Understanding the Early Years - Early Childhood Development in Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) - November 2001
| Previous | Contents | Next |
IV. What Families and Communities in Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) Can Do to Improve Children's Outcomes
Many studies of childhood outcomes have been based on investment theory, an economic theory that supposes that children receive an endowment from their parents. This includes biological attributes and a cultural endowment determined by their parents' norms, values, and preferences; their income and wealth; and their access to resources. Parents invest time and money in their children, primarily through expenditures on education and health care.
Although the emphasis of investment theory has been on the transmission of earnings and wealth from one generation to the next, the idea that children's social, emotional, and intellectual development depends on parents' investments is firmly rooted in the child development literature. These investments can include, but are not limited to, time spent with children8.
Other theories suggest that childhood outcomes result from family and parenting practices. Children are less likely to have behaviour problems or poor cognitive development if their parents are supportive, responsive, and affectionate.
Parents who are depressed or severely stressed are more likely to be tense and irritable with their children, and become less engaged in activities that contribute to their emotional and intellectual development. Marital relations become strained, and the overall ability of the family to function as a cohesive unit becomes compromised. These pressures also affect children's development.
Recent research based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 9, as well as analyses of the UEY communities' data reported here, consider the influence of both family processes and community factors on childhood outcomes.
The most important family processes include the parents' "style" of parenting, maternal depression, the cohesiveness or adaptability of the family, and the extent to which children are regularly engaged with learning activities.
Child care also plays a critical role. Many children have better outcomes if they have quality daycare, especially those from families of low socio-economic status.
Parents' ability to provide a supportive environment can be either helped or hindered by the neighbourhood and wider community. The quality and safety of the neighbourhood is important, but social factors also play a role.
Subsequently, we are also interested in the degree of social support available to parents, and the extent to which parents have access to information and support through a strong network of friends and colleagues - factors embodied in the term "social capital." Social support and high levels of social capital are easier to build in a community when the population is not transient; thus, we also expect that child development may be affected by the extent to which the population is stable.
Finally, children's development is more likely to flourish if families have access to educational, cultural and recreational resources. These are important not only because they contribute directly to children's development, but also because they foster social support and increase social capital within the community.
As we have seen in the previous two sections, the children in Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) generally scored as well as children in the EDI-16 sample on the five outcome domains, and generally approached national standards of performance on the NLSCY outcomes measures.
This is at odds with what one might expect, given the range of socio-economic conditions in which they are living. Many of the children live in less affluent families than other Canadian children, and on average their parents have lower levels of education, and less regular, full-time employment. The percentage of children living in single-parent homes is higher than the Canadian average. Therefore, factors other than those associated with their immediate socio-economic status must also be at play.
The strategy was to combine a large number of family and community variables into ten indicators that are essential for successful child development. These indicators had to meet two criteria:
- There had to be evidence that the indicators were related to children's developmental outcomes, either from previous literature or through analyses of the UEY and NLSCY data.
- They had to be amenable to change through the efforts and actions of families and communities, through the support of community and volunteer agencies, and through social policy at the local, provincial and national levels.
In this section, the ten indicators are described; the results of the analyses with the UEY data are presented, which give some indication of the relative importance of these factors; and the scores on these indicators for the Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) community are shown.
A. Ten Indicators of family and community success
Each of the indicators is presented from 0 to 10, with 10 being the highest positive score.
1) Positive Parenting
This indicator was based on research that has shown that children have better developmental outcomes when their parents monitor their behaviour, are responsive to their needs, and encourage independence with a democratic approach.
This "style" of parenting, called "authoritative" parenting, stands in contrast to "authoritarian" parenting, characterised by parents being highly controlling and somewhat harsh in their approach to discipline, and "permissive" parenting, characterised by parents being overly-indulgent and setting few limits for behaviour10.
The scale includes items assessing the extent of positive interactions - how often the parents praise the child, how often they talk and play with them, and how often they laugh together. It includes items pertaining to whether parents are consistent and rational in their approach.
For example, parents were asked about situations when their child was misbehaving: were they likely to raise their voice, scold or yell at their child, calmly discuss the problem, or discuss alternate ways of behaving? Did they often have to punish their child repeatedly for the same behaviour? Did their punishment depend on the mood they were in?
2) Parental Engagement
This indicator measures the extent to which parents are engaged with their child in learning activities. It includes information on whether and how often parents tell stories to their children, teach them letters and numbers, teach them how to read, and encourage them to use numbers in their day-to-day activities. It also measures whether and how frequently children look at books and magazines, discuss them with their families and friends, and write or pretend to write with markers or pencils11.
3) Family Functioning
The concept of family functioning refers mainly to the cohesiveness and adaptability of the family. It concerns how well the family functions as a unit, more so than the relationships between spouses or between parents and their children. A number of studies have shown that family functioning is related to children's developmental outcomes, especially children's behaviour.
In this study, it is assessed with twelve items pertaining to a family's ability to communicate, make decisions and solve problems as a group, discuss feelings and concerns, get along together, and feel accepted for who they are.
4) Maternal Mental Health
The well-being of parents affects their parenting style and ability to respond to and engage their children in various learning activities 12. Mothers' well-being has a stronger effect on children's outcomes than fathers' well-being.
This indicator was based on twelve items that are commonly used to measure depression. For example, it includes questions about whether the person regularly experiences feelings of depression and loneliness, crying spells, low energy levels, an inability to concentrate and sleep, and a sense of being disliked by others. The scores were coded such that high scores indicate positive mental health; that is, the absence of depressed feelings.
5) Social Support
The level of social support available to parents affects their well-being, and indirectly affects their ability to function as parents and as role models within their family and community.
This indicator measures the level of support available to the respondent, and describes how much support that person receives from a community of friends and family members.
To determine this, respondents were asked whether they could get help in various situations, including emergencies; whether they were able to confide in and seek advice from others; whether they felt close to another person; and whether they felt they were a member of a group of people whose attitudes and beliefs they share.
6) Social Capital
A separate but related indicator, social capital is a measure of the level of support available collectively to groups within a community. Thus, it comprises information about the ability of neighbours to work together to solve problems, help each other, watch out for one another's children, and provide children with role models outside their immediate families.
7) Neighbourhood Quality
This indicator gauges the parents' perception of their neighbourhood as a place to raise children. It measures features such as cleanliness, safety, quality of schools and nursery schools, adequacy of facilities for children (such as pools and playgrounds), health facilities, and the level of involvement of residents. It also asks people to rate their present neighbourhood in comparison with the one they had lived in previously.
8) Neighbourhood Safety
This indicator assesses the level of the parents' concern for children's safety in their neighbourhood. For example, parents were asked about the safety of parks and other play-spaces, crime rates, problems with older children in the neighbourhood, and whether they worried about children playing outside during the day.
9) Use of Resources
This indicator measures the use of recreational facilities, including parks, trails, play-spaces, skating rinks, pools, camping areas, skiing facilities, amusement parks, and community centres; educational services, such as libraries, science centres, family resource centres, and drop-in programs; and cultural resources, such as art museums, plays, musical performances, sports events and movies.
10) Residential Stability
This factor was derived from a factor analysis of four variables measured as part of the 1996 Canadian census that assessed the degree of transience of the local population. These included the proportion of people who had moved in the past five years or the past year, as well as the percentages of single parents and elderly people in the neighbourhood. It was scaled in positive terms, such that a high score indicates greater stability. The average score for all enumeration areas in Canada is 5 on the 10-point scale.
B. The relationship between neighbourhood factors and children's outcomes
In the third section, we used statistical tools to estimate the relationships between family background factors and children's readiness to learn in three developmental domains: the cognitive domain, the behavioural domain, and physical health and well-being.
In this section, we extend that analysis to include the ten family and neighbourhood factors described previously. This is a fairly conservative test of the effects of these factors, as the analysis is essentially asking, "What are the effects of these factors, after taking account of children's family backgrounds?"
As in Section III, the results are presented as odds-ratios (see the Inset in Section III). For the ten scales describing family processes and neighbourhood factors, these provide an estimate of the effect associated with a one point increase on the respective scale. The results, which are based on the combined data from the first five UEY communities, are presented in Table 4.113.
| Five UEY Communities Children's Outcomes | |||
| Cognitive | Behavioural | Physical Health and Well-being | |
| Family Background | |||
| Family Income ($10,000 units) | 1.14 | 1.08 | 1.02 |
| Mother's Education (years) | 1.07 | 0.99 | 1.07 |
| Father's Education (years) | 1.04 | 1.00 | 1.13 |
| Mother Not Working Outside Home | 0.97 | 1.24 | 1.13 |
| Father Not Working Outside Home | 1.18 | 1.38 | 1.17 |
| Single-Parent Family | 1.01 | 1.00 | 0.70 |
| Number of Brother and Sisters | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.84 |
| Family Processes | |||
| Positive Parenting Practices | 1.07 | 2.31 | 1.37 |
| Engagement in Learning Activities | 1.10 | 1.01 | 1.08 |
| Family Functioning | 0.98 | 1.05 | 0.86 |
| Maternal Mental Health | 0.98 | 1.12 | 0.99 |
| Community Factors | |||
| Social Support | 1.02 | 0.87 | 1.07 |
| Neighbourhood Quality | 1.03 | 1.01 | 1.00 |
| Safe neighbourhood | 1.02 | 1.12 | 0.93 |
| Social Capital | 1.01 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
| Use of Resources | 1.11 | 1.04 | 1.10 |
| Residential Stability | 1.06 | 1.02 | 1.13 |
| NLSCY in relation to 3 EDI domains for the first 5 UEY communities. Note: Figures in bold text are statistically significant at p < .10. |
|||
Of the ten factors, three have statistically significant relationships with the cognitive domain: engagement in learning activities, use of community resources, and residential stability.
The engagement in learning results suggest that a child in a family with a rating of 6.0 on the 10-point scale would be 10% more likely to be ready to learn in the cognitive domain than a child living in a family with a rating of 5.0 (or a family rated 5.0 instead of 4.0, etc.). This means that parents who spend time reading to their children, and teaching them numbers and letters, have children with better cognitive scores.
An increase of one point in "use of community resources" was associated with an 11% increase in cognitive scores. In other words, families that make use of various recreation, educational, and leisure facilities, such as pools, play-spaces, libraries, drop-in programs, art museums, and movies, have children with better cognitive scores.
Similarly, an increase of one point in residential stability was associated with a 6% increase in scores, which indicates that families with fewer moves have children with higher cognitive scores.
For the behavioural domain, positive parenting was by far the most important factor. A one point increase on the positive parenting scale was associated with a dramatic increase in good behavioural outcomes of 131%. This means that parents who monitor children's behaviour, are responsive to their needs, and encourage independence, are much more likely to have children without behaviour problems.
Two other factors had statistically significant and positive effects: the mental health of the mother and living in a safe neighbourhood. Each of these factors was associated with a 12% increase in the likelihood of a child being ready to learn in the behavioural domain. This means that a mother with good mental health and families who lived in safe neighbourhoods had children with fewer behavioural problems.
Social support had effects contrary to expectations. This may have arisen because parents whose children have behavioural problems may be more aware of the social support available to them, and therefore reported higher levels of support.
Residential stability also had a positive effect, meaning that children living in stable neighbourhoods were more likely to have positive health outcomes. The effects of family functioning were anomalous in this case, suggesting that families who have a child with health problems are more likely to be cohesive and adaptable.
Finally, for physical health and well-being, positive parenting again emerged as the most important factor. The analysis indicates that a one-point increase in the positive parenting scale is associated with a 37% increase in the likelihood of a child being ready to learn in this domain.
C. Community indicator scores for Winnipeg (School Division No. 1)
Figure 4.1 displays Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) scores for each of the ten indicators described in this section. The figures in parentheses indicate the average scores for the five UEY communities.
The scores for Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) were equal to or lower than the average for all ten indicators.
Scores for positive parenting and use of resources were equal to the UEY averages. Indicators of family functioning, maternal mental health, and social support were only slightly lower than average (-.1 or -.2).
Indicators of parental engagement (-.3), neighbourhood quality (-.4), neighbourhood safety (-1.1), and residential stability (-.7) were substantially lower than the UEY average.
These indicators help to explain why the children of the Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) community scored relatively low on some of the outcomes measured.
Parenting skills are of critical importance during the early years, and while this community scored high on positive parenting, it scored somewhat lower on parental engagement.
Also, given the lower scores on community factors that support parents' ability to parent, such as social support and social capital, it is not surprising to find a somewhat lower score on parental engagement.
The following maps illustrate the distribution and location of preventive health services, community-centred resources, parent- and family-centred resources, and child centred resources.
The lower scores on neighbourhood quality and safety indicate that parents' concern for their children's welfare may prevent children from engaging in neighbourhood activities that would normally contribute to their cognitive, behavioural, and physical health.
As described, there are ten indicators of family and community success. Each indicator scale has a range from 0 to 10, with 10 being a positive score. A total score out of 100 can be calculated for each community. The total score out of 100 for Winnipeg (School Division No.1) is 63.4, which is 3.5 points below the average of 66.9 for the five UEY communities.
Because of the low average scores in all five UEY communities on the use of resources, this variable was further explored in each community to determine whether the problem stems mainly from a lack of availability of the resources. For each of the three types of resources, parents were asked, "Are most of these resources located within walking distance or within a short drive or bus ride?" The results for Winnipeg (School Division No. 1), presented in Figure 4.6, indicate that availability is an issue for educational resources but not for cultural or recreational resources.
The NLSCY data also covered daycare. Early childhood programs, such as those offered at daycare, can increase a child's readiness for learning, thereby enhancing his or her lifelong academic and personal development.
But for these programs to be effective, they need to be developmentally appropriate and responsive to the experiences, backgrounds and needs of the children.14 Research suggests that, regardless of a child's socio-economic status, four types of resources contribute to optimal child development: childcare centres, pre-schools, nursery schools, and kindergartens.
Moreover, research based on the first cycle of the NLSCY suggests that receiving daycare, either licensed or unlicensed, has positive effects on the language skills of children from low-income families. However, children from relatively affluent families tend to fare equally well across various types of care arrangements15.
In 1996-97, according to NLSCY, about one-half (48.4%) of the population of 5- and 6-year-old children in Canada received care for at least part of the day by someone other than their parents. In contrast, 41.1% of the children in Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) received care by someone other than their parent.
Figure 4.7 displays the percentage of children in differing types of care arrangements for the Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) community, compared with the figures for Canada for 1996-97, derived from NLSCY.
The children in this community were twice as likely to receive daycare, compared with children living elsewhere in Canada, and were slightly more likely to receive care by a relative, either inside or outside the home. Only 7.2% of the children in this community were cared for at home by a non-relative, whereas this is the most popular type of care arrangement in Canada.
Winnipeg (School Division No. 1), early childcare with enhanced developmental programming may benefit children from low-income areas.
To summarise, the members of the Winnipeg (School Division No. 1) community have a number of strengths. On average, parents tend to have strong parenting skills, and families are functioning fairly well under what appear to be difficult circumstances. The community has a fairly high use of cultural and recreational resources.
However, it is a relatively transient community and thus has low social cohesion, which is reflected by its relatively low scores on social capital and other neighbourhood indicators.
8 McCain, M.N., & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study Final Report. Publications Ontario.
9 Willms, J. D. (in press). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. University of Alberta Press.
10 Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal of Early Adolescence, II(1), 56-95.
11 McCain, M.N., & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study Final Report. Publications Ontario.
12 Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., & Britto, P.R. (1999). Are Socio-economic Gradients for Children Similar to Those for Adults? Achievement and Health of Children in the United States. In D.P. Keating's & C. Hertzman's (Eds.) Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations. The Guilford Press. New York.
13 The co-efficients in Table 4.1 are slightly lower than in table 3.1 because community factors are correlated with family background. For example, a family with a higher income generally lives in a relatively safer neighbourhood with a higher neighbourhood quality.
14 Doherty, G. (1997). (Zero to six: the base for school readiness.) Hull, Quebec: Human Resources Development Canada, Strategic Policy, Applied Research Branch Research paper R-97-8E.
15 Kohen, D., Hertzman, C., & Willms, J. D. (in press). The importance of quality child care. In J. D. Willms (Ed.), Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. University of Alberta Press.
| Previous | Contents | Next |