Living with Grandma: Links to Low-Income

Children’s and Adolescents’ Functioning

Laura D. Pittman

Rike Frangos

Bethany S. Quinn

and

Ummel Baneen Kazmi

Psychology Department

Northern Illinois University

Presented at American Psychological Association on August 13, 2010

The role of grandmothersImportance of extended families

in minority groups (Jones & Lindahl, in press) ◦Lesser role in Caucasian families

Possible safety nets in low-income families (Burton, 1992)◦Adolescent mothers◦Kinship care◦Rise of custodial grandparents

Children in Care of Custodial Grandparents (CGP)Consistent findings indicating

worse academic functioning (Aquilino, 1996; Pittman & Boswell, 2007; Solomon & Marx, 1995)

Mixed evidence regarding behavioral problems (Solomon & Marx, 1995; Minkler & Roe, 1993)

Age of child may make a difference (Pittman, 2007; Pittman & Boswell, 2007)

Children in Multigenerational Households (MGHH)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 (Wakschlag et al., 1996)

This studyFocused on children living in

multigenerational households or with custodial grandparents

Examined academic and socioemotional outcomes in children and adolescents separately

Rather than focusing on grandmother presence at 1 time point, we considered 3 time points and accounted for transitions of grandmothers in and out of the home.

Research Questions

Are there initial differences in maternal or family characteristics based on GM household type?

Do children’s and adolescents’ outcomes vary over time based on GM household type?

Are the patterns found similar across developmental periods?

Welfare, Children and Families:

A Three-City Study2402 families completed both female caregiver 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)

See http://web.jhu.edu/threecitystudy for more details

Focus of this paper:◦ 531 Children: 2-4 years old at T1 (7-11 years old at T3)◦ 695 Adolescents: 10-14 years old at T1 (14-21 years

old at T3)

Measurement: Maternal and Family FunctioningBackground information on maternal

education, marital status, ethnicityHousehold roster: whether

grandmother and parent in homeIncome-to-needs ratioCaregiver mental and physical health

(8 indices combined)Family processes composites based on

factor analysis of items◦ Negative Parenting◦ Provision of Structure◦ Parental Engagement

Measurement: Child Outcomes

Achievement Subtests◦From Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational

Achievement Battery-Revised Reading and Mathematical Achievement

Socioemotional Outcomes◦Caregiver report

Internalizing & Externalizing Problem Behaviors Subscales from the age-appropriate versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991; 1992)

◦Self reports from interviews with adolescents 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)

Time 1 Maternal Caregivers’ Background Characteristics

Caregivers of 2-4 Year Old Children

◦ 29 Years of Age

◦ Income-to-Needs Ratio .69

◦ 35% Married

◦ 47% No High School

Degree

◦ 43% African American

◦ 53% Hispanic American

Caregivers of

10-14 year old Children

◦ 38 Years of Age

◦ Income-to-Needs Ratio .75

◦ 34% Married

◦ 39% No High School

Degree

◦ 41% African American

◦ 52% Hispanic American

Grandmother Types by Age Group

(Time 1)

GM Type Over TimeGM over time Children Adolescents

Stable CGM 15 (3%) 30 (4%)

Stable MGHH 16 (3%) 15 (2%)

Never in home 369 (70%) 590 (84%)

Transition to CGM 8 (2%) 7 (1%)

Transition out of CGM 8 (2%) 5 (1%)

Transition to MGHH 28 (5%) 15 (2%)

Transition out of MGHH 75 (14%) 33 (5%)

Transition from MGHH to CGM

12 (2%) 4 (1%)

GM Type Over TimeGM over time Children Adolescents

Stable CGM 15 (3%) 30 (4%)

Stable MGHH 16 (3%) 15 (2%)

Never in home 369 (70%) 590 (84%)

Transition to CGM 8 (2%) 7 (1%)

Transition out of CGM 8 (2%) 5 (1%)

Transition to MGHH 28 (5%) 15 (2%)

Transition out of MGHH 75 (14%) 33 (5%)

Transition from MGHH to CGM

12 (2%) 4 (1%)

GM Type Over TimeGM over time Children Adolescents

Stable CGM 15 (3%) 30 (4%)

Stable MGHH 16 (3%) 15 (2%)

Never in home 369 (70%) 590 (84%)

Transition to CGM 8 (2%) 7 (1%)

Transition out of CGM 8 (2%) 5 (1%)

Transition to MGHH 28 (5%) 15 (2%)

Transition out of MGHH 75 (14%) 33 (5%)

Transition from MGHH to CGM

12 (2%) 4 (1%)

GM Type Over TimeGM over time Children Adolescents

Stable CGM 15 (3%) 30 (4%)

Stable MGHH 16 (3%) 15 (2%)

Never in home 369 (70%) 590 (84%)

Transition to CGM 8 (2%) 7 (1%)

Transition out of CGM 8 (2%) 5 (1%)

Transition to MGHH 28 (5%) 15 (2%)

Transition out of MGHH 75 (14%) 33 (5%)

Transition from MGHH to CGM

12 (2%) 4 (1%)

Analysis PlanRan parallel analyses with children

and adolescents separately Compared caregiver and family

characteristics at Time 1 across GM groups

Longitudinal regressions examining changes in academic and socioemotional outcomes

Family Economic Factors:Time 1 Income to Needs Ratio

* *

*

*

Maternal Health Problems

*

*

*

Family Processes:Negative Parenting

*

*

** *

Family Processes:Provision of Structure

*

*

*

*

*

Family Processes:Engagement

**

*

*

*

* *

*

Which groups have multiple risks?For younger children

◦Stable MGHH◦Transition to MGHH◦Transition from MGHH to CGM

For young adolescents◦Not as clear distinction

Longitudinal RegressionsDV: Time 3 child outcomes8 grandmother groups compared based

on 3 time points◦ Comparison group is households consistently

without GMIncluded in the model:

◦ Demographic variables◦ Caregiver & family functioning composite

variables◦ Corresponding Time 1 child outcome

GM group coefficients represent change over time

Present standardized betas here

Change in Reading Achievement

*

*

*

Change in Math Achievement

*

*

*

*

Change in Internalizing Problem Behaviors

*

*

*

Change in Externalizing Problem Behaviors

*

*

ConclusionsLiving with Custodial Grandmothers

◦ Children seem to do fine both academically and socio-emotionally Children who transition out of this group also

have decreasing internalizing problem behaviors.◦ Adolescents who have lived with CGM have

some problems academically and with both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Indicators of problems when consistently living

with CGM, transition to CGM, or transition out of CGM

May be not having an involved mother is particularly difficult during adolescence

ConclusionsConclusionsLiving in Multigenerational Households

◦ Consistently living within MGHH is linked to positive outcomes for adolescents. Families at different stages of the family life cycle

may form MGHH for different reasons. Teens transitioning out of MGHH also have fewer

problem behaviors.◦ Among children, multiple risk identified, but

when controlled for these factors, no differences among children living consistently in MGHH Without controls (data not shown), more

differences emergedChildren who transition from MGHH to

CGM have better achievement, but more externalizing behaviors

Limitations & Future Directionso Findings may be specific to low-income

minority familieso Not experimental in designo Need to replicate in other studies over

longer periods of time with more detailed histories of coresidence

Recognize differences in family context likely associated with differences in child outcome

Future studies need to consider age of child

Clinically, it is important to consider whether extended family members should be included in family interventions

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: