[Main Page of Report | Contents of Report]
Because the support that families receive from relatives and friends is widely thought to contribute to family and child well-being, at each of the three interviews, we asked caretakers about the kinds of informal supports that were available to them. Caretakers were asked how frequently they had contact with their mothers and fathers, adult brothers and sisters, and up to four friends. For each person that the caretaker reported having contact with at least once a year, they were asked whether the person could be relied on for each of three kinds of support -- emotional (talking over problems), instrumental (help with money or housework), and informational (advice on how to handle problems). In addition, caretakers who were residing with partners were asked about the support that they received from their partners.
In the following analyses, we examine several aspects of the caretakers' informal support systems. We first examine the extent to which caretakers had family and friends available who might provide support, and the proportion of partners, siblings, parents, and friends that the caretakers could rely on for support. Second, the levels of emotional, informational, and instrumental support available from each group of relatives and friends is assessed. Finally, because increasing the level of informal social support is sometimes thought to be a useful outcome of family preservation services, we examine whether there was change in the levels of support that were available to the caretakers.
[Go To Contents]
A concern raised by early investigations into the informal support systems of maltreating families was the extent to which they are isolated from relatives and friends. Families may be socially isolated if they don't have relatives and friends, or don't have much contact with them. Furthermore, families may have relatives and friends with whom they have regular contact but not rely on them for support. Hence, in order to assess the extensiveness of caretakers' informal supports, we first asked them whether they had living parents, siblings, partners, and friends, then determined how often they had contact with each of them, and finally asked if each could be relied on for support.
Table 6-1 summarizes the proportion of caretakers in each states' control and experimental groups who had partners, siblings, parents, and friends from whom they might receive emotional, instrumental, and informational support. The percentages of caretakers reporting that they had contact with particular relatives and friends at least once a year are
| New Jersey | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Caretakers with relative/friend | Support Available | ||||||||
| Emotional | Instrumental | Informational | Any type of support | |||||||
| C N=131 N(%) |
E N=198 N(%) |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
|
| Partner | 56 (43) |
69 (35) |
79 | 73 | 100 | 97 | 88 | 74 | 100 | 97 |
| Sisters | 103 (79) |
162 (82) |
59 | 60 | 38 | 41 | 58 | 61 | 63 | 65 |
| Brothers | 88 (67) |
146 (74) |
43 | 47 | 33 | 35 | 42 | 45 | 48 | 49 |
| Mother | 93 (71) |
116 (59) |
66 | 54 | 44 | 45 | 52 | 48 | 68 | 62 |
| Father | 61 (47) |
89 (45) |
49 | 40 | 34 | 42 | 44 | 39 | 51 | 53 |
| Friends | 96 (73) |
161 (81) |
95 | 95 | 69 | 70 | 92 | 94 | 96 | 98 |
| Overall | 131 (100) |
197 (99) |
92 | 93 | 85 | 87 | 92 | 93 | 93 | 95 |
| C = Control E = Experimental | ||||||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Caretakers with relative/friend | Support Available | ||||||||
| Emotional | Instrumental | Informational | Any type of support | |||||||
| C N=155 N(%) |
E N=156 N(%) |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
|
| Partner | 56 (36) |
52 (33) |
80 | 92 | 100 | 94 | 75 | 92 | 100 | 98 |
| Sisters | 117 (76) |
100 (64) |
73 | 58 | 49 | 42 | 73 | 51 | 77 | 63 |
| Brothers | 112 (72) |
110 (71) |
50 | 47 | 36 | 39 | 45 | 45 | 56 | 51 |
| Mother | 132 (85) |
124 (80) |
61 | 58 | 52 | 49 | 61 | 50 | 68 | 67 |
| Father | 92 (59) |
97 (62) |
40 | 42 | 43 | 42 | 40 | 38 | 48 | 49 |
| Friends | 144 (93) |
142 (91) |
99 | 97 | 84 | 73 | 97 | 93 | 99 | 98 |
| Overall | 155 (100) |
155 (99) |
98 | 97 | 97 | 87 | 96 | 96 | 99 | 98 |
| C = Control E = Experimental | ||||||||||
| Tennessee | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relationship |
Caretakers with relative/friend | Support Available | ||||||||
| Emotional | Instrumental | Informational | Any type of support | |||||||
| C N=37 N(%) |
E N=80 N(%) |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
|
| Partner | 7 (19) |
29 (36) |
86 | 90 | 100 | 90 | 71 | 86 | 100 | 93 |
| Sisters | 28 (76) |
58 (73) |
71 | 81 | 71 | 78 | 64 | 74 | 71 | 84 |
| Brothers | 30 (81) |
57 (71) |
60 | 61 | 67 | 58 | 60 | 60 | 70 | 65 |
| Mother | 25 (68) |
58 (73) |
72 | 62 | 76 | 67 | 64 | 60 | 88 | 79 |
| Father | 23 (62) |
39 (49) |
35 | 54 | 39 | 49 | 35 | 54 | 39 | 59 |
| Friends | 33 (89) |
70 (88) |
94 | 96 | 79 | 94 | 91 | 94 | 94 | 97 |
| Overall | 37 (100) |
79 (99) |
95 | 100 | 92 | 98 | 89 | 96 | 95 | 100 |
| C = Control E = Experimental | ||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Caretakers with relative/friend | Support Available | ||||||||
| Emotional | Instrumental | Informational | Any type of support | |||||||
| C N=107 N% |
E N=156 N% |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
C % |
E % |
|
| Partner | 25 (23) |
34 (22) |
88 | 68 | 96 | 94 | 76 | 71 | 100 | 97 |
| Sisters | 79 (74) |
117 (75) |
71 | 71 | 62 | 60 | 66 | 64 | 75 | 73 |
| Brothers | 82 (77) |
118 (76) |
58 | 49 | 49 | 45 | 57 | 48 | 63 | 58 |
| Mother | 87 (81) |
120 (77) |
68 | 63 | 60 | 65 | 63 | 63 | 74 | 75 |
| Father | 66 (62) |
87 (56) |
42 | 42 | 39 | 40 | 42 | 44 | 53 | 54 |
| Friends | 84 (79) |
127 (81) |
100 | 97 | 88 | 95 | 95 | 98 | 100 | 98 |
| Overall | 107 (100) |
156 (100) |
94 | 97 | 94 | 91 | 93 | 95 | 97 | 97 |
| C = Control E = Experimental | ||||||||||
reported under the column heading "Caretakers with relative/friend." The remaining columns report the proportions of caretakers who had minimal contact (at least once a year) with specific relatives and friends and could rely on them for support.
At least 99 percent of all caretakers in every state reported having minimal contact with at least one relative or friend, and a large majority believed that they could count on at least one person for some type of support. In Kentucky and Pennsylvania, only one to three percent of caretakers in either the control or experimental groups felt that they had no one to count on for any kind of support. The proportion of caretakers with no support from anyone was slightly larger in New Jersey's control (7%) and experimental (5%) groups, and in Tennessee's control group (5%).
Although their numbers are small (over all states, only 36 caretakers reported that no support was available to them), caretakers who report that they have no support may be of particular interest since they could be easily identified and targeted for services linking them to informal and community supports. In addition, caretakers without any informal support may benefit the most from efforts to establish linkages to support. Importantly, although they did not rely on them for support, this group of caretakers reported having, on average, nine relatives and friends. In addition, 33 percent of these caretakers were employed. The presence of relatives, friends, and coworkers in the caretakers' social networks may improve the prospects of successfully increasing the levels of informal support that are available to these families. (99)
Caretakers across all states had, on average, 9.4 (s.d. 2.5) friends and relatives on whom they might call for various kinds of assistance. Within the set of family members and friends that they were asked about, caretakers most often cited their friends as people they can go to for help. Overall, about three-quarters of the caretakers reported having mothers and siblings and had contact with them at least once a year. Across all support areas, caretakers perceived mothers and sisters as support providers more often than brothers. Still, half or more of the caretakers with brothers said that they could turn to them for support. Fewer caretakers (less than 63 percent across all states) reported having a father. Furthermore, fathers were less likely to be relied on for support than were other relatives or friends.
Even fewer caretakers reported living with a partner. For instance, more New Jersey caretakers reported co-residing partners than caretakers in any other state, and only 39 percent of them resided with a partner. But relative to fathers and brothers, as well as sisters and mothers, for the minority of caretakers who live with them, partners play a much larger support role, especially in the provision of instrumental support. Friends, however, play a more important role than partners for emotional and informational support.
Only 54 percent of the caretakers of all races in this study reported having fathers with whom they have regular contact and even fewer were residing with partners -- 32 percent of the caretakers of all races reported partners, but 46 percent of white caretakers, 45 percent of Hispanics, and only 22 percent of African Americans reported living with partners. These findings are consistent with what is known about recent changes in family formation among low income populations, especially African-Americans. In a 30-year longitudinal study following a cohort of teen parents and their children, Furstenberg (2001) observed a generational decline in the propensity to marry. In the 1960s the great majority of adolescent mothers married - usually the child's father. More than half of the older generation married by their early twenties, and by their mid-forties, three-fourths had wed. However, observing the next generation of teen mothers, Furstenberg noted that only 14 percent of the younger generation had married by their early twenties, and only 4 percent of those who were not mothers had wed.
Other observers of marriage and childbearing trends have also noted the steady increase in the formation of single-parent (usually female-headed) households, especially among low-income African-American women, over the last several decades (Garfinkel and McLanahan, 1986; Cherlin, 1992). However, the reason for this shift in household structure is not clearly understood. Wilson (1987) has argued that the trend has coincided with other structural shifts such as the decline in the proportion of African-American men who have access to steady work and the simultaneous rise in the incarceration and mortality rates of those men. Others have suggested that cultural changes in attitudes toward the institution of marriage have contributed to the formation of the single-parent family for all Americans and that this societal-wide change has been exacerbated by economic restructuring that hit African-American communities particularly hard (Cherlin, 1992).
Whether the decline in marriage is attributable to structural shifts in the economy, or cultural shifts in attitudes toward marriage, Stack's (1974) research on family support systems in impoverished communities found that African-Americans rely more on extended family members for support of all kinds rather than depending on marriage as the primary source of support (Cherlin, 1992). Certainly, with regard to the composition of their support networks, families in this study fit this characterization.
[Go To Contents]
In order to get a rough estimate of the levels of support that might be available to caretakers, we created composite scores for each of the three kinds of support. These composite scores are the products of whether each instance of emotional, instrumental, or informational support available from each supporter (scored 0 - 1) and the frequency of contact with the supporter (scored 1 - 4), summed across supporters. (100) A total support score was computed by simply summing the three (emotional, instrumental, and informational) composite scores for each supporter. Using this scoring scheme, the maximum level of total support available from any one supporter is twelve. For instance, a friend who gave the maximum amount of total support would provide all three types of support and have daily contact with the caretakers. For any single type of support, the maximum level of support available from any one supporter is four.
Table 6-2 summarizes the levels of support that was available to caretakers at the initial interview in several ways. The upper portion of the state tables describe the average total, emotional, instrumental, and informational supports that caretakers reported were available to them from all members of their support networks. The lower portion of the tables summarize the levels of support that were available to caretakers from each of six groups of supporters -- partners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends. The levels of support that were available from family and friends are presented in two ways. The first set of columns provides the average support that was available to caretakers from each group of supporters. The average mean support, presented in the next to the last column, takes into account that caretakers could report several brothers, sisters, and friends, but only one mother, father, and partner. Whereas average support summarizes the contribution to total support from each supporter group, average mean support is the total support available averaged across members of a supporter group. Again, the maximum amount of support available from any one supporter is twelve.
Looking first at the upper portion of the table, we note that the average levels of support across the three types are very similar. In fact, the three types of supports are highly correlated -- emotional-informational, r = .93, emotional-instrumental, r = .80, and informational-instrumental, r = .80 -- so that if a caretaker had available one type of support, he or she usually had the other types available as well. However, the average levels of emotional and informational supports were somewhat greater than was the availability of instrumental support from all supporters, suggesting that members of the caretakers' support networks may have been better able to assist in ways that did not require their labor or strain their material resources.
| New Jersey | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support at Initial Interview | Average Support | Average Mean Support | ||||
| N | M | p | M | p | ||
| Total | C | 131 | 34.9 | |||
| E | 197 | 34.3 | ||||
| Emotional | C | 131 | 13.0 | |||
| E | 197 | 12.7 | ||||
| Instrumental | C | 131 | 9.4 | |||
| E | 197 | 9.1 | ||||
| Informational | C | 131 | 12.5 | |||
| E | 197 | 12.4 | ||||
| Partner | C | 56 | 9.9 | 9.9 | ||
| E | 69 | 9.0 | 9.0 | |||
| Mother | C | 93 | 5.2 | 5.2 | ||
| E | 116 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||
| Father | C | 61 | 4.1 | 4.1 | ||
| E | 89 | 3.3 | 3.3 | |||
| Sisters | C | 103 | 8.4 | 3.5 | ||
| E | 161 | 7.9 | 3.7 | |||
| Brothers | C | 87 | 6.3 | 2.3 | ||
| E | 145 | 5.7 | 2.5 | |||
| Friends | C | 96 | 19.5 | 7.9 | ||
| E | 160 | 19.8 | 7.6 | |||
| Kentucky | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support at Initial Interview | Average Support | Average Mean Support | ||||
| N | M | p | M | p | ||
| Total | C | 155 | 41.1 | |||
| E | 155 | 36.3 | .05 | |||
| Emotional | C | 155 | 15.1 | |||
| E | 155 | 13.6 | ||||
| Instrumental | C | 155 | 11.5 | |||
| E | 155 | 9.9 | .05 | |||
| Informational | C | 155 | 14.5 | |||
| E | 155 | 12.8 | .04 | |||
| Partner | C | 56 | 9.5 | 9.5 | ||
| E | 51 | 10.8 | .02 | 10.8 | .02 | |
| Mother | C | 132 | 5.9 | 5.9 | ||
| E | 124 | 5.2 | 5.2 | |||
| Father | C | 92 | 3.8 | 3.8 | ||
| E | 97 | 3.6 | 3.6 | |||
| Sisters | C | 117 | 8.9 | 4.5 | ||
| E | 100 | 6.8 | 3.5 | |||
| Brothers | C | 112 | 5.6 | 3.5 | ||
| E | 109 | 4.9 | 3.6 | |||
| Friends | C | 144 | 21.1 | 8.0 | ||
| E | 142 | 20.2 | 7.8 | |||
| Tennessee | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support at Initial Interview | Average Support | Average Mean Support | ||||
| N | M | p | M | p | ||
| Total | C | 37 | 39.5 | |||
| E | 79 | 44.2 | ||||
| Emotional | C | 37 | 13.8 | |||
| E | 79 | 15.3 | ||||
| Instrumental | C | 37 | 13.1 | |||
| E | 79 | 14.3 | ||||
| Informational | C | 37 | 12.7 | |||
| E | 79 | 14.6 | ||||
| Partner | C | 7 | 9.7 | 9.7 | ||
| E | 28 | 10.7 | 10.7 | |||
| Mother | C | 24 | 8.4 | 8.4 | ||
| E | 58 | 6.5 | 6.5 | |||
| Father | C | 23 | 3.8 | 3.8 | ||
| E | 39 | 4.2 | 4.2 | |||
| Sisters | C | 28 | 10.8 | 4.8 | ||
| E | 58 | 13.4 | 5.8 | |||
| Brothers | C | 30 | 9.3 | 4.3 | ||
| E | 57 | 7.7 | 3.7 | |||
| Friends | C | 32 | 16.4 | 8.5 | ||
| E | 70 | 20.5 | 9.1 | |||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support at Initial Interview | Average Support | Average Mean Support | ||||
| N | M | p | M | p | ||
| Total | C | 107 | 40.3 | |||
| E | 156 | 35.3 | ||||
| Emotional | C | 107 | 14.5 | |||
| E | 156 | 12.3 | .05 | |||
| Instrumental | C | 107 | 12.5 | |||
| E | 156 | 11.4 | ||||
| Informational | C | 107 | 13.3 | |||
| E | 156 | 11.7 | ||||
| Partner | C | 25 | 9.8 | 9.8 | ||
| E | 34 | 8.7 | 8.7 | |||
| Mother | C | 87 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||
| E | 120 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |||
| Father | C | 66 | 3.9 | 3.9 | ||
| E | 87 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |||
| Sisters | C | 79 | 10.0 | 4.8 | ||
| E | 117 | 7.4 | 4.9 | |||
| Brothers | C | 82 | 8.2 | 3.9 | ||
| E | 117 | 5.1 | .02 | 3.1 | ||
| Friends | C | 84 | 20.9 | 8.8 | ||
| E | 127 | 20.7 | 127 | 8.8 | ||
The smaller amount of financial and instrumental support that is available from members of low-income individuals' support networks has been documented in other research. For instance, in a study of the supports that were available to former General Assistance recipients, Henly (1994) found that emotional support was provided most often, followed by informational, instrumental, and lastly financial support. Given that, in these studies, the recipients of support had very limited incomes, the relative positions of the various forms of support in the support hierarchy most likely reflect network members' capacity to provide the different kinds of assistance rather than the recipients' particular set of needs.
Examining the average contributions of supporter groups to total support, friends, partners, and sisters were the largest contributors to caretakers' overall support. As groups, brothers, mothers, and fathers contribute somewhat less to total support, but the lower levels of support that is contributed by mothers and fathers is partly attributable to the smaller numbers of supporters in these groups. When support is averaged across members of supporter groups, the positions of mothers and sisters in the supporter hierarchy shifts. Considering the support that was available from individual members of a supporter group, on average, partners, friends, and mothers were perceived to contribute higher levels of support than siblings and fathers.
Comparing the control and experimental groups, at the initial interview there were no differences in the levels of supports between the groups in either New Jersey or Tennessee. But in Pennsylvania, the control group had significantly more emotional support available than the experimental group (p = .05), and more overall brother support (p = .02). In Kentucky, control group members had significantly more instrumental (p = .05), informational (p = .04), and total support (p =.05) available, but the experimental group reported the availability of more support from partners (p = .02). The general similarity in support across the control and experimental groups at the initial interview was expected since randomization should assure that the groups are not different prior to receiving services.
[Go To Contents]
It is sometimes believed that family preservation programs may strengthen families' informal supports. To examine whether this occurred in the programs we studied, we used multivariate repeated measures analysis to assess the change in the levels of support that caretakers reported were available to them at each of the three interviews (at the beginning of service, four to six weeks after service began, and one year after the beginning of service). For each state, we examined change in the levels of total, emotional, instrumental, and informational support available to caretakers, and change in the levels of support available from family and friends. Table 6-3 summarizes differences between the experimental and control groups at the second and third interviews as well as change between interviews. In the repeated measures analysis, three main null hypotheses are tested. First, that support levels for the experimental group, averaged over the three points in time are equal to those of the control group. Second, that the averages of the groups at each point in time are the same. Third, that there is no interaction between time and group.
Of the three hypotheses, the last is central. A significant interaction between time and group indicates that support in the experimental and control groups changed in different ways. The levels of support that were available to caretakers could either increase or decrease over time in one or both groups, or increase in one and decline in the other group. Generally, we are interested in support increasing over time since more support is presumed to have positive effects on caretaker functioning and family well-being. Furthermore, larger increases in support in the experimental group would suggest that family preservation was helpful in this particular area of service.
By and large, there is not much evidence in any of the states that enhancing the availability of caretakers' informal supports was a strong effect of family preservation efforts. In Tennessee, the average levels of support that were available to caretakers did not change over time. The only significant difference between the control and experimental groups was the change in the level of support that was available from partners. Of caretakers who resided with partners, those in the control group reported that more support was available from their partners at followup than at post-treatment, whereas support from partners in the experimental group had actually decreased slightly over the same period (p = .02).
For New Jersey caretakers, there were no significant differences between the control and experimental groups in the overall average levels of support or in changes in average support from relatives and friends or across any type of support over time.
Relative to the those in the experimental group, caretakers in the Kentucky control group reported having more total, instrumental, and informational support available, and more support available from sisters. (101) However, the level of informational support available over time decreased in the control group and increased in the experimental group (p = .08) so that at the followup interview the level of informational support available to caretakers in the two groups
| Tennessee | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-treatment | Followup | Multivariate Repeated Measures | ||||||||||||||||
| N | Ma | pb | N | M | p | N | Means | Multivariate ps | Univariate ps-Time | Univariate ps-Grp-time interaction | ||||||||
| Initial | Post | Follow | Grpc | Timed | Time -Grpe | Initial v. laterf |
Post v. Followg |
Initial v. Later |
Post v. Follow |
|||||||||
| Total | C | 39 | 42.9 | 36 | 40.6 | 28 | 44.1 | 47.9 | 42.2 | .93 | .38 | .68 | ||||||
| E | 84 | 41.5 | 74 | 43.4 | 61 | 44.4 | 45.1 | 43.6 | ||||||||||
| Emotional | C | 39 | 14.4 | 36 | 13.7 | 28 | 15.5 | 16.2 | 14.5 | .92 | .41 | .89 | ||||||
| E | 84 | 14.2 | 74 | 14.7 | 61 | 15.3 | 15.6 | 14.8 | ||||||||||
| Instrumental | C | 39 | 14.5 | 36 | 14.1 | 28 | 14.4 | 16.4 | 14.4 | .59 | .23 | .47 | ||||||
| E | 84 | 13.6 | 74 | 14.0 | 61 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 14.1 | ||||||||||
| Informational | C | 39 | 14.0 | 36 | 12.9 | 28 | 14.2 | 15.3 | 13.3 | .70 | .56 | .70 | ||||||
| E | 84 | 13.7 | 74 | 14.7 | 61 | 14.8 | 15.0 | 14.8 | ||||||||||
| Partner | C | 6 | 11.0 | 13 | 11.8 | .005 | 4 | 11.5 | 10.5 | 12.0 | .64 | .84 | .06 | .02 | ||||
| E | 28 | 10.9 | 26 | 9.9 | 15 | 10.7 | 11.2 | 10.1 | ||||||||||
| Mother | C | 25 | 8.8 | 24 | 9.2 | 17 | 9.1 | 9.5 | 9.9 | .08 | .32 | 1.0 | ||||||
| E | 60 | 7.8 | 50 | 8.2 | 44 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 8.1 | ||||||||||
| Father | C | 23 | 4.0 | 20 | 3.3 | 16 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 3.3 | .49 | .40 | .94 | ||||||
| E | 44 | 4.2 | 38 | 4.5 | 30 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 4.5 | ||||||||||
| Sister | C | 31 | 13.7 | 31 | 10.7 | 23 | 12.7 | 14.9 | 12.6 | .77 | .43 | .63 | ||||||
| E | 53 | 13.2 | 50 | 12.6 | 40 | 12.2 | 12.9 | 13.0 | ||||||||||
| Brother | C | 29 | 8.6 | 28 | 8.1 | 21 | 11.1 | 10.4 | 10.1 | .13 | .90 | .89 | ||||||
| E | 57 | 7.1 | 56 | 8.6 | 40 | 7.6 | 7.5 | 7.9 | ||||||||||
| Friend | C | 32 | 19.4 | 25 | 18.6 | 17 | 19.1 | 23.0 | 19.3 | .96 | .34 | .54 | ||||||
| E | 70 | 20.4 | 66 | 19.1 | 46 | 21.0 | 21.5 | 19.1 | ||||||||||
| a Means of
control and experimental groups b Test of hypothesis of equivalent group means c Test of hypothesis that group means, averaged over time, are equal d Test of hypothesis that means at three points in time, averaged over the groups, are equal e Test of hypothesis of no interaction between group and time, that is, that the pattern of means over time is the same for both groups f Test of hypothesis that time one is equal to average of time two and time three g Test of hypothesis that time two is equal to time three |
||||||||||||||||||
| New Jersey | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-treatment | Followup | Multivariate Repeated Measures | ||||||||||||||||
| N | Ma | pb | N | M | p | N | Means | Multivariate ps | Univariate ps-Time | Univariate ps-Grp-time interaction | ||||||||
| Initial | Post | Follow | Grpc | Timed | Time -Grpe | Initial v. laterf |
Post v. Followg |
Initial v. Later |
Post v. Follow |
|||||||||
| Total | C | 141 | 34.3 | 107 | 35.5 | 84 | 36.3 | 37.1 | 36.9 | .46 | .64 | .35 | ||||||
| E | 221 | 32.9 | 167 | 36.0 | 130 | 35.2 | 33.0 | 35.7 | ||||||||||
| Emotional | C | 141 | 12.6 | 107 | 13.2 | 84 | 13.5 | 13.7 | 13.7 | .58 | .64 | .51 | ||||||
| E | 221 | 12.4 | 167 | 13.5 | 130 | 13.2 | 12.5 | 13.5 | ||||||||||
| Instrumental | C | 141 | 9.2 | 107 | 9.4 | 84 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 9.9 | .26 | .40 | .64 | ||||||
| E | 221 | 8.4 | 167 | 9.4 | 130 | 9.2 | 8.3 | 9.2 | ||||||||||
| Informational | C | 141 | 12.4 | 107 | 12.8 | 84 | 12.6 | 13.5 | 13.3 | .65 | .73 | .24 | ||||||
| E | 221 | 12.1 | 167 | 13.1 | 130 | 12.9 | 12.1 | 13.0 | ||||||||||
| Partner | C | 57 | 9.8 | 53 | 9.4 | 36 | 9.6 | 10.0 | 9.5 | .69 | .62 | .66 | ||||||
| E | 77 | 9.6 | 64 | 9.8 | 36 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 9.7 | ||||||||||
| Mother | C | 95 | 5.7 | 67 | 6.9 | 53 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 6.8 | .23 | .21 | .51 | ||||||
| E | 120 | 5.4 | 101 | 6.1 | 67 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 6.1 | ||||||||||
| Father | C | 69 | 4.2 | 49 | 4.1 | .018 | 36 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.7 | .67 | .19 | .12 | |||||
| E | 98 | 3.7 | 63 | 6.1 | 47 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 5.6 | ||||||||||
| Sister | C | 105 | 8.6 | 84 | 8.3 | 60 | 8.4 | 9.5 | 8.7 | .64 | .54 | .73 | ||||||
| E | 168 | 8.2 | 130 | 8.3 | 96 | 8.3 | 8.5 | 7.8 | ||||||||||
| Brother | C | 90 | 5.0 | 73 | 6.1 | 48 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 6.7 | .76 | .29 | .95 | ||||||
| E | 151 | 5.5 | 119 | 6.2 | 90 | 6.2 | 5.3 | 6.3 | ||||||||||
| Friend | C | 107 | 19.6 | 83 | 18.0 | 52 | 18.9 | 20.4 | 17.8 | .47 | .19 | .20 | ||||||
| E | 171 | 19.2 | 144 | 17.7 | 90 | 21.5 | 19.7 | 19.1 | ||||||||||
| a Means of
control and experimental groups b Test of hypothesis of equivalent group means c Test of hypothesis that group means, averaged over time, are equal d Test of hypothesis that means at three points in time, averaged over the groups, are equal e Test of hypothesis of no interaction between group and time, that is, that the pattern of means over time is the same for both groups f Test of hypothesis that time one is equal to average of time two and time three g Test of hypothesis that time two is equal to time three |
||||||||||||||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-treatment | Followup | Multivariate Repeated Measures | ||||||||||||||||
| N | Ma | pb | N | M | p | N | Means | Multivariate ps | Univariate ps-Time | Univariate ps-Grp-time interaction | ||||||||
| Initial | Post | Follow | Grpc | Timed | Time -Grpe | Initial v. later f |
Post v. Followg |
Initial v. Later |
Post v. Follow |
|||||||||
| Total | C | 150 | 39.5 | 119 | 41.0 | 108 | 43.2 | 42.1 | 40.8 | .05 | .82 | .16 | ||||||
| E | 152 | 35.0 | 130 | 39.8 | 117 | 36.5 | 36.4 | 38.8 | ||||||||||
| Emotional | C | 150 | 14.8 | 119 | 15.0 | 108 | 15.8 | 15.6 | 14.8 | .12 | .97 | .16 | ||||||
| E | 152 | 13.4 | 130 | 14.8 | 117 | 13.8 | 14.0 | 14.6 | ||||||||||
| Instrumental | C | 150 | 10.6 | 119 | 11.4 | 108 | 12.1 | 11.5 | 11.3 | .03 | .37 | .65 | ||||||
| E | 152 | 9.0 | 130 | 10.3 | 117 | 9.9 | 9.4 | 9.9 | ||||||||||
| Informational | C | 150 | 14.1 | 119 | 14.7 | 108 | 15.2 | 15.0 | 14.6 | .07 | .51 | .08 | ||||||
| E | 152 | 12.6 | 130 | 14.7 | 117 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 14.4 | ||||||||||
| Partner | C | 50 | 9.1 | .067 | 37 | 9.7 | 32 | 10.1 | 9.7 | 9.6 | .16 | .37 | .43 | |||||
| E | 48 | 10.3 | 49 | 10.2 | 33 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 10.1 | ||||||||||
| Mother | C | 118 | 6.6 | 100 | 6.3 | 85 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 6.0 | .56 | .18 | .22 | ||||||
| E | 118 | 5.5 | 101 | 6.4 | 91 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 6.3 | ||||||||||
| Father | C | 86 | 4.2 | 66 | 3.9 | 61 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 3.7 | .82 | .71 | .31 | ||||||
| E | 94 | 3.5 | 83 | 4.2 | 71 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 4.1 | ||||||||||
| Sister | C | 110 | 9.6 | .031 | 88 | 9.5 | 75 | 9.6 | 10.2 | 10.2 | .04 | .75 | .57 | |||||
| E | 95 | 6.6 | 84 | 7.2 | 69 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 7.2 | ||||||||||
| Brother | C | 112 | 5.7 | 87 | 6.7 | 72 | 6.1 | 6.6 | 6.9 | .36 | .11 | .39 | ||||||
| E | 101 | 5.1 | 93 | 6.4 | 78 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 6.5 | ||||||||||
| Friend | C | 137 | 19.2 | 111 | 20.0 | 93 | 22.6 | 20.3 | 20.3 | .32 | .03 | .44 | .01 | |||||
| E | 139 | 19.5 | 121 | 20.5 | 99 | 20.6 | 19.4 | 20.2 | ||||||||||
| a Means of
control and experimental groups b Test of hypothesis of equivalent group means c Test of hypothesis that group means, averaged over time, are equal d Test of hypothesis that means at three points in time, averaged over the groups, are equal e Test of hypothesis of no interaction between group and time, that is, that the pattern of means over time is the same for both groups f Test of hypothesis that time one is equal to average of time two and time three g Test of hypothesis that time two is equal to time three |
||||||||||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-treatment | Followup | Multivariate Repeated Measures | ||||||||||||||||
| N | Ma | pb | N | M | p | N | Means | Multivariate ps | Univariate ps-Time | Univariate ps-Grp-time interaction | ||||||||
| Initial | Post | Follow | Grpc | Timed | Time -Grpe | Initial v.
laterf |
Post
v. Followg |
Initial v.
Later |
Post
v. Follow |
|||||||||
| Total | C | 115 | 39.7 | 90 | 45.7 | 70 | 39.1 | 41.5 | 48.0 | .23 | .01 | .79 | .01 | .01 | ||||
| E | 161 | 35.6 | 135 | 41.3 | 102 | 36.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | ||||||||||
| Emotional | C | 115 | 14.4 | .060 | 90 | 16.8 | 70 | 14.1 | 15.3 | 17.9 | .09 | .01 | .57 | .01 | .01 | |||
| E | 161 | 12.4 | 135 | 14.7 | 102 | 12.8 | 13.5 | 15.1 | ||||||||||
| Instrumental | C | 115 | 11.7 | 90 | 13.8 | 70 | 12.3 | 12.1 | 14.5 | .74 | .01 | .82 | .01 | .01 | ||||
| E | 161 | 11.5 | 135 | 13.4 | 102 | 11.7 | 12.1 | 13.9 | ||||||||||
| Informational | C | 115 | 13.5 | .063 | 90 | 15.1 | 70 | 12.7 | 14.1 | 15.6 | .25 | .01 | .66 | .01 | .01 | |||
| E | 161 | 11.6 | 135 | 13.3 | 102 | 12.0 | 12.5 | 13.9 | ||||||||||
| Partner | C | 23 | 10.7 | .014 | 22 | 10.6 | 11 | 10.3 | 11.0 | 10.7 | .50 | .33 | .87 | |||||
| E | 36 | 8.3 | 27 | 10.1 | 12 | 9.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | ||||||||||
| Mother | C | 87 | 7.2 | 72 | 7.4 | 57 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.6 | .94 | .34 | .56 | ||||||
| E | 111 | 7.5 | 104 | 7.5 | 74 | 7.1 | 7.7 | 7.9 | ||||||||||
| Father | C | 63 | 4.4 | .061 | 52 | 5.2 | 40 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 5.2 | .20 | .19 | .23 | |||||
| E | 89 | 3.0 | 78 | 3.8 | 54 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.1 | ||||||||||
| Sister | C | 80 | 11.0 | 70 | 12.0 | 50 | 10.4 | 11.8 | 12.7 | .06 | .01 | .83 | .01 | |||||
| E | 116 | 9.6 | 107 | 10.6 | 78 | 7.1 | 9.0 | 10.4 | ||||||||||
| Brother | C | 91 | 10.0 | .019 | 69 | 10.4 | 49 | 9.0 | 10.8 | 11.4 | .01 | .05 | .48 | .03 | ||||
| E | 104 | 6.2 | 97 | 7.6 | 74 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 7.0 | ||||||||||
| Friend | C | 91 | 17.8 | 76 | 20.1 | 42 | 20.9 | 18.0 | 23.9 | .51 | .02 | .09 | .01 | .04 | ||||
| E | 126 | 20.5 | 115 | 20.5 | 74 | 22.6 | 21.8 | 22.4 | ||||||||||
| a Means of
control and experimental groups b Test of hypothesis of equivalent group means c Test of hypothesis that group means, averaged over time, are equal d Test of hypothesis that means at three points in time, averaged over the groups, are equal e Test of hypothesis of no interaction between group and time, that is, that the pattern of means over time is the same for both groups f Test of hypothesis that time one is equal to average of time two and time three g Test of hypothesis that time two is equal to time three |
||||||||||||||||||
was essentially equal. The reported levels of friend support declined between the initial and later interviews (p = .01) in both the control and experimental groups.
Pennsylvania caretakers reported higher levels of total, emotional, instrumental, and informational support over time in both the control and experimental groups. With regard to relative and friend support, caretakers in the control group reported more sister and brother support, but the levels of sibling support increased over time in both groups. In addition, the availability of friend support increased over time in the control but not the experimental group (p = .04).
[Go To Contents]
This analysis examined the kinds of informal supports that were available to caretakers in the study, the composition of the caretakers' support networks, the levels of support that were available to the caretakers from their support networks, and the effect of family preservation services on their levels of support. Over all of the states, the great majority of caretakers identified at least one person that they could rely on for support. Indeed, less than four percent of the caretakers said that they had nobody to count on for any type of support. It is important to recognize that this small group of caretakers may be likely to benefit from services aimed at strengthening their informal support systems. However, most of the caretakers in this study cannot be characterized as being socially isolated since, on average, they reported having over nine friends and relatives in their social networks. This is not to suggest that these caretakers could not use additional informal support, they might, but we cannot assess that with the data at hand.
In terms of the composition of the caretakers' support networks, our findings are consistent with those of other research that has examined family formation trends. Caretakers rely primarily on kinship ties and friends rather than marital bonds for all kinds of support. Overall, only 54 percent of the caretakers in this study reported having fathers with whom they
have regular contact and even fewer were residing with partners (32%). It may be partly a result of the scarcity of fathers and partners and the predominance of women (77 percent of the caretakers' friends were female) in their support networks, that caretakers rely more on females than males for support. However, caretakers who have bothers and fathers are generally less likely to receive support from them than from their mothers, sisters, and friends. Also, brothers and fathers tend to provide lower levels of support. This difference between male and female supporters may be related to the traditional gender division of labor that assigns the bulk of household tasks, family care, and emotional work to women.
Partners who reside with caretakers are more likely to provide support and to provide more support than either male or female extended family members. Hence, becoming involved with a partner might increase the amount of support -- particularly instrumental -- that is available to caretakers. However, the marriage prospects for many single mothers may be quite limited unless the socio-economic conditions that inhibit the formation of two-parent families improve substantially.
Lastly, we examined the effects of family preservation services on caretakers' levels of support and found little impact. It must be emphasized, however, that we do not know the extent to which family preservation workers focused on issues of informal social support. It is possible that this was a relatively unimportant component of these services, and that it is unrealistic to expect to see effects of family preservation services in this area.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furstenberg, F. F. (2001). The Fading Dream: Prospects for Marriage in the Inner City. In E. Anderson and D. S. Massey (Eds.), Problem of the Century: Racial Stratification in the United States (pp. 224-246). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Garfinkel, I. S. and McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Henly, J. (1994). Surviving without welfare: The informal support networks of former general assistance recipients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., and Mincy, R. B. (2001). Fragile Families, Welfare Reform, and Marriage (Policy Brief No. 10). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Stack, C. B. (1974). All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in the Black Community. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
99. Repeated measures analysis of this subsample yielded no significant differences between the control and experimental groups' change in the levels of support across the three interviews.
100. Each of the summary measures assumes that caretakers had more support available from supporters with whom they had greater contact. Therefore, they only approximate the caretakers' levels of support.
101. In the secondary analysis, Kentucky experimental group caretakers reported having more support available from their partners (averaged across time). There was, however, no change in the average levels of support over time in either group.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)