Understanding the Early Years - Early Childhood Development in the Montreal study area (Quebec) - November 2003

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.⁸

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. Also, 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 on vulnerable children, based on data from the first cycle of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth,⁹ considered the influence of both family processes and community factors on childhood outcomes. It found that the most important family processes included 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.¹⁰

Parents' ability to provide a supportive environment can be either helped or hindered by the neighbourhood and wider community.¹¹ The quality and safety of the neighbourhood is important, but social factors also play a role.

Therefore, 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.

We saw in section II of this report that children in the Montreal area scored high on some aspects of development and low on others. Their average scores were higher than the EDI-16 sample for three of the five EDI measures. Their scores approached or exceeded national standards of performance on some NLSCY outcome measures. However, the number of measures on which they scored lower counterbalances these positive results.

In comparison with provincial and national conditions, children in the Montreal study area live in relatively poor socio-economic conditions. There is a relatively high prevalence of low-income families, mothers who have not completed high school, father and mothers who do not work outside of the home, and single-parent families. Given the significant impact of these factors on children's outcomes, it is not surprising that they scored relatively low on certain cognitive development and behavioural measures. However, the children did well on some other development measures, such as the Who Am I? test and Positive Behaviour Scale. Several children in disadvantaged EAs did better than expected despite their socio-economic reality. Factors other than those associated with their immediate socio-economic status may also be at play.

The strategy used in the next analysis 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 Montreal study area 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.¹²

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, characterized by parents being highly controlling and somewhat harsh in their approach to discipline, and ''permissive'' parenting, characterized by parents being overly-indulgent and setting few limits for behaviour.¹³

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 pencils.¹⁴

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 in the NLSCY 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.¹⁵ Mothers' well-being has a stronger effect on children's outcomes than fathers' well-being.

This indicator was based on twelve items in the NLSCY 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, parents 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 Section III, a statistical technique called logistic regression was used to estimate the relationships between family background factors and whether a child had ''a good start in life''. Operationally, this meant that a child was not at risk of achieving his or her full potential because of problems in one of the three developmental domains.

In this section, that analysis is extended 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 seven UEY communities, are presented in Table 4.1.¹⁶

Table 4.1 - The relationship between children's outcomes and family background, family processes, and community factors

	Children's Outcomes
	Cognitive	Behavioural	Physical Health & Well-being
Family Background
Family Income ($10,000 units)	1.02	1.00	1.08
Mother's Education (years)	1.08	1.02	1.09
Father's Education (years)	1.08	1.03	1.06
Mother Not Working Outside the Home	0.74	0.97	0.68
Father Not Working Outside the Home	0.58	0.68	0.45
Single-Parent Family	0.72	0.75	0.59
Number of Brothers and Sisters	0.94	0.96	0.92
Family Processes
Positive Parenting Practices	1.05	2.08	1.16
Engagement in Learning Activities	1.01	0.98	1.05
Family Functioning	1.02	1.05	0.99
Maternal Mental Health	1.04	1.24	1.08
Community Factors
Social Support	1.14	0.94	0.93
Neighbourhood Quality	1.00	1.00	1.06
Safe Neighbourhood	1.06	1.03	1.02
Social Capital	0.97	1.08	1.01
Use of Resources	1.18	0.98	1.02
Residential Stability	1.01	1.02	0.88
Note: Figures in blue text are statistically significant at p<.10. Results are based on the relationship of NLSCY family background variables with three developmental outcomes for the 7 UEY 2001/02 communities.

Of the ten family and community factors, two have statistically significant relationships with the cognitive domain: social support and use of community resources. The results for social support suggest that a child in a family with a rating of 6.0 on the 10-point scale would be 14% less likely to be at risk 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.).

An increase of one point in "use of community resources" was associated with an 18% 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.

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 108% increased likelihood in good behavioural outcomes. This means that parents who monitor children's behaviour, are responsive to their needs, and encourage independence, are much more likely (more than twice as likely) to have children without behaviour problems.

Two other factors had statistically significant and positive effects: the mental health of the mother and social capital. An increase of one point on the ten-point scale for maternal mental health was associated with a 24% increased likelihood of a child not being at risk due to problems in the behavioural domain. Living in a neighbourhood with a high level of social capital was associated with an increase of 8% in the odds of a positive outcome in the behavioural domain.

Social support had effects contrary to expectations. This situation 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.

Finally, for physical health and well-being, none of the family or community factors were statistically significant protective factors. Residential stability had effects that were contrary to expectations, suggesting that children living in neighbourhoods with a higher percentage of transient families were less likely to have health problems. One should note that the model controls for whether the child was living in a single-parent family, which may have captured some of the negative effect normally associated with transient families.

C. Community indicator scores for the Montreal UEY site

Figure 4.1 displays the Montreal study area scores for each of the ten indicators described in this section. The figures in parentheses indicate the average scores for the seven 2001-02 UEY communities.

The Montreal study area had lower scores than the UEY averages for 8 of the 10 indicators. Parents tended to give their neighbourhoods low ratings on the community characteristics measured. The Montreal study area's scores were lower than UEY norms for parental engagement in learning activities (-1.7), maternal mental health (-0.1), social support (-0.4), neighbourhood quality (-0.5) and use of resources (-0.6). The scores were lower than UEY averages for neighbourhood safety (-0.3) and social capital (-0.9) in this study area, which has a relatively high number of low SES neighbourhoods and where residential stability is low (-0.9). Analyses show that social support and use of resources are important protective factors for cognitive development. This could partially explain the lower scores of children in the Montreal area on the cognitive development measures.

The only indicator on which this area scored higher than the UEY norm was family functioning (+0.1), although the difference is not significant. The score for positive parenting was the same as that for the study area taken together (7.3).

The rather low scores on two of the indicators require a closer look: parental engagement in learning activities and residential stability, which in turn can have an impact on social support and use of resources. It is difficult to explain the low level of parental engagement, since a relatively high percentage of parents do not work outside the home. The low scores on these two indicators (parental engagement and residential stability) are part of the explanation for the low scores on some of the behavioural and cognitive measures. The low scores of these young children were limited to certain aspects of development while they obtained high scores on other measures.

It is encouraging to note that the scores for positive parenting and maternal mental health were near the UEY averages. These two indicators are important determinants in how the young child will develop, especially in regards to behaviour in early childhood (see Table 4.1). Some studies show that they are also important in determining success in primary and secondary school.¹⁷

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 the Montreal study area was 61.8, which is 5.4 points less than the average of 67.2 for the seven 2001-02 UEY communities.

Because of the relatively low average scores in all seven 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 the Montreal UEY site, presented in Figure 4.2, indicate that children in this community have greater access to the three types of resources, especially educational and cultural resources.

The NLSCY data also covered daycare. Early childhood programs, such as those offered at daycare, can increase a child's potential to learn, 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.¹⁸ 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 arrangements.¹⁹

In 1996-97, according to NSLCY, nearly one half (43.4%) of the population of 5- and 6-year-old children in Canada received care for at least part of the day from someone other than their parents. In the Montreal study area, 10.9% of the children received care by someone other than their parents, which is considerably lower than the Canadian average of 43.4%. However, as mentioned above, the percentage of parents who do not work outside the home is quite high, which would help explain why they do not use daycare services as much.

Figure 4.3 displays the percentage of children in differing types of care arrangements for the Montreal sample, compared with the figures for Canada for 1996-97, derived from NLSCY. The type of care most popular in Canada-care outside the home by a non-relative-is the least used in the Montreal study area.

The Montreal UEY site has a number of community strengths: it scored quite high on the family functioning indicator and obtained a satisfactory score on positive parenting.

Although resources are not fully utilized by the members of the community, parents and children have much better access to educational, recreational and cultural resources compared to the other seven UEY communities. However, the Montreal UEY community is characterized by low scores for families and neighbourhoods. There is high residential mobility (common in low income neighbourhoods), which can cause a number of community problems (low level of social support and lack of neighbourhood safety, for example). It is hard to explain the low level of parent participation in their children's learning activities, since parents in the Montreal area spend more time with their children (a relatively high percentage do not work outside the home or use daycare services). Additional resources should be devoted to encouraging parents to get more involved in their children's learning activities and improving the general quality of neighbourhoods.

• ⁸Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• ⁹Willms, J. D. (2002). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.
• ¹⁰Kohen, D.; Hertzman, C.; & Willms, J. D. (2002). The importance of quality child care. In J. D. Willms (Ed.). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.
• ¹¹Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Aber, J. L. (Editors) (1997). Neighbourhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• ¹²This was achieved by rescaling the values for each of the Likert responses (e.g, strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) from 0, 1, 2, 3 to 0, 3.33, 6.67, 10.
• ¹³Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal of Early Adolescence, II(1), 56-95.
• ¹⁴McCain, M.N., & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study Final Report. Publications Ontario.
• ¹⁵Brooks-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.
• ¹⁶The odds ratios in Table 4.1 differ slightly from those 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.
• ¹⁷For reviews of recent literature and results pertaining to the first cycle of the NLSCY see Willms, J.D. (2002). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. University of Alberta Press: Chapter 8 (The effects of parenting practices on children's outcomes by Ruth Chao and J. Douglas Willms), Chapter 9 (Parenting and children's behaviour problems by Fiona Miller, Jenny Jenkins and Dan Keating), and Chapter 10 (Maternal depression and childhood vulnerability by Marie-Andrée Somers and J. Douglas Willms.
• ¹⁸Doherty, G. (1997). (Zero to six: the basis for school readiness.) Gatineau, Quebec: Human Resources Development Canada, Strategic Policy, Applied Research Branch Research paper R-97-8E.
• ¹⁹Kohen, D., Hertzman, C., & Willms, J. D. (2002). The importance of quality child care. In J. D. Willms (Ed.), Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. University of Alberta Press.