June 16, 2026

Fundraising appeals featuring children, especially when they are portrayed as victims in need or distress, naturally tug at our heartstrings and evoke deep compassion from potential donors. While this strategy is undeniably effective in raising funds to meet pressing needs, it raises an important question: Is compassion enough?

Our answer is clear—compassion alone is not enough. Let us explain why.

Compassion, as defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, is “a strong feeling of sympathy for those who are suffering and a desire to help them.” While this emotion often motivates positive action, responses guided solely by compassion risk falling into two significant pitfalls.

First, compassion-focused responses tend to position the recipients of help as victims with little power. This narrative inadvertently frames children as helpless and dependent, rather than as individuals with agency and potential.

Second, such responses risk magnifying vulnerability to the extent that it overshadows the inherent strengths and resilience of these children. By focusing solely on their needs and struggles, we may overlook the creative solutions, problem-solving abilities, and aspirations these children demonstrate every day. In short, the lens of compassion alone does not do justice to the capacities and strengths of children.

The vulnerabilities and risks faced by families experiencing long-term economic hardship—especially the high levels of parental stress that often spill over into parent-child interactions—are well-documented in research. Growing up in such circumstances presents significant challenges for children.

However, alongside these challenges, a body of evidence highlights the resilience factors that enable some children not only to cope but to thrive in these difficult contexts. This area of research has drawn increasing attention in the past decades, including the notable contributions of Professor Froma Walsh from the University of Chicago’s Centre for Family Health.

Locally, research on the strengths and resilience of low-income children is gaining traction. I, together with my research collaborators and students, have closely examined the lives of these children. Our paper, “Why Some Poor Children Do Well – An In-Depth Analysis of Positive Deviance Cases in Singapore,” has been viewed more than 44,000 times. This unexpected high viewership may reflect a growing academic and public interest in understanding how some children succeed against the odds and a desire to uncover actionable insights that can inspire broader social change. These low-income children, aged 9 to 13, were identified as examples of positive deviance because they achieved overall academic performance at or above the 70th percentile. This remarkable accomplishment is even more striking considering these children lacked access to financial resources for educational support, such as tuition or enrichment classes that many of their peers rely on to succeed. One key motivation for excelling, according to the children, was their relationship with their mothers. For instance, 10-year-old Deviyah (not her real name) shared:

“When my mother says just do your best and pass, I feel like I am happy and don’t feel stressed, but at the same time, I also feel I am better able to go and get ‘A’s because I know I am capable of getting good results”.

Another research project explored how 60 primary school children from low-income families approached tough decision-making scenarios. In one case, the children had to weigh whether to buy a new phone, creating a conflict between their strong personal desires and their understanding of their family’s tight budget. Defying mainstream literature, which suggests that individuals from low-income backgrounds often make more self-focused decisions, 39 of the 60 children considered the impact of their choices on their family’s welfare.

Although many expressed frustration or anger when their mothers objected to the purchase, they showed adaptability by reframing their decisions in light of their family relationships. Instead of giving up on their goals entirely, they found creative solutions, such as saving their pocket money or waiting for a better time to negotiate with their mothers. This problem-solving approach demonstrates their ability to balance personal aspirations with familial responsibilities, highlighting a nuanced form of resilience often overlooked.

Fiqri, a final-year social work and public health undergraduate student at NUS and a research assistant in the current project, is an example of positive deviance. Growing up in a single-mother, low-income household, Fiqri often bore the weight of societal judgement—labelled and underestimated before he even had the chance to prove himself. Even his mother, acutely aware of their limited resources, never pushed him too far academically.

Everyone seemed to have mapped out a narrow path for him, one riddled with limitations. Yet often, telling a child “no” or setting limits can spark a determination to defy those expectations. Likewise, Fiqri turned these judgments into fuel, driving him to aim even higher. His determination enabled him to excel in his N levels and polytechnic diploma, proving his potential far exceeded what others had imagined. In 2021, his journey reached a significant milestone when he was awarded the prestigious Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship to pursue his university education. For him, excelling is not merely about doing well; it is about reclaiming control over his path. Fiqri’s story is an example of the spirit of hope and resilience for children in similar circumstances, a reminder that where a child starts does not define where they can go.

You may ask, in this case, are advocacy efforts for policy, programmes, and systemic changes redundant since these children are resilient? Our answer is an unequivocal no. Highlighting resilience does not negate the need for systemic support. Resilience exists despite adversity, not because of it. The evidence of strengths in creative problem-solving, goal-setting, and agentic capacity shown by these children underscores how much more they could achieve with adequate resources and opportunities.

One concrete step forward our research team is currently finalising for publication is a resilience measure designed to identify protective factors in low-income families. The Parent-Child Relational Efficacy Scale (PCRES) is based on longitudinal data collected at three time points from approximately 500 mother-child dyads. PCRES is fundamentally different from existing instruments because it captures something no current scale measures: the shared confidence of the parent-child unit. It reflects not only the parent’s perception of the relationship or the child’s, but both simultaneously. In doing so, it positions the child as an active contributor to family resilience, rather than merely a beneficiary of good parenting. Our preliminary findings suggest that PCRES has real value as a resilience measure for the local population, particularly in relation to mothers’ mental health outcomes and children’s sense of hope for the future in low-income families.

Together—children, parents, community partners, funders, and academic researchers—let us move beyond compassion and build a society where resilience is nurtured, opportunities are equitable, and every child and family has a chance to thrive.

By
Esther C L Goh & Fiqri Nur Haziq Abu Bakar
National University of Singapore, Faculty of Arts and Social Science
Department of Social Work