Living with Grandma: Links to Low-Income Children’s and Adolescents’ Functioning

1. Living with Grandma: Links to Low-Income Children’s and Adolescents’ Functioning Laura D. Pittman RikeFrangos Bethany S. Quinn and UmmelBaneenKazmi Psychology Department Northern Illinois University Presented at American Psychological Association on August 13, 2010

2. The role of grandmothers • Importance 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. This study • Focused 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.

6. 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?

7. Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study • 2402 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)

8. Measurement: Maternal and Family Functioning • Background information on maternal education, marital status, ethnicity • Household roster: whether grandmother and parent in home • Income-to-needs ratio • Caregiver mental and physical health (8 indices combined) • Family processes composites based on factor analysis of items • Negative Parenting • Provision of Structure • Parental Engagement

9. 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)

10. 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

11. Grandmother Types by Age Group (Time 1)

12. GM Type Over Time

13. GM Type Over Time

14. GM Type Over Time

15. GM Type Over Time

16. Analysis Plan • Ran 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

17. Family Economic Factors:Time 1 Income to Needs Ratio * * * *

18. Maternal Health Problems * * *

19. Family Processes:Negative Parenting * * * * *

20. Family Processes:Provision of Structure * * * * *

21. Family Processes:Engagement * * * * * * * *

22. 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

23. Longitudinal Regressions • DV: Time 3 child outcomes • 8 grandmother groups compared based on 3 time points • Comparison group is households consistently without GM • Included 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

24. Change in Reading Achievement * * *

25. Change in Math Achievement * * * *

26. Change in Internalizing Problem Behaviors * * *

27. Change in Externalizing Problem Behaviors * *

28. Conclusions • Living 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

29. Conclusions • Living 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 emerged • Children who transition from MGHH to CGM have better achievement, but more externalizing behaviors

30. Limitations & Future Directions • Findings may be specific to low-income minority families • Not experimental in design • 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

31. 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 THANKS…. • 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: