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: