1.. 44M.“

5. .n.
{‘15.}.

n... Hut—sh.

t1.
7 I... 1...:

n
ii; 5.63».
.1 . ..

¢

.

.2 KL...
2.32.1 x.
i. :

I31...
I: (4| 0
.:....H. r .

,fl. 3.": | , . .. . Earn
. ‘ . , . ‘ g“? —fi~4&mmww‘mfl Paws?» mwm‘wgg

 

 

LII
I...
. . .

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY OF PARENTING FOR HEAD
START SINGLE PARENTS

presented by
Rebecca Meszaros

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S. degree inCommunity Services

 

 

flaw; flaw;

Major professor

Date May 2001

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

MiChigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

001T 0 3 2095 5146712692“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DaIeDue.p65-p.15

 

FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY OF PARENTING FOR HEAD
START SINGLE PARENTS

By

Rebecca Meszaros

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COMMUNITY SERVICES
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2001

ABSTRACT
FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY OF PARENTING FOR HEAD START SINGLE
PARENTS
By

Rebecca Meszaros

This study investigates the relationship among community, economic pressure,
social support, emotional well-being, and the quality of parenting for single parent families
in the greater Lansing area of Michigan. In order to carry out the objectives of this
research, a non-experimental, cross-sectional research study was done with Head Start
single parents in the greater Lansing area as participants. Descriptive analysis including
frequency, mean, median, standard deviation, and mode were used for this study.
Bivariate correlations were run to determine if there were any associations between
variables. Consistent with prior studies, the results show that emotional well-being is a
key variable influencing the quality of parenting for single parents. Community and social
support influence the quality of parenting indirectly through their influence on emotional
well-being. The findings also show a relationship between emotional well-being and
community, and emotional well-being and social support. Although recent research has
indicated that economic pressure influences the quality of parenting, this was not the case
in this study. The findings indicate that economic pressure does not influence the quality

of parenting even though it is a very present reality for the study participants.

11

Dedication

This project is dedicated to my family, especially my son, Rafael. Thank you for all of

your support and prayers that have enabled me to bring this project to completion.

I would also like to dedicate this paper to all other single parents. This journey that we

have embarked on is both challenging and rewarding. It is your strength and endurance

that pushes me forward. Thank you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of my committee, Dr.
Barbara Ames, Dr. Norma Bobbitt, and Dr. Lillian Phenice. I am especially grateful for
the guidance and support of Dr. Phenice. Thank you for believing in me and pushing me
to do my best. A special thank you to Head Start in the greater Lansing area - to Mary
Farrand, Carol Sitowski, the family workers, and especially the single parents who

participated in this study. Without you, none of this would have been possible.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables .................................................................................................................. vii
List of figures ................................................................................................................ viii
Chapterl Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-5
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-4
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 5
Chapter II Review of Literature ................................................................................. 6-11
Community and Quality of Parenting ......................................................................... .6-7
Economic Pressure and Quality of Parenting ................................................................. 7-8
‘ S ,giSuprrt and Quality of Parentmg ...................................................................... 8-10
Emotional Well-Being and Quality of Parenting ......................................................... 10-11
vTheoltetical Perspectivel ........................................................................................... 11-13
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter III Method ................................................................................................... 14-21
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 14
Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 14-15
Conceptual and Operational Definitions .......................................................................... 16
Independent Variable .......................................................................................... l6
Dependent Variables ...................................................................................... 16-17
Other Definitions- single parent families ............................................................. 17
Sample ...................................................................................................................... 18-19
klnstrumentation ....................................................................................................... 19-21
Economic Pressure ............................................................................................. 19
Quality of Parenting ....................................................................................... 19-20
Emotional Well-Being ......................................................................................... 20
Community .................................................................................................... 20-21
SWpon .................................................................................................... 21
Chapter IV Results .................................................................................................... 22-29
Descriptive Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 22-25
Economic Pressure ............................................................................................. 22
Supportive Parenting Scale - Quality of Parenting .......................................... 22-23
Emotional Well-Being ......................................................................................... 23
Community .................................................................................................... 23-24
Social Support ............................................................................................... 24-25

Bivariate Correlations Results ................................................................................... 25-28

Hypothesis 1 ....................................................................................................... 25
Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................. 25-26
Hypothesis 3 ....................................................................................................... 26
Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................................. 26-27
Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................................. 27-28
Hypothesis 6 ....................................................................................................... 28
Chapter V Discussion ................................................................................................ 30-35
Findings .................................................................................................................... 30-35
Chapter VI Conclusion .............................................................................................. 36-41
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 36-37
Implications .............................................................................................................. 37-39
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 39-40
Directions for future research .................................................................................... 40-41
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 42-58
Appendix A - Questionnaire .......................................................................... 43-53
Appendix B - UCHRIS Letter ....................................................................... 54-55
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 56-58

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation Results for Dependent and Independent
Variables ........................................................................................................ 25

Table 2. Correlations between Social Support and Six Items from Emotional Well-Being
questionnaire .................................................................................................. 26

Table 3. Correlations between Supportive Parenting and Five Items from Emotional Well-
Being questionnaire ........................................................................................ 28

Table 4. Summary of Research Hypotheses and Results ................................................ 28

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Cognitive Map of Research - Model of influence of Community, Social
Support, Economic Pressure, and Emotional Well-Being on the Quality of

Parenting for Single Parents ................................................................................ 4

Figure 2. Model of influence of Community, Social Support, Economic Pressure, and

Emotional Well-Being on the Quality of Parenting for Single

Parents ............................................................................................................... 29

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Parenting is one of the most challenging roles that a person can undertake within
his or her lifetime. Single parents have even more challenges, as they have complete
responsibility for parenting, employment, finances, and household upkeep. In 1998,
twenty six percent of all families with children were headed by single parents (Single
Parent Statistics, 2000). This study investigates whether support from family members,
fiiends, and community services are essential in order to ensure a quality of life for these
families. Previous findings by Crockenberg (1988) indicate that social support is
associated with more sensitive and responsive maternal behavior among single mothers,
and that satisfaction with support is associated with more appropriate maternal control,
better mother-child communication and greater nurturance. It was also found that
potential negative effects can be mediated by social support. Simons, Johnson, Conger,
and Lorenz (1997) have found that life stress, like economic pressure, and type of
community a person lives in also influence the parenting behaviors of people. As human
ecologists Bubolz and Sontag (1993) state, “Environments do not determine human
behavior but pose limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities”
(p.426).

This study was designed to investigate the interconnectedness of families and
communities. Specifically, it will enable one to look at the various factors influencing

parenting and their implications at a community level, such as how support of single

parent families strengthens communities. Understanding the variables that influence
parenting can help a community focus on the support that is necessary to ensure that all
members have a quality of life that enables them to be healthy and productive members.

The interrelationship of the four variables that have been identified as influencing
the quality of parenting for single parents are based on previous research by Ronald
Sirnons (1993). Based on Belsky’s work finding that parental behavior is disrupted by
work-related stressors, the research of Simons, Lorenz, Wu, and Conger (1993) indicates
that economic pressure disrupts competent parenting by increasing psychological distress
and undermining access to supportive relationships with others.

The conceptual model being used for this study postulates that the dependent
variables of social support, community, economic pressure, and emotional well-being
influence the independent variable, quality of parenting of the single parent (See Figure 1).
The key variable in this model is the emotional well-being of the single parent. This is the
variable which links the other variables of this study to the quality of parenting. Economic
pressure indirectly influences the quality of parenting through its influence on social
support and its direct influence on emotional well-being (Simons, et a1, 1993).

Community has an indirect influence on the quality of parenting through its influence on
social support, and social support indirectly influences the quality of parenting through its
influence on the emotional well-being of the single parent.

In order to carry out the objectives of this research, a non-experimental, cross-
sectional research study was done. This applied, descriptive study was carried out in a

natural setting. Head Start single parents in the greater Lansing area were the unit of

analysis. Primary data were collected and used.

.353m 236 com 95:23 me >555 2: no maoméoa Raouoam 28
.2585 orgasm £255 32% 53.8800 mo cocoa—E 05 me 352 .. :oaomom mo 32 9.56on am

 

weave; .6 3:30

 

 

chamohm OmaOGOom—

@0333 3285 II.

 

 

 

 

 

toaasm 38m bazaaoo

 

 

 

Statement of the Problem

This study looks at the environmental factors that influence the quality of parenting
for single parent families. This study investigates the relationship among community, life
stress, social support, emotional well-being, and the quality of parenting for single parent
families in the greater Lansing area of Michigan. Simons, Lorenz, Wu, and Conger
developed a model that shows the various influences on parenting. Specifically, this study

uses a model based on one developed by Simons et al (1993).

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Cgmmunifl and Quilig of Parenting

The relationship between community and quality of parenting has not been widely
researched (Klebanov, Brooks-Gum, & Duncan,1994; Simons et al. 1997; Voyandofl‘ &
Donnelly 1998). Wilson has argued that adults living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are
more likely to be depressed and will not have appropriate parenting skills (Simons et al.,
1997). Wilson’s research has shown that when manufacturing and the good-paying jobs
and services that accompany it, moves to the suburbs from the city, inner-city
neighborhoods become places of low resources for those left behind. These
neighborhoods become places of poor schools, inadequate public and social services,
economic and business problems, low morale, and lack of involvement by community
members. Wilson (1997) adds that residents in such neighborhoods tend to focus on the
present, lack long-term goals, and display little planning or organization. These are all
characteristics that do not enable efi‘ective parenting. Recent research has provided
evidence to support Wilson’s arguments. Klebanov, Brooks-Gum and Duncan reported
that neighborhood poverty was associated with low maternal warmth and provision of a '
negative household environment, afier controlling for mother’s education and family
income (1997).

Based on Wilson’s (1997) ideas and the research of Klebanov and associates

(1994), Simons (1997) and his fellow researchers found an association between

community context and parental behavior across communities of various sizes, including
single parents of both toddlers and adolescents. Simons, et al (1997) found that because
of the disadvantages of some communities, residents are thus more susceptible to negative
life stressors and less social support. They found in their research in rural Iowa
communities a direct link between what they called social disorganization, a breakdown in
basic institutions and social relationships required for people to satisfy firndamental needs
and values, and quality of parenting (p.212). Social disorganization has an indirect effect
on quality of parenting through both negative life stress and low social support. It was
also found that the effect on a parent’s emotional well-being directly influences parenting.
They concluded that a community experiencing severe social and economic problems
caused parents to behave in ways that led to inefl‘ective parenting.

On the other hand, community resources can positively affect the well-being of
parents. Voyandofi‘ and Donnelly (1998) have shown a modest relationship between
parental well-being and formal supports, school environments, and neighborhood
resources. Though community resources cannot overcome all of the disadvantages parents
may face, neighborhood resources and school environments can be important sources of
informal support to parents of adolescents. Their findings indicate that a range of

community resources is beneficial to parental well-being (1998).

genomic Pressme Q51 Parenting

Parenting itself brings added economic demands and household expenses increase
along with the added expenditure of child care. Ofien such economic stress can mean

lower personal and parental well-being (Heath & Orthner, 1999). A stressfirl event, like

family economic pressure, disrupts competent parenting by increasing psychological
distress and decreasing access to social support. According to Simons, Lorenz, Wu, &
Conger(1993 ), for both mothers and fathers, economic pressure is strongly associated
with depression. As depression increases, supportive parenting, or the quality of
parenting, decreases. Thus economic pressure efl‘ects parenting quality through its effect
on the emotional well-being of the parent. Economic pressure also influences spousal
support indirectly through depression. A parent’s emotional well-being and access to
marital support can mediate the effect of economic pressure on parenting

The demands and pressures of parenting are greater for single parents when they
are the sole earner and parent in the family. The primary stressor for single parents,
especially mothers, is inadequate financial support (Heath and Orthner, 1999). Voydanofi’
and Donnelly (1998) found single parenthood and economic strain to be the primary
sources of parental stress, along with extensive work demands and community problems.
They found that single parenthood and economic strain had a negative influence on

parental well-being.

Sgial Sumrt and Parenting

<f Social support is the emotional, instrumental, and informational help a person
receives from others (Crockenberg, 1988).:9‘I'he marital relationship, when present, is the
primary support system for parenting, and social network support is considered secondary.
Social support influences parenting behaviors indirectly through its effect on parents’
emotional well-being (Simons, et a1, 1997). For mothers, spousal support appears to have

a buffering effect between depression and quality of parenting, and spousal support serves

to decrease the probability that stress would affect the quality of parenting.

Sigma] support is associated with more sensitive and responsive matLrnal behavior
among single mothers and satisfaction with support is associated with more appropriate
maternal control, better mother-cth communication, and greater nurturance
(Crockenberg,1988). Even for low-risk families, social support is associated with
parenting that is more appropriate and beneficial to the child. Social support is beneficial
for a child’s development because of the one-to-one contact between the child and the
person providing the social support, as well as the efi’ect on the mother’s behavior (1988).

<EAflsingle parent’s support network offers practical support more fi'equently and

more consistently. This can be child care, transportation, help during a child’s illness,

house cleaning and so forth (W ijnberg & Weinger, 1998). Though pgcticaL Support is

 

necessary and enables single parents to meet their work responsibilities, emotional support
“Q _.-..._-. .., ,_,
enables them to cope with the ever present demands and pressures of being a single parent

(1998). In a small study of poor single mothers in the Midwest, Wijnberg and Weinger

found that mothers in their study wanted most to be connected, caiedabout, and validated

by their social network (1998), / " /'
VC/ / g\\
\ ._ D’Ercole (198 8) found that the supportive relationships with ends, and co-
workers had more influence on the well-being_p_f_sin e mothers than the task-related f; ‘
support of family and neighbors. D’Ercole concludes that with fiiends, one can socialize, ‘ “
share experiences, and be a part of a network of peers. This type of social support system
appears to buffer stress. /

/In a comprehensive overview of single parent studies and social support, Nestmann

9

and Niepel (1994) categorized the studies that have been done into two groups - structural
(size, composition, and density) and functional (the role of social support). They
tentatively concluded that single parentmetworks are smaller, consist of relatives, are of
the same gender, and have fewer but more intensive contacts (N estmann and Niepel,‘ “
1994). As for the functional component of social support, this serves to protect single

parents and enhance their well-being. In other words, it serves as a coping mechanism for

single parents. Friends and family members are usually the sources of this support (1994)?)
Emotional Well-Being and Parenting

Extensive research has shown a relationship between psychological health and
quality of parenting. Adults who are psychologically healthy are more likely to provide
the type of care that enables their children to be psychologically healthy (Belsky, 1990).
Parents with high measures of ego development and ego strength tend to behave
sensitively and responsively toward their infants. They also develop feelings of confidence
and control as parents. Research also has shown that parents who feel positively about
themselves tend to communicate more effectively with their children.

Social support, depression, and mother’s education, are significantly related to
ineffective parenting (Simons et al., 1997). Depressed mothers tend to be less
afi’ectionate, responsive, and spontaneous with their infants and are more likely to be
irritable and punitive with their older children (Belsky, 1990). Social support and negative
life events, like economic pressure, affect parenting quality through their effect on
emotional well-being. Social support has been shown to be positively associated with

mother’s emotional well-being and with sensitive and responsive maternal behavior

10

(Crockenberg, 1988). Crockenberg(1988) sees social support as generally associated with
patterns of appropriate parenting and better adjustment to parenting.

Further evidence shows that mothers with family support had significantly higher
maternal self-esteem than mothers who did not have family support. Self-esteern is a
significant factor in the emotional well-being of a person and an important resource for
single mothers (D’Ercole, 1988). Though practical or instrumental support is essential to
single mothers, “emotional support is of even greater value” (\Vrjnberg and Weinger,
1998). Wijnberg and Weinger (1998) studied a group of poor single-mother students,
full-time workers, part-time workers, and full-time mothers in western Michigan. All sub-
groups except full-time mothers wanted to feel connected, cared about, and validated by
their social network.

Webster-Stratton (1997) found that parent training programs reduce isolation,
strengthen support networks, lead to better parenting, fewer child behavior problems, and
ultimately resulted in greater collaboration between parents and school. Integral to the
success of these parent training programs is the emotional well-being of the parents.
Webster- Stratton (1997) states that “. . .when parents value themselves and regularly act
upon that self-respect, they are able to be more nurturing with their children and to build
relationships with others in the group and their community. Self-care is an important link

between parents’ work and their ability to become involved in their community” (p. 11).

Theoretical Perspective

:/ Human ecology theory will be used as a foundation from which to understand the

\\ L

influence of community, social support, economic pressure, and emotional well-being on

11

parenting for single parents. In human ecology theory a family is not seen as an entity all
of its own, but part of and interacting within an environment. Environment is defined as
three distinct but interrelated environments. The first is the human-built environment
which includes roads, cities and pollution. The second, the social-cultural environment

is, for example, neighbors, laws, cultural values, and economic institutions. The third is the
natural-physical-biological environment which consists of water, mineral, plants, and
animals (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).

This theory is significant to the study because it provides the basis for seeing the
single parent family as it interacts with its environment and how these interactions
influence the quality of parenting. Human ecology theory allows one to look at the
various components that make up a family’s environment, along with what they potentially
contribute and receive from their interactions with the environment. In this study human
ecology theory is used to show that such specific components of the environment as
community, social support, economic pressure, and the mother’s emotional well-being do
not determine but influence parental behavior.

Bubolz and Sontag (1993) remind us that what a family does has consequences for
the environments to which they belong; hence a family’s actions affect the environment
and others in the environment. Human ecology theory, as used in this study, provides a
holistic perspective to understanding parenting. This theory acknowledges the interactions
that occur between a family’s characteristics, human attributes, and environmental factors.
In this study this allows one to understand the single parent family at both the micro or

family level and macro or environmental level. It enables a single parent family to be seen

12

as a unit which is interrelated and interdependent with its environment. The variables that

comprise this environment contribute to a single parent’s quality of parenting.
Conclusion

Recent research has identified four main variables that influence parenting. One is
the community where families live, and another is the life stress experienced by a parent.
A third is the social support received or perceived, and fourth is the emotional state of the
parent. These variables influence the quality of parenting at different levels and with
differing results. The literature shows the interconnectedness of each variable with
families and their environment. Each variable influences parenting in association with
another variable. Community as a place where parents live influences the quality of
parenting through its disadvantages or advantages, such as adequate resources. Of
importance in this relationship is that community as a variable influences parenting most
often through its effects on a parent’s emotional well-being. Economic pressure and social
support as variables in this model also influence parenting through their effects on
emotional well-being. Research has shown how social disorganization within a
community leads to negative life stress and low social support for parents, ultimately
influencing the quality of parenting by reducing the emotional well-being of the parent.
This study sought to look at the interrelationship of these variables with single parent

families, an ever growing family system in the United States.

13

Chapter 3
Methods

Research Questions

The overall objective of this research was to investigate the relationship among
social support, community, life stress, and the emotional well-being of parents on the
quality of parenting for single parents.

In order to reach this overall objective, two questions were developed to guide the
research. The following questions were addressed:

1. What is the relationship of community, social support, and economic pressure to the
emotional well-being of single parents?

2. What is the relationship among community, social support, economic pressure, and

emotional well-being of single parents to their quality of parenting?

Research Hymtheses
H01 There is no relationship between community and social support for single parents.

HA1 There is a relationship between community and social support for single parents.

H02 There is no relationship between economic pressure and social support for single
parents.
HA2 There is a relationship between economic pressure and social support for single

parents.

14

H03

HA3

H04

H05

H06

There is no relationship between economic pressure and emotional well-being for
single parents.
There is a relationship between economic pressure and emotional well-being for

single parents.

There is no relationship between social support and emotional well-being for single
parents.
There is a relationship between social support and emotional well-being for single

parents.

There is no relationship between the emotional well-being and quality of parenting
for single parents.
There is a relationship between emotional well-being and quality of parenting for

single parents.

There is no relationship among community, economic pressure, social support, and
emotional well-being and the quality of parenting for single parents.
There is a relationship among community, economic pressure, social support, and

the emotional well-being and the quality of parenting for single parents.

15

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

Independent Variable
Qpality of Parenting The independent variable to be measured in this study is the quality
of parenting for single parent families. In this study, parenting is the extent to which a
parent shows care and concern for a child. Quality of parenting is defined as supportive
parenting shown by parents concern about their child’s feelings, taking an interest in his or
her daily activities, manifesting love and acceptance, encouraging appropriate behavior,
helping with problems, and reinforcing accomplishments. Operationally, this will be
measured using the ten-item Supportive Parenting scale, a self-report measure adapted
from the measure created by Simons et a1 (1993). This scale has a coefficient alpha of .81

for fathers and .78 for mothers. The response format uses a Likert scale of 1-5 points.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables that will be measured in this study are community, economic
pressure, social support, and the emotional well-being of the parent.
Community Community is defined as interlocking networks of relationships between
individuals and groups consisting of trust and reciprocity. This will be measured using a
29 item Social Capital Questionnaire, a self report measure, created by Onyx and Bullen
(2000). This measure uses a four point Likert scale response format.
Economic Pressure Economicpressure is defined as economic stress and material needs
of the single parent. This will be measured by specific answers given to survey questions

created by Simons et al. (1993), with a Cronbach alpha of .84, regarding household

16

budgeting and material needs.
Economic stress: Two items will assess the degree to which the parents felt they
“can’t make ends meet” using a Likert scale of 1-5 points.
Material rims: A series of nine items asking if parents had the money needed for
basic household and family needs. Items will be summed to form material needs
indicator of economic pressure.
Emotional well-being This is defined as mother’s self concept and self-esteem or how
they feel about their role as a single parent. This will be measured using eleven true or
false questions created by the author based on the depression syrnptomology subscale of
the SCL-90-R (Derogatis 1983). All true responses will indicate a high self concept and
self-esteem.

\J’ Social Supp_ort Social support is defined as supportive social resources tint might
facilitate coping with stressful situations. This will be measured using the Tangible,
Appraisal, and Belonging subscales of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), a
40 item self-report measure created by Cohen and Hoberrnan (1983).. The three subscales

will be summed to form a single indicator of social support.

Other definitions

Single pmnt fpmilig Single parent families are defined as families where the mother is
primarily responsible for parenting, employment, finances, and household upkeep. This
will be measured by asking participants their marital status on a survey questionnaire.
They will be given three choices: single - never married, single - divorced, single -

widowed.

l7

Sample

A purposive sample of 27 single parents residing in the greater Lansing area was
recruited fi'om the local Head Start programs. After permission to conduct the study was
received from the director of the greater Lansing Head Start programs and UCRIHS, the
self-report questionnaire was given to the family worker coordinator. The family worker
coordinator contacted Head Start family workers at various programs in the greater
Lansing area. These family workers identified single parents who participated in their
Head Start programs. The family workers gave the self-report questionnaire to these
parents, and they were asked to review it. Ifthey were willing to participate in the study,
interested parents signed the consent form and filled out the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was returned to the family workers when completed. All completed
questionnaires were returned to the family worker coordinator.

All participants were single parents, with the sample fairly evenly divided between
never married and divorced/ separated mothers. Forty eight percent were never married
and fifty two percent were divorced/ separated. Seventy-four percent of the women were
between the ages of 19 and 29. They had a mean of 2.22 children, ninety six percent had
1-4 children and fifty nine percent of these parents had 1-2 children.

Fifty eight percent of the families fell into the $O-$l 5,999 income category. Eighty
nine percent had incomes of $22,500 and less. Economic variance was controlled for
given the nature of the sample which was chosen from those qualified for Head Start
programs. An overwhelming 93% of the sample were employed, with 79% employed full-
time. Fifty-two percent had lived between 1-5 years in the greater Lansing area. Thirty

18

percent have lived in the greater Lansing area all their lives.

Instrumentation

Mother self-reports were used to measure community, life stress, social support,
emotional well-being, and supportive parenting. All instruments except for the emotional
well-being instrument have been used in other research.

Economic Pressure The measure of economic pressure is the mean response to three
indicators of economic pressure. The first two items assess the degree to which parents
feel they “can’t make ends meet”. Each single parent indicated to what degree they had
difficulty paying bills each month (1 = no drfliculty at all, to 5 = a great deal of difliculty)
and whether they had money left over at the end of the month ( l = more than enough
money left over, to 4 = not enough to make ends meet). Each parent also responded to
nine items asking if they had the money needed for home(rent or mortgage), clothing,
household items, transportation, food, medical care, recreational activities, children’s
supplies, and utilities (1 = more than enough, to 4 = not enough). The items were
summed to form a material needs indicator of economic pressure. In previous research,
the material needs indicator had a coefficient alpha of .89 for mothers and .89 for fathers.
(Simons, et al, 1993). Material needs scoring key: 0-9 (more than enough), 10-18 (just
enough), 19-27 (barely enough), and 28-36 (not enough).

gang of parenting The measure of the quality of parenting, using the Supportive
Parenting scale, is the mean response to ten-items focusing on the various components of
supportive parenting such as concern for child’s feelings, interest in daily activities, and
help with problems (1 = never to 5 = always). In previous research, the nine-item

19

Supportive Parenting scale had a coefficient alpha of .81 for fathers and .78 for mothers
(Simons, et al., 1993). Quality of parenting scoring key: 0-10 (never supportive), 11-20
(somewhat supportive), 21-30 (supportive), 31-40 (mostly supportive) and 41-50 (very
supportive).

Emot_ional Well-Being The measure of the emotional well-being of the parent is the mean
response to eleven true or false items revealing the mother’s self concept and self-esteem
in relation to parenting as a single parent. It was pilot tested by a small group of single
parents. This measure was created by the researcher based on thirteen items of the
depression symptomology subscale of the SCL-90-R (Derogatis 1983). This depression
subscale has demonstrated reliability and validity. In previous research, this subscale had a
coefficient alpha of .86 (Simons, et a1, 1997). All true responses will indicate a high self
concept and self-esteem (true = 1, false = 0). Emotional well-being scoring key: 8-10
(good emotional state), 5-7 (satisfactory emotional state), 2-4 (low emotional state), 0-1
(very low emotional state).

memunig The measure of the strength of community networks, using The Social Capital
Questionnaire (Onyx & Bullen, 2000), is the mean response to 26 items consisting of five
subscales (Responses range from 1 = no, not at all to 4 = yes, definitely). The Social
Capital Questionnaire, used in previous research, has a Cronbach’s alpha of .84. The five
subscales measure participation in local community (e. g. Do you help out a local group as
a volunteer?), proactivity in social context of capacity of the individual to plan and initiate
action in a social context (e. g. Have you ever picked up other people’s trash in a public

place?), feelings of trust and safety (e.g. Do you feel safe walking down your street after

20

dark?), neighborhood connections (e. g Have you visited a neighbor in the past week?),
and family and fiiends (e. g. How many phone conversations have you had with fiiends in
the past week?) The mean response to each subscale is the measure of the strength of
that subscale. (This is based on 36 items). Community scoring key: 0-24 (no strength),
25-48 (low), 49-72 (medium), and 73-96 (high).

Social Sppport The Tangible, Appraisal, and Belonging subscales of the Interpersonal
Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen & Hoberrnan, 1983) were summed to form an
indicator of social support. The Appraisal subscale measures perceived ability of someone
to talk with about one’s problems (e. g. When I need suggestions for how to deal with a
personal problem I know there is someone I can turn to). The Belonging subscale
measures perceived availability of people with whom to do things (e. g. If I decide on a
Friday afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that evening, I could find someone to
go with me). The Tangible subscale measures perceived availability of instrumental
assistance (e.g. If I were sick and needed someone to drive me to the doctor, I would have
trouble finding someone.) Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the ISEL is .77 and
.77 for appraisal, .75 for belonging, and .71 for tangible for each subscale. Social support
scoring key: 24-30 (high perceived support), 17-23 (normal perceived support), 10-16

(low perceived support) and 0-9 (no support).

21

Chapter 4

Results

The questionnaires were analyzed by the author using SPSS 10. For each variable,
descriptive analysis including frequency, mean, median, standard deviation, and mode was
done. Bivariate correlations (pearson’s correlation) were run between all variables,
including each of the eleven questions of the emotional well-being scale. All significant
correlations were positive. Missing data, typically less than 3.7%, were excluded fi'om

analysis.
Descriptive Analysis Results

Economic Pressure

Frequency analysis indicates that 51.8% of all participants have “some dificulty”
to “difficulty” paying their monthly bills. The mean, median, and mode results were all
“some difficulty”. Thirty seven percent have “just enough with no money left over”

at the end of a month. For the third section of the questionnaire relating to economic
pressure, 44.4% of respondents indicated they have “barely enough” money to meet family
needs. The mean was 22.37, median was 23.00 and the mode was 23, all answers
indicated “barely enough”. Approximately 26% of respondents did not have enough

money to meet family needs.

S rtive Parentin Scale - ’ of Parentin

Frequency analysis indicates that the mean score for the supportive parenting scale

22

(see page )was 42.48. The median and mode scores were 43 and 44 respectively. With a
score of 50 equal to ‘Very supportive” and the highest score possible, the mean, median
and mode scores fell into the ‘Very supportive” category. Approximately 67% of
respondents (66.7%) were “very supportive” with an overwhelming 100% either

“supportive” or ‘Very supportive”.

Emotional Well-Being

All true answers to the eleven questions comprising the emotional well-being
questionnaire indicated a very good emotional state. Thus the highest possible score was
11. The mean score for the study participants was 7.4, indicating a satisfactory emotional
state. The median and mode scores were slightly higher, both 8, and were scored as
having a good emotional state. Frequency analysis showed that 61.5% of respondents had
a good emotional state, and 23% had a satisfactory emotional state. The responses to two
specific questions from the emotional well-being questionnaire were analyzed to determine
the percentage of respondents who were happy and satisfied with their life (“I am happy.”
and “I am satisfied with my life”). Seventy six percent said that they were happy while
satisfaction with their lives was evenly divided between ‘yes” and “no”. Fifty percent said

they were satisfied with their life and fifty percent said they were not satisfied.

cm

The range of scores indicating community connections for participants was fi'om
31-77. The scores were divided into four categories: no support, low support, medium
support, and high support. The mean score was 62.7 which falls into the medium support
category. Almost 93% (92.6) of respondents were in this category of medium support,

23

 

- ~— - .._ w _..
. "A ‘..h..

indicating a normal level of community interactions. The median and mode scores also fell
into the medium support category, 64 and 66 respectively.

Breaking down the community scores further showed where participants
experienced most of their community interactions. Questions relating to participation in
the local community had a mean of 11.89. This score revealed that 77.8% of participants
had low participation in their local community. For proactivity in a social context or the
capacity of an individual to plan and initiate action within a social context, the mean score
was 22.89, significantly higher than local community participation, revealing that 55.6% of
participants had a high proactivity in a social context. The subscale for feelings of trust
and safety showed that 81.5% of respondents with normal to high feelings of trust and
safety in regard to their communities. This subscale had a mean score of 13.52. Those
respondents with good to high neighborhood connections, the next subscale, comprised
92.5% with a mean score of 14.48. The subscale for family and fiiends was made up of
two questions. The first one asked how many phone conversations a person had during
the week with family and fiiends. The second question asked the number of people the
respondent talked to the previous day. Respondents had on average 4-7 phone
conversations in the past week; 51.9% of respondents had 0-7 phone conversations in the
past week and 63% had 0-10. F ifiy six percent of respondents indicated that they talked

to between 1-7 people the previous day.

Social Supmn

The range of scores for the ISEL included a sum of the three subscales comprising

the test. This range was 8-30. The mean score was 24.35, median score was 26, and the

24

mode was 30. The perception of social support was high, with 64.3% experiencing high
social support. The highest amount possible, a score of 30, was earned by 9.3% of

respondents.

Bivariate Correlations Resulps

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviation Results for D en ent and Ind en ent V ' les.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Maximum Std. Deviation N

Emotional Well-Being 7.38 10 2.04 26
Quality of Parenting 42.48 49 3.58 27
Economic Pressure 22.37 33 6.49 27
Community 62.70 77 8.50 27
Social Support 24.35 30 6.10 26

 

 

 

Hypothesis 1

There is no association between community and social support ( r = .326).
Bivariate correlations also do not show an association between community and quality of
parenting. There is no significant correlation between these two variables ( r = .134).
There is no support for hypothesis 1. However, a modest positive association between

community and emotional well-being ( r = .3 5) is shown using nonparametric correlations.

Hypothesis 2

Bivariate correlations show no association between economic pressure and quality

25

of parenting ( r = -.114). There is no association between economic pressure and social

support either ( r = -.026). There is no support for hypothesis 2.

Meg;

Bivariate correlations do not show an association between economic pressure and

emotional well-being ( r = -. 126). There is no support for hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4

When social support is correlated with emotional well-being, bivariate correlations

Show a positive association ( r = .69), significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Bivariate

correlations also were run between social support and the specific questions of the

emotional well-being scale. These correlations show a modest positive association

between social support and six items that comprise the emotional well-being scale. (See

table 2).

Table 2

Correlatipns between Social Support and Six Items frpm Emotional Well-Being

 

 

questionnaire.
Happy Compare Do not Seek Feel Do not
blame support included feel alone
Social r= .56 r= .44 r= .73 r= .65 r= .53 r= .50
Support 3:24 _=25 5:25 _=24 N=25 N=25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Bivariate correlations do not show an association between social support and quality of

parenting. There is no significant association between social support and parenting ( r =

26

 

.29). There is support for hypothesis 4.

Hymthesis 5

Bivariate correlations show an association between the emotional well-being of a
single parent and the quality of parenting. There is a positive significant correlation
between emotional well-being and parenting ( r = .62), significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
When specific questions from the emotional well-being questionnaire are correlated with
parenting, some significant correlations become evident (see table 3). Bivariate
correlations also show an association between happiness (“I am happy”, item number 2)
and quality of parenting. There is a modest positive correlation between happiness and
parenting ( r = .50), significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Bivariate correlations show an association between satisfaction with life (“I am satisfied
with my life”, item number3) and quality of parenting. There is a significant positive
correlation between satisfaction and parenting ( r = .68), significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed). There is also a significant positive correlation between satisfaction and emotional
well-being ( r = .58), significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). There is a modest positive
correlation between feeling included (“I always feel like I am included when I am with
two-parent families”, item number 10) and parenting ( r = .53), significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed). Not feeling alone is modestly correlated with parenting ( r = .50),

significant at the 0.01 level. There is support for hypothesis 5.

27

Table 3

Correlations between Supportive Parenting and Five Item; from Emotional Well-Being

 

 

questionnaire.
Happy Satisfied Best Feel Do not feel
Parent included alone
Quality of r= .50* r= .68" r= 39* r= .53" r= .50*
Parenting fl=25 fl=26 N=26 N=26 _=26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Correlation is significant at the 0.01 1evel(2-tailed)
I"Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Hyp_othesis 6

Bivariate correlations show an association between community, social support,
and emotional well-being. Bivariate correlations also show an association between
emotional well-being and quality of parenting. Thus there is partial support for hypothesis
6. Figure 2 shows a revised model of the relationships between community, social
support, emotional well-being, and quality of parenting for single parents. According to
the results, economic pressure does not appear to be significant in this model of the
influences on the quality of parenting for single parents. Thus economic pressure as a

variable has been removed.

Table 4

Summm of Research hypotheses and results.

 

HA1 HA2 HA3 HA4 HA5 HA6

 

Support No No No Yes Yes Partial
support

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

93.8; 29% com wag—83 mo
baa—5 no 83.35 oaouooo Ea $83.33 782880 £253 308 565888 «e 026:9: mo E52 glam

$5853 mo >530

 

29

chamounm omaOflOom

 

 

no":

 

mafia; aeoeoam

 

 

 

 

tonnam 38m ban—8:80

 

 

Chapter 5

Discussion
Findings

Based on a similar model regarding the manner in which social support influences
the effect of economic pressure on parenting (Simons, et al, 1993 ), this study sought to
investigate the relationship among community, economic pressure, social support,
emotional well-being, and the quality of parenting for single parent families. The model
being used for this study assumes that economic pressure, or economic stress experienced
by Head Start single parents, indirectly influences the quality of parenting through its
influence on social support, or supportive social resources, and its direct influence on
emotional well-being. Community, consisting of the interlocking networks of relationships
between individuals and groups, has an indirect influence on the quality of parenting
through its influence on social support and social support indirectly influences the quality
of parenting through its influence on the emotional well-being of the single parent.

The strength of the findings of this study lies in the way in which all the variables
work together to show the various influences on the quality of parenting for single
parents. Consistent with prior studies, the results show that emotional well-being is indeed
a key variable influencing the quality of parenting for single parents. There is a direct,
positive, relationship between emotional well-being and the quality of parenting. In this
study the emotional well-being of the single parent appears to be a link between

community and social support and the quality of parenting. As the conceptual model

30

proposes, community and social support influence the quality of parenting indirectly
through their influence on emotional well-being. The findings also show a relationship
between emotional well-being and community, and emotional well-being and social
support. It is economic pressure that is not consistent with the conceptual model. The
findings indicate that economic pressure does not influence the quality of parenting even
though it is a very present reality for the study participants. (See Figure 2 for revised
model).

Although recent research has indicated that economic pressure influences the
quality of parenting, this was not the case in this study. Contrary to what was
hypothesized, there is no relationship between economic pressure and quality of parenting.
The results show that economic pressure is indeed evident for this sample of single
parents. Over halfthe sample had “difiiculty” paying bills and 44.4% had “barely enough
money” to meet family needs. Previous research indicates that economic pressure would
negatively afi‘ect the quality of parenting. One possibility is that the other variables in this
model are significant enough to override the economic pressure felt by these single
parents. The relationship between community, social support and emotional well-being
perhaps holds the key to these results.

The findings indicate that 92.6% of the single parents have normal participation
within their community and that 87.2% have normal to high perceived social support.
Given these findings, perhaps participation in community and social support work to offset
the economic pressure felt by these single parents. If a single parent feels safe, has

neighborhood connections in her community, and perceives fiiends and family to be

31

supportive of her and her family, then this can influence her emotional well-being and
consequently her quality of parenting.

Another possibility is, given that 93% of the parents in this study work and 79%
work firll-time, it could be that because these parents are working, that factor by itself
makes them feel like better parents even though they may still be experiencing economic
pressure. They may feel like better parents because they are able to support their families.
The work environment also could be a source of social support. Friends and co-workers
are an important source of emotional support (D’Ercole, 1988). Even though economic
pressure is a distinct reality for this group of single parents, the support that they receive
from fiiends and co-workers enables them to cope with the demands and pressures of
being a single parent.

Though modest, there is a positive relationship between community and emotional
well-being in this study that supports previous studies. Voydanofi‘ and Donnelly (1998)
also found a modest relationship between community and parental well-being, concluding
that informal supports can benefit parental well-being even if they cannot overcome all of
the disadvantages parents may be facing. The research here shows that neighborhood
connections and feelings of trust and safety are two areas that account for the largest part
of the community score. Thus, it is neighborhood connections and feelings of trust and
safety that influence the emotional well-being of the single parents in this study and
ultimately their quality of parenting. The relationship between community and emotional
well-being suggests that when the emotional well-being of the single parent is high, then

this enables the mother to build relationships with others, to establish networks or

32

relationships with individuals and groups. In return, because of these relationships, the
emotional well-being of the parent is increased (W ebster-Stratton, 1997).

Social support is an important resource to parents and results fiom this study
confirm this. The relationship between social support and emotional well-being in this
study is consistent with Crockenberg’s (1988) findings that social support is associated
with quality of parenting. Social support in this study is an ability to not only recognize
the emotional, instrumental and informal assistance that are available, but also, an ability to
accept this assistance. Being able to seek support and accept it and having that support in
place, leads to better emotional well-being and thus a higher quality of parenting. The
single parents in this study are participants in a Head Start program, are working and have
relationships with family and fiiends. It appears that these are potential sources of
support. Research shows that the work environment and Head Start programs can be
sources of social support. Head Start is a federally fimded, comprehensive child
development program that mobilizes community resources to benefit low-income
preschool children (Michigan Head Start Association, 2000). Increasing the competence
of children and families to cope effectively with their environment is accomplished by
providing a broad range of services to the family, such as medical, dental, mental health
services, nutrition, and parent involvement (Head Start, 2000). Concretely this means that
Head Start could account for a significant part of the community and social support
influences on the quality of parenting for single parents because of the very nature of
support ofi’ered by its programs. These findings suggest that Head Start and work make

up a significant portion of the social support system for single parents in this study and are

33

thus important to their emotional well-being.

The interesting statistical interactions between social support and specific
questions of the emotional well-being scale suggest the reciprocal relationship of these
two variables. The following six questions of the emotional well-being scale had the most
significant associations with social support: accepting responsibility for having to raise
their children as a single parent, seeking support when needed, happiness, avoiding
comparisons, feeling included when with two parent families, and not feeling alone. These
six aspects suggest emotional support or connections, caring, and validation by the social
network of the single parents in this sample. It is this type of emotional support that
enables single parents to cope with their situation as well as provide a quality environment
beneficial to their children.

Though this study measured both community and social support, it is often dificult
to separate these two variables. The same institutions that comprise community
participation, often are the same as the social support system. There is frequently an
overlap between community and social support. Head Start, work, family, fiiends, other
organizations, neighborhoods, are all part of the community, but can also be a social
support network a parent develops at the same time. Given this overlap, it is surprising
that there is no association between community and social support in this study.

It is of interest to look firrther at the relationships between the quality of parenting
and specific aspects of emotional well-being. Satisfaction and feeling included around two
parent families was positively associated with the quality of parenting. The data do not

reveal if those who were satisfied with their lives or who feel included around two parent

34

families have a higher quality of parenting, only that satisfaction and feeling included is
important to the quality of parenting. It must be noted though that the sample of single
parents was evenly divided as to whether or not they were satisfied with their lives. Such
findings do engender the question of whether or not satisfaction and feeling included are
important variables of emotional well-being to consider in relation to parenting for single

parents.

35

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Overall, this study helped to illustrate the interactions that take place between
Head Start single parent families and their environment. These findings are consistent
with the human ecological perspective that families are not entities in and of themselves,
but are part of and interact with an environment. The influence of environmental contexts
is most evident in this study considering that economic pressure had no influence on
quality of parenting even though it is a very present reality for most of the single parent
families. It is not only the dyadic relationship between child and parent that influences
parenting and quality of life, but also the family’s interactions with the other environments
with which they associate that can influence parenting and ultimately quality of life.

The experiences of being Head Start single parents presents a unique outcome
different from previous studies of single parents. The positive influence of community and
social support on the emotional well-being of the single parent families in this study is due
in large part to their participation in Head Start programs. The broad range of services
ofi’ered by Head Start, as well as their emphasis on parental involvement, are forms of
support that other single parent families may not have. The single parent families that
participated in this study are receiving support that enables them to cope with the
economic pressures of poverty and the demands of being single parents.

The quality of parenting of the Head Start single parents in this study suggests

that their relationships with school, work, fiiends, family, and neighbors are important

36

components of their environment. These relationships whether in the neighborhood or at
work or with family and fiiends can be important sources of emotional support which is
instrumental in helping cope with the demands and pressures single parent families often
face. As sources of emotional support, community and social support are integral to the
emotional well-being of the single parents in this study, for it is through emotional well-
being that these variables have their influence on the quality of parenting.

From a human ecological perspective, a supportive environment and the emotional
health of a single parent family in this study were significant factors associated with quality
of parenting, and therefore quality of life as well. Human ecologists, Bubolz and Sontag
stated that environments have limitations, but possibilities and opportunities too (1993).
This study of Head Start single parents demonstrated the interconnectedness of families
and communities with limitations such as economic pressure, but also opportunities like

worlg family, neighbors and fiiends.

Implications

This study has implications on a number of different levels: family, community,
and governmental. Understanding the influences of community, social support, and
emotional well-being on parenting for single parents helps to focus on what is necessary to
ensure a quality of life for all. A multi-disciplinary approach based on the human
ecological perspective of the importance of the relationships between families and their
environments is what is needed to support single parent families. At the local level in
communities and neighborhoods, the creation and continued support of neighborhood
groups and associations enables residents to come together for various activities.

37

Community gardens are an example of a way community members and neighbors can build
relationships with each other, especially those living in apartment buildings.

Most importantly, this study has major implications for Head Start. As a source of
social support for single parents in poverty, it becomes imperative that those who are
eligible for this program are first of all aware of it and secondly enrolled in it. A program
such as Head Start provides needed services to low-income parents in addition to links to
other community resources and parenting education. The continued support of Head Start
programs is necessary both to ensuring a quality of life for the parents who participate in
such a program as well as for the community at large.

Head Start and other pre-school programs, in addition to play groups bring
parents together around their children and provide opportunities for single parents to meet
and share experiences with other parents. Such opportunities can aid parents in building
the relationships that will influence their quality of parenting. Communities and educators
need to work together to increase public awareness of the many benefits of programs
targeting pre-K children, especially for single parent families.

Establishing local support groups for single parents is needed. Support groups
would enable single parents to create the peer networks that can be instrumental in
providing the social support they require. Single parent support groups could also be links
to other community resources as well as the community in general through the activities
sponsored by the group, such as bake sales, talent shows, park clean-ups, and so on.
These support groups would enable single parents to cope with the demands and pressures

of being a single parent as well as provide the emotional support that aids in building

38

relationships with others and the community.

Finally, at a governmental level, this study has implications for increasing access to
afi‘ordable quality child care and increasing the minimum wage. For a large percentage of
study participants, economic pressure was a reality even though an overwhelming
percentage were employed. Ensuring afi‘ordable quality child care, which can comprise
large portions of a household budget, is one way to reduce this pressure. Though this
study did not ask job type and wage, most low-income women can often be found in
minimum wage service jobs. If this is the case, the minimum wage should be increased to
a livable wage or at least to a wage that would allow low-income families to provide for
their families without economic pressure.

The implications discussed here are just some of the ways in which communities
and families, especially single parent families, can create as well as strengthen the already
existing relationships which can ensure strong families and strong communities or, in

other words, a quality of life for all.

Limitations

The sample population that was used for this study was a very specific group of
single parents. All single parents who consented to participate in this study were
participants in a Head Start program in the greater Lansing area, a preschool program
specifically targeted towards low-income families. Thus the results of this study are
limited to low income Head Start single parent populations in urban settings.

The sample size was below 30 respondents. Using the model in this study with a
much larger sample population could serve to strengthen the associations between the

39

contextual variables and their quality of parenting. Though participants were fi'om the
same geographic area, they were not from the same city or town. The single parents in
this study lived in places that ranged from small villages to cities. Therefore, the results
cannot be linked to a specific community context.

The current study did not account for race or level of education. These
demographic characteristics were not included because one of the variables the study was
investigating was economic pressure for single parents in general. Therefore, income was
included. Race and level of education were not being investigated in relation to quality of
parenting for single parents. Obtaining race and education level information would
introduce other variables that would help to fine tune the understanding of the
environmental influences on parenting for single parents in future research.

In this study, one measurement tool was used for emotional well-being and one for
quality of parenting. Similar studies have used several measurement tools for each of
these variables, such as the depressed subscale from the SCL-90-R for emotional well-
being or the harsh discipline scale for quality of parenting. Using more than one measure
would provide the researcher a more complete view of the variable in question. Though
other aspects of emotional well-being and quality of parenting are left unmeasured, given
the size of the sample population and the scope of this study, only one measure was used

and questions were extrapolated from another measure for the emotional well-being scale.

Directions for future research

This study was intended to research single parent families regardless of their
income level. In the current study income was controlled because all participants were

40

Head Start parents and thus met income level guidelines. It would be of interest to repeat
this study with single parent families of various income levels.

There is a strong indication that participating Head Start single parent families may
experience their economic circumstances difi‘erently than other single parent families with
similar economic circumstances. A comparative study of Head Start single parent families
and non-Head Start families would determine whether or not the resources and support
received from Head Start are instrumental in offsetting economic pressure and its
influences on quality of parenting. [fit is found that Head Start parents are better able to
cope with economic pressure in comparison with non-Head Start parents, this study
should then address the question of how Head Start enables its participants to cope with
economic pressure.

Communities and parents will benefit from firture research that examines more
closely the different levels of community interaction and how this influences one’s quality
of parenting, especially for single parents. A study that looks at the community ties a
parent has and how much they are involved in their community and what effects this has
on children would enable communities and its members to see what type of relationships

are necessary to ensure supportive parenting and a quality of life for all.

41

APPENDICES

42

Appendix A

Questionnaire

43

Consent Form

You are being invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Rebecca
Meszaros, a graduate student in the Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan
State University. This study will be looking at the influences of social support,
community, life stress, and you emotional health as single parents in rearing your child.
This is based on previous research by Ronald Simons, a sociologist at Iowa State
University. It is hoped that this study will help the community to understand what support
single parents need to be successfirl as parents.

In order to gather the data necessary to conduct this study, a questionnaire has been
compiled. All data collected will be kept strictly confidential and no names will be
associated with the information. Your participation is voluntary, you may refuse to
answer an questions, and you can withdraw your participation at any time without any
penalty or loss of benefits. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. The questionnaire will take about an halfhour to complete.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this research
project, Rebecca Meszaros, 5 1 7-627-63 08. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a research participant, feel free to contact David Wright, Ph.D
Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, phone (517)355-
2180.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate.

 

 

Signature Date

44

Directions for completing questionnaire

Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. The answers are either
true/false or multiple choice. You can circle the correct response. Your
participation is voluntary, you may refuse to answer any questions, and you
can withdraw your participation at any time without any penalty or loss of
benefits. The whole survey should take no longer than an halfhour.

The first section asks some basic questions you and your family.

The next five sections is a questionnaire that will be used to measure the
influences of your

connections to the community, social support level, emotional well-being, and

economic pressure as a single parent in raising your child(ren).

Thank you for your cooperation.

45

Information Section

Age 1:119 - 29 D30 - 39 1:140 - 49 1:150 - 59 E160 and above
Marital Status Cl single, never married

CI single, divorced/separated

Cl single, widowed

How many children do you have?

 

What are the ages of your
children?

What is your yearly income?
USO - $15,999 D$l6,000 - $22,500 Cl$22,501 - $28,000 D$28,001 - $32,000
Elmore than $32,000

What city do you live in?

 

How long have you lived there? DLess than a year Ell - 5 years 06-10 years
1311-15 years CIAll my life

Do you work outside of the home? DYes CINo

If yes, do you work fill] or part time? Dfull-time D part-time

46

Social Capital Questionnaire - Community
Please circle the appropriate response.

Response Format

1 No, not at all

2 No, not much

3 Yea, frequently

4 Yes, definitely

1. Do you help out a local group as a volunteer? 1 2 3 4

2. Have you attended a local community event in the past six months (e.g. church event,
activity at your child’s school)? 1 2 3 4

3. Are you an active member of a local organization or club (e.g. sport, bible study,
parent group)?
1 2 3 4

4. Are you on a management committee or organizing committee for any local group or
organization? 1 2 3 4

5. In the past three years, have you ever joined a local community action to deal with an
emergency? 1 2 3 4

6. In the past three years, have you ever taken part in a local community project?
1 2 3 4

7. Have you ever been part of a project to organize a new service in your area (e. g. youth
club, Boy or Girl Scouts, child care, recreation for disabled)?1 2 3 4

8. Have you ever picked up other people’s trash in a public place? 1 2 3 4
9. Do you go outside your local community to visit your family? 1 2 3

10. Ifyou need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that
information?

1 2 3 4

11. If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?
1 2 3 4

47

12. Ifyou have a dispute with your neighbors (e. g. over fences or dogs) are you willing to
find someone to help you work out the problem? 1 2 3 4

13. At work, do you take the initiative to do what needs to be done even if no one asks
you to?
l 2 3 4

14. In the past week at work, have you helped a coworker even though it was not in your
job description? 1 2 3 4

15. Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark? 1 2 3 4
16. Do you agree that most people can be trusted? 1 2 3 4

17. If someone’s car breaks down outside your house, do you invite them into your home
to use the phone? 1 2 3 4

18. Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place? 1 2 3 4
19. Does your local community feel like home? 1 2 3 4
20. Can you get help from fiiends when you need it? 1 2 3 4

21. Ifyou were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a
neighbor for help? 1 2 3 4

22. Have you visited a neighbor in the past week? 1 2 3 4

23. When you go shopping in you local area are you likely to run into fiiends and
acquaintances?
1 2 3 4

24. In the past 6 months, have you done a favor for a sick neighbor?
1 2 3 4

25. In the past week, how many phone conversations have you had with fiiends?
00-3 04-7 07-100 more than 10

26. How many people did you talk to yesterday?(please write the number down on the

line

provided)

 

48

Life Stress - Economic Pressure
Please circle the appropriate response.

1. Do you have difficulty paying bills each month?
1 = no difficulty at all 2 = a little difficulty 3 = some difficulty

4 = difficulty 5 = a great deal of difficulty

2. Do you have money left over at the end of the month?
1 = more than enough money left over 2 = a little money left over

3 = just enough with no money left over 4 = not enough to make ends meet

3. Do you have the money you need to meet your family’s basic needs:

Response Format:
1 = More than enough 2 = Just enough 3 = Barely enough 4 = Not
enough

Home (rent or mortgage) 1 2 3 4
Clothing 1 2 3 4
Household Items 1 2 3 4
Transportation (car, bus) 1 2 3 4

Food 1 2 3 4
Medical Care 1 2 3 4
Recreational Activities 1 2 3 4
Children’s Supplies 1 2 3 4
Utilities 1 2 3 4

49

Supportive Parenting Scale

Response Format:

1 = never

2 = almost never

3 = about half of the time
4 = almost always

5 = always

Please circle the appropriate response.

1. How often do you talk with your child about what is going on in his/her life?
1 2 3 4 5

2. How often does your child talk to you about things that bother him/her?
1 2 3 4 5

3. How often do you ask your child what he/ she thinks before making decisions that
affect him/her?
l 2 3 4 5

4. When your child does something you like or approve of, how often do you let him/her
know you are pleased about it?
1 2 3 4 5

5. When you and your child have a problem, how often can the two of you figure out how
to deal with it?
1 2 3 4 5

6. I really trust my child.
1 2 3 4 5

7. How often do you ask your child what he/she thinks before deciding on family matters
that involve him/her?
l 2 3 4 5

8. How often do you give reasons to your child for your decisions?
1 2 3 4 5

9. I experience strong feelings of love for him/her.
l 2 3 4 5

10. I want to spend time with my child(ren). 1 2 3 4 5

50

The General Population Form of the ISEL (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List)
Instructions:

This scale is made up of a list of statements each of which may or may not be true
about you. For each statement we would like you to circle probably TRUE (T) if the
statement is true about you or probably FALSE (F) if the statement is not true about you.

You may find that many of the statements are neither clearly true nor clearly false.
In these cases, try to decide quickly whether probably TRUE (T) or probably FALSE (F)
is most descriptive of you. Although some questions will be difiicult to answer, it is
important that you pick one alternative or the other. Remember to circle only one of the
alternatives for each statement.

Please read each item quickly but carefirlly before responding. Remember that this
is not a test and there are not right or wrong answers.

Appr 'sal

T F 1. There is at least one person I know whose advice I really trust.

T F 2. There is really no one I can trust to give me good financial advice.

T F 3. There is really no one who can give me objective feedback about how
I’m handling my problems.

T F 4. When I need suggestions for how to deal with a personal problem I
know there is someone I can turn to.

T F 5. There is someone who I feel comfortable going to for advice about
sexual problems.

T F 6. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling hassles over
household responsibilities.

T F 7. I feel that there is no one with whom I can share my most private
worries and fears.

T F 8. [fa family crisis arose few of my fiiends would be able to give me good

advice about handling it.
T F 9. There are very few people I trust to help solve my problems.
T F 10. There is someone I could turn to for advice about changing my job or

finding a new one.

Belonging
T F 1. HI decide on a Friday afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that

evening, I could find someone to go with me.

T F 2. No on I know would throw a birthday party for me.

T F 3. There are several different people with whom I enjoy spending time.

T F 4. I don’t often get invited to do things with others.

T F 5. [fl wanted to have lunch with someone, I could easily find someone to
join me.

T F 6. Most people I know don’t enjoy the same things that I do.

T F 7. When I feel lonely, there are several people I could call and talk to.

T F 8. I regularly meet or talk with members of my family or fiiends.

51

T F
T F
M
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F

9. I feel that I’m on the fiinge in my circle of fiiends.
10. If I wanted to go out of town for the day I would have a hard time
finding someone to go with me.

1. Iffor some reason I were put in jail, there is someone I could call who
would bail me out.

2. If I had to go out of town for a few weeks, someone I know would look
after my home (the plants, pets, yard, etc.)

3. If] were sick and needed someone to drive me to the doctor, I would
have trouble finding someone.

4. There is no one I could call on if I needed to borrow a car for a few
hours.

5. [fl needed a quick emergency loan of $100, there is someone I could
get it from

6. If] needed some help in moving to a new home, I would have a hard
time finding someone to help me.

7. IfI were sick, there would be almost no one I could find to help me
with my daily chores.

8. If I got stranded 10 miles out of town, there is someone I could call to
come get me.

9. If I had to mail an important letter at the post office by 5:00 and
couldn’t make it, there is someone who could do it for me.

10. If] needed a ride to the airport very early in the morning, I would have
a hard time finding anyone to take me.

52

Emotional Well-Being

Please circle the appropriate response. T = True, F = False

T

T

F

F

1. I wish other people understood my situation.

2. I am happy.

3. I am satisfied with my life.

4. I am the best parent I can be.

5. I do not compare myself to other parents.

6. I do not blame myself for having to raise my children alone.
7. I seek support when I need it.

8. I wish I had more time to spend with my children.

9. I wish I had more time for myself.

10. I always feel like I am included when I am with two-parent families.

11. I do not often feel alone.

53

Appendix B

UCRHS Letter

54

 

OFFICE or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

Unlvaralty Committee on
Research Involvlag
Human Subjects

Michigan State Unlverslly
246 Amninistration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

51 7/‘355-2180

FAX 517/353-2976

Web: www.msuedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihs©msu.edu

The Michigan State Unlverslly
IDEA Is institutional Diversity
Excellence in Action.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

November 28, 2000

TO: Lillian PHENICE
Dept. of Family & Child Ecology
3E Human Ecology Bldg

RE: IRB# 00-720 CATEGORY21-C
APPROVAL DATE: November 28, 2000

TITLE: STRONG FAMILIES AND STRONG COMMUNITIES: THE RELATIONSHIP
AMONG COMMUNITY, SOCIAL SUPPORT, SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES
AND THEIR QUALITY OF PARENTING

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: ShoUld either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://wwwmsu.edu/user/ucrihs

Sincerely

/’ 41W W

Ashir Kumar, MD
Interim Chair, UCRIHS

AK: br

cc: Rebecca Meszaros
‘l 1 310 Flintrock Drive

Grand Ledge, MI 48837

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

56

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and Nonparental Child Care and Children’s Socioemotional
Development: A Decade in Review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 885-
903.

Bubolz, M.M., & Sontag, MS. (1993) Human Ecology Theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of

Family Theories and Methods: A antgxtufl Apprgagh. New York: Plenum Press,
pp.4l9-450.

 

Crockenberg, S. (1988). Social Support and Parenting. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester, and
M. Yogman, (Eds), Theory m Research in Behgvioral Pediam'gs, Vol. 4. New
York: Plenum Press, pp. 141-174.

D’Ercole, A. (1988). Single Mothers: Stress, Coping, and Social Support. Journal of
Communig Psychology, 16, 41-54.

Hanson, S. (1986). Healthy Single Parent Families. Family Relations, 35, 125-132.

Hao, L., & Brinton, M. (1997). Productive Activities and Support Systems of Single
Mothers. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 1305-1344.

Heath, D.T., & Orthner, D. K. (1999). Stress and adaptation among male and female
single parents. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 557-587.

Head Start. Retrieved from the World “ride Web March 17, 2000:
http://www2.acf. dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/index.htm

Klebanov, P.K., Brooks-Gum, J ., & Duncan, G. (1994). Does Neighborhood and Family
Poverty Affect Mothers’ Parenting, Mental Health, and Social Support? M

of Marriage and the Family, 56, 441-455.

Michigan Head Start Msociation, Inc. Retrieved fi'om the World Wide Web March 17,
2000: http://www.headstatt.gen.mi.us/

\ ."Nestmann, F ., & Niepel, G. (1994). In Nestmann, F. and Hurrelrnann, K. (Eds), Sgcial
Networks and Social Suppgrt in Childhood and Adolescence. pp. 323-341. New
York: Walter de Guyter.

Onyx, J. & Bullen, P. (2000) Measuring social capital in five communities. The Journal

57

of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 23-42.

Simons, R. (1993). Stress, Support, and Antisocial Behavior Trait as Determinants of
Emotional Well-Being and Parenting Practices Among Single Mothers. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 55, 385-398.

Simons, R, Johnson, C., Conger, R., & Lorenz, F. (1997). Linking Community Context
to Quality of Parenting: A Study of Rural Families. Rural Sociology, 62, 207-230.

Simons, R., Lorenz, F., Wu, C., & Conger, R. (1993). Social Network and Marital
Support as Mediators and Moderators of the Impact of Stress and Depression on
Parental Behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 368-381.

Single Parent Statistics. Retrieved from the World Wide Web September 29, 2000:
http://www.cfcministry.org/singleparents/satistics.htm

Suarez, L. & Baker, B. (1997). Child externalizing behavior and parents’ stress: The role
of social support. Family Relations, 46, 373-381.

Voydanaoff, P. & Donnelly, B.W. (1998). Parents’ Risk and Protective Factors as
Predictors of Parental Well-Being and Behavior. Jgurngt gf Marriage ad the
Family, 60, 344-355.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1997). From parent training to community building. Families in
Sociegt, 78, 156-171.

,/
V Wijnberg, M. & Weinger, s. (1993). When Dreams Wither and Resources Fail: The
' Social Support Systems of Poor Single Mothers. Families in Socieg: The Journal
of Contemporztry Human Servicegj9, 212-219.

58