Upload
hollie-alexander
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Caregiving by Grandparents in Low-Income Families: Links to Adjustment in Children and Adolescents
Laura D. PittmanPsychology DepartmentNorthern Illinois University
The role of grandparents
Importance of extended families in minority groups Lesser role in Caucasian families
Possible safety nets in low-income families (Burton, 1992) Adolescent mothers Kinship care Rise of custodial grandparents Provision of childcare
Custodial Grandparents
Much attention on impact to grandparent Compared to other grandparents (Minkler &
Fuller-Thompson 1999; Minkler et al, 1997) Compared to other parents (Bachman & Chase-
Lansdale, 2005) Less focus on grandchildren
Mixed evidence regarding behavioral problems (Solomon & Marx, 1995; Minkler & Roe, 1993)
Consistent findings indicating worse academic functioning (Aquilino, 1996; Solomon & Marx, 1995)
Multigenerational Households
Better mental health of children (e.g., Kellam et al., 1977; Deliere & Kalil, 2002)
Mixed findings if mother is young Economic factors (Gordon et al., 2004) Developmental considerations may be
important (Pittman et al., in press)
Childcare provision
Provided by grandmother when mother employed (Smith, 2002) 21% of those under age of 5 15% of 5- to 14-year-olds
Positive link between child care quality and socioemotional and cognitive outcomes among low-income children (Loeb et al., 2004; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2004) Children in informal care lag behind in
cognitive development compared peers in formal childcare centers (Loeb et al., 2004)
Research Questions
Do children’s academic and socioemotional outcomes vary by the type of grandmother they have?
Are any differences found explained by covarying demographic, maternal, or family characteristics?
Are patterns found similar by the child’s development period?
Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study
2402 families completed both adult and youth interview at Time 1 (1999) Children age 0-4 or 10-14 74% overall response rate
88% of families retained at Time 2 On average 16 months later (in 2000-2001)
80% of families retained at Time 3 On average 5 years after Time 2 (2005-2006)
Focused on 2-4-year-olds & 10-14-year-olds at Time 1
See http://web.jhu.edu/threecitystudy for more details
Measurement:Child Outcomes
Two-hour interview with primary female caregiver 100-item Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991;
1992) Internalizing & Externalizing Problem Behaviors
Achievement Subtests From Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational
Achievement Battery-Revised Reading and Mathematical Achievement
30 minute interview with 10-14 year olds Internalizing Symptoms using BSI-18 (Derogatis et al.,
2000) Delinquent activities based on items from NLSY (Borus
et al, 1982) & Youth Deviance Scale (Gold, 1970)
Measurement: Maternal and Family Functioning
Background information on maternal education, marital status, ethnicity
Income-to-needs ratio Material Hardship (5 indices combined) Caregiver mental and physical health (8
indices combined) Family processes composites based on
factor analysis of items Negative Parenting Provision of Structure Parental Engagement
Types of GM involvement
Custodial Grandmother Co-residing (Multigenerational HH) Caregiving Not Caregiving Not present
Grandmother Types by Age Group (Time 1)
Young Children
37%
16%4%14%
29%
Custodial
Coresiding
Caregiving
Non-caregiving
Not present
Young Adolescents
6%
24%
39%
25%
6%
Maternal CaregiversMaternal Caregivers’’ Background Characteristics Background Characteristics
Young Children(N=754 at Time 1)
30 Years of Age
Income-to-Needs Ratio .72
32% Married
37% Below High School Education
44% African American 52% Hispanic American
Young Adolescents(N = 1119 at Time 1)
38 Years of Age
Income-to-Needs Ratio .75
34% Married
39% Below High School Education
41% African American 54% Hispanic American
Analysis Plan Examined young children and young
adolescents separately Analyses weighted to represent children in
households with incomes <200% poverty line in the 3 cities
Compared caregiver and family characteristics at Time 1 across GM group
Longitudinal regressions examining changes in Young Children’s Outcomes
Longitudinal regressions examining changes in Young Adolescent’s Outcomes
Family Economic Factors
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Income-to-needs Material Hardship*
Custodial MGHH Caregiving Noncaregiving Not Present
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Income-to-needs Material Hardship*
Young Children Young Adolescents
Maternal characteristics
-0.2-0.1
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
No Degree Single* HealthProblems*
Custodial
MGHH
Caregiving
Noncaregiving
NotPresent
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
No Degree* Single* HealthProblems
Custodial
MGHH
Caregiving
Noncaregiving
NotPresent
Young Children
Young Adolescents
Family processes
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
NegativeParenting
Structure* Engagement
Cust.
MGHH
Caregiv
Non-care
NotPresent
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
NegativeParenting
Structure*Engagement*
Cust.
MGHH
Caregiv
Non-care
NotPresent
Young Children
Young Adolescents
Longitudinal Regressions of Young Children (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
Time 2 child outcome was DV Created 10 grandparent groups
5 stable & 5 transition groups In Model 1 GM group and Time 1
child outcome entered. In Model 2 added to Model 1,
demographic variables, and the composites regarding caregiver and family functioning
Summary of Regressions with Young Children (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
Custodial grandmothers- Stable Decreasing academic achievement, especially
in reading; partially explained by co-varying characteristics
Custodial grandmothers – Transition Decreasing internalizing problem behaviors
(remained with co-varying characteristics) Multigenerational Households – Stable
Increasing internalizing & externalizing behaviors, explained by co-varying characteristics
Other groups – no differences
Predicted Means at Time 2- Young Children:Reading Achievement (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
Stable Transition to
Custodial
MGHH
Caregiving
Noncaregiving
Not Present
Predicted Means at Time 2-Young Children: Mathematical Achievement (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
747678808284868890929496
Stable Transition to
CustodialMGHHCaregivingNoncaregivingNot Present
Predicted Means at Time 2- Young Children: Internalizing Behaviors (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Stable Transition to
CustodialMGHHCaregivingNonCaregivingNot Present
Predicted Means at Time 2- Young Children: Externalizing Behaviors (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Stable Transition to
CustodialMGHHCaregivingNoncaregivingNot Present
Longitudinal Regressions withYoung Adolescents (Pittman, 2007)
Similar to Young Children Only examined the stable groups No significant differences found in
academic achievement
Summary of Young Adolescent Findings (Pittman, 2007)
Custodial Grandmothers (both reports) Increasing externalizing problem behaviors, after
covariates added Multigenerational Households (teen report)
Decreasing internalizing behaviors, explained by co-varying characteristics
GM Not present (caregiver report) Decreasing internalizing & externalizing
behaviors Other Groups – No differences
Transition to Adulthood (Pittman, in preparation)
Similar longitudinal regressions predicting Time 3 only those remaining in home of caregiver Added regressions predicting parenting Only Model 1 reported
Stable Custodial Grandmothers Decreasing trust in caregiver relationship & use of
harsh punishment Transition to Custodial Grandmother
Increasing self-reported internalizing and externalizing behaviors
Increasing anger in caregiver relationship and harsh punishment
Stable Multigenerational Household Decreasing Internalizing Symptoms
Conclusions about Child Outcomes
Children with Custodial grandmothers, in general, are doing worse
In academic achievement for young children Increasing externalizing in young adolescents Decreasing relationship with caregiver in older adolescent
Multigenerational households vary by age of child (see Pittman & Boswell, 2008)
Young children have increasing internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors
Young adolescent and older adolescents have decreasing internalizing problem behaviors
Co-occurring maternal and family characteristics account for most of the differences
Caregiving by grandmothers does not help nor hinder child development
Future directions: What about grandmothers influences their grandchildren?
Direct vs. indirect influences Direct interactions with children – either informally or if
providing childcare Indirect influences through interactions with mother
How does the quality of the grandmother-mother (GM-M) relationship influence mothers’ mental health, her parenting, and her children’s functioning?
Additional Data:Embedded Developmental Study (EDS)
At each time point, mothers of 2-4 year old children asked to completed a second interview focused on grandmother & father relationships and childcare Time 1: 85% response rate Time 2: 88% response rate
This analysis focuses on the 370 families with EDS interviews at both time points who identified a biological grandmother in their lives
Quality of Grandmother-Mother relationship
Global relationship quality 12 items from Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) Two factors: Trust & Communication and
Anger & Alienation Specific scale about parenting
6 items asking about how much GM helps or interferes with parenting
Two scales: Parenting Cooperation & Parenting Conflict
Split apart the compositesMothers’ Mental Health
Mothers’ Mental Health 10-item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1986) Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (Derogatis, 2000) Parenting Stress & Satisfaction
Mothers’ Parenting Parenting Practices - Raising Children Checklist
(Shumow, et al., 1998) Cognitive Stimulation subscale from the HOME
(Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) Family Routines Inventory (Jensen et al., 1983)
Children’s Outcomes Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors – CBCL Positive Social Behaviors (Quint et al., 1997)
Longitudinal regressions Longitudinal regressions run predicting Time 2
variables by the four GM-M relations variables GM-M Trust & Communication GM-M Anger & Alienation GM-M Parenting Cooperation GM-M Parenting Conflict
Controlling for: Corresponding Time 1 variables Other key demographic variables
child’s age & gender mother’s age, education, marital status &
race/ethnicity household income-to-needs ratio
Main effects of GM-M relationship Maternal mental health
More GM-M Parenting Cooperation Increasing self-esteem (β = .19*)
More GM-M Anger & Alienation Increasing Internalizing Symptoms (β = .20**) Increasing Parenting Stress (β = .26**) Decreasing Parenting Satisfaction (β = -.29**)
Parenting More GM-M Trust & Communication
Increasing Family Routines (β = .30**) Child outcomes
Higher GM-M Trust & Communication Increasing Positive Behaviors (β = .21*)
Implications & Future Directions
Grandmothers can make a difference in their grandchildren’s development – at least when in the same household among low-income families
What can be done to help these children? Research should consider the conditions
that lead up to the formation of these family types & the quality of the relationships within the family
Future studies need to consider Other populations Grandfathers Contextual variation
THANKS….
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation
Administration on Developmental Disabilities,
Administration for Children and Families
Social Security Administration National Institute of Mental
Health The Boston Foundation The Annie E. Casey Foundation The Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation The Lloyd A. Fry Foundation The Hogg Foundation for Mental
Health
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Joyce Foundation The Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation The W.K. Kellogg Foundation The Kronkosky Charitable
Foundation The John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation The Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation The David and Lucile Packard
Foundation The Searle Fund for Policy
Research The Woods Fund of Chicago
To the families who participated in this study; To the PI’s of this study: Andrew Cherlin, P. Lindsay-
Chase-Lansdale, Robert Moffitt, Ronald Angel, Linda Burton, and William Julius Wilson; and
To the funders of this project: