Recent News Releases

Despite eligibility, fewer working Hispanic families receive the EITC than previously thought, research finds

November 19, 2020

For decades, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been widely hailed as one of the largest and most effective poverty-reduction programs in the United States, lifting millions of families with children out of poverty each year. However, up to 20 percent of families that qualify do not collect it. Hispanic families, in particular, have historically been the least likely to know about or receive the EITC even though, compared with their peers, low- income Hispanic families with children are more likely to have adult earners in the household.  Now, new research from Duke University and Child Trends suggests that rates of EITC participation among Hispanic families are lower than previously thought. During the 2013 to 2015 tax years, 46% of Hispanic families received the EITC, compared to 55% of White and 58% of Black families.

Numerous studies have shown evidence of the program’s effectiveness, linking the tax credit to greater participation in the workforce, increased lifetime earnings, and improved child educational and health outcomes. Families receiving the EITC, conventionally as a lump sum payment when taxes are filed at the beginning of the year, report that the $3,500-4,000 boost in income helps in a variety of ways, including paying bills and making large purchases. Today, as policymakers continue debating over the next COVID-19 relief package, successful anti-poverty programs such as the EITC should remain front and center but also packaged with income supports that do not hinge on jobs or earnings given the losses incurred in 2020.

In the study released today, researchers leverage nationally representative data (called the Survey of Income and Program Participation) to examine how various state characteristics affect tax filings and EITC receipt among Hispanic families. They also gathered new detailed information across states about availability of state-level tax credits, marketing and information outreach about the EITC, and availability of information in the Spanish language. Findings further show how EITC receipt among Hispanic families with children appear responsive to state-level tax credits and certain outreach strategies.

Among the key findings of the researchers’ analysis, Hispanic families were more likely to receive the EITC in states with:

  • More generous refundable state EITC amounts. In 2015, 13 states and DC offered a more generous refundable state EITC in addition to the federal EITC (CA, CT, DE, IA, KS, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, VT, VA, and WI).
  • Statutes requiring public benefit programs to inform recipients about the EITC. In 2015, only 8 states (AZ, CA, ME, MA, MI, MO, NJ, and TX) had such a statute.
  • Statutes requiring employers to inform employees about the program. In 2015 only 5 states (CA, MD, NJ, TX, and VA) had such a statute.
  • Information about the EITC available in Spanish. In 2019, only 18 states provided publicly accessible information about the EITC in Spanish alongside tax filing information on the administering agency’s website.
  • A high density of free tax preparation sites. While all 50 states and Washington, DC have free tax preparation sites, availability varies. In 2019, DC had the highest density of free tax prep sites (27.9 per 100 square miles), and Alaska had the lowest (0.01 free tax prep sites per 100 square miles).
  • Policies that allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses. As of 2015, 10 states (CA, CO, DE, HI, MD, NV, NM, UT, VT, WA) and the DC had such policies.
  • A larger Hispanic share of the population. While it is not possible to individual examine the specific role of any one of the above policies, states with a larger share of the Hispanic population also tend to be states that have a bundle of the above statutes and practices designed to increase EITC participation. Examples of these states include California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York.

“The Earned Income Tax Credit is the most robust anti-poverty program we have in the U.S. that supports children in poverty with working parents. As the economic fallout of the pandemic persists, our research points to the limited reach of the EITC for Hispanic families for two reasons,” said Lisa A. Gennetian, co-author of the study and Pritzker Associate Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies at the Duke Sanford Center for Child and Family Policy. “Their receipt of the EITC was low in the first place, lower than other eligible groups; and, second, the pandemic is hitting Hispanic families particularly hard by way of its health consequences but also because of barriers that Hispanic families particularly face in receiving any economic stimulus.”

This research was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and William T. Grant Foundation.

Link to research brief:

For media inquiries, contact: Sarah Brantley,

Making the Case for Cash Transfers to Families with Children

October 14, 2020
By Lisa A. Gennetian
Co-authors: Eldar Shafir, Princeton University; J. Lawrence Aber, New York University; Jacobus DeHoop, UNICEF

Child poverty is the one of the world’s biggest existing challenges and, far too often, it is coupled with uncertain, sometimes conflict-ridden circumstances leaving millions of children dispersed, disenfranchised and stateless. The most timely and perhaps devastating example of this comes with the reality we face today amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. An additional 150 million children have been plunged into poverty since the pandemic hit earlier this year – a 15% increase – meaning approximately 1.2 billion children now live in economic deprivation, according to an analysis by UNICEF and Save the Children.

Research shows that poverty, violence, neglect and unsafe environments have long-term consequences that can handicap children later in their lives and that poverty during childhood is associated with many greater risks that compromise education and children’s future economic self-sufficiency.

We know, based on mounting research evidence, that children thrive when they have stable, nurturing environments where there’s routine, responsive parenting, proper care, and quality nutrition and education. What we do not quite fully understand well is what kinds of policy can help both reduce the negative effects of poverty and foster the circumstances for children to thrive.

My colleagues and I make the case that cash transfers to families with children is a promising possible solution. Cash transfers are a general term for a government policy, or a private initiative, that gives money to eligible people as a way of supporting their economic well-being. The act of transferring funds to recipients can be done through bank accounts, mobile phones or in person. Prior to COVID-19, more than 1 billion people were recipients of cash transfers.

The economic rationale behind cash transfers is twofold: 1) to address public or private market failures by providing income to meet consumption needs when jobs and formal earnings are insufficient or unstable and 2) to fill gaps when public or private infrastructure to support basic needs (e.g., health, housing, food) is insufficient or absent. Beyond the economic rationale, cash transfers also promote principles of human rights, dignity, and social equity. Some cash transfers are unconditional (i.e. have no strings attached, allowing recipients to use the money in any way they see fit). This type of cash transfer is sometimes criticized for fueling laziness and disincentivizing work, even though there is little evidence to support this contention. In fact, the majority of cash transfers available to people prior to COVID19 included provisions that required recipients be enrolled in school or employed.

In this work, we delve deeper than economic theory and ask what the combination of psychology with economic theory and child development can reveal about the promise of cash transfers for specifically addressing family financial distress and instability, and support children’s development.

The combined theories of economics, psychology and child development contribute to a new interdisciplinary perspective.  This perspective also points to ways that cash transfers can support the effectiveness of other investments and interventions for children by freeing up time and mental energy for caregivers and their children to participate. We back our argument by noting the promising evidence from general comprehensive reviews of cash transfers and then take a stab at summarizing a select set of case studies of cash transfers to families with children that used a randomized control study design for evaluation where relatively less is understood to date about impacts on children’s development.

Our claim is a bold one: the proposed behavioral insights informed interdisciplinary perspective gives us a lot of traction to think about cash transfers to families with children. Cash transfers to families with children are feasible and wise and conceptually grounded. A behavioral informed view can support smart, context based, design of cash transfers to families with children that can reap lots of returns. Such a policy is not a panacea for child poverty, but for sure can serve as an important companion and catalyst to the range of existing other strategies such as job development, and high quality and safe settings for children.

To learn more about Gennetian’s research on cash transfers, watch the below video overview, “Behavioral Insights and Cash Transfer to Families with Children” and a recent presentation from Gennetian during this October 14 webinar hosted by the Institute for Research on Policy, “Lessons From Cash Transfer And Basic Income Pilot Programs.”

A Simple Enrollment Change Yields Big Dividends in Children’s Early Learning Program

October 6, 2020

DURHAM, N.C. – Researchers know that texting programs can greatly benefit young children’s literacy. Now new research shows that parents’ participation in such programs can be boosted exponentially with one simple tweak: automatic enrollment, combined with the ability to opt out.

The new research from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy appears in the Journal of Child and Family Studies.

In recent years, mounting research evidence has shown texting to be an effective, low-cost, scalable approach for engaging parents in their children’s learning. Some studies suggest text message interventions via tips for parents on how to support their child’s development can put young children’s learning 2-3 months ahead.

Yet getting parents to enroll in these beneficial programs can be challenging. With that in mind, researchers designed a study to test strategies for increasing program participation.

In the study, researchers from Duke, New York University and Brooklyn College compare different enrollment options for the text-based early literacy program, Talk to Your Baby. The text-based 26-week course is designed to promote early language development for children up to 3 years old.

The researchers studied 405 mothers who were receiving newborn home visiting services through a free, city-wide program in New York City. Using a randomized controlled study, the researchers tested whether changing the enrollment option from opt-in to opt-out affects mothers’ take up and completion of the early literacy program. Participants were predominantly low-income and racially and ethnically diverse.

Results show that when automatically enrolled with a voluntary option to opt out, 88.7 percent of study participants stayed in the program for the full 26 weeks. In contrast, only 1 percent of mothers in the control group — who heard about the program through conventional recruitment flyers — voluntarily enrolled in the program. The findings suggest parents’ desire to participate in the program may be high but their ability to follow through is challenging, researchers said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, these programs and other digital strategies for reaching parents can be especially beneficial, the researchers say.

“A lot of time is spent in developing excellent and developmentally appropriate content for these programs and relatively little time is spent understanding how to make it easy for parents to engage,” said Lisa A. Gennetian, lead author of the study and Pritzker Associate Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. “Preserving parents’ choice to enroll in programs, especially those that are universally accessible and free, matters and we learned from this study that automatic enrollment minimizes burden on parents and can have enormous benefits in ways that do not interfere with their freedom.”

The study is the among the first to show that automatic enrollment is a promising strategy for increasing participation in early language and learning programs.

The study also showed the decision to stay in the program or opt out remained consistent for various subgroups. For instance, it made no difference whether this was a first birth or whether the other received public benefits. Such characteristics are sometimes cited as interfering with program participation.

“Opt-out strategies are liberally used in many aspects of our life, from organ donations to decisions about retirement benefits, and they are effective when done carefully,” Gennetian said. “Why wouldn’t we make life easier for parents and apply the same strategy of automatic enrollment with the ease of opting out?”

This research was supported by the Bezos Family Foundation and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (R03HD090280).


CITATION: “The Impact of Default Options for Parent Participation in an Early Language Intervention,” L.A. Gennetian, L.Z Coskun, J.L. Kennedy, et al. Journal of Child and Family  Studies (2020).


For Vulnerable Families, Pandemic’s Effect on Mental Health is Swift and Harsh

September 2, 2020

DURHAM, N.C. – In just a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic swiftly and substantially worsened mental health among U.S. hourly service workers and their children – especially those experiencing multiple hardships, according to new research from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University and Barnard College.

The study leverages real-time, daily survey data collected from Feb. 20, before the pandemic hit the U.S., to April 27, when it was well underway, to examine how the crisis affected parents’ and children’s mental well-being. The 645 survey respondents were parents of young children working in hourly service-industry positions in retail, food service or hotel industries in a large U.S. city. Nearly half (49.5%) of the participants were Black Americans, 23% were Hispanic Americans, and 83% were women.

The findings appear today in Pediatrics.

The surveys showed strong, immediate impacts of the pandemic on vulnerable families. Parents saw quick deterioration in their own mental well-being, reporting more frequent “negative moods” since March 14, the day after the first major restrictions in response to COVID-19 were announced. The majority of respondents experienced multiple hardships, including household job loss (60%), income decline (69%), caregiving burden (45%) and illness (12%).

“The COVID pandemic has created substantial hardship for working families,” said Anna Gassman-Pines, co-author of the study and associate professor of public policy at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. “What’s worse is that the more hardship families experienced, the worse parents’ and children’s mental health.”

Not surprisingly, those who experienced two and three hardships reported more negative moods, worse sleep quality and more uncooperative child behavior than those who did not. For both parents and children, mental health was worst among those who suffered all four hardships.

“These results should raise concern, given the strong links between parental psychological well-being and the well-being of children,” the authors write.

Gassman-Pines and co-author Elizabeth Ananat of Barnard College suggest pediatricians should screen for mental health problems among children in their practices, with particular attention to children whose families are especially vulnerable to both the economic and health aspects of the crisis.

During the stressful pandemic, pediatricians should also help parents understand and watch for potential signs of mental distress, the authors write. Those may include uncooperative behavior and acting out.

The authors also urge the government to provide more support for families, through restarting expanded unemployment insurance benefits and increasing the generosity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“What we really see here is that, as hardships pile up, the combined weight causes severe distress for families. Resilience only takes you so far, and the multiple dimensions of hardship caused by this pandemic — lost jobs, lost child care and education, sickness — are stretching families to the breaking point,” said Ananat. “Families need support, from their pediatricians and, hopefully, from the government.”

This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health (Grant #1R21HD100893-01), the National Science Foundation (Award # SES-1921190), the Russell Sage Foundation (Grant #1811-10382) and Washington Center for Equitable Growth.


CITATION: “COVID-19 and Parent-Child Psychological Well-Being,” Anna Gassman-Pines, Elizabeth Ananat and J. Fitz-Henley II. Pediatrics. 2020; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-007294

Home Visiting Program Linked to Reductions in Child Abuse

November 11, 2019

Family Connects, a program in which nurses conduct home visits for newborns and their families, is linked to substantial reductions in child maltreatment investigations in children’s earliest years, according to new research from Duke University.

Program participants had 44 percent lower rates of child maltreatment investigations during children’s first 24 months of life, compared with parents who did not receive the program, researchers found.

Rachel Scheckter and James Soliah reading to baby Eleanor

“We now have evidence from a rigorous evaluation that the Family Connects program can reduce the community rate of early child abuse investigations,” said lead author Kenneth Dodge, Pritzker Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. “Supporting families with newborns is key to child and family well-being.”

The study also found improvements in maternal health among Family Connects participants. The rate of maternal mental health problems was lower among those visited by a nurse — 18.2 percent, versus 26 percent among those who did not participate.

The results appear in JAMA Network Open

Key contributors to the positive results included high rates of program participation and careful implementation, Dodge said. The study examined 936 births in Durham, N.C., from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2014. Among the 456 families randomly assigned to receive a home visit, 76 percent agreed to participate and were successfully reached, and nurses followed protocols 90 percent of the time.

Family Connects provides home visits from a trained registered nurse shortly after the birth of a child. The nurse conducts infant and mother health checks and refers new parents to resources within their community that meet their individual needs and preferences. These may include substance abuse treatment, maternal depression counseling, general parenting support, housing assistance or childcare resources.

The research-based public health program aims to improve health at a population level, reaching as many families as possible in communities where it is available. The Family Connects program is unusual in emphasizing community-wide impact, short-term duration and relatively low cost of about $500 per family, the study’s authors note.

Managed by Duke University’s Family Connects International, the model originated as a partnership between the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke and the nonprofit Center for Child & Family Health in Durham, N.C. Family Connects International has since grown, with 19 communities across the United States currently implementing the program and many more in various stages of planning. The model has been evaluated through two randomized controlled trials. As the program continues to expand, research and evaluation will continue.

Funding for this study was provided by The Duke Endowment, the Eunice Kennedy Shiver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (grant R01HD069981), and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

CITATION: “Effect of a Community Agency–Administered Nurse Home Visitation Program on Program Use and Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” K.A. Dodge, W.B. Goodman, Y. Bai, K. O’Donnell, R. A. Murphy. JAMA Network Open, November 1, 2019.


Parental Incarceration Increases Children’s Risk of Substance Abuse, Anxiety in Adulthood

Mom holding kid hand through prison bars August 23, 2019

Children of incarcerated parents are six times more likely than other children to develop a substance use disorder as adults and nearly twice as likely to have diagnosable anxiety, according to new research from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.

In addition, children whose parents were incarcerated are more likely to encounter significant hurdles transitioning into adulthood, including being charged with a felony (35% vs. 11.5%), dropping out of high school (25.5% vs. 5.0%), becoming a teenage parent (14.3% vs. 2.8%), experiencing financial strain (37.2% vs. 17.5%), and being socially isolated (24.5% vs. 9.4%), the study found.

“The increased risk for adverse adult outcomes remained after accounting for childhood psychiatric status and other adversities, suggesting that parental incarceration is associated with profound and long-lasting effects for children,” said co-author William E. Copeland of the University of Vermont, who conducted the research while at Duke. “This increased risk persisted whether the incarcerated parent was biologically related to the child or not. Risk for adverse adult outcomes increased further with each additional incarcerated parent figure.”

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that over half of those who are incarcerated are parents of children under age 18.

With more than 2.7 million children experiencing a parent being sent to jail or prison, understanding the long-term health and social implications of incarceration for children is critical, the researchers say.

The study was published Friday in JAMA Network Open. Lead author Beth Gifford of Duke University and Copeland, principal investigator for the Great Smoky Mountains Study, along with colleagues from Duke, the University of Vermont and the University of Zurich, analyzed study data gathered between 1993 and 2015 on the life experiences of children from the Appalachian Mountains in western North Carolina from age nine until age 30.

Researchers considered all adults who had significant responsibility for the child’s discipline or care to be “parental figures.” They also interviewed families as many as eight times during childhood. Using those methods, researchers identified a higher prevalence of incarceration by parental figures (23.9 percent) than the 8 to 11 percent previously documented in other population-based studies.

Incarceration rates for parental figures were higher among racial and ethnic minorities: 47.9 percent among American Indians and 42.7 percent among African-Americans, compared with 21.4 percent among whites. Parental incarceration cases overwhelmingly involved fathers (87.9 percent).

“Our findings point to the potentially high societal costs of incarcerating children’s caregivers — potentially for generations to come,” said Gifford. “From a public health perspective, preventing parental incarceration could improve the well-being of children and young adults, as could aiding children and families once a parent figure has been incarcerated.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH117559, R01MH104576), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA040726, R01DA11301, and P30DA23026), the National Institute of Child Health and Development (R01HD093651), and Robert Wood Johnson Evidence for Action.


CITATION: “Association of Parental Incarceration with Psychiatric and Functional Outcomes of Young Adults,” Elizabeth J. Gifford, Lindsey Eldred Kozecke, Megan Golonka, Sherika N. Hill, E. Jane Costello, Lilly Shanahan, William E. Copeland. JAMA Network Open, Aug. 23, 2019. DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10005

New Study Sheds Light on Varying Degrees of Food Insecurity Among Low-Income Families

Two young girls staring into empty fridge July 9, 2019

Food insecurity is often thought of as a state of economic well-being, with families being categorized as either food secure or insecure. However, a new study from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University sheds light on the varying degrees to which low-income families experience food insecurity on a day to day basis. Published online in the Journal of Marriage and Family on July 9, the study leveraged daily survey reports from a sample of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient parents with young children to examine daily variability in food insecurity within the SNAP benefit cycle. Researchers measured daily levels of food insecurity by assessing three different components of food insecurity: worry about running out of food, insufficiency in the quantity of food available, and concern about being able to afford balanced meals.

Based on the survey results and analysis, the study concludes that SNAP recipients experience considerable instability in their food insecurity from one day to the next, and that the severity of recipients’ daily food insecurity is higher at the end of the SNAP month than at the beginning. These findings add to growing evidence that SNAP benefits may not be sufficient to many families.

The study is the first of its kind to gather and analyze food insecurity diary data from SNAP recipients on a daily basis, allowing researchers to examine within-family change over time. “The key innovation of our approach was to gathering survey reports from SNAP recipients every day for a whole month. This allowed us to really see how much food insecurity varied from day to day,” said Anna Gassman-Pines, lead author of the study. “Our finding that food insecurity increases substantially in the second half of the SNAP month adds to the growing understanding that SNAP benefits are not enough for many families. Our results suggest that increasing benefit amounts, or possibly making SNAP disbursements more frequent, would also have the added benefit of reducing parents’ food insecurity.” Gassman-Pines is a professor in the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy and an associate director of the Center for Child and Family Policy. She co-authored the study with Anika Schenck-Fontaine, a postdoctoral researcher at the Leibniz Institute and former doctoral fellow at the Sanford School.


Babinski Named Director of Sanford’s Center for Child and Family Policy

Leslie Babinski, director of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy June 6, 2019

Leslie Babinski, associate research professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy, will be the new director of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy, Sanford School Dean Judith Kelley announced today.

Babinski succeeds interim director Seth Sanders, who will leave Duke at the end of the summer to assume the Ronald Ehrenberg Chair in the Economics Department at Cornell University. Babinski’s appointment is effective July 1.

“Leslie has really impressed me with her vision for CCFP as an intellectual hub for expanded research and collective grant activity,” said Kelley. “She is a stellar citizen who brings a true collective mindset that will benefit the Center and all who affiliate with it. I am very excited for her leadership and for where she will take research on children and families at Sanford and Duke.”

Since 1999, upon its establishment at the Sanford School, the center has sought to discover and evaluate strategies for improving the lives of children and families, and to share those findings with policymakers and public agencies.

Babinski has been with the center for more than 10 years and has long served as an associate director. In addition, she served as Director of Undergraduate Studies for the public policy major. She has also led the Child Policy Research certificate program and the Duke School Research Partnership, both housed within the center.

“I am so impressed with the high-quality work of the researchers, staff and faculty in the center,” said Babinski. “I am excited about the opportunity to build on this strong foundation and expand our contributions to make a difference in the lives of children and their families.”

Babinski is a licensed psychologist whose research focuses on school-based interventions for children and adolescents, and teacher professional development. She has designed curricular innovations for English Learners, middle school students at risk, and high school health education students. Among her current projects includes a large efficacy trial of a professional development program for English as a Second Language (ESL) and classroom teachers. She is also working with colleagues from UNC-Chapel Hill on a program to support middle school students’ self-regulation. Babinski’s current research has been awarded nearly $8 million in external funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences.

Babinski’s earlier work at Duke included evaluation contracts with America’s Promise Alliance and United Way Worldwide.

A magna cum laude graduate of the University of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Babinski received both her M.A. in educational psychology and human development and Ph.D. in educational and school psychology from the University of California, Berkeley. She participated in the North Carolina Educational Policy Fellowship Program (EPFP) with the NC Public School Forum and Institute for Educational Leadership.

Prior to Duke, Babinski held faculty positions at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and Bucknell University as well as research and clinical positions at nonprofit organizations.

As a publicly engaged scholar, Leslie also serves as a member of Durham Public Schools’ Research Review Committee and consultant to education nonprofits including Teachers2Teachers Global, The Hill Center and El Centro Hispano.

Babinski resides in Chapel Hill with her husband, Steve Knotek. They have three children: Anna, a recent graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill; Katie, a rising junior at Duke; and Chris, a junior at Carrboro High School.

Paid Family Leave Insurance in North Carolina Would Improve Family Health and Economic Outcomes, Study Suggests

March 13, 2019

A paid family and medical leave insurance program in North Carolina would reduce infant mortality, nursing home costs and use of government assistance, according to a new report from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.

In the report, “Paid Family Leave in North Carolina: An Analysis of Costs and Benefits,” researchers model the costs, benefits and feasibility of two policy proposals for instituting a PFLI program in North Carolina. The proposals are based on existing policies in other states and recommendations from the bipartisan American Enterprise Institute (AEI)-Brookings Institution Project on Paid Family Leave.

In evaluating the proposals’ effects on families and society, researchers estimated that both options would reduce infant mortality, low birth weight, nursing home costs and the use of state government assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

News release » Full report »

Adolescents who self-harm more likely to commit violent crime

January 4, 2019

Young people who self-harm are three times more likely to commit violent crime than those who do not, according to new research from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.

The study also found young people who harm themselves and commit violent crime — “dual harmers” — are more likely to have a history of childhood maltreatment and lower self-control than those who only self-harm. Thus, programs aimed at preventing childhood maltreatment or improving self-control among self-harmers could help prevent violent crime, the authors state.

“We know that some individuals who self-harm also inflict harm on others,” said Leah Richmond-Rakerd, lead author of the study. “What has not been clear is whether there are early-life characteristics or experiences that increase the risk of violent offending among individuals who self-harm. Identifying these risk factors could guide interventions that prevent and reduce interpersonal violence.”

Read More »