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: