Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 23;149:106791. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106791

Parenting practices and adolescent delinquency: COVID-19 impact in the United States

Lacey N Wallace 1
PMCID: PMC9780644  PMID: 36575707

Abstract

Many past studies found parental monitoring and involvement were associated with reductions in delinquency and substance use among adolescents. However, we do not yet fully understand how the COVID-19 crisis affected parenting practices, nor the corresponding effects for juvenile delinquency and substance use. The study incorporated a repeated cross-sectional design with data drawn from two samples of Pennsylvania parents with teenage children. The first sample completed a web survey about parental monitoring in late 2019. The second completed a similar web survey with additional questions about COVID-19 in February 2021. The results indicated little association between COVID-related financial hardship and parental depression, nor between COVID-related financial hardship and parenting practices. While parents reported high levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic, these appeared largely unrelated to parenting practices. There were few changes in parenting practices, on average, from before to during the pandemic. Most parents reported that their child’s behavior had not worsened during the pandemic.

Keywords: Parenting, Family Stress Model, COVID, Parental depression, Delinquency, Substance use, Adolescents

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic spanning 2020 and 2021 substantially altered daily life for parents and their school-age children in the United States. Many parents lost jobs, started working from home, started new jobs, or changed their work hours (Parker et al., 2020). Parents reported experiencing higher stress, especially if they were faced with financial challenges (Brown et al., 2020). As schools across the nation closed, some areas offered time-structured remote learning for students while classes in other school districts were asynchronous or unstructured, if they occurred at all (UNICEF, 2021). Thousands of K-12 students in many U.S. states remained ‘missing’ in Spring of 2021, meaning they were supposed to attend classes in some fashion but never did (Balingit, 2021). In some cases, their families appeared to have moved with no indication of their current whereabouts. In addition to shifts in employment and education, many traditional avenues for entertainment like theaters, shopping, and casual dining closed permanently or altered operations to promote social distancing.

We do not yet fully understand how the COVID-19 crisis affected parenting practices. Yet, research predating the pandemic identified strong links between parenting practices and adolescent delinquency. One example is parental monitoring, defined as a “set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child's whereabouts, activities, and adaptations” (Dishion & McMahon, 1998, p. 61). Many past studies found parental monitoring was associated with reductions in delinquency, depression, and substance use among adolescents (Hoeve et al., 2009, Tilton-Weaver et al., 2013, Van Ryzin et al., 2012, Yap et al., 2014). Eating family dinners together, another example, was associated with less aggression and delinquency (Griffin et al., 2000). In other work, more family conflict, parental attitudes favorable to offending, and weak parent-adolescent attachment were associated with greater involvement in delinquency and substance use (Fagan et al., 2011).

This study addresses two questions. First, how did COVID-19 impact parenting practices in the U.S.? Second, how were changes in family practices and circumstances (COVID-19 impact) associated with adolescent delinquency? To investigate these questions, this study incorporated a repeated cross-sectional design. Respondents were two samples of parents with adolescent children residing in the state of Pennsylvania. The first sample completed a survey about parental monitoring in late 2019, prior to the pandemic. The second completed a similar survey with additional questions about COVID-19 in February of 2021.

2. Family stress model

The Family Stress Model is a theoretical model that posits that economic distress and economic pressures contribute to parents’ psychological distress (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Psychological distress, in turn, contributes to interparental disputes and disrupted parenting that can result in problematic behavior among adolescents (Fauber et al., 1990, Masarik and Conger, 2017). Disrupted parenting can include intrusiveness, negativity in communication, role confusion, and emotional withdrawal (Yarger et al., 2020). In this study, the terms disrupted parenting and ineffective parenting will be used interchangeably.

Existing research has widely supported the Family Stress Model among both Whites and racial and ethnic minorities (Conger et al., 2002). Mothers with feeling of powerlessness were more likely to use harsh discipline practices, like spanking, in one study (Martorell & Bugental, 2006). In other work, mothers experiencing stress were less likely to monitor or set limits on child screen use. Fathers experiencing parenting-specific stress were also less likely to set limits on child screen use (Tang et al., 2021). Stressful life events, such as job loss, have been found to contribute to symptoms of depression in parents and subsequently to use of less effective parenting practices like harsh discipline, inconsistent discipline, and hostility or coercion in the parent–child relationship (X. Ge et al., 1994). This was particularly the case among families with already low income levels (Dearing et al., 2006).

The following hypotheses test these suggested pathways from financial pressures to parental psychological distress to ineffective parenting:

Hypothesis 1

Parents whose household experienced a negative financial impact as a result of COVID-19 will be more likely to report feeling depressed than those not similarly impacted.

Hypothesis 2

Parents whose household experienced a negative financial impact as a result of COVID-19 will report greater use of ineffective parenting during the COVID-19 pandemic than those not similarly impacted.

Hypothesis 3

Parental depression will be associated with greater use of ineffective parenting.

2.1. Ineffective parenting practices and delinquency

Existing research has consistently documented the negative impact of disrupted and ineffective parenting for adolescent delinquency and substance use. This study focuses on four aspects of parenting: positive involvement and communication, supervision and monitoring, use of positive parenting techniques, and use of discipline. All of these are specific parenting practices used by caregivers, such as asking a child about their whereabouts (monitoring), praising a child for meeting a goal (positive parenting), or taking the time to attend a child’s sporting event (involvement).

Parental involvement refers to direct, two-way, meaningful communication between parents and children as well as parents and children engaging in activities together. It can also include parents’ efforts to help their child succeed in school or extracurricular activities. Some authors operationalize these ideas as parent–child closeness. Goncy and vanDulmen (2010), for example, found that maternal and paternal closeness prevented adolescent alcohol use. Adolescents with more shared activities with their mothers were also less likely to use alcohol. Likewise, Deutch et al (2012) observed that maternal support was a protective factor for adolescent delinquency. In other work, adolescents who connected with their parents on social media reported feeling a stronger sense of closeness with their parents (Coyne et al., 2014). These feelings, in turn, were associated with lower levels of delinquency. Another study found evidence of more prosocial behavior among youth who regularly shared information with their parents about their friends and activities (Padilla-Walker & Son, 2019). Overall, families characterized by frequent communication and parental involvement tend to be associated with less delinquency and substance use. Parental monitoring, often related to patterns in communication, is also associated with reductions in delinquency, depression, and substance use among adolescents (Hoeve et al., 2009, Tilton-Weaver et al., 2013, Van Ryzin et al., 2012, Yap et al., 2014).

Another parenting practice is positive parenting, which refers to setting clear expectations for behavior and praising or rewarding the child when those expectations are met. The authoritative parenting style, characterized by warmth, responsiveness, and clear expectations, is widely noted as the most beneficial parenting style for prosocial behavior (Calafat et al., 2014, Moitra and Mukherjee, 2010, Power, 2013). Even having a friend with a more authoritative parent was associated with reduced substance use among adolescents in previous research (Shakya et al., 2012). Delinquency can increase when parents shift away from these more effective strategies (Schroeder & Mowen, 2014). Parents’ use of coercion to regulate adolescent behavior, for example, was associated with greater delinquency in past research (Webster‐Stratton et al., 2011). The authoritarian parenting style, known for harsh discipline, coercion, and one-way communication, is typically associated with some of the worst behavioral outcomes for youth (Tapia et al., 2018). Inconsistent discipline is also linked to higher levels of delinquency (Halgunseth et al., 2013). In other words, positive reinforcement and clear expectations appear to be more effective parenting strategies than coercion and harsh or inconsistent punishment. These ideas are reflected in the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4

Ineffective parenting practices will be associated with higher levels of adolescent substance use and delinquency.

3. Methods

3.1. Data

Data were drawn from two web surveys of parents in Pennsylvania living with at least one child ages 12 to 17. The design was a repeated cross-section, meaning that two separate samples were used for the two surveys. Topics addressed by the first survey, which consisted of approximately 80 items, included parenting practices in the home, adolescent substance use, and delinquency. Aside from demographics, most items were derived from an existing survey (sources noted in Measures) such as the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Frick, 1991) for parenting. Some sections of the survey asked respondents to report information about each of their children, thereby increasing the length of the survey. This study focuses exclusively on the oldest or only child of each respondent. Respondents were asked to provide detailed information on parenting practices regarding this child, while only broader measures (i.e. demographics) were collected about other children in the home. Respondents completed the survey in 23 min, on average. All respondents were shown and agreed to the terms of an informed consent page at the start of the survey. Respondents were free to discontinue participation at any time.

The first survey was administered by the Qualtrics survey research company in October 2019. Qualtrics regularly administers surveys to a market research panel of more than six million individuals across the U.S. who complete online surveys in exchange for small incentives like sky miles or points that can later be redeemed for gift cards. The target sample size for the first survey was 500. Eligible respondents were Pennsylvania residents with the following characteristics: age 18 or older, English-speaking, non-institutionalized, parent or legal guardian of a child ages 12 to 17 and reside at least part-time with their child ages 12 to 17. Qualtrics sent 1,362 potential respondents an email invitation to participate in the study in October 2019. Qualtrics categorizes member of its panels into broad categories such as “parents”. This allows Qualtrics to send out survey invitations to groups of potential respondents who may be more relevant for a particular study than a simple random sample of all panelists.

Potential respondents were first asked a set of demographic questions. Quotas ensured the final sample would be representative of Pennsylvania demographics, based on U.S. Census figures, for race and ethnicity, rural residence, education, and income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Once a given demographic category was represented in proportion to the Pennsylvania population (college educated respondents, for example), no more respondents from that demographic category were permitted to participate in the study. Qualtrics targeted an equal number of males and females.

Of the initial 1,362 potential respondents, 21 were underage, 247 had no children in the desired age range, 200 were not currently living in Pennsylvania, and 31 did not agree to the terms of the informed consent document. Others were excluded from the final sample because they failed attention checks in the survey, took the survey too quickly (<1/3 the median response time) to suggest they were reading each question, or because quotas matching their demographic characteristics were already full. The final sample for the first survey consisted of 525 respondents.

A second survey was administered to a new sample of Pennsylvania parents in February 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as the first sample, as were all Qualtrics and informed consent procedures noted previously. In addition to measures from the first survey, the second included more items assessing adolescent substance use and delinquency as well as items assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the household and adolescent. The second survey consisted of approximately 85 items. Respondents took an average of 24 min to complete the survey. The target sample size for the second survey was 375. Qualtrics sent 1,116 potential respondents an email invitation to participate in the study in February 2021. Of these initial invitations, 41 respondents were excluded because they failed attention checks or completed the survey too quickly, 195 had no children in the desired age range, and 9 did not agree to the terms of the informed consent. Others were excluded because they did not live in Pennsylvania or did not speak fluent English. The final sample for the second survey consisted of 376 respondents.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Financial impact of COVID-19

In the second survey, respondents were asked if any of a series of events had happened to themselves personally in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. A comparable question asked if any of the same events had happened to anyone in the household. These included: job loss, decrease in hours at work, and decrease in income. For each of these three circumstances, responses were coded as 1 if either the respondent or another person in the household experienced this event, and 0 otherwise.

3.2.2. Depression

There was no measure of parental depression in the first survey. In the second survey, parents were asked to report how often they had exhibited certain symptoms “over the past few weeks.” Each statement had answer choices of not at all (0), several days, on more than half the days, nearly every day (3), or unsure. Unsure responses were treated as missing. Responses were coded from 0 to 3 where higher values reflect more frequent symptoms of depression. The nine statements presented to parents included: “trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or sleeping too much,” “have little interest or pleasure in doing things,” “feel down, depressed, or hopeless,” “feel tired or have little energy,” “have poor appetite or struggle with overeating,” “have trouble concentrating on things,” “feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down,” “thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself,” and a final item asking whether the respond had felt unusually fidgety or as if they were moving in slow motion. All were based on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Kroenke et al., 2001). These items were used to create an additive score for each respondent (alpha = 0.91) ranging from 0 to 27. Cutoffs of 8 to 11 are considered acceptable to diagnose depression (Manea et al., 2012). This study uses a cutoff of 10 for a binary depression measure.

3.2.3. Parenting

In both surveys, parenting practices were measured using the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ), a survey instrument designed for parents of children ages 6 to 18. Respondents were given a list of 42 statements and asked to indicate how often each typically occurred in their home. Response options were never (0), almost never (1), sometimes (2), often (3), and always (4). The APQ measures five dimensions of parenting: positive involvement with children (10 items, alpha = 0.72 in study 1 and 0.74 in study 2), poor supervision and monitoring (10 items, alpha = 0.83 in study 1 and 0.79 in study 2), use of positive discipline techniques and communication (6 items, alpha = 0.52 in study 1 and alpha = 0.60 in study 2), inconsistency in the use of discipline (6 items, alpha = 0.58 in study 1 and 0.57 in study 2), and corporal punishment (3 items, alpha = 0.28 in study 1 and 0.26 in study 2). Each subscale was calculated as an additive score. Scores on each subscale were treated as separate predictors. The remaining items in the APQ are not part of any particular scale but measure specific parenting practices. These items were not used in the present study. The corporal punishment subscale was also omitted from this study, as is standard practice when examining parents of adolescents (Zlomke et al., 2014). Additional details about the APQ have been described elsewhere (Frick, 1991).

3.2.4. Delinquency and substance use

On the second survey, parents were asked to report how often their child had engaged in a list of behaviors in the past 30 days. Response options for each behavior were never (0), once, 2–3 times, 4–5 times, and 6 + times (4). Twelve items assessed various forms of delinquent or non-compliant behavior. These included: hit or slapped someone, threw something at someone to hurt them, left home without your permission, threatened to hit or physically harm someone, lied to you, took something from a store without paying for it, picked on or bullied someone online or in-person, and picked on or bullied someone in-person. These 12 items were used to create an additive measure of delinquency (alpha = 0.87) ranging from 0 to 48. Substance use was measured with three items: used marijuana, drank alcohol, and used tobacco. These items were used to create an additive measure of substance use (alpha = 0.85) ranging from 0 to 12.

Several items from the first survey were used for a pre-COVID comparison. One question asked parents if their child had engaged in any of a list of behaviors in the past 6 months. Substance use was measured with three items: used an illegal drug, consumed alcohol, and used a tobacco product. Response options were no (0), yes (1) and unsure. Unsure responses were treated as “no”. These items were used to create an additive measure of substance use (alpha = 0.78) ranging from 0 to 3. Seven items assessed various form of delinquent or non-compliant behavior. These included: gotten detention at school, gotten arrested, carried a firearm, gotten suspended or expelled from school, bullied another person online, skipped school without permission, and gotten in a physical fight. These 7 items were used to create an additive measure of delinquency (alpha = 0.81) ranging from 0 to 7. A question on the second survey asked parents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: My child has been getting in trouble more often since the pandemic began. Response options ranged from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (6) with a neutral option (3) provided.

3.2.5. Demographics

Demographic controls assessed in both surveys included parent gender (male, female), child gender (male, female), number of children, age in years, race (White, Black, other race), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), marital status (currently married or cohabiting, not currently married or cohabiting), and household income (under $20 K, $20 K-$29,999, $30 K- $39,999, …, $100 K + ).

3.3. Plan of analysis

Descriptive statistics will be used to assess differences in parenting practices and adolescent delinquency across the two samples. All remaining analysis will focus on the second sample, where data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parental depression, a scale ranging from 0 to 27, is the dependent variable in the first hypothesis. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression will be used to estimate associations between depressive symptoms and financial hardship. A logistic regression analysis will be used assess association with whether respondents meet the cutoff of 10 for the binary measure of depression. Parenting practices are the dependent variable(s) in the second and third hypotheses. Each category of parenting practice (monitoring, involvement, etc.) will be treated as a separate outcome. Regression analyses for these outcomes will also utilize OLS regression. Adolescent delinquency and substance use were the dependent variables in the final hypothesis. Associations between parenting practices and these outcomes will be estimated using OLS regression. Income is treated as a continuous variable in all models. Each model uses robust standard errors. All variables are entered into each model simultaneously. Each model includes all demographic control variables.

4. Results

4.1. Sample characteristics

Data from Study 1 are used to compare descriptives with Study 2. The demographic and behavioral characteristics for each sample are shown in Table 1 . Both samples were selected to be representative of Pennsylvania demographics, based on U.S. Census figures, for race and ethnicity, rural residence, education, and income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Demographically, there were few differences between the two samples. Respondents in the first study reported one additional child in the home, on average, than respondents in the second study. Hispanics, at 8.6 %, were better represented in the first study than in the second study. Reported incomes were slightly lower in the second study, though that may be due to job loss or other financial difficulties associated with the pandemic. About 61 % of respondents reported that they or a household member had experienced a job loss, loss of income, or reduce hours at work as a result of the pandemic. There was a greater proportion of single respondents in the second study. Again, this may be due to the pandemic as dating and cohabiting may have become more difficult in the midst of social distancing and lockdowns.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics (n = 525 in study 1 and n = 376 in study 2).

Ordinal/ Continuous Measures N: Mean (SD), (Range) N: Mean (SD), (Range)
Study 1 Study 2
Parent age 478: 43.8 (8.4), (27, 69) 376: 43.0, (18, 80)
Number of children 525: 2.5 (1.2), (1, 7) 376: 1.4 (0.9), (1, 11)
Adolescent substance use 525: 0.2 (0.6), (0, 3) 376: 0.6 (1.8), (0, 12)
Adolescent delinquency 525: 0.5 (1.2), (0, 7) 376: 5.3 (6.5), (0, 39)
Adolescent behavior worsened in pandemic – 376: 1.3 (1.7), (0, 6)
Parental depression (cont.) – 376: 7.7 (6.7), (0, 27)
APQ: Positive involvement 525: 26.4 (4.9), (7, 40) 376: 24.9 (5.2), (3, 40)
APQ: Poor supervision & monitoring 525: 14.4 (6.4), (2, 40) 376: 13.9 (6.3), (4, 40)
APQ: Positive par. & communication 525: 14.7 (3.1), (4, 24) 376: 14.4 (3.2), (0, 24)
APQ: Inconsistent discipline 525: 10.9 (3.8), (0, 24) 376: 10.3 (3.7), (0, 24)



Categorical Measures N: Proportion (95 % CI) N: Proportion (95 % CI)
Study 1 Study 2
Parent male 260: 49.7 % (0.45, 0.54) 179: 47.6 % (0.43, 0.63)
Child male 282: 53.9 % (0.50, 0.58) 207: 55.1 % (0.50, 0.60)
Had COVID-19 financial impact – 229: 61.0 % (0.56, 0.66)
Parent depressed – 119: 31.7 % (0.27, 0.37)
Hispanic 45: 8.6 % (0.05, 0.11) 10: 2.7 % (0.01, 0.05)
Race: White 436: 83.1 % (0.80, 0.86) 317: 84.3 % (0.80, 0.88)
Black 65: 12.4 % (0.10, 0.15) 47: 12.5 % (0.10, 0.16)
Other race 8: 1.5 % (0.01, 0.03) 16: 4.3 % (0.03, 0.07)
Income: < $20 K 33: 6.4 % (0.05, 0.09) 39: 10.4 % (0.08, 0.14)
$20 K - $29,999 31: 6.0 % (0.04, 0.08) 37: 9.8 % (0.07, 0.13)
$30 K - $39,999 38: 7.3 % (0.05, 0.10) 45: 12.0 % (0.09, 0.16)
$40 K - $49,999 26: 5.0 % (0.03, 0.07) 38: 10.1 % (0.07, 0.14)
$50 K - $59,999 29: 5.6 % (0.04, 0.08) 34: 9.0 % (0.07. 0.12)
$60 K - $69,999 27: 5.2 % (0.04, 0.08) 23: 6.1 % (0.04, 0.09)
$70 K - $79,999 45: 8.7 % (0.07, 0.11) 24: 6.4 % (0.04, 0.09)
$80 K - $89,999 40: 7.7 % (0.06, 0.10) 15: 4.0 % (0.02, 0.07)
$90 K - $99,999 48: 9.3 % (0.07, 0.12) 22: 5.9 % (0.04, 0.09)
$100 K+ 201: 38.8 % (0.35, 0.43) 99: 26.3 % (0.22, 0.31)
Marital status: Single 50: 9.5 % (0.07, 0.12) 60: 16.0 % (0.13, 0.20)
Married or cohabiting 404: 77.0 % (0.73, 0.80) 258: 68.6 % (0.64, 0.73)
Other marital status 71: 13.5 % (0.11, 0.17) 58: 15.4 % (0.12, 0.19)
Open in a new tab

Note: SD refers to standard deviation. CI refers to confidence interval. N refers to the count for a particular response category for categorical measures and for total number of responses for ordinal and continuous measures. APQ is the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire.

Behaviorally, there were few differences in parenting practices across the two samples, at least on average. T-tests of mean differences between the two studies showed significantly more use of positive involvement in Study 1 and more use of inconsistent discipline in Study 1 than in Study 2. Mean differences in the other two APQ measures were not statistically significant. Further analysis is needed to assess whether the averages mask differences within certain subgroups as hypothesized. While adolescent substance use and delinquency were measured differently for each sample, the levels of each were low in both samples. On average, most respondents disagreed that their child’s behavior had worsened during the pandemic. Parental depression was only measured in the second study, but many respondents reported experiencing symptoms of depression. Nearly a third of the sample, 32 %, met the cutoff score of 10 or more on the depression scale. This cutoff is commonly used as a benchmark for diagnosing depression (Manea et al., 2012). Pre-pandemic, an estimated 6.7 % of U.S. adults had at least one major depressive episode in the past year (Koskie, 2018).

4.2. Parental depression

All of the multivariate analyses involve only data from Study 2. Table 2 displays the results of two regression models. The first explores associations with the continuous measure of depressive symptoms, using OLS regression. Married is the reference category for marital status and White is the reference category for race. The second model in Table 2 shows results, in odds ratios, from a logistic regression model using a binary measure of depression. As indicated, there was limited evidence of a relationship between experiencing a COVID-19 financial hardship and parental depression after controlling for other demographic characteristics. Experiencing a financial hardship was associated with a marginally significant (p < 0.10) increase in number of parental depressive symptoms. Overall, the R-square values across models are low, suggesting that these predictors do not explain a large amount of variance in the outcomes.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model and Logistic regression model predicting parental depression (n = 376).

Predictor Depression
(OLS Regression) 		Depression
(Logistic Regression, Odds Ratios)
Had COVID-19 financial impact 1.24 + (0.69) 1.49 (0.38)
Parent age −0.12 ** (0.04) 0.96 ** (0.01)
Child male 0.17 (0.64) 1.55 + (0.38)
Parent male −1.17 + (0.67) 0.70 (0.17)
Number of children −0.11 (0.32) 0.99 (0.19)
Income −0.52 ** (0.11) 0.82 ** (0.04)
Black −1.32 (1.10) 0.59 (0.23)
Other race −3.76 ** (1.24) 0.47 (0.33)
Hispanic 0.63 (2.17) 0.87 (0.73)
Married 0.15 (1.05) 1.32 (0.48)
Other marital status 0.83 (1.36) 1.59 (0.67)
Constant 15.75 ** (2.23) 4.74 + (4.06)
R-Squared 0.14 0.11
Open in a new tab

Notes: ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. + p < 0.10. Standard errors in parentheses.

There were only two demographic associations that remained consistent across both models. Older parents reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms than younger parents. Each year of age was associated with a 4 % decrease in the odds of meeting the depression cutoff used for the binary outcome measure. Similarly, every increase in income bracket was associated with 18 % lower odds of meeting the depression cutoff. There were some predictors whose impact was more complex, meaning that associations differed between the two depression outcomes. Those of other race reported significantly fewer symptoms of depression than White parents. Fathers reported marginally fewer symptoms of depression than mothers. Parents describing their parenting of a son were marginally more likely to be classified as depressed than parents describing their relationship with a daughter.

4.3. Parenting practices

The results of OLS regression models predicting the four categories of parenting practices are shown in Table 3 . The reference categories for race and marital status remained the same as in Table 2. As indicated, there were no significant associations between experiencing a financial hardship due to COVID-19 and any of the parenting practices. There was only one association between parenting practices and parental depression. Parents with more depressive symptoms had poorer monitoring and supervision practices than parents with fewer depressive symptoms. As before, the R-square values across models are low, suggesting that these predictors do not explain a large amount of variance in the outcomes.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models predicting parenting practices (n = 376).

Predictor Positive involvement Poor supervision & monitoring Positive discipline & communication Inconsistent discipline
Had COVID-19 financial impact 0.27 (0.57) 0.06 (0.64) 0.46 (0.37) 0.24 (0.41)
Parental depression (cont.) −0.01 (0.05) 0.19 ** (0.05) 0.04 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03)
Parent age −0.04 (0.03) −0.09 * (0.04) −0.03 (0.02) −0.05 * (0.02)
Child male 0.33 (0.54) 0.98 + (0.59) 0.64 * (0.33) 0.67 + (0.36)
Parent male 0.29 (0.58) 3.46 ** (0.63) 0.74 * (0.35) 0.78 * (0.38)
Number of children 0.17 (0.19) 0.01 (0.25) −0.10 (0.12) 0.08 (0.14)
Income 0.18 + (0.10) 0.44 ** (0.11) 0.03 (0.06) 0.29 ** (0.07)
Black −0.02 (0.74) 2.47 ** (0.91) 1.09 * (0.48) 0.19 (0.49)
Other race −0.81 (1.12) −1.77 (1.27) 0.72 (0.59) −1.55 + (0.82)
Hispanic 2.06 (1.33) 0.57 (1.60) 1.43 + (0.76) 1.21 (1.14)
Married 0.76 (0.86) 0.82 (0.84) −0.17 (0.50) 1.19 * (0.57)
Other marital status −0.05 (0.90) 0.39 (1.02) 0.51 (0.59) 0.84 (0.65)
Constant 24.45 ** (1.65) 10.66 ** (1.89) 14.16 ** (1.07) 8.79 ** (1.13)
R-Squared 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.13
Open in a new tab

Notes: ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. + p < 0.10. Standard errors in parentheses.

Although there were some significant associations between parenting practices and demographics, these varied widely by the parenting practice being considered. Older parents, for instance, were less likely to engage in poor supervision or inconsistent discipline than younger parents. Higher incomes were positively associated with poor monitoring and inconsistent discipline, but also positive involvement.

Since financial hardship due to COVID-19 and parental depression were entered into each model simultaneously, another possibility is that overlap between these two measures could have washed out any significant associations. This was not the case. The correlation between parental depressive symptoms and experiencing a household financial hardship due to COVID-19 was only 0.15. Even when entered into models separately (models not shown), there were no additional significant associations between financial hardship due to COVID-19 and parenting practices or between parental depressive symptoms and parenting practices.

4.4. Adolescent delinquency and substance use

The final set of models is shown in Table 4 . These models are OLS regression estimates focused on adolescent delinquency and substance use, as reported by parents. The reference categories for race and marital status are the same as previously. There were several significant associations between parenting practices and adolescent behavior. More parental involvement was associated with less delinquency, though there was no association with substance use or with parents’ perceptions that behavior had worsened during the pandemic. Poor supervision and monitoring was positively associated with worse outcomes in all areas. Use of inconsistent discipline was positively associated with delinquency and perceptions that behavior had worsened during the pandemic, though there was no association was substance use. Positive parenting and communication were not significantly related to any behavioral outcome.

Table 4.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models predicting adolescent delinquency and substance use (n = 376).

Predictor Delinquency Worsened Behavior in Pandemic Substance Use
APQ: Positive involvement −0.31 ** (0.10) −0.02 (0.02) −0.01 (0.03)
APQ: Poor supervision & monitoring 0.51 ** (0.11) 0.06 ** (0.02) 0.14 ** (0.03)
APQ: Positive par. & communication −0.09 (0.17) −0.02 (0.04) −0.06 (0.04)
APQ: Inconsistent discipline 0.31 * (0.15) 0.10 ** (0.04) −0.00 (0.03)
Parent age −0.07 + (0.04) −0.03 ** (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
Child male −0.16 (0.72) −0.06 (0.16) −0.11 (0.17)
Parent male −0.04 (0.73) 0.02 (0.18) −0.19 (0.19)
Number of children 0.59 * (0.28) −0.03 (0.07) 0.08 (0.09)
Income −0.36 ** (0.13) −0.01 (0.03) −0.06 + (0.03)
Black −0.55 (1.21) −0.19 (0.28) −0.66 ** (0.21)
Other race −1.80 (1.13) −0.17 (0.31) −0.28 (0.18)
Hispanic 1.20 (1.93) −0.37 (0.47) −0.13 (0.20)
Married 1.22 (1.05) 0.00 (0.24) 0.26 (0.28)
Other marital status 0.67 (1.20) 0.08 (0.30) 0.33 (0.32)
Constant 8.12 * (3.20) 1.72 * (0.74) 0.47 (0.81)
R-Squared 0.25 0.18 0.19
Open in a new tab

Notes: ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. + p < 0.10. Standard errors in parentheses.

As a robustness check, the same models (aside from behavior change during COVID-19) were estimated using only the data from the first study (pre-COVID). Although not shown, these models also indicated that poor monitoring was associated with increased adolescent substance use and delinquency. Parental involvement was only marginally related to delinquency and unrelated to substance use. Use of inconsistent discipline was positively associated with delinquency and marginally associated with increased substance use. Positive parenting and communication were unrelated to either outcome. The direction of each association was the same as in Table 4. Together, these results indicate that associations between parenting practices and adolescent behavior remained consistent both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. As with the previous tables, the R-square values across models are low, suggesting that these predictors do not explain a large amount of variance in the outcomes.

5. Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate how COVID-19 impacted parenting practices in the U.S. as well as how these changes in family practices and circumstances might be associated with adolescent delinquency and substance use. Using two samples of Pennsylvania parents, with data collected just before and then during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study also served as a test of the Family Stress Model (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Based on this model, it was hypothesized that parents struggling with financial hardships due to COVID-19 would experience more depressive symptoms as a result. In turn, depressive symptoms would be associated with use of less effective parenting practices like inconsistent discipline. Lastly, it was expected that use of ineffective parenting practices would be associated with increases in adolescent delinquency and substance use. Unlike prior work (Conger et al., 2002), the results of this study largely fail to support this process. The findings suggest that the ineffective parenting-delinquency/substance use link does not appear to be disrupted by the pandemic. In other words, these relationships seem stable even during social disruptions.

First, this study found little evidence that financial hardships due to COVID-19 were associated with parental depressive symptoms. However, the results also indicated a high level of depression in the pandemic-based sample compared to pre-pandemic estimates of depression prevalence among adults in the U.S. (Koskie, 2018). There are several possible explanations for this pattern. One is the widespread nature of the COVID-19 financial impact. Normally, job loss or change in income affects families more sporadically or locally. The pandemic had a much broader impact. Across the four largest cities in the U.S., more than half of adults residents had experienced job loss or changes to income by September 2020 (Neel, 2020). In the present study, which was limited to Pennsylvania, more than 60 % of respondents lived in a home where someone had lost a job, lost income, or had their work hours reduced in 2020. In a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, 44 % of those negatively impacted by the pandemic believed it would take them three years or more to recover and 1 in 10 said they did not think their finances would ever recover (Horowitz et al., 2021). Low-income households, those under 30, and racial and ethnic minorities were impacted more negatively than others (Horowitz et al., 2021, Neel, 2020). However, few households were unaffected. It can be more difficult to isolate statistical effects when such a large proportion of the sample has struggled in the same way.

Another explanation may be that depressive symptoms related more to other aspects of the pandemic than finances. This is particularly the case for social isolation. Past research among adults 55 and older found that feeling socially isolated was associated with increased depression and psychological distress (Taylor et al., 2018). Other work found an association between loneliness and depression in a sample of college students (Matthews et al., 2016). Ge and colleagues (2017) replicated these results in a study of the wider population. With social distancing, travel restrictions, lockdowns, and other measures, social isolation was common in 2020 and continued into 2021. This level of isolation affects not only parents, but also their adolescent children. Thompson et al (2020) found that parents’ social isolation not only predicted negative health outcomes for themselves, but also for their adolescent children.

Nationwide, an estimated four in ten adults experienced symptoms of depression or anxiety in 2020 (Panchal et al., 2021). This study found a much higher rate of depressive symptoms, 61 %. The likely reason for this disparity is the current study’s focus on parents. School closures and lack of childcare during the pandemic placed a significant burden on parents. About half of parents with a child aged 12 or younger reported struggling with childcare responsibilities in a 2021 poll (Igielnik, 2021). Parents were more likely to be absent from work or leave employment entirely during 2020 than they were before the pandemic (Kochhar, 2020). Overall, parents were expected to juggle more responsibilities than before, contributing to higher rates of depressive symptoms (Lee, Ward, Chang, et al., 2021).

Yet, this study found no evidence that either experiencing a COVID-related financial hardship or depressive symptoms were associated with parenting practices. Wisemann and colleagues (2021) determined that parents experiencing COVID-fear were more likely to engage in controlling behaviors with their children. Lee et al (2021), who also studied parenting during the pandemic, found that parents who felt socially isolated were more likely to use physical discipline and verbal aggression towards their child in the past two weeks. This was the case even after controlling for parental depression. However, the study focused on parents with children younger than age 12. Adolescents are typically more independent from their parents than younger children, spending more time with same-age peers and are often able to engage in unstructured activities without supervision (McNeely & Blanchard, 2010). They may also have been better able than younger children to successfully navigate online learning as schools closed, with less reliance on parents. These differences may have limited change in parenting practices.

Another possibility may be that some families saw improvement in parenting and others worsening, thereby washing out any evidence of association. Other research on parenting during COVID-19 found that perceived support and control lessened parental stress and improved parenting behavior (Brown et al., 2020). Lee and colleagues (2021) found that parents were spending more time with their children during the pandemic than before, which could improve functioning for some families. The current study did not investigate coping mechanisms or possible improvements in family functioning. Additional study is needed to explore these factors.

The only hypothesis fully supported by this study was that ineffective parenting practices would be associated with higher levels of adolescent substance use and delinquency (Masarik & Conger, 2017). More parental involvement was associated with less delinquency, while poor supervision and monitoring were positively associated with more delinquency and substance use. Use of inconsistent discipline was positively associated with delinquency and perceptions that behavior had worsened during the pandemic. These results are consistent with prior work (Coyne et al., 2014, Goncy and van Dulmen, 2010, Hoeve et al., 2009, Tilton-Weaver et al., 2013, Van Ryzin et al., 2012, Yap et al., 2014). The current study was able to demonstrate that this association has not changed, for better or worse, as a result of the pandemic.

5.1. Limitations and directions for Further study

Several limitations of this study must be kept in mind. First, the sample was obtained exclusively from Pennsylvania. Inferences for other states or regions cannot be drawn. Second, the sample originated with a market research panel. Although Qualtrics used quotas and targeted recruiting to align sample demographics with those for the state as a whole, individuals who choose to take surveys for points or other incentives may differ from residents more broadly. These individuals also have access to broadband internet, which is more limited in low income and rural communities (Powell et al., 2010). Aside from sampling, there are also some limitations related to the study’s scope and design. As a repeated cross-sectional study, it was not possible to assess how parenting practices might have changed over time for a given family. We can only compare the two samples and draw inferences. This study also relied on parent reports. Previous research found that parents and children can have different perspectives on parental monitoring practices (Gentile et al., 2012) and child behavior. Additionally, the alpha value for the APQ parenting measures were low in some cases (i.e. positive discipline). This suggests the future research may benefit from using a different measure of parenting measures specific to adolescents.

A key challenge in studying the impact of COVID-19 on families is that changes in parental behaviors may have co-occurred with changes in child routines. Epidemics are stressful for both parents and children (Araújo et al., 2020). Cut off from family and friends, many children became socially isolated or turned to alternative sources of interaction, like cooperative video games (Navarro, 2021). Social isolation and loneliness increase risk of depression and anxiety (Loades et al., 2020). Negative experiences like these could lead to increases in problematic internalizing or externalizing behaviors (i.e. delinquency). At the same time, children may find themselves separated from peers who were previously a negative influence on their behavior (McGloin & Thomas, 2019). The removal of this influence could be associated with improvement in behavior. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.

6. Conclusion

This study used a repeated cross-sectional survey of Pennsylvania parents to assess the Family Stress Model (Masarik & Conger, 2017) as it applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. The basic premise of this model is that financial hardship elevates parental depression and other mental health challenges, leading parents to use less effective parenting strategies with their children. As a result, children experience worsened behavioral outcomes, including substance use and delinquency. This study found little evidence of this process occurring. There were few consistent associations between COVID-19 financial hardship and parental depression. Nor were there consistent associations between depressive symptoms during COVID-19 and parenting practices. Yet, most parents in the sample reported experiencing depressive symptoms to a level that would serve as a depression diagnosis. These results underscore the importance of considering COVID-19 as a unique context where our previous understandings of family functioning may not apply. Further work is needed to explore other facets of COVID-19 that may have offset some of the negative impact on families, such as coping mechanisms, maintaining social contacts virtually, and removal of negative peer influences. Additional work is also needed to explore how adolescents may have been impacted differently from younger children.

Research ethics

All procedures and materials for this study were approved by the Penn State IRB prior to study implementation. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Funding

This study was funded by a 2020 research development grant from Penn State Altoona.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Biography

Lacey Wallace is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Penn State Altoona. Her research concerns juvenile delinquency as well as the impact of public policy and mass violence on human behavior.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

References

  1. Balingit M. Unprecedented numbers of students have disappeared during the pandemic. Schools are working harder than ever to find them. Washington Post. 2021 https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/pandemic-schools-students-missing/2021/02/25/f0b27262-5ce8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown S.M., Doom J.R., Lechuga-Peña S., Watamura S.E., Koppels T. Stress and parenting during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2020;110 doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Calafat A., García F., Juan M., Becoña E., Fernández-Hermida J.R. Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2014;138:185–192. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Conger R.D., Wallace L.E., Sun Y., Simons R.L., McLoyd V.C., Brody G.H. Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38(2):179–193. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coyne S.M., Padilla-Walker L.M., Day R.D., Harper J., Stockdale L.A. A Friend Request from Dear Old Dad: Associations Between Parent-Child Social Networking and Adolescent Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2014;17(1):8–13. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dearing E., McCartney K., Taylor B.A. Within-child associations between family income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42(2):237–252. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dishion T.J., McMahon R.J. Parental Monitoring and the Prevention of Child and Adolescent Problem Behavior: A Conceptual and Empirical Formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1998;1(1):61–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800432380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fagan A.A., Van Horn M.L., Antaramian S., Hawkins J.D. How Do Families Matter? Age and Gender Differences in Family Influences on Delinquency and Drug Use. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2011;9(2):150–170. doi: 10.1177/1541204010377748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fauber R., Forehand R., Thomas A.M., Wierson M. A Mediational Model of the Impact of Marital Conflict on Adolescent Adjustment in Intact and Divorced Families: The Role of Disrupted Parenting. Child Development. 1990;61(4):1112–1123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02845.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Frick P.J. Alabama Parenting Questionnaire | CYFAR. University of Minnesota. 1991 https://cyfar.org/alabama-parenting-questionnaire [Google Scholar]
  11. Ge L., Yap C.W., Ong R., Heng B.H. Social isolation, loneliness and their relationships with depressive symptoms: A population-based study. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0182145. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ge X., Conger R.D., Lorenz F.O., Simons R.L. Parents’ Stressful Life Events and Adolescent Depressed Mood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1994;35(1):28–44. doi: 10.2307/2137333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gentile D.A., Nathanson A.I., Rasmussen E.E., Reimer R.A., Walsh D.A. Do You See What I See? Parent and Child Reports of Parental Monitoring of Media. Family Relations. 2012;61(3):470–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00709.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Goncy E.A., van Dulmen M.H.M. Fathers do make a difference: Parental involvement and adolescent alcohol use. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers. 2010;8(1):93–108. doi: 10.3149/fth.0801.93. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Griffin K.W., Botvin G.J., Scheier L.M., Diaz T., Miller N.L. Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2000;14(2):174–184. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.14.2.174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Halgunseth L.C., Perkins D.F., Lippold M.A., Nix R.L. Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) 2013;27(2):293–302. doi: 10.1037/a0031962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoeve M., Dubas J.S., Eichelsheim V.I., van der Laan P.H., Smeenk W., Gerris J.R.M. The Relationship Between Parenting and Delinquency: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2009;37(6):749–775. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Horowitz J.M., Brown A., Minkin R. The COVID-19 pandemic’s long-term financial impact. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. 2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/03/05/a-year-into-the-pandemic-long-term-financial-impact-weighs-heavily-on-many-americans/ [Google Scholar]
  19. Igielnik R. Pew Research Center; 2021. A rising share of working parents in the U.S. say it’s been difficult to handle child care during the pandemic. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kochhar R. Pew Research Center; 2020. Fewer mothers and fathers in U.S. are working due to COVID-19 downturn; those at work have cut hours. [Google Scholar]
  21. Koskie, B. (2018, June 29). Depression: Facts, Statistics, and You. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/facts-statistics-infographic.
  22. Kroenke K., Spitzer R.L., Williams J.B. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee S.J., Ward K.P., Chang O.D., Downing K.M. Parenting activities and the transition to home-based education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;122 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee S.J., Ward K.P., Lee J.Y., Rodriguez C.M. Parental Social Isolation and Child Maltreatment Risk during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Family Violence. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00244-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Loades M.E., Chatburn E., Higson-Sweeney N., Reynolds S., Shafran R., Brigden A.…Crawley E. Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;1218–1239:e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Manea L., Gilbody S., McMillan D. Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): A meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184(3):E191–E196. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.110829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Martorell G.A., Bugental D.B. Maternal variations in stress reactivity: Implications for harsh parenting practices with very young children. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006;20(4):641–647. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Masarik A.S., Conger R.D. Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017;13:85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Matthews T., Danese A., Wertz J., Odgers C.L., Ambler A., Moffitt T.E., Arseneault L. Social isolation, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: A behavioural genetic analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2016;51(3):339–348. doi: 10.1007/s00127-016-1178-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McGloin J.M., Thomas K.J. Peer Influence and Delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019;2(1):241–264. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024551. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McNeely C., Blanchard J. Jayne Blanchard; 2010. The Teen Years Explained: A Guide to Healthy Adolescent Development. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moitra T., Mukherjee I. Does parenting behaviour impacts delinquency? A comparative study of delinquents and non-delinquents. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. 2010;5(2):274–285. [Google Scholar]
  33. Navarro J. Fortnite: A context for child development in the U.S. during COVID-19 (and beyond) Journal of Children and Media. 2021;15(1):13–16. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2020.1858435. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Neel, J. (2020, September 9). NPR Poll: Financial Pain From Coronavirus Pandemic “Much, Much Worse” Than Expected. NPR.Org. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/09/909669760/npr-poll-financial-pain-from-coronavirus-pandemic-much-much-worse-than-expected.
  35. Padilla-Walker L.M., Son D. Longitudinal associations among routine disclosure, the parent–child relationship, and adolescents’ prosocial and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2019;36(6):1853–1871. doi: 10.1177/0265407518773900. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Panchal, N., Kamal, R., & 2021. (2021, February 10). The Implications of COVID-19 for Mental Health and Substance Use. KFF. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/.
  37. Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2020, December 9). How Coronavirus Has Changed the Way Americans Work. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/how-the-coronavirus-outbreak-has-and-hasnt-changed-the-way-americans-work/.
  38. Powell A., Bryne A., Dailey D. The Essential Internet: Digital Exclusion in Low-Income American Communities. Policy & Internet. 2010;2(2):161–192. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Power T.G. Parenting Dimensions and Styles: A Brief History and Recommendations for Future Research. Childhood. Obesity. 2013;9(s1):S-14. doi: 10.1089/chi.2013.0034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schroeder R.D., Mowen T.J. Parenting Style Transitions and Delinquency. Youth & Society. 2014;46(2):228–254. doi: 10.1177/0044118X12469041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shakya H.B., Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. Parental Influence on Substance Use in Adolescent Social Networks. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2012;166(12):1132–1139. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tang L., Hruska V., Ma D.W.L., Haines J. Parenting under pressure: Stress is associated with mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices in Canada. Journal of Children and Media. 2021;15(2):233–248. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2020.1765821. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tapia M., Alarid L.F., Clare C. Parenting Styles and Juvenile Delinquency: Exploring Gendered Relationships. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 2018;69(2):21–36. doi: 10.1111/jfcj.12110. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Taylor H.O., Taylor R.J., Nguyen A.W., Chatters L. Social Isolation, Depression, and Psychological Distress Among Older Adults. Journal of Aging and Health. 2018;30(2):229–246. doi: 10.1177/0898264316673511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thompson T., Rodebaugh T.L., Bessaha M.L., Sabbath E.L. The Association Between Social Isolation and Health: An Analysis of Parent-Adolescent Dyads from the Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study. Clinical Social Work Journal. 2020;48(1):18–24. doi: 10.1007/s10615-019-00730-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tilton-Weaver L.C., Burk W.J., Kerr M., Stattin H. Can Parental Monitoring and Peer Management Reduce the Selection or Influence of Delinquent Peers? Testing the Question Using a Dynamic Social Network Approach. Developmental Psychology. 2013;49(11):2057–2070. doi: 10.1037/a0031854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. UNICEF. (2021, March 2). COVID-19 and School Closures: One year of education disruption. UNICEF DATA. https://data.unicef.org/resources/one-year-of-covid-19-and-school-closures/.
  48. U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Pennsylvania. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/pa,US/PST045218.
  49. Van Ryzin M.J., Fosco G.M., Dishion T.J. Family and Peer Predictors of Substance Use From Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood: An 11-Year Prospective Analysis. Addictive Behaviors. 2012;37(12):1314–1324. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Webster-Stratton C., Rinaldi J., Reid J.M. Long-Term Outcomes of Incredible Years Parenting Program: Predictors of Adolescent Adjustment*. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2011;16(1):38–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00576.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wissemann K., Mathes B., Meyer A., Schmidt N.B. COVID-related fear maintains controlling parenting behaviors during the pandemic. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2021:1–15. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2021.1878274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yap M.B.H., Pilkington P.D., Ryan S.M., Jorm A.F. Parental factors associated with depression and anxiety in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2014;156:8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yarger H.A., Bronfman E., Carlson E., Dozier M. Intervening with Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up to decrease disrupted parenting behavior and attachment disorganization: The role of parental withdrawal. Development and Psychopathology. 2020;32(3):1139–1148. doi: 10.1017/S0954579419000786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zlomke K.R., Lamport D., Bauman S., Garland B., Talbot B. Parenting Adolescents: Examining the Factor Structure of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire for Adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2014;23(8):1484–1490. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9803-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Articles from Children and Youth Services Review are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES