2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table C- 14. Mothers’ Negative Parenting Practices during Previous 3 Months by Nativity at Year 5 aActivityAll Mothers Foreign-born U.S.-born(N=310) (n=167) (n=143)Lost temper with children** 60 69 49Found hitting/spanking a good way to get children to listen 25 23 27Got more angry than meant to with children 26 29 22Punished children for not finishing food on plate 9 10 8Blamed children for something not their fault^ 18 14 22Mean (SD) Negative Parenting Score (range: 0–1) b 0.19 (.23) 0.19 (.23) 0.20 (.23)a Data were weighted to adjust for the oversampling of mothers in the Glades and mothers screened “at risk.”b<strong>The</strong> mean score uses only items included in all surveys; the item “lost temper with child(ren)” was excluded in calculating themean.Chi-square analysis indicates that differences are statistically significant at ^p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001.Table C- 15. Parent Involvement Activities during Previous 3 Months by Nativity at Year 5 aActivity b All Mothers Foreign-born U.S.-born(N=310) (n=167) (n=143)Talked to teacher about child’s progress (at times other thanparent-teacher conference)75 72 78Helped child with homework 72 68 76Attended parent-teacher conference* 62 70 53Participated in field trip or family event at school*** 44 33 56Attended PTA or other parent meetings 33 33 32Mean (SD) Parent Involvement Score (range: 0–1) c 0.57 (.30) 0.55 (.29) 0.59 (.30)a Data were weighted to adjust for the oversampling of mothers in the Glades and mothers screened “at risk.”b Only mothers who had children in childcare or school were asked about these activities.c Mean parent involvement score based on all items asked at each time point.Chi-square analysis indicates that differences are statistically significant at ^p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001.Table 16. Social Support by Nativity a,b All Mothers Foreign-born U.S.-bornFrequency of Social Support at Year 5(N=310) (n=167) (n=143)Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)Husband/partner (scale range: 0–7) c 5.9 (0.9) 5.9 (0.8) 5.9 (1.1)<strong>Family</strong>/friend (scale range: 0–16)*** 4.3 (3.2) 3.5 (2.8) 5.1 (3.4)a Data were weighted to adjust for the oversampling of mothers in the Glades and mothers screened “at risk.”b Previous versions of this table displayed U.S.-born mothers, foreign-born mothers who had been in the U.S. for 5 or more years,and foreign-born mothers who had been in the U.S. for less than 5 years. At the time of the year 5 in-person survey, just nineforeign-born mothers had been in the U.S. for less than 5 years.c Husband/partner n=231 (94 of U.S.-born mothers and 136 of foreign-born mothers).One-way ANOVA tests indicate differences are statistically significant at *p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 199
Table C- 17. Number and Most Frequent Types of Focal Children’s Care Arrangements betweenBirth and 5 Years aNumber of Different Arrangements across Nine Time Points b Frequency PercentOne 43 15Child with parent 41 14Child with relative 1 0Child with friend/neighbor 1 0Two 30 11Child with parent and childcare center, Head Start, or prekindergarten 17 6Child with parent and relative 8 3Child with parent and friend/neighbor 3 1Child with parent and multiple/other arrangements 2 0Three 41 14Child with parent and relative 12 4Child with parent and friend/neighbor 7 2Child with parent, relative, and childcare center/Head Start 5 2Child with parent and childcare center/Head Start, pre-k, or family childcare 5 2Child with parent, friend/neighbor, and childcare center/Head Start 3 1Child with parent, relatives, and prekindergarten (school-based) 2 1Child with childcare center/Head Start, and family childcare 2 1Child with parent and other/multiple arrangements 2 1Child with parent, relatives, and friend/neighbor 2 1Child with relative, childcare center/Head Start, and multiple arrangements 1 0Four 43 15Child with parent, relative, and childcare center/Head Start/prekindergarten 12 4Child with parent and relative 4 1Child with parent, childcare center/Head Start, and family childcare 4 1Child with parent, relative, and friend/neighbor 4 1Child with parent and childcare center/Head Start 3 1Child with parent, childcare center/Head Start, and multiple arrangements 3 1Child with parent, relative, friend/neighbor, and childcare center/Head Start 2 1Child with parent and friend/neighbor 2 1Child with parent, relative, and multiple/other arrangements 2 1Child with parent, friend/neighbor, and childcare center/Head Start/prekindergarten 2 1Child with parent, friend/neighbor, and multiple arrangements 1 0Child with parent, relative, and family childcare 1 0Child with relative, childcare center/Head Start, and family childcare 1 0Child with relative, childcare center/Head Start, and prekindergarten (school-based) 1 0Child with relative, childcare center/Head Start, and multiple arrangements 1 0Five 49 17Child with parent, relative, and childcare center/Head Start 9 3Child with parent, relative, friend/neighbor, and childcare center/Head Start 6 2Child with parent, childcare center/Head Start, and family childcare 5 2Child with parent and relative 4 1Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 200
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 132 and 133:
friend/neighbor/other), which were
Page 134 and 135:
Table 60. Logistic Regression of Ch
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
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 192 and 193: Figure B- 5. Percentage of PBC Moth
Page 194 and 195: Table B- 5. Logistic Regression Pre
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 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)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?