Understanding the Early Years - Community Impacts on Child Development - August 1999

3. Issues for Studying Community Impacts on Child Development

The relevant issues involved in studying the impact of community and neighbourhood characteristics on child development from the perspective of the Applied Research Branch (ARB) of Human Resources Development Canada are examined in this chapter. It outlines the main process and content issues to be considered for data collection in order to understand the role of the community in child development.

3.1 Objective

The objective is to obtain rich data, empirical evidence and policy relevant information for the development of public policies and for providing communities with tools to develop and refine local strategies and interventions to ensure that resources are being effectively used to provide children with optimal chances for healthy development and readiness for learning.

3.2 Past Research

Though the effects of community and neighbourhood factors have been postulated for some time, empirical research on the subject is scarce. Studies that have examined community influences have been highly specific, limited in scope, and focused mainly on older children and adults. Very little research has been on younger children, perhaps because researchers feel that children's interactions with their broader communities are limited when they are young. Furthermore, despite the general acceptance of the premise of the Neighbourhood Resource theory in the community literature, few studies have examined the impact of resource availability, accessibility, and use. The intention of ARB is to build on past work as much as possible, and to coin empirical knowledge with respect to community impacts on child development by breaking new ground in data collection and research.

One of the major drawbacks of past research is that most of it has been small in scale and relied on aggregate, census measures of community such as income, and occupational and educational attainments of residents in a given geographical area. Many were proxy variables since no data was available on the actual variables (e.g., the ratio of children to adults as a measure of communal supervision or collective socialization).

Although such studies have been able to isolate the important neighbourhood socio-economic influences, they did not take into account the complexity of interactions between children and their neighbourhoods, or social factors (e.g., cohesion, safety) which theories suggest to be key factors associated with child outcomes. Furthermore, because the child's interaction with his/her community is dynamic, with each influencing and being influenced by the other, more complex measures were needed.

3.3 Theoretical Perspectives

Many competing theories currently exist in the literature, suggesting sometimes conflicting mechanisms of influence. Very little empirical evidence, however, exists to test their relative merits. This discussion will focus on five of the most prominent and relevant to our research: Social Contagion, Collective Socialization, Neighbourhood Resources, Competition, and Relative Deprivation. Based on the theories and existing research results, the research framework (see chapter 4) views the community as a physical environment, a social environment, a resource, a collectivity, and as a group working for a common good. Because empirical information about the proposed theories is scarce, our goal will be to attempt to test these theories to determine if, and if so how, communities exert their impacts on child development.

The theories of Social Contagion and Collective Socialization, also known as Epidemic models, focus on the roles of imitation, modelling, and social learning on development. The former (Contagion) focuses on the influences of children's neighbourhood peers, while the latter (Socialization), emphasizes the impact of adult role models and informally shared parenting functions by residents in the community in shaping children's behaviours. The Epidemic models fit mostly under the frame of the community as a social environment, where negative social environments may deprive children of positive social supports and expose them to anti-social behaviours while positive environments should have the opposite effect. Modelling of good behaviour by others, for instance, (e.g., graduating from university) should increase the graduation rates of children within the neighbourhood, as they should place more value on education and strive to advance academically. Conversely, negative behaviour (criminal activity, poor school attendance) should increase deviant behaviours. Adults serve a dual role as they are also able to exert social controls by monitoring the behaviour of neighbourhood children and dealing with potential trouble. If neighbourhoods have the additional benefit of functioning with high levels of cohesion with similar values and shared goals among residents, further positive modelling and potential for healthy social learning will be available for their children.

The theory of Relative Deprivation is also related to the larger social environment in which a family lives. Relative Deprivation focuses on the negative impacts that certain neighbourhood structures (particularly being surrounded by affluent educated neighbours) can have on children. Under the tenets of this model, individuals appraise their situation relative to others in their communities, and subsequently adjust their behaviours accordingly. In these cases, being surrounded by highly affluent neighbours would lead both children and adults of lower economic means to appraise their situations as worse than their neighbours, which could translate into lower achievement, both academically and otherwise.

The Neighbourhood Resource Theory views the community as a resource and investigates the links between the quality and quantity of services available to residents such as police, parks, recreation, and health and the development of children. It implies that increased availability of services will lead to enrichment of experiences, more opportunities for development and fewer chances for problems. Social relationships developed among community members (social capital) are also important resources for fostering development. When resources are scarce, the theory of Competition also applies. In such cases, families may have to compete for resources and the effects of winning or losing these competitions can have important effects on development, as some children may go without valuable or even essential resources.

Furthermore some theories assume a limited geographical area and a high population density. Rural areas have lower population density and may not have as many resources available for their residents, and as a result families experience lower levels of service utilization. This could result in fewer opportunities for social interaction as well as service utilization, and in turn negative impacts on child development. On the other hand these children may have a better physical environment and perhaps closer relationships, which could provide positive impacts, according to other theories.

When communities are characterized in terms of their physical characteristics and infrastructure, the theory of Relative Deprivation and Neighbourhood Resource availability are most often discussed. Children in neighbourhoods with rich resources and diverse services may benefit positively, while those that live in less endowed neighbourhoods may be at a disadvantage. This disadvantage may have a heightened impact, if comparisons can be made, when deprivation can have a double effect, first from the actual deprivation and second due to lowered expectations and unachieved potential.

3.4 Main Issues for Measurement

3.4.1 Defining communities

The terms neighbourhood and community are seen as equivalents, measured either as a social construct or a geographical entity. Most studies have used geographic boundaries for communities, classifying them according to the residents who live within a certain electoral area or postal code range. Though this method is commonly employed in research, it implies that residents of certain geographical spaces share a sense of community and common use of resources that exist within that given geographical space. In not all cases, however, is this true, as many families may travel to different communities in order to obtain certain programs or services. Therefore, depending on the characteristics of surrounding neighbourhoods (e.g., SES, resource availability, and mobility of residents) benefits may be obtained from contiguous communities. Furthermore, a geographical definition may also outline a community that is much larger than the child's frame of interaction.

The sociological definition of a neighbourhood, defines communities more in terms of sense of community and group of interest that is geographically anchored. This definition is based more on proximity and face to face interaction among residents and relies on members of communities to set their own boundaries for their sense of neighbourhood. This definition, (though perhaps more accurate in determining how residents function in their neighbourhoods) presents many difficulties for measurement. In particular it becomes difficult to set standard boundaries of each community as social boundaries would likely change between communities and families. It also raises the question of whether the most accurate way to measure community impacts would be to look only at individual's social networks or the broader social communities in which they live.

3.4.2 Measuring child outcomes

Measures for children are often unstable, as rapid changes are common in early years. Proxies are commonly employed for studies of young children but their accuracy is often questionable. Furthermore, because younger children's interactions within their communities often occur indirectly, parents are most often the primary respondents for data collection on such interactions.

3.4.3 Measuring community variables

Research experience isolating variables of community influence is limited. The literature identifies some issues of measurement, and to some extent questions for data collection can be drawn from previous surveys. However, because much of the past work on community impacts has focused on older children, some of the questions do not directly apply to the preschool population but would be invaluable as children age into adolescence. Data collection on resource use within communities would necessitate community specific information on services, programs, and community concerns, as they would necessarily change from one area to another. This also requires additional data manipulation before analysis.

3.4.4 Presence and use of resources

There are three important aspects to consider when measuring community resources (their availability, use, and barriers to access) and confusion among these factors can lead to measurement difficulties (barriers discussed in subsequent section). The mere presence of adequate high quality resources within a community is not enough to judge their impacts on child development. Although resource availability has an effect on children's outcomes, if resources are not used, or are used infrequently they will be of little value. The empirical measurement of the relationship between the child's use of available resources and their outcomes, is one of the main goals of this project. Little research regarding the use and frequency of use of community services and resources has been undertaken in the past. A related measurement issue is that the accuracy of response is limited by the parent's knowledge of available resources and accurate recall of past resource use. Having an accurate listing of available resources in each of the communities studied (from which parents could indicate whether or not a resource had been used) could increase reliability of results. For policy and program decisions, it will be important to differentiate between services that are essential and those that have little impact on child development.

Confusion again arises when considering families who make use of resources from adjacent neighbourhoods. For example, if residents are only questioned on their use of resources within certain geographical boundaries, the results do not provide a true picture of resource use. Parents may, for a variety of reasons (e.g., cost, availability, and program content) choose to make use of resources in other communities and this could greatly benefit their children's development. It would be valuable to know how densely services need to be distributed and how complimentary services may be cost effectively spread over larger geographic areas.

3.4.5 Social, economic, and physical barriers to use of services

In studying resource use it is also crucial to examine barriers to access, which often prevent families from taking full advantage of community services. Barriers may be social or cultural (language differences), physical (transportation problems), or economic (user fees). Reasons for low rates of resource use can vary and it is important to differentiate between lack of use because a family was unaware that a service existed or because they made a conscious choice not to participate and non-use because of barriers to accessibility. Information on low rates of community participation and resource use because of financial, time, or other barriers within the family are useful for community service planning.

3.4.6 Selection bias

Selection bias (the process by which families seek out certain neighbourhoods in which to raise their children) is a concern when studying community effects. However, few studies have been able to control for the processes that interact and influence individuals to choose environments in which to raise their children. It has been suggested that, if given the choice, residents prefer neighbours who are similar to themselves and living conditions that they find desirable. However, if options are limited, it may not leave families with a great deal of control over their living environment. Concentrations of poor individuals in poor neighbourhoods may, therefore, result in concentrating poor outcomes as well. However, broader factors such as proximity to work or schools, safety, areas full of parks and play spaces, and away from busy roadways are other possible reasons that certain neighbourhoods may be selected. Therefore, without clear understanding of why one neighbourhood was selected over another, and the implications of having the ability to choose a particular neighbourhood, results have the potential for bias. Results may be more accurate if information were available on whether the present neighbourhood is an improvement over a previous neighbourhood; but complete avoidance of selection bias may not be possible.

3.4.7 Separating contextual factors from community factors

Children and their families are a part of a larger community and it has often been difficult for researchers to separate the effects of community variables from individual or family characteristics. This introduces the question of whether, given specific individual and family characteristics, children will develop in the same manner regardless of the communities in which they are raised. The issue is to separate and value the effects of the characteristics of the child, his/her family, and the larger community on child development. Furthermore, it is important to know which effects are strong at each stage of development, since the relationship of the child to herself/himself, his/her family and the community changes over time. This requires sufficient longitudinal data on each of these factors.

3.4.8 The dynamic relationship between community and child

Children are regularly interacting with their larger communities and depending on the community's characteristics can either draw benefits or increase risk of problems as a result. However, these relationships are dynamic, with communities influencing children's development, while the child's individual characteristics (e.g., physical, emotional, social, and cognitive) are simultaneously impacting on and even changing their communities. This reciprocal relationship makes measuring community impacts even more difficult. Although through regression analysis it is possible to determine that a relationship between community and child exists, it remains difficult to determine its direction. That is, (stated in an overly simplified manner) did the community affect the child or did the child affect the community? While this issue is recognized, data and analysis solutions are not evident. Analysis on how community service provision has changed in relation to the proportion of child residents is one way to identify the presence of such a dynamic relationship.

3.4.9 The changing relationships of communities as children grow

Community effects are filtered through residents' perceptions of themselves and their place within the communities. Children's perceptions of their surroundings and their use of resources (e.g., play groups) likely differ from those of their parents. However, it is likely that many of effects of the community on children of young ages work indirectly through their through their parents or other adults within the community, indicating that the differences in perceptions may not be extremely important for children of young ages. Still, parents' perceptions of their communities and their use of resources may change depending on the number of other children they have and as their children grow. When children are young, parenting resources, playgroups, and other parents with small children are often drawn on for support. However as children age, their activities become more independent and in many cases require less parental involvement (e.g., sports, arts, and community programs such as Guides or Scouts). The child's social networks also widen, and it is likely that the community begins to exert a more direct effect. These changes may have important implications for understanding the processes through which communities impact child development and if and how they change as children grow.

3.4.10 Direct and indirect effects

Communities may impact on children either directly or indirectly, depending on whether the interaction is with the child, the child's parent, or even another adult in the community. This must be reflected in the research framework. Community factors most likely to affect children directly would include having good role models, safe and clean play spaces, and other community resources such as toy libraries, gym jams, and sporting activities. Communities can have their indirect influence on parents through their provision of information on parenting and child development through resource or drop-in centres and parenting classes. Data should permit research to identify whether the manner in which the community has its influence (direct vs. indirect) is an important determinant of the types of child outcomes that are achieved, and whether these influences vary with the child's characteristics?

3.4.11 Changes associated with age

As noted above, children's perspectives change as they age - their interests change, their social ties expand, and they travel more and use increasing areas of their communities. As a result, it is likely that the factors influencing development change as children grow older and they are exposed to different aspects of and resources in their communities. Data should allow analysis that can describe the critical ages at which certain types of community factors have more or less of an effect.

3.4.12 Past and present community impacts

Moving is not an uncommon transition for many children, with some children having relocated several times in their lives. Past research has indicated that frequent moving can cause problems for children as it can hinder their abilities to form attachments to both people and institutions within their communities. Even moves within a child's community could be disruptive. Frequent relocation to new communities can lead to a decreased sense of community and cohesion among residents, which can increase risk for poor child outcomes. To fully analyze the impact of residential moves, not only should data be collected on the move (or history of moves) but also on the communities in which the child has lived.

If the child has experienced a move, the effects of the current community of residence must be separated from the characteristics of previous places of residence, in order to understand how the characteristics of the old and new neighbourhoods have their effects. That is, are the effects of the current community of residence mediated by the characteristics of the child's former neighbourhoods? Is it the case that positive moves (such as when the child moves into a safer or more cohesive neighbourhood) may have different developmental impacts than relocations to poorer neighbourhoods (e.g., those with fewer resources, lower SES)? And, if so, what is the impact of living in several different neighbourhoods, each with its own mix of characteristics that can hinder or enhance development? It is also important to understand whether these impacts have critical points in the child's developmental trajectory at which time they have the greatest effect, and if these effects endure. The issue is to cost-effectively collect sufficient data to answer questions such as these. To avoid response burden and problems with recall, essential questions may be limited to the previous and present neighbourhoods.

3.4.13 Risk and protective factors

Though the child's environment has an effect on his/her development, the ways these effects influence behaviour are not well understood. While some community models focus on the risks associated with living in poorer neighbourhoods, others focus on the protective factors that good neighbourhoods can contribute. While protective factors can protect a child by reducing the effect of certain risk factors, they do not always prevent negative outcomes. At issue is whether positive community variables can serve as protective factors when the child is exposed to personal and family risk factors. Are some outcomes more susceptible to community influences under conditions of risk? If sufficient data are available on the outcomes of the children in the neighbourhood and if community data are available in adequate detail, analyses to explain the variations in outcomes and the role of communities should be possible.

Contents