Submitted by: Hyun-Jeong Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor/Housing Specialist

PDF File

Heneman, K., and Zidenberg-Cherr, S. October – December 2006. “Is Lead Toxicity Still a Risk to U.S. Children?” California Agriculture 60 (4): 180-184.

Introduction

Lead is highly toxic and can be found in products we may contact in and around our homes on a daily basis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2007). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] surveillance data (CDC 2007), the rate of children who were found to have significant amount of lead in their blood (at or above 10 microgram per one deciliter, 10μg/dL) was declined from 1997 to 2005. However, EPA (2004) estimates that the United States still have 430,000 children age between 1 and 5 with blood-lead level (BLL) above 10μg/dL. Furthermore, the U.S. children are still exposed to the lead poisoning risks through many sources. The researchers of this study summarize current issues on U.S. children lead poisoning problems.

Main Ideas

Where We Find Lead

In the past, lead was used to make paint for easier application and lead-based paint (more than 0.06% lead by weight), remains in old houses, furniture, and even on children’s toys. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission prohibited to use lead-based paint on interior and exterior residential surfaces, toys, and furniture (CDC 1991). This means residents living in houses built after 1978 have less chance of exposure to lead hazards than pre-1978 house residents do. It does not mean that post-1978 houses are free from lead poisoning risk. Some older house plumbing contains lead and you may absorb it by drinking water directly from the old plumbing. We also can absorb lead from dust in the air we breathe. Lead can also come into your home if any of your household members works with lead and does not clean his/her body and clothes before coming home. Surprisingly, lead is still found on pottery, ceramic cookware, toys and even candies that are imported from certain foreign countries.

Lead Poisoning and Health Impact

Lead poisoning was referred as “one of the most common and preventable pediatric health problems.” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CDC 1991). Lead poisoning influences children much more seriously than adults. There are many reasons that young children have higher risk of lead poisoning and lead poisoning more seriously affects their health. In comparison to adults, in regards to body size, children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air. Their bodies are growing and absorb more lead. Lead damages their brain and nervous system are more easily. Most of all, they usually chew and suck almost everything (EPA 2007).

High levels of lead in children body may damage their brains, nervous system, and kidney, reduce IQ, slow down growth, and cause hearing problems. In addition, lead can cause behavior and learning problems and can result in coma, convulsions, and even death (EPA 2007; CDC 1991).

Suggestions to Prevent Lead Poisoning in Children

Consult your doctor for a blood lead level screening test if your children are age 72 months or younger, especially if you are living in a house built before 1978. Wash yourself and your babies often to reduce absorbance of lead. If you see any paint chips, clean them immediately. Regularly clean dust from your floors, window frames, windowsills, and other surface weekly. If you think your home has a lead problem contact professionals for inspection and necessary abatement. Children who eat nutritious foods with high iron and calcium (e.g., spinach and dairy products) tend to absorb less lead to their body. Make sure your children eat good foods to prevent lead poisoning (EPA, 2007).

Implications for Extension Programs

Outreach education activities of childhood lead poisoning prevention need to reach underserved populations, including low-income families reside in poor quality old houses and minorities speaking foreign languages, to emphasize the dangers of lead and teach families to reduce the harmful effects of lead in their child’s environment.

Further Information

Please visit EPA and CDC websites below for up-to-date information on children lead poisoning prevention:

EPA

CDC

Also, you can visit Florida Department of Health Lead Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for information.

Additional References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1991). A statement by the centers for disease control and prevention. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Measure B1: Lead in the blood of children. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Lead in paint, dust, and soil. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

Submitted by: Suzanna Smith, Ph.D., MSW, CFLE, Associate Professor, Human Development

PDF Version

DeVore, S. & Bowers, B. (2007). Childcare for children with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 19(3), 203-212.

Working parents often face difficult choices about how to take care of their children when they are at work. They often search for the “right” childcare provider, someone who will meet their child’s needs, and someone they can afford, at a convenient location.

What about the difficulties that working parents of children with disabilities face? Finding childcare can be especially challenging for these families, because they need a provider that can accommodate their child’s special needs, in addition to being affordable and of good quality.

According to DeVore and Bowers (2006) in their recent study published in Infants and Young Children, “about 60% of mothers of children with disabilities are employed and need…childcare” (p. 203). In this exploratory study with a small sample of parents of children with disabilities and childcare providers, researchers looked closely at how families of children with disabilities find, choose, and maintain the childcare they need.

Methods

The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 18 parents and 4 childcare providers who cared for children with disabilities. They located the sample through two resource and referral agencies and 2 early intervention programs. With grounded theory to guide the study, the researchers asked unstructured open-ended questions and then revised these questions based on what they were learning from the research. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed. Line by line dimensional analysis of the interviews brought out themes and enable comparisons. Summaries of results were mailed to participants and were clarified during follow-up interviews. A panel of researchers also coded and reviewed the transcripts and analyses to verify the results.

Results

All families selected for the study had at least one child age 6 or younger, with developmental delays and/or special healthcare needs such as such as autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, and speech delay. All families used from 20-45 hours of non-parental care per week in one or a combination of the following: center based childcare, family childcare in the child care provider’s home, care in a relative’s home, a preschool program at a school, in-home therapeutic services, or a nanny in the family’s home (p. 205). Most families lived in metropolitan areas in the county where the study was conducted

Like other working parents, these families first created a pool of providers based on professional and personal recommendations. When narrowing down their pool, they looked at practical factors such as cost, and group size. Then parents screened providers, usually over the phone, and followed up with a visit to childcare facilities they liked.

Parents were, as could be expected, looking for a provider “who could meet their child’s special developmental needs” (p. 208). Yet, while most families cycled through several different childcare arrangements, trying to find childcare that worked for them, a few found successful childcare situations the first time (p. 208). What made the difference? In lasting childcare arrangements, parents weren’t just looking for specialized care, but for a cooperative relationship with the childcare provider. Those parents and providers quickly built a partnership and worked together to solve problems. These partnering parents and providers were lucky in other ways, too—the parents had flexible work schedules, a supportive adult living with them, and a second income so they could take the time to find the right provider and resolve issues that might arise. Families that were less successful “were often under time pressures to find care,” had financial limitations, and “felt somewhat isolated” (p. 210).

Conclusions

The study found that partnerships between parents and childcare providers were an important factor in successful childcare arrangements for children with disabilities. They also point out that families need specific resources to manage their searches including “time, adults support, and economic stability” (p. 210). Having access to these resources enabled families to take the time to find successful childcare. The researchers recommend that families contact childcare information and referral services for individualized help in locating the kind of care the family needs and other resources in the community that can help.

Implications for Extension

Extension can work with childcare resource and referral agencies, early intervention specialists, and providers to offer training on improving parent-provider communication and developing partnerships for caring for children with disabilities. In parent education programs, Extension faculty can encourage parents of children with disabilities to develop a system for identifying potential childcare providers; and for finding a provider the family can talk with openly, and who is willing to work with parents to solve problems. Extension can work with childcare resource and referral agencies, children’s coalitions, and policy makers, to bring to light the childcare needs of children with disabilities.

Want to know more about childcare for children with disabilities? Sign up for session 25 at the May Extension symposium, Building Quality Child Care in Florida. For more information, contact Heidi Radunovich

Submitted by: Hyun-Jeong Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor/Housing Specialist
PDF Version

Phelan, K. J., J. Khoury, H. Kalkwarf, and B. Lanphear. January-February 2005. “Residential Injuries in U.S. Children and Adolescents.” Public Health Reports 120: 63-70.

Introduction

A house is the primary built-environment for a human being (Aragonés 2002). A house plays important roles to those who reside there not only as a shelter providing security and protection from harm (Aragonés; Betchel 1997). However, is your home safe enough for you and your children? One of the recent reports indicates that the leading cause of the U.S. children’s death is injury and the home is the most common place for the children’s injuries (Phelan, Khoury, Kalkwarf & Lanphear 2005).

Methodology

The purpose of the study by Phelan et al. (2005) was to investigate the trends of unintentional residential injury for U.S. children. Data was obtained from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. From the NHAMCS data, a sample of patients under age 20 at the time of survey who visited to emergency departments (EDs) between 1993 and 1999 were drawn and analyzed using statistical techniques including chi-square tests.

Main Ideas

Children’s Injuries between 1993 and 1999

From 1993 to 1999, average 29 million children < 20 years visited EDs annually. Injury accounted 39% of the children emergency visits and 35% of the total children emergency visits were reported as unintentional injury visits. The home was found to be the most common location of the unintentional child injury, accounting for 4 million ED visit annually. Fortunately, the number of the children’s ED visits for unintentional injuries decreased by 24% from 4.7 millions in 1993 to 3.5 millions in 1999. However, the number is still high. Children age under 5 showed the greatest number (1.7 millions) and highest rate (43%) of ED visits for unintentional residential injuries. Males showed a higher rate of the ED visits than females.

Mechanism, Type, and Severity of the Children Residential Injuries

Among the children’s ED visits due to any residential injuries, falls were found to be the most frequent mechanism, accounting for 38% of the visits. “Struck/strike” and “cutting/piercing” were the second and third frequent mechanism of the ED visits.

The most commonly injured regions of the body from residential injuries were extremities, head and necks. The most frequent types of injury were an open wound or superficial injury, contusions/crush injuries and fracture/dislocation (Phelan et al., p.66). More than 10% of the annual children ED visits were for “moderate-to-severe” injuries (Phelan et al., p.67).

Suggestions for the Residential Injury Prevention

The researchers of the study suggested that many of the children’s injuries at home can be prevented by using safety devices such as stairway gates, improving home design, and by providing appropriate parental supervision (p.67). In addition, it was suggested that safety of home products needs to be ensured.

Implications for Extension Programs

Considering young children (age under 5) showed the highest rate of the children’s ED visits, safety education needs to be emphasized in education programs of parents of the young children and prospective parents. Also, home remodeling/modification programs and education materials need to include safety features and products related to children’s in- and around-home safety. In addition, consumer education needs to be focused on appropriate purchase, installation and use of home products.

Conclusion

Traditionally, the main image of a home includes a shelter providing protection from outside harms. However, a recent research study by Phelan et al. (2005) revealed that home was a not-so-safe place for the U.S. children. Although the number of children residential injuries was found to be decreased over the years, home is still the most common location for the children injuries in the United States. More attention and efforts are required to make your home a safer place for you and your children to live.

Additional References

Aragonés, J. I. 2002. The Dwelling as Place: Behaviors and Symbolism. In Residential Environments: Choice, Satisfaction and Behavior, edited by J. I. Aragones and T. Gärling. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Bechtel, R. B. 1997. Environment and Behavior: An Introduction. Edited by Robert B. Bechtel. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Youth Development
PDF Version

Introduction

The role grandparents play in children’s development is an increasingly recognized phenomenon in the U.S., as well as other developed nations. For example, nearly 6% of children reside in homes where grandparents are the head of household (U.S. Census, 2001) and there has been a recent, steep increase in grandparents serving as surrogate parents to their grandchildren (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler, 2000). The increase is attributed to a number of dire conditions affecting parents/children of grandparents such as: (1) death, divorce, child abuse, drug use and incarceration (Edwards &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; Daire, 2006); and (2) grandparents are the most willing of any family member to take grandchildren into their home (Edwards, 1998).

Beyond the influence, grandparents have on their grandchildren while they raise them – such as academic success and psychological well-being (Edwards, 2003) – grandparents also affect grandchildren even when they do not live under the same roof. When children face high risk situations such as poverty and parental mental illness, grandparents can make a difference by positively affecting a child’s development. Notably, recent findings support how grandparents buffer the negative effects of high risk on children. High risk settings that include: poverty, parental mental illness, and stressful family events are found to be correlates and causes of maternal depression (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Maternal depression has notable negative effects on parenting and children’s functioning, effects which have been found to be lessened by grandchildren’s sense of emotional closeness to their grandparents.

Maternal Depression and Family Relationships

Maternal depression affects children through family relationships by how parents and children interact with one another (Davies &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; Windle, 1997; Nelson, Hammen, Brennan, & Ullman, 2003). Compared to nondepressed mothers, depressed mothers are found to respond:

• minimally or inconsistently with their children;
• express more negative emotions with their children; and
• are less engaged when interacting with their children (Petterson & Albers, 2001). Like poverty, maternal depression:
• inhibits children’s cognitive development (Petterson & Albers, 2001);
• worsens their behavior problems (Elgar, Curtis, McGrath, Waschbusch, & Stewart, 2003; Zuckerman & Beardslee, 1987);
• influences teens’ acting out behaviors and impairs their functioning in social and academic roles (Nelson, et al., 2003).

Depressive symptoms reported by mothers are associated with adolescent daughters’ (but not sons’) experiences with depression, behavioral problems, and academic difficulties (Davies & Windle, 1997). Mothers’ reports of depression when children are school-aged and adolescents had negative effects on psychological functioning and educational attainment for adult sons and daughters (Ensminger, Hanson, Riley, & Juon, 2003). Moreover, mother’s depression when children were school-aged to young adult was significantly related to children’s reports of depression in young adulthood (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Similar to the timing effects found with poverty, the longer a period of time a child experiences maternal depression, the more negative developmental effects result (Petterson & Albers, 2001).

Maternal depression has clearly been established as a risk factor for poor child, adolescent, and young adult (e.g., developmental) outcomes. For example, a national, representative longitudinal study has found that being (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006):

• female;
• unmarried vs. married and cohabiting;
• cohabiting vs. married;
• depressed in childhood; and
• having a depressed mother as a child, each increased the likelihood that children would be depressed as young adults.

Grandparent(s) as Protective Factor

However, this same study shows that a child’s relationship with his or her grandparent(s) is a source of protection or a protective factor. For example, a grandchild’s:

• sense of emotional closeness to their grandparent(s);
• frequency of contact with grandparent(s); and
• view of their grandparent(s) as a source of social support, together buffer the “intergenerational effect” of maternal depression on children (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006).

In other words, for children with depressed mothers, the higher a child’s sense of “social cohesion” with their grandparent(s), measured by the above three factors, the less likely he or she is to experience depression in adulthood. Or, among all children, the link between depressive symptoms of mothers and children was found to be weakened by the presence of strong grandparent-grandchild relationships.

Notable protective factors pinpointed in resilience research include: availability of community support networks, the presence of caring adults, possession of high intelligence, and having high self-esteem; these protective factors have caught the attention of youth interventionists and prevention researchers. Decreasing the influence of risk factors and increasing or providing the presence of protection in the lives of at-risk youth is a main goal of intervention. There is logic in targeting those protective factors found in youth development research as part of treatment and prevention for youth at risk (Wolkow & Ferguson, 2001); however, setbacks occur due to limited knowledge of how to influence underlying processes that buffer risk and stress in the lives of youth (Rutter, 1993).

In light of these recent findings of the protective function of grandparents on youth outcomes, Extension educators can (adapted from Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006):

• Consider ways to mobilize family resources toward the extended, and beyond the nuclear, family;
• Emphasize the importance of intergenerational relationships in families;
• Incorporate ways for intergenerational family participation in programs;
• Encourage the volunteerism of older adults in the community (e.g., as “surrogate” grandparents to individual youth or youth programs); and
• Make use of multigenerational resources in their programs.

References

Davies, P.T., & Windle, M. (1997). Gender-specific pathways between maternal depressive symptoms, family discord, and adolescent adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 657-668.

Edwards, O.W. & Daire, A.P. (2006). School-age children raised by their grandparents: Problems and solutions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 113-119.

Edwards, O.W. (1998). Helping grandchildren raised by grandparents: Expanding psychology in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 173-181.

Edwards, O.W. (2003). Living with grandma: A grandfamily study. School Psychology International, 24, 204-217.

Elgar, F.J., Curtis, L.J., McGrath, P.J., Waschbusch, D.A., & Stewart, S.H. (2003). Antecedent-consequence conditions in maternal mood and child adjustment: A four-year cross-lagged study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 362-374.

Ensminger, M.E., Hanson, S.G., Riley, A. W., & Juon, H.S. (2003). Maternal psychological distress: Adult sons’ and daughters’ mental health and educational attainment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1108-1115.

Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2000). America’s grandparent caregivers: Who are they? In B. Hayslip Jr. & R. Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Springer.

Nelson, D.R., Hammen, C., Brennan, P.A., & Ullman, J.B. (2003). The impact of maternal depression on adolescent adjustment: The role of expressed emotion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 935-944.

Petterson, S.M. & Albers, A.B. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Development, 72, 1974-1813.

Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 626-631.

Silverstein, M., & Ruiz, S. (2006). Breaking the chain: How grandparents moderate the transmission of maternal depression to their grandchildren. Family Relations, 55, 601-612.

United States Census Bureau. (2001). Census 2000 Supplementary Survey: Profile of selected social characteristics.

Wolkow, K.E., & Ferguson, H.B. (2001). Community factors in the development of resiliency: Considerations and future directions. Community Mental Health Journal, 37, 489-498.

Zuckerman, B.S., & Beardslee, W.R. (1987). Maternal depression: A concern for pediatricians. Pediatrics, 79, 110-117.