Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, April 2006 ( 2006) DOI: 10.

1007/s10643-006-0078-y

An Analysis of Bronfenbrenners Bio-Ecological Perspective for Early Childhood Educators: Implications for Working with 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 oers an insightful lens for understanding and supporting families under stress. This article presents the key elements of Bronfenbrenners perspective and applies this perspective to strategies for eectively helping families under stress.
KEY WORDS: Bronfenbrenner; bio-ecological perspective; stressed families; supporting families under stress.

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 research based and of value to enhance families (Swick, 2004). Urie Bronfenbrenners (1979, 2005) bio-ecological perspective oers insights that can enhance our understanding of families. It also provides concepts 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 categorizing, 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 reects the dynamic nature of actual family relations (Garbarino, 1992). It is also based on the idea of empowering families through understanding their strengths and needs. Thus, we rst 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 Development (1979), Bronfenbrenner explicates that the world of the child (and indeed all of us) consists of ve systems of interaction: (1) Microsystem, (2) Mesosystem, (3) Exosystem, (4) Macrosystem, and (5) Chronosystem. Each system depends on the contextual nature of the persons life and oers 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 371
1082-3301/06/0400-0371/0 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education, University of South Carolina Columbia, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. 2 Correspondence should be directed to Kevin James Swick, Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education, University of South Carolina Columbia, Wardlaw 107, Columbia, SC 29208, USA; e-mail: kswick@gwm.sc.edu

372 dimensions of self-exploration. As Garbarino (1992) reminds us, the involvement of children in ever increasing complex settings oer children rich possibilities 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 environment (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 oers 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 (Rogo, 2003). The real power in this initial set of interrelations with family for the child is what they experience in terms of developing trust and mutuality with their signicant 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 inuence a healthy personality (Swick, 2004). For example, the attachment behaviors of parents oer children their rst trust-building experience (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000). The Exosystem The close, intimate system of our relations within families creates our buer and nest for being with each other. However, we all live in systems psychologically 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 rst 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 have a 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 because 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

Swick and Williams 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 happenings act as a powerful source of energy in our lives. The macrosystems we live in inuence 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, vitamins, and other educational resources. It may empower her life so that she in turn, is more aective and caring with her newborn (Swick, 2004). In a sense, the macrosytems that surround us help us to hold 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 every 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, community must become a concrete reality for young children 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 relation with each other in ever expanding circles of triads 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 dierent

Implications for Working with Families Experiencing Stress 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 inuence that historical inuences in the macrosystem have on how families can respond to dierent stressors. Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests strongly that, in many cases, families respond to dierent 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 inuence family functioning, they are dynamic and interactivefostering a framework for parents and children. Our understanding of the contexts in which family stressors occur can help us in being eective 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 dierent stressors, thus increasing our potential to assist families 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 dependency, (2) family violence, and (3) homelessness. We use these stress contexts as examples of how the ecology of family life is inuenced 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

373

create a pattern of parasitic, dependent behaviors in the abusive use of drugs (Pittman, 1987; Peled, Jae, & 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 patterns often 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 inuences of this situation (Marsiglia, Miles, Dustman, & Sills, 2002). Thus, adaptive family patterns 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 buer the family from further emotional harm but also create patterns of behavior that impede needed communications and relations. Sadly, the chaos that initially begins in the microsystem of families where drug abuse exists typically 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 alcoholism, with the grandparents taking on the parenting roles. Other situations are seen where parental disconnects 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, having 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 syndromes: (1) the chemical dependency pattern changes the nature and substance of daily family dynamics; (2) drug abuse syndromes challenge families to protect each other from the results of this abuse such as violence; and (3) the tremendous drain on family energy that chemical dependency creates often inuence 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):

374
(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 eectively to the special challenges they face. (3) Involve the family in learning ways to promote healthy life styles in every family member.

Swick and Williams behaviors by the abuser eventually dominate the entire family ecology. Control, abuse, disrespect, manipulation, intimidation, isolation, and degradation become the common elements of the family relationship system (Bancroft, 2004, Gelles, 1994). When violence is the prevailing factor in the family, 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 positive, 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 nurturing each other. It changes the ways families interact and function (Massey, 1998). Mary Catherine 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 on three insights that may help us to be more understanding 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 experiencing violence are (Hallowell, 2002):

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 violence is dangerous not only because it causes immediate harm to someone but it also has a powerful inuence on our future interactions (Swick, 2005). Thus, the reality that many children experience violence 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 pressures) to resolve conicts 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 hitting 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 to new situations such as burnt food or other aggravations, thus creating a violent microsystem. While the actual abuse is horric 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 control as opposed to a framework of sharing and helping. The syndrome of selsh and self-centered

Implications for Working with Families Experiencing Stress

(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.

375

Homelessness Families experiencing homelessness typically face other stressors too! Homelessness results from multiple sources: natural disasters, poverty, eviction from home or apartment, domestic abuse, unemployment, 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 violence; thus creating a major stress syndrome in the family (Garbarino, 1992). How do families respond to the stress of being homeless? A great deal depends on the familys support system and how eective their supportive people are in helping them address the challenges they face (Swick, 1997). For example, parents who have beneted from having their children enrolled in a childcare 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, nish schooling, and get involved in solving some of the problems that inuenced their being homeless. This is true also of women who seek shelter in places where they can escape abuse and nd 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) identies four insights we can use in forming positive and eective relations with families who are homeless: (1) develop an empathetic understanding of the familys situation; (2) be responsive and supportive in your relations with the parents and children; (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 rst eort in the caring process must be to seek to understand the situations families are experiencing, 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 dierent 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 reective of the desired child rearing values many of us cherish. However, when we talk with the mother we nd out her 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 nd things to do here and then on Saturdays I take him some special places. Payne (1996) also reminds us that certain cultural forces may buer the family from the immediate danger of street life and yet seem dysfunctional to us because we are not living in that context. For example, 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 framework. She likely still has hopes of changing the situation. 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

376 increase our support and seek to assist this mother in nding 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 early childhood professionals we can be caring in ways that support this mother and the children in becoming more eective 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 oer 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 decit 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 ner nuances of healthy functioning, are eective 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 food store to her mother who was sick with cancer and needed the funds for medicine. While the money was clearly needed to rst 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 sta 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. With this knowledge sta may develop support resources that help to empower families such as making educational 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 dierences in our families and children, which may create obstacles to their full participation in

Swick and Williams the learning process. Providing bilingual services, involving parent leaders from the Hispanic community, 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 and other rst 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 partnership approach in all of our relations with families; seeking to create leadership among the parents and families to provide the long-term structure for success. (3) Continuing reection 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 nd 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 elements for our helping relations with families facing serious stress. These recommendations are linked to the insights shared in this article and interrelate with the ve 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 empoweringhelping stressed families nd 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 established early in family life serve them well under the

Implications for Working with Families Experiencing Stress 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 their children experience in your early childhood programthus 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 specic stressors they face (Heretick, 2003). A mother dealing with an alcoholic husband may nd 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 (Nunez, 1996). Families facing chronic abuse syn dromes benet from therapeutic programs them empower them to nd 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 important societal and cultural gains for families (Swick, 2004). For example, we can seek local housing improvements 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 capitalize by oering 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 physical violence toward children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(2), 107 133.

377

Brazelton, T., & Greenspan, S. (2000). The irreducible needs of children. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Bromer, J. (2002). Extended care: Family child care, family support, and Community development in low-income neighborhoods. Zero to Three, 23(2), 3337. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 185246. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological Perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coloroso, B. (2000). Parenting through crisis. New York: Harper Collins. Erickson, M., & Kurz-Riemer, K. (1999). Infants, toddlers, and families: A framework for support and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press. Fals-Stewart, W., Fincham, F., & Kelley, M. (2004). Substanceabusing Parents attitudes toward allowing their custodial children to Participate in treatment: A comparison of mothers versus fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 666671. Ford, D., & Lerner, R. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative 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 with stressful events. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Groves, B. (2002). Children who see too much: Lessons from the child witness to violence project. Boston: Beacon Press. Hallowell, E. (2002). The childhood roots of adult happiness. New York: Ballantine. Heretick, D. (2003). The empowered family: Raising responsible and Caring children in violent times. Toledo, OH: Mercy Health Partners. Heymann, J. (2000). The widening gap: Why Americas working families are in jeopardy and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books. Jacobson, N., & Gottman, J. (1998). When men batter women: New insights 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 Monthly Press. LAbate, L. (1990). Building family competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marsiglia, F., Miles, B., Dustman, P., & Sills, S (2002). Ties that protect: An ecological perspective on Latino urban preadolescent drug use. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 11, 191 . Massey, M. (1998). Early childhood violence prevention. ERIC Digest (Online) Available: http://www.ericeece.org/pubs/ digests/1998/massey98.html. National Coalition for the Homeless. (1999). Why are people homeless? Washington, DC: Author NCH Fact Sheet #1. Nunez, R. (1996). The new poverty: Homeless families in America. Plenum Press, New York: Insight Books. Payne, R. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: Aha Process. Peled, E., Jae, P., & Edleson, J. (Eds.) (1995). Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pence, A. (Ed.) (1988). Ecological research with children and families. New York: Teachers College Press. Perry, B. (1997). Incubated in terror: Neurodevelopmental factors in the cycle of violence. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Children, youth, and violence: The search for solutions. New York: Guilford Press.

378
Pipher, M. (1996). The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our families. New York: Ballentine Books. Pittman, F. (1987). Turning points: Treating families in transition and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Powell, D. (1988). Client characteristics and the design of community-based intervention programs. In A. Pence (Ed.), Ecological 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. Rogo, 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 Education Journal, 29(2), 131138.

Swick and Williams

Swick, K. (2004). Empowering parents, families, schools and communities during the early childhood years. Champaign, IL: Stipes. Swick, K. (2004a). The dynamics of families who are homeless: Implications for early childhood educators. Childhood Education, 80(3), 116120. Swick, K. (2005). Promoting caring in children and families as prevention of violence strategy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 341346. Swick, K., & Graves, S. (1993). Empowering at-risk families during the early childhood years. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Swick, K., & Freeman, N. (2004b). Nurturing peaceful children to create a Caring world: The role of families and communities. Childhood Education, 81(1), 28.