Family and Community Survey on Early Childhood: A Baseline Report on Families and Coordination 3 I. Executive Summary T he First things First (FTF) Family and Community Survey is a baseline report on the current state of parents’ knowledge about children’s early development and parents’ perceptions of the resources currently available for young children and their families in Arizona. The results help identify parents’ current knowledge about early development as well as the areas in which families need additional support to access needed services for their child/children. Background • In Arizona, the number of children under 5 years old has grown dramatically – a 31% increase since 2000 • Many families with children are financially challenged, 16% of families with children under 18 are below the federal poverty level • Children who have grown up in poverty often begin kindergarten with more risk factors than other children • Research shows that parent understanding of child development differs by socioeconomic status and education, therefore, Arizona’s family and community survey data were analyzed for two educational/economic groups (Low and Med/High) Knowledge Overall, Arizona’s parents understand that early childhood development is important, with over 75% of parents acknowledging that they can significantly impact children’s brain development at or before birth. While Arizona’s parents understand the importance of early brain development, not all are sure what they can do to best support their child’s optimal development, survey results show: • 20% of Arizona parents indicate that a child’s first year does not impact later school performance • 22% believe that children’s capacity to learn may be set at birth • 48% believe that children do not respond to their environment until two months of age or later • 27% believe that children sense and react to parent emotions only after they reach seven months of age or older • 21% of parents said that play is not crucial for children under 10 months of age • 47% of parents believe that a child’s language benefits equally from watching TV versus talking to a real person. • 23% believe that a 12 month old might push TV buttons on and off because they are angry with the parent • 40% hold the expectation that a 15 month old should be expected to share 4 • 26% believe that three year olds should be able to sit quietly for extended periods of time • 62% indicated that a six month old can be spoiled In comparison with national findings, the responses of Arizona’s parents are more in line with current research findings, Arizona’s parents are above national norms. However, results also indicate that parents can benefit from clear, research based information to help them support their child. Additionally, results indicate that parents with lower incomes and educational attainment can benefit even more from additional information. Findings from analyses indicate that there are statistically significant differences in responses by parental education/income status. Arizona parents with lower income and education are more likely than parents with higher income and education to: • Indicate that capacity for learning may be set at birth (33% as compared to 18%) • Misunderstand the importance of play, especially for very young children (69% indicating play is crucial as compared to 83%) • Indicate that play may not impact a child’s intellectual development (87% agreeing there is an impact as compared to 95%) • Interpret turning a TV on and off as anger or misbehavior (33% indicate the behavior is to “get back at parent” as compared to 20%) • Agree that picking up a crying child will spoil the child (50% as compared to 34%) Recommendations for supporting parent knowledge Results from this survey make it clear that Arizona parents are concerned with their child’s growth and development. Parents can benefit from more, better, and readily accessible information about child development including: • Clear and specific information on the importance of frequent and attentive interaction with their child with specific examples and guides • Tips and resources on how to use TV and other educational items to enrich their interaction with their child not substitute for it • Research based knowledge about what to expect from their child at each age to help parents guide their child and set appropriate rules and boundaries • Targeted outreach for parents of lower income and education related to current research in brain development, enrichment resources, and developmental milestones These steps will support optimal parenting based on accurate understanding of ageappropriate emotional, social, cognitive, and language development, this will best prepare all children for success in school and later in the workplace and community. 5 Services Parents were asked about services in Arizona for young children and their families. Overall, responses indicated: • 57% of parents are dissatisfied with the coordination of early childhood services in Arizona • 40% of parents are not sure if they are eligible for services • 20% indicated that services are not available at convenient locations or times • 38% of parents indicated that available services do not meet the needs of their family • 32% indicated that Arizona’s services are not identifying problems early and intervening adequately When compared to the responses of early childhood service providers and partners, Arizona’s parents are more likely to indicate that services are good; however, there is a subgroup of parents who indicate services are not meeting their needs. For some items, there are substantial differences in responses based on the income and education of parents. For example parents with lower income and less education are: • More likely to report that early childhood services are not family focused (56% as compared to 30% of parents with higher incomes and education) • More likely to report difficulties in obtaining appropriate prevention and early intervention services (41% as compared to 27% of parents with higher incomes and education) Further analyses (in preparation for the upcoming supplemental Family and Community Report) indicate that families with children in poor health are much more likely to report that services are inadequate and inconvenient. Overall, parents whose children are developing normally and who have family and community resources to assist in their child’s development are satisfied with the available services. For those parents who find themselves in need of more intensive services either because of the health of their child or their economic circumstances, services is not coordinated or adequate. This provides insight into specific aspects of service coordination and provision that can be improved to ensure that Arizona’s youngest residents and their families are readily obtaining the assistance and services they need to optimize their child’s health, development, and future educational success. Recommendations for service system coordination Knowledge gained from this survey provides insight into which early childhood issues are important to Arizona’s parents, what parents know and do not know about the development of young children, and what the areas are in which families need additional support in receiving services for their children. Areas for immediate action include: • Clear and specific information for parents as to what services are available, what to expect from those services, and if they are eligible 6 • Targeted outreach for parents with children in poor health or children who have developmental delays related to available services and eligibility • Targeted outreach for parents of lower income and education related to available services and eligibility Areas for strategic action with early childhood service providers • Provide Family and Community Survey findings to early childhood service providers and state agency programs • Priority for agencies serving parents of children with developmental delays • Identify shared objectives and approaches for improving information to parents • Coordinate and plan with agencies action for increasing coordination across agencies including • Streamlining of applications • Clarity of communication with parents • Pathway for service delivery to parents • Confirming service provision data collection Providing information to parents on availability and eligibility will depend entirely on communication and collaboration amongst early childhood partners and agencies providing services for children under five and their families. Going the next step, from providing information to improving the accessibility and quality of services, will involve long term changes in the scope, structure and coordination of early childhood services across the state. Such work has begun with the creation of Regional Partnership Councils across the state of Arizona. FTF will work with early childhood partners across the state of Arizona to focus coordination, communication, and family support efforts to most effectively meet the needs of Arizona’s families and children. II. Background F irst Things First (FTF) seeks to improve the developmental and health outcomes of Arizona’s children ages birth through 5 years. Ensuring that all children birth through 5 years are afforded opportunities to achieve their maximum potential to succeed in school and life involves work in many areas. One of the most important is FTF’s mission to support parents to be the first and best teacher of their child. The FTF Family and Community Survey provides a baseline assessment on parents’ perceptions of the resources currently available for young children and their families in Arizona and the parents’ knowledge about children’s early development. Knowledge gained from this survey provides insight into which early childhood issues are important to Arizona’s parents, what the areas are in which families need additional support in receiving services for their child/children, and what parents know and do not know about the development of young children. Fundamental to the work of FTF is the research-based understanding that healthy 7 early childhood development is a critical first step to educational success. Brain research as well as economic research on the importance of early childhood is so powerful, we know that the flourishing of young children is a public policy issue (Bowman et al., 2001; Cunha et al., 2005; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). In this critical mission, FTF is working with community partners to strengthen and expand the network of programs and services that exist in our state, so that young children and their families in Arizona have ready access to high quality and affordable supports, if they choose to use them. The value of this integrated and coordinated approach is acknowledged in the FTF Strategic Plan, which identifies two goals specific to building a coordinated network of early childhood programs and services. FTF’s coordination goal is to lead cross-system coordination efforts among state, federal and tribal organizations to improve the coordination and integration of Arizona programs, services, and resources for young children and their families. To accomplish this goal FTF is fostering increased communication, collaboration, coordination across early childhood systems. Improved coordination is inextricably tied to improvement in program access, quality, and comprehensiveness. Improvements in these aspects of programming are represented in FTF’s family support goal to coordinate and integrate with existing education and information systems to expand families’ access to high quality, diverse and relevant information and resources to support their child’s optimal development. The Family and Community Survey FTF recently completed a survey of parents (or related, non-paid caregivers) of children, age 5 and younger. The survey assessed parents’ views of coordination among service providers, as well as the quality and accessibility of family support programs in Arizona. Parents also responded to questions about their understanding of early development and parenting of young children. The survey findings provide baseline information about parents’ perceptions of the resources currently available to young children and their families in Arizona; and describe parents’ knowledge about children’s early development. Section III of this report describes the demographics of Arizona’s families with young children. Section IV summarizes parents’ knowledge of early childhood development and compares Arizona findings to national benchmarks. Lastly, Section V describes parental perceptions of service quality and accessibility and compares parent responses to the reports of stakeholders from Arizona agencies and organizations that serve young children and their families. III. Who are Arizona’s Families with Young Children? T he state of Arizona is diverse and growing. According to the U.S. Census, American Community Survey, since 2000 the number of children under 5 years old in Arizona has increased by 31%; and the number of Arizona families with children under The number of children under 5 years old in Arizona has increased by 31% since 2000 8 six years old has increased an estimated 19%1. About 41% of Arizona families with children under 5 are White, Non-Hispanic, 34% are Hispanic/Latino, 3% are African American, 4% are American Indian, and about 18% report Asian, two-or more races, or other race/ethnicity (Figure 1). Figure 1: Race/Ethnicity of Families with Children under 5 Years Old2 Arizona families with children under 5 Hispanic/)a*no White not Hispanic Black/African American American 8n9ian/:a*;e Alaskan Asian Other Two or more 41% 34% 3% 14% 4% 3% 1% Many Arizona families with young children are financially challenged. The median income in Arizona for families with children under 18 is $54,284. However, in 2007 the median income of families with children led by single mothers was just $25,911, and for families headed by single fathers, the median income was $37,525 (Figure 2). 1 2 U.S. Census. American Community Survey, 2000 and 2007 U.S. Census. American Community Survey, 2007 9 Figure 2: Median Income of Families with Children 3 Median Income: Families with Children under 18 $54,284 $71,471 608218 428,878 $25,911 129,511 Families Married couple family Median Income 2007 Single female family $37,525 49,829 Single male family Number of Families 2007 Brain and educational research indicates that children who have grown up in poverty often begin kindergarten with more risk factors than other children, and are more likely to face health, developmental, academic, and emotional challenges. These challenges are strongly linked to disparities in language development and other skills necessary for school success (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Hart & Risley, 1995; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). About 16% of Arizona families with children under 18 live at or below the federal poverty level.3 In Arizona, families with children under six living below the poverty level have a different demographic profile than Arizona families as a whole. Figure 3 illustrates the ethnic/racial breakdown, with over 40% of American Indian families living below the federal poverty line, and about 30% of African American and Hispanic/Latino families living in poverty. This demonstrates that struggling families represent a diverse array of ethnicities, races, and/or tribal affiliations. 3 U.S. Census. American Community Survey, 2007 10 Figure 3: Families with Young Children Living Below the Poverty Level by Ethnicity4 100% Percent of Families with Children under 6 Below Poverty Level in Last 12 Months, by Race/Ethnicity 80% 60% 44% 30% 29% 26% 20% 11% 11% Asian 20% White not Hispanic 40% Two or more Other Black/ African American Hispanic/ a?ona@ 77 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Responding Emotional development Emotional development begins early, and is related to later success in school and life. Infants as young as one month-old sense when a parent is depressed or angry and are affected by the parent’s mood (Brazelton et al., 1975; Cohn and Tronick, 1983; Field, 1984; Murray, 1992). Babies look to their parents’ emotional responses for cues that help them to interpret and react to the world around them Babies look to parents’ (Klinnert et al., 1983). Caregivers who respond to infants’ needs in a positive and loving manner, and who express emotional cues to help them positive emotions, promote feelings of security, supporting understand their world. the child’s socio-emotional development (Casidy, 1994; Dawson, et al., 1997; Glaser, 2000; Perry, 2003; 2005). Parents who are emotionally close to their babies provide them with the critical emotional competence (e.g., emotional expression and regulation) needed for cognitive/intellectual development and school readiness (Denham, 1998; Fogel, 1993; Raver, 2002). Just a little over half (56%) of Arizonans understood that infants younger than two months old sense and respond to parents’ moods. Although more Arizona parents seem to understand infants’ early sensitivity to their caregivers’ emotional status compared to respondents in the national sample, there was a large group of respondents who still believe that very young children are not affected by adult emotions. More than one quarter (27%) of respondents believed that children sense and react to parent emotions only after they reach seven months of age or older (see Figure 9). Parents and caregivers who are unaware of the effects of their emotions on young children may not lay the foundations for emotional control and security so necessary to succeed in school and life. 17 Figure 9: At what age can a baby sense and react to parent’s emotions? 27 Seven or more months 38 17 18 Three to six months Arizona 56 Up to two months CaDonaE 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent Responding Language Talking with a baby prepares him or her for language acquisition and later literacy skills Children’s language (Berman, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995). The development benefits more “sensitive period” for language development from speaking with a real occurs at a very early stage in development. Infants develop optimal language skills early person than watching TV alone. in life by interacting directly with responsive caregivers in a language-rich environment (Hart & Risley, 1995; Kuhl, 2004). Research findings clearly indicate that children’s language benefits more from listening and interacting with a real person than sitting in front of a TV (Starburger, 2007; Zimmerman, Chirstakis & Meltzoff, 2007). While talking to a real person, the conversation is reciprocal and participatory; it allows time for reflection, questions, and encouragement. While interacting with the TV children are not getting the same linguistic experience, they are passive and unresponsive viewers. However, the survey results demonstrate that this information is not widely understood. A little over half of the parents interviewed (52%) understood that TV is definitely not a substitute for real conversation. In other words, almost half of Arizona respondents (48%) indicated that television may promote language development as effectively as personal interaction (Figure 10). This represented a slight improvement from the national survey results in 2000, where almost 60% of the respondents indicated their belief that TV might be a reasonable substitute for real conversation. However the large proportion of parents who still believe that TV can substitute for ‘real talk’ suggests that information about the importance of talking to babies and young children needs to be broadly disseminated. 18 Figure 10: Child’s language benefits equally from TV or real person. 47 Possibly to Definitely True 56 Arizona 52 BaConal Definitely False 43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent Responding Play Play is critical during early development (Frost, 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). In fact, play is so central to healthy child development that it has been recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006). Playing is of crucial importance for children of all ages (Johnson et al., 1999), developing and enhancing their physical, social, and emotional skills (Ginsburg & the Committee on Communications and Play is crucial at all ages-even the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family the earliest months Health, 2007). When asked about the importance of play for children’s development, the vast majority of Arizona parents acknowledged the importance of play for three and five year old children (92% and 90% respectively). While the majority of Arizona parents also indicated that play is very important for a tenmonth-old baby, more than one-fifth (21%) of parents did not understood that play is critical for very young children (10 months old) (Figure 11). 19 Figure 11: Importance of Play Percent Responding 100 89 90 86 92 79 80 71 60 40 20 0 Five‐year‐old Three year old @aAonal 10‐month old Arizona When examined by level of socioeconomic status, play was considered significantly more important at all three ages by parents in the higher SES strata (Figure 12). This corresponds to findings demonstrating that higher SES parents expect children to be more autonomous and to seek out opportunities for learning (Hoff et al., 2002). Lower SES parents who do not perceive play as important may be less likely to provide vital, enriching Play is a child’s way of play experiences for their young children, and learning about the world. may be more restrictive of their children’s active manipulation of the environment. Figure 12: Importance of play by SES of Arizona parents 120 Percent Responding 96 92 100 84 84 80 83 69 60 40 20 0 Five‐year‐old** Low SES Three year old*** Med/High SES** ** Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F = 5.3, p<.021 *** Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F = 37.5, p<.0001 ****Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F = 47.7, p<.0001 10‐month old**** 20 In addition, higher SES parents were significantly more likely to indicate that play is important for intellectual development than were parents in the lower SES group (Figure 13). This suggests that information for parents of young children should emphasize the importance of play from the earliest ages as it impacts cognitive as well as social and emotional development, and that communications about the importance of play at all ages need to be targeted to families most in need of information on how to best support their children’s healthy development. Figure 13: Impact of play on child’s intellectual development Percent Responding 100 93 95 87 80 60 40 20 0 Play impacts child's intellectual development All Arizona Med/High SES* Low SES * Significant difference between means for levels of SES: F = 20.6, p<.0001 Developmentally appropriate child behavior Parental beliefs about children’s development are strongly related to their parenting behaviors as well as to child outcomes (Rubin & Chung, 2006; Sigel, McGillicuddyDe Lisi, & Goodnow, 1992). Parents who understand the typical behavior and abilities of children at different ages are less likely to have unrealistic Knowledge of child expectations for children’s behavior and more likely to appreciate the actions and activities of young children that development helps parents enhance learning. Thus, it is important for parents to underknow the difference between stand that young children are constantly working hard to make sense of their world, and they are always trying to find normal exploration and out how ‘things work’. These interactions enable them to misbehavior. learn new concepts and strengthen their neural connections. Parents are much more likely to celebrate their child’s accomplishments (and less likely to identify exploratory behavior as ‘misbehaving’) when they correctly perceive investigative behavior as representative of his or her developmental stage. Respondents were asked: ‘Why would a one year-old push the buttons on the TV, turning it on and off, while his or her parents were watching it?’ Most parents, in Arizona and nationally, understood that a child might do this to elicit parental atten- 21 tion (86%), and even more realized that 12-month old would push the buttons to see what happens (94%). These parents are more likely to perceive this behavior as part of normal development rather than willful misbehavior. However, almost a fourth of Arizona parents (23%) agreed with the unlikely scenario that the child might be angry with her parents (Figure 14). However, developmental research shows that children this young (12-months-old) are not capable of harboring such motivations (revenge/anger; Lewis et al., 1989; Sodian et al. 1991). Given parents respond or choose disciplining strategies based on their beliefs and expectations of child behavior, it is necessary that discipline and boundaries are linked with developmentally appropriate child behaviors. Figure 14. Turning the TV on and off 94 100 94 Percent Responding 86 80 60 40 38 Da>onaE 23 Arizona 20 0 Angry with parents Learning about bu;ons on? *National information is not available for this item. Research demonstrates that parental expectations for children’s behaviors vary by socioeconomic group, with lower SES parents expecting their children to be quieter and more respectful, and more commonly attributing the exploratory activities of young children to misconduct (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003; Hoff et al., 2002). This agrees with the findings from the FTF Family and Community survey that more of the parents in the higher SES group and fewer of the lower SES parents understood that a one year-old child would not turn the TV off and on to express anger toward his or her parents (Figure 15). Parental attributions for children’s misconduct has been found to manifest in SES differences in parenting behavior, with lower SES mothers tending to be more restrictive and controlling, while higher SES mothers are less restrictive and less punitive (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003; Hoff et al., 2002). For this reason, this finding highlights the need to target dissemination of accurate information about young children’s age-appropriate activities to parents in the lower SES strata, to increase parental understanding of this behavior and promote positive and supportive, rather than punitive, parenting strategy. 22 Figure 15: SES differences in reason 12-month old turns TV on and off 40 Percent Responding 33 30 20 20 Low SES Med/High SES 10 0 Low SES Med/High SES !"#$%&#'&()*+,&-#."&/(+0).'&()%&#'&1*02)*&3(45&(.&."061& Chi-square =21.3, p<.0001 The following two survey items assessed parents’ understanding of age-appropriate behavior: ‘Should a 15 month-old be expected to share?’ and ‘Should a three year-old be expected to sit quietly for an hour? ‘ About 40% of Arizona respondents hold the expectation that 15 month-olds should share (Figure 16) even when developmental research shows that they are too young to do so (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Caplan, Vespo, Pedersen & Hay, 1991). A smaller proportion, about 26% believed that three year olds should be expected to sit quietly for an hour. That is, almost half of the parents expect young toddlers to share and a quarter of the respondents expect pre-school aged children to sit quietly for extended periods of time, even though children are not developmentally ready to do so at these ages (Greenberg, 1991; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). It may be a relief for some parents to know that their child’s behavior is normal. Clear boundaries and expectations for children are critical, but should be appropriate to support children’s developing brains. 23 Figure 16. Age appropriate behavior: Sharing and sitting quietly 3‐year‐olds should sit quietly for an hour 26 28 Arizona 40 15‐month‐old should be expected to share DaEonal 53 0 20 40 60 Percent Responding As noted above, parents who understand what child behaviors and abilities are appropriate at different ages and stages of development tend to engage in positive parenting behaviors that support development and growth (Rubin & Chung, 2006; Sigel, McGillicuddy-De Lisi, & Goodnow, 1992). Parents with unrealistic expectations about the ages at which their babies and young children are ready to engage in Parents can help their children certain behaviors, may not be adequately by knowing what to expect at responsive to the needs of the child; or may consider the child as misbehaving, resulting every age in more punitive or restrictive parenting. Moreover, parents who do not understand the timing of children’s developmental needs and abilities sometimes identify the actions of caregivers who are meeting those needs as ‘spoiling’ the child. Developmental research suggests that six month-olds are too young to spoil. Responding to an infant’s needs in loving, timely, reliable and consistent ways (e.g. picking up when crying, feeding when hungry), and setting limits through routines (e.g., consistent nap time, feed time) helps infants make connections between their own behavior and caregiver responses, leading children to feel secure, emotionally connected to their parent, and promoting development of self-regulation skills that help them become independent (Brazelton, 1992; 1999; 2003; Sears & Sears, 1993). When asked whether a six-month-old can be spoiled or is too young to spoil, 62% of Arizona parents of young children stated that a six-month old could be spoiled (Figure 17). The belief that a six month-old can be spoiled may lead to less responsive parenting, potentially affecting the child’s security, attachment, and later emotional development. 24 Figure 17: Can a 6 month-old be spoiled? 70 62 56 60 50 40 43 36 Na?,6/@7 ,A.1 B14C6.D; ,1. ;.2.1. 5,167 EF/6GF44G :,1-0.1; << 5,167 /0-.12.0340 In addition, a significantly larger proportion of lower SES parents (41%) reported difficulty with obtaining early intervention services, compared to twenty-seven percent of the higher SES group (Figure 27). This indicates that there is a sizable segment of Arizona families that are not receiving prevention and early intervention when needed. 33 Figure 27: SES Differences in Early Intervention/Prevention Services 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 36% 24% 17% 20% 10% 22% 23% 14% 13% % Poor Strongly Disagree Low SES Med/High SES *Chi-Square = 41.2, p<.007 Overall, survey findings indicate that both Arizona parents of young children and representatives of organizations and agencies that serve these families have identified important gaps in the information about available services and access to both information and services. A large percentage of partners and parents agree that early identification and treatment of problems, as well as focusing on the family as a whole need improvement. Parents’ and partners’ responses A noticeable difference between the patterns of response for parents compared to early childhood partners can be seen, especially in the most extreme positive category for each item. In each case, a notably smaller proportion of partners subscribed to the most favorable response category, compared to a larger group of Arizona parents. It is possible that these discrepancies can be explained by differences in the nature of the two samples, and their varying perspectives. The group of Arizona parents surveyed was selected to be representative of the entire population of Arizona parents; and the final results presented in this report are population estimates calculated to accurately represent the entire population of Arizona parents with children under 6. Thus, this group includes parents whose families are doing well, and who do not need, and are not trying to access or use, special services to support their families. These families most likely are represented in the forty- to sixty-percent of parents who consistently indicated that information, access, etc., were very good. However there was, for all items, a group of twenty- to thirty-percent of parents who consistently indicated problems with service access or provision. The early childhood partners surveyed work in Arizona organizations and agencies that serve children under six and their families. It is likely that partner responses reflect their perception of the efficacy of services for those families that need and 34 are trying to access and use services to support their families. In this case, partner responses may actually look more like those of parents who need and are trying to use the services provided by the partners’ agencies. That is, partners may be indicating that services are not very good, very accessible, etc. for those families who need them. Further analyses of the data to identify the characteristics of parents and families with who indicated dissatisfaction with services may clarify these findings. VI. Conclusion The FTF Family and Community Survey was completed by almost 3700 parents of children five and under in Arizona. This report presented some of the findings for the estimated Arizona population of all Arizona parents with children ages zero to five years-old, including parents’ knowledge of early development and age-appropriate behavior, and respondents perceptions of services for children under 5 and their families. Knowledge When asked about early development, most Arizona parents understood that brain development starts early. However, at least twenty percent of parents did not realize that • The first year impacts later school, • Even very young babies take in and respond to their environment, • Infants react to the mood of their caregiver, • Play is important for young babies and for intellectual development, and • Language is better learned by ‘real talk’ rather than from watching TV. The survey also measured parents’ understanding of age-appropriate child behavior and age-appropriate parenting during the early years of life. When asked if a number of parenting behaviors were appropriate or were likely to spoil a child, more than one-third of parents did not correctly identify typical abilities and behaviors of children. Many parents did not understand that • A 12 month olds’ exploratory behavior is normal, and not motivated by anger at a parent • Attentive, responsive parenting will not spoil an infant • Rocking a one year old to sleep will not spoil him • A 15 month old will typically not be ready to share • A two year old is usually not capable of quietly sitting for an extended period of time • A typical three year old cannot sit still for an hour 35 • A five year old who chooses his own school clothes is learning autonomy and selfconfidence Parents who believe that meeting the needs of a child or permitting the child to engage in certain age-appropriate behaviors will ‘spoil’ the child, may be more controlling, restrictive, and punitive and less sensitive and responsive than parents who accurately understand the typical actions and abilities of their child. Increasing parents’ understanding of the timing of child needs and developmental milestones, may improve appropriate, sensitive, responsive parenting behaviors which enable them to support healthy socio-emotional, literacy, and brain development. The assessment of parents’ understanding of early development and the timing of children’s early abilities identified a number of knowledge gaps which highlight areas in which parents need additional education and accurate information. Improving parents’ understanding of these concepts may positively impact the degree to which they sensitively interact with their children. Services Parents were asked about services in Arizona for young children and their families. Parents’ responses were compared to the findings from the FTF Partner Survey of stakeholders from agencies and organizations statewide that serve young children and their families. Although many parents do not report difficulty, there is a group of parents who indicate that • Agencies are not working together and communicating • The quality of available services is not good • They do not have good information about things like eligibility • Needed services are not very accessible • Services are not family centered • Prevention and early intervention are not available Lower SES families are more likely to find that services are not readily available or comprehensive. A larger proportion of parents in the lower SES group reported that services do not meet the needs of their whole families and that they only qualify for services after problems become severe. This provides insight into specific aspects of service coordination and provision that can be improved to ensure that Arizona’s youngest residents and their families are readily obtaining the assistance and services they need to optimize their child/children’s health, development, and future educational success. Knowledge gained from this survey provides insight into which early childhood issues are important to Arizona’s parents, what the areas are in which families need additional support in receiving services for their children, and what parents know and do not know about the development of young children. FTF will work with early childhood partners across the state of Arizona to focus coordination, communication, and family support efforts to most effectively meet the needs of Arizona’s families and children. 36 VII. References Berman, S. (2001). Pediatricians need to help foster early brain development in children. AAP News, 19: 46. Brazelton, T. B. (1992). Touchpoints birth to 3: Your child’s emotional and behavioral development. New York: Perseus Publishing. Brazelton, T. B. (1999). Discipline: Setting limits with love [VHS tape]. [Beverly Hills, CA]: New Screen Concepts; I Am Your Child. Brazelton, T. B., & Sparrow, D. J. (2003). Discipline: The Brazelton Way. Perseus Publishing. Brazelton, T. B., Tronick, E., Adamson, L. Als. H., & Wise, S. (1975). Early mother-infant reciprocity. In: Parent-infant interaction-Ciba Foundation Symposium 33, Elsevier/ North Holland, Amsterdam. Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC. (DAP) Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Children and Poverty, 7(2), summer/fall. Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., Suwalsky, J. T. D., & Haynes, O. M. (2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting and child development: The Hollingshead Four factor index of social status and the socioeconomic index of occupations. In Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development by Marc H. Bornstein, Robert H. Bradley. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academy Press. Caplan, M., Vespo, J., Pedersen, I., & Hay, D. (1991). Conflict and its resolution in small groups of one- and two-year-olds. Child Development, 62, 1513-1524. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N.A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Biological and behavioral aspects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 228-249 (Serial no. 240). Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2005). Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain, Working Paper # 3 (http://developingchild.net). Chen, E., Martin, A., & Matthews, K. (2006). Understanding health disparities: The role of race and socioeconomic status in children’s health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(4), 702-708. Chugani, H. T. (1997). Neuroimaging of developmental non-linearity and developmental pathologies. In R. W. Thatcher, G. R. Lyon, J. Rumsey, and N. Krasnegor, eds. Developmental Neuroimaging: Mapping the Development of Brain and Behavior. San Diego: Academic Press, 187- 195. Cohn, J. E., & Tronick, E. Z. (1983). Three-month-old infants’ reaction to simulated maternal depression. Child Development, 54, 185-193. Cunha, F., Heckman, J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. (2005). Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation (North-Holland, Amsterdam) cited in Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L. & Shonkoff, J. P. (2006) Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 10155-10162. Dawson, G., Frey, K., Panagiotides, H., Hessl, D., & Self, J. (1997). Infants of depressed mothers exhibit atypical frontal brain activity: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 179-186. DeCasper, A. J. & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176. Denham, S. (1998). Emotional Development in Young Children. New York: Guilford. DYG, Inc (2000). What Grown Ups Understand About Child Development: A National Benchmark Survey, Civitas Intiative, ZERO TO THREE & Brio Corp. Washington, DC: Zero to Three. http://www.zerotothree.org/site/ PageServer?pagename=homepage. Field, T. M. (1984). Early interactions between infants and their postpartum depressed mothers-infant interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 527–532. Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Frost, J. L. (2006). Neuroscience, play and brain development. Paper presented at: IPA/USA Triennial National Conference; Longmont, CO; June 18–21, 1998. Available at: www.eric. ed.gov. Accessed on February 27, 2009. Ginsburg and the Committee on Communications and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2007). The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds. The American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report, 119(1), 182-191. Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain: a review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(1), 97-116. Greenberg, P. (1991) Character development: encouraging self-esteem and self-discipline in infants, toddlers and twoyear-olds. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Gregory, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2008). Positive Motherchild Interactions in Kindergarten: Predictors of School Success in High School. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 499-515. Grossman, A. W., Churchill, J. D., McKinney, B. C., Kodish, I. M, Otte, S. L., & Greenough, W. T. (2003). Experience effects on brain development: possible contributions to psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 33-63. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Hensch, T. (2005). Critical period plasticity in local cortical circuits. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 877–888. 37 Hofer, M.A. (1996). Multiple regulators of ultrasonic vocalization in the infant rat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 21, 203-217. Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic Status and Parenting. In Bornstein, M. Handbook of Parenting: Biology and Ecology of Parenting Vol. 2, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1999). Play in Early Childhood Development. Addison Wesley Longman, NYC. Kim, S., Kronenfeld, J., Frimpong, J., & Rivers, P. (2007). Effects of Maternal and Provider Characteristics on Up-to-Date Immunization Status of Children Aged 19 to 35 Months. American Journal of Public Health, 97(2), 259-266. Klinnert, M., et al. (1983). “Social Referencing: Emotional Expressions as Behavior Regulators.” In Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience: Vol. 2. Emotions in Early Development. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Knudsen, E. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1412-1425. Knudsen, E., Heckman, J., Cameron, J., & Shonkoff, J. (2006). Economic, neurobiological and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 103, 10155-10162. Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831-843. Lewis, M., Stranger, C., Sullivan, M.W. (1989). Deception in 3-year-olds. Developmental Psycholog, 25, 439–443. McIntosh, B., Taylor, M., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (2007). The literacy abilities of 11 year-old students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9(2), 181-190. Murray, L. (1992). The impact of postnatal depression on infant development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 543-561. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2007). The Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Combine to Shape Brain Architecture. Working Paper # 5. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Centre on the Developing Child, Harvard University. http://www.developing child.net Perry, B.D. (2000). The neuroarcheology of childhood maltreatment: The neurodevelopmental costs of adverse childhood events. Retrieved 2/25/09 (http://www. childtrauma.org). Perry, B. (2003) Effects of Traumatic Events on Children: An introduction. The Child trauma Academy http://www. childtrauma.org. Perry, B.D. (2005). Developing Self-regulation: The second core strength your child needs to be humane and protect himself from violence. Early Childhood Today Magazine. Raver, C.C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16(3), 3-18. Rubin, K. H. & Chung, O. B. (2006). Parenting Beliefs, Behaviors, and Parent-child Relations: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Published by CRC Press. Sears, W., & Sears, M. (1993). The baby book: Everything you need to know about your baby--from birth to age two. 1st Ed.: Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Shonkoff, J. P. & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute. Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (1992). Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for Children. 2nd Ed: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sodian, B., Taylor, C., Harris, P. L., & Perner, J. (1991). Early deception and the child’s theory of mind: False trails and genuine markers. Child Development, 62(3), 468-483. Solomon, R., Martin, K., & Cottington, E. (1993). Spoiling an infant: Further support for the construct. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(2), 175-183. Stamm, J. (2007). Bright from the Start. Gotham Books, NYC. Strasburger, V. (2007). First do no harm: Why have parents and pediatricians missed the boat on children and media? The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(4), 334-336. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and mothers at play with their 2and 3-year-olds: contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development. 75, 1806–1820 Thompson, R. A. (2007). Testimony at House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. U.S. Congress. Hearing on Improving Head Start for America’s Children. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 7 (2005): Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, 20 September 2006. CRC/C/ GC/7/Rev.1. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at: http:// www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/460bc5a62.html. Accessed February 27, 2009. Zimmerman, F. J, Christakis, D. A, & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Associations between media viewing and language development among children under 2 years old. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 364-368. 38 VIII. Appendix A Methodology Sample selection and interviewing. A randomly–selected, geographically-balanced sample of 5,193 Arizona adults (18 and older) was surveyed. The sample included 3690 parents/caregivers of children 5 and under (3,690 respondents) and 1,503 members of the general population who did not have children under six. The sample was drawn to ensure the generalizability of results to the adult Arizona population. Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATIs) were conducted during August and September, 2008. Respondents were selected randomly from sample lists, with random predictive dialing used to supplement the purchased lists. This strategy helps ensure that residents who are not yet listed in a directory (or who choose not to be listed) are still eligible for selection. To include “cell phone” only households, the contractor manually dialed randomly-generated cell phone numbers (based on known cell phone exchanges). Cell phone contacts were given the option of completing their interview using their calling plan minutes or scheduling a call-back (on a land line or such a time when cell phone calling plan minutes were “free”). The average length of a parent interview was 21 minutes; and the average general population interview lasted 7 minutes. Interviewers and respondents remained blind to the survey sponsor. Producing population estimates The final sample of parents participating in the FTF Family and Community Survey was not completely representative of the Arizona population of parents with children under six. To ensure representativeness and generalizability of the results, the post-stratification weights were calculated and applied to more accurately represent ethnicity, poverty/income, and family structure in the 31 FTF regional partnership council areas. SPSS© Complex Samples, which uses Taylor Series calculations for standard error estimation, was used to calculate weighted estimates which more accurately represent the diverse population in Arizona. Socio-economic status Based on the results of principal component factor analysis, a composite variable combining respondents’ highest educational level and respondents’ income was created to broadly classify participants’ socioeconomic status. This variable was dichotomized so that the first quartile indicated ‘low socioeconomic status’ and the second through fourth quartiles indicated ‘medium/high socioeconomic status (SES)’. 39 IX. Appendix B Demographics of Estimated Population Parents of children aged 0-5 Estimated population of Family & Community Survey Responding Families Arizona Population* Gender Male 31% 50% Female 69% 50% Race/Ethnicity African-American/Black 3% 3% Asian <1% 2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <1% <1% 4% 4% 64% 60% 1% 1% Native American/American Indian White/European/Anglo Two or more races Hispanic/Latino 18% 29% Other 10% <1% Married 79% 51% Single 11% 30% Divorced 7% 11% Widowed 3% 7% Marital Status Educational Attainment Less than high school graduate High school graduate 5% 17% 17% 27% 2% *** Soame college (includes Associates degree) 31% 30% College graduate 28% 16% Postgraduate 17% 9% Technical/Vocational school Household Income Less than $25,000 23% More than $25,000 76% Less than $30,000 16% $30,000 or more 73% Refused 11% Ages of Children Only children younger than 3 27% Only one child age 3 to 5 57% *(from US Census American Community Survey 2007) 40 Demographics by Socio-Economic Status Marital Status Low SES Med/High SES Married 52% 90% Single 26% 4% Divorced/separated 14% 4% Widowed 7% 2% Refused 1% 0% 100% 100% Total *Chi-Square=741.7, p<.0001 Age group Low SES Med/High SES 19-29 49% 20% 30 to 49 44% 76% 50 to 64 7% 3% 100% 100% Total *Chi-Square=292.7, p<.0001 Currently have paid job Low SES Med/High SES Yes 48% 64% No 52% 36% Total 100% 100% *Chi-Square=62.5, p<.001 Race/Ethnicity Low SES Med/High SES White/European/Anglo 50% 68% Hispanic/Latino 32% 13% 3% 2% % 1% 12% 1% % % African-American/Black Asian Native American/American Indian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or more races 2% Other 1% 14% Refused Total 1% % 100% 100% *Chi-Square=471.6, p<.004 Gender Low SES Med/High SES Male 25% 36% Female 75% 64% *Chi-Square=35.0, p<.025 41 X. Appendix C Parental Understanding of Early Childhood The Importance of Early Childhood: Early Experiences and Brain Development When can parents impact brain development? National Arizona All (%) All (%) Prenatal 28 31 Right from birth 46 47 First month Two to six months Seven to 11 months One year or more Not sure 2 2 12 7 1 4 10 9 1 >1 At what age do infants’ take in and react to surroundings? National Arizona All (%) All (%) Birth/first week 24 42 Two weeks to one month 11 9 Two months Three to six months Seven to 11 months One year or more Not sure 9 6 34 24 4 3 15 15 1 >1 Capacity for learning is set from birth National Arizona All (%) All (%) Low SES Med/High SES* Definitely False 68 77 67 82 Probably False 15 11 10 11 Probably True 7 4 9 3 Definitely True 9 7 14 4 Not Sure 1 1 1 1 *Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F=83.7, p<.0001 Does first year impact later school performance? National Arizona All (%) All (%) First year has a major impact 77 76 First year has no impact 20 20 Not sure 3 4 42 Emotional Development At what age can baby sense and react to parent’s emotion? National Arizona All (%) All (%) First one to two months 45 56 Three to six month 18 17 Seven to 11 months 7 4 One year or older 31 23 Not Sure 0 1 Language and Play Child’s language benefits equally from TV or real person National Arizona All (%) All (%) Definitely False 43 52 Probably False 23 18 Probably True 18 12 Definitely True 15 17 Not Sure 1 1 How important is play to a … National All (%) Arizona All (%) Low SES Med/High SES Five-year-old 89 90 84 92* Three year-old 86 92 84 96** 10-month old 71 79 69 83*** Shown: % that say playing crucial (8-10) * Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F=5.3, p<.021 ** Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F=37.5, p<.0001 ***Significant difference between means, for levels of SES: F=47.7, p<.0001 How much impact does play have on… Arizona All (%) Low SES Med/High SES a child’s social development 96 - -* a young child’s intellectual development 93 87 95** a young child’s language development 87 - -* Shown: % that say playing has large impact (8-10) *No significant difference between means for levels of SES * *Significant difference between means for levels of SES: F=20.6, p<.0001 43 Developmentally appropriate child behavior Turning the TV on and off National Arizona All (%) All (%) Low SES Med/High SES** Child is doing this because she is angry at parents, and is trying to get back at them 38 23 33 20*** The child enjoys learning about what happens when buttons are pressed 94 94 - -** The child wants to get her parent’s attention n/a 86 - -** Shown: % saying this is very or somewhat likely *No significant difference for levels of SES **Chi-Square=21.3, p<.0001 Age-appropriate behavior at 15 months-old National Arizona All (%) All (%) 15 months -olds should NOT be expected to share 46 60 15 months -olds should be expected to share 53 40 Not sure 1 0 National Arizona All (%) All (%) Age-appropriate behavior at 3 years-old 3-year-olds should NOT be expected to sit quietly for 1 hour 70 71 3-year-olds should be expected to sit quietly for 1 hour 28 26 Not sure 2 3 National Arizona All (%) All (%) Spoiling - six-month-old 6-month-old too young to spoil 43 36 6-month-old NOT too young to spoil 56 62 Picking up a three-month old every time she cries is… National Arizona All (%) All (%) Low SES Mid/High SES Appropriate 43 59 50 66 Will likely spoil the child 44 37 50 34 *Chi-Square = 67.5, p<.003 Rocking a one year old to sleep National Arizona All (%) All (%) Appropriate n/a 28 Will likely spoil the child n/a 67 Letting a 2-year-old get down from dinner table to play before the rest of the family has finished their meal… National Arizona All (%) All (%) Appropriate 48 55 Will likely spoil the child 45 40 Not sure n/a 6 Letting a 5-year-old choose what to wear to school every day XI. National Arizona All (%) All (%) Appropriate 29 74 Will likely spoil the child 30 22 Not sure n/a 4 Appendix D Parent Perceptions of Early Childhood Services Communication & Collaboration Satisfaction with Collaboration Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very Satisfied Arizona Parents 15% 42% 26% 17% Early Childhood Partners 15% 39% 38% 4% Arizona Parents 12% 10% 39% 40% Early Childhood Partners 5% 39% 44% 11% Quality Support for Families Quality of services Poor Good 45 Information and Access Quality of information Poor High Arizona Parents 18% 22% 18% 43% Early Childhood Partners 3% 34% 38% 24% Convenient access to services Poor access Convenient access Arizona Parents 5% 15% 41% 40% Early Childhood Partners 12% 41% 36% 9% Family Focus Family centered practice Not FamilyCentered FamilyCentered Arizona Parents 14% 24% 18% 44% Early Childhood Partners 7% 35% 38% 20% Prevention and early intervention Late intervention Early intervention Arizona Parents 17% 15% 24% 44% Early Childhood Partners 18% 31% 38% 13% Services by SES Family centered practice: Available services fill some of my needs, but do not meet the needs of my whole family Low SES Med/High SES Strongly Agree 24% 10% Somewhat Agree 32% 20% Somewhat Disagree 17% 17% Strongly Disagree 27% 52% Chi-Square = 86.0, p<.0001 Early Intervention/Prevention Services Low SES Med/High SES Strongly Agree 24% 13% Somewhat Agree 17% 14% Somewhat Disagree 22% 23% Strongly Disagree 36% 51% Chi-Square = 41.2, p<.007 Family and Community Survey on Early Childhood: A Baseline Report on Families and Coordination 4000 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 771-5045 www.azftf.gov