Abstract
Purpose
To investigate whether the cognitive development of young children in poverty is affected by activities of their primary caregiver and by household income source, which are two components of family poverty experience that have been affected by recent welfare reforms.
Methods
Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine the relationships that caregiver activity, household income source, and family characteristics (family income adequacy, caregiver depressive symptoms, caregiver education) have with the cognitive development of 59 impoverished children less than three years old.
Results
Of the three poverty experience variables included in the multivariate analysis, only employment as the exclusive source of household income had an independent relationship (positive) with children’s cognitive development. Two of the family characteristics, income adequacy and caregiver education, also were associated with the children’s cognitive score, and they were both better relative predictors than the employment-only income source variable. Income adequacy was positively associated and caregiver education was negatively associated with children’s cognitive development.
Discussion
Although recent welfare reforms, in combination with economic growth and declining unemployment, have changed the poverty experience of young families by increasing the proportion that secure at least part of their income from employment, our study provides preliminary evidence that these reforms have made little difference for most young impoverished children. Instead, our findings suggest that the cognitive development of young children is influenced as much by the actual amount of household income as by their parents’ activity and source of income.
MeSH terms: social welfare, poverty, pre-school children, development
Réumé
Objet
Déterminer si le développement cognitif des jeunes enfants vivant sous le seuil de la pauvreté est influencé par l’activité de la principale personne qui s’occupe d’eux (le «parent-substitut») et par la source de revenu du ménage — deux éléments de la vie des familles pauvres qui ont été touchés par les réformes récentes de l’aide sociale.
Méthode
:À l’aide d’analyses bivariées et multivariées, nous avons examiné les liens entre l’activité du parent-substitut, la source de revenu du ménage et les caractéristiques de la famille (suffisance du revenu familial, symptômes de dépression chez le parent-substitut, niveau d’instruction du parent-substitut) et le développement cognitif de 59 enfants démunis de moins de trois ans.
Résultats
Des trois variables d’expérience de la pauvreté qui ont fait l’objet de notre analyse multivariée, l’emploi comme seule source de revenu du ménage était la seule à présenter une relation indépendante (positive) avec le développement cognitif des enfants. Deux des caractéristiques familiales (la suffisance du revenu et le niveau d’instruction du parent-substitut) étaient aussi associées au score obtenu par les enfants sur le plan cognitif, et toutes les deux étaient de meilleures variables prédictives que la variable de l’emploi comme seule source de revenu. La suffisance du revenu était associée positivement, et le niveau d’instruction du parent-substitut associé négativement, au développement cognitif des enfants.
Discussion
Les réformes récentes de l’aide sociale, combinées à la croissance économique et à la baisse du chômage, ont changé l’expérience de la pauvreté chez les jeunes familles en augmentant la proportion de ces familles qui tirent au moins une partie de leur revenu d’un emploi, mais notre étude a mis au jour des données préliminaires indiquant que les réformes ont peu changé la situation de la plupart des jeunes enfants démunis. Au contraire, nos constatations donnent à penser que le développement cognitif des jeunes enfants est influencé tout autant par le revenu réel du ménage que par l’activité et la source de revenu des parents.
References
- 1.Gorlick CA, Brethour G. Welfare to Work: Phase Two, Provincial and Territorial Updates, 2001. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gorlick CA, Brethour G. Welfare to Work Programs in Canada: A National Inventory. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ontario Ministry of CommunitySocial Services. Ontario Works: Making Welfare Work, 1998. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 4.National Council of Welfare. Another Look at Welfare Reform. 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 5.National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile 1998. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 5.National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile 1998. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Statistics Canada. Canadian Statistics: Labour, employment and unemployment, 2002. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Rebello Britto P. Are socioeconomic gradients for children similar to those for adults? In: Keating DP, Hertzman C, editors. Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics. New York: The Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 94–124. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lipman E, Offord LDR, Boyle MH. What if we could eliminate poverty?: The theoretical effect on child psychosocial morbidity. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 1996;31:303–7. doi: 10.1007/BF00787925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Morris PA, Gennetian LA. Identifying the effects of income on children’s development using experimental data. J Marriage & Family. 2003;65(3):716–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00716.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ross DP, Roberts P. Income and Child Well-being: A New Perspective on the Poverty Debate. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wade TJ, Pevaline DJ, Brannigan A. The clustering of severe behavioural, health and educational deficits in Canadian children: Preliminary evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Can J Public Health. 1999;90(4):253–59. doi: 10.1007/BF03404127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kornberger R, Fast JE, Williamson DL. Welfare or work: Which is better for Canadian children? Can Public Pol. 2001;27(4):407–21. doi: 10.2307/3552534. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Moore KA, Driscoll AK. Low-wage maternal employment and outcomes for children: A study. The Future of Children. 1997;7(1):122–27. doi: 10.2307/1602584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Moore KA, Glei DA, Driscoll AE, Zaslow MJ, Redd Z. Poverty and welfare patterns: Implications for children. J Soc Pol. 2002;31(2):207–27. doi: 10.1017/S0047279401006602. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Smith JR, Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov PK, Lee K. Welfare and work: Complementary strategies for low-income women? J Marriage Fam. 2000;62(3):808–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00808.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Smith JR, Brooks-Gunn J, Kohen D, McCarton C. Transitions on and off AFDC: Implications for parenting and children’s cognitive development. Child Development. 2001;72(5):1512–33. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Williamson DL, Salkie FJ. Welfare reforms in Canada: Implications for the well-being of preschool children in poverty. J Children & Poverty; in press.
- 18.Zaslow M, McGroder S, Cave G, Mariner C. Maternal employment and measures of children’s health and development among families with some history of welfare receipt. Research in the Sociology of Work. 1999;7:233–59. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Boessenkool KJ. Back to Work: Learning from Alberta’n’s Welfare Experiment. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shillington R. Social Assistance and Paid Employment in Alberta, 1993–1996. Edmonton: Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shonkoff J, Phillips D, editors. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Child Development. Washington: National Academy of Sciences; 2000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bornstein M. Sensitive periods in development: Structural characteristics and causal interpretations. Psychological Bulletin. 1989;105(2):179–97. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Williamson DL, Salkie FJ, Fast JE, Dennis D, Letourneau N. Welfare policy reform, family environment, and child outcomes. 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 24.To T, Cadarette SM, Liu Y. Child care arrangement and preschool development. Can J Public Health. 2000;91(6):418–22. doi: 10.1007/BF03404820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Palacio-Quintin E. Isuma. 2000. The impact of day care on child development; pp. 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- 26.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Relations between family predictorschild outcomes: Are they weaker for children in child care? Developmental Psychology. 1998;35(5):1119–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Belle D. Inequality and mental health: Low income and minority women. In: Walker LE, editor. Women and Mental Health Policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1994. pp. 135–50. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Shema SJ. Cumulative impact of sustained economic hardship on physical, cognitive, psychological, and social functioning. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(26):1889–94. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199712253372606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Patten S. Descriptive epidemiology of a depressive syndrome in a western Canadian community population. Can J Public Health. 2001;92(5):392–95. doi: 10.1007/BF03404989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fuller B, Caspary G, Kagan S, Gauthier C, Huang D-C, Carroll J, et al. Does maternal employment influence poor children’s social development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2002;17(4):470–99. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00187-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Gennetian LA, Miller C. Children and welfare reform: A view from an experimental welfare program in Minnesota. Child Development. 2002;73(2):601–20. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Morris PA, Huston AC, Duncan GJ, Crosby DA, Bos JM. How welfare and work policies affect children: A synthesis of research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Corporation; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Zaslow M, Moore KA, Tout K, Scarpa JP, Vandivere S. How are children faring under welfare reform? In: Weil A, Finegold K, editors. Welfare Reform: The Next Act. Washington: The Urban Institute; 2002. pp. 79–101. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Frenette M, Picot G. Life After Welfare: The Economic Well Being of Welfare Leavers in Canada During the 1990s. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Vosko LF. Workfare temporaries: Workfare and the rise of the temporary employment relationship in Ontario. In: Broad D, Antony W, editors. Citizens or Consumers? Social Policy in a Market Society. Halifax: Fernwood Books; 1999. pp. 184–204. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Liaw F, Brooks-Gunn J. Cumulative familial risks and low-birthweight children’s cognitive and behavioral development. J Clin Child Psychol. 1994;23:360–72. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2304_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37.To T, Cadarette SM, Liu Y. Biological, social and environmental correlates of preschool development. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2001;27(2):187–200. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00182.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Van Bakel JJA, Rikson-Walraven JM. Parenting and development of one-year-olds: Links with parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Child Development. 2002;73(1):256–73. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd edition. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977;1(3):385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]