PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATTON, 73(4), 66-85

Copyright 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum AssocUtes, Inc.

The Effects of Poverty on

Parenting Young Children
Ann P. Kaiser and Elizabeth M. Delaney

Childhood poverty is a powerful contextual factor in the development

of children. In the late 1990s, one in four children bom will be bom into
conditions of poverty. The United States has the highest rate of childhood
poverty among major industrialized nations (Huston, 1991). Children from
Africcin Americein, Asian American, Native American, and Latino families
have stiU higher rates of poverty and they are more likely to remain poor
for longer periods of time than children who are not minorities (Children's
Defense Fund, 1992). For example, among children of African American
descent, nearly 45% are poor (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1993).
The influences of childhood poverty on development are multiple, di-
verse, direct, and indirect (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia Coll, 1994; Lemer,
Castellino, Terry, Villarruel, & McKinney, 1995). Children bom in poverty

A N N p. KAISER is Professor and Chair of Special Education, and Director of the Institute for
Prevention, Early Intervention, and Families of the John F. Kennedy Center, Peabcdy Ccllege of
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

ELIZABETH M. DELANEY is a Doctoral student in the Department of Special Education, Peabody

College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Institute of Child Health and
Development Grant ROIHD27583 and the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services Training Grant H023C10031.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Ann P. Kaiser, Department of Special Education.
Peabody College of Vandetbilt University, Box 328, Nashville. TN 37203.

66
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

begin life at higher risk for health and development problems because of
poor pre- and perinatal health care, their own health status at birth, the
health status of their mothers, and the safety of their home environments
(Baumeister, Kupstas, Woodley-Zanthos, & Klindworth, 1993). These direct
influences continue throughout childhood and adolescence and are mani-
fest in elevated levels of childhood illness, accidents, and death from abuse
or violence (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1993). In communities
with chronic, concentrated poverty, health, survival, social, and educa-
tional risks are found at their highest levels (Coulton & Pandey, 1992).
There is a strong association between poverty and poor cognitive, social,
and academic outcomes for children. Poor children are at greater risk for
conduct problems, depression, peer confUct, and low self-confidence (Kler-
man, 1991; McLoyd & Wilson, 1992). Children bom in poverty, especially
children who are exposed to multiple risks (e.g., single parenting, minority
status, health problems, chronic poverty, very-low-income neighborhood,
and high levels of incidental stressors), are likely to have measured IQs
lower tiian middle-class children (Campbell & Ramey, 1994), to be slower
in developing language and literacy skills (Hart & Risley, 1995), and to show
poorer performance on academic tests and in school contexts (Korenman,
Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995).

The Kennedy Center and Poverty

The establishment of a national network of Mental Retardation Research

Centers, particularly those named for and endowed by the Kennedy family,
was motivated by an interest in preventing mental retardation. The relation
between poverty and poor developmental outcomes was established con-
ceptually and empirically by the mid-1960s (Langner, Herson, Greene,
Jameson, & Goff, 1970; McKinley, 1964). Then, as now, the majority of
children who experienced mental retardation resulting from unknown
etiologies were poor (Baumeister et al., 1993). The earliest research con-
ducted at the Kennedy Center focused on the prevention of mental retar-
dation through early intervention with children living in poverty (Gray,
Klaus, Miller, & Forrester, 1966). Susan Gray and her colleagues' landmark
experiment in prevention, the Demonstration and Research Center on Early
Education project, established an approach to improving children's cogni-
tive and academic outcomes that would be replicated numerous times and
would provide the foundation for a national policy supporting preschool
intervention for poor children (Williams, 1977). Throughout the 30-year
history of the Kennedy Center, investigators have addressed issues related
to poverty. For example, the conceptual basis for Project Re-Ed was
grounded in the notion that community envirorunents, as well as families.

67
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

contributed to children's behavior; the task of re-education was not only

directed to children, but included strengthening the developmental con-
texts of children (Hobbs et al, 1984). Recently, Baumeister and his col-
leagues completed a policy analysis and forwarded a model of the "new
morbidity," which identifies the multiple causes and outcomes of child-
hood poverty. A national intervention research project, FAST-TRACK,
directed by Kermeth Dodge (see Dodge, 1996/this issue), is the culmination
of developmental studies of childhood aggression, particularly as it occurs
in the context of high risk, low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods.
A model of school-based counseling services has been designed to address
the most pressing mental health needs of children and youth in low SES
neighborhoods (Weiss & Catron, 1994). Evaluatior\s of these services indi-
cate that more than 35% of the children attending schools in high-risk
neighborhoods require mental health interventions (Tapp, Niarhos, & Ca-
tron, 1994) and that services delivered in the school context are effective
and cost efficient (Catron & Weiss, 1994).
Many children who participated in Kennedy Center research and dem-
onstration projects lived in restricted economic circumstances. Conse-
quently, Kennedy Center early intervention researchers have addressed
problems associated with poverty: compromised social development
(McEvoy & Odom, 1987), behavior problems (W. H. Brown, Ragland, &
Fox, 1988; Timm, 1992), language development (Kaiser, Hemmeter, Os-
trosky, Alpert, & Hancock, 1995; Kaiser & Hester, 1994; Warren, 1988),
academic failure (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Femstrom, 1992; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Bishop, 1992), and delayed cognitive development (Haywood & Wingen-
feld, 1992).
At the begirming of the 4th decade of the Kennedy Center, poverty and
its pervasive ir\fluences on children's development remains a criticcil issue.
Our understanding of how poverty affects development is far from com-
plete. Empirical demonstrations of how the effects of poverty can be ame-
liorated through interventions have yielded promising results, but we have
not yet able to deliver many of these effective interventions on a large scale.
More children are poor and remain poor for longer periods them at ciny time
since the depression of the 1930s, yet educators work in a political climate
of lessening fiscal and social commitment to the poorest among us and a
growing demand for cost-efficient, if not developmentally effective, social

Overview

In this article, we address how parenting in the context of poverty

influences children's development. Based on empirical literature, we dis-

68
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

cuss (a) parenting as a process, (b) how parents as individuals are influenced
by the context of poverty, (c) how parenting within the context poverty
influences children's development, (d) how children are directly and indi-
rectly influenced by poverty, and (e) factors that appear to mediate the
debilitating effects of poverty. In the last section of the article, we propose
a set of research questions that merit further investigation.

Parenting

Parenting is a biological and social process (Tobach & Schneirla, 1968)

that includes birthing, providing for basic physical needs, and offering
protection until the child is able to care for himself or herself. Parenting is
more than meeting the survival needs of the child, however. Adequate
parenting includes mediation of the environment; responsiveness to the
child's moods, communications, and emotions; consistency in responses to
the child; cind physical and emotional availability to the child (Halpem,
1990). Parenting involves a bidirectional relationship between members of
two or more generations that continues across the life span of the partici-
pants (Lemer et al., 1995). The parent-child relationship is the primary
developmental context in which early cognitive, social, and behavioral
development will occur. Parents shape and are shaped by their children's
behavior (Sameroff, 1975). The outcomes of their transactional process may
be more or less positive for parent and child depending on the goodness of
fit between the dyad (Thomas & Chess, 1977), the skills of the adult across
various parenting tasks (Bomstein, 1995), other influences on the child's
development (e.g., the presence of health problems or disability), and the
support available to the parent from others outside the dyad (Hashima &
Amato, 1994). In Bronfenbrenner's (1979) terms, the parent-child dyad is a
microsystem that is influenced at all levels of the human ecology. Parenting
is shaped by the parents' participation in other social microsystems (such
as the marital relationship and friendships) and by the institutions, values,
cultures, and politics of ttie society in which the parent-child relationship
is embedded. In an ecological model, events separate from the immediate
interactions of parents and children are seen as influencing the dyad
directly and indirectly. In the early years of children's lives, most, but not
aU, outside influences on the child will be mediated through the parents'
interactions with the child. Thus, parenting, broadly defined, becomes the
medium through which the child experiences the world. Those factors that
shape, constrain, or support adults in accomplishing the foundational tasks
of parenting also influence the process of parenting as a context for human
development.

69
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

No single description of good parenting would adequately describe the

variants of parent behavior across the developmental period of childhood
or across cultures defined by race, ethrucity, class, or geography. There are
however, theoretical and empirical descriptions of core parent behavioral
and emotional strategies that appear to lead to relatively healthier child
outcomes across time and culture. For example, it is well established that
formation of a secure emotional attachment to a primary caregiver during
infancy provides a foundation for healthy social development throughout
childhood (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993). The patterr^ of parental
behavior that support attachment include responsiveness to the child,
establishment of a generally positive affective valance in interactions, and
instrumental support for the child in meeting his or her physical and
emotional needs (Halpem, 1990). These same patterns of positive, consis-
tent, and responsive behavior affect children's language development
(Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Hart & Risley, 1995; Moerk, 1992). Cultural vari-
ations in the form and frequency of these behaviors do not appear to result
in negative developmental outcomes for children by cultural group. During
the middle school and adolescent years, the ways in which parents convey
positive regard, monitor behavior, and provide instrumental support for
their child in accomplishing developmental tasks vary from the topogra-
phies observed in early childhood (Collins, Harris, & Susman, 1995; Holm-
beck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gurm, 1995). Although it is difficult to specify the
limits of variation that support healthy developmental outcomes, there is
an underlying set of stable constructs that includes providing for the child's
physical and psychological well-being, modeling culturally valued behav-
ior, and mediating the child's experiences with the environment. In addi-
tion, specific patterns of parent-civild interaction, such as providing high
quality and quantity of parental talk to children (Morisset, Barnard, Green-
berg, Booth, & Spieker, 1990) and appropriate levels of responsive stimu-
lation during infancy (Bomstein, 1995) have been associated with positive
outcomes in specific developmental domains. At least three patterns of
parenting are well established as resulting in poor child outcomes: limited
parent responsiveness to the child (Hamish, Dodge, & Valente, 1995; Rubin,
Stewart, & Chen, 1995), harsh and abusive parenting (Patterson, 1982; Pettit,
Bates, & Dodge, 1993), and failure to monitor child behavior outside the
home (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).

How Parents Are Affected by Poverty

Poverty is more than a simple lack of economic resources, although loss

of or chronic lack of such resources is one characteristic of parents who are

70
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

poor. Poverty is tj'pically defined in terms of pretax income insufficient to

cover the minimal needs of families. Poverty is marked by the absence of
the exact conditions that families require to be successful: a stable environ-
ment, security, emotionally positive time together, a strong shared belief
system, justice, and access to basic resources (Garbarino, 1992). Parents
most likely to be poor are female, unmarried, and members of races and
ethnic groups that are the targets of discrimination (Garrett, Ng'andu, &
Ferron, 1994). Low levels of education and job training, habitation in
economically deprived neighborhoods, and relatively few positive family
experiences define the poorest parents. Living in conditions of poverty
exerts a high cost on family relationships. For example, interspousal con-
flict, often brought on by economic strain, may exacerbate other stresses of
living in poverty. Insularity among the poorest of families is marked by
relatively few positive friendships and frequent negative interactions with
social service agencies (Dumas & Wahler, 1983). Reduced social support
restricts the ability of family and community to buffer or mediate the direct
effects of poverty (Klebanov, Brooks-Gurm, & Duncan, 1994). In sum,
poverty is a complex set of environmental stressors closely associated with
the absence of the conditions that foster healthy family functioning. Indi-
viduals most likely to experience poverty are already vulnerable to the
effects of stress. Poverty increases the likelihood that families will experi-
ence numerous risk factors simultaneously and reduces the likelihood that
protective factors will be present (Halpem, 1990).
Poverty affects parents as individuals in a number of ways that may
inhibit their healthy functioning in the parent-<hild relationship. Living in
poverty can create chroruc psychological distress for individuals (Patterson,
DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Rates of depression are elevated among poor
mothers (Cmic & Acevedo, 1995). Living in poverty for long periods of time
appears to be deleterious to mental health based on increased rates of
mental-health-related problems among the poor. For individual experienc-
ing even mild mental health problems, the chronic stress associated with
poverty can amplify difficulties in adjustment (Webster-Stratton, 1990).
Overall, poverty appears to increase instability tind to decrease consistency
in adult behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1994). Chronic psychological distress
then becomes the psychological context from which parenting occurs.
From this context of psychological distress, secondary behavioral affects
of poverty arise. Expressions of frustration and aggression toward others
increase (McKinley, 1964). Much of this aggression will be manifest in the
context of the family and marital relationships (McLoyd, 1990). Not sur-
prisingly, marital conflict is high among poor couples (Rubin et al., 1995).
Adults living in poverty often become more withdrawn and less expressive
in relationships with others within and outside of the family (Liebow, 1967).

71
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

Possibly as a result of increasing patterns of negative behavior and with-

drawal, the social isolation of poor families increases (Klebanov et al., 1994).
For example, when individuals become unemployed and do not rejoin the
workforce, there is a marked increase in negative psychological states and
in social isolation (Kessler, Turner, & House, 1987). The individuals' capac-
ity for the social, emotional, and pragmatic tasks of relationships is greatly
diminished by living in poverty.

Effects of Poverty on Parenting

The ability to parent is weakened by living in the conditions of poverty

and by the effects of the stresses associated with poverty on psychological
well-being. In general, parents living in chronic poverty evidence less
capacity for supportive, consistent parenting (Sampson & Laub, 1994). The
effects of poverty on the quality of parenting can be seen throughout child
development. The prebirth environment of the ir\fant who is poor often is
affected by the mother's nutrition and relative lack of prenatal care (Garrett
et al., 1994). In infancy, poor mothers have been observed to provide less
vocal stimulation for their ir\fants (Kin\brough Oiler, Eilers, Steffens, Lynch,
& Urbano, 1994). Early patterns of lowered responsiveness, less warmth,
and positive affect continue throughout the preschool and early school
years (Hamish et al., 1995). In their longitudinal study of families from
different social classes. Hart and Risley (1995) found that parents from
welfare-class homes consistently modeled less complex and less diverse
language and engaged in more interactiorw with negative valence than
middle- and professional-class families. This pattern also appeared to be
established in infancy and to continue through the preschool years. Such
findings are consistent with Weinraub and Wolf's (1983) report that moth-
ers who experience more stressful Ufe events are less nurturing and less
responsive to their children's commurucation attempts.
Parenting style among poor families tends to be more punitive, less
consistent, and more likely to be coercive than in more affluent families.
The underlying cause of this difference appears to be psychological distress
in the parents living in poverty (Gecas, 1979). However, there is limited
empirical evidence establishing this relationship within individual parents
(McLoyd, 1990). There is, however, direct evidence that arwiety, depression,
and irritability (states heightened by economic hardship) increase the ten-
dency of parents to be punitive, erratic, unilateral, and less supportive of
their children (McLoyd, 1990; Webster-Stratton, 1990). Coercive cycles of

72
 Effiects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

parent-child interaction have been observed to occur much more fre-

quently among poor families (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Poor
mothers report using spanking more frequently (McLeod & Shanahan,
1993). Perhaps because parents who are poor have more difficulty estab-
lishing informal control over their children in a physical setting that con-
tains more risks and more stressors for both the parent and the child, there
is a greater likelihood parents wiU resort to physical intervention to mediate
child behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1994).
In general, high levels of stress are associated with violence toward
children; both stress and violence are more conunon in poverty-income
households (GeUes, 1992). The rate of child abuse is disproportionately
higher among lower income families, even when potential biases in report-
ing are considered. Conversely, the likelihood of punitive parentalbehavior
decreases as household income increases (Hashima.& Amato, 1994). Al-
though income alone does not account for harsh parenting practices, it is a
dependable marker for the cluster of stressors, educational factors, family
history factors, and parental beliefs that together predict abusive interac-
tions.
The overall envirorunent provided to children in poverty tends to be less
safe (Coulton & Pandey, 1992). In addition, the home may contain fewer of
the materials, activities, and child-inclusive routines that support children's
development (Garrett et al., 1994). Support for emergent literacy is lessened
in families with few economic resources for several reasons: They are less
likely to own and use books, parents typically have lower levels of reading
skills, and the disorganization of the home environment may lessen con-
texts in which reading routinely occurs (Heath, 1989; Purcell-Gates, 1995).
The critical role of parent as mediator of child experiences appears to be
diminished in poor families. Parents in low-income families appear to be
less successful in monitoring and regulating their children's activities and
behavior within the home and outside the home (Sampson & Laub, 1994).
Parent involvement in school activities is also lessened among poor parents
(McLoyd, 1990). Although parents living in low-income conditions indicate
high interest in their children's school activities, they report that transpor-
tation, the availability of dependable child care, and their own history of
school difficulties are significant barriers to participation (Hester, Kaiser,
Stewart-Mayfield, & O'Banion, 1995).
Finally, parents who are poor have greater difficulty meeting the basic
nutritional, health, housing, and clothing needs of their children. Inability
to meet these needs compromises the parents' role as provider for their
child's well-being. Inability to fulfill the role of provider may further
exacerbate the stresses experienced by parents who are poor.

73
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

Summary

Poverty is a psychological and physical context that significantly reduces

the likelihood that parents can support children's physical health, mental
health, and social and cognitive development optimally. Parent charac-
teristics, including education, their own experiences as children, and their
mental and physical health may buffer or exacerbate parents' responses to
the stresses associated with poverty. Nonetheless, the effects of living in
poverty will typically make supportive parenting more difficult for parents.
Chronic poverty, with its cumulative stressors, is likely to significantly
compromise effective parenting.

Effects of Poverty on Children

Poverty affects children directly through substandard living conditior\s,

lack of critical material resources, inadequate nutrition, inferior health care,
and fewer opportunities for formal education and other development
enhancing experiences. The direct effects of poverty are greatly increased
when children live in chronically impoverished neighborhoods and when
they are members of minority groups. Poverty affects children indirectly
by reducing children's capacity for tolerating inherently risk-filled circum-
stances. For example, a low-birthweight baby with health complications is
more likely to be negatively affected by poor nutrition and by poor
caregiver stimulation than a healthy full-term baby. Poverty also indirectly
affects children through their parents and caregivers, who are simultane-
ously affected by the physical conditions and the cumulative psychological
stresses associated with being poor. It is difficult to separate the direct and
indirect effects of poverty on children. Children living in poverty may be
in triple jeopardy: they are more frequently exposed to health and devel-
opment risks, they suffer more negative consequences from such exjwsure
than do economically advantaged children (Zuckerman & Parker, 1995),
and they have parents who are less likely to ameliorate the primary and
secondary risks associated with poverty.
Poverty has generally negative effects on child health, growth, and
development. Children who are bom into poverty often begin life as
smaller, less healthy, and less responsive babies (Grantham-McGregor,
1995). Poor children will have more major illnesses and more chronic
illnesses, and they show greater evidence of infections during childhood
than do children not in poverty (Newacheck, Jameson, & Halfon, 1994).
Undernourishment, either chronically or episodically, occurs more fre-
quently among children who are poor. Poor nutrition during the pre- and

74
 tjfects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

perinatal periods may affect the developing brain, particularly by changing

the neural receptor functions of the brain (Levitsky & Strupp, 1995). Direct
effects on infant motor development are a consistent consequence of under-
nourishment; other specific cognitive deficits are reported less consistently
(PoUitt & Oh, 1994). Although some developmental effects associated with
poor nutrition can be remediated through subsequent proper nutrition,
undernourishment (both overall caloric intake and deficiencies in specific
micronutrients) appears to affect behavioral performance and learrung
throughout childhood and adolescence (Levitsky & Strupp, 1995). Poor
nutrition may provide a physiological context that increases the likelihood
that children will (a) be less physically active and less engaged with the
environment, and (b) demonstrate poor adaptive behavioral skills and
coping strategies (Grantham-McGregor, 1995). In general, poorly nour-
ished children are at increased risk for both mental and physical illnesses
as well as diminished cognitive performance (Brown & Sherman, 1995).
When reductions in the frequency and quality of health care, increased
environmental risks (e.g., exposure to lead, other toxins and violence), and
poor nutrition co-occur, child health, growth, and overall development are
likely to be compromised.
The negative effects of poverty on cognitive development have been
described extensively (cf. Birch, Richardson, Baird, Horobin, & Illsley, 1970;
Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Ramey & Finkelstein, 1981; White, 1982). Among
children reared in poverty, IQ appears to be lower (averaging 5 to 10 points
lower than middle<lass comparison samples), with a greater number of
children falling in the range of borderline or mild mental retardation. Both
genetic and environmental factors appear to contribute to the overall lower
IQ. Typically, mothers of poor children also have lower IQ scores than
comparable middle-class mothers (McLeod & Shanahan, 1993). In addition,
they tend to be less well educated and have less well-developed verbal
skills. Patterns of parent-child interaction that are associated with cognitive
and lingmstic development vary between poor and middle-class families
beginning at birth and continuing through the preschool years (Bradley &
Caldwell, 1984; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hess & Shipman, 1965; Kimbrough
OUer et al., 1994).
Differences in language development are consistently observed between
poor and middle-class children. Children who are bom in poverty tend to
vocalize less (Kimbrough OUer et al., 1994), have smaller vocabularies
throughout the preschool years (Hart & Risley, 1995), show developmental
lags in the use of complex syntactic structure, and show language-related
reading difficulties (Otto, 1993) more frequently than middle-class children.
Differences in language development may be related to generally sup-
pressed cognitive development and to fewer opportunities to learn and use

75
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

language provided by parents and primary caregivers. Hart and Risley

(1995) argued that the early differences in parent-child interaction are
associated with deficits in vocabulary development that cannot easily be
overcome during the school years even when intensive intervention is
provided.
Emergent literacy skills (e.g., naming letters, sightreading simple words,
and showing interest in reading materials) are a bridge indicating children's
transition into reading and writing. For children who are poor, opportuni-
ties to learn these skills are typically less frequent (Sulzby, Branz, & Buhle,
1993); not surprisingly, children who are poor enter kindergarten with
fewer of the foundational language and emergent literacy skills and have
a more difficult time acquiring the basic skills of reading in the early
elementary grades (Purcell-Gates, 1995). Specific reading difficulties may
be related to differences in vocabulary size, discourse, and narrative skiUs
(Bloome, 1982,1989) and familiarity with the social and cognitive expecta-
tions of the classroom context (Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991). Difficulties in
reading in the academic context continue throughout children's school
enrollment. The incidence of reading-related learning disabilities is signifi-
cantly higher among cluldren from impoverished backgrounds, again re-
flecting both increased biological risks and environmental contributions
(Badien, 1988; Teale, 1986).
Children's social and behavioral development is also negatively affected
when children are raised in poverty. Children in poverty are at greatly
increased risk for the development of conduct disorders during the pre-
school and early school years. Once established, conduct disorder is likely
to be persistent and difficult to extinguish through intervention (Patterson,
Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Children who are poor exhibit elevated levels of
both externalizing (e.g., acting out, aggression) and internalizing (e.g.,
social withdrawal, negative self-cor\fidence) behavior (McLeod & Shana-
han, 1993). Overall, poor children present more socioemotional problems
at home and in school (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd,
1990) than children who are not poor.
Economic hardship and social disadvantage alter how a child is social-
ized and the context in which socialization occurs. Dodge, Pettit, and Bates
(1994) identified a set of socialization patterns and social contexts that lead
to poor child behavioral outcomes among children living in poverty: (a)
harsh parenting, (b) lack of warmth toward the child, (c) modeling of
aggressive behavior patterns by parents, (d) differential valuing of aggres-
sion as a problem-solving strategy, (e) high frequencies of stressful life
events, (0 relative isolation and lack of social support experienced by
parents, (g) limited experience with a stable group of well-adjusted nonag-
gressive peers, and (h) limited cogrutive stimulation and support for aca-

76
 f Poverty on Parenting Young Children

demic development. These differences in socialization have long-term

effects on child behavior at home, in school, and in the commimity. Elevated
rates of delinquency have been associated with these aspects of the child's
socialization in the context of poverty (Rubin et al., 1995).
Children living in poverty are at increased risk for abuse and neglect
(Gelles, 1992; Trickett, Aber, Carlson, & Cicchetti, 1991). Children's experi-
ence of abuse by parents or other caregivers may directly contribute to the
high incidence of behavior problems observed in this population. In addi-
tion, abuse may contribute significantly to higher levels of depression and
other mental health problems observed cunong poor children. In general,
mental health outcomes for children living in poverty for extended periods
of time appear to be significantly compromised. As many as one third of
children living in traditionally poor areas show significant mental health
problems in early adolescence (Tapp et al., 1994).
It must be noted that the outcomes for children living in poverty are
cumulative and interrelated in terms of their effect on children. When
children are exposed to multiple risks for health, growth, emotional and
cognitive development, and exposure continues over an extended period
of time, their resilience to these conditions is decreased. The outcomes
observed for children vary according to the length of time they spend living
in poverty (Duncan et al., 1994). Long-term exposure to poverty conditions,
particularly when compounded by living in neighborhoods that are chroni-
cally poor, has dependable negative effects on child outcome across most
developmental domains.

Mediators of Parenting in Poverty

The effects of poverty are not homogeneous across children or parents.

Although we have focused on the negative effects of poverty on parenting
in this article, not all parents are affected negatively, and some portion of
children raised in poverty are resilient to risk (Garmezy, 1983). In addition
to the amount of time spent living in poverty, the absolute level of family
poverty, and the relative level of poverty of the neighborhood, both family
and child factors mediate the effects of poverty. These factors include (a)
maternal education and IQ (Bee et al., 1982); (b) social support experienced
by the parent, including marital and family support emd friendship support
(Hashima & Amato, 1994; Rubin et al., 1995); (c) parent mental health
(Webster-Stratton, 1990); (d) the family's income relative to need (Dvincan
et al., 1994); (e) family size (Bradley et al., 1994); (f) child temperament and
health (Halpem, 1990); and (g) the availability of quality child care and early
intervention (Honig, 1995; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1994). In general, parents

77
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

who have more education, higher IQs, fewer mental health problems, and
adequate social support are most likely to use coping strategies to mediate
the direct effects of poverty on their children and to provide more stimu-
lating and supportive home environments for their children (Duncan et al.,
1994). It is sigriificant that the parents demonstrating this set of charac-
teristics usually spend relatively less time impoverished. How these desig-
nated mediators protect or buffer some parents from the debilitating stres-
sors associated with being poor is not well understood.
Other mediating factors, such as the availability of high-quality child
care, parenting skills, and social support for adults, present points of
intervention. These are factors amenable to change. By far, the most re-
searched mediator of child development among poor children is compre-
hensive early interventions based in preschool or diild care settings (Goffin,
1994). The largest scale clinical trials of early intervention, called the Infant
Health and Development Project (Duncan et al., 1994; Liaw & Brookes-
Gunn, 1994),have examined the effects of providing early chUdcare, limited
parent trairung, and access to health care on the cognitive and behaviorcd
development of low-birthweight infants from low income families. The
results of this study support the findings of earlier studies (cf. Campbell &
Ramey, 1994; Ramey & Gowen, 1984) that at least modest gains in IQ are
associated with this type of multiservice day-care-based early intervention.
Although the significance of these IQ gains has been disputed, there is
evidence to suggest that some children will show improvements in cogni-
tive function that are persistent through the school years (Campbell &
Ramey, 1994; Liaw & Brooks-Gurm, 1994). Effects of this type of interven-
tion on parenting strategies or parent-child interactior have not been
examined. Although it appears that the positive effects on duldren result
primarily from the day care intervention itself, it is possible that there are
secondary effects resulting from either the modest parent trairung efforts
and support provided to parents or parents' responses to changes in their
children's behavior resulting from the primary day care intervention.
Campbell and Ramey (1994) argued that the timing of comprehensive child
interventions is directly related to magnitude of change in cogrutive func-
tioning. Their data suggest that early interventions begiruung in the first 2
years of life will be relatively more effective than similcir interventions
beginning at kindergarten.
Interventions to teach parents specific skills that support positive inter-
actions and better behavioral management of their children have been
shown to be effective in making short-term changes in parent behavior
(Eyberg & Robinson, 1982; Patterson, Capaldi, & BarJc, 1989). Although
initial changes in parent-child interaction can be accomplished relatively
easily with systematic training, generalized and maintained changes, espe-

78
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

cially with very poor, insular, and extremely stressed families have been
more difficult to attain (Wahler & Dumas, 1986). Typically, interventions
used to teach parents have targeted a limited set of skiUs and been relatively
brief. Content, timing, duration of parent trairung intervention, and the
extent to which parent training is embedded in other family and child
support services (e.g., parent support groups, direct intervention with the
child, liaison to other family services) will contribute to the long-term
effectiveness of the training (Kendziora & O'Leary, 1993).

Summary

The factors that mediate parenting in the context of poverty and child
outcomes for children who are poor are closely related. These factors might
be classified into four groups: (a) parent factors not easily amenable to
change (IQ, education, verbal skills, mental health history, and experience),
(b) parent factors potentially amenable to cheinge (parenting strategies
including behavior management, language support, child monitoring,
problem solving with children, social support, and response to stressors),
(c) child factors not amenable to change (health, developmental history, and
temperament), and (d) child factors potentially amenable to change (behav-
ior, language and developmental perform^ance characteristics, social strate-
gies, and problem-solving strategies). Interventions addressing those fac-
tors amenable to change are one approach to mediating the effects of
poverty on children and their families.

A Research and Policy Agenda

Poverty has debilitating effects on families and children. The only large-
scale resolution to the problems of poverty is a national social economic
policy directed at eliminating poverty. Many of the developmental prob-
lems associated with poverty could be radically reduced through a program
of universal day care, health care, and nutritional support for all children
(Baumeister et al., 1993). The root causes of developmental problems lie in
the economic structure of our society, and it is at that level that effective
prevention must begin (Palmer, Smeeding, & Boyle Torrey, 1988; Smeed-
ing, O'Higgins, & Rainwater, 1990). In the face of such statements about the
economic basis of risk, it is humbling to propose a research agenda that or\ly
addresses the accessible mediators of the effects of poverty. What can
behavioral research contribute that will directly affect outcomes for chil-
dren living in poverty? Understanding the complex mechanisms through
which poverty influences individuals and, especially, how the process of

79
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

parenting is changed by the context of poverty, is both scientifically and

practically valuable. Research on interventions to strengthen parenting and
to directly improve outcomes for children provides a basis for educational,
social, and mental health practice as weU as providing insight into the
processes of development. What research in this area cannot do is directly
address the root cause of the developmental risk. Research on behavioral
processes associated with living in poverty and interventions to ameliorate
the effects of poverty are similar to trying to find better treatments for
cancer. Advances in treatment will prolong the lives of affected individuals
and may greatly improve the quality of their lives. Nonetheless, the real
need is to discover and prevent the causes of the disease.
In this article, we have presented evidence that parenting is a critical
process affecting multiple developmental outcomes for children living in
poverty. Behavioral research can provide a basis for interventions to sup-
port the process of parenting as it contributes to these outcomes. Four types
of research are needed: (a) research examining how stress and contextual
factors associated with poverty directly affect parent-child interactions; (b)
research on teaching parents strategies for reducing and managing their
own stress and the effects of such interventions on parent-child interac-
tions; (c) research on teaching parents strategies for interacting with their
children, including behavior management, supporting language and social
development, and problem solving in conflict situations; and (d) research
on the effects of direct child interventions in day care, preschool, and peer
group settings in combination with direct and intensive parenting interven-
tions as described here.
In all cases, the purpose of such research is the prevention of the range
of poor developmental outcomes associated with poverty. The behavioral
and social, as well as cognitive, outcomes for children over the life span
should be examined with the goal of supporting the development of
mentally and physically healthy individuals. Note that this goal is much
broader and, perhaps, more ambitious that the goal of increasing cognitive
development and academic success that has guided much of the research
in prevention during the last 30 years. Successful preventative intervention
requires early identification of children at high risk, intervention in multiple
contexts of the child's environment including parent-child interactions,
peer interactions, and interactions with adults. Effective interventions must
be longitudinal and individualized to fit the child and families patterns of
behavior (Dodge, 1993). Most important, successful behavioral prevention
with children must include systematic intervention to support parents.
A fundamental premise shared by researchers in the Kermedy Center is
that not only do research findings based on empirical data increase under-
standing of the processes of human development but such data also provide

80
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

a rational basis for improved practice and for policymaking. In proposing

this prevention research agenda, we return to this shared premise and to a
theme that has been a hallmark of the first 30 years of the Center.

References

Badien, N. A. (1988). A prediction of good and poor reading before kindergarten entry: A
nine-year follow-up. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,98-103.
Baumeister, A. A., Kupstas, F. D., Woodley-Zanthos, P., & Klindworth, L. M. (1993). The new
morbidiiy: Recommendaiionsfor action and an updated guide to state planning for the prevention
of mental retardation and related disabilities associated with socioeconomic conditions. Washing-
ton, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation.
Bee, H. L., Bamard, K. E., Eyres, S. J., Gray, C. A., Hammond, M. A., Spietz, A. L., Snyder, C ,
& Clark, B. (1982). Prediction of IQ and language skills from prenatal status, child perform-
ance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 53,
1134-1156.
Birch, H. G., Richardson, S. A., Baird, D., Horobin, G., &fllsley,R. (1970). Mental subnorrmlity
in the community: A clinical and epidemiological study. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Bloome, D. (1982). School culture and the future of literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Education.
Bloome, D. (1939). Classrooms and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bomstein, M. H. (1995). Parenting ir\fants. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:
Volume 1 (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Bribaum Associates, Inc.
Bradley, R H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The relation of infant's home environments to
achievement test performance in firet grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55,
803-809.
Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. J., & Pope, S. K. (1994).
Early indications of resilience and their relations to experiences in the home environments
of low-birthweight, premature children living in poverty. Child Development, 65, 346-360.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American
Psychologist, 34,844-850.
Brown, J. L., & Sherman, L. P. (1995). Policy implication of new scientific knowledge. The
Journal of Nutrition, 125,2281S-2284S.
Brown, W. H., Ragland, E. U., & Fox,). J. (1988). Effects of group socialization procedures on
the social interactions of preschool children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 9,
359-376.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and
academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child
Development, 65,684-.698.
Catron, T., & Weiss, B. (1994). The Vanderbilt school-based counseling program: An inter-
agency, primary-care model of mental health services. Special Series: Center for Mental
Health Services Research Projects. Journal of Emotion and Behavioral Disorders, 2,247-253.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1993). Kids count data book. Washington, DC: Author.
Children's Defense Fund. (1992). Selected background material on welfare programs. Washington,
DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for Law and Social Policy, Children's
Defense Fund.
Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children: Charac-
teristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
38(6-7, Serial No. 153).

81
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

Collins, W. A., Harris, M. L., & Susman, A. (1995). Parenting during middle childhood. In M.
H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume I (pp. 65-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Coulton, C. ]., & Pandey, S. (1992). Geographic concentration of poverty and risk to children
in uiban neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 35,238-257.
Cmic, K., & Acevedo, M. (1995). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.),
Handbook ofparenting: Volume 4 (pp. 277-297). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates,
Inc.
Dodge, K. A. (1993). The future of research on the treatment of conduct disorders. Developmen-
tal and Psychopathology, 5, 311-319.
Dodge, K. A., Pettif, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between
socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65,649-665.
Dumas, J. E., & Wahler, R. G. (1983). Predictors offreatmentoutcome in parent training: Mother
insularity and socioeconomic disadvantage. Behavioral Assessment, 5,301-313.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early
childhood development. Child Development, 65,296-318.
Eyberg, S. M, & Robinson, E. A. (1982). Parent-child interaction trairung: Effects on family
functioning. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11,130-137.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Femstrom, P. (1992). Case-by<ase reintegration of students with
learning disabilities. Elementary School Journal, 91,261-281.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal
of Educational Research, 86,70-84.
Garbarino, J. (1992). The meaning of poverty in the world of children. American Behavioral
Scientist, 35,220-237.
Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping,
and development in children (pp. 43-83). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garrett, P., Ng'andu, N., & Ferron, J. (1994). Poverty experiences of young children and the
quality of their home environments. Child Development, 65, 331-345.
Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F. Nye, & I.
Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research-based theories: Vol. 1 (pp.
365^04). New York: Free Press.
Gelles, R. J. (1992). Poverty and violence toward children. American Behavioral Scientist, 35,
258-274.
Goffin, S. G. (1994). Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraising the relationship.
New York: Merrill.
Grantham-McGregor, S. (1995). A review of studies of the effect of severe malnutrition on
mental development. The Journal of Nutrition, 125, 2233S-2238S.
Gray, S. W., Klaus, R. A., Miller, J. O, & Forrester, B. J. (1966). Before first grade: The early training
project of culturally disadvantaged children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early
development of disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
191-213.
Halpem, R. (1990). Poverty and early childhood parenting: Toward a framework for interven-
tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60,6-18.
Hamish,). D., Dodge, K. A., & Valente, E. (1995). Mother-child interaction quality as a partial
mediator of the roles of matemal depressive symptomatology and socioeconomic status
in the development of child behavior problems. Child Development, 66,739-753.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American
children. Baltimore: Brookes.

82
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental beliefs. Child
Development, 65,394-403.
Haywood, H. C , & Wingenfeld, S. A. (1992). Interactive assessment as a research tool. Journal
of Special Education, 26, 253-268.
Heath, S. B. (1989). Oral and literate traditions among Black Americans living in poverty.
American Psyc/iologisl, 44,367-373.
Hess, R. D., & Shipman, V. (1965). Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes
in children. Child Development, 36,869-886.
Hester, P. P., Kaiser, A. P., Stewart-Mayfield, C, & O'Banion, K., (1995, September). Parent
involvement in their children's literacy. Paper presented at the meeting of McDonnell Foun-
dation grant recipients, Nashville, TN.
Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P. R., Hoover-Dempsey, K., Moroney, R. M., Shayne, M. W, & Weeks, K.
H. (1984). Strengthening families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gurui, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M. H.
Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 1 (pp. 91-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Horug, A. S. (1995). Choosing child care for young children. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook
of parenting: Volume 4 (pp. 415-436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Huston, A. C. (1991). Children in poverty: Child development and public policy. New York:
Cambridge Uruversity Press
Huston, A. C, McLoyd, V. C, & Garcia CoU, C G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in
contemporary research. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 18,275-282.
Kaiser, A. P., Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M. M., Alpert, C. L., & Hancock, T. B (1995). The
effects of group training and individual feedback on parent use of milieu teaching. Journal
of Childhood Communication Disorders, 16,39-48.
Kaiser, A. P., & Hester, P. P. (1994). Generalized effects of enhanced milieu teaching. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 37,1320-1340.
Kendziora, K. T., & O'Leary, S. G. (1993). Dysfunctional parenting as a focus for prevention
and treatment of child behavior problems. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances
in clinical child psychology. Vol. 15 (pp. 175-206). New York: Plenum.
Kessler, R., Turner, J., & House, J. (1987). Intervening processes in the relatiorwhip between
unemployment and health. Psychological Medicine, 17,949-%2.
Kimbrough Oiler, D. K, Eilers, R. E., Steffens, M. L., Lynch, M. P., & Urbano, R. (1994).
Speech-like vocalizations in infancy: An evaluation of potential risk factors. Journal of Child
Language, 21,33-58.
Klebanov, P. K, Brooks-Gunn, ]., & Duncan, G. J. (1994). Does neighborhood and family
poverty affect mothere' parenting, mental health, and social support? Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 56,441-455.
Klerman, L. V. (1991). The health of poor children: Problems and programs. In A. C. Huston
(Ed.), Children in poverty (pp. 136-157). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Korenman, S., Miller, J. E, & Sjaastad, J. E. (1995). Long-term poverty and child development
in the United States: Results from theNLSY. Children and Youth Services Review, 17,127-155.
Langner, T., Herson, J., Greene, E., Jameson, J., & Goff, J. (1970). Children of the dty: Affluence,
poverty, and mental health. In V. Allen (Ed), Psychological factors in poverty (pp. 185-209).
Chicago: Markham.
Lerner, R. M., Castellino, D. R., Terry, P. A., Villarruel, F. A., & McKinney, M. H. (1995).
Developmental contextual perspective on parenting. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook on
Parenting, Vol. 2 (pp. 285-309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Levitsky, D. A., &Strupp, B. J. (1995). Malnutrition and the brain: Changing concepts, changing
concerns. The Journal of Nutrition, 125,2212S-2220S.

83
A. P. Kaiser and E. M. Delaney

Liaw, F., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Cumulative familial risks and low-birthweight children's
cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Clinical Child Psychologi/, 23,360-372.
Liebow, E. (1967). Tally's comer: A study of Negro street comer men. Boston: Little, Brown.
McEvoy, M. A., & Odom. S. L. (1987). Social interaction training for preschool children with
behavioral disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 12,242-251.
McKinley, D. G. (1964). Social class and family life. New York: Collier-Macmillan.
McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children's menul health.
American Sociological Review, 58, 351-366.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioeconomic development. Child Development, 63,
311-346.
McLoyd, V. C , & Wilson, L. (1992). Telling them like it is: The role of ecorwmic and
environmental factors in single mothers' discussions with their childrea American Journal
of Community Psychology, 20,419-444.
Moerk, E. L. (1992). A first language taught and teamed. Baltimore: Brookes.
Morisset, C. E., Barnard, K. E., Greenberg, M. T., Booth, C L., & Spieker, S. J. (1990).
Environmental influences on early language development: The context of social risk.
Development and PsycHopathology, 2,127-149.
Newacheck, P., Jameson, W. J., & Halfon, N. (1994). Health status and income: The impact of
poverty on child health. Journal of School Health, 64,229-233.
Otto, B. W. (1993). Signs of emergent literacy among innercity kindergartneis in a storybook
reading program. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 9,
151-162.
Palmer, J. L., Smeeding, T., & Boyle Torrey, B. (1988). The vulnerable. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1989). An early starter model for predicting
delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment qfchildhecd
aggression (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44,329-335.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1993). Family interaction patterns and children's
conduct problems as home and school: A longitudinal perspective. School Psychology
Review, 22,40J-420.
Pollitt, E., & Oh, S. (1994). Early supplementary feeding, child development, and health policy.
Food Nutrition Bulletin, IS, 208-214.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's vxrds: The cycles of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Purcell-Gates, V. & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES children's success and failure at early literacy
learning in skills-based classrooms. Joumal of Reading Behavior, 23,1-34.
Ramey, C. T., & Finkelstein, N. W. (1981). Psychosocial mental retardation: A biological and
social coalescence. In M. Begab, H. C. Haywood, & H. Garber (Eds.), Psychological irtfluencis
and retarded performance: Strategies for improving social competence (Vol. 1, pp. 65-92). Balti-
more: University Park Press.
Ramey, C. T, & Gowen, J. W. (1984). A general systems approach to modifying risk for retarded
development. Early Child Development and Care, 16,9-26.
Rubin, K. H., Stewart, S. L, & Chen, X. (1995). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children.
In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume J (pp. 255-284). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.

84
 Effects of Poverty on Parenting Young Children

Sameroff, A. J. (1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human Development, 18,
65-79.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of delinquency: A
new look at structure and process in a classic study. Child Development, 65,523-540.
Smeeding, T. M., O'Higgins, M., & Rainwater, L. (1990). Poverty, inequality, and income distri-
bution in comparative perspective: The Luxembourg income study. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Sulzby, E., Branz, C. M., & Buhle, R. (1993). Repeated readings of literature and low socioeco-
nomic status of Black kindergartners and first graders. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 9,183-196.
Tapp, J., Niarhos, F. J., & Catron, T. F. (1994, February-March). School-based counseling evalu-
ation project: Utilization of children's mental health services. Poster session presented at the
seventh ar\nual conference, "A System of Care for Children's Mental Health: Expanding
the Research Base," Tampa, Florida.
Teale, W. H. (1986). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing development in early childhood.
National Reading Conference Yearbook, 36,45-74.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Timm, M. A. (1992). The Regional Intervention Program: Family treatment by family members.
Behavioral Disorders, 19,34-43.
Tobach, E., & Schneirla, T. C. (1968). The biopsychology of social behavior of animals. In R. E.
Cooke & S. Levin (Eds.), Biologic basis ofpediatric practice (pp. 68-82). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Trickett, P. K., Aber, J. L., Carlson, V., & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Relationship of socioeconomic
status to the etiology of developmental sequelae of physical child abuse. Developmental
Psj/chology, 27,148-158.
Wahler, R. G, & Dumas, J. E. (1986). Maintenance factors in coercive mother-child interactions:
The compliance and predictability hypotheses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19,
13-22.
Warren, S. F. (1988). A behavioral approach to language generalization. Language, Speech, and
Hearing in the Schools, 19, 292-303
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent perceptions and fanuly
interactions, journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 302-312.
Weinraub, M., & Wolf, B. (1983). Effects of stress and social supports on mother-child
interactions in single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 54,1297-1311.
Weiss, B., & Catron, T. (1994). Specificity of the comorbidity of aggression and depression in
children, journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22,389-401.
White, K. R. (1982). The relations between scxrioeconomic status and academic achievement.
Psychological Bulletin, 91,46-48.
Williams, L. R. (1977). The behavioral approach. In B. D. Boegehold, H. K. Cuffaro, W. H.
Hooks, & G. J. Klopf (Eds.), Education beforefive:A handbook on preschool education (pp.
53-67). New York: Bank Street College of Education.
Zuckerman, B., & Parker, S. (1995). Preventive pediatrics: New models of providing needed
health services. Pediatrics, 95,758-762.

85