Search

Almost 80 million people globally are forcibly displaced. A small number reach wealthy western countries and seek asylum. Over half are children. Wealthy reception countries have increasingly adopted restrictive reception practices including immigration detention. There is an expanding literature on the mental health impacts of immigration detention for adults, but less about children. This scoping review identified 22 studies of children detained by 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Netherlands, the UK and the US) through searches of Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare, CINAHL and Scopus data bases for the period January 1992–May 2019. The results are presented thematically. There is quantitative data about the mental health of children and parents who are detained and qualitative evidence includes the words and drawings of detained children. The papers are predominantly small cross-sectional studies using mixed methodologies with convenience samples. Despite weaknesses in individual studies the review provides a rich and consistent picture of the experience and impact of immigration detention on children's wellbeing, parental mental health and parenting. Displaced children are exposed to peri-migration trauma and loss compounded by further adversity while held detained. There are high rates of distress, mental disorder, physical health and developmental problems in children aged from infancy to adolescence which persist after resettlement. Restrictive detention is a particularly adverse reception experience and children and parents should not be detained or separated for immigration purposes. The findings have implications for policy and practice. Clinicians and researchers have a role in advocacy for reception polices that support the wellbeing of accompanied and unaccompanied children who seek asylum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we consider whether certain countries are particularly adept (or particularly poor) at getting children from disadvantaged homes to study for a bachelor's degree. A series of university access models are estimated for four English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and the USA), which include controls for comparable measures of academic achievement at age 15. Our results suggest that socioeconomic differences in university access are more pronounced in England and Canada than Australia and the USA and that cross-national variation in the socioeconomic gap remains even once we take account of differences in academic achievement. We discuss the implications of our findings for the creation of more socially mobile societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global expansion of access to higher education has increased demand for information on academic quality and has led to the development of university ranking systems or league tables in many countries of the world. A recent UNESCO/CEPES conference on higher education indicators concluded that cross-national research on these ranking systems could make an important contribution to improving the international market for higher education. The comparison and analysis of national university ranking systems can help address a number of important policy questions. First, is there an emerging international consensus on the measurement of academic quality as reflected in these ranking systems? Second, what impact are the different ranking systems having on university and academic behavior in their respective countries? Finally, are there important public interests that are thus far not reflected in these rankings? If so, is there a needed and appropriate role for public policy in the development and distribution of university ranking systems and what might that role be? This paper explores these questions through a comparative analysis of university rankings in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]