|
|
on
this page: |
|
The objectives of this study were to investigate the influence of poverty and maltreatment on the intellectual capability and the psychological development of 114 adolescents residing in a residential treatment facility. Additionally, various demographic/environmental variables (e.g. presence of parental substance abuse, single parent family, etc.) were evaluated. Neglect was found to result in greater cognitive impairment. Gender differences were observed; the experience of neglect was more debilitating for males than females. This study investigated the cognitive and academic functioning of a sample of impoverished adolescents residing in a residential treatment facility who experienced neglect, physical abuse, or a combination of the two. Child maltreatment is one of the strongest predictors of children's educational underachievement, the development of emotional disturbances and antisocial behaviors (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994; Hill, 1995). According to Birch and Gussow (1970), poverty produces educational failure, and since lack of education reduces opportunities for employment, it contributes to the perpetuation of poverty. Over the last twenty-five years nearly all studies of poverty have noted the correlation between poverty and abuse. Although child abuse is not caused by poverty, it seems to be intractably linked (DiLeonardi, 1993). Clinical studies of child abuse and neglect have shown that poor families are more likely than those with more economic resources to be identified and labeled as maltreating (Dores, 1993). Child poverty in the United States is alarmingly high. The poverty rate in the United States is higher than in any other industrialized country (Jones-Wilson, 1991). In 1992 approximately 22% of all children were poor (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). Furthermore, it has been projected that by the year 2000, the proportion of American children living in poverty will increase to one in three (Jones-Wilson, 1991). Poverty cuts across racial, ethnic, and family boundaries, but it is far more prevalent for African-Americans (44%) and Hispanic children (36%) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). In 1991, the poverty rate in female-headed, single-parent families was 55%, more than five times that of married-couple families. Each year, an estimated 10,000 children die from poverty's effects, and the infant mortality rate in this country is higher than 19 other nations (National Center for Children in Poverty, 1991). Coupled with the devastating problem of family poverty is its association with child maltreatment. Poverty has long been recognized as a core condition in child maltreatment (Garbarino, 1976; Pelton, 1978; Torczyner & Pare, 1979). Although child abuse and neglect occur across the socioeconomic spectrum, evidence shows that poor families are more likely than those with more economic resources to be identified and labeled as maltreating. Recent studies reconfirm the relationship between poverty and violence toward children (Gelles, 1992; Trickett, Aber, Carlson & Cicchetti, 1991). Results of two national surveys of family violence based on structured interviews with heads of households representing a sample of the U.S. population found that "violence toward children, especially severe violence, is more likely to occur in households with annual incomes below the poverty line" (Gelles, 1992, p263). In 1988 the rate of child maltreatment was 54 per 1,000 in families with incomes of less than $15,000 per year, compared with 8 per 1,000 in families with incomes of $15,000 and higher (National Center for Children in Poverty, 1990). Child neglect is the most common form of maltreatment of children in the United States. Approximately 65% of maltreatment reports are for neglect (American Humane Association, 1985), and more children die from neglect than from abuse (Brown, 1987). Despite these findings, most poor parents do not abuse or neglect their children. It is important to examine beyond the condition of family poverty to discover factors that result in maltreatment. Studies have linked a high percentage of single parents, mostly single mothers as perpetrators of child abuse and neglect (Sack, Mason, & Higgins, 1985; Wilson, Daily, & Weghorst, 1980). Polansky, Gaudin, and Kilpatrick (1992) focused their research on child neglect and found that neglect occurred disproportionately in poor female-headed households. Poverty, single parenthood and maltreatment also predict these children's antisocial behavior (McLeod, Kruttschnitt and Dornfeld, 1994). Poor and abused children have a high risk of externalizing problems such as conduct disorder and hyperactivity (Blum, Boyle & Offord, 1988; Capaldi & Patterson, 1991). Hinsaw (1992) concluded that aggressive behavior is associated with socioeconomic status. McLoyd (1990) argues that poverty may set a maladaptive developmental process in motion. Poor parents experience more stress than nonpoor parents, and this stress increases their risk of depression, anxiety and substance abuse (Bruce, Takeuchi & Leaf, 1991). Parental distress, in turn, diminishes parents' abilities to respond to their children's needs in a supportive way. Because punitive or unresponsive parenting is linked to behavioral and emotional problems among children (Loeber & Stouthhamer-Loeber, 1986), it may help explain why poor children are more antisocial than nonpoor children. top of section: Poverty and Maltreatment COGNITIVE AND ACADEMIC CONSEQUENCES OF MALTREATMENT Another frequently identified correlate of child abuse and neglect is low educational attainment of maltreating parents (Milner & Chilamkurti, 1991). Low educational attainment is associated with difficulties in abstract reasoning, problem solving, and flexibility in understanding and managing children's behavior, all of which are identified characteristics of maltreating parents (Hansen, Pallotta, Tishelman, Conaway, & Macmillan, 1989). Using the Hollingshead scale, a measure of socioeconomic status (SES) derived from family income, household head's educational attainment, and occupational type, Trickett and colleagues (1991) determined a relationship between SES and child abuse and neglect. They found that cognitive maturity correlated positively with SES. Studies using the Stanford-Binet, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests (Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984), the Wechsler Intelligent Scale For Children (WISC) & the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) (Sandgrund, Gaines & Green, 1974), and the Slosson Intelligence Test for Children (Barahal, Waterman & Martin, 1981) have found that, compared to the non-maltreated children, those who had suffered abuse and/or neglect scored significantly lower on these measures. Nightingale and Walker (1991) compared the WISC-R subtests of maltreated and non-maltreated 15 year olds. With one control group matched with the experimental group for age and another matched for both age and SES, they determined that the characteristics of low SES commonly found among abusive families and not specifically the experience of maltreatment accounts for the cognitive deficits presented by maltreated youngsters. Goldstein (1990) reviews several dozen studies of socioeconomic differentials in cognitive test scores in order to identify mechanisms through which these differentials arise. Of the 10 to 15 point differentials in IQ between children in the lowest tenth of the socioeconomic distribution compared to those above the median, approximately 2 points can be attributed to four specific health problems (low birth weight, lead absorption, anemia and ear problems), and up to an additional seven points to differences in the home environment. Duncan, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov (1994) address the need for a more careful and detailed treatment of income dynamics in studies of cognitive development. Using a sample of low birth weight and preterm infants born in one of eight medical centers in the U.S. and followed prospectively to age five, they estimated the effects on child development of persistent poverty (poor all years from birth through age four) and transitory poverty (poor in some but not all years). They found that children who were persistently poor have greater deficits in IQ (as measured by the WPPSI) and more behavior problems (measured by the Revised Behavior Profile) at age five than children who experienced transitory poverty, who in turn suffer IQ deficits and excess behavior problems relative to children who were never poor. These differences persist when other factors associated with poverty, such as family structure and maternal schooling, are taken into account. Although poverty is positively associated with maltreatment, a history of maltreatment has been found to impact on a child's development beyond the consequences attributed to poverty or living on welfare (Aber, Allen, Carlson & Cicchetti, 1989). Studies that have compared maltreated and non-maltreated subjects either from the same high-risk, low SES population (Erickson, Egeland & Pianta, 1989) or from homes that were not financially disadvantaged (Barahal, Waterman & Martin, 1981) found that the maltreated youngsters fared more poorly in terms of social-emotional and cognitive functioning. Factors other than those associated with abuse, that have been found to be related to the seriousness and frequency of child symptoms are: amount of home changes, the youngster's perception of impermanence in the current home, instability of home, punitive home environment, and emotional disturbance of parent(s) (Martin & Beezley, 1977). Further, it has been suggested that abusive forms of punishment and violence are twice as likely to occur in single-parent families than in dual-parent families (Gelles, 1989, Sack, Mason & Higgins, 1985). Moreover, abuse and violence toward children appears to be a function of poverty in mother-headed single-parent families, but with single fathers is not related to income level (Gelles, l989). The objectives of the present study were to investigate the influence of poverty and maltreatment on the intellectual capability and the psychological development of an adolescent population in a residential facility. Specifically, this study focused on whether poverty alone or in conjunction with maltreatment contributes to predicting the academic, behavioral and psychological development of these adolescents. Additionally, various demographic/environmental variables (e.g. presence of parental substance abuse, single-parent family, etc.) were evaluated. top of section: Cognitive and Academic Consequences of Maltreatment Participants The participants in the study were 114 adolescents (63 boys, 51 girls), ranging in age from 12 to 17 years old (M = 14.4) who have been treated at the Woodbridge Child Diagnostic Center in New Jersey since 1994. The facility is a short-term (3 to 9 months) residential facility that evaluates and treats adolescents that are placed there by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The adolescents have been taken out of the home as a result of reported family neglect and/or abuse, poverty, truancy, emotional disturbances or if there is a criminal charge pending. During their stay at the facility, they received a complete psychoeducational assessment, and a psychiatric and psychosocial evaluation. Procedure After written permission was obtained from the residential treatment facility administration and DYFS, the files of the participants were examined, and for the purposes of this study, the following information was extracted: IQ scores from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) and data from social histories from DYFS. A data sheet was constructed for each subject, and each data sheet was coded with a number to maintain confidentiality of the child's identity. The data sheet included: age, sex, ethnicity, type of maltreatment, WISC III test scores, and notes describing the environment the youngster experienced. From these notes, nine demographic variables of interest were extrapolated:
The following operational definitions of maltreatment, as defined by DYFS, were used:
top of section: Method Table 1 presents demographic information consisting of race, degree of parental contact, parental addiction and percentage of maltreatment, for all of the adolescents in the study. One surprising finding was the high incidence of mothers who were chemically addicted (51%) compared to fathers (30.7%). Sixty-two percent of the fathers had minimal contact with their child (less than a quarter of the child's life) compared to 11.4% of the mothers. |
| Table 1. Demographic Information | ||
| Average age | 14.4 years old | |
| Sex: | ||
| Male | 63 | |
| Female | 51 | |
| Race/Ethnicity: | ||
| African American | 61.4% | |
| Caucasian | 23.7% | |
| Hispanic | 12.3% | |
| Interracial | 2.6% | |
| Familial Variables: | ||
|
||
| Father | 62.3% | |
| Mother | 11.4% | |
|
||
| Father | 30.7% | |
| Mother | 51.8% | |
|
||
| Neglected | 21.9% | |
| Physically Abused | 22.8% | |
| Sexually Abused | 9.6% | |
| Combination 2 or more | 19.3% | |
| Table 2 presents information on psychological and behavioral factors. Almost half of the children in the study (48.2%) were diagnosed with a conduct disorder. Thirty-one percent of the children had experienced some suicidal symptoms in the past. For the entire sample, the mean WISC full scale score was 82.5 (SD = 13.0), the WISC performance scale score was 84.6 (SD = 14.5) and the WISC verbal scale score was 83.3 (SD = 13.0). |
| Table 2. Psychological/Behavioral Variables | ||
| Primary DSM Diagnosis | ||
| Conduct Disorder |
48.2%
|
|
| Adjustment Disorder |
20.2%
|
|
| Oppositional Defiant Disorder |
20.2%
|
|
| Major Depression |
3.5%
|
|
| School Problems | ||
| Truancy |
22.8%
|
|
| Agressive Behavior |
3.5%
|
|
| Both |
31.6%
|
|
| Drug Abuse |
36.8%
|
|
|
Legal Problems |
43.9%
|
|
| Suicidal | ||
| Attempts |
8.8%
|
|
| Gestures |
2.5%
|
|
| Ideations |
20.1%
|
|
| Cognitive Variables | ||
WISC Full Scale |
82.5
|
13.0
|
WISC Performance Scale |
84.6
|
14.5
|
Verbal Scale |
83.3
|
13.0
|
| Table 3 presents percentages of neglect, and abuse by parental addiction. The highest amount of neglect and physical abuse occurred when the father was addicted. It was of interest to determine whether having one or both parents addicted influenced the WISC scores. A 2 (gender) by 2 (if a parent was addicted or not) ANOVA was conducted for the three WISC scores and the results were nonsignificant. Table 4 presents the percentages of minimal contact by the father, mother's chemical addiction, school problems, percentage of conduct disorder, suicide attempts and WISC scores by parental maltreatment. Seventy-one percent of the neglected children had chemically addicted mothers. Eight-two percent of the children that experienced school problems and 55% of the children that had suicidal symptoms had been sexually abused. |
| Table 3. Abuse, Neglect and Cognitive Functioning by Parental Addiction | ||||
| Variable |
Neither
Parent
|
Mother
Addicted
|
Father
Addicted
|
Both
Parents
|
| Minimal Father Contact |
53%
|
64%
|
71%
|
67%
|
| Hx. Neglect |
7%
|
9%
|
43%
|
25%
|
| Hx. Physical Abuse |
20%
|
27%
|
29%
|
17%
|
| Hx. Sexual Abuse |
16%
|
9%
|
11%
|
13%
|
| Hx. of Combination |
11%
|
9%
|
27%
|
25%
|
| Diagnosis: | ||||
| Conduct Disorder |
39%
|
45%
|
43%
|
75%
|
| Drug Abuse |
41%
|
64%
|
23%
|
38%
|
| WISC F |
84
13.0
|
84
13.4
|
82
13.5
|
79
10.8
|
| WISC P |
85
14.1
|
86
12.4
|
86
14.5
|
80
10.8
|
| WISC V |
85
13.1
|
83
12.4
|
83
15.5
|
80
10.8
|
|
A
2 (gender) by 5 (parental maltreatment) ANOVA was performed on the three
WISC scores. For the full scale score there was a significant main effect
for parental maltreatment (F1, 106 = 3.97, p < .05), with neglect producing
the lowest score (M= 76, SD = 14.2). There were no significant differences
for gender, and no interaction. For the performance score there was a
significant main effect for parental maltreatment (F1, 106 = 3.03, p <
.05) and neglect was also the lowest score |
|
Table
4. Minimal Parental Contact, Parental Addiction,
and Cognitive and Academic Functioning by Parental Maltreatment |
|||||
| Variable |
Poverty
|
Neglect
|
Physical
Abuse
|
Sexual
Abuse
|
Combination
|
| Min. Father Contact |
42%
|
78%
|
77%
|
64%
|
73%
|
| Addicted Mother |
39%
|
71%
|
53%
|
27%
|
73%
|
| School Problems |
48%
|
64%
|
62%
|
82%
|
54%
|
| Diagnosis | |||||
| Contact Disorder |
51%
|
50%
|
54%
|
27%
|
46%
|
| Suicide Attempts |
22%
|
22%
|
39%
|
55%
|
26%
|
| Legal History |
44%
|
36%
|
31%
|
63%
|
55%
|
| WISC F |
86
14.5
|
76
14.2
|
83
12.1
|
80
11.6
|
82
10.3
|
| WISC P |
88
15.1
|
76
12.4
|
85
14.7
|
85
10.2
|
83
11.7
|
| WISC V |
85
13.1
|
80
17.9
|
82
11.7
|
80
10.8
|
83
11.9
|
|
Table
5. IQ Scores for Males and Females by Parental Contact
|
||||
|
Mother
|
Father
|
|||
| Variable |
Minimal
|
Contact
|
Minimal
|
Contact
|
| Girls | ||||
| WISC F |
69
04.5
|
83
11.2
|
77
09.8
|
87
11.0
|
| WISC P |
72
07.6
|
83
12.7
|
77
10.3
|
89
12.4
|
| WISC V |
70
04.4
|
85
12.5
|
80
11.9
|
88
12.5
|
| Boys | ||||
| WISC F |
83
07.7
|
83
10.2
|
79
13.4
|
94
13.8
|
| WISC P |
87
10.9
|
86
17.2
|
84
15.3
|
97
16.7
|
| WISC V |
82
06.8
|
82
14.5
|
78
12.5
|
94
10.6
|
|
top of section: Results There were several important findings from this study. Neglected children tend to display the most deficits in WISC scores and behavioral problems compared to children who have experienced other types of maltreatment. Similar to previous work, neglect was found to result in impairments in social, emotional and cognitive development. Interestingly, gender differences were observed. When neglected children were compared to physically abused children and those that experienced a combination of abuse and neglect, males who had experienced neglect only consistently scored lower on the WISC. However, females that were sexually abused, physically abused and experienced a combination of the two, scored lower than neglected females. Thus, it seems that the experience of neglect was more debilitating for males than females in this sample. Perhaps such gender differences merely highlight commonly found differences between how the sexes respond to traumatic experiences. Egeland
(1985) has suggested that maltreatment affects intellectual functioning;
"because of the emotional unresponsiveness of their parent these kids
lost interest The findings show that minimal parental contact significantly impacted on WISC scores. Minimal contact with the mother affected adolescent girls more than boys. Minimal contact with the father seems to affect both boys and girls. One reason for this is that being in a single-parent family may be more chaotic. When the father abandons the family there is likely to be greater financial distress for the family. Some researchers support the view that low socio-economic status (SES) home environments can be as toxic to cognitive development as maltreatment (Harwicke & Hochstadt, 1986, Nightingale & Walker, 1991). There
are certain caveats to the present report that should be mentioned. Because
this is a retrospective study based on social service reports, it is hard
to know if the available information was without errors or omissions.
Also, because this study top of section: Discussion Aber, J.L., Allen, J.P., Carlson, V., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). "Effects of maltreatment on development during early childhood."In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 579-619). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Bruce, M.L., Takeuchi, D.T., & Leaf, P.J. "Poverty and psychiatric status: longitudinal evidence from the new haven epidemiologic catchment area study." Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 470-474, 1991. Calam, R., & Franchi, C. Child abuse and its consequences: Observational approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. DiLeonardi, J.W. "Families in poverty and chronic neglect of children." Families in Society, 557-562, 1993. Dubow, E.F. & Ippolito, M.F. "Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on changes in the academic and behavioral adjustment of elementary school-age children." Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401-412, 1994. Egeland, B., and Erickson, M.F. "Psychologically unavailable caregiving."In M.R. Brassard, R. Germain, & S.N. Hart (Eds.), Psychological maltreatment of children and youth. New York: Pergamon Press, 1987. Erickson, M.F., Egeland, B., and Pianta, R. "The effects of maltreatment on the development of young children."In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect. (pp. 647684) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Gelles, R.J. "Poverty and violence toward children." American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 258-274, 1992. Hansen, D.J., Pallotta, G.M., Tishelman, A.C., Conaway, L.P. & Macmillan, V.M. "Parental problem-solving skills and child behavior problems: a comparison of physically abusive, neglectful, clinic and community families." Journal of Family Violence, 4, 353-368, 1989. Hill, M.S. "Effects of childhood poverty on productivity later in life: implications for public policy." Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 91-126, 1995. Hinsaw, S.P. "Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence." Psychological Bulletin, 111, 123-155, 1992. Jones-Wilson, F.C. "Alleviating the force of poverty on urban poor children." Early Child Development and Care, 73, 103-120, 1991. Lamphear, V.S. "The psychosocial adjustment of maltreated children: Methodological limitations and guidelines for future research." Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 6369, 1986. Nightingale, N.N., and Walker, E.F. "The impact of social class and parental maltreatment on the cognitive functioning of children." Journal of Family Violence 6, 115130, 1991. Polanski, N.A., Gaudin, J.M. & Kilpatrick, A.C. "Family radicals." Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 19-26, 1992. Trickett, P.K., Aber, L.J., Carlson, V., & Cicchetti, D. "Relationship of socioeconomic status to the etiology and developmental sequelae of physical child abuse." Developmental Psychology, 27, 148-158, 1991. Walsh, A. "Illegitimacy, child abuse and neglect, and cognitive development." The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151, 279285, 1990.
top
of section references or There
is hope that by meeting and negotiating, "Everyone
has the right to education. Education shall be directed to the full development
of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms."
|
The
Consequences of Poverty 