Transcript Children in Rural Poverty:Risk and Protective Factors

The Family Life Project:
Children's Lives in Low Wealth
Rural Communities*
Lynne Vernon-Feagans
Mark Greenberg
Lynne Vernon-Feagans
Patricia Garrett-Peters
Roger Mills-Koonce
*2PO1HD039667 funded by NICHD with
cofunding by NIDA
The Family Life Project

The purpose of the Family Life Project is
to understand the multiple interacting
processes in early childhood that may be
the causal mechanisms linked to later
academic and social adjustment in
children who live in low wealth rural
communities.
Outline
I. Why is this Study Important
II. Research Design and Demographics
III. Sampling of Major Findings
I. Why is this Study Important?


There are literally no large scale studies
of children who live in low wealth rural
communities.
Yet they constitute about 20% to 25% of
the children in the United States.
Child Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas:
1990 - 2007
30
25
20
15
Rural child poverty
10
5
0
O’Hare (2009)
Urban child poverty
Job loss in rural areas has been significant
over the last 30 years
Housing for poor families is challenging
Trailers
Single Family Homes
Changing
Demographics
Outmigration
In Migration
Diversity
The loss of many community schools
The Changing Rural Context
Assets
Challenges









Poverty
Housing
Isolation
Jobs
In and out migration
Children have lower prereadiness skills
Bus rides are longer
Tax base is lower for schools
Consolidated schools







Children are exposed to less
random violent crime
More home ownership
More child school stability
Teachers know many of the
families of the children they
teach
Teachers have more
experience
Families rate teachers more
favorably
Families and schools value
their sense of place
Need for understanding underlying interacting
mechanisms
Child
Rurality
Family
Poverty
Childcare/school
Child
Competence
Work
Race/
Ethnicity
Community
Time
Birth
8 years
Poverty
Parenting
Time with children
Chaos
Poorer Child Outcomes
Breadth
DepthProcesses
of Causal
Breadth and
of Causal
Processes
Community/school
Family and neighborhood
Demography
Psychology
Health
Anthropology
Sociology
Biology of stress
Genetics
Methodology
II. Research Design

Target the two large regions east of the
Mississippi with large pockets of rural
poverty

The South:
Three contiguous poor
counties in North Carolina

Appalachia:
Three contiguous poor
counties in Pennsylvania
FLP Sample = 1292 Children*
North Carolina
African American
Non-African American
Poverty Level
0-200%
>200%
490
168
29
86
344
175
Pennsylvania
Non-African American
*Recruitment Summary
100
90
80
70
60
NC
PA
Study
50
40
30
20
10
0
Contact rate
Agreement
rate
Enrollment
rate
Family Life Project:
Data Collection for Phase I
Birth
2 months
Hospital
Home Visit
6 months
15 months
2 Home Visits
Phone Call
Child Care
Visit
24 months
Phone Call
2 Home Visits
Child Care
Visit
Home Visit
Child Care
Visit
36 months
Phone Calls
2 Home Visits
Child Care
Visit
The Family Life Project:
Data Collection for Phase II
1st
48 months 60 months Pre-K Kindergarten Grade
Home Visit Home Visit
2nd
Grade
Home Visit
Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom
Visit
Visit
Visit
Visit
Child
Child
Child
2 Child
Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessments
19
The Family Life Project:
Data Collection for Phase III
3rd
Grade
4th
Grade
5th
Grade
6th
Grade
Classroom
Observation
Classroom
Observation
Classroom
Observation
Peer
Assessment
Home Visit
Peer
Assessment
Home Visit
Child
Assessment
Child
Assessment
Child
Assessment
Child
Assessment
III. Sampling of Major Findings
A. Children’s competence at pre-K and
Kindergarten
B. Family challenges and child development
C. Family processes and child development
Children’s Competence at Pre-K
and Kindergarten
Descriptive Data for Family Life Project Families and Children at 58-Month
Home Visit
Primary caregiver demographics
White
49.93 %
Black
49.29 %
Average education level, in years
15.13
Primary caregiver completed high school or GED
86.31 %
Household composition
Married, living with spouse
32.67 %
Biological father lives in household
49.10 %
Average number of children in household under 18
2.53
Home ownership and income
Home owned by respondent at 48 month visit
37.82 %
Home rented by respondent at 48 month visit
46.67 %
~$ 34,028 (1.81 x poverty
threshold)
Mean yearly income, first five years of target child’s life
Work life
Percentage of primary caregivers employed
64.40 %
Percentage working fixed day shift
72.09 %
Average work hours per week for primary caregiver
35.5
Hours per week in child care
34.12
Family Challenges and Child
Development
Even though there are many
benefits to non-urban living,
are there also specific
challenges that can affect
family life?
Exploring Contributions to
Chaos in Non-Urban Areas
What is chaos?

Disorganization


Instability


Challenges to preparing for daily living
Changes in residences or work
schedules/shifts
Unpredictability

Challenges to maintaining family routines &
schedules
Unique to Non-Urban Areas

Workforce challenges

Often commute long distances to work

Seasonal and temporary work that is not
predictable/dependable

Work non-traditional shifts, incl. night and rotating
shifts (not 9-5)
Can be disruptive to family life re:
maintaining routines and schedules
(incl. mealtimes and homework)


Limited availability and accessibility of
services with respect to transportation and
child care

Transportation



Limited access to public transportation in non-urban
areas
Non-urban families drive farther to work and child care
Presents challenges esp. for families without reliable
transportation

Child care
Fewer child care options resulting
in longer distances



Hours of available child care does not match nontraditional work hours (e.g., night shift).
FLP families cobble together a variety of child care
arrangements, incl. relative care, family child care
homes, and center care
Children often in a # of different child care
settings each week due to changes in
parents’ work hours


Social Support and Social Networks

Non-urban residents report higher levels of social
support as compared to urbanites

More and stronger ties to kin

People in a social network know each other

Non-urban residents are more likely to receive
help from kin as compared to urbanites and may
assist with transportation and
child care needs
 Still, challenges in the workforce, with
transportation, and child care can lead to
disorganization, instability, and unpredictability in
families’ lives (chaos).
 In FLP this kind of chaos has been associated with
 Poorer language in preschoolers
 Lower scores on reading and math in Kindergarten
We continue to try to understand the ways in which these
workforce, transportation, and child care challenges can
contribute to chaos in families’ lives and how social support and
social networks can help minimize it.
Examining Family Factors in the
Development of
Young Children


In addition to extensive collection of
income, geography, and school data, the
FLP has focused significant time and
resources in studying children’s family
lives.
We have seen children and families in the
home at: 2, 6, 15, 24, 36, and 58 months
of age, as well as during the 1st grade
year of school
Types of family information

Family structure & composition

Who is in the family home?

How does this change over time?

Who has significant childcare responsibilities for the child?


Mothers, fathers, non-residential fathers, co-residential grandmothers, etc.
Caregiver-child interactions and relationships

Emotional support and comfort

Mental stimulation and language use

How parents structure activities for their children
How do we get this information?

Interviews and questionnaires with caregivers

Coding video recordings of interactions between
caregivers and children


As of today, we have coded almost 10,000 caregiverchild interactions from the FLP!
As children have gotten older, we also get
information directly from them

Family drawings

Using “family” figures or dolls to act out stories
So, what have we learned?

Like several other studies, we see that family
processes are very important for multiple areas of
child behavior

We see early effects of parenting by




Mothers
Fathers
Residential Grandmothers
We see parenting effects on





Language development
Cognitive development
Stress regulation
Emotional development
Behavioral development
Each of which are
associated with
children’s success in
school and beyond
Example: Parenting effects on
children’s cognitive development
6 months
15
months
Mothers’
emotional
support
24 months
Mothers’
emotional
support
Children's
cognitive
development
Fathers’
emotional
support
36 months
Children's
cognitive
development
Fathers’
emotional
support
Example: Parenting effects on
children’s cognitive development
6 months
15 to 24 months
36 months
Children's
cognitive
development
Economic
hardship
Family
processes
Child
stress
(cortisol)
Major points

The FLP is one of the first major studies to


Identify early, specific, and unbiased effects of
both mothers and fathers parenting behaviors on
the cognitive development of young children
Identify multiple paths of influence from
contextual factors to child outcomes as a function
of family processes

Including new findings relating systems like child
stress and cognitive ability that previously have not
been studied together
Ongoing goals

In Phase III of the FLP, we are interested in
how
1.
2.
3.
Family processes change and adapt over time as children
grow and develop new skills, abilities, and needs
How families cope with changing contextual
circumstances, such as the ongoing economic climate
that is hitting areas like eastern NC particularly hard
How do the effects of early family processes and child
development carry forward to influence children’s
success later in school
Thank you!
Questions?