Playful Learning Landscapes seeks to transform everyday spaces into playful learning opportunities to maximize “the other 80 percent” of time that children spend outside school. It lies at the intersection of the growing Child Friendly City movement and a global development agenda that calls for access to high-quality early childhood education for all. A joint project of Temple University’s Infant and Child Laboratory and the Brookings Institution, Playful Learning Landscapes is a broad umbrella initiative that marries community involvement and learning sciences with placemaking in order to design carefully curated playful experiences in everyday spaces. As it focuses on learning outcomes, particularly for children and families from under-resourced communities, Playful Learning Landscapes offers a new way to involve families in the kinds of experiences that enrich relationships and enhance children’s development. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
Three work-family supports—paid leave, workplace flexibility and control, and support for child care—are crucial to the ability of parents to effectively manage work and family. This research used national survey data to examine patterns in working parents’ access to these supports; variations in access by parental characteristics like socioeconomic advantage; and the need for these work-family supports among working parents.Three work-family supports—paid leave, workplace flexibility and control, and support for child care—are crucial to the ability of parents to effectively manage work and family. This research used national survey data to examine patterns in working parents’ access to these supports; variations in access by parental characteristics like socioeconomic advantage; and the need for these work-family supports among working parents. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
This report concludes that international terrorists, domestic terrorists, school shooters, and gang members share some common factors that made them vulnerable to radicalization to violence. By focusing on the areas of commonality, it would be possible to further prevention efforts on all four types of violence rather than isolating initiatives. Efforts should focus on the personal, group, and community-level, aiming to provide early education, intervention, or off-ramping options. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
On 6-7 May 2019, the World Economic Forum Centre for the
Fourth Industrial Revolution and its partners UNICEF and the Canadian Institute
for Advanced Research (CIFAR) hosted a workshop in San Francisco on the joint
“Generation AI” initiative. This workshop identified deliverables in two key
areas: 1) public policy guidelines that direct countries on creating new laws focused
on children and 2) a corporate governance charter that guides companies
leveraging AI to design their products and services with children in mind. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
Over the years, Congress has authorized and the federal
government has administered programs to provide food to the hungry and to other
vulnerable populations in this country. This report offers a brief overview of
hunger and food insecurity along with the related network of programs. The
report is structured around three main tables that contain information about
each program, including its authorizing language, administering agency,
eligibility criteria, services provided, participation data, and funding
information. In between the tables, contextual information about this policy
area and program administration is provided that may assist Congress in
tracking developments in domestic food assistance. This report provides a
bird’s-eye view of domestic food assistance and can be used both to learn about
the details of individual programs as well as compare and contrast features
across programs. This report includes overview information for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs as
well as nutrition programs administered by the Administration on Aging (AOA),
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for
Community Living (HHS-ACL).
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in
1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). The
primary purpose of this program was to reduce public expenditures for
recipients of cash assistance by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial
parents that could be used to reimburse the state and federal governments for
part of that assistance. (This purpose often is referred to as “welfare
cost-recovery.”) Relatedly, the program also sought to strengthen families by
securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parents on a
consistent and continuing basis to enable some of those families to remain
self-sufficient and off public assistance. Over the years, CSE has evolved into
a multifaceted program. While welfare cost-recovery still remains an important
function of the program, its other aspects include service delivery and promotion
of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. The CSE program has different
rules for assistance families (e.g., those receiving cash benefits under the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; TANF) and nonassistance
Since 2009, New York City has implemented the Jobs-Plus
program to increase employment and earnings public housing residents. The
program is modeled after a successful federal demonstration from the 1990s that
combines employment services, financial incentives, and community supports to
promote work. The Urban Institute evaluation of the program combined interviews
and focus groups with staff and participants with analysis of data on Jobs-Plus
participation, public housing residency, and quarterly earnings before and
after implementation. We concluded that the program provided personal,
culturally competent employment services and cultivate a network of employers
interested in hiring Jobs-Plus participants. Among participants, Jobs-Plus
increased employment by 12 percentage points and quarterly earnings by $497.
Our evaluation found mixed evidence that the program slightly improved
employment rates for residents of the targeted developments and found no
evidence that it improved earnings. We attribute this lack of impact primarily
to two factors. First, the Jobs-Plus providers might not have assisted a high
enough proportion of residents to change overall trends within the
developments. Second, our evaluation could not capture the program’s impact on
the many participants who lived in the targeted developments but were not
officially listed on the lease and were thus not included in our data. [Note: contains copyrighted material].