A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx

A list of possible essay questions
1. Discuss classic strain theory and general strain theory (GST)
in detail, focusing on 1)
whether general strain theory (GST) is a more convincing
explanation for why individual
commit crime than classic strain theory and 2) major sources of
strain and three key
propositions of GST.
2. Discuss Hirschi’s social bonding theory and Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory of
crime; 1) explain key elements of the social bond, 2) key
dimensions of low self-control,
3) primary source of the development of self-control, 4) the
main propositions of each
theory, and 5) various criticisms of each theory.
3. Why does crime occur according to routine activities and
rational choice theories? For
each theory, explain 1) key concepts, 2) propositions, and 3)
empirical findings in detail.

4. Discuss deterrence theory in detail, specifically focusing on
1) basic assumptions the
theory is based on, 2) key propositions, 3) key elements of
effective punishment, and 4)
empirical findings on the effects of deterrence-based policy
interventions on criminal
behaviors.
5. Compare and contrast social learning theories with general
strain theory. Which offers a
more convincing argument for understanding crime and
delinquency and why?
6. Moon et al. (2009) with a longitudinal data of 659 Korean
adolescents examined key
propositions of GST; 1) describe main purposes of the study, 2)
explain key strains,
negative emotions (two types), and conditioning variables used
in the study, 3) overall
findings, and 4) limitations of the study.
7. Hay (2001) and Moon et al. (2014) tested key propositions of
low self-control. First,
explain main purposes of each study. Second, describe key

findings of each study.
Finally, discuss theoretical implications of each study’s
findings in detail.
Parenting Practices among Depressed
Mothers in the Child Welfare System
Patricia L. Kohl, Jacqueline Njeri Kagotho, and David Dixon
The purpose of this study was to analyze a nationally
representative sample of families referred
to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies, the National
Survey of Child and Adolescent
Weil-Being, to examine the association between maternal
depression and parenting practices
over a 36-month follow-up period.Three hypotheses were tested:
(1) Depressed mothers are'
more likely to demonstrate harsh parenting than are
nondepressed mothers; (2) depressed
mothers are more likely to demonstrate neglectful parenting
than are nondepressed mothers;
and (3) depressed mothers are more likely to demonstrate
emotional maltreatment than are
nondepressed mothers. The interaction between depression and
time was also analyzed for
each parenting practice to determine how changes in maternal
depression affected changes in

parenting. The sample for this study was 1,536 mother-child
dyads in which the child was age
three to 10 years and remained in the home after a CPS
investigation. Depression remained
high across time points and was associated with increased risk
of emotional maltreatment and
neglect over a 36-inonth period. In addition, self-reported
emotional maltreatment remained
high across time points. Implications of this work are the needs
for better identification of
mental health needs for mothers entering the child welfare
system and parent training to
specifically address positive parenting.
KEY WORDS: child welfare; maternal depression; National
Survey
of Child and Adolescent Well-Being; parenting
M
aternal depression, a critical public
health concern, is prevalent among
mothers referred to Child Protective
Services (CPS) agencies. In fact, nearly a quarter of
adults entering the child welfare system meet the
diagnostic criteria for a major depressive episode
in the preceding 12 months (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration on
Children.Youth and Families [HHS, ACYF], 2005),
compared with only 7% of adults in the general
population (Kessler, Chiu, Demier, & Walters, 2005).
Furthermore, w ômen have an increased likelihood
of experiencing depression compared with men
(Kessler et al., 2003), and women exposed to a
high number of chronic Stressors—as many women
referred to CPS agencies are—are three times more

likely than women with less exposure to Stressors to
experience maternal depression (Orr,James, Burns,
& Thompson, 1989). Given that women comprise
the vast majority of primary caregivers among the
child welfare population (HHS, ACYF, 2005), it is
important to understand how maternal depression
affects outcomes after a CPS referral.
The high rate of maternal depression in the child
welfare system is a concern given its influence on
parenting practices. Symptoms of depression may
impede a woman's capacity to provide care for her
children, placing her at risk to engage in neglectful
parenting practices. For instance, depressed mothers
may lack sensitivity to their children's physical and
emotional needs (Campbell et al., 2004; Trapolini,
Ungerer,&McMahon,2008) ormay be unavailable
or otherwise unresponsive to their children (Cum-
mings & Cicchetti, 1993).
The literature also demonstrates that maternal
depression is related to a higher risk of other
harmful parenting behaviors, including emotional
maltreatment and harsh parenting. Depressed moth-
ers are more likely than are nondepressed mothers
to have conflict-related interactions with their
children, including feeling aggravated with the
child, yelling at the child, and spanking the child
(Lyons-Ruth,Wolfe, Lyubchik, & Steingard, 2o[)2).
Maternal depression increases the likelihood of
corporal punishment toward children (Chung, Mc-
CoUum, Elo, Lee, & Culhane, 2004; Shin & Stein,
CCCCode: 1070-5309/11 $3,00 62011 National Association of
Social Workers 215

2008). Using meta-analysis techniques to examine
reported findings about maternal depression and
parenting behavior across 46 studies, Lovejoy, Crac-
zyk, O'Hare, and Neunian (2000) found a moderate
effect size {d = .40) for negative parenting behav-
iors (for example, coercive, hostile, or threatening
gestures), indicating a fairly strong relation between
depression and harmful parenting.
Additional studies have shown that maternal
depression places children at risk of abuse. Longi-
tudinal analysis of the National Institute of Mental
Health's Epidemiologie Catchment Area Survey
{N = 7,103) revealed that, among cases with no
reported abuse at baseline, depressed respondents
(parents) were more than three times as likely to
report physical abuse toward their child at wave 2
than were nondepressed parents (ChafEn, Kelleher,
& Hollenberg, 1996). Finally, symptoms of mental
illness, including depression, were associated with
higher scores on the Child Abuse Potential In-
ventory in the Women, Co-occurring Disorders
and Violence Study, indicating an elevated risk of
future abuse (N = 371) (Rinehart et al., 2005). In
summary, these studies have clearly demonstrated
that maternal depression adversely affects parent-
ing among community-based samples. The extent
to which maternal depression influences parent-
ing practices among one of the country's most
vulnerable populations—mother and child dyads
referred to CPS agencies for allegations of abuse
or neglect—is not yet known.
The aim of child welfare intervention is to

improve the safety and well-being of children, a
goal that is adversely affected by maternal depres-
sion. There is currently a dearth of information
on the association of depression and changes in
parenting behaviors after referral to CPS agencies.
Unanswered questions remain. Do the parenting
behaviors of depressed mothers improve at similar
or different rates than do those of nondepressed
mothers? Does a change in depression status affect
parenting behaviors? Underst:anding which, if any,
parenting behaviors remain a risk will help child
welfare professionals better target limited resources
to more accurately address specific parenting be-
haviors. Furthermore, this understanding could be
used to inform policy and practice decisions about
the mental health service needs of mothers referred
to CPS agencies.
The objective of this study was to analyze a land-
mark nationally representative sample of children
and families referred to CPS agencies, the National
Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NS-
CAW),to examine the association between maternal
depression and changes in self-reported parenting
practices over a 36-month period after referral to
CPS agencies. Specifically, these three hypotheses
were tested:
1. On average, depressed mothers would be more
likely to demonstrate harsh parenting over a
36-month period than would nondepressed
mothers.
likely to demonstrate neglectful parenting over

a 36-month period than would nondepressed
mothers.
likely to demonstrate emotional maltreatment
over a 36-inonth period than would nonde-
pressed mothers.
In addition, we analyzed the interaction between
depression and time for each parenting practice to
determine how changes in maternal depression
between baseline and 36-month follow-up affected
changes in parenting behaviors. Finally, other child,
family, and case characteristics associated with par-
enting practices were determined.
RESEARCH METHOD
The NSCAW, a fixed-panel design with four waves
of data collection, had a stratified two-stage sample.
The primary sampling units (PSUs) were county
child welfare agencies; the secondary sampling units
were children (and their families) chosen from a list
of completed investigations at the sampled agencies.
The sample was selected from 92 PSUs located in
36 states (NSCAW Research Group, 2002). The
random sample of families within each agency
was drawn from those who underwent a complete
investigation for child maltreatment.The targeted
population was all children and families investi-
gated for child maltreatment in the United States;
however, four states that required child welfare
agency personnel to make first contact with the
family instead of the NSCAW field representative
were excluded from the study. For statistical rea-
sons, infants, sexual abuse cases, and cases receiving
ongoing services after the investigation were over-

sampled (Dowd et al., 2003). Weighting was then
performed to adjust for the unequal probability
Social Work Research VOLUME 35, NUMBER 4 DECEMBER
2011216
of selection from oversampling and nonresponse.
Cases with both substantiated and unsubstantiated
maltreatment were included in NSCAW. The ra-
tionale for inclusion of both types of cases in the
proposed project was the significant evidence that
the ultimate substantiation of a particular report
is not a good indicator of the seriousness of the
report or the likelihood of continued and serious
problems in parenting (Drake, Jonson-Reid, Way,
& Chung, 2003; Hussey et al., 2005;Jonson-Reid,
Drake, Kim, Porterfield, & Han, 2004; Kohl &
Barth, 2007; Kohl, Jonson-Reid, & Drake, 2009).
Furthermore, many states now use a differential
response system and offer voluntary services to
at-risk families whose cases were not substantiated.
Hence, substantiation status cannot be used as a
proxy for service receipt.
The NSCAW data were collected from caregiv-
ers and child welfare workers at four time points:
baseline (between October 1999 and December
2000), approximately 12 months after baseline (wave
2), approximately 18 months after baseline (wave 3),
and approximately 36 months after baseline (wave 4).
At baseline, wave 3, and wave 4, an NSCAW field
representative conducted face-to-face interviews
with the permanent caregiver of children remaining
in the home; for wave 2, the field representative con-

ducted a telephone interview with the permanent
caregiver. Child welfare workers also participated in
face-to-face interviews at baseline. If a case remained
open to child welfare services, additional worker
face-to-face interviews were completed at wave
2, wave 3, and wave 4. Wave 1, wave 3, and wave
4 included comparable measures of maternal and
child functioning and mental health that were not
included in wave 2. Data regarding service receipt
was collected from caregivers and child welfare
workers at wave 2.
Sample
The entire NSCAW sample included 5,501 children
(ages 0 to 16 years) and their families investigated
for child maltreatment. The following cases, rep-
resenting a subset of NSCAW, were included in
this study:
• The child remained in home after the index
investigation and spent no more than 5% of the
study duration in out-of-home placements.
• The child was between the ages of 3 and 10
years at baseline.
The child's primary caregiver was identified
as his or her mother (biological, adoptive, or
step).
The child age inclusion criterion was selected
because of the potent influence of parenting duriiig
the preschool and elementary school years. NSCAW
did not capture parenting behaviors that are par-
ticularly influential during infancy and toddlerhood;
therefore, the youngest children were excluded. In

addition, parenting influences may be less powerful
during adolescence due to adaptational and matu-
rational processes (Sim &Vuchinich, 1996). ¡
With these inclusion criteria, the final sample
size was 1,536 cases. Only one child per family
was included in the NSCAW; therefore, children
were not nested within mothers. The sample was
composed of 1,536 mother—child dyads. i
Measures
Following is an overview of the manner in which
variables were measured. ¡
The dependent variables were three parenting
practices: harsh parenting, neglect, and emotional
maltreatment. These were measured with three
subscales of the Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent to
Child version (CTS-PC) (Straus, Hamby, Moore; &
Runyan, 1998) at baseline, wave 3, and wave 4.The
Physical Assault subscale assessed harsh parenting
with the following nine items: (1) spanked child on
bottom with bare hand; (2) .slapped on the hand, arhi,
or leg; (3) hit on bottom with a belt, hairbrush, stick,
or another hard object; (4) hit some other part ¡of
the body besides the bottom with a belt, hairbrush,
or stick; (5) pinched the child; (6) slapped on the
face, head, or ears; (7) hit with a fist or kicked hatd;
(8) threw or knocked down; and (9) beat up (that
is, kicked or hit the child over and over as hard as
possible) .The Neglect subscale assessed neglect with
the following five items: (1) had to leave your child
home alone, even when you thought some adult
should be with him or her; (2) were not able ¡to
make sure your child got the food he or she needed;
(3) were so drunk or high that you had a problem

taking care of your child; (4) were not able to make
sure your child got to a doctor or hospital when he
or she needed it; and (5) were so caught up with
your problems that you were not able to show br
tell your child that you loved him or her. Finally, the
Psychological Abuse subscale assessed for emotiorial
maltreatment with the following five items: (1)
K O H L , K A G O T H O , A N D D I X O N / Parenting
Practices among Depressed Mothers in the ChildWelfare System
217
shouted, yelled, or screamed at child; (2) threatened
to spank or hit the child but did not actually do it;
(3) swore or cursed at child; (4) called child dumb
or lazy (or similar statement);and (5) said you would
send child away or kick child out of the house. As
recommended by the scale developers (Straus, 1991),
median scoring was used to assess the frequency of
each parenting behavior, with one incident scaled as
I, two incidents scaled as 2, three to five incidents
scaled as 4, six to 10 incidents scaled as 8,11 to 20
incidents scaled as 15, and more than 20 incidents
scaled as 25. The three parenting variables exhibited
a high degree of skewness, in large part due to the
high occurrence of 0 values (neglect: about 70%;
harsh parenting: about 90%; emotional maltreat-
ment: about 40%). Data transformations failed to
normalize these data.Thus, a natural dichotomiza-
tion at 0 versus not 0 was appropriate. Responses
on the parenting outcome measures were analyzed
as a series of individual time points (for example,
baseline, wave 3,and wave 4) in the bivariate analyses
and were analyzed as time-varying variables in the

multivariate analyses.
The primary independent variable in our analytic
models was maternal depression, which was mea-
sured as a binomial variable with the Composite
International Diagnostic Interview—Short Form
(CIDl-SF) at baseline, wave 3, and wave 4. The
CIDI-SF is a structured interview designed to screen
for common psychiatric disorders with diagnostic
criteria established in the DSM—IV (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994; Kessler, Andrews,
Mroczek, Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998). Mothers who
met the diagnostic criteria for clinical depression
were coded as 1 ; mothers who did not meet these
criteria were coded as 2. As with the parenting out-
come measures, responses on the depression measure
were analyzed as a series of individual time points in
the bivariate analyses and as a time-varying variable
in the multivariate analyses.
Control variables included in the analysis were
child gender, child age at baseline, mother race/
ethnicity, mother age at baseline, mother educa-
tional attainment, family income, urban or nonurban
status, and most serious maltreatment type of the
baseline maltreatment report. Family income was
categorized as "poor" versus "nonpoor" on the basis
of the federally defined poverty level. This measure
was calculated on the basis of procedures followed
by the U.S. Census Bureau and includes both the
family's income level and the number of adults and
children in the household (Dalaker & U.S. Census
Bureau, 2001).The poverty measure was used as a
dichotomous variable in the analyses (at or below
poverty threshold or above poverty threshold).

Urban/nonurban status of the county was defined
consistent with U.S. Census definitions. Urban was
defined as greater than 50% of the population liv-
ing in the urban area, and twnurban was defined as
all other areas that did not meet this description
(NSCAW Research Croup, 2002) .The maltreatment
type of the official report at basehne investigation
was obtained from the child welfare worker. From
a list of 10 categories, the worker first indicated all
maltreatment types included in the report. When
multiple maltreatment types were reported, the
most serious maltreatment type was determined
by using a slight modification of the Maltreatment
Classification System (Manly, Cicchetti, & Barnett,
1994), resulting in five categories of maltreatment:
(1) physical abuse; (2) sexual abuse; (3) neglect:
failure to provide; (4) neglect: failure to supervise;
and (5) other. For purposes of our analyses, we col-
lapsed the categories into physical abuse, neglect,
and other. Physical abuse was the referent category
in our analytic models.
Data Analysis Strategy
Data were analyzed using Stata 10 data analysis
software. All analyses used the NSCAW sampling
weights; therefore, findings are nationally repre-
sentative and generalizable to child welfare cases in
which a child (between the ages of 3 and 10 years)
remained in the home with his or her mother for
at least 95% of the time in the 36 months after a
maltreatment investigation.
The data analysis strategy included univariate,
bivariate, and multivariate analysis techniques.
Frequencies were calculated to provide a general
description of the data. Chi-square tests, ( tests, and

unadjusted odds ratios were used to analyze the
bivariate relation between major depression and
the outcome and control variables. Finally, cross-
sectional and longitudinal logistic regression models
were built to analyze associations and interactions
between dependent and independent variables.
Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used
(Diggle, Heagerty, Liang, & Zeger, 2002).The GEE
methodology provides a method of analyzing cor-
related data that arise from longitudinal studies in
which subjects are measured at different points in
time. GEEs are most effective when the focus is on
218 Social Work Research VOLUME 35, NUMBER 4
DECEMBER 2011
estimating the average response over the population
(population-averaged effects),also referred to as the
"marginal mean model." The resulting model re-
gression coefficients have interpretations that apply
to the population of individuals defined by fixing
the values of the other covariates in the model.The
correlated binary nature of our longitudinal inde-
pendent variable (maternal depression—yes/no) lent
itself to the GEE methodology as hkelihood-based
inference was less applicable.
The xtgee command in Stata was used for GEEs,
with the binomial specification for family to indicate
the binary dependent variables represented by the
three dichotomized parenting practice outcomes.
In addition, compound symmetry was obtained by
using exchatigeable for the correlation specification
among the binary outcomes.

To conduct the longitudinal multivariate analy-
ses, we transformed the data from a wide to a long
file. The time-varying dependent variables were
coded as follows: If wave = baseline, then the base-
line score was used; if wave = 3, then the wave 3
score was used; and if wave = 4, then the wave 4
score was used. Wave was then controlled for in all
our analytic models.Three parenting measures were
analyzed as dependent variables in separate models.
In each model, the other two parenting measures
were included as independent variables (for ex-
ample, when neglect was the dependent variable,
harsh parenting and emotional maltreatment were
included). Neglect and emotional maltreatment
were moderately correlated (a = .29, p < .001).
Although this correlation is low enough to indicate
that they are distinct constructs, the correlation is
high enough that the relationship should be ac-
counted for in the models.
Both main effect and interaction models were
analyzed with this approach.The interaction model
included a dummy-coded interaction term of de-
pression by wave.The resulting interaction term was
a three-level categorical variable (no depression at
baseline, no depression at wave 3, no depression at
wave 4), with no depression at baseline held as the
reference group across all models.
To correct for missing values in the dependent
variables, independent variables, and other control
variables, we performed multiple imputation by
chained equations. The missing values were im-
puted in 10 iterations to create a simulated data
set. All analyses were conducted on the simulated

data set.
Table 1: Description of Sample
(Unweighted N = 1,536)
Child gender
Male
Female
Child age at baseline (years)
3-5
6-10
Mother's race/ethnicity
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Mother's educational attainment
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some post-high school education
Family's income

At or below poverty threshold
Above poverty threshold
Primary maltreatment type
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Neglect: Failure to provide
Neglect: Failure to supervise
Other
Prior maltreatment reports
Yes
N o
Urbanicity of community
Nonurban
Urban
Child age
Mother's age
Number of people living in home
53.6

46.4
35.4
64.6
22,9
50,8
19.2
7.1
29.0
45.5
25.5
49.8
50.2
28,8
13,3
20,1
26,2
1 1 7
48,3

517
24,1
75.9
6.5
32.0
4,3
Note: We conducted chi-square and í tests to test for differences
between cases w i t h
depressed mothers at baseline and cases with nondepressed
mothers at baseline for
each variable reported in this table. No significant differences
were found.
RESULTS
A description of the cases included in the sample is
presented in Table 1, Slightly more than half of the
children were male (53.6%).The racial and ethhic
composite of the sample of mothers was 22.9%
black, 50.8% white, and 19.2% Hispanic. Faniily
income was evenly distributed between at or belpw
the poverty threshold (49.8%>) and above the pQv-
KoHL, KAGOTHO, AND DIXON / Parenting Practices among
Depressed Mothers in the Child Welfare System 219
erty threshold (50.2%).The majority of the sample
(75.9%) lived in urban areas.The mean age for the

children was 6.5 years, with 64.6% between the ages
of 6 and 10 years.The mean age of the mothers was
32.0 years. Overall, the mothers had low levels of
educational attainment; 29.0%) of the mothers re-
ported less than a high school education. Regarding
child welfare case characteristics, a slight majority
(51.7%) of the sample had no previous referrals to
CPS agencies. Neglect was most frequently identi-
fied as the most serious child maltreatment type by
child welfare workers (failure to provide: 20.2%;
failure to supervise; 26.2%).
Mothers' self-reports of maternal depression
and parenting practices at each of the three waves
are reported in Table 2. Approximately one in
five mothers (21.1%) met the diagnostic criteria
for major depressive episode at baseline, and this
percentage was fairly stable across waves (15.5% at
wave 2, 21.5% at wave 4). More than half (59.4%)
of mothers did not report depression at any wave,
and 5.7% of mothers reported depression at all
waves; for 34.9%, the results were mixed across
waves (not shown in table). As shown in Table 2,
harsh parenting practices were highly skewed in the
direction of the absence of these behaviors across all
three waves. Nearly one out of every 10 mothers
(9.6%) reported harsh parenting practices at baseline,
whereas approximately 14% of mothers reported
harsh parenting at waves 3 and 4. Approximately
one-third (35.0%) of mothers reported neglectful
parenting behavior at baseline, whereas 30.8% and
35.2% ofmothers, respectively,reported the same at
waves 3 and 4. Finally, a higher percentage ofmothers
reported emotional maltreatment at all three time
points; 61.5%, 55.4%, and 56.1% at baseline, wave
3, and wave 4, respectively.

The association between maternal depression and
parenting behaviors reported at baseline are reported
in Table 3. The unadjusted odds of self-reporting
neglect for depressed mothers were approximately
three times those of nondepressed mothers at base-
line (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, p < .001) and wave 3
(OR = 3.5, p < .001). In addition, the unadjusted
odds of emotional maltreatment for depressed moth-
ers were approximately twice those of nondepressed
mothers at baseline (OR = 2.0, p < .001), wave 3
(OR = 2.3,p < .001), and wave 4 (OR = 2.6,;; <
.001).The odds ofself-reported harsh parenting were
not statistically significantly different for depressed
and nondepressed mothers.
Results of the main effects multivariate models
assessing the relation between parenting and depres-
sion are reported in Table 4. Consistent with the
bivariate analysis, depression status and self-reported
harsh parenting were unrelated.The overall model
fit, however, was significant fWald)(^(17) = 145.6,/)
< .001]. For this and the other models, the average
Wald chi-squares for the 10 produced completed
data sets are reported because Stata output did not
include Wald chi-squares for analyses of the simu-
lated data set. As demonstrated by the statistically
significant wave variables, harsh parenting signifi-
candy changed over time.The odds ofself-reported
harsh parenting were significantly higher at wave 3
than at baseline (OR = 1.8, p < .05) and at wave
4 than at baseline (OR = 1.7, p < .05), with the
other variables in the model controlled for. Racial
and ethnic differences were found. Black and His-
panic mothers were about two times more likely
to self-report the use of harsh parenting practices

over the 36-month study window than were white
mothers (OR = 2.3,p < .001, and O R = 2 . 0 , ; J <
.05, respectively). FinaUy, self-reported emotional
Table 2: Frequencies of Maternal Depression and Parenting
Practices
Measured at Multiple Time Points (Unweighted N = 1,536)
msMïus
Dependent variable
Maternal depression
Parenting practices
Harsh parenting
Neglect
Emotional maltreatment
S5t3S
21.1
9,6
35.0
61,5
cs®
78,9

90,4
65,0
38,5
S33S
15.5
13.9
30.8
55.4
Ws
84.5
86.1
69,2
44.6
21.5
13,9
35,2
56,1
C3®

78.5
86.1
64.8
43.9
Note: All values represent weighted percentages.
DECEMBER 2011
Table 3: Odds Ratios for Maternal Depression and
Parenting Practices (Unweighted N = 1,536)
Harsh parenting
Neglect
Emotional maltreatment
1.4
2 T * * *
2 . 0 * * *
1.3
3.5***
2.3***
1.1

1.5
2.6'
maltreatment and self-reported neglect frequently
co-occurred with harsh parenting. Mothers report-
ing emotional maltreatment (OR = 3.8, p < .001)
and neglect (OR = 2.2,p < .001) had much higher
odds of also self-reporting harsh parenting than did
mothers not reporting emotional maltreatment and
neglect, respectively.
Depression was statistically significant in the ne-
glect model [overall model fit: Wald x^(17) = 104.8,
p < .001]. Depressed mothers were 1.8 times more
likely to self-report neglectful parenting behaviors
than were nondepressed mothers. Mothers engaging
in self-reported emotional maltreatment had a higher
odds (OR = 2.4, p < .001) of also self-reporting
neglect than did mothers without self-reported
emotional maltreatment. In addition, mothers with
self-reported harsh parenting were two times more
likely to self-report neglect than were mothers
without self-reported emotional maltreatment (QR
= 2.0,p<.01). '
The odds of emotional maltreatment were
greater among depressed mothers than nondepressed
mothers (OR = 1.8, p < .001).The overall motfel
fit was good [Wald x7) = 142.2,;; < .001], and
additional variables were associated with emotional
maltreatment across the study window. Emotional
maltreatment was associated with self-reported harsh
parenting and neglect. For mothers reporting harsh

Table 4: Multivariate Models Assessing the Relationship
between
Self-reported Parenting Practices and Depression (Main Effect
Models)
Major depression (No depression)
Wave 2 ( 18-month follow-up) (Baseline)
Wave 3 (36-month follow-up) (Baseline)
Child gender (Male)
Parent age
Mother race: Non-Hispanic black (Non-Hispanic white)
Mother ethnicity: Hispanic (Non-Hispanic white)
Mother race: Other (Non-Hispanic white)
No high school education (More than high school)
High school education (More than high school)
Urban/rural status (Urban)
Prior reports (No prior reports)
Poverty (At or below poverty threshold)
Official report: Neglect (Physical abuse)
Official report: Other (Physical abuse)

Self-reporr: Emotional maltreatment
Self-report: Harsh parenting
Self-report: Neglect
1.0
1.8*
1.7*
1.1
1.0
2.3***
2.0*
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.7

3.8***
0.6, 1.7
1.1,2.9
1.1,2.6
0.7, 1.3
1.0, 1.0
1.3,3.3
1.2,3.3
0.7, 2.9
0.3, 1.7
0.8,2.1
0.6, 1.4
0.3, 1.1
0.9, 2.2
0.3 1.3
0.4, 1.2
2.2,6.3
1.8**
0.9

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.2
2.4***
2.0**
1.3,2.3
0.7, 1.1
0.8, 1.3

0.8, 1.4
1.0, 1.0
0.7, 1.6
0.7, 1.6
0.6, 1.8
0.7, 1.6
0.7, 1.4
0.9, 1.7
0.9, 1.6
0.7, 1.3
1.0,2.1
0.8, 1.9
1.8,3.2
1.3,2.9
1.8***
0.8
0.7
0.9

1.0
1.5*
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
3.0***
1.3,2.
0.6, 1.
4
0
0.6, 1.0
0.8, 1.4

1.0, 1.0
1.1,2.2
0.3, 1.1
0.3, 1.7
0 . 4 , l . i l
0.3, 1.1
0.7, l.j
0.7, 1.3
0.7, 1.3
0.6, 1.2
0.5, 1.2
1.8.5.0
2.2* 1.4,3.3
Note: Reference groups are given in parentheses, OR = odds
ratio; CI = 95% confidence interval.
' p s ,05, •*p s ,01, ***p Ä ,001,
KOHL, KAGOTHO, AND DIXON / Parenting Practices among
Depressed Mothers in the ChiU We/fare System 221
parenting, the odds of emotional maltreatment were

three times greater than for riiothers not reporting
harsh parenting (OR = 3.0,p< .001).Likewise,for
mothers reporting neglect, the O R of self-reported
emotional maltreatment was 2.3 (p < .001). Black
mothers were more likely to self-report emotional
maltreatment than were white mothers (OR =
1.5,p< .05).
To assess whether changes in maternal depres-
sion between baseline and wave 4 affected changes
in parenting behaviors, we analyzed additional
multivariate models that included a Depression x
Wave term. Results from the harsh parenting and
neglect model are not reported because inclusion
of the interaction term did not contribute to the
models. The overall fit of the emotional maltreat-
ment model was good [Wald x^(19) = 151.7, p <
.001], and the Depression x Wave interaction was
significant (not shown in table). Depressed mothers
at wave 3 were two times more likely to self-report
emotional maltreatment than were nondepressed
mothers at baseline (OR = 2.2; confidence interval
= 1.1,4.3;/) < .05)—an indication that risk of emo-
tional maltreatment varied over time by mother's
depression status. The significance and strength of
association of the other variables in the model were
similar to the main effects model and are therefore
not reported again.
DISCUSSION
By using a national probability sample, we were able
to demonstrate that maternal depression impedes
the achievement of the primary objective of child
welfare services: child safety. Maternal depression,
which is prevalent among this population, was found
to place children at risk for both self-reported ne-

glect and emotional maltreatment. On entry into
the child welfare system, 21% of mothers met the
diagnostic criteria for major depression—well above
the national average of 7% in the general population
(Kessler et al., 2005). Furthermore, the percentage of
mothers reporting depression remained fairly stable
across the study window. That only 5.7% of mothers
reported depression at all three time points means
that different women experienced depression at dif-
ferent time points after entry into the child welfare
system. Although, at first glance, the percentage of
mothers reporting depression at all three time points
appears low, this represents a substantial number of
mothers. This rate is a concern given the harmful
effects of persistence of maternal depression on chil-
dren.The investigators of the Sequenced Treatment
Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial found that,
although children improved when their mothers'
depression subsided after a medication intervention,
symptoms worsened when their mothers' depression
continued (Weissman et al., 2006).
Harsh Parenting
We hypothesized that, on average, depressed mothers
would be more likely to demonstrate harsh parenting
over a 36-month period than would nondepressed
mothers.This hypothesis was not supported; among
the child welfare population, depressed and nonde-
pressed mothers had similar rates of self-reported
harsh parenting.This unanticipated finding is con-
trary to the published literature. Among community
populations, maternal depression has been found to
increase the risk of harsh parenting (Chung et al.,
2004; Lovejoy et al., 2000; Lyons-Ruth et al., 2002).
However, this relation was not upheld among this

national probability sample of mothers in the child
welfare population whose children remained in
the home after the index maltreatment investiga-
tion. This finding may be a result of differences in
measurement of harsh parenting across studies or
of differences between the community population
and the child welfare population. Families enter-
ing the child welfare system are often faced with a
complex web of problems, and it may be the cumu-
lative nature of those problems that places children
at risk for harsh parenting practices, not maternal
depression alone.
Harsh parenting was a fairly rare event, but the
percentage of mothers self-reporting harsh parent-
ing increased from baseline (9%) to wave 4 (14%);
the increase remained statistically significant in the
multivariate models. It is alarming that harsh parent-
ing increased over the course of the study window.
This finding highlights the need to effectively as-
sess discipline strategies used by mothers receiving
voluntary or mandatory services following entry
into the child welfare system and, when warranted,
provide effective interventions aimed at reducing
the use of harsh parenting behaviors.
Consistent with the findings of others, we found
an increased risk of harsh parenting toward black
children (for example, Deater-Deckard, Dodge,
Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates,
Pettit, & Zelh, 2000). These results need to be
discussed within their cultural context. Culture
influences parental beliefs about child development
DECEMBER 2on

promotion and appropriate socialization strategies
(Caughy & Franzini, 2005; Murry, Smith, & Hill
2001). Hence, harsh parenting may serve different
functions and have different meanings for black
and white families. Among black famihes, harsh
(physical) parenting appears to have a socialization
role, the purpose being to prepare youths for adult
competence (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997).
Furthermore, although harsh parenting increases
the risk for externalizing behavior problems among
white children, this same relation does not hold
true for black children (Deater-Deckard & Dodge,
1997). Parenting interventions aimed at changing
parenting behaviors must therefore be culturally
relevant.
Neglectful Parenting
Hypothesis 2 was supported. On average, depressed
mothers were more likely to engage in neglect-
ful parenting over a 36-month period than were
nondepressed mothers. Bivariate findings revealed
some variation in self-reported neglect from baseline
(34%) to wave 3 (24%) to wave 4 (33%); however,
these differences were not statistically significant
when other variables in the multivariate model
were controlled for. Surprisingly, we did not find
a significant Depression x Wave interaction term
in the neglectful parenting model. This indicates
that the risk of neglect did not vary by changes in
depression over time, which is likely related to the
relatively stable percentage of depressed mothers
(although different mothers) across time points.

Emotional Maltreatment
Hypothesis 3 was also supported. Depressed moth-
ers were more likely to demonstrate emotional
maltreatment over a 36-month period than were
nondepressed mothers, and emotional maltreatment
improved more for nondepressed mothers than for
depressed mothers.
Overall, rates of self-reported emotional mal-
treatment were high across waves. In fact, over half
of mothers reported emotional maltreatment at
each of the time points.These high rates of ongoing
emotional maltreatment after a CPS referral are a
concern, given the long-term adverse consequences
of experiencing this type of maltreatment in child-
hood. Emotional maltreatment has been found
to be an important contributor of psychological
adjustment in young adulthood, with higher levels
of emotional maltreatment being associated with
poorer outcomes (Miller-Perrin, Perrin, & Kociir,
2009).
Emotional maltreatment, which can cause these
adverse outcomes, frequently co-occurs with both
harsh parenting and neglect. This suggests that
physical abuse or neglect should not be the scjle
focus of interventions after entry into the child
welfare system. Assessments of mothers determined
to need voluntary or mandated services following
child maltreatment investigations should evaluate a
range of parenting behaviors, including emotional
maltreatment, physical abuse, and neglect. '
Assessments for maternal depression also appebr
to be essential, given the high percentage of mothers

in the child welfare system meeting the diagnostic
criteria for major depressive episode. Although all
mothers determined to need services on entry into
this system of care should be provided with inteN
ventions to improve positive parenting and parent-
child interactions, for some mothers, adaptatioris
to'interventions may be necessary to concurrently
address the mothers mental health needs. '
!
Limitation and Strengths J
An important limitation is that our sample was
liinited to mother-child dyads in which the child
remained in the home after the index maltreatment
investigation.The experiences of children who were
removed from the home are likely different froiii
those of children who remained in the home after
a CPS referral; however, we were unable to analyse
these important differences. Self-report measures of
major depression and parenting were only obtained
at baseline, wave 3, and wave 4 from the permanent
caregiver if the child remained in the home. '
Another limitation is the sole reliance of self-
report of parenting practices. Mothers may be re-
luctant to divulge information about their parenting
practices (Knight et al.,2000),so parental self-report
of their behaviors could result in lower bound
estimates of the actual behavior (Straus, Gelles, &
Steinmetz, 1980). Although NSCAW took steps tp
increase the disclosure of sensitive topics through
the use of an audio computer-assisted self-interview,
harsh, neglectful, and emotionally abusive parenting
may be underreported by mothers. ¡
Although it is important to acknowledge these

limitations, the strengths outweigh the limitations.
NSCAW provides rich epidemiological data about
children and families investigated for child maltreat-
ment. Because it is a national probability study, it
K O H L , K A G O T H O , A N D D I X O N / Parenting
Practices among Depressed Mothers in the Child Welfare
System 223
allows for the generalization of findings to all in-
vestigated cases of maltreatment in which children
between the ages of 3 and 10 years remained in
the home.
IMPLICATIONS
Rates of maternal depression were high across the
36-month follow-up period. Yet rates of mental
health service receipt among the child welfare
population are lower than rates among the general
population. For example, 41% of those in the gen-
eral population with a mental health need receive
treatment (Wang et al., 2005), compared with 14%
in the child welfare population (Libby et al, 2006).
To improve long-term outcomes, efforts are needed
to improve assessment and identification of mental
health needs and access to treatment when deemed
necessary.
Although there are a growing number of evi-
dence-based parent training programs that aim to
promote positive parenting, improve parent-child
relationships, and reduce harmful parenting behav-
iors, they are rarely provided within the child wel-
fare system. Although the majority of child welfare

families have parenting services included as part of
their service plan, the services that are typically pro-
vided have been harshly criticized for their lack of
empirical support and applicability to a child welfare
population (Barth et al.,2005;Hurlburt,Barth,Leslie,
Landsverk, & McCrae, 2007).Translation efforts of
evidence-based programs into this system of care
should include research to determine whether they
reduce the risk of emotional maltreatment, neglect,
harsh parenting, and physical abuse. Furthermore,
efforts should be undertaken to examine the sub-
populations for which these programs are effective.
For instance, do they work with both depressed and
nondepressed mothers? In addition, our findings
highlight the importance of providing culturally
relevant services to the diverse population referred
to CPS agencies, and efforts are needed to determine
what, if any, cultural adaptations should be made to
address their unique needs. KlVlil
REFERENCES
American Pfsychiatric Association, (1994), Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed,),
Washington, DC: Author,
Barth, R, P., Landsverk,J,, Chamberlain, R, Reid,J, B,,
Rolls,}, A,, Hurlburt, M, S., ec al, (2005), Parent-
training programs in child welfare services: Planning
for a more evidence-based approach to serving
biological parents. Research on Social Work Practice, 15,
353-371,
Campbell, S, B.,Brownell, C. A,, Hungerford, A,, Spieker,
S,J,, Mohan, R,, & Blessing, j , S, (2004), The course

of maternal depressive symptoms and maternal
sensitivity as predictors of attachment security at
36 months. Development and Psychopatholo^y, 16,
231-252,
Caughy, M, O,, & Franzini, L, (2005), Neighborhood cor-
relates of cultural differences in perceived effective-
ness of parental disciplinary tactics. Parenting: Science
and Practice, 5, 119-151.
ChafFin, M., Kelleher, K,, & Hollenberg,J, (1996), Onset
of physical abuse and neglect: Psychiatric, substance
abuse, and social risk factors from prospective com-
munity data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 191-203.
Chung, E. K., McCoUum, K. R, E l o J . T , Lee, H,J,, &
Culhane,J, E (2004), Maternal depressive symptoms
and infant health practices among low-income
women. Pediatrics, 113, e523—e529,
Cummings, E. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1993).Towards a
transactional model of relations between attachment
and depression. In M,T, Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, &
E, M, Cummings (Eds,), Attachment in the preschool
years:Tlieory, research and intervention (pp, 339—371).
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Dalaker,J,, & U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, September).
Poverty in the United States: 2000. Washington, D C :
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, U.S, Census Bureau,
Deater-Deckard, K,, & Dodge, K, A, (1997), Externalizing
behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear
effects and variation by culture, context, and gender.
Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161—175,

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K, A,, Bates,J, E,, & Pettit,
G, S, (1996), Physical discipline among African
American and European American mothers: Links
to children's externalizing behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 1065-1072,
Diggle, P.J., Heagert>', P., Liang, K.Y, & Zeger, S. L, (2002),
Analysis of longitudinal data (2nd ed,). New York:
Oxford University Press,
Drake, B,,Jonson-Reid, M,, Way, I,, & Chung, S, (2003),
Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8,
248-260,
Hurlburt, M, S,, Barth, R, P, Leslie, L, K,, Landsverk,J, A,,
& McCrae, j , (2007). Building on strengths: Current
status and opportunities for improvement of parent
training for families in child welfare. In R. Haskins
& F.Wulczyn (Eds.), Using research to improve policy
and practice (pp, 81—106). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Hussey,J. M,, Marshall,J. M., English, D, j , . Knight, E, Q ,
Lau, A. S,, Dubowitz, H,, & Kotch,J, B, (2005),
Denning maltreatment according to substantiation:
Distinction without a difference? Child Abuse &
Neglect, 29, 479-492,
Jonson-Reid, M,, Drake, B,, Kim,J,, Porterfield, S,, & Han,
L, (2004), A prospective analysis of the relationship
between reported child maltreatment and special
education eligibility among poor children, Cliild
Maltreatment, 9, 382-394,
Kessler, R, C , Andrews, G,, Mroczek, D,, Ustun, B,,

& Wittchen, H, U, (1998),The World Health
Organization Composite International Diagnostic
Interview short-form (CIDl-SF). International Journal
of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7, 171—185.
Ke.ssler, R, C , Berglund, P,, Demler, O,,Jin, R,, Korecz, D ,
Merikangas, K, R., et al, (2003),The epidemiology of
major depressive disorder: Results from the National
Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R),_//!Ai/4,
2S9, 3095-3105.
DECEMBER zoii
Kessler, R. C , Chiu,W.T., Detnler, Q , «¿Walters, E. E.
(2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of
12-month DSM—/K disorders in the National
Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of Ceneral
Psychiatry, 62, 617-627.
Knight, E, D., Runyan, D. K., Dubowitz, H,, Brandfor,
C.,Kotch,J,,Utrownik,A.,& Hunter,W. (2000).
Methodological and ethical challenges associated
with child self-report of maltreatment:
Solution
s
implemented by the LongSCAN Consortium.JoMrna/
of Interpersonal Violence, 15, idQ—llS.

Kohl, P. L., & Barth, R. P (2007). Child maltreatment
recurrence among children remaining in-home:
Predictors of re-reports. In R. Haskins & EWulczyn
(Eds.), Practical knowledge for child welfare practitioners:
findings from the National Survey of Children and
Adolescent Well-being (pp. 207-225).Washington, DC:
Brookings.
Kohl, P L.,Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2009).Time to
leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national
probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14, 17—26.
Libby, A. M., Orton, H, D., Barth, R, P, Webb, M. B.,
Burns, B.J,,Wood, P, 6f Spicer, P (2006). Alcohol,
drug, and mental health specialty treatment services
and race/ethnicity: A national study of children and
families involved with child weXhre. American Journal
of Public Health, 96, 628-631,
Lovejoy, M, C , Craczyk, PA., O'Hare, E,, & Neuman, G.
(2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior:
A meta-analytical review. Clinical Psychology Review,
20,561-592.

Lyons-Ruth, K.,Wolfe, R., Lyubchik, A,, & Steingard, R.
(2002). Depressive symptoms in parents of children
under age three: Sociodemographic predictors, cur-
rent correlates, and associated parenting behaviors. In
N. Halfon, K.T. McLearn, & M, A. Schuster (Eds.),
Child rearing in America: Challenges facing parents with
young children (pp, 217-259), New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Manly,J,T., Cicchetti, Q , & Barnett, D, (1994).The impact
of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child
maltreatment on social competence and behav-
ior problems. Development and Psychopathotogy, 6,
121-143.
Miller-Perrin, C, L,, Perrin, R, D , & Kocur,J, L. (2009).
Parental physical and psychological aggression:
Psychological symptoms in young adults. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 3 3 , ] - ] .
Murry,V. M., Smith, E. P, & Hill, N, E, (2001), Race,
ethnicity, and culture in studies of families in context,
fournal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 911—914.
NSCAW Research Group. (2002), Methodological lessons

from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent
Well-Being: The first three years of the USA's first
national probability study of children and families
investigated for abuse and neglect. Children and Youth
Services Review, 24, 513—541.
Orr, S.T.,James, S, A,, Burns, B. j , , &Thompson, B.
(1989), Chronic Stressors and maternal depression:
Implications for prevention. American Journal of Public
Health, 19, 1295-1296.
Pinderhughes, E, E., Dodge, K. A., Bates,j. E,, Pettit, G, S.,
& Zelli,A. (2000). Discipline responses: Influences of
parents' socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about
parenting, stress, and cognitive—emotional processes.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380—400.
Rinehart, D. j . , Becker, M. A.,'Buckley, P R., Dailey, K,,
Reichardt, C. S., Graeber, C , et al. (2005).The
relationship between mothers' child abuse potential
and current mental health symptoms: Implications
for screening and referral. JoMrHa/ of Behavioral Health
Services & Research, 32, 155-166.
Shin, D.W., & Stein, M. A. (2008). Maternal depression

predicts maternal use of corporal punishment in
children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Yonsei Medical Journal, 49, 573-580.
Sim, H,, &Vuchinich, S. (1996).The dechning efFects of
family Stressors on antisocial behavior from child-
hood to adolescence and early adulthood._/o"r"a/ bf
Family Issues, 7 7,408-427.
Straus, M. (1991). Handbook for the Conflict Tactics Scale. •
Durham: University of New Hampshire Family
Research Laboratory.
Straus, M., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books,
Straus, M., Haniby, S. L., Moore, D.W., & Runyan, D.
(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the
Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Developmeiit
and psychometric data for a national sample of
American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22,
249-270. ¡
Trapolini,T., Ungerer,J. A., & McMahon, C. A. (2008). '

Maternal depression: Relations with maternal I
caregiving representations and emotional availability
during the preschool years. Attachment & Human •
Development, 10,73-90. i
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, '
Administration on Children,Youth, and Families. I
(2005). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Welü
Being (NSCAW): CPS sample component wave 7 data
analysis report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government I
Printing Ofl̂ ice.
Wang, P S., Lane, M., Olfson, M., Pincus, H.A.,Wells,
K, B., & Kessler, R. C. (2005),Twelve-month use (¡)f
mental health services in the United States: Results
from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication,
Archives of Ceneral Psychiatry, 62, 629-640. I
Weissman, M. M., Pilowsky, D. j.,Wickramaratne, PJ., j
Talati, A.,Wisniewski, S. R., Fava, M., et al, (2006);
Remissions in maternal depression and child psy- ;
chopathology:A STAR*D-child report,_//4A/i/l, 295,
1389-1398,
Patricia L. Kohl, PhD, is assistant professor, Centerfor Mental

Health Services Research, George Warren Brown School of So-
cial Work, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings
Drive, Campus Box Í196, St. Louis, MO 63130; e-thail:
[email protected] NJeri Kagotho, PhD,
is assistant professor. School of Social Work, Adelphi
Uttiversity,
Garden City, NY. David Dixon, PhD, is a statistical data
analyst, Centerfor Mental Health Services Research, George
Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University
in St. Louis. Support for this project was provided by National
Institute of Mental Health Grant R03MH082203. Patricia
Kohl is an investigator with the Centerfor Metttal Health
Services Research, George Warren Brown School of Social
Work,
Washington University in St. Louis, through an award from the
National Institute of Mental Health (5P30 MH068519).
Original manuscript received May 8, 2009
Final revision received April 1, 2010
Accepted April 27, 2010
KOHL, KAGOTHO, AND DIXON / Parenting Practices among
Depressed Mothers in the Child Welfare System 225

Copyright of Social Work Research is the property of National
Association of Social Workers and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
27 (2005) 1031–1044
www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
A comparison of family functioning in gay/lesbian,
heterosexual and special needs adoptions
Patrick LeungT, Stephen Erich, Heather Kanenberg
University of Houston, United States
Received 25 October 2004; received in revised form 17

December 2004; accepted 20 December 2004
Available online 9 February 2005
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify possible contributing
factors to family functioning in
three types of adoptive families: those headed by gays/lesbians,
those headed by heterosexuals, and
those involving the adoption of children with special needs.
These three adoptive family types were
examined concurrently so that commonalities and differences
could be identified and considered for
use in adoption practice. A multiple regression analysis was
used to assess the relationship between
the dependent variable (standardized family functioning score)
and independent variables (child
behavior scores, special needs adoption, gay/lesbian headed
families, age at adoption and at

interview, diagnoses of disabilities, total social support score,
number of previous placements,
previous abuse and co-sibling adoption). Results indicated no
negative effects for the parenting of
adopted children by gay/lesbian headed families. Higher levels
of family functioning were found to
be associated with special needs, younger, and non-disabled
child adoptions. Gay/lesbian headed
family adoptions of older children, non-sibling group adoptions,
and children with more foster
placements also experienced higher levels of family
functioning. Implications include the need to (1)
place a child in an adoptive family as early as possible, (2)
ensure strong support networks for
adoptive families of children with disabilities and with those
who adopt sibling groups, and (3)

encourage the practice of adoption by gay/lesbian headed
families, especially for older children.
D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Special needs; Gay/lesbian and heterosexual
adoption
0190-7409/$ -
doi:10.1016/j.
T Correspon
Houston, TX
E-mail add
Children and Youth Services Review
see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
childyouth.2004.12.030
ding author. Graduate School of Social Work, University of
Houston, 237 Social Work Building,
77204-4013, United States.

ress: [email protected] (P. Leung).
P. Leung et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 27 (2005)
1031–10441032
1. Introduction
Family has been conceptualized in a variety of ways. Barker
(1995) emphasizes, ba
family consists of a primary group whose members assume
certain obligations for each
other and generally share common residencesQ (p. 130). The
National Association of
Social Workers (NASW) Family Policy (1999) asserts, b[t]he
family is the primary
socializing agent as well as the primary economic unit in our
cultureQ (p. 1). Since the
Industrial Revolution, the conceptualization of family has
changed and developed (Cherlin
& Furstenberg, 1994; Furstenberg, 1999; NASW, 1999). In its
broadest sense, family is

two or more people who regard themselves as family and who
take upon themselves
commitments and responsibilities that are commonly deemed
fundamental to family life
(NASW, 1999). A child’s family, and the typical protection,
socialization, security and
companionship offered by family members, is essential to the
human condition. A family
and its members, whether biological or adoptive, are
indispensable in the growth and
development of children. The family unit, no matter how it is
defined, serves to foster
children’s view of the external world, their emotional
capacities, and their individual
identities (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 1996).
Research indicates that there were 542,000 children in foster
care in the United States in

2001 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS],
2003). At the time of data
collection, only 27% (143,208) of these children were awaiting
adoption or placement
with a family member, and 11% (62,014) had no defined case
plan (DHHS, 2003). Many
children waiting to be adopted may be older, have a disability,
have siblings that want to
be adopted together, or may be from a minority culture.
Research indicates (National
Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 1999) that between 30%
and 50% of children
awaiting adoption have a developmental disability. Special
needs children, like all
children, thrive with the love and stability that come from
belonging to permanent families

(NAIC, 1999).
Many gay and lesbian adults and families are interested, willing
and even resolute in
their quest to adopt children (American Civil Liberties Union,
1999). Historically,
organizational policies, legislation, and social stigma have made
it difficult for gay and
lesbian adults and couples to complete the adoption process
(Brodzinsky, 2003). With
each state court having discretion over the laws and processes
for adoption and custody,
the door is open to inconsistencies and to the creation of a
patchwork system for
families in the United States. While generalizations and
stereotypes have shadowed the
possibilities for adoption by homosexual couples or individuals,
a review of the research

on homosexual parents stated that b[t]here is no evidence of any
kind that demonstrates
that living with a homosexual parent has any significant
negative effects on children. In
fact, it appears that gay parents are as effective and may be
even more so in some ways
than non-gay parentsQ (Bigner & Bozett, 1989, p. 160). Recent
research indicates that
there is an increasing number of lesbians and gay men who are
becoming parents, and
that approximately two in five of all adoption agencies in the
country have placed
children with adoptive parents whom they recognize to be gay
or lesbian (Brodzinsky,
2003). While these are encouraging findings for homosexual
individuals and couples
seeking to adopt, approximately 25% of respondents to a
national adoption survey

indicated bthat birth parents have objected to placing their child
with gays or lesbians, or
1031–1044 1033
have specifically requested that their child not be placed with
homosexualsQ (Brodzinsky,
2003, p. 4).
A lack of research designed to explore the possible effects of
gay and lesbian parents on
their adoptive children has certainly contributed to these
barriers to adoption. While some
of the controversy regarding adoptions by gay and lesbian
adults and couples is
presumably a byproduct of homophobia, much of the debate
appears to be the result of a
lack of assurance with regard to the well-being of children

placed within these family units
(Brooks & Goldberg, 2001).
This study proposes to examine predictors of family functioning
among a cohort which
includes three groups of adoptive families: gay/lesbian,
heterosexual, and families who
have adopted a child with special needs status. The Process
Model of Family Functioning
(Steinhauer, Santa-Barbara, & Skinner, 1984) is used in this
study as a conceptual
framework for assessing family functioning. According to this
model, the overriding goal
of the family is the successful achievement of a variety of basic,
developmental, and crisis
tasks (Task Accomplishment). It is through these processes that
the family attains, or fails

to attain, objectives central to its life as a group. These
functions include allowing for the
continued development of all family members, providing
security, ensuring sufficient
cohesion to maintain the family as a unit, and functioning
effectively as part of society.
Successful Task accomplishment involves the differentiation
and performance of various
roles (Role Performance). Essential to the performance of these
roles is the process of
interaction (Communication), by which information essential to
Task Accomplishment and
the ongoing role definition is exchanged. A vital element of the
communication process is
the expression of affect (Affective Expression), which can
impede or facilitate various
aspects of Task Accomplishment and successful role

integration. Critical elements of
Affective Expression include the content, intensity, and timing
of the feelings involved.
Similarly, family members’ involvement with one another
(Involvement) can either help or
hinder Task Accomplishment. Involvement refers to both the
degree and quality of family
members’ interest in one another. Control is the process by
which family members
influence each other. The family should be capable of
successfully maintaining ongoing
functions as well as adapting to shifting task demands. Finally,
how tasks are defined and
how the family proceeds to accomplish them may be greatly
influenced by the family and
culture (Values and Norms) (Steinhauer et al., 1984).

The objectives of this study are: (1) to review the literature
regarding disrupted
adoptions, adoptive child’s behavior, and familial support
networks; (2) to develop a
regression model indicating predictors of adoptive family
functioning; (3) to identify
whether there is a significant difference in family functioning
among homosexual,
heterosexual and special needs adoptions so that commonalities
and differences among
these adoptive family types can be identified; and (4) to discuss
the implications of these
findings in relation to further research and adoption practices.
2. Literature review
The research on families who adopt children with special needs
status is generally
limited to those parents who are heterosexual or assumed to be

heterosexual. However,
1031–10441034
within this parameter, the majority of these adoptive families
are considered successful
placements. Barth and Berry (1988) found that recent studies on
dissolution or disruption
rates for adoptive families who adopt a child with special needs
status suggest that less
than 15% of these placements fail to sustain. Rosenthal and
Groze (1991) found that three
quarters of the parents of special needs children reported that
the effect of adoption on the
family had been mostly positive or very positive. However,
Rosenthal and Groze (1992)
also found that behavioral problems were reported to be

prevalent among many of these
children. In fact, 41% scored in the abnormal range on the
Achenbach Child Behavior
Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), which is indicative
of severe emotional or
behavioral problems. Barth and Berry (1988) reported that
children from disrupted
adoptions had significantly higher levels of behavior problems
on the externalizing
subscale of the child behavior checklist than those from intact
adoptions. A substantial
body of research on parents who adopt children with special
needs supports the premise
that incidents of adoption disruption are associated with
increased age of the child at the
time of adoption (Rosenthal, 1993). Several studies indicate a
strong correlation between

an adopted child’s behavioral problems, legal problems,
psychological difficulties, and/or
a history of abuse or neglect with adoption disruption (Barth &
Berry, 1988; McDonald,
Liberman, Partridge, & Hornby, 1991; Rosenthal & Groze,
1992). Additionally, several
studies have found the number of previous placements to be
correlated with adoption
disruption (Barth & Berry, 1988; Festinger, 1986; Rosenthal &
Groze, 1992).
Westhues and Cohen (1990), utilizing the Family Assessment
Measure (FAM), reported
that intact adoptive families differed from disrupted adoptive
families on several indices of
family functioning. Leung and Erich (2002) reported a
significant inverse relationship

between family functioning and the adopted child’s behavioral
status. Several studies also
suggest that familial support networks impact adoptive family
functioning (Kagen & Reid,
1986; Leung & Erich, 2002; Rosenthal, 1993).
When the literature on family functioning of gay and lesbian
parents and their children
is reviewed, the results strongly suggest that lesbian mothers
and gay fathers are capable of
fostering warm, positive, encouraging relationships. Several
studies of lesbian mothers
revealed that they are as child focused, loving, confident,
nurturing, and responsive as their
heterosexual counterparts (Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983;
Miller, Jacobsen, &
Bigner, 1981; Tasker & Golombok, 1995). Chan, Raboy, and
Patterson (1998) found that

children’s outcomes relating to social competencies, behavior,
and adjustment were
unrelated to parents’ sexual orientation. Further, this study
found that when assessing
children’s social competencies and behavior problems, it was
not possible for the
researchers to distinguish between children raised by lesbian
mothers and their
heterosexual counterparts. In essence, both lesbian and
heterosexual mothers are able to
provide home environments that support healthy development
(Chan et al., 1998).
With regard to gay fathers and couples, Bigner and Jacobsen
(1989) reported that gay
fathers have been found to possess parenting skills similar to
heterosexual fathers. Gay

fathers exhibit healthy intimate bonds with their children,
motivation of their children,
provision of recreational opportunities, encouragement of
autonomy, and experience
parental satisfaction as often as heterosexual fathers. In
addition, Bigner and Jacobsen
found gay fathers superior in attentiveness to children’s needs,
paternal nurturing, and in
communicating reasons for appropriate behavior to their
children.
1031–1044 1035
In another study, Brooks and Goldberg (2001) found that
children raised by gay or
lesbian parents were not impacted in a negative way. In fact,
their research reported that

gay and lesbian parents may have special strengths that make
them particularly well suited
for adoption and foster parenting. Many participants in the
Brooks and Goldberg study
indicated the benefits of a strong system of extended family and
friends that aided in the
nurturing and support of their children. It is important to note
that many of these studies
have been criticized for having small samples, no comparison
groups or otherwise have
weak designs.
Interestingly, research regarding homosexual adoptive families
remains unavailable
(Brooks & Goldberg, 2001). Furthermore, in a content analysis
of twelve prominent social
work journals covering a 12-year period, Van Voorhis and
Wagner (2001) found that there

were no articles dealing with gay men or lesbians as adoptive or
foster parents. However,
in a recent study in exploring adoptive family functioning in
gay/lesbian families, scores
were within normal ranges on measures of family functioning,
familial support networks
and adopted child’s behavior (Erich, Leung, Kindle, & Carter,
2004). When these scores
were compared to a similar cohort of heterosexual adoptive
parents, no significant
differences on these measures were found (Erich, Leung, &
Kindle, in press).
3. Method
3.1. Sample and design
The study sample consisted of three data sets. All three data
sets were obtained by

convenience sampling to ensure an adequate sample size for this
comparative study.
The first data set consisted of adopted children with special
needs status and their
parents. Special needs status included children older than three
years of age, children with
physical and/or mental handicapping conditions, those with
psychological or emotional
problems, and children adopted as part of a sibling group, as
well as those originating from
minority groups. The majority of families were recruited
through four adoption programs
located in a large metropolitan area of a southern state. From
this group, 86 adoptive
parents (respondents) participated in this study and reported
demographic, historical, and
behavioral information on 117 of their adopted children. The

majority of the adopted
children were male (40%). About 33% were Caucasian; 43%
were non-Caucasian (13%
African American, 15% bi-racial, 12% Latino and 3% Asian);
and 23% did not identify
their ethnicity. The mean age at adoption and at the time of
interview was 4.38 and 10.74,
respectively. About 55% had some form of disability. These
children had a mean of .23
previous placements prior to adoption, and over 48% were
reported to have had a history
of abuse prior to adoption (see Table 1).
In terms of the characteristics of adoptive parents in the first
data set, a majority were
Caucasian (81%) and had 12 years or more of education (95%).
Only 8% indicated that

they were previously foster parents, and all 86 parents adopted
their children via Child
Protective Services (CPS) (Table 2).
The second data set included a total of 47 gay and lesbian
adoptive parents
(respondents) who also reported demographic, historical, and
behavioral information on
Table 1
Characteristics of adopted children
Variable Heterosexual Gay/lesbian Special needs
N % N % N %
Gender of adopted child
Female 20 46.5 32 47.0 43 36.8

Male 23 53.5 36 53.0 47 40.2
No response – – – – 27 23.0
Race of adopted child
Caucasian 11 25.6 20 29.4 39 33.3
African-American 9 20.9 7 10.3 15 12.8
Latin/Hispanic 4 9.3 14 20.6 14 12.0
Asian 5 11.6 11 16.2 4 3.4
Bi-racial 14 32.6 14 20.6 18 15.4
No response 0 0.0 2 2.9 27 23.1
Age at adoption
0–4 41 95.3 54 79.4 55 47.0
5–9 2 4.7 4 5.9 25 21.4
10+ 0 0.0 1 1.5 10 8.5

No response 0 0.0 9 13.2 27 23.1
(X: 5.98; S.D.: 5.39) (X: 1.69; S.D.: 1.93) (X: 4.38; S.D.: 3.40)
Age now
0–4 18 41.9 28 41.1 7 6.0
5–9 13 30.2 28 41.1 26 22.2
10+ 12 27.9 12 17.6 51 43.6
No response – – – – 33 28.2
(X: 7.08; S.D.: 4.26) (X: 6.09; S.D.: 3.71 ) (X: 10.74; S.D.:
4.61)
Diagnostic characteristics at adoption
Physical handicap 2 4.7 0 0.0 10 8.5
Learning disability 2 4.7 4 5.9 8 6.8
Mental retardation – – – – 5 4.3

Psych. disorder 2 4.7 3 4.4 20 17.1
Other/comb. 5 11.6 10 14.7 21 17.9
None 32 74.3 50 73.5 26 22.2
No response 0 0.0 1 1.5 27 23.1
Number of placements prior to adoption
0 31 72.1 50 73.5 79 67.5
1 6 14.0 5 7.4 10 8.5
2–4 5 11.6 11 16.2 1 0.9
5+ 1 2.3 2 2.9 27 23.1
(X: .58; S.D.: 1.24) (X: .99; S.D.: 2.72) (X: .23; S.D.: 1.19)
Type of abuse prior to adoption
Physical abuse 0 0.0 5 7.4 10 8.5

Sexual abuse 1 2.3 7 10.3 25 21.4
Neglect 5 11.6 11 16.2 – –
Physical and sexual 1 2.3 1 1.5 – –
Others – – – – 21 17.9
None 36 83.7 44 64.7 34 29.1
No response – – – – 27 23.1
Child adopted as sibling group
Yes 7 16.3 10 14.7 28 23.9
No 36 83.7 58 85.3 62 53.0
No response – – – – 27 23.1
1031–10441036

Table 2
Characteristics of adoptive parents
Variable Heterosexual (N=25) Gay/lesbian (N=47) Special
needs (N=86)
N % N % N %
Gender of Respondent
Female 24 96.0 24 51.0 (not available)
Male 1 4.0 23 49.0 (not available)
Race of respondent
Caucasian 22 88.0 43 91.5 70 81.4
African-American 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 9.3
Latino/Hispanic 0 0.0 2 4.3 4 4.7
Asian 1 4.0 0 0.0 – –

Other/comb 2 8.0 1 2.1 2 2.3
No response 0 0.0 1 2.1 2 2.3
Respondent’s years of education
1–12 2 8.0 1 2.1 2 2.3
13–16 10 40.0 12 25.6 52 60.5
17–18 4 16.0 16 34.0 23 26.7
19+ 8 32.0 17 36.2 7 8.1
No response 1 4.0 1 2.1 2 2.3
Respondent previously a foster parent
Yes 6 24.0 6 12.8 7 8.1
No 19 76.0 41 87.2 79 91.9
Type of adoption
Private 8 18.6 21 30.9 – –

International 7 16.3 23 33.9 – –
CPS 3 6.9 13 19.1 86 100.0
Private-non profit 15 34.9 10 14.7 – –
Other 10 23.3 0 0.0 – –
No response 0 0.0 1 1.4 – –
1031–1044 1037
68 of their adopted children. In order to recruit participants, gay
and lesbian parenting
support groups and informational web sites were located using
common Internet search
engines. Several sites were then contacted by electronic mail to
solicit respondents.
Volunteers and inquiries were directed to the primary
researcher, who provided informed

consent information and questionnaires, where appropriate. The
primary researcher
screened potential participants for eligibility by ensuring that
respondents were gay or
lesbian adoptive parents. Questionnaires were returned to the
primary researcher by mail.
The majority of the adopted children were male (53%) and over
67% were minority (10%
African American, 21% Latino, 21% bi-racial and 16% Asian)
children. The mean age at
adoption and at the time of the interview was 1.69 and 6.09,
respectively. Over 25% had
some form of disability. On average, these children had one
previous placement prior to
adoption, and over 35% were reported to have had a history of
abuse prior to adoption.
In terms of the characteristics of adoptive parents in the second

set, 51% were lesbian
parents. A majority of them were Caucasian (92%) and had over
12 years of education
(95%). Only 13% indicated previous foster parent experience.
About 31% adopted their
children privately, 34% through the international program and
15% through private non-
profit organizations. Only 19% adopted their children through
CPS.
1031–10441038
The third data set included a total of 25 heterosexual adoptive
parents (respondents)
who also reported demographic, historical, and behavioral
information on 43 of their
adopted children. In a similar fashion, networks of adoption

support groups and
informational web sites were used to solicit heterosexual
adoptive parents. Again,
volunteers and inquiries were directed to the primary
researcher, who provided informed
consent information and questionnaires, where appropriate.
Preliminary eligibility
screening by the primary researcher ensured that respondents
were heterosexual adoptive
parents. Questionnaires were returned to the primary researcher
by mail. The majority of
the adopted children were male (54%) and over 74% were
minority (21% African
American, 9% Latino, 33% bi-racial and 12% Asian) children.
The mean age at adoption
and at the time of the interview was 5.98 and 7.08, respectively.
Over 26% had some form

of disability. On average, these children had a mean of .58
previous placements prior to
adoption, and over 16% were reported to have had a history of
abuse prior to adoption.
In terms of the characteristics of the adoptive parents in the
third data set, 96% were
female. A majority of them were Caucasian (88%) and had over
12 years of education
(88%). Only 24% indicated that they had previous foster parent
experience. About 19%
adopted their children privately, 16% through international
programs and, 35% through
private non-profit organizations. Only 7% adopted their
children through CPS.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Self-Report Family Functioning (SFI)

The instrument used to assess family functioning for
participants in the first data set
(children with special needs) was a subscale adapted from the
Self-Report Family
Functioning (SFI) scale known as Family Health. The SFI has
good internal consistency
with an alpha coefficient of .80 (Beavers, Hampson, & Hulgus,
1985). Total Family Health
scores are determined by summing the scores from each scale
item. High scores indicate
better family functioning. This score was reversed so that it
could be combined with the
FAM-III standardized score.
3.2.2. Family Assessment Measure III, General Scale
The Family Assessment Measure III, General Scale (FAM-III)
was used with the

second and third data sets (heterosexual and homosexual
adoptive parents). The FAM-III
is a 50-item self-report instrument that quantifies indices of
family strengths and weakness
on a Likert-type scale. Internal validity is supported by an alpha
coefficient of .93. The
total scale scoring of FAM-III is used in this study as a measure
of family functioning,
ranging from optimal to less than adequate, with low scores
indicating better family
functioning (Skinner, Steinhauer, & Santa-Barbara, 1995;
Skinner, Steinhauer, &
Sitarenios, 2000).
3.2.3. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI)
The instrument used to assess the adopted child’s behavior in
the first data set was the

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.,
1974). Specifically, parents completed the intensity scale from
the ECBI. The ECBI
intensity scale is a 36-item instrument designed to measure the
intensity of conduct
1031–1044 1039
problems in children and adolescents (Eyberg & Ross, 1978).
The intensity scale is
presented in a Likert-type scale format. Scale items are summed
to obtain a total behavior
problem score for the scale. The ECBI intensity scale has
excellent internal consistency
with an alpha coefficient of .93 (Fischer & Corcoran, 1987). A
high score indicates more

child behavior problems.
3.2.4. Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL)
The Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL) were used with the
second and third data sets
(heterosexual and homosexual adoptive parents). The adopted
child’s behavioral
functioning was assessed with two versions of the CBCL. The
CBCL/4–18 (Achenbach,
1991) is a 113-item self-report instrument which was used for
adoptive parents with
children between the ages of 4 and 18 years of age. The
CBCL/2–3 (Achenbach, 1992) is a
100-item self-report instrument which was used for adoptive
parents with children
between the ages of 2 and 3. Both parent assessments are on a
Likert-type scale, which

produces a total problem score composed of internalizing and
externalizing subscales
(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The CBCL/2–3 and CBCL/4–
18 are highly correlated.
Internal validity is appropriate for research, with alpha
coefficients ranging from .65 to .91
on all subscales (Achenbach, 1991, 1992; Achenbach &
Edelbrock, 1983). Again, a high
score indicates more child behavior problems.
3.2.5. Family Support Scale (FSS)
A modified version of the Family Support Scale (FSS) was used
with all three data sets.
The FSS is an 18-item self-report instrument. The FSS has an
alpha coefficient of .79,
indicating good internal consistency. Scoring is on a Likert-type
scale with higher scores

representing higher perceptions of helpfulness from support
networks (Dunst & Trivette,
1988a, 1988b). A high score indicates more family support.
The unit of measurement for this study was the child. Thus, a
parent’s perception of
family functioning score and a parent’s perception of
helpfulness from support networks
score was matched with each child’s total behavior problem
score for all adopted children
from each family. In order to make the data comparable, the
measures to assess family
functioning (FAM-III and SFI: hereafter referred to as the
standardized functioning score)
and child’s total behavior problem (EBCI and CBCL: hereafter
referred to as the
standardized child behavior score) were converted to a

standardized z score in all three
data sets.
4. Results
Pearson’s correlations were utilized to determine the
relationship between the
standardized family functioning score and socio-
economic/demographic variables to
include: standardized child behavior score, total support scale
score, number of previous
placements of child, age at adoption and age at the time of the
interview. The data
indicated that the standardized child behavior score (r=.258,
p=.000), child’s age at
adoption (r=.275, p=.000) and child’s age at the time of the
interview (r=.279, p=.001)
were positively associated with the standardized family
functioning score. However, total

1031–10441040
support scale score (r=�.136, p=.012) was negatively correlated
with the standardized
family functioning score. No significant relationship was found
between the number of
previous child placements and standardized family functioning
scores.
T-tests (see Table 3) were performed to determine the impact of
the socio-economic and
demographic characteristics of the child (ethnicity, gender,
disability, previous abuse and
sibling adoption) relative to the standardized family functioning
score. The results
indicated that those children who were diagnosed to have a
disability (t=3.06, df=198,

p=.003), had been previously abused (t=4.104, df=199, p=.000),
and were adopted as a
sibling group (t=4.028, df=199, p=.000) had significantly lower
family functioning (or
high standardized family functioning score) than those lacking
such conditions. However,
no statistically significant relationships were found between
ethnicity, gender and
standardized family functioning score.
Based on the literature and the preliminary statistical analysis, a
step-wise multiple
regression procedure was performed between the dependent
variable, standardized family
functioning score, and the demographic independent variables,
which included the
standardized child behavior score, special needs adoption
(1=special needs; 0=other),

homosexual adoptive parent (1=homosexual; 0=other), age at
adoption (age at interview
was excluded, as it would present a multicollinearity problem),
diagnoses of disabilities
(1=diagnosis; 0=none), total support scale score, number of
previous placements, previous
abuse (1=yes; 0=no) and sibling adoption (1=non-sibling;
0=sibling). These variables had
demonstrated statistical significance in the t-tests and
correlation analysis, and were
supported in the literature as having a relationship with family
functioning. Multiple
regression assumptions were checked and none were violated. A
power analysis was also
conducted to ensure that the sample size was adequate for the
multiple regression analysis.

The results of the regression analysis indicated that six
variables contributed significantly
Table 3
T-test of standardized family functioning score
Variable N Mean S.D. t
Diagnosed to have a disability
Yes 45 .2135 1.0651
No 156 �.2222 .9484 3.060TT
Previous abuse
Yes 84 .3112 .9825
No 117 .2669 .9868 4.104TTT
Ethnicity
Caucasian 70 �.0420 1.0201
Non-Caucasian 274 .0107 .9927 �.395
Child adopted as sibling group

Yes 45 .4965 .9794
No 156 �.1758 .9884 4.028TTT
Gender of child
Male 106 �.1521 .9881
Female 95 .1162 1.0483 �1.868
TT pb.01.
TTT pb.001.
Table 4
Multiple regression of standardized family functioning score
Variable R
2
B BETA t Significance
Age at adoption .078 .121 .368 4.101 .000TTT
Child adopted as sibling group .108 �.492 �.199 �2.793
.006TT
Diagnosed to have a disability .128 .525 .258 3.351 .001TTT

Special needs adoption .168 �.824 �.405 �4.325 .000TTT
Number of previous placements .198 �.059 �.168 �2.350
.020T
Interact between homosexual .217 �.133 �.165 �2.157 .032T
Adoptive parent and age at adoption constant
.751 2.133 .032T
F(6,184)=8.514, p=.000; R
2
=.217.
Lower standardized family functioning score indicates higher
level of family functioning.
T pb.05.
TT pb.01.
TTT pb.001.
1031–1044 1041
to the prediction of the standardized family functioning score,
F(6,184)=8.514, p=.000
(see Table 4). Four other variables, including the standardized

child behavior score,
homosexual adoptive parent, total support scale score and
previous abuse were excluded in
the analysis as they were not statistically significant in the
equation. These six variables
accounted for a total of 21.7% of the variance. The data
indicated that those families who
adopted a child at a younger age would have a lower
standardized family functioning score
(or better family functioning). Additionally, an adopted child
who was not adopted as part
of a sibling group, was not diagnosed to have a disability,
qualified for special needs
adoption, had experienced multiple placements, or had been
adopted by a homosexual
adoptive parent at an older age (interaction effect created by
multiplying the homosexual

adoptive parent variable with the age of the adopted child)
would have a lower
standardized family functioning score (or better family
functioning).
5. Discussion and implications for practice
The regression analysis indicates that a child’s age at adoption,
sibling group, disability
and special needs adoption status, number of previous
placements and the interaction effect
between homosexual adoptive parent and child’s age at adoption
are associated with family
functioning. The results of this study are generally consistent
with the findings from the
current literature. A substantial body of research supports the
premise that adoption
disruption (or poorer family functioning) increases as the age of
child at the time of adoption

increases (Boyne, Denby, Kettenring, & Wheeler, 1984;
McDonald et al., 1991; Rosenthal,
1993). However, previous research has been inconsistent
regarding the impact of sibling
group placements on adoptive family functioning when
compared with single child
adoptions (Benton, 1985; Rosenthal, Schmidt, & Conner, 1988).
Several studies indicate a
strong correlation between adoption disruption and an adopted
child’s behavioral and legal
problems, psychological difficulties, and/or a history of abuse
or neglect (Barth & Berry,
1988; Festinger, 1986; Rosenthal & Groze, 1992). Glidden’s
(1991) study of long-term

1031–10441042
outcomes of families who adopted children with special needs
found that several years after
adoption, mothers reported that their families functioned quite
well. The findings indicated
that these adoptive parents scored similarly to parents of
children without disabilities on
family functioning. As reported previously, several studies
indicate that the number of
previous placements is correlated with adoption disruption
(Barth & Berry, 1988; Festinger,
1986; Rosenthal & Groze, 1992). However, the findings from
this study suggest that higher
number of previous placements was related to better family
functioning. Children who had
higher number of previous placements might find it easier to
adapt to the new environment.

As a result, the level of family functioning might be
significantly higher. Research regarding
homosexual adoptive families still remains largely unavailable
(Brooks & Goldberg, 2001).
This study found no negative effects upon family functioning
associated with gay/lesbian
sexual orientation of adoptive parents. Further, the results
suggest family functioning was
actually enhanced when homosexual families adopted older
children.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that may
contribute to family
functioning in adoptive homosexual families, heterosexual
families, and families who
adopted children with special needs. The results from this study
suggest that adoption
agencies should place a child in an adoptive family as early as

possible, regardless of
the parent’s sexual orientation. This study also suggests that
sibling adoption is
associated with lower family functioning, presumably because
these families often
require more of scarce resources to support family functioning.
Therefore, sibling
adoptions should only be consummated when adequate post-
adoptive support services
and financial supports are available to adoptive families. The
availability and provision
of post-adoptive support services can most effectively be
enhanced through changes in
public policy that increase funding for these vital services.
Furthermore, when a child
is diagnosed as having a disability, families are likely to require
stronger support

networks. The findings from this study also indicated that
special needs adoptions are
associated with higher levels of family functioning. The
children with special needs in
this study were adopted through government-funded agencies
specializing in placing
children with special needs status. The expertise of these
agencies, and their
connections with a wide variety of post-adoption services, may
represent a plausible
rationale for their clients’ high levels of reported family
functioning. Finally, no
previous research supports the frequently held belief that
lesbian and gay adults or
couples are less effective parents than their heterosexual
counterparts. In fact, this

study found no negative effects regarding the parenting of
adopted children by gay and
lesbian adults and couples. Moreover, support for the practice
of adoption by gay and
lesbian adults and couples, especially with older children, was
indicated by this study.
In brief, states remain bereft of data to support the continued
discrimination against
lesbian and gay adults as adoptive parents. Research with gay
and lesbian adoptive
parents should be continued to further explore the effects and
previously reported
benefits (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001) of such adoptions.
In summary, the limitations of this study are notable.
Convenience sampling and
cross-sectional studies often help to yield larger study samples,
but they are limited in

terms of their effectiveness against several threats to internal
and external validity.
Adopted sibling family functioning measures cannot be treated
as independent scores. In
addition, the use of self-report questionnaires may lead to
erroneous declarations to
1031–1044 1043
researchers. Since random samples are not easily available, and
therefore not used in this
study, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results of
this study to a larger
population.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior
checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT7

University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the child behavior
checklist/2–3 and 1992 profile. Burlington, VT7
University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the child
behavior checklist and revised child behavior
profile. Burlington, VT7 University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
American Civil Liberties Union. (1999). Fact sheet: Overview
of lesbian and gay parenting, adoption and foster
care. New York7 Author.
Barker, R. L. (1995). The social work dictionary, (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC7 NASW Press.
Barth, R., & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rates,
risks, and responses. New York7 Aldine/

DeGruyter.
Beavers, R., Hampson, R., & Hulgus, Y. (1985). Commentary:
The beavers systems approach to family
assessment. Family Process, 9(24), 398–405.
Benton, B. (1985). Evaluation of state activities with regard to
adoption disruption. Washington, DC7 Urban
Systems Research and Engineering.
Bigner, J. J., & Bozett, F. W. (1989a). Parenting by gay fathers.
Marriage and Family Review, 14, 155–175.
Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of
homosexual and heterosexual fathers. Journal of
Homosexuality, 18, 173–186.
Boyne, J., Denby, L., Kettenring, J., & Wheeler, W. (1984). The
shadow of success: A statistical analysis of
outcomes of adoptions of hard to place children. Westfield, NJ7
Spaulding for Children.

Brodzinsky, D. M. (2003). Adoption by lesbians and gays: A
national survey of adoption agency policies,
practices, and attitudes. New York7 Evan B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute.
Brooks, D., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive
and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs
of waiting children? Social Work, 46(2), 147–157.
Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial
adjustment among children conceived via donor
insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child
Development, 69(2), 443–457.
Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the
United States: A reconsideration. Annual Review of
Sociology, 20, 359–381.
Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (1988a). A family systems model of
early intervention with handicapped and

developmentally at-risk children. In D. Powell (Ed.), Parent
education as early childhood intervention:
Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice (pp. 131–
180). Norwood, NJ7 Ablex.
Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (1988b). Determinants of caregiver
styles of interaction used with developmental at-risk
children. In K. Marfo (Ed.), Parent–child interaction and
developmental disabilities: Theory, research, and
intervention (pp. 3–31). New York7 Praeger Publishers.
Erich, S., Leung, P., & Kindle, P. (in press). An analysis of
adoptive family functioning: Outcomes for
families with gay and lesbian adoptive parents and heterosexual
adoptive parents. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies.
Erich, S., Leung, P., Kindle, P., & Carter, S., (2004). Gay and
lesbian adoptive families: An exploratory

study of family functioning, adoptive child’s behavior, and
familial support networks. (Submitted for
publication).
Eyberg, S., & Ross, A. (1978). Assessment of child behavior
problems: The validation of a new inventory.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 7(2), 113–116.
Festinger, T. (1986). Necessary risk: A study of adoptions and
disrupted adoptive placements. New York7 Child
Welfare League of America.
Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (1987). Measures for clinical
practice. New York7 The Free Press.
1031–10441044
Furstenberg, F. F. (1999). Is the modern family a threat to
children’s health? Society, 36, 31–37.

Glidden, L. (1991). Adopted children with developmental
disabilities: Post-placement family functioning.
Children and Youth Services Review, 13(5 and 6), 363–377.
Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (1996). Family therapy: An
overview, (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA7 Brooks
& Cole.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in
lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual
and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 24(4), 551–572.
Kagen, R., & Reid, W. (1986). Critical factors in the adoption
of emotionally disturbed youths. Child Welfare,
65(1), 63–73.
Leung, P., & Erich, S. (2002). Family functioning of adoptive
children with special needs: Implications of familial

supports and child characteristics. Children and Youth Services
Review, 24(11), 641–658.
McDonald, T., Liberman, A., Partridge, S., & Hornby, H.
(1991). Assessing the role of agency services in
reducing adoption disruption. Children and Youth Services
Review, 13(5–6), 425–438.
Miller, J. A., Jacobsen, R. B., & Bigner, J. J. (1981). The
child’s home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual
mothers: A neglected are of research. Journal of Homosexuality,
7(1), 49–56.
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. (1999, July).
Adopting children with developmental disabilities.
Washington, DC7 Author.
National Association of Social Workers. (1999, August).
Statement on family policy. Washington, DC7 Author.
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. (1974). Eyberg child
behavior inventory. Lutz, FL7 Author.

Rosenthal, J. (1993). Outcomes of adoption of children with
special need. Adoption: The Future of Children, 3(1),
77–88.
Rosenthal, J., & Groze, V. (1992). Special needs adoptions: A
study of intact families. Westport, CT7 Praeger.
Rosenthal, J., Schmidt, D., & Conner, J. (1988). Predictors of
special needs adoption disruption: An exploratory
study. Children and Youth Services Review, 10(2), 101–117.
Rosenthal, J. A., & Groze, V. (1991). Adoption outcomes for
children with handicaps. Child Welfare, 70(6),
623–636.
Skinner, H., Steinhauer, P., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1995). Family
assessment measure version III. North
Tonawanda, NY7 Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Skinner, H. A., Steinhauer, P. D., & Sitarenios, G. (2000).

A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx

A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx

Similar to A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx (20)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A list of possible essay questions 1. Discuss classic stra.docx