An Introduction to: The Economic Status, Public Policy, and Child Neglect Study (aka, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children) Lonnie Berger Center for Health and Wellbeing Princeton University Prepared for the Fragile Families workshop Columbia University July 2004

Overview of the study: Consists of on an in-home module added to the Fragile Families study at 36 and 60 months Observational and self-report data are collected in participants’ homes over approximately one and a half hours Originally designed to collect information on “child neglect” and “poor” parenting behaviors and their effects on children, but the data can be used to study parenting and child wellbeing across a wide range of domains and levels

Types of data collected: Health and disability, health behaviors, and accidents Child behavioral and cognitive development Family routines Parenting, parent-child interactions, and the quality of the caregiving environment Nutrition, food sufficiency, and food expenditures Physical and social characteristics of the home, building, and neighborhood Parental physical and mental health and cognitive ability (anthropometrics, stress, mastery, PPVT) Discipline strategies Involvement with child protective services (60-months)

Standardized measures: Conflict Tactics Scale Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment USDA Food Security Supplement PSID Food Expenditures Module Child Behavior Checklist Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Research questions: How do factors such as economic status, family structure, and other parental/family characteristics affect parenting and the environments in which children live? What are the determinants of “poor” parenting/child deprivation? How do parental behaviors and the types of care children receive affect their developmental outcomes? How do maternal employment and work patterns affect parenting and child outcomes? What role do (resident and non-resident) fathers and mother’s partners play in determining children’s care? How do public policies that affect family resources impact parenting, children’s care, and child outcomes?

Parenting measures (1): We have created 19 parenting measures. Many of these are available in multiple coding schemes. Measures based on the CTS:  Lack of non-violent discipline  Psychological aggression  Physical assault  Neglectful behavior Measures based on the HOME:  Harshness  Lack of warmth  Lack of maternal verbal/social skills  Lack of materials for learning/cognitive stimulation

Parenting measures (2): Physical measures:  Problems with the home interior  Home is unsafe for children  Food insecurity  Problems with the child’s clothing/hygiene Medical measures:  Any accident requiring medical care last year  No medical checkup last year  Problem’s with child’s oral health care Exposure measures:  Exposure to domestic violence  Exposure to cigarette smoke  Lack of seatbelt use

CTS measures and economic status CTS1 = Lack of nonviolent discipline CTS2 = Psychological aggression CTS3 = Physical assault CTS4 = Neglectful behaviors

HOME measures and economic status nonpun = Harshness emoresp = Lack of warmth verbsoc = Lack of maternal verbal/social skills langstim = Lack of materials for learning/cognitive stimulation

Physical measures and economic status homeint = Problems with the home interior unsafe = Home is unsafe for children fs = Food insecurity appear = Problems with the child’s hygiene/appearance

Medical measures and economic status anyacc = Any accident requiring medical care last year nocheckup = No regular medical checkup last year oralprob = Problems with child’s oral health care

Exposure measures and economic status m3dvexpany = Exposure to domestic violence smoke = Exposure to cigarette smoke noseatbelt = Lack of seatbelt use

What are we finding so far? Lower income status is associated with poor outcomes on several of the HOME, physical and exposure measures, but less so with the CTS and medical measures. Poor outcomes on the most resource oriented measures (e.g., materials for learning, child appearance, food insecurity) are most closely linked to poverty. We are currently investigating the extent to which family characteristics affect child deprivation only through their effects on income. Thus far, we have rejected this hypothesis for 8 of the 19 outcomes (lack of nonviolent discipline, all 4 physical measures, accidents, and exposure to cigarette smoke).