- Email: [email protected]
The psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
Child Abwe & Ne&w.
Vol. 9, pp. 265-275.
1985
Ccpynsht0
Pnntcd in the U.S.A. Ail n&s reserwi
0145-2134185 53.00 + DO 1985 Pngamon Press Ltd
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ECOLOGY OF THE NEGLECTFUL MOTHER NOMAN A. POLANSKY, PH.D., JAMES M. GAUDIN, JR., PH.D., PAUL W. AMMONS, ED.D. AND KATHBRYN B. DAVIS, M.S.W. The University of Georgia School of Social Work, Athens, GA 30602 Alit-Inte~ews were conducted with 152 neglectful mothers and with 154 non-ne~~tf~, who were matched on race, economic status, urbanirural status and other fife circumstances. The neglectful mothers reported less support available from informal networks; they also described their neighborhoods as less friendly and helpful than did the controls. However, the conclusion that neglect is related to living in settings that are socially impoverished was not supported by independent interviews with neighbors. Rather, it appeared that neglectful mothers are often isolated by those around them. Because they are seen as deviant and tmhkely to reciprocate help, they do not have access to such support as there may be in their ecology. A new model is presented for preventive, community-based intervention, based on the findings of the research. R&um&-L’enquete a ete conduite en G&or@e t fa fois darts de petites localites et dans des v&s et ttait cent&e sur 152 meres ayant neglige leur enfant et 154 meres-temoins qui etaient apparent& aux premieres quant a la race, la condition economique, le lieu de residence et autres circonstances de la vie mais qui n’avaient pas neghge leur enfant. Les meres negligentes se sont plaintes qu’elfes recevaient peu de soutien de la part du r&seau de leurs voisins. Leurs voisins a leur tour les ont de&es comme mains amicales et moms promptes a la rtciprocite du geste d’aide que les meres non negligentes. &pendant, la concision des meres negligentes, qui disaient que Ieur attitude bait en relation avec la carence relatio~eBe du milieu social dam lequel e&s vivaient n’a pas pu etre corrobore par les entretiens men& ind&pendamment avec les voisms en question. En fait, il semble que les meres negligentes s&lent elles-memes de ceux qui les entourent. Comme les gens qui vivent dam leur voisinage les considerent comme deviantes et peu susceptibles de reciprocitt, ils ne se donnent pas la peine de les aider afors qu’elles pourmient l’etre darts le milieu ou elles vivent en rtalite. Les auteurs se fondant sur leur trouvailie, proposent un nouveau mod&e d’intervention preventive fond&e sur une action communautaire.
THE TERM, PSYCHOLOGICAL ECOLOGY, was introduced by Kurt Lewin in 1944 f I] to refer to certain elements of the environment which are more or less unchanging and which set “boundary conditions of the life of the individual or group” [2, p. 1701. Examples included such things as climate, laws of the land, state of communications. Such contextual elements go beyond a person’s private motivations but may be powerful predictors of behavior. For example, it has been found that the level of social participation of an average student is greater if he is attending a small, rather than a large high school f3, 41. On another level, Kogan, Smith and Jenkins [5J demonstrated that the frequency of neurotic symptoms among children, and the consistency of parental discipline were associated with income levels of their census tracts. The ecological approach has come to signify a strong attentiveness to the environment in seeking to understand behavior Bronfenbrenner [6] has had a major role in boning ecology into research on child development; his former student, Garbarino [7], performed a similar service for the study of child maltreatment. This research was partially supported by Grant 90 CA899/01 from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Administration for Children. Youth and Families to the University of Georgia School of Social Work. 265
266
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr.. P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUPPORT AND ITS LACK
What specific elements of the client’s “ecology” are significant to whether or not children are neglected? The hypotheses in the present research had two instigations. The first was from previous work: A series of neglectful families in Greater Philadelphia was compared with controls matched on race and social situation [8]. In addition to sharp differences in the personalities of the mothers involved, another finding was striking. On a Family Support Index concerning friends and relatives to whom one might turn for help, 78% of the controls were at or beyond the highest point: only 16% of the neglectful parents reached this level. The latter parents-in many instances a woman rearing her brood without a man in the housewere less embedded in helping networks than seemed true of most of the other poor mothers. A second source was the work of Garbarino [9] and his associates. They had found suggestions that the quality of life in a neighborhood plays a role in whether or not its families maltreat their children. The results were more convincing with respect to abuse than neglect, but still the formulation was stimulating. Garbarino proposed that a family that is unstable may continue to offer its children reasonably good care if it resides in a supportive setting. However, if its ecology is nonsupportive, such a family will crumble under stress and so will its level of child caring [7]. If unstable families are scattered at random in various neighborhoods, it would follow that parents neglecting their children are more often to be found in nonsupportive settings. This was the key hypothesis subject to test in this research. To determine how supportive a neighborhood was, this study employed a number of measurement devices. Some have to do with the general quality of life, others with the availability of helping networks. Measures were adapted from our own previous work [8, lo] and that of others [9, ll]. Support can mean many things: easing access to money or food, helping buffer against loneliness, bolstering control systems against impulses, etc. A theoretical and methodological issue that emerged was how support may best be measured. It has seemed best not to rely solely on the family’s own report of its community, but also to seek information from at least one outside source in the same setting. Accordingly, measures of environmental support are taken both from neglectful families being studied and from their neighbors. Gathering data from the latter represented a methodological advance over previous efforts to study the environments of protective services clients.
HYPOTHESES
FOR STUDY
The general hypothesis was that neglectful families will be found living in environments which are less supportive than would be true of others who are in similar life circumstances but who are not neglectful. More specifically, we hypothesized: 1. That, as compared with the non-neglectful, their neighborhoods are less caring; and 2. The general quality of life and amenities for rearing children are inferior in their neighborhoods; 3. That neglectful parents have less access to helping networks; and 4. That such parents are more socially isolated, generally, than others in comparable circumstances. As possible explanatory subhypotheses, it was also postulated: (a) that the isolation of neglectful parents from helping networks is due, at least in part, to their being perceived as unlikely to reciprocate help; and (b) that neglectful parents are perceived as violating the child care standards even within their own neighborhoods.
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
267
METHOD Sampling Design To test the major hypotheses required comparing families regarded as neglectful with others not so identified, but otherwise matched in certain ways. Neglectful families were nominated and recruited for the study by county protective services units of Georgia’s Department of Family and Children’s Services. Those referred primarily reflected poor physical care in terms of housing, clothing, feeding, hygiene and the like, often accompanied by lack of supervision and emotional indifference. All cases were currently active. or recently active, so that neglectful conditions were known to obtain. Since we wished to interview a child also, each case contained at least one child between the ages of 6 and 11. Each mother was offered twenty-five dollars as an inducement to participate. To test whether findings would generalize into the black community as well as the white. half the families were black. Families identified by public agencies as neglectful are demographically not average. To control for the powerful confounding variable of poverty, it was necessary to match income level of control to neglect cases. Recruitment of controls was deliberately permitted to lag behind that of the neglectful in order that the controls could be chosen to be comparable. The variables, on which matching by distribution was sought, were family income, public assistance-usually Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC), and presence of a father-figure. The study was done in two phases: rural and urban. The first phase began with over 150 cases from rural Georgia. Rural was defined as a hamlet of fewer than 2,500 population or as the outskirts of a somewhat larger place. In the second phase, the study was replicated with families from metropolitan Atlanta and Savannah. The major sampling variables were neglect/~ntrol~ white/black and ~r~/urb~. Since so many of those in the neglect samples proved to be of low income and on AFDC, a large proportion of the control cases were recruited through referrals from eligibility workers at the agencies. Others came from food stamp rolls, community informants, and a few from knocking on doors and screening those willing to participate to see if they fit the need for matching cases. In nearly all instances the focal family and interviewer were matched in race. Since the interviewers were, themselves, mostly protective services workers, an effort was made to avoid assigning them their own cases in this study. For each study (focal) family, there was also an interview with the nearest neighbor, After completing focal family contacts, the interviewer simply went next door, asked for the lady of the house, and offered ten dollars for her time. The only sampling condition was that the neighbor have lived in the setting at least six months Should the neighbor first approached refuse, the interviewer went on to the next nearest house. The final study design and samples obtained, are given in Table 1. Interviewing and Instruments After pretesting, interview outlines were prepared for parent, child and neighbor. These outlines were followed by interviewers with respect to the order and phrasing of the various Table 1. Numbers of Cases in Each Subsample RI&
Urban
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
Both
White Black
36 40
40 40
38 38
36 38
150 156
Total
76
80
76
74
306
268
N. A. Poiansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B.
Davis
questions. The outlines contained open-ended questions. axed-alternative questions and scales, and are too extensive to reproduce here (copies are available from the authors). Specific scales and questions are described below as they become relevant in presenting the results. Maternal interviews usually lasted about an hour; those with neighbor about 40 minutes; and with the child about 15 minutes. Although the intention had been to collect data from fathers as well as mothers in this study, a large proportion of neglect (and therefore of control) families contained no fatherfigure. Moreover, a number of husbands and live-in boyfriends who might have been seen evaded or refused cooperation. Therefore, the present paper will be based on interviews with mother, child and neighbor only.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Comparability
of the Neglectful
and Control Cases
The primary hypothesis was that neglectful families typically have environments that are less supportive than those living in similar life cir~~st~ces. The first issue then was how well matched neglectful and control samples proved to be. Matching was deliberately sought on four variables: race, presence/absence of a father person, the family’s reported annual income, and use of public assistance. Relevant percentages are in Table 2. From Table 2 it is evident that close matching was achieved in the urban sampling, and rather close in the rural. The only significant difference (by &i-square) was between the rural neglectful and control cases on presence/absence of the father: the discrepancy fell in the other direction in urban sampling_ The effect of matching control to neglectful cases was a sample characterized by very low income and a high proportion of female-headed households. Two other variables, computed after data were collected, further describe the overall sample. Hollingshead’s [ 121 Index of Social Position based on education and occupation was computed for the head of the household. The large majority of both neglectful and control cases fell into Class V, the lowest in social status. Despite similarity in income level, the proportion of mothers who completed high school proved much lower in the neglectful samples. The same finding emerged in previous research by the senior author [8]. Perhaps because of the requirement of a &year-old child in the home, mothers involved were fairly mature. Mean ages of neglectful and controls in the cities were 32.1 and 3 1.3; in the country 33.1 and 32.1. So, all samples were similar in age. Consistent with previous research [8], the neglectful households contained more children than the non-neglectful. The mean number in the rural neglectful was 4.16, and in the control, 3.1 I @ < .OOl by ANOVA). Urban means were 3.50 and 2.76, respectively @ < .002). With 70% having annual family incomes under $5,000, the average rural neglectful home nevertheless contained five persons or more. Table 2. Compnrabilityof Neglect and Contra1 Cases in General Life Circumstances (Percentages) Urban
Rural Variable Father absent Income below $5M Receiving public assistance ISP Class V Mother high school graduate *p<.o5; **p <.ool: ***p <.ool.
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
68 71 67 92 13
53* 58 53 83 34**
64 68 81 78 22
73 66 72 12 53***
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
269
In general. it appeared that neglectful and control cases were rather closely matched in their life circumstances. When they differed, it was in a fashion associated in previous research with being neglectful. Comparability in Network Opportunity Before moving into the main results, another related issue warrants clarification. Is the sheer demography associated with neglect such that the parents really have less opportunity to form or embed themselves in informal support systems? For example, are they people who have been typically geographically mobile and/or who have no relatives within striking distances? A comparison of neglectful and control families on a number of indicative measures is presented in Table 3. Something under half the neglectful mothers were living in the same county in which they grew up, a proportion similar to that of the controls. The neglectful changed residence more frequently, but their moves were often within the same neighborhood or rural community, and they did not differ significantly on this from other poor families. As for the geographic accessibility of relatives, who loom large in most helping networks, the neglectful parents were not disadvantaged. Subtler issues of neighborly interaction and feelings among relatives appear to be at stake. Neighborhood Support A key facet in whether one’s setting seems supportive is whether people are cordial and welcoming. The mother was asked, “How friendly would you say people are around here?” She chose from possible points on a scale from “(5) Warm and friendly” to “(1) Cold and distant.” The mean score for neglectful mothers, combining city and country and both races, was 3.44; that for the controls, 3.81, which was close to “(4) Mostly friendly” on the scale. The difference, while small, was significant @ = .047 by ANOVA). The neglectful, therefore. described their ecologies as less friendly.
HOME helpful are people? The scale ranged from “(5) Very neighborly and helpful” to “( 1) Not helpful.” The means were neglectful 3.36 vs. control 3.83, a difference significant at .OOl by ANOVA. In responding to two direct general questions, the neglectful mothers described
Table 3.
Comparability of Neglect and Control Cases in Opportunity to Join Networks CPercentaws)
Rural
Urban
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
Reared in present county
54
41
40
35
Moved residence twice or more in past five years
61
46
65
53
Residing in present community more than three years
58
60
47
58
House shared with adult relative other than spouse
26
23
26
26
At least one relative within two miles
59
53
51
59
Six or more relatives within thirtv miles
50
41
20
27
Variable
270
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis Table 4.
Available Instrumental and AlTective Sumort
Rural
Variable InstrumentalSupport ABectiveSupport
NEG 10.4 4.2
Urban
CON 12.1 5.0
NEG 10.6 4.6
CON 11.6 5.0
Combined NEG CON 10.5 11.8 4.4 5.0
NEG = Neglect; CON = Control.
their neighborhoods as less supportive. The differences were present among both blacks and whites, in both the cities and in rural Georgia. A series of questions more specifically dealing with support from informal networks was taken from earlier work by Gaudin [IO]. The mother was asked, “Do you have anyone you could call on to loan you five dollars? Loan you food or clothing? Comfort you when you are feeling low?’ etc. To each of these queries she could respond: “No one,” or “One or two people,” or “Three or more.” Five of the items had to do with rather concrete types of help, and were combined into an Instrumental Support Index with scores ranging from 5 to 15. The Affective Support Index was based on two items with a range from 2 to 6. Relevant means are given in Table 4. Differences were very strong, with each significant at well beyond .OOl. Not only did the neglectful score low on concrete help available, they also reported receiving less emotional support. The difference was not that so many neglectful reported having no one at all to turn to; rather, it was that whereas they said they had one or two possible sources, the controls reported three or more. Coincidentally, there was confirmation of protective service workers’ impressions of types of aid considered helpful by the persons in our study. Responding to an open-ended query about the sorts of help received, all but a handful of women mentioned the kinds of concrete aids termed instrumental. This was true of the neglectful mothers, of their controls, and of their neighbors.
Loneliness. The loneliness widespread among neglectful mothers is a subject for another paper, but the evidence is also germane to how supported these mothers felt. Each was asked, “How often do you feel lonesome now.7” to which she could select an answer from a scale ranging from “Nearly all the time” to “Hardly ever.” With the lower score indicating greater loneliness, the neglectful mean was 3.32 and the control 3.86 @ < .OOl ANOVA). By this criterion, too, neglectful mothers felt less supported. In summary, while mean differences were sometimes small, a high proportion of the indices of supportiveness of one’s environment proved statistically significant at high levels of confidence. In terms of the range of persons to whom they could turn and their feelings of lonesomeness, the neglectful reported themselves as less supported. They depict a relatively impoverished environment in Garbarino’s sense: “Social impoverishment denudes life of supportive relationships and ‘protective’ behaviors” [ 13, p. 261. Discriminant Function Analysis
To determine which variables weighed most heavily in distinguishing disadvantaged women who were not neglecting their children (the controls) from those who did, discriminant function analysis was used to assess the contributions of 16 available measures of support. Only seven variables proved noteworthy. The canonical correlation was .38, Wilks’ Lambda .85, with a &i-square value of 43.689 @ < .OOOOl). Among women essentially matched on income and other life circumstances, the two measures that correlated most with adequate child caring were feeling emotionally supported, and
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
271
not feeling lonely. So, relationships with others seemed to matter the most. Another finding also seems noteworthy, and that is the role of the heterogeneity of the mother’s network. Asked to name the persons “Most important to you. _ . ,” the control women mentioned people with jobs of more widely varied status than did the neglectful. This implied access to persons of higher social status, presumably with greater power to help if needed. Other Measures of Ecological Support
Besides the warmth of those around her, there are other facets of her locale a woman might find supportive of her efforts at mothering. A series of questions dealt with the mother’s evaluation of her community as a place to rear children. On an overall question, mothers judged how good their settings were. Control mothers averaged more favorable opinions than neglectful mothers in the urban samples, but not in the rural. Other questions concerned specific features affecting children: places for them to play, schools, physica safety, entertainment, freedom from crime, freedom from alcohol and drugs. The low-income mothers from the cities gave less favorable judgments than their country sisters, but the neglectful and controls did not differ. Something could also be learned about objective features of the neighborhoods by reviewing demographic data gleaned from neighbors. Each, after all, constituted a sample of one from the mother’s environment. In the rural sample, 78% of the neighbors interviewed were mothers of families; in the urban, the figure was 86.5%. Most others were fathers. While 73% of these families contained children, they were very often not standard two-adult households. Table 2 showed that neglectful families (and their matching controls) were drawn disproportionately from Hollingshead’s Class V. So were their neighbors: 62% of the neglectful and 60% of the controls were from that class. Because these distributions were skewed, medians were used to compare how long neighbors had lived in their present homes. In the rural settings, the median of neglectfuls’ neighbors was 6.5 years and the controls’ 5.5; in the urban, the figures were 2.9 and 2.8, indicating city neighborhoods were less stable, but this did not differentiate neglectful from control. On a variety of relatively objective indices of quality of life, women implicated in neglect were faring no worse than the non-neglectful.
Friendliness and helpfulness of envir~n~enf* Neighbor
respondents were asked to rate their communities on friendliness and helpfulness, using the same scales on which the neglectful mothers had differed significantly from the controls. Their neighbors, however, did not differ, nor did they differ on the Instrumental or Affective Support Indices. Neglectful mothers’ neighbors reported help as available as did the neighbors of controls. On the scale for how good the the ~o~unity was in which to rear children, the neglectful mothers’ neighbors averaged 3.41 and the controls 3.45. They did not differ on any of the questions about specific facets of the locality affecting child rearing. It was not that the neighbors’ instruments never showed significant differences. There were differences related to urbanicity. and others related to race, but none were associated with neglect. The proposition that neglectful families are, in part, products of a generally less supportive ecology is plausible, but it was not verified in neighbors’ responses. Were there then any responses to questions asked of the neighbors that reflected the neighbors felt they were living adjacent to a neglectful family? There were, and they proved enlightening as to the position of neglectful parents in their own communities. Role of the Qpical ~e~~ectfuI Parent
Information about each respondent’s social network was sought by asking her to list “people important in your life.” It was hypothesized that a neglectful parent would be less likely
272
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr.. P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
to be included in her neighbor’s social network than would a non-neglectful. Since one could not always be certain, the interviewer specified when he or she was sure a focal family had been (or had not been) mentioned. In the rural setting, there did not appear to be a difference. However, in the urban, on those cases where the interviewer felt an identification could be made, 62% of controls were mentioned by neighbors, but only 30% of the neglectful mothers (p < .02 by &i-square test).
Playmates. Another
set of questions concerned children’s playmates. Neighbors who had children were asked whether they approved of their local playmates. In both rural and urban samples, more control than neglectful mothers’ neighbors said they approved of all their playmates (49% vs. 388, p < .05). The next query went a bit further. Were there nearby youngsters they would prefer their children not play with? Fifty-five percent of the rural neglectful families’ neighbors who had children and who gave codable responses, affirmed that, indeed, there were such youngsters, as compared with 37% of the controls. The proportions in the urban sample reflected a similar discrepancy: 67% vs. 47% (p < .02). The interviewer did not ask directly if the children of neglectful mothers were disapproved. But, since the neighbors of the neglectful and controls differed about their communities on so few other issues, this result is highly suggestive. and is consistent with the study’s hypothesis.
Were there people in the community who “need help in raising their children?” Again, if the neglectful parents are so considered, one would expect a higher percentage of affirmative responses from their neighbors. Indeed, 55% of the controls’ neighbors answered yes, but 68% of the neigbors of the neglectful did so as well (p < .02). The interviewer asked, tactfully not naming names, where such people resided, and then recorded if she were sure the focal farpily had been indicated. Of those where the interviewer felt sure, 43% of the neglectful but only 8% of the control focal families were singled out as “needing help” (p < .OOl).
Were there people one could call on for help when one needed it? The overwhelming response to this was that there were. Once again, the interviewer asked if the neighbor would indicate where such a helpful family lived. Proportions of controls and neglectfuls favorably regarded were calculated. Thirty-eight percent of the control families, but only 16% of the neglectful, were nominated by their neighbors (p < .OOl). Neglectful families were therefore regarded as more often in need of help, but they were less often seen as likely persons to turn to.
Were there people it would not pay to call on? Forty percent of the neighbors of control families affirmed that there were as did 67% of the neighbors of the neglectful (p < .Ol). If the respondent had affirmed there were persons it would not pay to call on, he/she was further asked to indicate where that family lived. In the cases in which the interviewer felt reasonably sure about the focal family, an easier task in the country than among urban apartments, the results were calculated. The neglectful family was identified by its neighbor as an unlikely source to turn to 20% of the time; the control, 4% (p < .OOl). Indeed, in their own interviews, fewer neglectful than control mothers said they had helped anyone in the previous six months (55% vs. 67%, p < .05). In most helping networks, membership depends on reciprocating favors. Neglectful mothers were clearly at a disadvantage in this respect.
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
273
The data then did not support the notion that neglect is a product of the social impoverishment of one’s total community. Rather, it showed that even in low-income locales neglectful families were isolated. Social Distancing
Although the assumption is often made that the very poor tend to be tolerant of extreme behaviors, this is not true of child maltreatment [14]. A fair proportion of all neglect complaints are filed by neighbors. In related research a method was developed for measuring “social distance” at the neighborhood level [ 1.51.Interviews with stratified samples of over 200 respondents indicated the method is valid, and that average citizens are inclined to distance, or refuse intimacy to, families resembling the neglectful. The instrument for measuring social distancing of a hypothetical neglectful family was administered to the neighbors in the present research. Were people living adjacent to a “real” neglectful family more tolerant, more willing to be intimate with such a family, than would be true of the neighbors of controls? The neglectfuls’ neighbors proved, if anything, less likely to admit such a family to intimate contact than did the neighbors of controls. The suggestion is strong that neglectful mothers are in danger of being shunned because of disapproval of their parenting style. Formal Organization
Results reported thus far have dealt mostly with involvement in informal associations. The formal organization playing the largest role among those sampled was the church; 62% of the neglectful mothers and 72% of the controls reported belonging to one. Attending church several times a month was classified as frequent attendance in this study, Fifty-two percent of the controls qualified as frequent attenders as opposed to 36% of the neglectful (p < .Ol) confirming the earlier tindings by Giovannoni and Billingsley [167. Afliliation with other formal organizations besides the church was also measured. Again the control mothers were more involved (53% vs. 418, p < .OS), which also confirmed a similar observation in earlier research [8]. To an extent even greater than was true for others in similar life circumstances, neglectful clients proved to be nonjoiners, especially those living in cities.
SUMMARY AND CONCIUSIONS The key hypothesis of the present study was that neglectful families reside in en~ro~ents that are socially impove~shed as compared with those of others in similar soci~cono~c circumstances whose children receive adequate care. To test this proposition, an array of features were specified which seemingly dealt with whether or not a neighborhood should be seen as supportive of a person struggling to rear her children, and one or more instruments for measuring each ecological feature were adapted .or devised. The instruments were administered to 152 Georgia women-white and black, rural and urban-who had been identified as neglectful. They were also given to 154 non-neglectful mothers who were closely matched in age, poverty, race, degree of urbanicity and other life circumstances. In each case a near neighbor was also interviewed as an independent check on the quality of life in the locality. According to characteristics of and judgments by their neighbors, women involved in child neglect were not living in socially impove~shed en~ronments; or, to put it more accurately, they were no worse off than others who were offering adequate child care. But the neglectful
214
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
mothers, themselves, painted a different picture. On average they viewed their locales as less friendly and less helpful; they had fewer people to approach for practical or emotional support; they lived lonelier lives. How shall one understand the discrepancies? Are the mothers’ perceptions simply reflective of their long-standing character problems [8], or do they live in somewhat different worlds than the controls? While the neglectful mothers’ ecology as “objectively” reported by neighbors was no different from that of the controls, their psychological ecology was very different, in part because of typical character problems widespread in this group. Thus inadequacies of ability, and perhaps motivation, cut them off from helping networks dependent on mutuality. Related inadequacies lead to their being stigmatized and kept at a distance socially. Although neighbors may well try not to let children suffer for the parents’ unacceptability, the data suggest that the children of neglect may be stigmatized as well. Moreover, whether because they are, on average, less related or because they have come to anticipate rejection, the mothers do not attach themselves to formal organizations. In short, we seem to have an unfortunate spiral of causation in which neglectful women, a majority of whom are rearing their broods alone anyway, are apt to be isolated within their own neighborhoods. No wonder they report greater loneliness. Theirs is not a particularly friendly world, and they are less likely to have psychological access to the warmth and caring that does exist. We had thought that shunning of the neglectful might be more marked in the country where they are highly visible, but the pattern proved much the same in the cities. The question is often asked, “If these control mothers are as poor and terribly disadvantaged as the neglectful, how are they able to give their children good care?” The present study indicated two major factors: they feel emotionally supported, and they are not lonely.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR TREATMENT
The psychological wall that separates neglectful parents from support networks available to most must be penetrated. The task is one of changing perceptions of both neglectful families and of their neighbors, a task made the more difficult by the social distancing attitudes of the latter. Hence, we need professional intervention to forge linkages between the parents who concern us and their more supported and potentially supportive neighbors. Left to their fates, they become isolated. The introduction of parent enrichment, education and mutual support groups which include both neglectful and non-neglectful families, is a possible means of breaking down negative stereotyping. Cooperative child care can also bring such mothers into contact, provided the overall calibre of the care is guaranteed by regular paid staff. Mothers’ day-out programs through local churches and schools have been found helpful, not only as respite for the mothers but also to assist the linking process. The identification and mobilization of recognized “natural helpers” is an approach that has been advocated [17]. Supported by professional direction and consultation, local civic leaders, postmen, hairdressers and others in “gatekeeper” roles can help provide relationship opportunities. In rural areas some workers have succeeded in getting warm and energetic church groups to take on one or more neglectful families, not just as “projects” but as friends. Community-focused approaches call for a change from the case-by-case model most agencies employ almost exclusively. Workers can then identify formal and informal support systems that might help. The role becomes one of liaison, helper, advocate, resource mobilizer and consultant to overcome barriers to the participation of the families that concern us. However, as Whittaker [18] and Polansky [S] have each indicated, neither the traditional clinical, nor the newer ecological model is a panacea. Major deterrents to the mother’s participation often lie in deeply rooted character traits: self-derogation, shyness, fear of intimacy,
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
275
abrasiveness, or the like. Social skills training may be a necessary part of the intervention for some [ 191; others will be ready for making close friends only after extended casework treatment. But there is no doubt that when the social environment becomes more forthcoming, the demand for basic change in the mother is thereby lessened. Acknowledgement-We are grateful to Dr. L Patricia Johnson, former director, and to Ms. Rosserlyn Anderson and many others of the staff of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children’s Services for gracious and competent help in the conduct of the work.
REFERENCES 1. LEWIN, K. Constructs in psychology and psychological ecology. University of Iowa Studies in Child Wefire 20: 17-20 (1944). 2. LEWIN, K. Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Brothers, New York (195 1). 3. BARKER R. and GUMP, P. V. Big School, Small School. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1964). 4. GARBARINO, J. Some thoughts on school size and its effects in adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 9: 169- 182 ( 1980). 5. KOGAN, L. S., SMITH, J. and JENKINS, S. Ecological validity of social indicator data as predictors of survey findings. Journol of Social Service Research 2: 117- 132 ( 1977). 6. BRONFENBRENNER, U. The Ecology of Humun Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1979). 7. GARBARINO, J. and SHERMAN, D. High risk neighborhoods and high risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Developmenf 51: 188-198 (1980). 8. POLANSKY. N. A.. CHALMERS, M. A., BUTTENWIESER E. and WILLIAMS, D. P. DomuKed Parents. University of.Chicago Press, Chicago ( 1981). 9. GARBARINO. J. and CROUTER A. Deflnina the communitv context for narent-child relations: The correlates of child maltreatment. Child Development 49:&4-6 16 (1979)._ 10. GAUDIN, J. Mothers’ perceived strength of networks and maternal child abuse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University (1979). 11. WOLOCK, I. and HOROWITZ, B. Child maltreatment and material deprivation among AFDC-recipient families. Social Service Review 53: 175-194 (1979). l? .a. HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B. Two-factor index of social position-Unpublished manuscript, New Haven, CT (1957). 13. GARBARINO, J. Social support networks: RX for the helping professionals. In: Social Supporr Networks: Informal Helping in the Human Services, J. K. Whittaker, J. Garbarino et al. (Eds.). Aldine, New York (1983). 14. GIOVANNONI, J. M. and BECERRA, R M. Defining Child Abue. Free Press, New York (1979). 15. GAUDIN, J. and POLANSKY, N. A. Social distancing of the neglectful family: Sex, race and social class influences. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Work, University of Georgia (1983). 16. GIOVANNONI, J. M. and BILLINGSLEY, A. Child neglect among the poor: A study of parental adequacy in families of three ethnic groups. Child Werfare 84: 196-214 (1970). 17. PANCOAST, D. Finding and enlisting neighbors to support families. In: Protecting Children from Child Ahe ond Nenlecr. J. Garbarino, S. H. Stocking, et al. Oxford University Press, New York (1980). 18. WHITTAKER, J. K. Social support networks in child welfare. In: &iol Support Networks: ‘Informal Helping in rhe Human Services, J. K. Whittaker, J. Garbarino et al. (Eds.). Aldine, New York (1983). 19. WODARSKI, J. Treatment of parents who abuse their children: A literature review and implications for professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect 5: 35 I-360 (1981).
Vol. 9, pp. 265-275.
1985
Ccpynsht0
Pnntcd in the U.S.A. Ail n&s reserwi
0145-2134185 53.00 + DO 1985 Pngamon Press Ltd
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ECOLOGY OF THE NEGLECTFUL MOTHER NOMAN A. POLANSKY, PH.D., JAMES M. GAUDIN, JR., PH.D., PAUL W. AMMONS, ED.D. AND KATHBRYN B. DAVIS, M.S.W. The University of Georgia School of Social Work, Athens, GA 30602 Alit-Inte~ews were conducted with 152 neglectful mothers and with 154 non-ne~~tf~, who were matched on race, economic status, urbanirural status and other fife circumstances. The neglectful mothers reported less support available from informal networks; they also described their neighborhoods as less friendly and helpful than did the controls. However, the conclusion that neglect is related to living in settings that are socially impoverished was not supported by independent interviews with neighbors. Rather, it appeared that neglectful mothers are often isolated by those around them. Because they are seen as deviant and tmhkely to reciprocate help, they do not have access to such support as there may be in their ecology. A new model is presented for preventive, community-based intervention, based on the findings of the research. R&um&-L’enquete a ete conduite en G&or@e t fa fois darts de petites localites et dans des v&s et ttait cent&e sur 152 meres ayant neglige leur enfant et 154 meres-temoins qui etaient apparent& aux premieres quant a la race, la condition economique, le lieu de residence et autres circonstances de la vie mais qui n’avaient pas neghge leur enfant. Les meres negligentes se sont plaintes qu’elfes recevaient peu de soutien de la part du r&seau de leurs voisins. Leurs voisins a leur tour les ont de&es comme mains amicales et moms promptes a la rtciprocite du geste d’aide que les meres non negligentes. &pendant, la concision des meres negligentes, qui disaient que Ieur attitude bait en relation avec la carence relatio~eBe du milieu social dam lequel e&s vivaient n’a pas pu etre corrobore par les entretiens men& ind&pendamment avec les voisms en question. En fait, il semble que les meres negligentes s&lent elles-memes de ceux qui les entourent. Comme les gens qui vivent dam leur voisinage les considerent comme deviantes et peu susceptibles de reciprocitt, ils ne se donnent pas la peine de les aider afors qu’elles pourmient l’etre darts le milieu ou elles vivent en rtalite. Les auteurs se fondant sur leur trouvailie, proposent un nouveau mod&e d’intervention preventive fond&e sur une action communautaire.
THE TERM, PSYCHOLOGICAL ECOLOGY, was introduced by Kurt Lewin in 1944 f I] to refer to certain elements of the environment which are more or less unchanging and which set “boundary conditions of the life of the individual or group” [2, p. 1701. Examples included such things as climate, laws of the land, state of communications. Such contextual elements go beyond a person’s private motivations but may be powerful predictors of behavior. For example, it has been found that the level of social participation of an average student is greater if he is attending a small, rather than a large high school f3, 41. On another level, Kogan, Smith and Jenkins [5J demonstrated that the frequency of neurotic symptoms among children, and the consistency of parental discipline were associated with income levels of their census tracts. The ecological approach has come to signify a strong attentiveness to the environment in seeking to understand behavior Bronfenbrenner [6] has had a major role in boning ecology into research on child development; his former student, Garbarino [7], performed a similar service for the study of child maltreatment. This research was partially supported by Grant 90 CA899/01 from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Administration for Children. Youth and Families to the University of Georgia School of Social Work. 265
266
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr.. P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUPPORT AND ITS LACK
What specific elements of the client’s “ecology” are significant to whether or not children are neglected? The hypotheses in the present research had two instigations. The first was from previous work: A series of neglectful families in Greater Philadelphia was compared with controls matched on race and social situation [8]. In addition to sharp differences in the personalities of the mothers involved, another finding was striking. On a Family Support Index concerning friends and relatives to whom one might turn for help, 78% of the controls were at or beyond the highest point: only 16% of the neglectful parents reached this level. The latter parents-in many instances a woman rearing her brood without a man in the housewere less embedded in helping networks than seemed true of most of the other poor mothers. A second source was the work of Garbarino [9] and his associates. They had found suggestions that the quality of life in a neighborhood plays a role in whether or not its families maltreat their children. The results were more convincing with respect to abuse than neglect, but still the formulation was stimulating. Garbarino proposed that a family that is unstable may continue to offer its children reasonably good care if it resides in a supportive setting. However, if its ecology is nonsupportive, such a family will crumble under stress and so will its level of child caring [7]. If unstable families are scattered at random in various neighborhoods, it would follow that parents neglecting their children are more often to be found in nonsupportive settings. This was the key hypothesis subject to test in this research. To determine how supportive a neighborhood was, this study employed a number of measurement devices. Some have to do with the general quality of life, others with the availability of helping networks. Measures were adapted from our own previous work [8, lo] and that of others [9, ll]. Support can mean many things: easing access to money or food, helping buffer against loneliness, bolstering control systems against impulses, etc. A theoretical and methodological issue that emerged was how support may best be measured. It has seemed best not to rely solely on the family’s own report of its community, but also to seek information from at least one outside source in the same setting. Accordingly, measures of environmental support are taken both from neglectful families being studied and from their neighbors. Gathering data from the latter represented a methodological advance over previous efforts to study the environments of protective services clients.
HYPOTHESES
FOR STUDY
The general hypothesis was that neglectful families will be found living in environments which are less supportive than would be true of others who are in similar life circumstances but who are not neglectful. More specifically, we hypothesized: 1. That, as compared with the non-neglectful, their neighborhoods are less caring; and 2. The general quality of life and amenities for rearing children are inferior in their neighborhoods; 3. That neglectful parents have less access to helping networks; and 4. That such parents are more socially isolated, generally, than others in comparable circumstances. As possible explanatory subhypotheses, it was also postulated: (a) that the isolation of neglectful parents from helping networks is due, at least in part, to their being perceived as unlikely to reciprocate help; and (b) that neglectful parents are perceived as violating the child care standards even within their own neighborhoods.
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
267
METHOD Sampling Design To test the major hypotheses required comparing families regarded as neglectful with others not so identified, but otherwise matched in certain ways. Neglectful families were nominated and recruited for the study by county protective services units of Georgia’s Department of Family and Children’s Services. Those referred primarily reflected poor physical care in terms of housing, clothing, feeding, hygiene and the like, often accompanied by lack of supervision and emotional indifference. All cases were currently active. or recently active, so that neglectful conditions were known to obtain. Since we wished to interview a child also, each case contained at least one child between the ages of 6 and 11. Each mother was offered twenty-five dollars as an inducement to participate. To test whether findings would generalize into the black community as well as the white. half the families were black. Families identified by public agencies as neglectful are demographically not average. To control for the powerful confounding variable of poverty, it was necessary to match income level of control to neglect cases. Recruitment of controls was deliberately permitted to lag behind that of the neglectful in order that the controls could be chosen to be comparable. The variables, on which matching by distribution was sought, were family income, public assistance-usually Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC), and presence of a father-figure. The study was done in two phases: rural and urban. The first phase began with over 150 cases from rural Georgia. Rural was defined as a hamlet of fewer than 2,500 population or as the outskirts of a somewhat larger place. In the second phase, the study was replicated with families from metropolitan Atlanta and Savannah. The major sampling variables were neglect/~ntrol~ white/black and ~r~/urb~. Since so many of those in the neglect samples proved to be of low income and on AFDC, a large proportion of the control cases were recruited through referrals from eligibility workers at the agencies. Others came from food stamp rolls, community informants, and a few from knocking on doors and screening those willing to participate to see if they fit the need for matching cases. In nearly all instances the focal family and interviewer were matched in race. Since the interviewers were, themselves, mostly protective services workers, an effort was made to avoid assigning them their own cases in this study. For each study (focal) family, there was also an interview with the nearest neighbor, After completing focal family contacts, the interviewer simply went next door, asked for the lady of the house, and offered ten dollars for her time. The only sampling condition was that the neighbor have lived in the setting at least six months Should the neighbor first approached refuse, the interviewer went on to the next nearest house. The final study design and samples obtained, are given in Table 1. Interviewing and Instruments After pretesting, interview outlines were prepared for parent, child and neighbor. These outlines were followed by interviewers with respect to the order and phrasing of the various Table 1. Numbers of Cases in Each Subsample RI&
Urban
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
Both
White Black
36 40
40 40
38 38
36 38
150 156
Total
76
80
76
74
306
268
N. A. Poiansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B.
Davis
questions. The outlines contained open-ended questions. axed-alternative questions and scales, and are too extensive to reproduce here (copies are available from the authors). Specific scales and questions are described below as they become relevant in presenting the results. Maternal interviews usually lasted about an hour; those with neighbor about 40 minutes; and with the child about 15 minutes. Although the intention had been to collect data from fathers as well as mothers in this study, a large proportion of neglect (and therefore of control) families contained no fatherfigure. Moreover, a number of husbands and live-in boyfriends who might have been seen evaded or refused cooperation. Therefore, the present paper will be based on interviews with mother, child and neighbor only.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Comparability
of the Neglectful
and Control Cases
The primary hypothesis was that neglectful families typically have environments that are less supportive than those living in similar life cir~~st~ces. The first issue then was how well matched neglectful and control samples proved to be. Matching was deliberately sought on four variables: race, presence/absence of a father person, the family’s reported annual income, and use of public assistance. Relevant percentages are in Table 2. From Table 2 it is evident that close matching was achieved in the urban sampling, and rather close in the rural. The only significant difference (by &i-square) was between the rural neglectful and control cases on presence/absence of the father: the discrepancy fell in the other direction in urban sampling_ The effect of matching control to neglectful cases was a sample characterized by very low income and a high proportion of female-headed households. Two other variables, computed after data were collected, further describe the overall sample. Hollingshead’s [ 121 Index of Social Position based on education and occupation was computed for the head of the household. The large majority of both neglectful and control cases fell into Class V, the lowest in social status. Despite similarity in income level, the proportion of mothers who completed high school proved much lower in the neglectful samples. The same finding emerged in previous research by the senior author [8]. Perhaps because of the requirement of a &year-old child in the home, mothers involved were fairly mature. Mean ages of neglectful and controls in the cities were 32.1 and 3 1.3; in the country 33.1 and 32.1. So, all samples were similar in age. Consistent with previous research [8], the neglectful households contained more children than the non-neglectful. The mean number in the rural neglectful was 4.16, and in the control, 3.1 I @ < .OOl by ANOVA). Urban means were 3.50 and 2.76, respectively @ < .002). With 70% having annual family incomes under $5,000, the average rural neglectful home nevertheless contained five persons or more. Table 2. Compnrabilityof Neglect and Contra1 Cases in General Life Circumstances (Percentages) Urban
Rural Variable Father absent Income below $5M Receiving public assistance ISP Class V Mother high school graduate *p<.o5; **p <.ool: ***p <.ool.
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
68 71 67 92 13
53* 58 53 83 34**
64 68 81 78 22
73 66 72 12 53***
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
269
In general. it appeared that neglectful and control cases were rather closely matched in their life circumstances. When they differed, it was in a fashion associated in previous research with being neglectful. Comparability in Network Opportunity Before moving into the main results, another related issue warrants clarification. Is the sheer demography associated with neglect such that the parents really have less opportunity to form or embed themselves in informal support systems? For example, are they people who have been typically geographically mobile and/or who have no relatives within striking distances? A comparison of neglectful and control families on a number of indicative measures is presented in Table 3. Something under half the neglectful mothers were living in the same county in which they grew up, a proportion similar to that of the controls. The neglectful changed residence more frequently, but their moves were often within the same neighborhood or rural community, and they did not differ significantly on this from other poor families. As for the geographic accessibility of relatives, who loom large in most helping networks, the neglectful parents were not disadvantaged. Subtler issues of neighborly interaction and feelings among relatives appear to be at stake. Neighborhood Support A key facet in whether one’s setting seems supportive is whether people are cordial and welcoming. The mother was asked, “How friendly would you say people are around here?” She chose from possible points on a scale from “(5) Warm and friendly” to “(1) Cold and distant.” The mean score for neglectful mothers, combining city and country and both races, was 3.44; that for the controls, 3.81, which was close to “(4) Mostly friendly” on the scale. The difference, while small, was significant @ = .047 by ANOVA). The neglectful, therefore. described their ecologies as less friendly.
HOME helpful are people? The scale ranged from “(5) Very neighborly and helpful” to “( 1) Not helpful.” The means were neglectful 3.36 vs. control 3.83, a difference significant at .OOl by ANOVA. In responding to two direct general questions, the neglectful mothers described
Table 3.
Comparability of Neglect and Control Cases in Opportunity to Join Networks CPercentaws)
Rural
Urban
Neglect
Control
Neglect
Control
Reared in present county
54
41
40
35
Moved residence twice or more in past five years
61
46
65
53
Residing in present community more than three years
58
60
47
58
House shared with adult relative other than spouse
26
23
26
26
At least one relative within two miles
59
53
51
59
Six or more relatives within thirtv miles
50
41
20
27
Variable
270
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis Table 4.
Available Instrumental and AlTective Sumort
Rural
Variable InstrumentalSupport ABectiveSupport
NEG 10.4 4.2
Urban
CON 12.1 5.0
NEG 10.6 4.6
CON 11.6 5.0
Combined NEG CON 10.5 11.8 4.4 5.0
NEG = Neglect; CON = Control.
their neighborhoods as less supportive. The differences were present among both blacks and whites, in both the cities and in rural Georgia. A series of questions more specifically dealing with support from informal networks was taken from earlier work by Gaudin [IO]. The mother was asked, “Do you have anyone you could call on to loan you five dollars? Loan you food or clothing? Comfort you when you are feeling low?’ etc. To each of these queries she could respond: “No one,” or “One or two people,” or “Three or more.” Five of the items had to do with rather concrete types of help, and were combined into an Instrumental Support Index with scores ranging from 5 to 15. The Affective Support Index was based on two items with a range from 2 to 6. Relevant means are given in Table 4. Differences were very strong, with each significant at well beyond .OOl. Not only did the neglectful score low on concrete help available, they also reported receiving less emotional support. The difference was not that so many neglectful reported having no one at all to turn to; rather, it was that whereas they said they had one or two possible sources, the controls reported three or more. Coincidentally, there was confirmation of protective service workers’ impressions of types of aid considered helpful by the persons in our study. Responding to an open-ended query about the sorts of help received, all but a handful of women mentioned the kinds of concrete aids termed instrumental. This was true of the neglectful mothers, of their controls, and of their neighbors.
Loneliness. The loneliness widespread among neglectful mothers is a subject for another paper, but the evidence is also germane to how supported these mothers felt. Each was asked, “How often do you feel lonesome now.7” to which she could select an answer from a scale ranging from “Nearly all the time” to “Hardly ever.” With the lower score indicating greater loneliness, the neglectful mean was 3.32 and the control 3.86 @ < .OOl ANOVA). By this criterion, too, neglectful mothers felt less supported. In summary, while mean differences were sometimes small, a high proportion of the indices of supportiveness of one’s environment proved statistically significant at high levels of confidence. In terms of the range of persons to whom they could turn and their feelings of lonesomeness, the neglectful reported themselves as less supported. They depict a relatively impoverished environment in Garbarino’s sense: “Social impoverishment denudes life of supportive relationships and ‘protective’ behaviors” [ 13, p. 261. Discriminant Function Analysis
To determine which variables weighed most heavily in distinguishing disadvantaged women who were not neglecting their children (the controls) from those who did, discriminant function analysis was used to assess the contributions of 16 available measures of support. Only seven variables proved noteworthy. The canonical correlation was .38, Wilks’ Lambda .85, with a &i-square value of 43.689 @ < .OOOOl). Among women essentially matched on income and other life circumstances, the two measures that correlated most with adequate child caring were feeling emotionally supported, and
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
271
not feeling lonely. So, relationships with others seemed to matter the most. Another finding also seems noteworthy, and that is the role of the heterogeneity of the mother’s network. Asked to name the persons “Most important to you. _ . ,” the control women mentioned people with jobs of more widely varied status than did the neglectful. This implied access to persons of higher social status, presumably with greater power to help if needed. Other Measures of Ecological Support
Besides the warmth of those around her, there are other facets of her locale a woman might find supportive of her efforts at mothering. A series of questions dealt with the mother’s evaluation of her community as a place to rear children. On an overall question, mothers judged how good their settings were. Control mothers averaged more favorable opinions than neglectful mothers in the urban samples, but not in the rural. Other questions concerned specific features affecting children: places for them to play, schools, physica safety, entertainment, freedom from crime, freedom from alcohol and drugs. The low-income mothers from the cities gave less favorable judgments than their country sisters, but the neglectful and controls did not differ. Something could also be learned about objective features of the neighborhoods by reviewing demographic data gleaned from neighbors. Each, after all, constituted a sample of one from the mother’s environment. In the rural sample, 78% of the neighbors interviewed were mothers of families; in the urban, the figure was 86.5%. Most others were fathers. While 73% of these families contained children, they were very often not standard two-adult households. Table 2 showed that neglectful families (and their matching controls) were drawn disproportionately from Hollingshead’s Class V. So were their neighbors: 62% of the neglectful and 60% of the controls were from that class. Because these distributions were skewed, medians were used to compare how long neighbors had lived in their present homes. In the rural settings, the median of neglectfuls’ neighbors was 6.5 years and the controls’ 5.5; in the urban, the figures were 2.9 and 2.8, indicating city neighborhoods were less stable, but this did not differentiate neglectful from control. On a variety of relatively objective indices of quality of life, women implicated in neglect were faring no worse than the non-neglectful.
Friendliness and helpfulness of envir~n~enf* Neighbor
respondents were asked to rate their communities on friendliness and helpfulness, using the same scales on which the neglectful mothers had differed significantly from the controls. Their neighbors, however, did not differ, nor did they differ on the Instrumental or Affective Support Indices. Neglectful mothers’ neighbors reported help as available as did the neighbors of controls. On the scale for how good the the ~o~unity was in which to rear children, the neglectful mothers’ neighbors averaged 3.41 and the controls 3.45. They did not differ on any of the questions about specific facets of the locality affecting child rearing. It was not that the neighbors’ instruments never showed significant differences. There were differences related to urbanicity. and others related to race, but none were associated with neglect. The proposition that neglectful families are, in part, products of a generally less supportive ecology is plausible, but it was not verified in neighbors’ responses. Were there then any responses to questions asked of the neighbors that reflected the neighbors felt they were living adjacent to a neglectful family? There were, and they proved enlightening as to the position of neglectful parents in their own communities. Role of the Qpical ~e~~ectfuI Parent
Information about each respondent’s social network was sought by asking her to list “people important in your life.” It was hypothesized that a neglectful parent would be less likely
272
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr.. P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
to be included in her neighbor’s social network than would a non-neglectful. Since one could not always be certain, the interviewer specified when he or she was sure a focal family had been (or had not been) mentioned. In the rural setting, there did not appear to be a difference. However, in the urban, on those cases where the interviewer felt an identification could be made, 62% of controls were mentioned by neighbors, but only 30% of the neglectful mothers (p < .02 by &i-square test).
Playmates. Another
set of questions concerned children’s playmates. Neighbors who had children were asked whether they approved of their local playmates. In both rural and urban samples, more control than neglectful mothers’ neighbors said they approved of all their playmates (49% vs. 388, p < .05). The next query went a bit further. Were there nearby youngsters they would prefer their children not play with? Fifty-five percent of the rural neglectful families’ neighbors who had children and who gave codable responses, affirmed that, indeed, there were such youngsters, as compared with 37% of the controls. The proportions in the urban sample reflected a similar discrepancy: 67% vs. 47% (p < .02). The interviewer did not ask directly if the children of neglectful mothers were disapproved. But, since the neighbors of the neglectful and controls differed about their communities on so few other issues, this result is highly suggestive. and is consistent with the study’s hypothesis.
Were there people in the community who “need help in raising their children?” Again, if the neglectful parents are so considered, one would expect a higher percentage of affirmative responses from their neighbors. Indeed, 55% of the controls’ neighbors answered yes, but 68% of the neigbors of the neglectful did so as well (p < .02). The interviewer asked, tactfully not naming names, where such people resided, and then recorded if she were sure the focal farpily had been indicated. Of those where the interviewer felt sure, 43% of the neglectful but only 8% of the control focal families were singled out as “needing help” (p < .OOl).
Were there people one could call on for help when one needed it? The overwhelming response to this was that there were. Once again, the interviewer asked if the neighbor would indicate where such a helpful family lived. Proportions of controls and neglectfuls favorably regarded were calculated. Thirty-eight percent of the control families, but only 16% of the neglectful, were nominated by their neighbors (p < .OOl). Neglectful families were therefore regarded as more often in need of help, but they were less often seen as likely persons to turn to.
Were there people it would not pay to call on? Forty percent of the neighbors of control families affirmed that there were as did 67% of the neighbors of the neglectful (p < .Ol). If the respondent had affirmed there were persons it would not pay to call on, he/she was further asked to indicate where that family lived. In the cases in which the interviewer felt reasonably sure about the focal family, an easier task in the country than among urban apartments, the results were calculated. The neglectful family was identified by its neighbor as an unlikely source to turn to 20% of the time; the control, 4% (p < .OOl). Indeed, in their own interviews, fewer neglectful than control mothers said they had helped anyone in the previous six months (55% vs. 67%, p < .05). In most helping networks, membership depends on reciprocating favors. Neglectful mothers were clearly at a disadvantage in this respect.
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
273
The data then did not support the notion that neglect is a product of the social impoverishment of one’s total community. Rather, it showed that even in low-income locales neglectful families were isolated. Social Distancing
Although the assumption is often made that the very poor tend to be tolerant of extreme behaviors, this is not true of child maltreatment [14]. A fair proportion of all neglect complaints are filed by neighbors. In related research a method was developed for measuring “social distance” at the neighborhood level [ 1.51.Interviews with stratified samples of over 200 respondents indicated the method is valid, and that average citizens are inclined to distance, or refuse intimacy to, families resembling the neglectful. The instrument for measuring social distancing of a hypothetical neglectful family was administered to the neighbors in the present research. Were people living adjacent to a “real” neglectful family more tolerant, more willing to be intimate with such a family, than would be true of the neighbors of controls? The neglectfuls’ neighbors proved, if anything, less likely to admit such a family to intimate contact than did the neighbors of controls. The suggestion is strong that neglectful mothers are in danger of being shunned because of disapproval of their parenting style. Formal Organization
Results reported thus far have dealt mostly with involvement in informal associations. The formal organization playing the largest role among those sampled was the church; 62% of the neglectful mothers and 72% of the controls reported belonging to one. Attending church several times a month was classified as frequent attendance in this study, Fifty-two percent of the controls qualified as frequent attenders as opposed to 36% of the neglectful (p < .Ol) confirming the earlier tindings by Giovannoni and Billingsley [167. Afliliation with other formal organizations besides the church was also measured. Again the control mothers were more involved (53% vs. 418, p < .OS), which also confirmed a similar observation in earlier research [8]. To an extent even greater than was true for others in similar life circumstances, neglectful clients proved to be nonjoiners, especially those living in cities.
SUMMARY AND CONCIUSIONS The key hypothesis of the present study was that neglectful families reside in en~ro~ents that are socially impove~shed as compared with those of others in similar soci~cono~c circumstances whose children receive adequate care. To test this proposition, an array of features were specified which seemingly dealt with whether or not a neighborhood should be seen as supportive of a person struggling to rear her children, and one or more instruments for measuring each ecological feature were adapted .or devised. The instruments were administered to 152 Georgia women-white and black, rural and urban-who had been identified as neglectful. They were also given to 154 non-neglectful mothers who were closely matched in age, poverty, race, degree of urbanicity and other life circumstances. In each case a near neighbor was also interviewed as an independent check on the quality of life in the locality. According to characteristics of and judgments by their neighbors, women involved in child neglect were not living in socially impove~shed en~ronments; or, to put it more accurately, they were no worse off than others who were offering adequate child care. But the neglectful
214
N. A. Polansky, J. M. Gaudin, Jr., P. W. Ammons and K. B. Davis
mothers, themselves, painted a different picture. On average they viewed their locales as less friendly and less helpful; they had fewer people to approach for practical or emotional support; they lived lonelier lives. How shall one understand the discrepancies? Are the mothers’ perceptions simply reflective of their long-standing character problems [8], or do they live in somewhat different worlds than the controls? While the neglectful mothers’ ecology as “objectively” reported by neighbors was no different from that of the controls, their psychological ecology was very different, in part because of typical character problems widespread in this group. Thus inadequacies of ability, and perhaps motivation, cut them off from helping networks dependent on mutuality. Related inadequacies lead to their being stigmatized and kept at a distance socially. Although neighbors may well try not to let children suffer for the parents’ unacceptability, the data suggest that the children of neglect may be stigmatized as well. Moreover, whether because they are, on average, less related or because they have come to anticipate rejection, the mothers do not attach themselves to formal organizations. In short, we seem to have an unfortunate spiral of causation in which neglectful women, a majority of whom are rearing their broods alone anyway, are apt to be isolated within their own neighborhoods. No wonder they report greater loneliness. Theirs is not a particularly friendly world, and they are less likely to have psychological access to the warmth and caring that does exist. We had thought that shunning of the neglectful might be more marked in the country where they are highly visible, but the pattern proved much the same in the cities. The question is often asked, “If these control mothers are as poor and terribly disadvantaged as the neglectful, how are they able to give their children good care?” The present study indicated two major factors: they feel emotionally supported, and they are not lonely.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR TREATMENT
The psychological wall that separates neglectful parents from support networks available to most must be penetrated. The task is one of changing perceptions of both neglectful families and of their neighbors, a task made the more difficult by the social distancing attitudes of the latter. Hence, we need professional intervention to forge linkages between the parents who concern us and their more supported and potentially supportive neighbors. Left to their fates, they become isolated. The introduction of parent enrichment, education and mutual support groups which include both neglectful and non-neglectful families, is a possible means of breaking down negative stereotyping. Cooperative child care can also bring such mothers into contact, provided the overall calibre of the care is guaranteed by regular paid staff. Mothers’ day-out programs through local churches and schools have been found helpful, not only as respite for the mothers but also to assist the linking process. The identification and mobilization of recognized “natural helpers” is an approach that has been advocated [17]. Supported by professional direction and consultation, local civic leaders, postmen, hairdressers and others in “gatekeeper” roles can help provide relationship opportunities. In rural areas some workers have succeeded in getting warm and energetic church groups to take on one or more neglectful families, not just as “projects” but as friends. Community-focused approaches call for a change from the case-by-case model most agencies employ almost exclusively. Workers can then identify formal and informal support systems that might help. The role becomes one of liaison, helper, advocate, resource mobilizer and consultant to overcome barriers to the participation of the families that concern us. However, as Whittaker [18] and Polansky [S] have each indicated, neither the traditional clinical, nor the newer ecological model is a panacea. Major deterrents to the mother’s participation often lie in deeply rooted character traits: self-derogation, shyness, fear of intimacy,
Psychological ecology of the neglectful mother
275
abrasiveness, or the like. Social skills training may be a necessary part of the intervention for some [ 191; others will be ready for making close friends only after extended casework treatment. But there is no doubt that when the social environment becomes more forthcoming, the demand for basic change in the mother is thereby lessened. Acknowledgement-We are grateful to Dr. L Patricia Johnson, former director, and to Ms. Rosserlyn Anderson and many others of the staff of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children’s Services for gracious and competent help in the conduct of the work.
REFERENCES 1. LEWIN, K. Constructs in psychology and psychological ecology. University of Iowa Studies in Child Wefire 20: 17-20 (1944). 2. LEWIN, K. Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Brothers, New York (195 1). 3. BARKER R. and GUMP, P. V. Big School, Small School. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1964). 4. GARBARINO, J. Some thoughts on school size and its effects in adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 9: 169- 182 ( 1980). 5. KOGAN, L. S., SMITH, J. and JENKINS, S. Ecological validity of social indicator data as predictors of survey findings. Journol of Social Service Research 2: 117- 132 ( 1977). 6. BRONFENBRENNER, U. The Ecology of Humun Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1979). 7. GARBARINO, J. and SHERMAN, D. High risk neighborhoods and high risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Developmenf 51: 188-198 (1980). 8. POLANSKY. N. A.. CHALMERS, M. A., BUTTENWIESER E. and WILLIAMS, D. P. DomuKed Parents. University of.Chicago Press, Chicago ( 1981). 9. GARBARINO. J. and CROUTER A. Deflnina the communitv context for narent-child relations: The correlates of child maltreatment. Child Development 49:&4-6 16 (1979)._ 10. GAUDIN, J. Mothers’ perceived strength of networks and maternal child abuse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University (1979). 11. WOLOCK, I. and HOROWITZ, B. Child maltreatment and material deprivation among AFDC-recipient families. Social Service Review 53: 175-194 (1979). l? .a. HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B. Two-factor index of social position-Unpublished manuscript, New Haven, CT (1957). 13. GARBARINO, J. Social support networks: RX for the helping professionals. In: Social Supporr Networks: Informal Helping in the Human Services, J. K. Whittaker, J. Garbarino et al. (Eds.). Aldine, New York (1983). 14. GIOVANNONI, J. M. and BECERRA, R M. Defining Child Abue. Free Press, New York (1979). 15. GAUDIN, J. and POLANSKY, N. A. Social distancing of the neglectful family: Sex, race and social class influences. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Work, University of Georgia (1983). 16. GIOVANNONI, J. M. and BILLINGSLEY, A. Child neglect among the poor: A study of parental adequacy in families of three ethnic groups. Child Werfare 84: 196-214 (1970). 17. PANCOAST, D. Finding and enlisting neighbors to support families. In: Protecting Children from Child Ahe ond Nenlecr. J. Garbarino, S. H. Stocking, et al. Oxford University Press, New York (1980). 18. WHITTAKER, J. K. Social support networks in child welfare. In: &iol Support Networks: ‘Informal Helping in rhe Human Services, J. K. Whittaker, J. Garbarino et al. (Eds.). Aldine, New York (1983). 19. WODARSKI, J. Treatment of parents who abuse their children: A literature review and implications for professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect 5: 35 I-360 (1981).