Caregiving by Grandparents in Low- Income Families: Links to Adjustment in Children and Adolescents Laura D. Pittman Psychology Department Northern 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 % overall response rate  88% of families retained at Time 2 On average 16 months later (in )  80% of families retained at Time 3 On average 5 years after Time 2 ( )  Focused on 2-4-year-olds & year-olds at Time 1  See for more detailshttp://web.jhu.edu/threecitystudy

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 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)

Maternal Caregivers ’ Background Characteristics Maternal Caregivers ’ 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 Young ChildrenYoung Adolescents

Maternal characteristics Young Children Young Adolescents

Family processes 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)

Predicted Means at Time 2-Young Children: Mathematical Achievement (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)

Predicted Means at Time 2- Young Children: Internalizing Behaviors (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)

Predicted Means at Time 2- Young Children: Externalizing Behaviors (Pittman & Boswell, 2007)

Longitudinal Regressions with Young 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 composites Mothers’ 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: