2011 The Palm Beach County Family Study (Full Report)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

We also asked the mothers about the quality of the relationship with their husbands/partners. When askedhow often their husbands/partners show affection toward them, 79 percent of the sample responded“often,” and 19 percent said “sometimes.” When asked about the frequency of arguments with theirhusbands/partners, 72 percent reported that they argue “sometimes,” 24 percent said “never,” and 4percent said “often.” Qualitative data indicate that when there are conflicts, they center around money andparenting. As one mother explained, “We just don’t see eye to eye on how we’re supposed to raise thekids and how life is supposed to be for us. I refuse to compromise a little his way, he refuses tocompromise my way.”Family and Friends SupportIn addition to husbands and partners, the vast majority of mothers (92%) reported receiving assistancefrom family members or friends in year 5, and this percentage is comparable to the 89 percent of motherswho reported assistance in year 1. Siblings and mothers/stepmothers were the two most frequentlymentioned sources of support (see Table 48). More than half of the mothers reported receiving help fromsiblings, and half of them reported receiving help from mothers or stepmothers in year 5, which isconsistent with the first 4 years of the study. Reported support from all family members in general,including siblings, mothers/stepmothers, aunts, uncles, and cousins, increased between year 4 and year 5.It should be noted that the proportion of the mothers who were either married or partnered decreased fromyear 1 (80%) to year 5 (74%). Thus, the rise in support received from “former” husbands/partners mayreflect the increase in marital or partner separations within the sample families.The frequency of support from family and friends also declined over time (see Table 48). In year 1, 40percent of the mothers reported receiving “daily” advice on child rearing or household problems; by year5 it declined to 25 percent. Mothers were also less likely to talk to friends/family about personal matterson a “daily” basis. In year 1, 33 percent of the mothers reported “daily” support, but by year 5, only 21percent of the sample reported “daily” support for personal problems.Finally, although not shown in the tables below, the number of mothers who reported receiving noassistance or assistance just once a year with food, money, and clothing jumped from 40 percent in year 1to 53 percent of the cohort in year 5. Again, this general decline in high-frequency support from friendsand family might be related, in part, to participants’ growing skills and parenting competencies as well asthe growing independence of the focal children. It also might reflect, for some mothers, a reluctance toask for help or a lack of confidence in the quality of care friends or relatives might give their children.One mother told us, “I rarely like to ask for favors.” Another mother advised, “Let me tell you—savemoney so you can stay home because nobody is going to give your child better care than you.”Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 79
Table 48. Family and Friends Support over Time aPerson Providing Support% Mothers (N=310) bYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Family memberMother/stepmother 52 51 47 49 50Father/stepfather 24 26 25 23 27Grandparent 23 21 18 16 18Sister/brother 55 55 58 55 58Aunt/uncle 31 28 22 21 29Cousin 27 24 18 19 27Grown children and otherrelatives25 21 23 20 20Mother-in-law/father-in-law 30 30 27 22 29Nonfamily memberFriend 51 44 49 52 56Neighbor 20 17 14 13 24Former husband/partner 7 9 9 10 11Coworker 6 11 7 9 11Others 2 4 3 3 4No family or friend support 11 9 7 9 8Family/friend support score b 4.1 (3.4) 4.1 (3.3) 3.7 (2.6) 3.5 (2.6) 4.3 (3.2)a Data were weighted to account for the oversampling of mothers in the Glades and mothers assessed “at risk.”b The family/friend support score combines items that ask about the frequency with which mothers receive any assistance fromany of the individuals listed in this table (i.e., calculated by adding all “yes” responses to the items in the table). This differs fromthe calculation of the support score in previous reports.*Paired sample t-tests indicate that the following year-to-year differences are statistically significant at p < .05 or lower: aunt1 vs.aunt3; aunt1 vs. aunt4; aunt2 vs. aunt3; aunt2 vs. aunt4; aunt3 vs. aunt5; aunt4 vs. aunt5; cousin1 vs. cousin3; cousin1 vs.cousin4; cousin2 vs. cousin3; cousin3 vs. cousin5; cousin4 vs. cousin5; in-law1 vs. in-law4; in-law2 vs. in-law4; in-law3 vs. inlaw4;in-law4 vs. in-law5; grandparent1 vs. grandparent3; grandparent1 vs. grandparent4; grandparent1 vs. grandparent5;grandparent2 vs. grandparent4; former husband1 vs. former husband5; friend1 vs. friend2; friend2 vs. friend4; friend2 vs.friend5; neighbor1 vs. neighbor4; neighbor2 vs. neighbor5; neighbor3 vs. neighbor5; neighbor4 vs. neighbor5; coworker1 vs.coworker2; coworker1 vs. coworker5; no one1 vs. no one3; score1 vs. score3; score1 vs. score4; score2 vs. score3; score2 vs.score4; score3 vs. score5; score4 vs. score5.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 80
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 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 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?