|
The centerpiece of the 1988 Family Support Act (FSA) is the Job Opportunities
and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) Program, which requires eligible recipients
of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to participate in educational,
job training and work experience, or job search activities, in order to reduce
welfare dependency and promote self-sufficiency. Although most services offered
through JOBS are aimed at meeting the needs of adults, there are numerous reasons
to expect that JOBS may also affect children in families that receive AFDC.
By What Pathways Might JOBS Affect Children?
The legislative debate that led to the passage of the Family Support Act was
"two-generational" in focus. That is, lawmakers recognized the implications
of poverty and welfare dependency for both parents and children. However, the
JOBS Program focuses primarily on the parental generation, although transitional
child care and Medicaid benefits mandated under JOBS do recognize the needs
of young children. Because the JOBS program is part of the government's effort
to interrupt the inter-generational transmission of poverty, it is important
to consider the possibility of either positive or negative effects on children.
There are several mechanisms by which JOBS could affect children. These include
changes in parent education or family income; changes in the home environment;
changes in mothers' psychological well-being; and increased participation in
child care.1
As a national policy, the underlying assumption of the FSA is that the needs
of poor children are best addressed through providing parents with education
and job training services. An important potential pathway of influence of JOBS
on children is via increasing maternal education, employment skills, and eventually
employment. There is ample evidence to support the view that maternal education
and family income are associated with children's development.2 Education and income gains may produce changes in children's
home environments, such as the provision of more cognitively stimulating materials
or activities. These qualities of the home environment are positively associated
with children's development,3 and in fact are better predictors of child outcomes than are measures
of parent education or socioeconomic status. However, despite evidence that
higher parental educational attainment and family income are beneficial for
children, we do not know whether JOBS participation will result in sufficiently
large gains in these areas to influence outcomes among children.
Implementation of the JOBS mandate among AFDC mothers may also affect children's
participation in non-maternal care. Meyers has summarized evidence that participation
in welfare-to-work programs is associated with an increase in the amount of
child care used and a greater reliance on formal child care arrangements, such
as day care centers.4 Mothers' participation in JOBS and the provision of child
care subsidies for JOBS participants may result in more children from AFDC families
participating in out-of-home, formal child care arrangements. High quality,
educationally oriented child care programs are associated with cognitive gains,
particularly for children from low-income families. Consequently, the FSA may
provide an important opportunity to enhance the development of disadvantaged
children. On the other hand, if parents place their children in poor quality
care in order to fulfill their JOBS participation requirements, children's development
may well suffer.
Furthermore, JOBS may affect children through changes in maternal psychological
well-being. For example, mothers' stress or depression levels may increase in
response to the participation mandate and the need to arrange child care fairly
quickly. By contrast, mothers may experience decreases in depression and increases
in role satisfaction or self-esteem as a result of gains in their education
or job skills, or because participation provides social interaction, a respite
from child care, and a sense of future opportunity. These areas of maternal
well-being have been linked in turn to aspects of the home environment and to
children's development.5
In sum, prior research suggests that JOBS, while primarily focused on parental
education and employability, may affect the lives and well-being of young children
as well. Both economic and non-economic mechanisms for such effects are possible.
However, it is not known whether effects, if they do occur, will be positive,
negative, or a mix of both; or whether any effects that are found will be large
or modest. It is not known whether effects will differ by area of child well-being
or for different subgroups of the JOBS population. The JOBS Child Outcomes Study
has been designed to allow a careful examination of effects on children, as
well as of the mechanisms by which such effects occur.
The JOBS Evaluation
The FSA legislation recommended a random assignment evaluation of the JOBS
program to test its effectiveness, and this evaluation is currently being conducted
by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). The impacts portion
of the JOBS Evaluation involves random assignment of more than 55,000 JOBS eligibles
to either a control group or one or two program groups, in seven sites around
the country. The impact study is designed to examine the effects of various
JOBS approaches on individuals' employment status, earnings levels, receipt
and amount of AFDC payments, income levels, and educational attainment, using
two types of experimental designs. The design of the impact study, and rationale
for choosing each of the seven sites, are described fully in "The JOBS Evaluation:
Early Lessons from Seven Sites".6 Because JOBS departs from earlier welfare-to-work programs
by mandating the participation of parents whose children are as young as three
years of age, a special substudy of these parents and children, called the Child
Outcomes Study, is being conducted within the larger JOBS Evaluation to examine
outcomes for young children (see Figure 1).
The JOBS Child Outcomes Study Design
The JOBS Child Outcomes Study, part of the larger JOBS Evaluation, has been
designed to examine both the effects of JOBS on children and the mechanisms
that explain any effects that are found. Data for the Child Outcomes Study are
being collected for approximately 3,000 mothers and children in three sites:
Fulton County, Georgia; Riverside County, California; and Kent County, Michigan.
The Child Outcomes sample includes all eligible families with a youngest child
aged three to five who are enrolled in the JOBS evaluation in these three sites.
Analyses of the impacts of the JOBS program for children will rely on follow-up
data collected in these three sites from mothers and children two years after
random assignment,7 and from schools approximately four years after random assignment.8
The Descriptive Study Within the
JOBS Child Outcomes Study
The current report provides a descriptive account of the Child Outcomes sample
in one of these sites -- Fulton County, Georgia -- near the start of the evaluation.
In the Fulton County site, the JOBS Evaluation is designed to measure the effectiveness
of two alternative approaches to welfare-to-work programs: a human capital development
approach, which emphasizes education and training activities, and a labor force
attachment approach, which emphasizes quick entry into the job market through
job search strategies. AFDC applicants or recipients in Fulton County who were
subject to the JOBS mandate were randomly assigned to one of these two program
groups, or to a control group. Those in the control group, while eligible for
AFDC benefits, were not required to participate in any JOBS activities.9
This descriptive account of mothers and young children in the Fulton County
site close to the start of the JOBS Evaluation will be referred to as the Descriptive
Study, and the sample for this study as the Descriptive sample. For all participants
in the JOBS Evaluation, including those in the Descriptive Study, we have baseline
data, collected just prior to random assignment to either a program or control
group. Baseline data include characteristics of the mothers and families at
the time of random assignment, as well as a limited set of questions concerning
maternal attitudes and subjective well-being. In addition, for the participants
in the Descriptive Study, we also have data from a survey collected in respondents'
homes on average three months after random assignment. This Descriptive survey
included interviews with the mothers, assessments of the children, and direct
observations of the home environment.
Seven hundred and ninety respondents from the JOBS Child Outcomes Study in
Fulton County participated in the Descriptive survey. All are mothers whose
youngest child was between the ages of three and five at the time of random
assignment in the JOBS Evaluation, and all of these mothers were 20 years of
age or older when they were assigned to a group within the JOBS Evaluation.
Ninety-six percent are African American. Although none of the mothers were teenagers
at the time of the Descriptive Study, 40 percent were 19 or younger at the birth
of their oldest child living in the household. The present report refers to
the child of between three and five years as the "focal" child, or the child
whose circumstances and development were focused upon in the study. If the mother
had two children between the ages of three and five, one was chosen randomly
to be the focal child.
Key Questions and Selected Findings
From the Report
The purposes of this report are to describe the lives and circumstances of
this sample of AFDC families with preschool-aged children in Fulton County,
Georgia and to inform policy makers about the mothers' goals and the development
of their children. In addition, the study provides a context within which we
will examine later impacts of the JOBS program on children. Below we summarize
key findings from the report.
- What is the community context of families in the Descriptive Study?
Fulton County, Georgia, includes most of the city of Atlanta, as well as suburban
and rural areas. Compared to both the United States as a whole and U.S. metropolitan
areas, Fulton County has higher rates of overall poverty, child poverty, and
mother-headed households. Fulton County was selected as a site for the JOBS
Evaluation because it represents a southern, urban site with a welfare population
that is relatively disadvantaged compared to other sites (Hamilton and Brock,
1994).
Mothers in the Descriptive Study were asked to describe their neighborhoods.
At the time of random assignment, about two-thirds of the sample reported that
they lived in public (39 percent) or subsidized (29 percent) housing.10 At the time of the Descriptive survey, about half of
the sample (55 percent) reported that "very few" of the other mothers in their
neighborhoods worked regularly at paid jobs. Four in 10 mothers described their
neighborhoods as a "not too good" or an "awful" place to raise children, and
about two in 10 mothers described their neighborhoods as an "excellent" or a
"very good" place to raise children.
- How job-ready are mothers in the Descriptive sample in terms of fertility
plans, education, reading and math literacy, labor force experience, attitudes
regarding work and welfare, and psychological well-being?
Mothers in the Descriptive sample varied substantially in terms of their apparent
preparedness to pursue JOBS activities and employment. The majority of the mothers
have had some previous experience in the labor force, although much of that
experience was in low-paying, low-wage jobs. Two-thirds of the women are high
school graduates or have a GED, suggesting that they are at a point where they
could benefit from job training or further education, or could take an entry
level job.
Despite the fact that most of the mothers in the Descriptive sample have a
high school diploma or a GED, more than half of the mothers have low levels
of basic reading and math literacy. Fifty-three percent of the sample have low
levels of basic reading literacy, based on their scores on the Test of Applied
Literacy Skills document literacy scale. Even among women with high school diplomas,
46 percent scored in this range. Sixty-two percent of the sample scored below
seventh grade levels on the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Appraisal
Math test. Only 14 percent of the women with high school diplomas scored in
the highest level on the GAIN Appraisal Math test, indicating functioning at
least at a high school entry level in basic reading and math. While the test
scores point to low levels of reading and math literacy for many mothers in
the Descriptive sample, we note that it is possible that having a high school
diploma might be more important in acquiring a job than one's tested literacy
level.
Data from the Descriptive Study contradict the stereotype that welfare mothers
tend to have many children. Most mothers in the Descriptive sample have few
children. Sixty-five percent had only one or two birth children living in the
household at the time of the Descriptive survey, and only 13 percent had four
or more birth children. Seventy-two percent of the households in the Descriptive
Study consist only of the respondent and her child(ren). The total household
size was small, with nearly three-quarters of the households composed of four
or fewer people.
A woman's current fertility status and childbearing plans are important determinants
of the likelihood that she will participate successfully in education and/or
employment activities.11 Women who want to have additional children may be a
group particularly likely to drop out of JOBS activities due to pregnancy, whereas
women who have already had all of the children they plan to have may participate
more actively in JOBS. Most of the women in the Descriptive Study expressed
a desire to limit their family size, with 96 percent neither being pregnant
nor wanting to become pregnant. The majority reported using effective contraception
or sterilization to avoid unwanted pregnancies (see Figure 2). Sixty-six percent
of the women reported that they were not trying to become pregnant and were
using a very reliable birth control method, such as the Pill, IUD, Depo Provera,
or sterilization; the majority of these had a tubal ligation. On the other hand,
30 percent of the mothers responded that they were not trying to become pregnant,
but were either using an unreliable method of birth control or were not using
any birth control. As the women were not asked questions about their sexual
activity, it is not clear whether contraceptive non-users are at risk of pregnancy
or whether they are not sexually active.
Although there were variations in ratings, most of the respondents expressed
positive attitudes toward employment, negative attitudes toward welfare, and
a sense that they could locate child care if they become employed (see Figure
3).
In terms of educational attainment, attitudes about welfare and employment,
and fertility status, many mothers in the Descriptive Study appear to be in
a good position to participate in and benefit from JOBS. However, other characteristics
of the mothers may impede their participation. A substantial proportion of mothers
in the Descriptive Study (42 percent) reported depressive symptoms high enough
to be considered in the clinically depressed range. Other studies using the
same measure of depressive symptomatology in community-wide samples have found
much lower rates of depressive symptoms, ranging from 9 to 20 percent. Further,
most women in the Descriptive Study have experienced difficult life circumstances,
including problems with housing, or having a relative or close friend in jail.
Smaller groups of women also reported health-related barriers to employment
or substance-use problems.
- What assistance do the children's fathers provide to the mothers? Who
other than the father provides emotional, childrearing, and economic support
to these mothers, and to what extent?
Contact between the focal children and their biological fathers was limited.
Only 16 percent of the mothers in the Descriptive sample had ever been married
to the focal child's father. Further, only 2 percent of the children's biological
fathers lived in the same household at the time of the Descriptive survey.
Mothers report that only one-fifth of the children with non-residential fathers
had seen their fathers at least once a week in the year prior to the Descriptive
survey. Mothers reported that only 10 percent of the fathers living outside
of the household had "often" bought clothes, toys, or presents for the focal
children; about 10 percent had "often" served as a babysitter for the focal
children in the past year; and about 4 percent had "often" bought groceries
in the past year. Mothers in the Descriptive Study did not often report the
family of their child's father as an alternative source of support. Indeed,
sixty-two percent of the mothers reported that over the past year the family
of the child's father had done none of the following: bought clothes, toys,
or presents, babysat, or cared for the child overnight.
Few of the mothers in the Descriptive sample reported the establishment of
legal paternity for the focal child, and few reported formal child support agreements.
Only 13 percent of the women who had never been married to the focal child's
father reported having gone to a court or child support office to establish
paternity, and 2 percent of the never-married women had had the biological father
sign the birth certificate.
Among the women who did not reside with the child's biological father, 30 percent
had ever had child support payments agreed to or awarded to them. Fifty percent
of these child support arrangements that had been established were court-ordered,
and about half (46 percent) arranged through a voluntary written agreement.
Formal child support arrangements did not appear to assure payments. Among mothers
in the Descriptive sample who had child support awards, 78 percent reported
receiving no money from the father in the year prior to the interview. Among
the mothers in the sample without a formal child support agreement, 88 percent
reported that they had not received money on a regular basis directly from the
father. Only 9 percent of these women reported that they had legal proceedings
to establish paternity "in process" or have established paternity.
Mothers expressed great dissatisfaction with the emotional and financial assistance
they were receiving from the children's fathers, and yet acknowledged that the
fathers might not have been in a position to provide further economic assistance.
Fifty-two percent of the mothers in this sample said that they were very dissatisfied
with the amount of love and caring that their child's father has shown for the
child, and an additional 10 percent were somewhat dissatisfied. Two-thirds of
the mothers (66 percent) were similarly very dissatisfied with the amount of
money and help that the father had been providing for raising the child. However,
less than half of the sample, 41 percent, felt that the father could pay more
for child support than he did, or could pay something if he currently paid nothing.
Despite the reported lack of involvement of their children's fathers, many
mothers had other persons to turn to for emotional and instrumental support.
Most mothers had frequent contact with members of their own families. For instance,
63 percent of the respondents who did not live in the same household as their
own mothers saw their mothers once a week or more. About 33 percent of the Descriptive
sample reported that their mothers helped to take care of their children "quite
a bit" or "a lot." Only 10 percent of the mothers said that they had no one
"who would listen to them, reassure them, or show them that they care." Most
respondents did not feel overburdened by having other people ask them for their
support. Many women had friends or relatives to turn to for economic or childrearing
assistance as well. More than half of the respondents felt that it was true
most or all of the time that they had someone who would lend them money in case
of an emergency. However, mothers perceived instrumental support (e.g., economic
assistance and help with childrearing) from these other sources to be less available
than emotional support.
Mothers reporting low levels of social support were more likely to live in
public or subsidized housing, to report high levels of depressive symptomatology,
a limited sense of control over events in their lives, and more barriers to
employment. Mothers with low levels of social support also had lower educational
attainment and literacy scores.
- How are the focal children in the Descriptive Study faring in terms of
their cognitive development, school readiness, socioemotional development,
and health at this early point in the JOBS Evaluation? Are there subgroups
of children who are at greater risk in terms of their developmental status?
Children's developmental status was measured across several domains in order
to provide a descriptive picture of child well-being. Direct assessments of
cognitive development were obtained, one focusing on receptive vocabulary and
one on school readiness. In addition, mothers reported on their perceptions
of their children's socioemotional development and health status. At this early
point in the JOBS Evaluation, children in the Descriptive sample appear to be
faring poorly on assessments of their receptive vocabulary and school readiness,
but not their health or social maturity as reported by their mothers.
The measure of receptive vocabulary used was the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-Revised (PPVT-R). This measure is highly correlated with measures of both
intelligence and school achievement and is a predictor of IQ for African American
as well as white children. Yet concerns about cultural bias have been raised
regarding this measure, particularly the possibility that it underestimates
the cognitive ability of minority children. As a result, we present comparative
data from a national survey for African American children only.
Children in the Descriptive Study had a mean score of 70. By contrast, African
American children from welfare families in a national sample had a mean score
of 76 on this measure, and those from non-poor families had a mean score of
80 (see Figure 4). Thus, children in the Descriptive Sample had lower scores
particularly than their non-poor peers in the national sample.
On average, mothers describe their children as showing fairly high levels of
social maturity on the Personal Maturity Scale. Although maternal reports of
personal maturity do not indicate a problem in this area, it must be noted that
assessments of the child from a different source, such as a teacher, might result
in a differing conclusion.
More than three out of four children were rated by their mothers as currently
in excellent or very good health. Approximately half (49 percent) of the children
were described by their mothers as in "excellent" health, and a further 29 percent
were described as in "very good" health.
When the ratings of the child's health were combined with a maternal rating
concerning the presence of conditions that limited the child's activities, 47
percent of the children in the Descriptive sample were described as in excellent
health with no limiting condition. This proportion is lower than the proportion
in a national sample of non-poor children. This generally positive portrayal
of the children's health is in keeping with the fact that serious health problems
in the child were a basis of mothers' exemption from JOBS.
Close to the start of the JOBS Evaluation, those children in the Descriptive
sample showing the least optimal development are those whose mothers have the
least education, and the lowest reading and math literacy skills, whose mothers
feel the least control over events in their lives, and whose mothers perceive
the most barriers to employment. In addition, boys in the Descriptive sample
show less optimal development than girls on all four measures.
Finally, when mothers were asked to consider all of their children (including
the focal child), a substantial minority (8 percent) reported that they had
a child with an illness or handicap that demanded a great deal of attention
or interfered with the mother's ability to work.
- How supportive and stimulating are the children's home environments?
Findings from the Descriptive sample are in accord with previous reports that
children living in poverty receive less cognitive stimulation and emotional
support in their home environments than non-poor children. At the same time
there is evidence of variability in the home environments of the families in
the sample. This variability is related to family background characteristics,
especially the extent of economic deprivation. In addition, the focal children's
developmental status at the time of the Descriptive survey is significantly
associated with the cognitive stimulation and emotional support they receive
at home.
The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (Short Form), or HOME-SF,
was used in the Descriptive Study to measure the emotional support and cognitive
stimulation available in the home environment. Other analyses looking at the
HOME-SF within the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - Child Supplement
indicate that this measure is closely related to several different indices of
family poverty, and further, that the HOME-SF is sensitive to small increments
in family income, particularly when looking at the home environments of children
born into poverty.12 Finally, the full HOME Scale,13 from which the HOME-SF is adapted, has been found to
be related to measures of child cognitive development and IQ, developmental
delay, and poor school performance,14 all important outcomes in the Descriptive sample. Families in the
Descriptive sample showed, on average, similar levels of emotional support and
cognitive stimulation to AFDC families with three- to five-year-olds in a national
sample. However, scores were lower in the Descriptive sample and the national
sample of AFDC families than in non-poor families in the national sample, both
in terms of cognitive stimulation and emotional support in the home.
Within the Descriptive sample, scores on the two subscales of the HOME-SF were
lower for families with specific characteristics. Mothers who had not received
a high school diploma or GED, families receiving welfare for two or more years,
families living in public housing, families with three or more children, mothers
scoring in the lowest groups on reading and math literacy, and mothers with
less of a sense of control over events in their lives, scored lower on both
the cognitive stimulation and emotional support subscales of this measure of
the home environment, net of control variables.
After controlling for the influence of child age, gender, and research group,
the total score and cognitive and socioemotional subscales of the HOME-SF were
all significant predictors of children's scores on the Descriptive Study's measures
of receptive vocabulary, school readiness and children's maturity. In addition,
higher scores on the cognitive stimulation subscale and the total HOME-SF scale
were associated with children receiving a positive health rating from their
mothers.
- Are there changes in use of child care for the focal children in the
Descriptive Study in the early months of the JOBS Evaluation?
Previous evaluations of welfare-to-work programs indicate that maternal program
participation is associated with increased use of child care for young children.15 In keeping with these earlier findings, there was a substantial
increase in the proportion of Descriptive sample children in child care in the
two program groups very shortly after enrollment in the JOBS Evaluation. Two
months prior to random assignment, 44 percent of the three- and four-year-olds
in the human capital development group were participating regularly in some
form of child care, but two months after random assignment the figure was 72
percent. In the labor force attachment group, 48 percent of three- and four-year-olds
were participating in child care two months prior to random assignment, but
83 percent were receiving some regular child care two months after random assignment.
Over the same time period, use of child care in the control group increased
only from 43 to 49 percent (an increase that probably reflects increasing child
age and transitions to employment among control group mothers.)
Differential increases in the use of child care in the program groups relative
to the control group occurred both for formal and informal care16 settings, but as in previous studies of welfare-to-work
programs,17 we find a particularly marked increase in the use of
formal child care settings following enrollment in JOBS.
The greater use of regular child care at the time of the Descriptive survey
for the two program groups appears to be a reflection of their greater participation
in employment and educational activities, not a differential propensity to use
child care. There was a strong relationship between maternal participation in
educational and/or employment activities following random assignment and the
use of regular child care for the child. This relationship held in both the
program and control groups. By the time of the Descriptive survey (on average
three months after random assignment), program group mothers were substantially
more likely to be participating in educational or employment activities than
were control group mothers.
There was a statistically significant difference between research groups in
the primary form of child care used by families with three- and four-year-olds
at the time of the Descriptive survey. The most frequently reported primary
care arrangement for children in the control group was care by the mother (used
by 53 percent of control group families with three- and four-year- olds).18 By contrast, care in a formal child care setting was
the most frequently noted primary care arrangement for children in either program
group (used by 53 percent of human capital development group children and 54
percent of labor force attachment group children).
Federal recommendations exist for formal child care settings in the form of
the 1980 Federal Interagency Daycare Requirements (FIDCR). The 1980 FIDCR were
never implemented as national regulations, yet researchers frequently refer
to the FIDCR recommendations as a benchmark against which to measure the quality
of center care. For children between three and five years of age, the FIDCR
recommendations are for group sizes of 16 or smaller, and for staff-to-child
ratios of 1:8 or better. The requirements for group size and ratio in the state
of Georgia depart substantially from the FIDCR recommendations, allowing group
sizes of up to 36 and ratios of up to 1:18 for four-year-olds. Among three-
and four-year-old children in the Descriptive Study whose primary arrangement
was a formal one, and for whom data on both group size and ratio were available,
34 percent were in settings that met both of these FIDCR recommendations; 17
percent were in settings that met one of the recommendations; and 49 percent
were in settings that met neither recommendation.
Sixty-seven percent of mothers with three- and four-year-olds in some form
of regular child care at the time of the Descriptive Study reported that someone
else paid some or all of the cost of the primary care arrangement. The most
common source of assistance, according to the mothers, was the welfare office.
Among those mothers whose child had a regular child care arrangement, mothers
in the program groups were more likely than those in the control group to receive
assistance for child care from the welfare office. Sixty-seven percent of those
in the human capital development group, 64 percent in the labor force attachment
group, and 47 percent of the control group reported getting help from the welfare
office.19
Only a minority (21 percent) of the Descriptive sample mothers reported paying
anything towards the cost of the primary child care arrangement. Among those
mothers with three- and four-year-old children who paid something for care,
74 percent reported paying $0.50 or less per hour.20 Considering payments toward the cost of child care for
all children in the household, mothers in our sample reported paying $19.11
per week on average. We note, however, that this figure does not take into account
either the number of children in the household in care or number of hours in
care.
- Does mothers' psychological well-being, approximately three months after
random assignment to the JOBS Evaluation, vary by baseline characteristics?
How does the well-being of children differ by baseline characteristics?
Although all AFDC mothers are economically disadvantaged, as a group they vary
substantially on several important characteristics that may be related to maternal
and child well-being. For example, some families have been on welfare longer
than others, and some have less education and lower literacy skills than others.
Can we identify factors such as these, documented at the time of random assignment,
that are associated with differences in the well-being of the mothers and children
at the time of the Descriptive Study?
Measures of maternal and child well-being at the time of the Descriptive Study
were examined in light of the following characteristics documented at baseline:
maternal education, family size, duration of welfare receipt, residence in public
or subsidized housing, reading and math literacy, depression, locus of control
(sense of control over events in one's life), sense of social support, and perception
of barriers to employment. Mother and child well-being at the time of the Descriptive
Study varied significantly with regard to these baseline characteristics. The
associations are profiled variable by variable in the full report.
It is noteworthy that in many instances, however, the same baseline characteristics
that were associated with well-being among the mothers at the time of the Descriptive
Study were also found to be related to their children's well-being. In particular,
low maternal education, long-term welfare dependency, residence in public housing,
low maternal reading and math literacy test scores, and poor maternal psychological
well-being at baseline were all associated with lower scores on measures of
the developmental status of the children, measures of the home environment,
and measures of maternal circumstances at the time of the Descriptive Study.
Baseline characteristics can thus be used to identify meaningful subgroups
of families who appear to be faring more and less well close to the start of
participation in the JOBS Program. It will be important to track the development
of mothers and children in these differing subgroups throughout the course of
the JOBS Child Outcomes Study, asking whether participation and program impacts
also differ.
- How do multiple risk factors combine to affect children's well-being?
Is the presence of protective factors associated with child well-being?
The analyses briefly summarized above consider whether the well-being of mothers
and children at the time of the Descriptive Study differ for baseline subgroups
considered one at a time, for example according to maternal education at baseline,
or according to maternal depressive symptomatology at baseline. In reality,
individual children will have differing profiles in terms of the number of baseline
variables that place them at risk developmentally. Previous research suggests
that the number of risk factors to which a child is exposed is an important
predictor of development.21
Risk Factors and Children's Development
To explore the relationship between number of risk factors and children's well-being,
we developed a cumulative risk index formed from the set of subgroup measures
assessed at baseline prior to random assignment. These subgroups include maternal
educational attainment and literacy; family size; welfare duration; maternal
psychological well-being; and barriers to employment. Scores on the risk index
range from 0 to 10 with a mean of 4.6 risk factors. The children divided nearly
evenly into three groups according to the number of risk factors: Zero to three,
four to five, and six to ten, indicating the presence in the Descriptive sample
of children with few, some, and many risk factors.
Analyses indicate a strong association between the accumulation of maternal
and family risk factors and the well-being of children in the Descriptive sample.
Overall, 29 percent of the Descriptive Study children scored at or above the
median for a national sample of African American preschool-aged children on
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised.22 However, the proportion of children with scores above
the median was heavily concentrated among low-risk families, with 39 percent
of children with zero to three risks scoring above this cutoff, compared to
17 percent among children with six to ten risks.
Scores on a measure of school readiness, the Preschool Inventory, show a similar
pattern. Because national norms are not available for the Preschool Inventory,
we have established a cut-point for this sample that identifies those children
in the Descriptive sample whose scores are in the top quartile of the Descriptive
survey distribution. Thirty-four percent of the children from low-risk environments
scored in the top quartile, compared with 30 percent of children whose family
environments posed four to five risks, and just 16 percent of those in very
high-risk families (those with six to ten risk factors).
Children from low-risk family environments were also substantially more likely
to be described favorably in terms of scores on the Personal Maturity Scale,
while children from multiple-risk backgrounds were much less often described
so positively. In addition, an increased number of risk factors is associated
with a lower likelihood of being rated in excellent health with no disabilities.
Specifically, 57 percent of children with zero to three risks received a positive
health rating, compared to only 37 percent of those with six or more risks.
We also find a strong relationship between the number of risk factors and the
emotional support and cognitive stimulation provided to the child as measured
by the short form of the HOME Scale. Approximately a third of the Descriptive
survey children in families with zero to three risks enjoyed home environments
that were above a designated cutoff in terms of cognitive stimulation and emotional
support, while only 12 percent of children in families with six to 10 risk factors
experienced similarly supportive homes.
Protective Factors and Children's
Development
Although increased risk is associated with poorer child outcomes overall, we
see in these analyses that the presence of risk by no means guarantees that
a child will exhibit adverse outcomes. Based on a typology of protective factors
developed by,23 we have used the measures of the Descriptive Study data to identify
protective factors in each of the following categories: child characteristics,
warmth and cohesion in the family, and an external support system. While our
risk factors are all derived from baseline data, the protective factors are
all based on data collected as part of the Descriptive survey. As for the risk
factors, we have computed a summary index of protective factors. This ranges
from zero to nine with a mean of 4.5 protective factors. We again group children
into three groups according to the number of protective factors: zero to three,
four to five, and six to nine.
To parallel the analyses looking at risk factors, we examined whether the number
of protective factors was related to the proportion of children scoring above
the cutoffs we defined on the same four measures of children's developmental
status (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Preschool Inventory, the Personal
Maturity Scale, and rating of health). Results consistently indicate that, as
the number of protective factors increases, a greater proportion of children
score above the positive cutoff we delineated for each of the outcome measures.
For example, the proportion of children scoring in the upper quartile on the
Preschool Inventory increases from 15 percent among children with zero to three
protective factors, to 36 percent among children with six or more protective
factors. Similarly, the proportion of children in excellent health with no disabilities
increases from 41 to 55 percent, as the number of protective factors increases.
Association Between Risk and Protective
Factors
Does child well-being reflect the conjoint presence of risk and protective
factors for the children in the Descriptive Study? To address this question,
we grouped children according to their level of risk, and then within each risk
group examined the proportion of children with favorable developmental status
according to the number at each level of protective factors. We used the same
categories of risk and protective factors described above, yielding a total
of nine groups of children, ranging from those with few risk and few protective
factors, to those with high levels of both.
Figure 5 shows that for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, higher numbers
of protective factors are associated with more optimal outcomes at each level
of risk, while at the same time children at greater risk exhibit poorer outcomes
overall. A similar pattern was observed for scores on the Preschool Inventory.
Figure 6 illustrates that the pattern is less clear when we consider children's
socioemotional development. For children with fewer than six risks, more protective
factors are generally associated with higher scores on the Personal Maturity
Scale. However, for children with six or more risk factors, the presence of
protective factors does not improve children's well-being. Regardless of the
number of protective factors, only 14 to 17 percent of children with high levels
of risk were rated by their mothers as having high levels of personal maturity.
These analyses illustrate that even within a sample of children who are all
at risk by virtue of living in poverty, those with multiple risk factors are
exhibiting less optimal development. Thus, the risks experienced by the mothers
in the first generation are clearly translated into diminished opportunities
for the children in the next generation. At the same time, a number of protective
factors were found to be associated with more positive development for the children.
For measures of cognitive development, protective factors offset the influences
of risk factors. However, for our measure of socioemotional development, protective
factors do not offset the influences of risk factors at the highest level of
risk.
- What Are the Implications of These Findings?
The JOBS program was designed to affect parents directly by providing services
aimed at ending long-term welfare dependency. Nevertheless, indirect effects
on children are also possible, if the JOBS program affects parental education,
income, mother's psychological well-being, childrearing practices, or child
care arrangements. The purpose of the current report is to explore the circumstances
of eligible families at the outset of the program, rather than whether and how
JOBS has impacted children. What have we learned?
A clear theme is that the mothers in the Fulton Descriptive sample are in many
ways highly disadvantaged. On average, their reading and math literacy skills
are low. Although they enjoy social support from family and friends, they report
minimal economic or non-economic assistance from the fathers of their children.
In addition, they have high rates of depressive symptoms and they experience
numerous difficulties in the course of everyday life. At the same time, however,
we note that most of the mothers in the sample had completed high school or
a GED, most had positive attitudes about maternal employment, and most had taken
steps to limit their childbearing.
Similarly, the three-to five-year-old children are also clearly disadvantaged
at the outset of the JOBS program. As rated by their mothers, the children's
maturity does not represent a problem; however, the children's receptive vocabulary
is substantially below the mean for a national sample of children; and many
of the children appear to lack the skills and knowledge that would make them
ready to enter school. While a large majority of mothers in the sample described
their children as in excellent or very good health, these ratings are somewhat
less favorable than those reported in a national sample of non-poor children.
Given that these children are already faring poorly in some respects, it seems
entirely appropriate that policy makers, program providers, and the public consider
whether and/or how the JOBS program may affect children.
A second recurring theme of the analyses is the heterogeneity of the population
of welfare mothers eligible for JOBS. For example, some mothers hold positive
attitudes about becoming employed, while a minority feel that mothers with young
children should
not work. Some mothers have received AFDC for a much longer period of time
than others. A substantial proportion of women have high levels of depressive
symptoms, but many others do not. Most use reliable methods of contraception
or have been sterilized, but a minority of mothers are at risk of an unplanned
pregnancy. Because of this variation, it is likely that maternal participation
in, and reactions to, JOBS activities will vary. Those mothers who are eager
to work, know where they can obtain child care, and have recent employment experience
seem more likely to respond favorably to the JOBS mandate. Other mothers face
substantial obstacles to participation, such as low literacy levels, little
support from family and friends, and negative attitudes about employment. It
will be important to determine how both groups respond to the JOBS mandate.
Had the mothers proven to be more uniform in their work attitudes, goals, psychological
well-being, skills, and the social support they receive, the JOBS mandate might
have more uniform implications for children. However, early results indicating
substantial subgroup variation suggest that the JOBS program is likely to elicit
varied responses from both mothers and children. Hence, subgroup differences
should be a critical component of further analyses. In particular, multiple
risk families stand out as a group whose children are especially disadvantaged.
On a more positive note, we were also able to identify a set of protective factors,
greater numbers of which were associated with more positive child development.
The mutual influence of risk and protective factors present at the start of
the JOBS program may be an important determinant of both participation in, and
impacts of the program.
Finally, the data suggest that the JOBS mandate is translating into initial
changes in the lives of many AFDC mothers and their children. The effects of
these apparent early changes will combine with any later program impacts on
maternal education, earnings, and self-sufficiency. Thus, early data suggest
that the JOBS mandate has the potential to affect the lives of two generations,
and provide strong reason to track the well-being of both generations over time.
Notes
1 Wilson, J. B., and Ellwood, D. T. (1993). Welfare
to work through the eyes of children: The impact on children of parental movement
from AFDC to employment. Cambridge, MA: Malcolm Weiner Center for Public
Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Zaslow, M. J., Moore, K. A., Morrison, D. R. and Coiro, M. J. (1995). The
Family Support Act and children: Potential pathways of influence. Children
and Youth Services Review, 17, 231-249.
2 Desai, S., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., and Michael, R.
T. (1989). Mother or market: Effects of maternal employment on intellectual
abilities of four-year-old children. Demography, 26, 545-561.
Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation
and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.
Hauser, R. M., and Mossell, P. A. (1985). Fraternal resemblance in educational
attainment and occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 91,
650-673.
3 Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., Casey,
P. H., Kelleher, K. J., and Pope, S. K. (1994). Early indications of resilience
and their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight,
premature children living in poverty. Child Development, 65, 346-360.
4 Meyers, M. K. (1993). Child care in JOBS employment
and training program: What difference does quality make? Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 55, 767-783.
5 Downey, G. and Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children
of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,
108 , 50-76
6 Hamilton, G., and Brock, T. (1994). The JOBS
evaluation: Early lessons from seven sites. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
7 Anticipated sample sizes for the Child Outcomes Study
Two-Year Follow-up survey are approximately 1,125 families in Fulton and in
Riverside and approximately 750 in Kent.
8 The Department of Health and Human Services will
be funding a four and one-half year follow-up of the JOBS-mandatory population.
Further information about outcomes for children will be obtained at that time.
9 Respondents in the control group are not eligible
for JOBS services, but are eligible for all other employment and training services
in the community, and they can on their own obtain access to child care funded
by the JOBS program.
10 Public housing project is operated by the local
government to provide housing for low-income people. Receiving a rent subsidy,
participating in a housing program like Section 8, or living in a building renovated
by the government is not defined as living in a public housing project.
11 Long, S. (1990). Children and welfare: Patterns
of multiple program participation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Moore, K. A., Myers, D. E., Morrison, D. R., Nord, C. W., Brown, B. V., and
Edmonston, B. (1993). Age at first childbirth and later poverty.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 393-422.
12 Garrett, P., Ng'andu, N., and Ferron, J. (1994).
Poverty experiences of young children and the quality of their home environments.
Child Development, 65, 331-345.
Moore, K. A., Morrison, D. R., Zaslow, M. J., and Glei, D. A. (1994). Ebbing
and flowing, learning and growing: Family economic resources and children's
development. Paper presented at the Workshop on Welfare and Child Development
sponsored by the Board on Children and Families and the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development's Family and Child Well-Being Network.
13 Caldwell, B. M. and R. H. Bradley. (1984). Home
observation for measurement of the environment. Revised edition. Little
Rock, AR: University of Arkansas.
14 Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L.,
Barnard, K. E., Gray, C., Hammond, M. A., Mitchell, S., Siegel, L., Ramey, C.,
Gottfried, A. W., and Johnson, D. L. (1989). Home environment and cognitive
development in the first 3 years of life: A collaborative study involving six
sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Developmental Psychology,
25, 217-235.
Elardo, R. D., Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M. (1975). The relation of
an infant's home environment to mental test performance from six to thirty-six
months. Child Development, 46, 71-76.
Gottfried, A. W. (1984). Home Environment and Early Cognitive Development.
Orlando, FL: Academic.
15 Kisker, E., and Silverberg, M. (1991). Child
care utilization by disadvantaged teenage mothers. Journal of Social
Issues, 47, 159-177.
Meyers, (1993).
Quint, J. C., Polit, D. F., Bos. H. and Cave, G. (1994). New Chance:
Interim findings on a comprehensive program for disadvantaged young mothers
and their children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Riccio, J., Friedlander, D., and Freedman, S. (1994). GAIN: Benefits,
costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program. New York:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
16 Formal care includes care in child care centers,
preschools, nursery schools, Head Start, kindergarten, and before-and-after
school programs. Informal care includes care by a relative or non-relative babysitter.
17 Kisker and Silverberg, (1991); Meyers, (1993);
Quint et al., (1994); Riccio et al., (1994).
18 The children's primary care arrangement is the
arrangement that they were in for the most hours each week. This can include
sole maternal care.
19 These differences were statistically significant;
Chi square (2) = 8.29, p < .05.
20 We note that this figure does not take into account
variation in cost per hour according to number of hours in care.
21 Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in
children's responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent and J.
Rolf (Eds. ), Primary prevention of psychopathology, Vol. III: Social Competence
in Children. (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., and Greenspan, S. (1987).
Intelligence quotient scores of 4-year-old children: Social-environmental
risk factors. Pediatrics, 79, 343-350.
22 We used a cutoff based on the median score for
African American children because of concerns that the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test, like many other tests of achievement, may be racially biased (but comparable
results were obtained using a standard cutoff).
23 Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children:
The search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed. ), Recent
Research in developmental psychology (pp. 213-233). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
|
