PreprintPDF Available

Beyond the Binary: Intraracial Diversity in Family Organization and Black Adolescents' Educational Performance

May 2021

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.36370.58563

Authors:

Harvard University

Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Using a nationally representative sample of African American adolescents from the National Survey of American Life Adolescent supplement (NSAL-A), this study examines intraracial diversity in two key dimensions of family organization-family structure and family integration-and assesses their relationship with youths' educational performance, namely, grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions. Results show that there is substantial within-group heterogeneity in family organization among African Americans, and that patterns of organization varying systematically by level of household resources, specifically household income. Results also indicate that the relationship between family structure and family integration and black adolescents' educational performance differs by resource level. These factors are generally unrelated to the grades, grade repetition and number of suspension of adolescents from low-income households, but they are associated with these outcomes for adolescents from the most economically advantaged households. Irrespective of household income, findings demonstrate that the substantive impact of family organization on black youths' educational outcomes is small, which suggests that family organization has a more limited relationship with black Americans' life chances than previously theorized.

Content uploaded by Christina Cross

Content may be subject to copyright.

Beyond the Binary: Intraracial Diversity in Family Organization and Black Adolescents’

Educational Performance

Christina J. Cross, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Center for Population and Development Studies

Harvard University

ABSTRACT

Using a nationally representative sample of African American adolescents from the National

Survey of American Life Adolescent supplement (NSAL-A), this study examines intraracial

diversity in two key dimensions of family organization—family structure and family

integration—and assesses their relationship with youths’ educational performance, namely,

grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions. Results show that there is substantial

within-group heterogeneity in family organization among African Americans, and that patterns

of organization varying systematically by level of household resources, specifically household

income. Results also indicate that the relationship between family structure and family

integration and black adolescents’ educational performance differs by resource level. These

factors are generally unrelated to the grades, grade repetition and number of suspension of

adolescents from low-income households, but they are associated with these outcomes for

adolescents from the most economically advantaged households. Irrespective of household

income, findings demonstrate that the substantive impact of family organization on black youths’

educational outcomes is small, which suggests that family organization has a more limited

relationship with black Americans’ life chances than previously theorized.

Material is based on work supported by the JPB Foundation, the Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship, and the

National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE 1256260. The author thanks

Karyn Lacy, Natasha Pilkauskas, Paula Fomby, Barbara Anderson, Fabian Pfeffer, and three anonymous reviewers

for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Introduction

For over a century, the organization of black family life has been of central importance to

scholarship related to social inequality, race/ethnicity, and individual life chances. In fact,

research on black families emerged in the late 19th century out of an urgent concern among social

scientists to account for the higher levels of poverty and unemployment, worse educational

performance, and lower life chances of blacks compared to whites (e.g., Du Bois, 1899, 1909;

Frazier, 1932, 1939; Moynihan, 1965; Myrdal, 1944). This early emphasis on explaining African

Americans’ uniquely disadvantaged structural position as a function of family organization has

indelibly shaped the trajectory of research on black families. It has given rise to a contemporary

cross-race comparative approach that is primarily concerned with evaluating the extent to which

black families constitute disorganized or adaptive, superorganized forms relative to other racial

groups, namely whites (see Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2004 for an in-depth review of the

disorganization versus superorganization perspectives).

While this approach provides insight into the “average” experience of a member of a

racial/ethnic group to the “average” experience of a member of another racial/ethnic group

(Monk, 2015; Schwartz and Meyer, 2010), it does not capture the substantial within-group

heterogeneity in family organization that exists among group members. Black families, however,

are not monolithic, and despite the numerous challenges that black Americans face, many black

people experience favorable outcomes across various domains of social life (Lacy, 2007). If we

focus solely on the extent to which black families are similar to or different from other groups,

we fail to understand the important distinctions among them that are positively or negatively

associated with individual life chances, or are perhaps, altogether inconsequential. For this

reason, some scholars have called for research that transcends the binary approach to classifying

black families as disorganized or superorganized relative to other groups (Sarkisian & Gerstel,

2004). Among studies focused on the organization of black family life, however, responses to

such a call are rare, especially among quantitative studies. Furthermore, and importantly, little

research has explicitly tested the extent to which the two key dimensions of family

organization—family structure and family integration—are related to the life chances of black

Americans. Studies that do examine the influence of family organization overwhelmingly

compare samples of low-income black, often single-mother families, to white families, as if these

samples were representative of the black population overall (Barnett, 2008; Billingsley, 1992;

Garcia Coll et al. 1996; McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). It is well-documented,

however, that the daily experiences and life chances of black Americans differ markedly by

socioeconomic position (e.g., Anderson, 1990; Dow, 2019; Haynes, 2001; Lacy, 2007; Patillo,

1999; Wilson, 1987), and while underexplored, it is likely that patterns of black family

organization and their consequences for individual wellbeing will vary by level of household

resources.

To fill this gap, this study draws on data from the National Survey of American Life

Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A) to examine intraracial diversity in black family organization

and its association with three important and developmentally appropriate indicators of

adolescents’ educational performance: reported grades, grade repetition, and number of

suspensions. These three factors are known predictors of future life outcomes for black youths

such as educational attainment, employment, and even incarceration (Leventhal, Graber, and

Brooks-Gunn, 2001; Owens & McLanahan, 2019; Rocque and Paternoster, 2011; Shollenberger,

2015; Wald & Losen, 2003; Yang, Harmeyer, Chen, and Lofaso, 2018). Given the central role

that socioeconomic position plays in shaping the social experiences and outcomes of black

Americans, throughout this study I consider the extent to which family organization and

educational outcomes for black youths differ by household income. Household income is an

established measure of socioeconomic position, and the single most important mechanism

through which family structure, a central component of family organization, influences

adolescent wellbeing (Brande et al. 2019; Heflin and Patillo, 2006; Lacy, 2007; McLanahan and

Sandefur, 1994). Findings from this research expand our theoretical understanding of family

organization and its impact on individual life chances by 1) moving beyond cross-group

comparisons to explore heterogeneity in family patterns and processes among black Americans;

2) identifying mechanisms that explain variation in life chances for this group; and 3) comparing

the relative impact of the two key dimensions of family organization. Identifying factors that are

protective for black youth or elevate their risk of experiencing negative outcomes can inform the

development of targeted family interventions that build on strengths and support weaknesses.

Background and Theoretical Perspectives

The Organization of Black Family Life: A Brief Overview

While some ambiguity exists in the use of the term “family organization”, scholarship in

this area generally refers to two elements of family life: (1) family form, specifically, family

structure, and (2) family function, namely family integration (Allen, 1979; Rose, Joe, Shields,

and Caldwell, 2014; Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2004; Yabiku, Thornton, and Axinn, 1991). Family

structure is typically conceptualized based on the presence or absence of a child’s biological

parents in a household and parents’ union status (Brown, 2010; Manning, Brown, & Stykes,

2014). Commonly used indicators of family structure are rates of marriage, divorce, cohabitation,

and single parenthood. Family integration is a multidimensional concept that represents three

functions of the family: cohesion, expressive functions (e.g., love), and instrumental functions

(e.g., financial support) (Dager & Mccullough, 1982). Indicators of family integration usually

involve some measure of kin support (e.g., childrearing assistance); a few studies also include

factors such as family closeness and contact. Researchers generally regard “intact” nuclear

families (i.e., households including both biological parents and only their shared children) and

high family integration as signifiers of “better” family organization (Sarkisian and Gerstel,

2004).

As early as the late 19th century, social theorists pointed to racial differences in family

organization to explain persistent racial inequality in America. Pioneering researchers of the

study of black families such as W.E.B. Du Bois (1899; 1909), E. Franklin Frazier (1932; 1939),

and Gunnar Myrdal (1944) argued that a long history of slavery and racial discrimination led to

the separation of African American families and high rates of single parenthood and widowhood.

In fact, in reflecting on the consequences of slavery for the black community, Du Bois wrote:

“The essential features of Negro slavery, was [sic] 1) No legal marriage; 2) No legal family life;

3) No legal control over children…This is what slavery meant, and no amount of kindliness in

individual owners could save the system from its deadly work of disintegrating the ancient Negro

home” (Du Bois, 1909:21,37). In his historical analysis of black family life, Frazier (1939) also

pointed to the role of slavery in shaping black family organization. While rejecting the notion

that higher rates of “out-of-wedlock” births and divorce were a result of biological determinism,

Frazier attributed the rise of “unstable matriarchal families” to a loss of African cultural identity

and a cultural pathology produced by slavery (Roschelle, 1997; Allen 1978). Although Frazier

and other early scholars’ perspectives on African cultural erasure, family dysfunction, and black

matriarchy have been called into question (see Hunter, 2006 for a detailed discussion), it bears

noting that their studies emphasized the importance of investigating how variation in social

conditions among African Americans led to diversity in black family organization.

This scholarly tradition became somewhat overlooked following the publication of one of

the most well-known and controversial studies of black family life, the Moynihan Report (1965).

This report cited the lower levels of educational attainment and higher rates of unemployment

and “welfare dependency” among African Americans as evidence of the deterioration of the

black community, and it concluded that the disorganization of black family life lay at the center

of this degenerative process (Allen, 1978). Successive scholars seemed obligated to respond to

this report, and it gave rise to a cross-race comparative approach that is primarily concerned with

evaluating the extent to which black family organization, especially amongst the poor and

working classes, parallels that of white middle-class families (Billingsley, 1992). Some

researchers challenged the report’s focus on negative aspects of black family life, and they

emphasized the structural and/or cultural resiliency of black families, particularly strong

extended kin ties among black Americans (Allen 1979; Billingsley, 1968; Gutman, 1976; Hays

and Mindel, 1973; McAdoo 1980; Stack, 1974; Sudarkasa, 1996). These scholars maintain that

due to the structural racism that black families face, and/or enduring African cultural traditions

that promote family connectedness, black families rely more on one another for support and have

higher levels of integration than white families. Therefore, in contrast to the Moynihan Report’s

premise of black family disorganization, they maintain that black families can be thought of as

superorganized.

Recently, scholars have acknowledged that either characterization of black family life

assumes a uniformity in family organization among black Americans (e.g., Sarkisian and Gerstel,

2004). Given recent findings documenting considerable within group variation in exchanges of

family support, a key aspect of family organization, (Cross, Taylor and Chatters, 2018; Lincoln,

Taylor, and Chatters; 2013; Taylor, Chatters, Woodward, and Brown, 2013), there is reason to

believe that this assumption is inaccurate. However, even if this assumption were true, a focus on

the relative organization of black families as compared to white families does not aid us in

identifying what aspects of family organization have significant implications for individual

wellbeing. Thus, rather than asking whether black families have a distinct pattern of organization

that contributes to their relative deprivation, a more productive question would be “What aspects

of family organization enhance the wellbeing of black Americans, and what aspects are

inconsequential or even detrimental to their life chances?”. This question is the focus of the

current study, which I describe in further detail below.

Family Organization and Educational Performance

Family structure. A holistic theory of black family organization and its relationship with

individual outcomes has yet to be developed. Nevertheless, numerous studies have documented

an association between family structure and youths’ educational performance. In general,

children who are raised by both biological parents fare better academically than those raised in

any other family structure (i.e., single parent, stepparent, cohabiting, and divorced families)

(Amato, 2001; Brown, 2010; Ginther and Pollak, 2004; McLanahan and Percheski, 2008;

McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Researchers posit that family structure impacts children’s

education through three distinct (but not mutually exclusive) mechanisms: economic resources,

parenting practices, and family stability (Brown, 2010; Fomby and Cherlin, 2007; McLanahan

and Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). Youth raised by two biological married parents typically benefit

from access to greater economic resources, a clearer and stronger parental authority structure,

and a more stable home environment than those raised outside this arrangement. Combined,

these factors provide children with the material resources, monitoring and supervision, and

emotional security necessary to flourish academically.

Family integration. While the relationship between family structure and youths’

educational performance is well-documented, few studies investigate the association between

family integration and educational outcomes, and to the best of my knowledge, this study is the

first to examine these two components of family organization side-by-side. However, when

evaluating the impact of family organization on individual life chances, it is important to

consider not only how families are configured, but also how they function. Theory on social

integration provides compelling reasons to expect family integration to be related to adolescents’

educational performance. Social integration theory, developed by Emile Durkheim (1897 [1951),

asserts that individuals are social beings whose outcomes are unequivocally shaped by the nature

of their social relationships. In the context of his study, Durkheim finds that weaker attachments

(i.e., less integration) to social institutions such as family, religious, and political groups resulted

in higher rates of suicide within a society. Conversely, individuals who were more integrated into

social institutions were less likely to commit suicide. He reasoned that social integration

influenced suicide rates in two ways. First, social integration, developed through positive and

routine exchanges and interactions among group members, fosters the creation of shared values

and goals that provide a guide for appropriate human behavior. Second, it promotes a sense of

belonging and a supportive environment within which individuals can carry out group-defined

goals, which leads to more positive psychosocial outcomes. Given that the family is regarded as

one of the primary institutions for youths’ socialization, it is reasonable to expect that a higher

degree of integration into family life would reinforce socially-valued norms and behaviors

related to academic achievement and provide a supportive environment within which academic

expectations can be actualized. Indeed, recent work indicates that adolescents who report higher

levels of family involvement experience more positive outcomes. They report higher levels of

self-esteem, coping, and locus of control, and are less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors

(Knoester & Hayne, 2005; Rose, Joe, Shields, & Caldwell, 2014; Yabiku et al., 1999).

Furthermore, in the family solidarity-conflict framework developed by Bengtson and

colleagues (1991, 1995, 2002), negative aspects of family integration are considered. This

framework acknowledges that family integration exists on a continuum. Conflict, they maintain,

is an inevitable feature of family relationships that impacts how family members perceive one

another and their propensity to help each other. Increased conflict can decrease family members’

sense of group belonging and willingness to be involved with and support one another, which

can be adversely related to educational performance. Apart from research focused on parental

relationship quality, few studies consider how conflict among family members potentially

impacts adolescent wellbeing. Taking advantage of unique questions related to family conflict

available in the NSAL-A, I consider how negative interactions within the broader family network

relate to adolescents’ educational performance, which represents an improvement upon prior

work in this area.

Socioeconomic diversity in black family organization. Family structure, family processes,

and youth outcomes are undeniably shaped by the social contexts within which they operate

(Barnett, 2008; Garcia Coll et al., 1996; Mcloyd et al., 2000). Mounting evidence indicates that

patterns of family formation and integration and their consequences for adolescent wellbeing are

not uniform across groups (Amato, 2001; Brand, Moore, Song, and Xie, 2019; Cross, 2020;

McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). For example, recent studies have shown that while children of

color are more likely to experience parental separation, the negative effects of family disruption

are less pronounced for these youths (e.g., Brand, et al., 2019; Cross, 2020). Indeed, Cross

(2020) finds that while black youths are more likely to live in single-parent families than white

youths, the negative effect of parental absence from the home on on-time high school completion

is weaker for this group. Additionally, Brand et al. 2019’s causal mediation analysis indicates

that while parental divorce reduces the likelihood of college attendance and completion among

white youths, it has no significant effect on these outcomes for children of color. These racial

differences in the effects of family structure are largely attributed to group differences in access

to socioeconomic resources. It is estimated that disparities in household resources between two-

parent families and other family types explain up to two-thirds of the gap in educational

attainment (Brand et al. 2019). Due to a legacy of structural racism in the U.S., black families are

more likely to live in socioeconomically stressful environments than whites, regardless of family

structure type (McLoyd et al. 2000; National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Therefore,

gaps in resources between two-parent families and other family structures may be smaller for this

group, resulting in a weaker, negative effect of family disruption on their educational outcomes.

In this way, exposure to socioeconomic deprivation may make the independent effect of family

disruption less impactful, above and beyond existing social disadvantages.

Although within-group heterogeneity in family structure effects was not the focus of

these two prior investigations, study findings highlight the importance of household resources in

shaping the relationship between family organization and youth outcomes. It is common

knowledge that black Americans do not collectively occupy the same socioeconomic position,

and a straightforward extension of findings from previous work would suggest that the impact of

family structure and family integration on black youths’ educational performance will also differ

by level of household resources. Therefore, I conduct all analyses separately for low-, middle-,

and high-income groups and test for group differences in any observed associations between

family organization and adolescent outcomes.

The Current Study

This study explores intraracial diversity in family organization—that is family structure

and family integration—among black Americans and examines its association with black

adolescents’ educational performance. Specifically, I use nationally representative data from the

National Survey of American Life Adolescent supplement (NSAL-A) to document the

prevalence of various family structures and levels of family support, closeness, contact, and

negative interactions reported by African American adolescents. I then investigate how these

factors are associated with youths’ reported grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions.

I also evaluate the extent to which patterns of family organization and its consequences differ by

household income. Lastly, I compare the relative influence of family structure versus indicators

of family integration on youths’ educational outcomes.

With its focus on cross-race comparisons, much of the research on black family

organization has obscured within-group heterogeneity among African Americans. Given that

patterns of family structure and integration are shaped by their social contexts (Barrett, 2008),

and that there is significant variation in socioeconomic position within the U.S. black population

(Dow, 2019; Haynes, 2001; Lacy, 2007; Patillo, 1999), I expect to find considerable diversity in

family structure and integration by level of household resources (Hypothesis 1). Further, extant

theories and findings indicate that children raised by both biological parents perform better in

school than those raised outside this context. Recent work on racial differences in family

structure effects has also suggested that the consequences of family organization differ by level

of household resources, with more economically advantaged racial groups being the most

affected. Therefore, I hypothesize that black youth who are raised by both biological parents will

report higher grades, fewer suspensions, and will be less likely to repeat a grade than youth

raised in other family structures, and that any observed associations will be stronger for youth

from higher-income households (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, social integration theory suggests

that greater involvement with and support from social institutions such as the family is protective

against a number of risk factors (Durkheim, 1897[1951]; Rose et al., 2014; Yabiku et al., 1991).

Consonant with this logic, I anticipate that black youth who report higher levels of family

integration will perform better academically, and that the impact of family integration will also

be greater for more advantaged youths (Hypothesis 3). Finally, previous research has not

compared the relative influence of the two key components of family organization. I hypothesize

that family integration will be as strongly related to youths’ educational performance as family

structure (Hypothesis 4).

Data and Methods

Data

The data for my analyses are drawn from the National Survey of American Life

Adolescent sample (NSAL-A). The NSAL-A is a supplemental sample of 1,170 adolescents who

were attached to adult households from the National Survey of American Life (NSAL) parent

study. The NSAL parent study is a nationally representative household survey of approximately

6,000 African American, non-Hispanic White, and Black Caribbean adults. The data were

collected (February 2001 to June 2003) by the Program for Research on Black Americans at the

University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, as part of the National Institute of Mental

Health Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys initiative (Colpe, Merikangas, Cuthbert,

& Bourdon, 2004). The NSAL provides extensive data on mental disorders, stressors, and risk

resilient factors for black Americans (see Jackson et al., 2004, for more detailed information

about the NSAL).

The NSAL-A differs from other national studies in two important ways that make it well-

suited for this investigation. Rather than oversampling for black Americans in major

metropolitan areas, the NSAL-A uses a multi-stage stratified and clustered sample design that

follows the population distribution of U.S. blacks, which differs from the broader U.S.

population distribution (Jackson et al., 2004). This allows for greater socioeconomic diversity

among sample members and more precision in the estimation of within-group differences in

family organization, which enables me to make accurate inferences about the national population

of African American adolescents. The NSAL-A also includes a rich set of indicators of family

integration (i.e., family support, contact, closeness, and negative interactions) that are typically

unavailable in social surveys. This allows me to explicitly focus on both elements of black

family organization (family structure and family integration) and compare their relative influence

on black youths’ outcomes.

To generate the NSAL-A sample, every African American and Black Caribbean

household that included an adult participant was screened for an eligible adolescent living in the

household, and adolescents were chosen using a random selection procedure. In instances where

more than one adolescent in the household was eligible for participation, up to two adolescents

were selected for the study, and when possible, the second adolescent was of a different gender

(Seaton et al. 2008). The data include detailed information about youths’ household income,

educational background, family structure, and family interactions. My analytic sample includes

African American adolescents who provided complete information on all study variables; this

includes 98% of the original adolescent sample (n=791). The NSAL-A weight was designed to

adjust for non-independence in probabilities of selection within households and non-response

rates across households and adolescents.

Measures

Outcome variables. Three outcome variables are used as indicators of youths’ educational

performance: self-reported grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions. For self-reported

grades, adolescents were asked whether they earned mostly A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, or F’s in school.

Although actual grade information from participants’ academic transcripts was not collected,

prior work has shown strong correlations (Pearson’s r= .76 to .97) between self-reported and

actual grades (Cassady, 2001; Hishinma, 2001; Thomas, Caldwell, Faison, and Jackson, 2009).

This suggests that students tend to be fairly accurate and unbiased in their reports of grades

earned. Self-reported grades were coded categorically: 1=F/D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A. Grade repetition

is a binary variable indicating whether respondents ever repeated a grade level (no=0, yes=1).

Number of suspensions is a continuous variable based on the number of times participants

reported being suspended from school.

Independent variables. Family structure and integration are the key independent

variables. Consistent with the approach of Gavin, Chae, and Takeuchi (2009), family structure is

constructed based on adolescents’ responses to questions about who raised them the majority of

childhood. Specifically, respondents were asked “What woman (and man) mostly raised you?”

Responses were coded into the following categories: (1) both biological parents (reference); (2)

single parent, (3) biological parent and parent’s non-biological partner, (4) extended relative(s)

and/or nonrelative(s) only. For many African Americans, childrearing extends beyond the

boundaries of households, marriage, or even blood relation (Collins, 2000; Garcia Coll et al.

1996; McAdoo, 2007; Billingsley, 1992). This measure of family structure reflects this

longstanding tradition of communal childrearing in the black community in that rather than

focusing on coresidence, biological parentage, and parents’ union status, it identifies the adults

who are most influential in raising black youths. Additional measures that focus solely on

parental coresidence and union status are not available in NSAL-A. To assess the robustness of

my findings, I re-ran my analyses using a traditional longitudinal measure of family structure

constructed by Gaydosh and Harris (2018), that draws on data from The National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). While Add Health does not permit the

inclusion of several key indicators of family integration, results related to the distribution of

family structure among African Americans align with results from NSAL-A, with one notable

exception. The share of African American respondents in single-parent families is substantially

higher in Add Health than NSAL-A (see Appendix 1). This may be the case if youths who live

apart from a parent still benefit from the caregiving of their nonresident parent or other parental

figures and thus report being raised by them. Nevertheless, results from multivariate analyses

using Add Health data support findings from the main analyses (see Appendix 2).

Family integration is measured based on three commonly used indicators: family support,

subjective family closeness, and family contact, as well as a salient aspect of family integration

that is often overlooked in previous research, negative interaction. Family support involves the

frequency of emotional and instrumental support that adolescents receive from their family

members. Emotional support was assessed with a three-item index in which respondents were

asked how often their family members (both nuclear and extended) (1) “Make you feel loved and

cared for?”, (2) “Listen to you talk about your private problems and concerns?”, and (3)

“Express interest and concern in your wellbeing?” Each question used the same response format:

(4), fairly often (3), not too often (2), or never (1). Values for the three questions were summed,

resulting in a range of 3 to 12. Higher values represent more frequent emotional support received

from family members. Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item index was .65. While this value

indicates moderate internal consistency, this same scale is used in other work using the NSAL

adult sample (Cronbach’s alpha= .72) and it is consistent with prior work assessing exchanges of

family support (e.g., Lincoln et al., 2013; Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2004). Instrumental support

refers to the tangible assistance that family members provide to each other. In this study, it is

measured based on the frequency of financial and transportation help that adolescents receive

from their relatives. Respondents were asked how often their family members provided them

with transportation and how often their family members help them financially. Response formats

for these two questions used a 4-point Likert scale with a response range of never = 1 to very

often = 4. Values for these two questions were combined and summed to produce a range of 2 to

8. Higher values indicate receiving instrumental support from family more frequently (in

analyses not shown, I separated these measures and obtained similar results).

Subjective family closeness was assessed by the question: How close do you feel towards

your family members? Would you say very close (4), fairly close (3), not too close (2) or not

close at all (1)?”. Family contact was measured by the question: “How often do you see, write, or

talk on the telephone with family or relatives who do not live with you? Response categories are:

every day (5), at least once a week (4), a few times a month (3), a few times a year to at least

once a month (2), hardly ever or never (1). Higher scores represented stronger feelings of family

closeness and higher frequency of family contact, respectively. Negative interaction is measured

based on a three-item index that asks participants how often their nuclear and extended family

members (1) “Make too many demands on you?”, 2 “Criticize you and the things you do?”, 3

“Try to take advantage of you?”. The response format for this question ranges from never=1 to

very often=4. Higher values indicate higher frequencies of negative interaction. Cronbach’s

alpha for the three-item index was .71.

Controls. I include several controls in this analysis, some of which pertain to individual

characteristics of adolescents that may impact their educational performance (i.e., gender and

age). Other controls relate to characteristics of the adolescents’ households that may influence

how the family is organized (i.e., region and number of children in the household). Gender is

measured as female (reference) or male and age is coded in years. Region is classified into four

categories: Northeast (reference), North Central, South, and West. Number of children is a

continuous measure that represents the number of individuals living in the adolescents’

household that are under the age of 18. This variable does not include the adolescent her or

himself; it was top-coded at four by the data collectors.

Household income. This study conducts multivariate analyses separately for children

from low-, middle-, and high-income households. Income was first coded into five categories:

(1) at or below the poverty threshold (reference); (2) 101–200% of the poverty threshold; (3)

201–300%; (4) 301–400%; and (5) greater than 400% of the poverty threshold. These categories

are constructed by dividing the reported household income by the poverty threshold for the year

that the adolescent was interviewed. Consistent with the work of Jiang, Ekono, and Skinner,

2015, youths whose household incomes were at or below 200% of the poverty threshold were

categorized as low-income. Based on federal guidelines, these families are typically considered

poor or near poor and they often struggle financially to meet their basic needs, (Jiang, Ekono,

and Skinner, 2015). Those whose household incomes were between 201-300% of the poverty

threshold were assigned to the middle-income category, and adolescents whose household

incomes were above 300% were classified as high-income. As a point of reference, in 2003, the

median household income was $43,318 for a family of four (Department of Health and Human

Services, 2003) and 300% of the poverty threshold was $55,200 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).

Thus, adolescents in the middle-income category had household incomes that approximate the

national median; youths assigned to the high-income category lived in households with incomes

well above (at least 25% higher than) the national median.

Analysis Strategy

To explore variation in black family organization, I display descriptive statistics

indicating the frequency with which adolescents report being raised in the each of the four types

of family structure, as well as their reported frequency of each of the indicators of family

integration. To assess the relationship between family organization and children’s educational

performance, I perform three types of analyses. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Thomas et

al., 2009), I treat reported grades as an ordinal variable, and I use generalized ordered logit

models to examine the association between family organization and adolescents’ grades. I rely

on logistic regression to predict the likelihood of having repeated a grade in school. In my

analysis of number of suspensions, the outcome is a count variable, and it is skewed toward 0

and has overdispersion (the variance of the variable is greater than its mean). Therefore, I use

negative binomial regression. I compare the relative influence of family structure and family

integration by calculating predicted values for each outcome by family structure and each

indicator of family integration, and then I contrast the magnitudes of these predicted values. To

assess whether indicators of family organization were differentially associated with educational

performance by income level, I ran all models separately for adolescents from low-, middle-, and

high-income households and then conducted Chow tests on the fully interacted model that

compared the three groups. Significant differences by income in family structure and family

integration, as well as in the factors that predict reported grades, grade repetition, and number of

suspensions are indicated with footnotes.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the distribution of sample characteristics by household income. In general,

the demographic characteristics of respondents are representative of the U.S. population of

African American adolescents. The sample is nearly evenly split by gender, the average age is 15

years, and most adolescents reside in the South (62%). Sixty-three percent of respondents live in

low-income households, 17% are considered middle-income, and 20% live in high-income

families.

Turning to family structure, there is significant variation in family structure both within

and across income groups. Being raised by both biological parents was the most common family

structure for black adolescents overall; approximately 50% of African American youth reported

being raised in this context (this estimate for African Americans is similar to estimates produced

using a traditional measure of family structure from Add Health data [Appendix 1]).The second

most common arrangement is a single-parent family (25%), followed by being raised by a

biological parent and his or her non-biological partner (16%), and extended relatives or

nonrelatives in the absence of biological parents (10%). The most striking differences in family

structure by household income were between low-income and high-income groups. Whereas

42% of youths in low-income families were raised by both biological parents, 65% of youths

from high-income families lived in this arrangement. Additionally, nearly three times as many

low-income households were single parent (33%) or extended (11%), as high-income

households, with values of 12% and 4%, respectively. Overall, these estimates confirm that there

is considerable heterogeneity in family structure among black adolescents by household

resources, with youths from lower-income families being less likely to be raised by both

biological parents than those from high-income families, and they are more likely to be raised by

a single parent or extended relatives and nonrelatives. They also show that while research on

black families is characterized by a focus on low-income, typically single-mother families

(Billingsley, 1992 McLoyd et al., 2000), this overemphasis is misleading and obscures the

diversity of family structures that black youths experience. Twenty-five percent of adolescents

reported being mostly raised by a single parent; 75% were raised by both biological parents, a

biological parent and a nonbiological partner of their parent, or extended relatives and

nonrelatives.

In terms of family integration, African American adolescents report similarly high levels

of subjective family closeness, negative interaction, and receipt of family support, irrespective of

household income. For example, the average scores for instrumental and emotional support are 7

(out of 8) and 10 (out of 12), respectively for all income groups. Research on family social

support among African American adults has shown greater socioeconomic variation in receipt of

these forms of support (Cross, Nguyen, Taylor, and Chatters, 2018; Nguyen, Chatters, and

Taylor, 2016). However, these reports of high levels of family support appear consistent with

their reliance on their families to meet many of their basic needs at this stage in the life course.

Multivariate Results

Reported grades. Table 2 displays odds ratios from generalized ordered logit models

predicting grades for African American and Black Caribbean adolescents. This model is

preferred over ordinal logistic regression because unlike the former model, the proportional odds

assumption is not violated, and it still allows for a relatively straightforward interpretation of

coefficients (Williams, 2016). Coefficients for earned grades are not equal across all grade

categories (e.g., odds ratios for mostly D/F’s differ for those for mostly A’s); therefore, odds

ratios are shown separately for each grade category. Results indicate that family structure is

unrelated to grades for African American youths from low- and middle-income households, but

they are associated with earning higher grades for the most advantaged group. Among

adolescents from high-income households, being raised by a single parent instead of both

biological parents is associated with a 92% decrease in the odds of earning mostly C’s, versus

earning mostly D’s or F’s. Similarly, among adolescents from high-income households, being

raised by a biological parent and their nonbiological partner or extended relatives and

nonrelatives is associated with a 67% and 100% decrease, respectively, in the odds of earning

mostly C’s, compared to earning mostly D’s or F’s. Further, adolescents from high-income

backgrounds who are raised by a single parent are 86% less likely to earn mostly B’s versus

mostly C’s than those raised in a two-parent family, and those raised by a biological parent and

their nonbiological partner are 67% less likely to do so. Living outside a two-parent family is not

associated with lower odds of earning mostly B’s versus earning mostly A’s. Altogether, results

indicate that for adolescents from high-income households, family disruption is associated with a

decrease in the odds of earning mostly B’s or mostly C’s compared to earning failing grades.

Among indicators of family integration, instrumental support is related to earning higher

grades for youths from low-income households, and subjective family closeness is associated

with higher grades for youths for high-income households. Consistent with expectations from

social integration theory, each one-point increase in low-income adolescents’ instrumental

support score is associated with a 39% increase in the likelihood of earning mostly C’s instead of

mostly D’s or F’s and each one-point increase in high-income adolescents’ family closeness

score is associated with a seven-fold increase in the likelihood of earning mostly C’s rather than

failing grades.

Grade repetition. Table 3 shows odds ratios from logistic regression analysis estimating

the likelihood of grade repetition. After individual and household characteristics are taken into

account, we observe little association between family organization and grade repetition for

adolescents from low- and middle-income households. Family structure is unrelated to this

outcome. One indicator of family integration, negative interaction, is associated with grade

repetition; each one-point increase in low-income African American youths’ negative interaction

score is associated with a 12.2% increase in the likelihood of repeating a grade. Family structure

is related to grade repetition for adolescents from high-income families. Youth who are raised by

a single parent are nearly three times more likely to repeat a grade. Adolescents raised by

extended relatives and/or nonrelatives in the absence of a parent were also substantially more

likely to experience grade repetition (the odds ratio for youths in this arrangement is imprecise

due to a small cell size, but the coefficient is highly significant). Like youth in low-income

families, negative interaction is associated with a higher likelihood of grade repetition.

Number of suspensions. Table 4 presents incidence rate ratios from negative binomial

regressions estimating number of suspensions. Family structure is associated with suspensions

for adolescents from middle- and high-income households. Youths from these families who were

raised by a single parent had rates of suspension that are nearly three times that of youths raised

by both biological parents. Adolescents from high-income families who were raised by extended

relatives or nonrelatives also had suspension rates roughly three times higher than those raised in

a two-parent family. One indicator of family integration, negative interaction, is associated with

suspensions. Each one-point increase in low- and high-income youths’ negative interaction score

is associated with an increase in their suspension rates by a factor of 1.083 and 1.213,

respectively.

These estimates show the links between family structure and family integration and

African American youths’ educational performance, but they do not show the relative influence

of family structure versus family integration on each outcome. To demonstrate this, I calculated

the expected changes in the likelihood of earning high grades (mostly A’s), repeating a grade,

and number of suspensions if: 1) youth who were raised by both biological parents were instead

raised in one of the three other family structures and if 2) youths’ family closeness, contact,

emotional and instrumental support, and negative interaction scores increased by one standard

deviation (holding all variables at their mean or modal values). Table 5 presents the estimated

changes in predicted probabilities for high grades and grade repetition, as well as the predicted

changes in number of suspensions (calculated by using the mchange command in STATA 16). In

general, we see that family structure (whenever significantly related to each outcome) has a

larger “effect size” than family integration on each outcome. For example, if adolescents from

high-income households who were raised by both biological parents were instead raised by a

single parent, their predicted probability of grade repetition would increase by 17.5 percentage

points (Column 2). If their negative interaction score was raised by one standard deviation, their

predicted probability of grade repetition would increase by 8 percentage points (Column 2).

Similarly, if adolescents from high-income families who were raised in a two-parent family were

instead raised by extended relatives and/or nonrelatives, their predicted number of suspensions

would increase by 2 (Column 3). If their negative interaction score increased by one standard

deviation, their estimated number of suspensions would decrease by 0.87 (Column 3).

Although family structure appears to have a greater impact on black youths’ educational

performance than family integration, the total effect of family structure on this population’s

educational outcomes is substantively small. The total effect of family structure is relatively

small because the share of youth raised in family structures that tend to be associated with worse

outcomes (e.g., single-parent family) is substantially smaller than the share of youth raised in

family structures that are associated with better outcomes (e.g., two-parent family). Referring to

my previous example of youth from high-income households who were raised by a single parent,

we see that that these adolescents comprise less than three percent of the sample (Column 4).

When we multiply the percentage of the sample affected (2.91%) (Column 4) by the estimated

effect of the change (17.5%) (Column 2), we see that the total effect (or population-level) change

in grade repetition would be an increase of 0.5 percentage points (Column 6). Thus, while this

simulation illustrates the greater relative influence of family structure and it identifies youth who

are at higher risk of experiencing negative outcomes, it does not indicate that promoting the two-

parent family over other family structures would substantially improve African American

youths’ grades or decrease grade repetition and number of suspensions.

Discussion

This study investigated how key components of family organization, specifically, family

structure and family integration, are associated with African American adolescents’ educational

performance. It builds on prior research in several important ways. Unlike work that largely

focuses on cross-race differences in family organization, I focus on within-group heterogeneity

among black Americans. Given that differences in socioeconomic position may lead to distinct

patterns of family structure and integration, and outcomes for youth, I compare differences in

family organization and its relation to educational performance by level of household income.

Additionally, previous studies typically use family structure as a proxy for family organization,

without reference to qualitative aspects of family relationships that may also matter for

adolescent wellbeing. I consider these factors, namely, family closeness, contact, support, and

negative interaction to assess how each factor is related to black youths’ grades, grade repetition,

and number of suspensions. Finally, I compare the relative impact of family structure and family

integration on each outcome.

Concordant with my first hypothesis, I find that there is considerable within-group

heterogeneity in family organization among black Americans. Prior work is characterized by a

focus on low-income, black single-mother families. However, when I use a flexible measure of

family structure that incorporates adults most responsible for raising black adolescents, I find

that 25% were raised by a single parent and approximately 50% were raised by both biological

parents. When a traditional measure of family structure is used, the gap in estimates between

single- and two-parent families is smaller (see Appendix 1). However, two-parent families

remain the most common arrangement that black adolescents experience. When differences in

household income are considered, I find that youths from the most economically disadvantaged

households were significantly more likely to be raised outside a two-parent family, which is

consistent with broad trends in family structure within the U.S. and research indicating that

economic stability is important for union stability (Billingsley, 1992; Brown, 2010). With respect

to family integration, all black youths report high levels of family closeness, contact, and

support. Recent work focused on African American adults has found greater variation in the

receipt of instrumental and emotional support, key indicators of family integration, by

socioeconomic position (e.g., Nguyen, Chatters, and Taylor, 2016). The universally high levels

of family integration among black adolescents may reflect their greater reliance on their family

systems to provide for their basic needs at this developmental stage.

Bearing in mind a longstanding scholarly tradition that emphasizes the importance of

family organization for the life chances of black Americans, I was interested in evaluating the

extent to which family structure and integration matter for black adolescents’ educational

performance. I observe that family structure is unrelated to the grades, grade repetition, and

number of suspensions of the most economically disadvantaged adolescents, but it is associated

with these outcomes for more advantaged youths. In general, youth from high-income

households who grow up apart from a parent are less likely to earn higher grades and are more

likely to repeat a grade than those raised by both biological parents. For middle- and high-

income groups, being raised outside a two-parent family is also associated with being suspended

more frequently. The finding that differences in family structure are not associated with

differences in educational performance among low-income youths aligns with recent work

suggesting that sustained exposure to socioeconomic disadvantage renders the effect of family

disruption less severe (Brand et al. 2019). This finding has important implications for social

policy. Key social welfare programs have sought to improve youth outcomes through the

allocation of funds to promote of two-parent families (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families [U.S. House of Representatives, 1996]). However, results indicate that these programs

may be less effective than they otherwise would be if they fail to pair these efforts with strategies

to substantially improve the economic wellbeing of disadvantaged groups.

In terms of indicators of family integration, I find that high levels of instrumental support

from family is associated with a decreased likelihood of earning failing grades among youths

from low-income families, and subjective family closeness is related to reduced odds of earning

failing grades among high-income families. Additionally, negative interactions with family

members are associated with an increased likelihood of grade repetition and number of

suspensions for both income groups. Both findings provide support for my third hypothesis that

indicators of family integration are positively associated with youths’ educational performance.

Although not all aspects of family integration appear to influence youths’ educational

performance, significant findings for instrumental support, subjective family closeness, and

negative interaction highlight factors that may protect black youth or put them at risk of

experiencing negative educational outcomes. Results also demonstrate the need for greater work

that considers not only the role of family structure in adolescent wellbeing, but also dynamic

features of family relationships that may also be consequential for youth outcomes. Further,

black adolescents across all income groups reported receiving similar levels of instrumental

support, experiencing feelings of family closeness to the same degree, and having negative

interactions with family members with similar frequency, but these factors were differentially

associated with outcomes by income level. Extant literature does not offer a compelling

explanation for these differences, and thus, these findings highlight the need for a more nuanced

understanding of the role of socioeconomic position in shaping the relationship between family

integration and outcomes for black Americans.

A consideration of the substantive significance of family structure and family integration

demonstrates that the former dimension of family organization has greater relative impact on

black adolescents’ educational performance than the latter, which is counter to my fourth

hypothesis that these dimensions are equally influential. Although family structure appears to

have greater relative influence, we see that simulated changes in family structure would only

marginally influence changes in educational outcomes for the African American adolescent

population. These findings suggest that while family organization plays a role in shaping black

youths’ academic outcomes, greater attention should also be paid to other aspects of youths’

social environment that may facilitate positive outcomes.

This study is not without its limitations. First, due to the cross-sectional nature of the

study design, estimates produced from this study are not causal. The future availability of

longitudinal data will assist with the establishment of causal links between black family

organization and youth outcomes. However, empirical association is the first criterion for the

identification of causal relationships, meaning that even in the absence of longitudinal data,

evidence that key indicators of family organization are largely unrelated to low-income African

American adolescents’ educational performance is noteworthy. Such evidence suggests that

family organization has limited explanatory power in accounting for the educational performance

of black youths who are at an elevated risk of experiencing negative outcomes (i.e., those from

low-income households), which counters popular and academic perceptions of the centrality of

family organization in shaping the life chances of economically disadvantaged black Americans.

Second, due to data limitations, I am unable to include a traditional measure of family structure

that focuses solely on parental coresidence and union status. Instead, the NSAL-A provides a

more flexible measure that is concerned with identifying the adults most involved in raising

youths. While this approach differs from traditional ones, additional analyses using an

established measure of family structure support findings from the main analyses (see Appendices

1 and 2). Third, this study relies on self-reports of grades. Although research suggests that self-

reported grades are fairly reliable measures (Cassady, 2001; Jivraj, Goodman, Ploubidis, and de

Oliveira, 2017), they likely include some level of social desirability and/or recall bias. Finally,

findings from this study are representative of African American adolescents who were aged 13 to

17 between 2001 and 2004. If the link between family organization and youth outcomes has

strengthened over time, my findings would be less reflective of the experiences of present-day

adolescents. Research on the potential changing association between family organization and

youth outcomes is virtually nonexistent. Nonetheless, recent studies using nationally

representative longitudinal data also find little to no relationship between family structure, a key

component of family organization, and the educational attainment of economically

disadvantaged racial groups, which is congruent with results from this study (Brand et al., 2019;

Cross, 2020). Notwithstanding these limitations, this study advances research on family

organization, race/ethnicity, social stratification, and education by highlighting the diversity of

familial arrangements that black youth experience and shedding light on important mechanisms

that explain variation in their educational performance. These factors may go unnoticed in

studies that focus on cross-group analyses. Given prevailing academic debates and social

policy’s focus on the role of family organization in explaining persistent racial inequality, this

work has important implications for research and policy.

References

Allen, Walter R. “Black family research in the United States: A review, assessment and

extension.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 9, (1978):167-189.

Allen, Walter R. “Class, culture and family organization: The effects of class and race on

family structure in urban America.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 10,

(1979): 301–313.

Amato, Paul R. and Bruce Keith. “Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-

analysis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, (1991): 43-58.

Anderson, Elijah. Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Barnett, Melissa. “Economic disadvantage in complex family systems: Expansion of

family stress models.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, (2008):

145-161.

Bengtson, Vern L. and Rober E.L. Roberts. 1991. “Intergenerational solidarity in aging

families: An example of formal theory construction.” Journal of Marriage and

Family, 53 (1991): 856–870.

Bengtson, Vern L., Roseann Giarrusso, J. Beth Mabry, and Merril Silverstein.

“Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,

(2002): 568-576.

Bengtson, Vern. L., C.J. Rosenthal, and Linda M. Burton. “Paradoxes of families and

aging.” Handbook of aging and the social sciences, edited by R. H. Binstock and

L. K. George, 1995, pp. 253–282. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Billingsley, Andrew. Black Families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 1968.

Billingsley, Andrew. Climbing Jacob’s ladder: The enduring legacy of African-American

families. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1992.

Brand, Jennie E., Ravaris Moore, Xi Song, and Yu Xie. “Why does parental divorce

lower children’s educational attainment? A causal mediation analysis.”

Sociological Science, 6 (2019): 264-292.

Brown, Susan L. “Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives.”

Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (2010): 1059-1077.

Cassady, Jerrell C. 2001. “Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note.”

Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 7, (2001):1-4.

Collins, Patricia H. Black feminist thought. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000.

Colpe, Lisa, Kathleen Merikangas, Bruce Cuthbert, and Karen Bourdon. “Guest

editorial.” International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, (2004):

193–195.

Cross, Christina J. “Racial/ethnic differences in the association between family structure

and children’s education.” Journal of Marriage and Family, (2020): 691-712.

Cross, Christina J., Robert Joseph Taylor, and Linda M. Chatters. “Family social support

networks of African American and Black Caribbean Adolescents.” Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 27, (2018): 2757-2771.

Dager, Edward Z. and Claire B. McCullough. “Family integration: a multidimensional

concept.” International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 12, (1982): 173-187.

Department of Health and Human Services. “The 2003 Health and Human Services

poverty guidelines.” Federal Register, 68 (2003): 6456-6458.

Dow, Dawn. Mothering while black: boundaries and burdens of middle-class

parenthood. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Philadelphia Negro: A social study. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1899.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Negro American family. Atlanta, GA: The Atlanta University Press,

1909.

Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: A study in sociology. New York, NY: Free Press, 1897[1951].

Fomby, Paula and Andrew J. Cherlin. Family instability and child wellbeing. American

Sociological Review, 72, (2007): 181-204.

Frazier, E. Franklin. The Negro family in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press, 1932.

Frazier, E. Franklin. The Negro family in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1939.

Garcia Coll, Cynthia, Gontran Lamberty, Renee Jenkins, Harriet P. McAdoo, Keith

Crnic, Barbara Hanna Wasik, and Heidie Vazquez Garcia. “An integrative model

for the study of developmental competencies in minority children.” Child

Development, 67, (1996): 1891-1914.

Gavin, Amelia R., David Chae, and David Takeuchi. “Association between family

structure in childhood and lifetime depressive disorder in adulthood among a

nationally representative sample of Blacks.” General Hospital Psychiatry, 31

(2009): 484-493.

Ginther, Donna K. and Robert A. Pollak. “Family structure and children's educational

outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions.”

Demography, 41, (2004): 671-696.

Gutman, Herbert G. The black family in slavery and freedom, 1750-1925. New York,

NY: Pantheon Books, 1976.

Haynes, Bruce. Red lines, black spaces: The politics of race and space in a black middle-

class suburb. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hays, William C. and Charles H. Mindel. “Extended kinship relations in black and white

families.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 35, (1973): 51–57.

Hishinima, Earl S. “Association between actual and self-reported grades for ethnically

diverse Asian/Pacific Islander adolescents.” Research in Education, 65, (2001):

53-69.

Hunter, Andrea G. “Teaching the classics in family studies: E. Franklin Frazier’s The

Negro Family in the United States.” Family Relations, (2006): 55:80-92.

Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold H. Neighbors,

Randolph Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, and David R. Williams. “The National

Survey of American Life: A study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on

mental disorders and mental health.” International Journal of Methods in

Psychiatric Research, 13, (2004): 196–207.

Jiang, Y., Ekono, M., & Skinner, C. (2015). Basic facts about low-Income children:

Children under 18 years, 2013. New York: National Center for Children in

Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

Jivraj, Stephen, Alissa Goodman, George B. Ploubidis, and Cesar de Oliveira. “Testing

comparability between retrospective life history data and prospective birth cohort

study data.” Journals of Gerontology: Series B Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, (2017): 1-11.

Knoester, Chris and Dana L. Haynie. “Community context, social integration into family,

and youth violence.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, (2005) :767-780.

Lacy, Karyn R. Blue-chip black: race, class, and status in the new black middle class.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.

Lincoln, Karen D., Robert Joseph Taylor, and Linda M. Chatters. “Correlates of

emotional support and negative interaction among African Americans and Black

Caribbeans.” Journal of Family Issues, 34, (2013) :1262–1290.

Leventhal, Tama, Julia A. Graber, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. “Adolescent transitions to

young adulthood: Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of adolescent

employment.” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, (2001) :297-323.

Manning, Wendy, Susan L. Brown, and J. Bart Stykes. “Family complexity among

children in the United States.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, 654, (2014) :48-65.

McAdoo, Harriet P. “Black mothers and the extended family support network.” The black

woman, edited by L.F. Rodgers-Rose, 1980, pp. 125-44, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

McAdoo, Harriet P. Black Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.

McLanahan, Sara and Christine Percheski. “Family structure and the reproduction of

inequalities.” Annual Review of Sociology, 34, (2008) :257-276.

McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a single-parent: What hurts, what

helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

McLoyd Vonnie C., Ana Mari Cauce, David Takeuchi, and Leon Wilson. “Marital

processes and parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of

research.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, (2000) :1070–1093.

Monk, Ellis. “The cost of color: Skin color, discrimination, and health among African-

Americans.” American Journal of Sociology, 121, (2015) :396-444.

Moynihan, Patrick D. The Negro family: A case for national action. Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, 1965.

Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.

New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1944.

National Center for Education Statistics. “The condition of education: Characteristics of

children’s families.” 2020:1-8.

Patillo, Mary. 1999. Black picket fences: Privilege and peril among the black middle

class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rocque, Michael and Raymond Paternoster. “Understanding the antecedents of the

“school-to-jail” link: The relationship between race and school discipline.”

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2, (2011) :633–655.

Roschelle, Anne R. No more kin: Exploring race, class, and gender in family networks.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

Rose, Theda, Joseph S. Shields, and Cleopatra H. Caldwell. “Social integration and the

mental health of black adolescents.” Child Development, 85, (2014) :1003-1018.

Seaton, Eleanor K., Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Robert Sellers, and James S. Jackson. “The

prevalence of perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean

Black youth.” Developmental Psychology, 44, (2008) :1288-1297.

Stack, Carol B. All our kin: strategies for survival in a black community.

New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1974.

Sarkisian, Natalia and Naomi Gerstel. “Kin support among blacks and whites: Race and

family organization.” American Sociological Review, 69, (2004) :812-837.

Schwartz, Sharon and Ilan H. Meyer. “Mental health disparities research: The impact of

within and between group analyses on tests of social stress hypotheses.” Social

Science and Medicine, 70, (2010) :1111-1118.

Shollenberger, Tracey L. “Racial disparities in suspension and subsequent outcomes.”

Closing the school discipline gap, edited by Daniel J. Losen, 2015, pp. 31-43.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sudarkasa, Niara. The strength of our mothers: African and African-American women

and families: Essays and speeches. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1996.

Taylor, Robert Joseph, Linda M. Chatters, Amanda Toler Woodward, and Edna Brown.

“Racial and ethnic differences in extended family, friendship, fictive kin, and

congregational informal support networks.” Family Relations, 62, (2013) :609-

623.

Thomas, Oseela N., Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Nkesha Faison, & James S. Jackson.

“Promoting academic achievement: The role of racial identity in buffering

perceptions of teacher discrimination on academic achievement among African

American and Caribbean Black adolescents.” Journal of Educational Psychology,

101, (2009): 420-431.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Living arrangements of black children under 18 years old: 1960 to

present.” Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Median household income: 2003.” Washington, D.C.: Department

of Commerce, 2003.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (1996). Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Conference

report to accompany H.R. 3734. Section 401, Purpose (p. 9), July 30. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wald, Johanna and Daniel J. Losen. “Defining and redirecting a school‐to‐prison

pipeline.” New Directions for Youth Development, 99, (2003) :9–15.

Williams, Richard. “Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models.”

The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40, (2016): 7-20.

Wilson, William J. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public

policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Wu, Lawrence. “Effects of family instability, income and income instability on the risk of

a premarital birth.” American Journal of Sociology, 68, (1996): 386-406.

Yabiku, Scott T., William G. Axinn, and Arland Thornton. “Family Integration and

Children’s Self-Esteem.” American Journal of Sociology, 104, (1991) :1494-

1524.

Yang, Mi-Youn, Erin Harmeyer, Zibei Chen, and Blaine Masinter Lofaso. “Predictors of

early elementary school suspension by gender: A longitudinal multilevel

analysis.” Children and Youth Services Review, 93, (2008) :331-338.

Table 1. Sample characteristics and dependent variables by household income, National Survey of American Life

Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A)

Full sample

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Variables

M or percent

M or Percent

M or percent

Female

0.50

0.48

Age (mean, range 13-17)

14.96

14.87

15.13

15.02

(SD)

1.22

1.45

1.25

1.46

Region

Northeastb

0.13

0.14

0.08

0.16

North Central

0.16

0.13

0.17

South

0.62

0.63

0.67

0.56

West

0.09

0.08

0.12

0.11

No. of children in household (mean, range 0-4)ab

0.88

1.13

0.68

0.36

(SD)

0.94

1.22

0.82

0.62

Childhood family structure

Both biological parentsa

0.49

0.42

0.55

0.65

Single parenta

0.25

0.33

0.19

0.12

Biological parent and non-biological partner

0.16

0.15

0.16

0.18

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)ab

0.10

0.11

0.04

Subjective family closeness

Not close at all/not too close

0.05

0.06

0.04

0.03

Fairly close

0.26

0.23

0.29

Very close

0.69

0.68

0.73

0.67

Family contact

Never/hardly ever

0.11

0.13

0.10

0.07

Few times per year to at least once per montha

0.12

0.13

0.12

0.08

Few times per month

0.14

0.10

0.17

At least once per week

0.27

0.25

0.27

0.35

Nearly everyday

0.36

0.35

0.41

0.33

Emotional support (mean, range 3-12)

10.19

10.09

10.47

10.22

(SD)

1.57

1.97

1.52

1.66

Instrumental support (mean, range 2-8)

6.94

6.87

7.05

7.01

(SD)

1.20

1.46

1.30

Negative interaction (mean, range 3-12)

6.00

6.11

6.07

5.66

(SD)

1.89

2.33

1.90

2.03

Self-reported grades

0.16

0.14

0.16

0.20

0.43

0.42

0.41

0.51

Cab

0.37

0.39

0.38

0.25

D/F

0.05

Grade repetitiona

0.30

0.35

0.19

No. of suspensions (mean, range 0-11)

2.14

2.31

1.64

1.71

(SD)

2.69

3.22

2.77

2.80

No. of observations

791

496

133

162

Notes: Values are percentages unless otherwise noted. Sample characteristics were weighted to account for the complex design of the NSAL-A

sample. M=mean. SD=standard deviation. No=number. (-)=not applicable due to small cell size. aHigh-low income difference is significant at

p<.05. bHigh-middle income difference is significant at p<.05.

Table 2. Odds ratios from generalized ordered logit models predicting grades for African American adolescents by household income

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Mostly

D/F's

Mostly C's

Mostly B's

Mostly D/F's

Mostly C's

Mostly B's

Mostly D/F's

Mostly C's

Mostly B's

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parenta

0.961

0.686+

0.085**

0.137**

1.101

(-0.138)

(-1.723)

(-3.437)

(-3.288)

(0.170)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

0.823

0.726

0.331*

(-0.719)

(-1.549)

(-2.453)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)ab

0.940

0.605

1.649

0.530+

0.003***

0.360

0.729

(-0.077)

(-1.586)

(1.078)

(-1.950)

(-5.111)

(-1.634)

(-0.476)

Family integration

Subjective family closenessab

1.228

1.062

7.272*

0.782

0.601

(1.034)

(0.411)

(2.738)

(-0.732)

(-1.052)

Family contact

0.877

0.968

1.242

(-1.657)

(-0.502)

(1.451)

Emotional support

1.026

1.028

0.975

(0.382)

(0.537)

(-0.263)

Instrumental supporta

1.390**

1.102

0.828

1.008

0.597

1.147

0.854

(2.789)

(0.949)

(-1.391)

(0.163)

(-1.587)

(0.795)

(-0.824)

Negative interaction

1.073

1.016

1.005

(1.474)

(0.479)

(0.055)

Constant

0.475

0.111

0.074

0.164

1.253

0.177

0.140

(-0.435)

(-1.478)

(-1.552)

(-1.578)

(0.065)

(-0.651)

(-0.654)

Observations

496

133

162

496

133

162

496

133

162

t-statistics in parentheses

*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10

Notes: Analysis includes controls for gender, age, region, household income, and number of children in household. Analysis uses sample weights to account for the complex design of the NSAL-A sample.

aHigh-low income difference is significant at p<.05. bHigh-middle income difference is significant.

Table 3. Odds ratios from logistic regression analysis predicting grade repetition for African American adolescents by

household income

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parentab

1.033

1.047

2.938*

(0.127)

(0.074)

(2.096)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

1.060

1.112

2.200

(0.152)

(0.163)

(1.642)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)ab

1.410

1.273

25.394***

(0.909)

(0.163)

(5.502)

Subjective family closeness

1.453

0.979

1.927

(1.588)

(-0.041)

(1.073)

Family contact

1.029

1.227

1.034

(0.365)

(0.961)

(0.233)

Emotional support

0.993

0.761

1.058

(-0.097)

(-1.281)

(0.507)

Instrumental support

0.957

1.122

1.184

(-0.548)

(0.518)

(1.052)

Negative interaction

1.122*

1.042

1.202*

(2.136)

(0.297)

(2.687)

Constant

0.046*

0.050

0.000+

(-2.412)

(-1.023)

(-2.056)

Observations

496

133

162

t-statistics in parentheses

*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10

Notes: Analysis includes controls for gender, age, region, household income, and number of children in household. Analysis uses sample weights to

account for the complex design of the NSAL-A sample. aHigh-low income difference is significant at p<.05. bHigh-middle income difference is

significant at p<.05.

Table 4. Incidence rate ratios from negative binomial regression analysis predicting number of suspensions for African

American adolescents by household income

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parenta

1.215

2.628**

2.820**

(1.620)

(2.798)

(3.549)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

1.280

1.533

1.646

(1.480)

(1.071)

(1.606)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)a

0.983

1.680

2.869*

(-0.081)

(1.269)

(2.656)

Subjective family closeness

1.006

0.687

0.972

(0.047)

(-1.606)

(-0.109)

Family contact

0.991

1.127

0.972

(-0.167)

(1.445)

(-0.316)

Emotional support

0.955

0.990

(-1.118)

(-0.115)

(-0.139)

Instrumental support

0.936

0.992

1.023

(-1.395)

(-0.060)

(0.253)

Negative interaction

1.083**

1.123

1.213**

(2.899)

(1.643)

(3.165)

Likelihood ratio test of alpha

1.149+

1.265

1.400

(1.732)

(0.967)

(1.539)

Constant

1.241

0.030

0.309

(0.273)

(-1.686)

(-0.606)

Observations

496

133

162

t-statistics in parentheses

*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10

Notes: Analysis includes controls for gender, age, region, household income, and number of children in household. Analysis uses sample

weights to account for the complex design of the NSAL-A sample. aHigh-low income difference is signifcant at p<.05. bHigh-middle income

difference significant at p<.05.

Table 5. Estimated changes in grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions associated with changes in family structure

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Change in

Pr(Earning A's)

Change in

Pr(Grade rep.)

Change in

(No. of susp.)

% of sample

affected

Total % change in

earning A's

Total % change

in grade rep.

Total change in

No. of susp.

Low-income

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parent

0.017

0.008

0.365

20.99%

0.004

0.002

0.077

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

-0.049

0.014

0.474

9.23%

-0.005

0.001

0.044

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

0.119

0.083

-0.029

9.23%

0.011

0.008

-0.003

Family integration

Subjective family closeness

0.005

0.052

0.006

68.64%

0.003

0.036

0.004

Family contact

-0.006

0.009

-0.021

27.11%

-0.002

0.002

-0.006

Emotional support

-0.011

-0.003

-0.148

16.69%

-0.002

-0.001

-0.025

Instrumental support

-0.029

-0.014

-0.164

18.16%

-0.005

-0.003

-0.030

Negative interaction

-0.001

0.061*

0.356**

19.33%

0.000

0.012*

0.069**

Middle-income

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parent

-0.005

0.007

1.39*

3.29%

0.000

0.046*

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

0.020

0.016

0.456

2.78%

0.001

0.000

0.013

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

0.024

0.038

0.581

1.52%

0.000

0.001

0.009

Family integration (+1 SD)

Subjective family closeness

0.040

-0.002

-0.238+

68.64%

0.027

-0.001

-0.163+

Family contact

0.056

0.046

0.214

27.11%

0.015

0.012

0.058

Emotional support

0.086

-0.064

-0.023

16.69%

0.014

-0.011

-0.004

Instrumental support

-0.035

0.026

-0.013

18.16%

-0.006

0.005

-0.002

Negative interaction

-0.021

0.014

0.352

19.33%

-0.004

0.003

0.068

High-income

Family structure (versus both biological parents)

Single parent

-0.043

0.175*

1.894*

2.91%

-0.001

0.005*

0.055**

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

-0.093

0.117

0.672

4.17%

-0.004

0.005

0.028

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

-0.048

0.661***

1.945*

0.76%

0.000

0.005***

0.015*

Family integration (+1 SD)

Subjective family closeness

-0.041*

0.076

-0.027

68.64%

-0.028*

0.052

-0.019

Family contact

0.053

0.008

-0.061

27.11%

0.014

0.002

-0.017

Emotional support

0.013

0.019

-0.03

16.69%

0.002

0.003

-0.005

Instrumental support

-0.028

0.046

0.053

18.16%

-0.005

0.008

0.010

Negative interaction

0.011

0.08*

0.867**

19.33%

0.002

0.015*

0.168**

Sample mean (SD)

.15 (.31)

.29 (.39)

2.10 (2.68)

Notes: This table displays estimated changes in predicted values of grades, grade repetition, and number of suspensions. Analysis includes controls for gender, age, region, and number of

children. All variables are held at their mean or modal value. Analysis uses sample weights to account for the complex design of the NSAL-A sample. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, +

p<0.10. Pr=probability. No=number. Susp=suspensions Rep=repetition. %=Percent.

Appendix 1. Distribution of family structure among African American adolescents, National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health)

Family structure

Percent

Both biological parents

48.46

Single parent

37.56

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

9.79

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

4.18

Observations

2,339

Notes: The longitudinal family structure array variable developed by Gaydosh & Harris (2018) captures family

structure from birth to the adolescent’s latest age at follow-up at Wave I or II (ages 15 to 18). Analysis uses sample

weights to account for the complex design of Add Health.

Appendix 2. Odds ratios from logistic and ordinal logistic regression analysis predicting grades, grade repetition, and suspension by

household income among African American adolescents, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health)

Panel 1.

Grades

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Family structure (vs. both biological parents)

Single parenta

1.030

1.212

0.613*

(0.220)

(0.577)

(-1.979)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

0.486

0.818

0.933

(-1.273)

(-0.644)

(-0.171)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

1.166

1.031

1.294

(0.258)

(0.037)

(0.566)

(-0.894)

(-0.609)

(2.022)

Cut 1

0.016***

0.061

0.007**

(-4.069)

(-1.368)

(-3.183)

Cut 2

0.232

1.015

0.161

(-1.452)

(0.007)

(-1.243)

Cut 3

3.417

17.806

1.426

(1.231)

(1.464)

(0.237)

Observations

1,279

409

651

Panel 2.

Grade repetition

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Family structure (vs. both biological parents)

Single parenta

1.334

1.016

3.615**

(1.564)

(0.034)

(2.830)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

1.307

1.254

2.116

(0.735)

(0.380)

(1.065)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)b

0.770

2.869*

0.702

(-0.430)

(2.084)

(-0.361)

Constant

0.006***

0.001**

0.000**

(-6.306)

(-3.288)

(-2.795)

Observations

1,279

409

651

Panel 3.

Suspension

Variables

Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Family structure (vs. both biological parents)

Single parent

1.223

1.304

1.618+

(0.922)

(0.794)

(1.693)

Biological parent and nonbiological partner

1.713+

1.872

1.085

(1.832)

(1.165)

(0.196)

Extended relative(s) or nonrelative(s)

1.151

1.039

0.455

(0.226)

(0.065)

(-1.038)

Constant

0.423

0.124

4.873

(-1.053)

(-0.951)

(1.231)

Observations

1,279

409

651

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses. Analysis includes controls for gender, age, region, and number of children in household. Analysis uses sample weights to

account for the complex design of Add Health. Model predicting higher grades does not violate assumption of proportional odds; in the interest of parsimony,

ordinal logistic regression is used instead of generalized ordinal regression. Model predicting suspension estimates whether adolescent has been suspended in

prior year; number of suspensions is unavailable in Add Health. aHigh-low income difference is significant at p<.05. bHigh-middle income difference is

significant at p<.05.

Child and Adolescent Caregiving for Family: Emotional, Social, Physical, and Academic Risk and Individual Differences

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2022

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 5.4 million children and adolescents under age 18 provide care for adult family members who are aging or have a chronic illness, disability, or other health conditions that require assistance. However, little is known about how providing care to the family during childhood and adolescence impacts youth development. We examined whether caregiving as a youth is associated with emotional challenges, peer difficulties, course grades, and physical health risk behaviors. A large, diverse sample of middle and high school students in Florida completed the first systematic school-based survey in the U.S. to date to count caregiving youth (N = 10,880; 52% female; Mage = 14.40, 40% Latinx). Youth reported the amount of caregiving they provided to the family each week, in addition to items reflecting their emotional challenges (e.g., suicidality), peer difficulties (e.g., experiences of conflict or victimization), academic course grades, and health risk behaviors (e.g., diet, physical activity, sleep). We found that Latinx and Black youth provided higher levels of caregiving to the family compared to youth from White non-Latinx, Asian, or Other ethnicities. Caregiving was associated with more emotional challenges, more peer difficulties, and lower course grades for all groups. In addition, providing caregiving was associated with a less healthy diet among older youth and sleeping less than 8 hr per night among White non-Latinx youth. These findings highlight a need to support caregiving youth and their families via policies and institutional supports.

Zorgverlening door kinderen en adolescenten aan familieleden: risico’s op emotioneel, sociaal, fysiek en onderwijsgebied, en individuele verschillen

Article

Feb 2024

Nonresident social fathering in African American single‐mother families

Article

Full-text available

May 2022

Objective This study examined the prevalence of nonresident social fathering among African American youth from single‐mother families and their reports of subjective closeness, frequency of contact, and financial support from social fathers during young adulthood. Background Research on African American families has overwhelmingly focused on single motherhood and the mother–child dyad. The perceived deficits of single‐mother families are emphasized, while their assets frequently go unnoticed. One potential resource available to offspring in these families are nonresident social fathers (men who act as fathers to children). Method Using Add Health ( n = 728), we document the share of youth who had a nonresident social father serve as their main father figure and examine key indicators of their long‐term relationships with these men: closeness, contact, and receipt of financial support during young adulthood. We also consider whether relationships with social fathers differ by type (stepfather versus male relative) and from those with biological fathers. Results Twenty‐five percent of respondents identified a nonresident social father as their main father figure; 44% indicated a nonresident biological father. Nearly 70% of participants reported strong feelings of closeness and regular contact with social fathers. Over 40% received financial assistance. Respondents were more likely to report feeling closer to a social than a biological father; there were no other differences by father figure type. Conclusion Most African American young adults from single‐mother families have close and consistent ties with a nonresident father figure. While underexplored, their sustained engagement with these men may have positive implications for their downstream outcomes.

Why Does Parental Divorce Lower Children’s Educational Attainment? A Causal Mediation Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2019

Mechanisms explaining the negative effects of parental divorce on children’s attainment have long been conjectured and assessed. Yet few studies of parental divorce have carefully attended to the assumptions and methods necessary to estimate causal mediation effects. Applying a causal framework to linked U.S. panel data, we assess the degree to which parental divorce limits children's education among whites and nonwhites and whether observed lower levels of educational attainment are explained by postdivorce family conditions and children’s skills. Our analyses yield three key findings. First, the negative effect of divorce on educational attainment, particularly college, is substantial for white children; by contrast, divorce does not lower the educational attainment of nonwhite children. Second, declines in family income explain as much as one- to two-thirds of the negative effect of parental divorce on white children’s education. Family instability also helps explain the effect, particularly when divorce occurs in early childhood. Children’s psychosocial skills explain about one-fifth of the effect, whereas children’s cognitive skills play a minimal role. Third, among nonwhites, the minimal total effect on education is explained by the offsetting influence of postdivorce declines in family income and stability alongside increases in children’s psychosocial and cognitive skills.

Family Social Support Networks of African American and Black Caribbean Adolescents

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2018
J Child Fam Stud

Although family social support has been linked to numerous psychological, behavioral, and academic outcomes for Black adolescents, little research investigates the family support networks of these youths. Using nationally representative data from the National Survey of American Life Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A), this study examines the family social support exchanges of African American and Black Caribbean adolescents. We focus specifically on the frequency of instrumental and emotional support provided by and offered to adolescents and the sociodemographic and family correlates of this support. Findings indicate that both African American and Black Caribbean adolescents provide and receive a substantial amount of support from family, though there is significant variation by age, gender, income, ethnicity, region, and country of origin within and across these populations. Further, subjective family closeness was related to both the receipt and provision of support. Overall, findings affirm the importance of investigating adolescent family support networks, as well as examining ethnic differences within the U.S. Black population.

Testing Comparability Between Retrospective Life History Data and Prospective Birth Cohort Study Data

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2017
J GERONTOL B-PSYCHOL

Objectives: To determine whether comparable prospective and retrospective data present the same association between childhood and life course exposures and mid-life wellbeing. Method: Prospective data is taken from the 1958 UK National Child Development Study at age 50 in 2008 and earlier sweeps (n = 8,033). Retrospective data is taken from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing at ages 50-55 from a life history interview in 2007 (n = 921). Results: There is a high degree of similarity in the direction of association between childhood exposures that have been prospectively collected in National Child Development Study and retrospectively collected in English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and wellbeing outcomes in mid-life. However, the magnitude of these associations is attenuated substantially by the inclusion of measurements, which are difficult or impossible to capture retrospectively, and are only available in prospective data, such as childhood poverty, cognitive ability, and indices of social and emotional adjustment. Discussion: The findings on the one hand provide some reassurance to the growing literature using life history data to determine life course associations with later life wellbeing. On the other hand, the findings show an overestimation in the retrospective data, in part, arising from the absence in life history data of childhood measures that are not well suited to retrospective collection.

The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study

Book

Jan 1996

Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle Class

Chapter

May 2018

Mary Pattillo

Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Association Between Family Structure and Children's Education

Article

Dec 2019

Christina Cross

Objective This study tested two hypotheses that have been posited to account for racial/ethnic differences in the association between family structure and children's education. Background Research has shown that children raised by both biological parents fare better academically than children raised in any other family structure. However, there has been little research to explain an important finding: living apart from a biological parent is less negatively consequential for racial/ethnic minority children than white children. Scholars have speculated that group differences in exposure to socioeconomic stress and embeddedness in extended family networks explain this finding. Method This study used nationally representative, longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (n = 2,589). It employed logistic regression analysis and decomposition techniques to assess whether racial/ethnic differences in these two mechanisms explained the differential association between family structure and children's on‐time high school completion and college enrollment for white, black, and Hispanic children. Results The results indicate that socioeconomic stress and extended family embeddedness attenuate the effect of family structure on these two measures of children's education, although the former to a much greater extent. The differences in socioeconomic resources accounted for up to nearly 50% of the gap in these outcomes, and extended family embeddedness explained roughly 15% to 20%. Conclusion Findings lend support for the socioeconomic stress hypothesis, which posits that the negative effect of parental absence from the home may be less independently impactful for racial/ethnic groups already facing many socioeconomic disadvantages.

Mothering While Black: Boundaries and Burdens of Middle-Class Parenthood

Book

Mar 2019

Dawn Marie Dow

Predictors of early elementary school suspension by gender: A longitudinal multilevel analysis

Article

Aug 2018
CHILD YOUTH SERV REV

Despite the large body of work demonstrating the detrimental effects of school suspension, there are notable gaps in the research regarding predictors of this form of discipline in early elementary school, and particularly in how these predictors may vary by gender. This longitudinal study was designed to address these gaps by exploring kindergarten and first grade predictors of one and three years later school suspension. The final sample consisted of 3495 kindergarten and 1st grade elementary school students who were referred to a truancy program from 348 public schools. Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted to control for cluster effects of individual school on students’ suspension outcomes; findings indicate common and unique risk factors for suspension by gender. For both boys and girls, being Black and being rated by teachers as disruptive predicted future suspension. In addition, teacher-rated aggression for boys and lack of parental involvement for girls were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of suspension. Finally, a teacher's assessment of child behaviors in early elementary school predicted suspension in later. The findings highlight the potential of addressing the predictors of suspension in the early school years as one effective strategy to prevent future school suspension.

Streetwise. Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community

Article

Oct 1994

The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy.

Article

Sep 1989

Beyond the Binary: Intraracial Diversity in Family Organization and Black Adolescents' Educational Performance

Abstract

Recommended publications

Beyond the Binary: Intraracial Diversity in Family Organization and Black Adolescents’ Educational P...

The Color, Class, and Context of Family Structure and Its Association with Children's Educational Pe...

Nonresident social fathering in African American single‐mother families

Black adolescents’ support to the family and educational outcomes: Differences by household income