| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
a Department of Social Work, California State University, Long Beach
b Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Correspondence: Catherine Goodman, DSW, Department of Social Work, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840. E-mail: goodman{at}csulb.edu.
Decision Editor: Laurence G. Branch, PhD
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract Custodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key Words: Custodial • Coparenting • African American • Latino • White
During the past 30 years, the number of American children raised in grandparent-headed households has more than doubled, growing from 2.2 million in 1970 to 4.5 million in 2000—currently 6.3% of all children. In the 1980s, increases were primarily in three-generation households with a parent also present in the family. Since 1990, the increases have been greatest in households without a parent present (Bryson 2001
; Casper and Bryson 1998; Saluter 1996).
In this study, we examined the social etiologies, filial stressors, and psychological well-being experienced by two types of grandmothers raising their grandchildren: those for whom the parent is absent (custodial grandmothers) and those for whom the parent is present (coparenting grandmothers). We used a unique sample that was designed to provide near equal representations of African American, Latino, and White grandmothers across custodial and coparenting household types. Custodial and coparenting families are compared for stressors resulting from the parent's circumstances (e.g., reasons the grandmothers assumed care and intergenerational relationship quality) and grandmother well-being within each ethnic group. The intent of this analysis is to examine the influence of household structure on the antecedents and consequences of raising grandchildren as a grandparent.
|
Custodial Versus Coparenting Grandparents |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Hayslip and Goldberg-Glen 2000; Minkler and Roe 1993). Grandparents typically assume full-time care for grandchildren under disruptive circumstances, usually the consequence of serious problems experienced by the parents (Jendrek 1994; Minkler and Roe 1993). Jendrek found that mothers' emotional or mental problems and drug or alcohol abuse were common reasons for grandmothers to assume custodial care of their grandchildren. These parental stresses erode family relationships, and low family cohesion has been linked to anxiety among primary caregiving grandparents (Sands and Goldberg-Glen 2000). Particularly when substance abuse is an issue, the absent parent's level of involvement is often ambiguous and of uncertain duration, producing depression in the custodial grandparent (Hirshorn, Van Meter, and Brown 2000). Minkler and Roe have documented the difficult lives of African American grandparents raising grandchildren abandoned by parents who were victims of the crack cocaine epidemic. As a result of the strained family conditions under which care is typically assumed, custodial grandparenthood is often unanticipated, involuntary, and indefinite and is therefore a risk factor for psychological distress (Pearlin 1993). Several studies comparing grandparent caregivers to noncaregivers have identified greater depression and worse health (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000b; Solomon and Marx 2000) in national samples, and caregiving grandparents were more depressed than noncaregivers in an Alameda County study (Strawbridge, Wallhagen, Shema, and Kaplan 1997).
Grandparents who house both grandchildren and their parent(s) are typically partners in child rearing, in contrast to parent-headed families that may provide for an older, often ill grandparent (Bryson and Casper 1999). Studies of coparenting families have focused primarily on grandparents assisting young mothers. However, the advantages attributed to multigenerational coresidence—such as family closeness and increased resources (Stevens 1984)—may be counteracted by disengaged parents, conflict over child rearing, low family cohesion, and loss of privacy. For example, the grandmother's interference in child rearing (e.g., unwanted advice and assistance) and emotional friction (e.g., criticism and antagonism) have been found to cause strain among young parents living with their mothers (Richardson, Barbour, and Bubenzer 1991). Low family cohesion has been related to depression (Kalil, Spencer, Spieker, and Gilchrist 1998), and intergenerational conflict has been found to increase the risk of depression among both mothers and grandmothers in coparenting families (Caldwell, Antonucci, and Jackson 1998).
Only a few studies have compared the well-being of coparenting and custodial grandparents in grandparent-headed families (Jendrek 1993; Musil 2000; Pruchno and McKenney 2000). Most have found lower well-being among custodial grandparents in terms of restrictions in privacy and on time use (Jendrek 1993), levels of parenting stress and available supports (Musil 2000), and caregiver burden and reduced life satisfaction (Bowers and Myers 1999). One study showed custodial grandparents to be more burdened, although they did not differ in caregiver satisfaction and mood (Pruchno and McKenney 2000). Thus, the weight of evidence supports the view that custodial grandparents are at risk of social isolation and elevated emotional distress compared with coparenting grandparents.
|
Ethnicity and Grandparent Caregivers |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
), and a higher proportion of African American grandparent-headed families than other groups have no parent at home, reflecting a cultural tradition of surrogate parenting (Burton and Dilworth-Anderson 1991). Although fewer Latino children are raised in grandparent-headed families compared with African American children, proportionally more Latino grandparent-headed families coparent (Saluter 1996). Three-generation living is common in parent-headed Latino families, particularly among immigrant families (Bryson and Casper 1999) and to provide for older adults (Lubben and Becerra 1987). White families have the lowest proportion of children raised in grandparent-headed families, and more of them are in coparenting families (Saluter 1996).
Research on ethnicity and grandparenting has shown important differences in family composition and role expectations. African American grandparents have historically served as kinkeepers (Burton and Dilworth-Anderson 1991) and have often raised their grandchildren as a result of African tradition, family survival during slavery, and the parents' search for economic opportunity in the North (Hunter and Taylor 1998). In spite of the tradition, qualitative studies of Black grandmothers in urban communities have described neighborhood dangers, multiple caregiving roles, financial drain, and stress resulting from raising grandchildren (Burton 1992). Coparenting in African American families has traditionally been a response to the needs of single and teen parents, and studies with African American samples have found that grandmothers played highly utilitarian and active roles in terms of transmitting knowledge about infant development to their daughters (Stevens 1984) and serving as a parental replacement, supplement, and support (Apfel and Seitz 1991). On the other hand, coparenting in the same household has been related to lower levels of maternal competency than when mothers lived independently (Wakschlag, Chase-Lansdale, and Brooks-Gunn 1996).
In contrast to African American grandparents, little has been written about Latino grandparents raising grandchildren until recently (Burnette 1999; Cox 2000a). A training program for Latino and African American caregiving grandparents showed Latino grandmothers were more likely to be involved with parents and to be providing day care, in contrast to custodial African American grandmothers (Cox 2000a). Even custodial Latino grandmothers often had a nonparent adult child living at home to help (Burnette 1999). Thus, Latino grandparents were more likely to play support roles to the parent, to coparent in intergenerational households, and to rely on adult children even in custodial situations, consistent with the values of familism. The preference for familism involves frequent and close family contacts and the expectations of reciprocal mutual aid, including filial responsibility in old age (Vega 1995). These values ultimately have a bearing on the quality of family relationships and emotional well-being in custodial and coparenting Latino families.
The surrogate parent role for White grandmothers emerged in the literature in an early typology developed by Neugarten and Weinstein 1964, and the tradition for a small proportion of children to be raised by custodial grandparents has been documented back to 1940. Coparenting is also a consistent, somewhat more prevalent tradition in response to single parenthood or economic need (Uhlenberg and Kirby 1998). Nevertheless, the style of grandparenting that predominates is companionate, and White grandmothers are less apt to discipline and correct their grandchildren than African American grandparents (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1992). Pruchno 1999 found White grandparents to be less familiar and more burdened with the custodial role than African American grandmothers. Although longstanding, the tradition has not been widespread, and the lack of well-known, shared norms for primary grandparent caregiving may limit the support available to White grandmothers as they assume the role.
|
Hypotheses |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Grandmothers were recruited into the study through the schools and the media. Almost two thirds (63%) of the sample was recruited through grandchildren attending public schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Notices that announced the study and incentive ($15 payment for the grandmother and a $5 McDonald's gift certificate for the grandchild) were sent home to all students in targeted schools. Notices were distributed in 223 of 792 schools in the district and reached 32% of all students. To supplement this sampling technique, grandmothers were also recruited, using the same incentives, through media ads (24%) and community contacts (13%). One-hour interviews were completed in the grandmothers' homes by ethnically and linguistically matched interviewers by the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Science Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
Because the sample was recruited purposively, it did not provide the advantages of a sample randomly selected from a known population. Sample selection decisions in the study of relatively rare populations must be viewed in light of the unique nature of the population being studied. The most often used random sample of a couple hundred caregiving grandparents (see Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000b; Minkler, Fuller-Thomson, Miller, and Driver 1997) presents low power and makes subgroup analyses difficult. Pruchno 1999; Pruchno and McKenney 2000, in her national study of African American and White caregiving grandmothers, recruited a large sample of over 700 through media ads. Our use of several recruitment strategies optimized sample size while representing a good deal of the ethnic, economic, and lifestyle diversity in the study population. Nevertheless, owing to the unique characteristics of our quota sample, findings on the total sample cannot be generalized to the population of caregiving grandmothers.
The full sample of custodial and coparenting grandmothers consisted of 43% married grandmothers, with 43% working full or part time. The mean age for the total sample was 56.7 years. Overall educational level was 11.5 years, which is almost at the level of high school graduate. Average yearly family income level was between $30,000 and $35,000. The distribution of income was broad, with 46% having a yearly family income of $30,000 or less, 38% having a yearly family income of $30,001 to $60,000, and 15% having a yearly family income of $60,001 or more. There was a 23% poverty rate.
Measures
Survey questions included those concerning grandmothers' and grandchildren's demographic and social characteristics, reasons for caregiving, family relationships, and psychological well-being. Survey questions that were not already available in Spanish were translated and reviewed by bilingual persons of three different nationalities (Mexican, Spanish, and Salvadoran) to account for regional variation.
Demographic characteristics of grandmothers included their marital status, age, health, ethnicity, education, work status, yearly family income, and per capita income. Acculturation was assessed for Latino grandmothers on the basis of responses to a four-item measure (Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, and Perez-Stable 1987) that tapped preferred language use in different social contexts. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from only Spanish to only English. Coefficient alpha for this sample was .95.
One target grandchild was selected—the child in the targeted school or with the most recent birthday—and a series of detailed questions was asked, including those concerning child welfare involvement, and the child's gender, the child's age, and the number of years lived with grandmother. The child's behavior problems were listed using a 10-item Behavior Rating Index for Children, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from rarely or never to most or all of the time (Stiffman, Orme, Evans, Feldman, and Keeney 1984). The coefficient alpha for this sample (.78) was slightly lower than at the time of development, but was acceptable.
Stress resulting from the parent's circumstance was described using a problem list developed by Jendrek 1994 through in-depth interviews, which elucidated the reason the grandmother assumed care. The final list of 36 reasons was adapted for the current study. The resident parent—mother, father, or couple—was also described for coparenting families.
Family stress was also measured as the quality of intergenerational relations, which were assessed using the affectual solidarity and conflict scales developed by Bengtson 1991. The grandmother described her relationship with the target grandchild and with the father and mother of the child and provided an estimate of the grandchild's relationship with each parent. A 5-item version of the affectual solidarity scale was adopted, including assessments of understanding, getting along, emotional closeness, communication, and affection. In addition, a single conflict item was used that reflects conflict, tension, or disagreement in the relationships (Bengtson 1991). Coefficient alphas for affectual solidarity ranged from .83 for grandmother and grandchild to .93 to .95 for other relationships.
Psychological well-being of grandmothers was measured using four different scales discussed below, all available in Spanish as well as in English. Each scale taps a unique aspect of well-being related to depression, general affect, global mental health, and satisfaction with aspects of daily life.
The Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale (Radloff 1977) is a 20-item scale designed to measure depression in the general population and has also proved useful for clinical and psychiatric research. Items are rated on a 4-point frequency scale that assesses frequency over the past week, ranging from rarely or none of the time to most or all of the time. The measure has been and continues to be used with Spanish-speaking samples and with older adults. Coefficient alpha of the 20 summed items was .89.
The Short Form-36 health survey (Ware 1993) was used to assess the physical and mental health of the grandmothers. This 36-item measure has scales measuring physical functioning, role disability due to physical health problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role disability due to emotional health problems, and general mental health. The measure meets generally recommended reliability standards for group comparisons. Subscale internal consistency for this sample ranged from .74 for the social functioning component to .93 for the physical functioning component. Algorithms provided were used to construct general physical health and mental health component scores from the subscales. General physical health was used as a control variable, and general mental health was used as a measure of well-being.
The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) was used to measure positive and negative mood (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988). This is a 20-item measure of mood that uses descriptive positive adjectives, such as interested, strong, enthusiastic, or negative adjectives, such as distressed, scared, or hostile. Respondents described how they felt during the past few weeks, by means of a 5-point scale ranging from very slightly or not at all to extremely. Given the literature showing the independence of positive affect and negative affect, we formed two scales, each consisting of pure markers of positive or negative affect. Variables were selected, based on factor loadings from a principal-components analysis, if they had substantial (
.4) loading on one factor and a near-zero loading on the other. Coefficient alpha for this sample was .87 for positive affect and .88 for negative affect.
Life Satisfaction, a cognitive judgment of subjective well-being, was measured using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin 1985). The measure consists of five items scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Life satisfaction also met criteria for discriminant validity from affective components as measured by the PANAS (Lucas, Diener, and Suh 1996). The coefficient alpha for this sample was .84.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Demographic Differences Between Household Types
Demographic and social characteristics are shown in Table 1 for grandmothers in each of the two household types within ethnic group and for the total sample. The total sample showed custodial families to have a smaller proportion of married grandmothers, higher educational level, lower yearly family income, and higher per capita yearly income compared with coparenting grandmothers. There were no differences in age, working status, health, or proportion in poverty, using the 1999 poverty guidelines (lAnnual Update,r 1999). Educational differences resulted from less acculturated and less educated Latino grandmothers in coparenting families. Higher yearly income among coparenting grandmothers was a result of larger household size, and per capita income was higher in custodial families. Thus, grandmothers in custodial and coparenting families were similar on many important factors. Where differences existed, they were not consistent across all ethnic groups. In terms of the target grandchild's characteristics, there were no gender differences in custodial versus coparenting families. As might be expected, there were more custodial grandchildren supervised by child welfare agencies. They were also older, had more behavioral problems, and had stayed longer with their grandmothers. Child welfare oversight was consistent across ethnic groups, but other differences were not. The resident parent was typically the mother, although Latino families had a high proportion of couples living in the family.
|
|
|
|
Intergenerational Relationships in Custodial Versus Coparenting Families
There were no differences between custodial and coparenting grandmothers in terms of closeness with the target grandchild (Table 5 ). However, all intergenerational relationships involving parents showed differences in closeness by household type, with closer relationships characteristic of coparenting families. These results were consistent within ethnic groups, with one exception. The relationships involving African American fathers were equally close in custodial and coparenting families.
|
Well-Being of Custodial Versus Coparenting Grandmothers
We used multivariate linear modeling to examine the differences in well-being of grandmothers across the household types, using all five indicators of well-being simultaneously. Analyses were conducted separately for each ethnic group so as not to obscure the distinct patterns by ethnicity. We built our models hierarchically, such that the impact of household type could be examined after sequentially controlling for many of the stresses that differentiate grandparents in the two family structures. In the first model, no control variables were applied, and results reflected these grandmothers as they appeared in the community. The second model added demographic factors as controls and thus isolated the impact of household type on well-being after variances due to socioeconomic correlates of well-being were removed (age, education, per capita income, working status, marital status, physical health, recruitment method, and acculturation for Latino grandmothers). The third model followed with the addition of reasons for assuming care and the quality of intergenerational relationship, therefore statistically removing stress resulting from the parent generation (see Table 6 for multivariate F test, Wilks's lambda).
|
Univariate F-test results are displayed in Table 7 in order to provide detail regarding responses for each dependent measure. This is important in light of previous research that has shown different cultural response to positive aspects of well-being (Diener and Lucas 1999). For African American grandmothers, there were no significant differences in household type among the five well-being indicators for Model 1 (no controls) or Model 2 (demographic factors controlled; see Table 7 ). When the reasons for assuming care and intergenerational relationships were controlled in Model 3, household type differences emerged. African American grandmothers in custodial families showed less negative affect, more positive affect, and better mental health. Statistically removing the problems of the parent generation revealed a greater well-being in response to custodial over coparenting circumstances for African American grandmothers.
|
White custodial grandmothers showed higher positive affect in Model 1 when there were no controls. In Model 2, they showed higher negative and positive affect, suggesting the custodial situation is emotionally charged, with greater affect overall once demographic factors were controlled. In Model 3, when the stresses from the parent's circumstances were controlled, they continued to show higher positive affect in the custodial situation (see Table 7 ) although the multivariate F did not reach significance. Thus, without the stress from the parent, custodial and structures were roughly equal or somewhat more positive for White grandmothers.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Although the sample provided great strengths in terms of its cultural diversity, as a quota sample it overrepresented some groups and cannot be compared to the U.S. population of grandmothers who are raising their grandchildren. Only grandmothers raising school-aged children were included, and the sampling frame of urban Los Angeles restricts generalization beyond the urban context, particularly among Latino grandmothers, who were more likely to be immigrants than in other regions of the nation. In comparison with national data on coresident grandparents, grandmothers in our sample had lower household income level (approximately $34,000 compared with $43,783 nationally in 1997) but virtually the same poverty rate (23.4% compared with 23% nationally; Casper and Bryson 1998). Compared with those of other studies, the sample was younger (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000a; Pruchno 1999), fewer were married (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000a; Pruchno 1999), and fewer were employed (Casper and Bryson 1998). These differences from national studies are the result of quota sampling; we adjusted for these apparent biases by conducting analyses within ethnic groups. Another limitation of the analysis is related to the study's cross-sectional nature. We were unable to determine to what extent differences in well-being in custodial or coparenting families were a result of the household structure or the social forces predisposing grandmothers to adopt their particular living arrangement. We sought to remedy this limitation by controlling for the most salient precursors and consequences of living in a custodial or coparenting household that are also risk factors for distress among caregiving grandparents.
Stress and Family Disruption in Custodial Versus Coparenting Families
Although not surprising, our hypothesis that greater disruption from the parent's problem would characterize custodial families was confirmed. We affirmed, as have other studies (Jendrek 1994; Pruchno and McKenney 2000), that parental drug use was a reason to assume care in around half of custodial families, whereas it was a reason for one in five or fewer grandmothers in coparenting families. Similarly, financial reasons motivated most grandmothers in coresident situations but not those in custodial situations.
The grandmother–grandchild relationship was equally close in both family types, although this relationship was more conflicted in custodial families, suggesting that some conflict accompanies parental responsibility for discipline of the grandchildren. Because all grandmothers in our sample participated to some extent in the care of their grandchildren, our finding is consistent with Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000b, who found that self-defined, primary caregiving grandmothers had greater closeness to their grandchildren than noncaregiving grandmothers. As expected, we found that closeness was lower in custodial families in all relationships with the parent. The only exception was the relationship with the father in African American families. Thus, the relationship with the mother more consistently reflected the stresses of custodial grandparenting. Custodial African American families showed less relationship disruption in terms of conflict with the parent generation than custodial Latino or White families.
The African American tradition of grandparent surrogate care is longstanding and did not originate with the parent's inability to parent (Burton and Dilworth-Anderson 1991), a history that may reduce stigma and conflict with the parent, in spite of contemporary parental problems and reduced closeness with the mother. Latino custodial grandmothers may experience conflict with the mother, as their expectations of familism and close intergenerational relationship are not fulfilled. The intricate interdependence in Latino families implies future reciprocity: Adult children are expected to care for their parents in old age, as well as engage in ongoing social and supportive family involvement (Vega 1995). White families have a tradition of custodial care with very low prevalence (Uhlenberg and Kirby 1998), and the problematic circumstances of custodial care may generate conflict with the parents in light of norms for independence and noninterference. Thus, the stresses experienced as a result of the parent are both common and unique, with a subtle effect on the quality and dynamics of intergenerational relationships resulting from ethnic traditions and expectations.
Grandmother Well-Being in Custodial Versus Coparenting Families
We also hypothesized that disruptions and stress resulting from the parent's problem and from problematic intergenerational relationships would result in lower well-being among custodial families than among coparenting families. This hypothesis was confirmed unequivocally for Latino grandmothers. In contrast, African American grandmothers showed no significant differences in well-being as a result of custodial or coparenting circumstances. For White grandmothers, three of five indicators showed no differences, but the custodial family was related to higher affect (positive and negative), a somewhat ambiguous result. Most studies of grandparent well-being have focused on the comparison between caregiving and noncaregiving grandparents, showing greater depression and lower physical well-being for the former (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler 2000b; Solomon and Marx 2000). One study compared custodial and coparenting grandparents with noncaregiving grandparents (Szinovacz, DeViney, and Atkinson 1999). Szinovacz and colleagues found greater depression when a grandchild entered a grandparent-headed family for both custodial and coparenting grandmothers, suggesting that both circumstances exert considerable stress on grandmothers.
Although household structure is typically a response to the parent's problems, we can address the impact of the structure itself, separated from the parent's problems by statistical control. Among African Americans, without the stresses of the parent's serious problems, grandmothers would appear to adapt with greater well-being to custodial situations. Coparenting also presents struggles and hazards, including the tendency of some young mothers to abdicate parenting responsibility (Apfel and Seitz 1991) or exhibit reduced parenting competence in three-generation families (Wakschlag et al. 1996). Latino and White grandmothers in custodial and coparenting households fared equally well after the effects of parental and relationship problems were statistically removed. Latino family traditions include the expectation that grandmothers will be involved in the lives and upbringing of their grandchildren (Williams and Torrez 1998). Once the disappointments over the parent's circumstances are removed, the preference for coparenting disappears. For White families, this statistical simulation resulted in similar well-being in both types of families, although univariate positive affect remained higher in custodial families. Both custodial and coparenting roles may be contrary to cultural ideals of independence and noninterference, and the preferred role is companionate (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1992).
Implications for Practice and Research
Because of the failure to identify a coparenting advantage for African American and White caregiving grandmothers, the findings of this study point to more in-depth analysis of coparenting stress. Many stress factors associated with multigenerational living were not captured in this research (e.g., extent of shared parenting, parental competence and individuation, and conflict over child-rearing decisions; Apfel and Seitz 1991; Wakschlag et al. 1996). The lack of a stronger coparenting advantage alerts the professional to the needs of coparenting families as well as custodial families. For custodial families, the problems of the parent are a major source of stress. Controlling for parental stresses shifted results for all ethnic groups toward improvement of well-being for custodial grandmothers. Important practice goals are dealing with the grief and disappointment over the parent's situation and helping to salvage whatever is possible of the relationship with the parent.
Although not the focus of the study, demographics of the sample showed that poverty was a concern for a large proportion of the grandmothers (a third of Latino grandmothers and 25% of custodial African American grandmothers). Latino families, in addition, have lower education, and many are recent immigrants. They may have an acculturation and language gap in accessing resources for their families, and many families do not have legal immigrant status, which would qualify them for most types of assistance. Welfare reform under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) has mandated work requirements and time limits for welfare (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF), and the status of caregiving grandparents in relation to these regulations is still being clarified by the states. States are allowed to exempt 20% of their caseload from time limits (Minkler, Berrick, and Needell 1999). In California, time limits do not apply if caregivers are older (60 or older); however, the average age of grandparent caregivers in this study was 57 years of age. Regulations excluding persons with drug-related felonies and requiring teen mothers to live with their parents will certainly affect the parent generation, who may be rendered ineligible or must meet behavioral standards to qualify (Minkler et al. 1999). In addition to welfare (TANF), some grandparents assume care for grandchildren through the child welfare system as a result of parental abuse or neglect. If children are wards of the court, grandparents may be paid as foster parents if they qualify for state licensing, although state regulations vary widely and continue to shift (Gleeson 1999). As these policies are further defined over the next decade, the interests of caregiving grandparents should be represented and protected. Grandparents often make enormous personal sacrifices to assume roles they are not legally obligated to fulfill and that provide a contribution to society and to the well-being of the family.
Finally, the study makes it clear that cultural ideals, norms, and traditions make a difference in assuming custodial and coparenting roles. These ideas and traditions may provide a protection against the daily stresses inherent in both these family types. Where there are no cultural templates that normalize a family situation, subcultural enclaves can be created to provide support and a positive ideology. Support groups are one example that are effective for some caregivers. Other means that create and modify institutions also need to be developed in order to provide greater support for the courageous and dedicated efforts grandparents are making to provide for the next generation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Received for publication October 29, 2001. Accepted for publication March 20, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractCustodial Versus Coparenting...Ethnicity and Grandparent...HypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. Hinterlong and S. Ryan Creating Grander Families: Older Adults Adopting Younger Kin and Nonkin Gerontologist, August 1, 2008; 48(4): 527 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. L. Letiecq, S. J. Bailey, and F. Porterfield "We Have No Rights, We Get No Help": The Legal and Policy Dilemmas Facing Grandparent Caregivers Journal of Family Issues, August 1, 2008; 29(8): 995 - 1012. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. B. Cornelius, S. LeGrand, and L. Jemmott African American Grandparents' and Adolescent Grandchildren's Sexuality Communication Journal of Family Nursing, August 1, 2008; 14(3): 333 - 346. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. L. Kemp Grandparent--Grandchild Ties: Reflections on Continuity and Change Across Three Generations Journal of Family Issues, July 1, 2007; 28(7): 855 - 881. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. C. Goodman Family Dynamics in Three-Generation Grandfamilies Journal of Family Issues, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 355 - 379. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Hughes, L. J. Waite, T. A. LaPierre, and Y. Luo All in the Family: The Impact of Caring for Grandchildren on Grandparents' Health J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., March 1, 2007; 62(2): S108 - S119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Fuller-Thomson and M. Minkler Central American Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, February 1, 2007; 29(1): 5 - 18. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. C. Goodman and M. Silverstein Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren: Ethnic and Racial Differences in Well-Being Among Custodial and Coparenting Families Journal of Family Issues, November 1, 2006; 27(11): 1605 - 1626. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Musil, C. B. Warner, J. A. Zauszniewski, A. B. Jeanblanc, and K. Kercher Grandmothers, caregiving, and family functioning. J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., March 1, 2006; 61(2): S89 - S98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Hayslip Jr. and P. L. Kaminski Grandparents Raising Their Grandchildren: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Practice Gerontologist, April 1, 2005; 45(2): 262 - 269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Jendrek GRANDPARENTS: FAMILY SUPPORTERS, CUSTODIAL CAREGIVERS, AND DOLLS Gerontologist, October 1, 2003; 43(5): 771 - 774. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. C. Goodman Intergenerational Triads in Grandparent-Headed Families J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., September 1, 2003; 58(5): S281 - 289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
ict in Intergenerational Relationships