Content uploaded by Natasha V. Pilkauskas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Natasha V. Pilkauskas on Jun 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Understanding Grandfamilies: Characteristics of Grandparents,
Nonresident Parents, and Children
Natasha V. Pilkauskas and
University of Michigan
Rachel E. Dunifon
Cornell University*
Abstract
Using data from the Year 9 Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N~3,182), we
investigated the characteristics grandfamilies (grandparents raising their grandchildren with no
parent present,
N
= 84) and compared them to other key groups, including children’s nonresident
parents and other economically disadvantaged families with children. Results show that
grandparents raising their grandchildren were generally better off in terms of educational
attainment, marital status, and economic well-being than the child’s parents. Grandparents raising
their grandchildren also had very similar characteristics to other disadvantaged mothers. Academic
and socioemotional well-being was poorer among children in grandfamilies compared with those
living with their mothers, but parenting practices were very similar. These findings suggest that
although children in grandfamilies may be at a disadvantage academically and socioemotionally,
grandparent caregivers are in many ways similar to other fragile-family mothers. Overall, this
study enhances our knowledge of an important, yet understudied family type.
Keywords
Fragile families; grandfamilies; grandparents; noncustodial parents
In 2013, approximately 2.2% of U.S. children lived in a household consisting of a
grandparent and grandchild but no parent, referred to here as a
grandfamily
(authors’
tabulations from the American Community Survey). Some studies document the
characteristics, strengths, and challenges of grandfamilies (e.g., Cox, 2000). Missing,
however, is an analysis of how the characteristics and well-being of those in grandfamilies,
including the nonresident parents, compare to those in other families. We provide a detailed
comparison of how grandparent caregivers compare with the child’s nonresident parents and
with other parents of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, and we examine the well-being of
children in grandfamilies utilizing a wide range of high-quality measures of child well-being
from multiple reporters.
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, 735 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (npilkaus@umich.edu).
*Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, 248 MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 (red26@cornell.edu).
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Published in final edited form as:
J Marriage Fam
. 2016 June ; 78(3): 623–633. doi:10.1111/jomf.12291.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
We do so using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FF), addressing
the following questions: What are the characteristics of individuals in grandfamilies,
including grandparents, nonresident mothers, and nonresident fathers, and how do they
compare to other economically disadvantaged families with children? How does the well-
being of children in grandfamilies compare to that of children in other, similarly
economically disadvantaged households? In addressing these questions, our study provides
key information not only to researchers but also to policy makers and practitioners. This
analysis is situated in the theoretical perspectives of life course theory and particularly the
notion of kinscripts, which emphasizes that families are complex systems in which
individuals have reciprocal and ongoing relationships with one another (Stack & Burton,
1993).
Background
Characteristics and Comparison of Grandparents, Nonresident Parents, and
Grandchildren
An extensive literature studies grandfamilies; given the nature of this brief report, we are not
able to fully review this literature here, but we highlight some key studies particularly
relevant to our research questions. Especially well documented are the characteristics and
challenges faced by grandparents raising their grandchildren (e.g., Fuller-Thomson, Minkler,
& Driver, 1997; Goodman & Silverstein, 2006; Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Prokos &
Keene, 2012). Research using U.S. Census data found that 49% of children in grandfamilies
live with both grandparents, 46% with just a grandmother, and 5% with just a grandfather
(Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, & Kopko, 2014). Overall, compared to noncustodial grandparents,
those raising their grandchildren generally have poorer physical and mental health, and more
stress (e.g., Bachman & Chase-Lansdale, 2005; Musil & Ahmad, 2002), and grandfamilies
are poorer economically than other households with children (e.g., Casper & Bryson, 1998).
At the same time, grandfamilies exhibit numerous strengths, including a very warm bond
between grandparent and grandchild, an increased sense of purpose on the part of the
grandparent, and a wisdom and maturity that comes with parenting for a second time
(Dunifon et al., 2014).
Most prior research studying the well-being of children in grandfamilies has compared
grandfamily children’s well-being to that of U.S. children generally, finding that
grandfamily children had elevated behavior problems and poorer academic outcomes (e.g.,
Dubowitz et al., 1994; Kelley, Whitley, & Campos, 2011; Smith & Palmieri, 2007). A
smaller set of studies have compared grandfamily children to other similarly economically
disadvantaged children, finding elevated behavior problems (Pittman, 2007) and lower levels
of school engagement (Billing, Macomber, & Kortenkamp, 2002), and one study showed no
differences (Solomon & Marx, 1995). When compared to those in traditional foster care,
research has found that children in grandfamilies fare better (Rubin et al., 2008). We
consider a wider range of child well-being measures from multiple reporters, systematically
comparing grandfamily children to similarly disadvantaged urban children.
Less well understood are the characteristics of nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers
in grandfamilies. Although research documents that many nonresident parents have ongoing
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 2
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
regular contact with their children (Dolbin-MacNab & Keiley, 2009; Dunifon et al., 2014;
Messing, 2006), virtually nothing is known about the characteristics of nonresident mothers
and fathers of children in grandfamilies. This study fills that gap.
A key issue when examining the well-being of grandfamilies is determining the appropriate
group to whom such families should be compared (Dunifon et al., 2014). Given evidence
that grandfamilies often face financial, health, and emotional challenges (Dunifon et al.,
2014; Musil & Ahmad, 2002), comparing those in grandfamilies to those in “average”
families is problematic in that it does not allow for disentangling what is unique about the
grandfamily living arrangement from the factors associated with disadvantage. This study
systematically compares the characteristics of those in grandfamilies to several key groups
of interest—the average urban mother, the average urban father, the nonresident parents with
whom the children previously resided, and other disadvantaged urban children. Making such
comparisons allows us to better understand how a child’s grandfamily living arrangement
compares to other family contexts.
Method
Data
Data came from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FF), a longitudinal birth-
cohort study of nearly 5,000 births in large U.S. cities sampled between 1998 and 2000.
Nonmarital births were oversampled, resulting in a relatively economically disadvantaged
sample. Mothers and fathers were interviewed soon after the birth of the focal child, and
follow-up interviews were conducted when the child was approximately 1, 3, 5, and 9 years
old. We mainly utilized the 9-year-old data, gathered when the average child was in third
grade, although some descriptive information was drawn from earlier waves. We used 9-
year-old data from the nonparental caregiver survey, the primary caregiver survey, the
biological mother survey, the biological father survey, the child survey, and the teacher
survey. We focused on the 9-year-old data because this wave represents the first survey with
interviews of nonparental primary caregivers as well as nonresident mothers and fathers, and
the children themselves.
Our analyses included 84 grandparents raising their grandchildren with no parent in the
household (82 grandmothers and 2 grandfathers). Our analyses also included information on
79 children being raised by their grandparents (five children did not participate in the child
survey). In the interest of maximizing cases, we retained all 84 grandparent responses.
Additional analyses restricting the sample of grandparents to those whose grandchildren
responded to the survey yielded similar results.
Our analyses also included information on 47 nonresident mothers and 34 nonresident
fathers whose child was being raised by a grandparent. Data were missing for 37 nonresident
mothers (seven were deceased and five in jail) and 50 nonresident fathers (eight were
deceased or unknown and 13 in jail). Analyses of the 25 non-deceased and non-incarcerated
mothers missing data in Year 9 show that they had very similar characteristics as those who
were interviewed. In contrast, the 29 missing fathers were somewhat different from those
who were surveyed; they were more likely to have been single at the birth of the child, to be
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 3
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and to be an immigrant. We consider the implications of this
differential attrition in the Conclusion.
We compared those in grandfamily households to individuals in other types of families. To
perform meaningful contrasts, we restricted our comparison groups. To be included in the
biological mother or the child comparison group, both the mother and child had to complete
the survey, yielding 3,098 non-grandfamily mother and child responses. For the biological
father comparison group we retained only cases in which the child had also responded,
yielding 2,174 cases. Similarly for the teacher survey, we retained cases in which the teacher
and child responded: 52 children who lived in a grandfamily and 2,064 children who lived
with a mother primary caregiver.
Measures
Grandfamilies—Grandfamilies were identified as households including the focal child,
at least one grandparent, and no parents. A variable indicating whether the child lived with a
maternal or paternal grandparent was constructed, as well as one identifying whether the
child lived with just the grandmother, just the grandfather, or both. Household structure more
broadly was constructed to include spouses and partners of the grandparent, the
grandparent’s own parents (i.e., the child’s great grandparent), the child’s aunts or uncles,
cousins, other relatives, or nonkin. We also measured number of people in the household and
number of siblings of the focal child living in the household. We calculated the years that the
child had lived with the grandparent using the current interview date and the date when the
child came to live with the grandparent.
Demographic characteristics—We measured a number of demographic
characteristics of the grandparent respondent, the biological mother, and the biological
father, including relationship status (married, cohabiting, or single), age at child’s birth,
education (less than high school, high school, some college/associate’s, college or more),
nativity (foreign born), labor-force participation (employed, unemployed, out of labor force,
retired, or disabled), health status (1 =
poor
, 5 =
excellent
), depression, an indicator of
poverty (using official Census Bureau thresholds adjusted for household size and year), and
material hardship (experienced any food insecurity, housing insecurity, inability to pay bills,
forgone medical needs, or had utilities cut off). Frequency of visitation (how many days the
mother or father saw the child in the previous month) was asked of the grandparent
respondent about both mothers and fathers, and of the biological mother and the biological
father themselves.
For mothers and fathers, we included marital status at the birth of the child, race/ethnicity
(non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or other race), whether drugs and/or
alcohol had interfered with their life, the number of biological children currently living with
them, and the distance from their house to their parent’s house. These variables were not
available for the grandparent caregiver respondents.
Child well-being—Child health was assessed using the overall health status measure
reported by the caregiver about the focal child (1 =
poor
, 5 =
excellent
). Indicators for
obesity were constructed using interviewer gathered data. We categorized children with a
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 4
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
BMI at or above the 95th percentile as obese, following guidelines from the Centers for
Disease Control (Ogden & Flegal, 2010) and using percentiles calculated from data from
their 2000 growth charts (Kuczmarski et al., 2000), adjusted for child’s age in months,
gender, height, and weight. Primary caregivers also reported whether the child had any
health conditions including: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a developmental delay
or mental retardation, autism, or an other health problem such as a heart condition, deafness,
or a speech problem.
Most of the child cognitive, socioemotional, and school well-being measures included scales
or indexes. Each index was standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1,
so that higher scores reflect “more” of the outcome.
Child cognitive ability was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT;
Dunn & Dunn, 1997), the Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension Test 9 and Applied
Problems Test 10 (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), and the Weschler Intelligence
Scale for Children—Digit Span subset (Wechsler, 2003). Teacher reports of children’s
academic performance in social studies, language literacy, and math (1 =
far below average
,
5 =
far above average
) were reported for a subset of children.
Child socioemotional well-being was reported by primary caregivers using the 6–18 Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001); capturing both externalizing
(anger, defiance, or disobedience) and internalizing (sadness, affection, nervousness, and
interest) behavior. Children also reported on their own externalizing and internalizing
behaviors and emotions using the Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1990). Teachers
reported on children’s behavior using the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham &
Elliott, 1990) and the Conners’ (2001) Teacher Rating Scale. The SSRS included
externalizing, internalizing, cooperation, assertion, and self-control subscales. Teachers also
reported on approaches to learning, a scale that assessed children’s attention, persistence and
interest in learning. The Conner’s Teaching Rating Scale assessed oppositional behaviors,
cognitive problems or inattention, hyperactivity, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders.
Some measures of school well-being were collected from the child. Connectedness at school
included measures of inclusiveness, closeness, happiness, and safety. Peer bullying included
four items (picked on, hit, stolen lunch and/or money, left out). Task completion assessed
children on five items related to staying on task and follow-through. Delinquency was
reported by the child and comprised 15 items related to vandalism, truancy, or theft. Last,
primary caregivers were asked whether the child had ever repeated a grade in school.
Because the study was descriptive in nature, we reported bivariate descriptive statistics.
When applicable,
t
-tests were run to test for statistically significant differences across
groups.
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 5
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Results
Grandfamily Households
Table 1 provides descriptive information on the grandfamilies in our sample. Almost three-
quarters of grandfamilies involved maternal grandparents. Most children lived with a
grandmother, although about one-third lived with both grandparents. Nearly half of children
(46%) also lived with an aunt or uncle, and many lived with cousins, nonkin, and great
grandparents. More than half of children also lived with one or more of their own siblings,
resulting in an average household size of nearly five people.
Table 1 documents the length of time the focal child had lived with the grandparent. On
average, children in this sample, who were approximately 9.5 years old, had lived with a
grandparent for 5.7 years, or 60% of their lives; 11% had lived with a grandparent for less
than a year; and 42% had always lived with their grandparent (all children in grandfamilies
at Year 9 had lived with their parent at some point). Most grandparents (86%) expected their
grandchild to live with them until they reached adulthood.
Characteristics of Grandparents, Nonresident Parents, and Comparison Parents
Table 2 compares characteristics of grandparents raising their grandchildren to those of
several groups. First, grandparents raising grandchildren are compared to nonresident
mothers of children in grandfamilies, with results indicating that, in general, grandparents
were more advantaged than the children’s mothers. Grandparents raising their grandchildren
were twice as likely as the children’s nonresident mothers to be married, significantly less
likely to have dropped out of high school (25% vs. 55%), and more likely to be college
educated. Grandparents were also much less likely to be unemployed. Poverty and hardship
rates were significantly lower among grandfamilies than among nonresident mothers.
Finally, nonresident mothers were significantly less likely to be immigrants than
grandparents; however, this may be driven by selection, as immigrant parents may not have
their own parents in the United States, which makes it less possible to have their child live in
a grandfamily.
Next, we examined how grandparents raising their grandchildren compare to residential
fragile-family mothers raising their own children. Few significant differences exist between
the two groups. Grandparents were significantly more likely to be single and less likely to be
cohabiting than resident mothers, whereas both groups were married at similar rates.
Education differences were small, but grandparents were generally more educated than
residential mothers. Grandparents were older than residential mothers and had significantly
poorer health ratings, but no other health differences were significant. Among grandparents
in the labor force, differences in employment were small. Thus, it appears that grandparents
raising grandchildren have very similar characteristics to residential urban mothers raising
their own children.
Comparing nonresident mothers to mothers who raising their own children shows that
nonresident mothers were much more disadvantaged in terms of marital status, age,
education, employment, health, and substance use. Although, by default, all mothers living
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 6
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
with their own children had children living with them, more than half of the nonresident
mothers had one or more other children living with them.
Comparing fathers whose children were being raised by a grandparent to fathers whose
children live with their mothers (note that these fathers included both those who reside with
their child and those who did not but whose children lived with the mother) again reveals
that nonresident parents of children in a grandfamily were more disadvantaged than other
parents. As was the case with the mothers, 55% of nonresident fathers had other biological
children living with them.
Table 2 also compares reports of the frequency of visitation by nonresident mothers and
fathers to their children in grandfamilies. Grandparents reported that both mothers and
fathers visited an average of nine days a month. Nonresident mothers and fathers reported
seeing their children even more frequently—both said they saw their child 12 days per
month. Additional analyses showed that many nonresident mothers (16%) and fathers (12%)
reported seeing their child every day, yet a significant share (21% of mothers and 19% of
fathers) did not see their child in the previous month. Only 2% of mothers and 15% of
fathers did not see their child in the previous year.
Well-Being of Children in Grandfamilies
Table 3 compares the well-being of children in grandfamilies to that of children living with
their mothers. The only significant health-related difference between children in
grandfamilies and those living with their mothers was the incidence of attention deficit
disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD). Twenty-percent of children
in grandfamilies had been diagnosed by a doctor with ADD/ADHD, compared to 11% of
children living with their mothers. More differences emerged when looking at cognitive and
academic assessments. Compared to children living with their mothers, children in
grandfamilies generally had lower cognitive scores, although only for the applied problems
score was this difference significant. Teacher reports also show that children in
grandfamilies had average language literacy and math grades that were significantly lower
than children who lived with a parent.
Looking at socioemotional development and behaviors, caregivers reported significantly
higher levels of externalizing behaviors among children in grandfamilies. Teachers reported
that children in grandfamilies were significantly less cooperative, displayed more
oppositional behavior, had more cognitive and/or inattention problems, and had lower scores
on the approaches-to-learning scale (e.g., applying themselves, concentrating) than other
children. Finally, children in grandfamilies reported significantly lower task completion
abilities. They were also twice as likely to have repeated a grade and were significantly more
likely to have engaged in delinquent activities than children living with their mothers.
In auxiliary analyses available in Appendix A we investigated differences in parenting
approaches comparing grandparents to resident mother households on measures of parenting
activities and engagement in school, monitoring, physical and psychological aggression,
neglect, and household routines. We found few significant differences between the two types
of households, although grandparents were significantly less likely to know the child’s
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 7
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
friends and significantly more likely to eat meals together than “typical” resident-mother
households.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the understanding of grandfamilies in several ways. It is the first
study to use survey information gathered from all grandfamily members, including mothers
and fathers living outside of the household. Given that the vast majority of children in
grandfamilies remain in contact with their nonresident parents, obtaining information about
these parents is crucial. This study is also the first to systematically compare the
characteristics of grandparents raising their grandchildren to multiple other key groups—
urban mothers raising their own children, urban fathers, nonresident mothers, and
nonresident fathers. Last, this study provides new insight into how children in grandfamilies
fare on a wide range of measures of child well-being as compared to s
Several key findings emerge. Nonresident mothers and fathers are much more disadvantaged
than both grandparent caregivers and other urban parents raising their own children. This
study is one of the first to be able to concretely document just how much better off
grandparents are relative to the nonresident parents of the children they are raising.
Grandparents have higher levels of human capital and significantly lower levels of poverty
and hardship than do nonresident mothers and fathers. This suggests that children in
grandfamilies often enter a living arrangement with more economic advantages than the one
they left behind.
We note that more than half of nonresident parents had biological children living with them
at the time of the survey. Given their relative disadvantage compared to grandparent
caregivers, this is an area for future research. In particular, research that compares the well-
being of children who are raised in a grandfamily with that of children who remain with a
parent would help shed light on the implications of grandfamily living arrangements for
child well-being.
Another key finding is that grandparent caregivers have characteristics that are very similar
to other urban parents. Some studies have shown that grandparent caregivers are
disadvantaged relative to other grandparents in terms of their physical and mental health
(e.g., Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005). Yet when compared with other economically
disadvantaged parents, we find that grandparents look quite similar and have comparable
parenting practices. Certainly, as compared with the U.S. population of children, those in
grandfamilies are more disadvantaged, but the relative disadvantage as compared with other
low-income households is not evident. Future research on grandparent caregivers should
carefully consider the appropriate comparison group when drawing conclusions about the
well-being of those in grandfamilies.
Consistent with previous research, we find that nonresident parents see their children
frequently—two to three days a week on average. This has implications for thinking about
how social service agencies and social workers engage with these families. Programs
targeting nonresident parents of children in grandfamilies will likely have spillover benefits
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 8
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
for the children in grandfamilies as well, given the high levels of need, and interactions with,
these parents. Future research should consider the role of social service agencies in not only
helping grandfamilies but also assisting nonresident parents in aiding children in
grandfamilies. The frequent interactions with nonresident parents observed here also points
to the need to think about how to best serve children and grandparents while taking into
consideration the parents as a potential actor in the household system. Research on
nonresident fathers of children living with their mothers suggests that contact with
nonresident parents exhibiting problematic behavior may not be in the child’s best interest
(Jaffee, Moffitt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003). Similar research is needed on the role of
nonresident parents in the lives of children in grandfamilies, particularly in light of the high
level of disadvantage among nonresident parents that this study demonstrates.
Our descriptive results suggest that children in grandfamilies have poorer outcomes than
other children, despite the fact that we have compared grandfamily children to other
relatively economically disadvantaged children being raised by their mothers. In particular,
we found that the incidence of ADD/ADHD was much higher among children in
grandfamilies than those in other households, and that this likely spills over into school
interactions, as teacher-reported levels of cooperation were lower, and oppositional behavior
and inattention were higher, among grandfamily children. This suggests that children raised
by grandparents have some unique needs, particularly in the area of socioemotional
development. Early trauma may explain some of these differences, but because we also
found high levels of contact with nonresident parents who had high rates of depression,
substance use, and health problems, research needs to consider how and whether this contact
promotes or hinders children’s development, and whether programs or interventions might
be able to improve these interactions.
This study has several limitations. First, the sample is small, including 84 grandfamilies
(although this is a relatively large sample for a study of this type) and only 47 nonresident
mothers and 34 nonresident fathers. As noted previously, our sample of fathers may be more
advantaged and more involved than nonresident grandfamily fathers in general. Second, this
study has limited generalizability. The FF study only sampled families in 20 large cities, and
the oversample of nonmarital births makes it more economically disadvantaged than the
population at large. However, it is worth noting that the characteristics of the grandfamily
grandparents in the FF sample are not that different from national samples in terms of age,
employment, and education (authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey).
Our findings suggest that, although in some ways children in grandfamilies fare worse than
other fragile-family children, their grandparent caregivers may serve as an important source
of refuge. Most grandparents expect to raise their grandchildren for “the long haul”; thus,
more research is needed to better understand their unique circumstances.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development of the National Institutes of Health (R24HD058486 and 5R01HD036916).
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 9
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
References
Achenbach, TM.; Rescorla, LA. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT:
Research Center for Children, Youth & Families, University of Vermont; 2001.
Bachman HJ, Chase-Lansdale PL. Custodial grandmothers’ physical, mental, and economic well-
being: Comparisons of primary caregivers from low-income neighborhoods. Family Relations.
2005; 54(4):475–487.
Billing, A.; Macomber, J.; Kortenkamp, K. Children cared for by relatives: What do we know about
their well-being?. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2002. Research Report Series B, No. B-46
Casper, LM.; Bryson, KR. Co-resident grandparents and their grandchildren: Grandparent maintained
families. Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; 1998.
Conners, K. Conners’ Rating Scales—Revised: Technical manual. Toronto, ON: MultiHealth Systems;
2001.
Cox, CB., editor. To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents. New
York, NY: Springer; 2000.
Dolbin-MacNab M, Keiley M. Navigating interdependence: How adolescents raised solely by their
grandparents experience their family relationships. Family Relations. 2009; 58:162–175.
Dubowitz H, Feigelman S, Harrington D, Starr R, Zuravin S, Sawyer R. Children in kinship care: How
do they fare? Children and Youth Services Review. 1994; 16(1):85–106.
Dunifon R, Ziol-Guest K, Kopko K. Grandparental co-residence and family well-being: Implications
for research and policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2014;
654:110–126.
Dunn, LM.; Dunn, LM. Examiner’s manual for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Services; 1997.
Fuller-Thomson E, Minkler M, Driver D. A profile of grandparents raising grandchildren in the United
States. Gerontologist. 1997; 37(3):406–411. [PubMed: 9203764]
Goodman CC, Silverstein M. Grandmothers raising grandchildren ethnic and racial differences in well-
being among custodial and coparenting families. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27(11):1605–
1626.
Gresham, FM.; Elliot, SN. Manual for the social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service; 1990.
Hayslip B, Kaminski PL. Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A review of the literature and
suggestions for practice. Gerontologist. 2005; 45(2):262–269. [PubMed: 15799992]
Jaffee S, Moffitt T, Caspi A, Taylor A. Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two
biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development. 2003; 74(1):
109–126. [PubMed: 12625439]
Kelley SJ, Whitley DM, Campos PE. Behavior problems in children raised by grandmothers: The role
of caregiver distress, family resources, and the home environment. Children and Youth Services
Review. 2011; 33(11):2138–2145.
Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Guo SS, Grummer-Strawn LM, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Johnson CL. 2000
CDC growth charts for the United States: Methods and development. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics. 2002; 11(246):1–18. [PubMed: 12043359]
Marsh, HW. Self-Description Questionnaire manual. Campbelltown, Australia: University of Western
Sydney, Macarthur; 1990.
Messing JT. From the child’s perspective: A qualitative analysis of kinship care placements. Children
and Youth Services Review. 2006; 28(12):1415–1434.
Musil CM, Ahmad M. The health of grandmothers: A comparison by caregiver status. Journal of
Aging and Health. 2002; 14(1):96–121. [PubMed: 11892763]
Ogden, CL.; Flegal, KM. Changes in terminology for childhood overweight and obesity. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2010. National Center for Health Statistics Reports No.
25
Pittman LD. Grandmothers’ involvement among young adolescents growing up in poverty. Journal of
Research on Adolescence. 2007; 17(1):89–116.
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 10
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Prokos AH, Keene JR. The life course and cumulative disadvantage poverty among grandmother-
headed families. Research on Aging. 2012; 34:592–621.
Rubin DM, Downes KJ, O’Reilly AL, Mekonnen R, Luan X, Localio R. Impact of kinship care on
behavioral well-being for children in out-of-home care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine. 2008; 162(6):550–556. [PubMed: 18524746]
Smith GC, Palmieri PA. Risk of psychological difficulties among children raised by custodial
grandparents. Psychiatric Services. 2007; 58(10):1303–1310. [PubMed: 17914007]
Solomon JC, Marx J. “To grandmother’s house we go”: Health and school adjustment of children
raised solely by grandparents. Gerontologist. 1995; 35(3):386–394. [PubMed: 7622091]
Stack CB, Burton LM. Kinscripts. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 1993:157–170.
Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: WISC-IV. 4. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment; 2003.
Woodcock, RW.; McGrew, KS.; Mather, N. Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL:
Riverside; 2001.
Appendix A. Parenting in Grandfamilies
Grandfamilies % or
M(SD) Not Grandfamilies % or
M(SD) t-Test
Monitoring
Know friends scale −0.24 0.01
*
Know what child does scale −0.06 0.01
Monitoring scale: Child survey
a
0.03 0.02
Routines
Number of nights/week eat dinner together
M
6.09 (1.3) 5.41 (1.88)
**
TV hours/weekday
M
2.16 (1.40) 2.3 (1.65)
Stress/chaos
Parenting stress −0.05 0.00
Household chaos −0.04 0.02
Parenting
Psychological aggression −0.09 0.01
Physical aggression −0.22 0.01
Neglect −0.06 0.01
Parenting activity scale (reading, talk about day,
homework check and help) −0.08 0.01
Involvement in school: Teacher reportb
Attended conferences 0.83 0.82
Initiated contact with teachers 0.73 0.74
N
84 ~3098
a
From child survey,
N
= 73 for children in grandfamilies and
N
= 3,098 for mother primary caregivers.
b
From teacher survey of the child,
N
= 51 for children with grandparent caregivers and
N
~ 2,064 maternal primary
caregivers.
*
Indicates a statistically significant difference between grandfamilies and other families from t-tests (
p
< 0.05).
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 11
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 12
Table 1
Grandfamily Household Composition (
N
= 84)
% or M
Grandparent type
Maternal 0.74
Paternal 0.26
Grandparent gender
Grandfather 0.01
Grandmother 0.62
Grandmother and grandfather 0.37
Other people living in the household with focal child and grandparent
a
Spouse of grandparent 0.37
Partner of grandparent 0.08
Great grandparent 0.10
Aunt/uncle 0.46
Foster child of grandparent 0.05
Great-aunt/great-uncle 0.07
Cousin 0.13
Other relatives 0.02
Nonkin 0.11
Number of siblings of focal child living with grandparents (M) 1.15 (1.4)
Number of people in the household (M) 4.73 (1.82)
Years focal child has lived with grandparents (M) 5.71 (3.36)
Grandparent expects child will stay until they grow up 0.86
N
84
Note
. SD in parentheses.
a
Households may fall into multiple categories.
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 13
Table 2
Comparing the Characteristics of Grandparents, Nonresident Mothers and Fathers and Other Mothers and Fathers
Grandparents in
Grandfamilies (1)
% or M (SD)
Nonresidential Mothers
(Children in Grandfamilies)
(2)
% or M (SD)
Residential Mothers (3)
% or M (SD)
Nonresidential Fathers
(Children in Grandfamilies)
(4)
% or M (SD)
Fathers of Children who
Live with their Mothers
(5)
% or M (SD) t-Test*
Nonmarital birth 0.89 0.76 0.91 0.70
c
,
d
Relationship status
Married 0.36 0.17 0.38 0.03 0.42
a
,
c
,
d
Cohabiting 0.08 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.14
b
Single 0.56 0.59 0.39 0.94 0.44
b
,
c
,
d
Age at focal child’s birth
M
46.5 (7.62) 21.68 (4.83) 25.12 (5.99) 24.64 (5.80) 28.08 (7.09)
a
,
b
,
c
,
d
Education
Less than high school 0.25 0.55 0.32 0.39 0.29 a, c
High school 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.42 0.33
Some college 0.29 0.19 0.25 0.16 0.25
College or greater 0.16 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.13
a
,
c
Labor force participation
Employed 0.45 0.36 0.64 0.53 0.75
b
,
c
,
d
Unemployed 0.17 0.34 0.16 0.29 0.15
a
,
c
,
d
Out of labor force 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.18 0.10
a
,
b
Retired 0.18
Disabled 0.12
Health problem that limits work 0.26 0.12 0.24 0.13
c
Health status, 5 =
excellent M
3.22 (1.02) 3.06 (1.26) 3.55 (1.04) 3.73 (.93) 3.73 (1.03)
b
,
c
Depressed 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.24 0.10
d
Substance use interferes with life 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01
c
Poor 0.42 0.62 0.37 0.42 0.23
a
,
c
,
d
Hardship 0.40 0.66 0.50 0.71 0.46
a
,
c
,
d
Foreign born 0.17 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.15
a
,
c
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black 0.57 0.50 0.64 0.50
Hispanic 0.19 0.26 0.21 0.25
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 14
Grandparents in
Grandfamilies (1)
% or M (SD)
Nonresidential Mothers
(Children in Grandfamilies)
(2)
% or M (SD)
Residential Mothers (3)
% or M (SD)
Nonresidential Fathers
(Children in Grandfamilies)
(4)
% or M (SD)
Fathers of Children who
Live with their Mothers
(5)
% or M (SD) t-Test*
Non-Hispanic White 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.22
Other 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03
Own children living with them 0.56 1.00 0.55 0.77
c
,
d
Distance to parents 3
within 2 miles 0.41 0.33 0.44 0.31
2–30 miles 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.34
30–100 miles 0.06 0.09 0.08
100+ miles 0.19 0.23 0.17 0.27
Frequency of seeing child in last month, # of days
2
M
GP report of mother 9 (11.2)
GP report of father 9 (10.4)
Parent’s Report 12 (11.2) 12 (9.5)
N
84 47 3,098 34 2,174
Note
. GP = grandparent.
a
grandparent versus mothers with children in grandfamilies,
b
grandparent versus all mothers,
c
mothers with children in grandfamilies versus all mothers,
d
fathers with children in grandfamilies versus all fathers. Fathers of children who live with their mothers may be coresident or nonresident.
1
Only asked about mothers (
n
= 54) and fathers (
n
= 38) who have had contact with the grandparent.
2N
= 32 for the mothers with children in grandfamilies because children are living with maternal grandparents, and
N
= 18 for fathers with children in grandfamilies because child is living with paternal
grandparents.
*
Denotes statistically significant differences from
t
-tests (
p
< 0.05).
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 15
Table 3
Child Characteristics and Well-Being in Grandfamilies
Grandfamilies M or % (SD) Not Grandfamilies M or % (SD) t-Test
Health
Overall health status: PCG Survey
a
,
b
4.23 (0.95) 4.37 (0.82)
Obese: Child survey
c
0.25 0.25
Health conditions: PCG survey
b
ADD/ADHD 0.20 0.11
*
Developmental delay/retardation 0.06 0.04
Autism 0.01 0.01
Other health condition (deaf, blind, heart, limb) 0.10 0.13
Cognitive
Cognitive assessments: child survey
c
Peabody Picture and Vocabulary Test −0.07 0.01
Passage comprehension (Woodcock Johnson) −0.13 0.02
Applied problems (Woodcock Johnson) −0.27 0.02
*
Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children—Digit Span subset −0.12 0.01
Cognitive assessment: Teacher survey
a
,
d
Social studies 2.76 (0.74) 2.96 (0.86)
Language literacy 2.49 (1.00) 2.88 (1.04)
*
Math 2.54 (1.00) 2.90 (0.99)
*
Socioemotional
Externalizing behavior
PCG survey
b
0.24 −0.02
*
Child survey
c
0.13 −0.01
Teacher survey
d
0.20 −0.01
Internalizing behavior
PCG survey
b
0.09 −0.01
Child survey
c
−0.03 −0.01
Teacher survey
d
0.16 −0.01
Other behavior: Teacher survey
d
Cooperation −0.34 0.02
*
Assertion (plays well with others) −0.14 0.02
Self-control −0.20 0.02
Approaches to learning −0.27 0.02
*
Oppositional behavior 0.28 −0.01
Cognitive problems/inattention 0.40 −0.02
*
Hyperactivity 0.11 −0.02
ADHD 0.21 −0.02
School well-being/outcomes:
child survey
c
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Pilkauskas and Dunifon Page 16
Grandfamilies M or % (SD) Not Grandfamilies M or % (SD) t-Test
School connectedness (higher = better) −0.12 0.00
Task completion (higher = better) −0.31 0.01
*
Bullied 0.06 0.00
Ever repeat a grade 0.31 0.16
*
Delinquency scale 0.28 0.00
*
Note
. PCG = primary caregiver.
a
Higher scores are better from a five-point Likert scale.
b
From primary caregiver survey,
N
= 84 grandparent caregivers and
N
~ 3,098 parent or other caregivers.
c
From the survey of the child, child response,
N
= 79 for children with grandparent caregivers and
N
~ 3,098 for children with parent or other
caregivers.
d
From the teacher survey of the child,
N
= 51 for children with grandparent caregivers and
N
~ 2,064 parent or other caregivers.
*p
< 0.05.
J Marriage Fam
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.