2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

friend/neighbor/other), which were measured in year 5. 67 We also used mothers’ reports on children’sspecial needs at year 2 because not all were likely to have been identified at baseline.Table 60 through Table 65 present the results of the logistic regression analyses. Similar to the results ofprevious analyses, we found little evidence of a relationship between mothers’ service use and childoutcomes. The evidence we did find suggests that greater service use is associated with a lower likelihoodof the focal child speaking in long sentences (see Table 60) and that having ever received parenting helpis associated with a lower likelihood of the focal child being in the top 25 th percentile for communicationskills (see Table 61). As explained previously, these results are likely a reflection of the fact that motherswith greater needs were more likely to receive services and to use more services on average than motherswith fewer needs. Furthermore, as explained previously, we cannot fully control for the differencesbetween mothers who did and did not receive services. Thus, it is not surprising to find that greaterservice use is associated with worse outcomes.We also found that, for four of the six child outcomes examined, the children of U.S.-born black mothershad significantly better outcomes (based on mother’s self-report) than the children of foreign-bornHispanic mothers. Specifically, the children of U.S.-born black mothers were significantly more likely tobe speaking in long sentences and had significantly greater odds of falling into the top 25 th percentile forschool readiness, social-emotional, and communication skills. The differences were especially large forsocial-emotional and school readiness skills, for which the odds of the children of U.S.-born blackmothers being in the top 25 th percentile were 12 and 7 to 8 times those of the children of foreign-bornHispanic mothers, respectively. These results are similar to those obtained in year 4, when we found thatthe children of U.S.-born black mothers were significantly more likely to be speaking in either short orlong sentences and had significantly greater odds of falling into the top 25 th percentile for all otheroutcomes.Also similar to year 4, we found that the children of foreign-born black mothers had significantly betteroutcomes (based on mother’s self-report) in four of the six developmental areas, when compared to thechildren of foreign-born Hispanic mothers. Finally, we did not find much evidence of differences inoutcomes between the children of U.S.- and foreign-born Hispanic mothers; this result is also similar tothat obtained in year 4. The one area where the children of U.S.-born Hispanic mothers appear to have67 Because only 8 percent of family childcare centers participated in the QIS program (seeTable 41), we did not create a separate variable for these centers; rather, we looked at the combined effect of QIS and non-QISfamily childcare on child outcomes.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 113
etter outcomes than the children of foreign-born Hispanic mothers is in social-emotional skills, althoughthis difference is only significant at the 10 percent level.Also consistent with the year 4 results, we found that in several of the regressions, mothers’ parentingscores in year 1 were significantly and positively related to their children’s outcomes in year 5. Forexample, an approximately one-standard-deviation increase (~.40 on a scale of 0–3) in the overallparenting score was associated with a 5- to 7- fold increase in the child’s odds of being in the top 25 thpercentile for communication skills. In addition, a one-standard-deviation increase in the parenting scorewas associated with an approximately 4-fold increase in the odds of a child being in the top 25 th percentilefor school readiness skills. These results suggest that effective interventions targeted at improvingparenting skills around the time of the birth may be able to positively influence children’s development. 68Finally, we found some evidence that children attending QIS center programs had better outcomes insome areas when compared to children cared for by parents, other relatives, friends or neighbors.Specifically, the odds of a child being cared for by parents/relatives being in the top 25 th percentile forcommunication skills were found to be about half those of a child attending a QIS center. 69 Also, the oddsof a child being cared for by parents/relatives being in the top 25 th percentile for drawing/writing skillswere about 40 percent of those of a child attending a QIS center.Similarly, the odds of a child being cared for by a neighbor or friend being in the top 25 th percentile fordrawing/writing skills were about 20 percent of those of a child attending a QIS center. It should be noted,however, that in two instances, we found better outcomes associated with attending a non-QIS center. Inparticular, we found that the odds of a child attending a non-QIS center being in the top 25 th percentile foruse of books were almost 3 times that of a child attending a QIS center. In addition, the odds of a childattending a non-QIS center being in the top 25 th percentile for school readiness skills were twice that of achild attending a QIS center; however, this result is only significant at the 10 percent level.68 Unlike the results for year 4, however, we did not find any significant relationships between mothers’ depression scores in year1 and child outcomes in year 5.69 However, this result was only significant at the 10 percent level.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 114
Page 1 and 2:
FifthMarciaGouvêa2011
Page 3:
AcknowledgmentsThis fifth report of
Page 6 and 7:
Chapin Hall at the University of Ch
Page 8 and 9:
List of TablesTable 1. Components o
Page 10 and 11:
Table 58. Logistic Regression of Mo
Page 12 and 13:
Table C- 24. Mothers’ Baseline an
Page 16 and 17:
• In addition, we observed a pote
Page 18 and 19:
kind of out-of-home educational exp
Page 20 and 21:
IntroductionOver the last three dec
Page 22 and 23:
eadiness and school success and in
Page 24 and 25:
The study’s comprehensive, longit
Page 26 and 27:
Table 2. Characteristics of Mothers
Page 28 and 29:
The Year 5 Study SampleTable 4 show
Page 30 and 31:
Household Structure, Employment, an
Page 32 and 33:
Although mothers continued to repor
Page 34 and 35:
Table 6. Family Income and Economic
Page 36 and 37:
Specifically, mothers living outsid
Page 38 and 39:
at the birth of the focal child tha
Page 40 and 41:
Table 10. Reasons for Transportatio
Page 42 and 43:
Health, Healthcare, and ChildDevelo
Page 44 and 45:
two years of the study. In year 1 1
Page 46 and 47:
Subsequent Pregnancies and Prenatal
Page 48 and 49:
Children’s HealthcareMost (80%) o
Page 50 and 51:
private plans or HMOs increased sig
Page 52 and 53:
outside the TGAs to report that all
Page 54 and 55:
Children’s Behavior and Developme
Page 56 and 57:
cultural norms regarding what sorts
Page 58 and 59:
Table 21. Emerging Pre-academic Ski
Page 60 and 61:
the year 5 interview, over three-qu
Page 62:
various activities, mothers reporte
Page 66 and 67:
Negative Parenting PracticesThere i
Page 68 and 69:
Table 28. Fathers’ Negative Paren
Page 70 and 71:
Table 30. Parent Involvement Activi
Page 72 and 73:
Table 32. Mothers’ Positive Paren
Page 74 and 75:
Table 34. Mothers’ Parent Involve
Page 76 and 77:
The most frequent parent involvemen
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 3. Primary Childcare Arrange
Page 80 and 81:
for 6 months, but when the subsidy
Page 82 and 83: ecause it is of particular interest
Page 84 and 85: types of care between mothers whose
Page 86 and 87: Table 40. Characteristics of Mother
Page 88 and 89: Table 41). Of the 204 children, 91
Page 90 and 91: commented on their children’s nee
Page 92 and 93: nonparental childcare arrangement f
Page 94 and 95: Informal and Community SupportAn un
Page 96 and 97: Table 46. Frequency of Husband/Part
Page 98 and 99: We also asked the mothers about the
Page 100 and 101: Table 49. Type of Family/Friends Su
Page 102 and 103: Access to Support by TGAFigure 5 sh
Page 104 and 105: Use of Formal ServicesA central que
Page 106 and 107: Correlates of At-Risk StatusA large
Page 108 and 109: services after 6 months. Among the
Page 110 and 111: Enhanced ServicesEnhanced services
Page 112 and 113: Termination of MCHP ServicesAs prev
Page 114 and 115: services were fairly stable, althou
Page 116 and 117: languages. The fact that more mothe
Page 118 and 119: In interpreting these results, it s
Page 120 and 121: Overall, mothers reported seeking h
Page 122 and 123: We found that in years 2 and 3, aft
Page 124 and 125: We also found that mothers tended t
Page 126 and 127: variables that could potentially be
Page 128 and 129: significant levels of stress. Paren
Page 130 and 131: positive parenting items and 5 nega
Page 134 and 135: Table 60. Logistic Regression of Ch
Page 140 and 141: County in either fall 2009 or fall
Page 142 and 143: Figure 6. Percent of Focal Children
Page 144 and 145: Next, we conducted logistic regress
Page 146 and 147: Table 68. Selected Maternal and Chi
Page 148 and 149: R 2 .180*p < .05, **p < .01, or ***
Page 150 and 151: SummarySimilar to previous analyses
Page 152 and 153: less than a high school education,
Page 154 and 155: Parenting PracticesWhen surveyed in
Page 156 and 157: We also looked at the stability of
Page 158 and 159: Service Use, Maternal Functioning,
Page 160 and 161: Conclusions and ImplicationsMore th
Page 162 and 163: Meanwhile, our findings indicate th
Page 164 and 165: literacy skills, families who do no
Page 166 and 167: BibliographyAbidin, R. R. (1995). P
Page 168 and 169: Dinan, K. A. (2005a). Federal polic
Page 170 and 171: Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., McC
Page 172 and 173: Weisner, T. S. (1984). A cross-cult
Page 174 and 175: What are pathways to service use? W
Page 176 and 177: Table A- 1. FOCiS Codes for MCHP Se
Page 178 and 179: Table A- 2. Interview Study Samplin
Page 180 and 181: Table A- 3. Household Survey Topics
Page 182 and 183:
Table A- 5. Reasons for Sample Attr
Page 184 and 185:
we sought to identify the ecologica
Page 186 and 187:
Table B- 2. Characteritics of TGA M
Page 188 and 189:
Figure B- 1. Characteristics of Mot
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Figure B- 5. Percentage of PBC Moth
Page 194 and 195:
Table B- 5. Logistic Regression Pre
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Table B- 7. Characteristics of TGA
Page 200 and 201:
Table B- 9. Logistic Regression Pre
Page 202 and 203:
Type of Enhanced Service2009N% of M
Page 204 and 205:
Table B- 12. Logistic Regression Pr
Page 206 and 207:
Numberof BirthswithReferrals2009 TG
Page 208 and 209:
Table B- 15. OLS Logistic Regressio
Page 210 and 211:
Table C- 1. Selected Characteristic
Page 212 and 213:
Table C- 4. Social and Emotional Be
Page 214 and 215:
Table C- 7. Communication Skills of
Page 216 and 217:
Table C- 11. Emerging Literacy and
Page 218 and 219:
Table C- 14. Mothers’ Negative Pa
Page 220 and 221:
Number of Different Arrangements ac
Page 222 and 223:
Figure C- 1. Mean Days of MCHP Serv
Page 224 and 225:
Table C- 19. Characteristics of Mot
Page 226 and 227:
Table C- 22. Number of Service Area
Page 228 and 229:
Table C- 23. Number of Services Use
Page 230 and 231:
Table C- 25. Linear Regression Anal
Page 232 and 233:
Table C- 27. Baseline Characteristi
show all

2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?