ArticlePDF Available

Understanding Grandfamilies: Characteristics of Grandparents, Nonresident Parents, and Children

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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 characteristics very similar to other disadvantaged mothers. Academic and socioemotional well-being were 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.
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.
... There are various potential pathways by which grandchildren may come to reside with a grandparent. While there is some research documenting fluidity between MGHs and grandfamilies, these living arrangements are distinctive in terms of the reasons for their formation, sociodemographic composition, and outcomes for household members He & Jia, 2021;Pilkauskas & Dunifon, 2016). Research suggests that the factors that predict living in an MGH include younger maternal age, single motherhood, financial needs, and cultural values emphasizing filial responsibility (Mollborn et al., 2012;Perkins, 2019;Pilkauskas et al., 2020). ...
... Black children are twice as likely as white children and 3 times as likely as Hispanic children to spend time in a grandfamily (Dunifon, 2013). Adding to the complexity of this living arrangement, evidence suggests that many children in grandfamilies continue to have contact with their parent(s); however, the quality of this contact varies widely (Dunifon, 2018;Pilkauskas & Dunifon, 2016). ...
... There is considerable consensus in the literature that children in grandfamilies disproportionately suffer physical, emotional, and cognitive disadvantages compared to children in other family structures (Hayslip et al., 2019;Pilkauskas & Dunifon, 2016). For example, in a sample of low-income fragile families, Pilkauskas and Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study explores linkages between various living arrangements with and without grandparents and children’s socioemotional functioning in kindergarten. Changing family patterns and increases in longevity have resulted in increasing numbers of American children coresiding with grandparents. Despite these trends, little scholarly attention has been given to associations between grandparental coresidence and children’s socioemotional health. Data comes from the second wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 2010–2011 kindergarten cohort. Using a sample of 11,486 eligible children, associations between various living arrangements, with and without grandparents, and four measures of socioemotional health (interpersonal skills, self-control, and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors) are explored. Multiple linear regression models are weighted to produce nationally representative estimates. Findings indicate that children in one-parent multigenerational households (MGHs) and grandfamilies (with grandparent(s) as the primary caregiver and no parents) have less favorable teacher-reported socioemotional health outcomes compared to those in two-parent households without grandparents. However, between-group comparisons of children in similar living arrangements in terms of the number of parents (two, one, none), with and without grandparents, suggest the addition of a grandparent to a household is a net neutral for children’s social and emotional well-being. Having more favorable economic and primary caregiver resources may help mitigate adverse socioemotional outcomes for children in non-nuclear families, including those with grandparents. Efforts to strengthen the resource portfolios of such families should be prioritized in order to reduce observed socioemotional disadvantages for coresident children.
... In this light, the behavioral, social, and emotional challenges experienced by many, but not all, children raised by their grandparents may be due in part to long-standing problems in their families of origin or to challenges in adjusting to a newly formed full-time parental relationship (Hayslip et al., 1998;Pilkausakas & Dunifon, 2016;Smith et al., 2019;Xu et al., 2022). Such adjustment difficulties likely contribute to the distress that grandparent caregivers feel and most likely elicit thoughts of getting help for oneself and/ or the grandchild. ...
... These between-group findings seem to parallel those of Baker and Silverstein (2008) who found grandparent caregivers to prioritize their grandchildren's health concerns behind those of their own. To the extent that grandparent caregivers are experiencing personal distress, either driven by the demands of raising a grandchild (see Pilkausakas & Dunifon, 2016;Smith et al., 2019) or by the difficulties associated with raising a distressed grandchild (Hayslip et al., 1998), such concerns seem to lead to seeking help for such a grandchild. It is also possible that despite being open to seeking help, the stigma and/or lack of knowledge about childhood adjustment problems, each associated with raising and seeking help for an emotionally/behaviorally challenged child, contributed to the distress associated with that child receiving help among grandparent caregivers. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the present study is to analyze the potential impact of a custodial grandchild receiving mental healthcare on grandparent caregivers’ psychosocial functioning. Findings suggested that grandparents of grandchildren who had received some form of mental healthcare were more personally distressed, experienced less social support and more parental strain/stress, and were less resilient. Such grandparents were also less attached to their grandchildren and had grandchildren who were experiencing more emotional/behavioral difficulties. They were, however, more open to receiving psychological help. Findings also revealed that such effects were mediated by resilience, social support, and, to an extent, by parental self-efficacy. These data indicate that raising distressed grandchildren takes its toll on grandparents and that they are especially vulnerable, even if such grandchildren are receiving help.
... Skipped-generation families, defined as households where grandparents assume primary caregiving responsibilities for their grandchildren in the absence of the middle generation (Hongthai & Jongudomkarn, 2021;Pilkauskas & Dunifon, 2016), represent a distinct family structure that has also been termed "grandparent-headed households" or "custodial grandparent families" in academic discourse (Baker & Mutchler, 2010;McKay & Nadorff, 2021). Past decades have witnessed an increased prevalence of skipped-generation family worldwide (Zimmer & Treleaven, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Adolescent depression in skipped-generation families is a growing concern, yet the role of grandparenting styles and gender attitudes remains understudied. Data from 1,039 adolescents (511 girls, 528 boys) in rural Chinese skipped-generation families were analyzed. Mediation analyses examined associations between grandparenting styles, gender attitudes, and depression. Higher grandparental rejection correlated with higher depression (Estimate = .35, p < .001), while higher emotional warmth correlated with lower depression (Estimate = −.32, p < .001). Emotional warmth was associated with more egalitarian gender attitudes (Estimate = .12, p < .001). Gender attitudes partially mediated the association between emotional warmth and depression among girls, but not boys. A significant gender difference was found in the association between gender attitudes and depression ( p <.05). Grandparenting styles and gender are associated with depression in adolescents from skipped-generation families. Mental health interventions should focus on educating grandparents to provide emotional support and promoting egalitarian gender attitudes, especially among girls.
... Among older adults, having children under age eighteen in the home is predictive both of being in the lowest income quartile preretirement (Mitchell, Clark, and Lusardi 2021) and of having higher levels of food insecurity (Butcher et al. 2023). Families with multigenerational or skip-generational living arrangements are more economically vulnerable than similar families without grandchildren (Seltzer and Yahirun 2014;Pilkauskas and Dunifon 2016;Ziliak and Gundersen 2016;Dunifon 2018), with potentially large differences between multigenerational and skipgenerational households (Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, and Kopko 2014). 1 Although researchers have studied the phenomenon of coresidence from the perspective of children (see Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, and Kopko 2014;Pilkauskas, Amorim, and Dunifon 2020), less is known about the various forms of coresidence viewed from the perspective of the older adult, where multigenerational living arrangements are the more common focus (Ruggles 2015). It is important to understand which seniors are living with children in the United States today, what factors are contributing to these living arrangements, and what drives the association between living with children and economic disadvantage. ...
... When grandparents serve as the primary caregivers, substituting for the parents, this arrangement may be closely related to various family factors. For example, grandparents may live with their grandchildren in skipped-generation households or single-parent households, possibly due to parental separation or divorce, as well as family financial difficulties (Chen, 2016;Harper & Ruicheva, 2010;Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2018;Pilkauskas & Dunifon, 2016;Sun et al., 2017). Those lift-behind children may experience frustration, depression, and loneliness, as well as emotional vulnerability and a subjective sense of abandonment (Jia & Tian, 2010).There is also evidence that such children frequently develop ineffective coping strategies for parent-child separation and exhibit socio-emotional behavioral problems, including withdrawal from their peers and parents, somatic complaints, attention and thought problems, hyperactivity, anxious or aggressive behavior, and developmental regression (Edwards, 2006(Edwards, , 2009. ...
Article
Full-text available
Grandparenthood has been a research focal point for gerontologists since the early 1980s. While most research focuses on systematically examining the effects of grandparenting on older adults, little is known about the long-term effects on child development. This study aims to examine the long-term effects of grandparenting on individual multidimensional development and distinguishes the critical period of grandparenting from life-course perspective. Drawing on a nationally representative sample from the China Labor-force Dynamics Survey (CLDS), we use ordinary least squares (OLS) and logit models to examine the associations between early-life (aged 0–15 years) grandparenting and multidimensional development in adulthood. Results show that early experience of grandparenting has profound adverse effects on later development: early childhood (preschool/0–6 years) is the critical period in terms of later mental health, non-cognitive ability. In addition, the cumulative effect is confirmed that the longer the duration of grandparenting, the greater the cumulative disadvantages in individual development. Our findings provide empirical support for views of grandparenting effect from a life-course perspective and highlight the enduring impact of early grandparenting to later multidimensional development of adult, as well as the important role of timing and cumulative effects of grandparenting.
Article
The present study evaluates the impact of grandchild distress on parental competence as mediated by Baumrind's parental styles in a sample of 238 custodial grandparents ( M age = 58.06). AMOS structural equation findings yielded a model which indicated that both the Laissez-Faire and Authoritarian styles each predicted role stress and/or parental efficacy. Laissez-Faire's mediating role was defined by its link to the grandparent age—internalizing/externalizing behaviors relationship in predicting parental efficacy ( beta = −.54, p < .05) and parental role stress ( beta = .36, p < .05). The Authoritarian style's mediating role was driven by child externalizing behaviors ( beta = .22, p < .05), where Authoritarian styles in turn predicted ( beta = .21, p < .05) parental efficacy. The Authoritative style did not emerge as mediational in nature. These findings illuminate the role of parental styles as explanatory factors in understanding the parental challenges that grandparents face in raising their grandchildren.
Article
Full-text available
Выполняя регулятивную, интегративную и социализацирующую функции, являясь частью семейной системы, прародители выступают носителями представлений о самостоятельности, напрямую или опосредованно воздействующими на формирование таковой у детей. Имея опыт проживания в различных временных периодах и наблюдая социальные и культурные перемены российского общества, прародители могут репрезентативно воспроизвести трансформацию представлений о самостоятельности. Целью исследования стало изучение представлений бабушек о детской самостоятельности в прошлом и настоящем. В удобную выборку вошли 14 бабушек младших школьников 7―10 лет (n = 7) и младших подростков 11―14 (n = 7), в возрасте от 53 до 76 лет (M = 65,27; SD = 7,72), взаимодействующих с внуками на регулярной основе (несколько раз в месяц, совместные выходные, каникулы), но не проживающих с ними на момент проведения исследования. Применен тематический анализ данных в постпозитивистской парадигме. По представлениям прародителей была воспроизведена структура самостоятельности как конструкта и ее девиация касательно возраста внуков. Подтвердились предположения о включенности в определение самостоятельности двух ее аспектов ― независимости и волевого функционирования. Собственная самостоятельность (в прошлом) характеризуется как «несамостоятельность и дисциплина», самостоятельность второго поколения описывается через те же поведенческие характеристики. Самостоятельность современных детей обладает новыми характеристиками, такими как умение противостоять соблазнам среды и способность находить в интернете полезную информацию, мультизадачность (кружки, секции). В плане перемещений самостоятельность третьего поколения представляется более структурированной, нежели самостоятельность предыдущих поколений. Таким образом, прародители отмечают перемены в структуре воспринимаемой самостоятельности детей третьего поколения, но не в самостоятельности детей второго поколения по сравнению с собственной самостоятельностью в соответствующем возрасте. Благодарность. Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда (РНФ), проект № 22-18-00416, https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-00416/.
Article
This study focused on identifying adolescent learners' social support profiles based on their self-reports regarding three sources of social support (parental, teacher, and close friend support) and associations of such profiles with their well-being. A biographical questionnaire, the Social Support Scale for Children, and the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form were administered to 770 Grades 10 and 11 learners from previously disadvantaged schools in South Africa. Five social support profiles were identified using latent profile analyses of parental, teacher, and close friend support: weakly supported, adult-supported, peer-supported, moderately supported, and integrated support. Social support profiles were associated with well-being. Flourishing, the most desirable well-being outcome, was associated with the integrated support profile (high parent, teacher, and close friend support). In contrast, the lowest level of well-being was observed in the weakly supported profile (low parent, teacher, and close friend support). The results confirmed that support from parents, teachers, and close friends was vital for adolescent learners' well-being.
Article
The occurrence of children being raised solely by their grandparents has steadily risen in the past decade prompted by parental substance use disorder (SUD) and associated incarceration and death. These families, especially children, are a vulnerable population with unique needs. Nurses should be cognizant of the needs, risk factors, and protective factors often associated with this population. Meanwhile, the literature to date mostly focuses on grandparents. School and pediatric nurses, specifically, are in an advantageous position to help support these families and help foster better child outcomes. The purpose of the current article is to explore the experiences, needs, and resources for supporting children being raised by grandparents due to parental SUD. Best practices for health care professionals, especially nurses, are discussed as well as future directions for research with this vulnerable population. [ Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx (x), xx–xx.]
Article
Full-text available
Although the Self Description Questionnaire II (SDQ-II) has widespread applicability to many areas of research of psychology, its length sometimes limits its utility. This article evaluates a brief, 51-item version of the SDQ-II in a sample of 1319 secondary school students. The psychometric properties were good; the self-concept specific scales were reliable (.77-.90; Md = .82), first and higher-order confirmatory factor models fit the data well, and correlations among the scales were moderate (.04 -.60; Md = .22). Gender and age differences were suggestive of developmental trends that are consistent with results based on responses on the longer version. Over the past two decades, the general conception of self-concept has undergone a dramatic transformation. Early researchers treated self-concept as a unidimensional construct, arguing that given the heavy dominance of an overall, general self-concept factor; it is virtually impossible to differentiate among its subcomponents. Owing to a substantial amount of construct validity research, most of which was directed by Marsh and colleagues (see Marsh & Hattie, 1996), contemporary theorists rely on a multifaceted, hierarchical construal, which becomes increasingly differentiated as the individual moves from infancy to adulthood. The strongest evidence for the multidimensionality of self-concept comes from the work with the Self Description Questionnaires developed for primary school students (SDQI), secondary school students (SDQII) and young adults (SDQIII). These measures are frequently used in self-concept research and have been evaluated to be among the best in terms of psychometric properties and construct validation (Hattie, 1992; 1996). In previous research on the SDQ II, factor analysis clearly identified the 11 SDQII scales (target factor loadings were at least .48; median = .68), each scale was reliable (median alpha = .86), and correlations among the factors were small (median r = .15). Investigations on self-concept will often require that the SDQ be administered to students in conjunction with a number of other measures. However, the length of the SDQ instruments may strain student's patience and endurance, particularly if being administered with other measures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a brief version of the original 102-item SDQII measure. The brief version consists of 51 of the original items and is aimed to improve the instrument's utility without sacrificing its excellent psychometric properties.
Article
Full-text available
Using multivariate techniques, the authors investigate how age, family type, and race/ethnicity affect grandmother-headed families’ economic resources. The authors examine four grandmother-headed family types that are classified on the basis of two features: parents’ presence and the caregiving relationship of the grandmother and grandchild. Using data from the 2000 census (Public Use Microdata Sample 5%) to predict grandmother-headed families’ official and relative poverty statuses, analyses indicate that age, race/ethnicity, and family configuration are major explanations for poverty differences. The effects of race/ethnicity on official and relative poverty are greater among older cohorts than among the youngest cohorts. Additionally, the effects of age on poverty vary by family type: the lower chances of poverty that are associated with older cohorts are not as great among two-generation families as they are among three-generation grandmother-headed families. The authors interpret these findings using a life-course perspective and cumulative disadvantage theory and discuss the implications for grandmother-headed families’ economic security.
Article
This paper introduces kinscripts, a framework for exploring how families as multigeneration collectives, and individuals embedded within them, negotiate the life course. Kinscripts comprises three closely -woven, culturally-defined family domains: kin-work, kin-time, and kin-scription. Kin-work is the tasks that families need to accomplish to survive over time. Kin-time directs the temporal scheduling of family transitions. Kin-scription is the active recruitment and conscription of family members to take on kin-work. The kin-scripts framework emerged from ethnographic studies of multigeneration low-income black families in the United States. We argue, however, that the framework is relevant to the study of the life course of mainstream families as well.
Article
U.S. children today have increasingly diverse living arrangements. In 2012, 10 percent of children lived with at least one grandparent; 8 percent lived in three-generational households, consisting of a parent and a grandparent; while 2 percent lived with a grandparent and no parent in the household. This article reviews the literature on grandparent coresidence and presents new research on children coresiding with grandparents in modern families. Findings suggest that grandparent coresidence is quite common and that its prevalence increased during the Great Recession. Additionally, these living arrangements are diverse themselves, varying by the marital status of the parent, the home in which the family lives, and the economic well-being of the family. Suggestions for future research are also proposed. © 2014 by The American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Article
This study compares the well-being of African American, Latina, and White grandmothers raising or helping to raise grandchildren in custodial and coparenting families. Grandmother caregivers (N = 1,051) were recruited through schools and media for 1-hr interviews. Latina grandmothers had higher life satisfaction than African American or White grandmothers when they coparented with a parent in the household. Among African American grandmothers, higher life satisfaction was evident in custodial compared to coparenting arrangements. White grandmothers had higher negative mood and assumed care more frequently in response to serious parental substance-related reasons and less frequently because of the parent’s financial need. In contrast, levels of depression were the same regardless of ethnicity. Results suggest that expectations regarding caregiving roles and socioeconomic resources may shape the grandmother’s mood and sense of satisfaction with life in response to family circumstances but not affect her depression, an important aspect of mental health.
Article
This study examined how adolescents raised solely by grandparents navigated their relationships with their parents and grandparents and how these relationships were influenced by the caregiving context. Forty-one adolescents participated in qualitative, semistructured interviews. Findings suggest that relationships with parents were primarily companionate or marked by distance and distrust. Grandchildren had strong emotional bonds to their grandparents, although they also negotiated several sources of stress. Participants also reported feelings of gratitude because of the positive influence their grandparents had on their lives. Caregiving context shaped grandchildren’s interdependence with their parents and grandparents in numerous ways. Findings highlight the complexity of grandchildren’s family relationships and underscore the value of a systemic approach to understanding youth who are being raised by grandparents.