevention of violence strategy. Early Childhood EducationJournal, 32(5), 341346.

Swick, K., & Graves, S. (1993). Empowering at-risk families duringthe early childhood years. Washington, DC: National Educa-tion Association.

Swick, K., & Freeman, N. (2004b). Nurturing peaceful children tocreate a Caring world: The role of families and communities.Childhood Education, 81(1), 28.


Analiza Bronfenbrenner Pentru Educatori Care Lucreaza Cu Familii Stresate

Documents

Transcript of Analiza Bronfenbrenner Pentru Educatori Care Lucreaza Cu Familii Stresate