Relations among Neighborhood Social Networks ...

1

Relations among Neighborhood Social Networks, Home Literacy Environments, and Children’s Expressive Vocabulary in Suburban At-Risk Families John Mark Froiland, Douglas R. Powell, & Karen E. Diamond Purdue University Cite as: Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2014). Relations among neighborhood social networks, home literacy environments, and children’s expressive vocabulary in suburban at-risk families. School Psychology International, 35, 429-444. doi:10.1177/0143034313500415 The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in http://spi.sagepub.com/content/35/4/429.full.pdf+html by SAGE Publications Ltd, All rights reserved. ©2014 [The Author(s)] This study was supported by grant awards R305B050030 and R305M040167 from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education to Purdue University (Douglas Powell, PI; Karen Diamond, Co-PI). Supplemental support was provided by the Graham Fund and the University of Northern Colorado Summer Support Initiative awarded to John Mark Froiland. Statements made in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the research sponsors. We thank Head Start parents, children, and staff for their participation. We also thank the study’s research assistants, whose data collection efforts were coordinated by Mary Cockburn Bales, and Janet Wagner for assistance with data management. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Mark Froiland, Department of School Psychology, E-mail: [email protected]

2

Abstract In response to increasing research and policy interest in the neighborhood context of early school success, this study examined relations among neighborhood social networks, home literacy practices/resources, and children’s expressive vocabulary in a suburban at-risk sample in the U.S. at the beginning of the school year. In a Structural Equation Model, neighborhood social networks predicted home literacy, which in turn predicted expressive vocabulary. The indirect effect of neighborhood social networks on expressive vocabulary was also significant. Implications for future research and preventive interventions concerning the role of neighborhoods in enhancing family reading behavior and the early literacy of at-risk preschool children are discussed. Keywords: Parent involvement; preschool; literacy; achievement; neighborhoods; social networks; early childhood; educational outcomes, home environment, parenting

3

Relations among neighborhood social networks, home literacy environments, and children’s expressive vocabulary in suburban at-risk families Efforts to promote a positive trajectory of wellbeing early in life include a growing research literature aimed at identifying school readiness skills that are strongly predictive of subsequent achievement. Young children’s ability to understand and use a large number of meaningful words has emerged as an important foundation of later school success, particularly reading ability. For example, at-risk children’s expressive and receptive vocabulary skills are strongly related to code-focused literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness) in preschool and they predict language development and reading comprehension in fourth grade (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). In addition, a below average vocabulary at age 5 predicted low levels of literacy well into adulthood among residents of England, Scotland, and Wales (Schoon, Parsons, Rush, & Law, 2010). A meta-analysis involving studies in many developed countries found that low literacy is associated with unhealthy behavior and lower levels of physical health in adults (DeWalt, Berkman, Sheridan, Lohr, & Pignone, 2004), indicating that literacy is related to broader aspects of wellbeing. The current study used an ecological perspective on school readiness by examining home literacy environments within the context of neighborhood social networks as predictors of at-risk children’s expressive vocabulary skills. The study was conducted with low-income families living in a suburb in recognition of the rapid growth of suburban poverty in the U.S. (Berube & Kneebone, 2011) and limited scientific understanding of this phenomenon. Home Literacy Environments and their Neighborhood Contexts Numerous studies across the world have found a significant positive association between indicators of home literacy environments and children’s vocabulary skills (e.g., Bus, van

4

IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Kim, 2009; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). Key home literacy indicators include the frequency of shared book reading with children (Lonigan, Shanahan, Cunningham, & the National Early Literacy Panel, 2008), the age of onset of parent-child shared reading (Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002), and the number of children’s books in the home (Froiland, Peterson, & Davison, 2013). Parents’ interest in reading for pleasure and parents’ reports of their children’s expressed interest in reading also load highly on a home literacy environment composite measure and both are positively associated with receptive vocabulary skills among children in Head Start, which is a U.S. government funded preschool program primarily for families experiencing poverty (Bracken & Fischel, 2008). Taken together, these findings suggest that the home literacy environment is reliably associated with the development of children’s vocabulary. Moreover, the home language and literacy environment for children living in poverty is likely to be less rich: their parents have completed less formal school and use many fewer words in daily conversations, compared to more advantaged homes (Hart & Risley, 1995), which, in turn, may be associated with lower levels of vocabulary development for children. The quality of home supports for children’s vocabulary development is associated with several factors, including demographic characteristics and the social contexts in which families live. A nationally representative study in the U.S. found that maternal education was a significant predictor of reported shared reading frequency whereas household income was not a significant predictor (Yarosz & Barnett, 2001). However, developmental scientists posit that such status indicators are proxy variables for more intricate interpersonal processes (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995) such as the social cohesion of the community in which parents reside (Waanders, Mendez, & Downer, 2007). This perspective is consistent with the bioecological model of human

5

development which suggests that the neighborhood and family systems are important contexts for child and parent development, in addition to formal schooling (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Several studies have found a link between neighborhood factors and home literacy practices. A recent study found that Head Start parents reported that they read more frequently to their children and provided more children’s books in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic wellbeing (Froiland, Powell, Diamond & Son, in press). Another study found that urban parents of Head Start students who reported engaging frequently in social interactions with neighbors (i.e., giving and receiving child development advice and other forms of help) were also likely to report greater home-based parent involvement (Waanders et al., 2007). Although home-based parent involvement is a broader concept than home literacy, parent-child shared reading loads highly onto a home-based involvement factor in both the U.S. and New Zealand (Garbacz & Sheridan, 2011). In a nationwide study among Canadian families, Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, and McIntosh (2008) found that perceived neighborhood social cohesion (e.g., willingness of residents to help their neighbors) predicted perceived family functioning, which in turn predicted self-reported home literacy practices (e.g., parent-child shared reading frequency). Home literacy also predicted receptive vocabulary scores among young children. The Kohen et al. (2008) study is the first that we know of that simultaneously examined neighborhood social cohesion, home literacy, and early vocabulary. It is particularly timely to examine neighborhood contexts of home literacy environments and children’s outcomes among lower-income families in U.S. suburbs. In large Midwestern U.S. cities like Chicago, a significant number of low-income residents are gradually moving towards the suburbs (Sink & Ceh, 2011). Furthermore, more low-income families in the U.S. now live in the suburbs than in any other locale (Berube & Kneebone, 2006) and suburbs across

6

the nation are experiencing much faster growth in poverty rates than cities (Berube & Kneebone, 2011). Youth experiencing poverty in the suburbs is also a problem in other countries. For instance, Otara, a suburb in South Auckland, New Zealand has some of the most deprived neighborhoods in New Zealand (Nakhid, 2009). Relatively few neighborhood studies examine suburban family life, however. In a study involving a national U.S. sample, suburban parents of kindergarten students were more likely to report that their neighborhood is a safe place for children to play and that they see fewer signs of social disorder than parents in urban neighborhoods (Froiland, 2011a). With regard to low-income families living in suburbs, qualitative research indicates that low-income parents who relocated (with government funding) to more affluent suburbs often did not interact closely with their more affluent neighbors, although they did observe their behaviors and sometimes looked to them as role models (Keels, 2008). Research on homophily indicates that people tend to develop social ties with those of similar education and income levels (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). For example, a study of mixed-income neighborhoods found that residents formed ties primarily with residents with similar characteristics, such as life experiences in common, education, income and ethnicity (Joseph, Chaskin, & Webber, 2007). Given the increase in low-income families living in suburbs coupled with growing concern about the school readiness of children living in poverty, more research is needed on the neighborhood contexts of family literacy practices, particularly parents’ neighborhood social networks, and children’s vocabulary outcomes. Current Study The purpose of the current study was to determine whether perceived neighborhood social networks are related to preschool children’s vocabulary skills via home literacy

7

environments among suburban Head Start families. The study extends and builds on the Waanders et al. (2007) finding that perceived neighborhood social networks predicted homebased involvement among urban Head Start parents. In addition to examining low-income families in a suburban setting, the current study includes a directly-assessed child outcome (expressive vocabulary) that is central to school readiness and a positive trajectory of individual wellbeing. Results of the investigation may inform the design and implementation of efforts to improve family and neighborhood supports for children’s literacy development. The following hypotheses were examined in the current study: Perceived neighborhood social networks are positively related to home literacy; home literacy predicts children’s expressive vocabulary; and neighborhood social networks are indirectly and positively related to children’s expressive vocabulary via home literacy. Method Sample Participants were parents and children from a Head Start center located in a suburb of a large Midwestern city. The center served the entire suburb (population = 52,000; U.S. Census, 2010a) and, per U.S. federal regulation, the Head Start program was targeted to low-income families. Eighty-nine of 112 age-eligible (80%) children from the program and their parents chose to participate in the study. Thirteen of these families reported speaking Spanish only at home and were omitted from the study because children’s vocabulary skill was assessed in English, the language of the classroom. The average age of children in the study was 53.24 months (SD = 5.08). Thirty-five of the 76 children (46%) included in the analyses were boys. Seventeen percent of children in the study were African American or Black, 48.7% were European American, 15.8% were Latino, 14.5% were of mixed race, and 3.9% represented other

8

racial/ethnic backgrounds. With regard to parent education, 6.6% of parents in the study had less than a high school diploma, 31.6% had a high school diploma or GED, 26.3% had some college, 25% had an associate’s degree, and 10.5% had a bachelor’s degree. In order to gain descriptive information about the neighborhoods that participants resided in, we identified the 2010 U.S. Census tract for each family’s home address (tracts could not be identified for 5 families). Census tracts approximate residents’ estimates of their neighborhood boundaries in the U.S. (Coulton, Korbin, Chan & Su, 2001). For the neighborhoods that participating Head Start families lived in, the mean percentage of neighborhood residents with a bachelor’s degree or more was 38.28% (SD = 14.92) and the range was 7% to 74% (U.S. Census, 2010b). Thus, neighbors were nearly four times more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than were Head Start parents. Measures Picture Vocabulary, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III). This is a norm-referenced test of oral expressive vocabulary, designed for children 2 and older. The first item involves having the child point to the picture that best fits the word the examiner says, whereas all subsequent items involve children naming one picture at a time. Reliability is adequate across ages 3 to 5 (i.e., r11 = .76 - .84; McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The Oral Language Extended Cluster of the WJ-III (which includes the Picture Vocabulary subtest) is significantly correlated (r = .65, p < .01) with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Revised Edition Verbal IQ (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). Standard scores (mean = 100 and SD = 15), which account for the age of children, were used as measures of child outcomes.

9

Parent demographic questionnaire. Parents completed a brief survey that included race/ethnicity, home language and parent education level. Parent education was reported on a continuum from 1 = less than a high school diploma or GED to 5 = bachelor’s degree or more. Parent education was dummy coded such that zero equaled a high school education or less and one equaled some college or more. Stony Brook Family Reading Survey. Parents completed an adapted 9-item version of the Stony Brook Family Reading Survey (Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Whitehurst, 1993) which measured the following components of home literacy: Parent-Child Reading Interaction (4 items; e.g., shared reading frequency); Child Reading Interest (3 items; e.g., how frequently children request that their parents read to them); and Parent Reading Interest (2 items; e.g., number of minutes parents read on their own per day). Parents responded to each item on a 1 to 4 Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = hardly ever; 4 = almost every day), with the following exceptions: (1) “How many children’s books do you have at home?” had a blank space in which parents filled in the specific number; and (2) the item regarding how many minutes parents’ engaged in personal reading a day was on a 1 to 5 scale (i.e., 1 = hardly any minutes per day; 5 = over an hour) as was the item regarding the age at which parents first started reading to their child (i.e., 1 = more than two years old; 5 = less than six months old). In order to be able to enter the number of books at home on the same home literacy scale, we converted the number of reported books to the following scale: 1 = 0-10; 2 = 11-30; 3 = 31-60; and 4 = 61 or more. The Stony Brook Family Reading Survey has been significantly positively correlated with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Bracken & Fischel, 2008). The sum of scores for all items was used for analyses (potential range: 9-38); this scale had an internal consistency of .68 in the current study.

10

Neighborhood Social Networks. The 9-item Local Social Networks (LSN) subscale from the Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire (Barnes McGuire, 1997) is a measure of perceived social relationships. Six of the items have “often,” “sometimes,” or “never” as response options (e.g., “How often do you share information about things like school or children’s programs?”). Two questions are on a 4-point Likert scale (e.g., “About how many children do you know, to say hello to, who live in your neighborhood?”) and one is on a 1-5 point Likert scale (e.g., “About how many adult friends do you have in the neighborhood?”). The total score was computed by summing the scores on each item. The range of possible scores is 9 to 31. In research on Head Start samples, the LSN was positively related to the home-based parent involvement subscale (r = .20, p < .05; Waanders et al., 2007) of the Family Involvement Questionnaire (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). The internal consistency of the LSN was strong in the current study ( = .90). Procedures Parents of children enrolled in each of the Head Start center’s six classrooms were invited to participate in the study during parent orientation meetings conducted at the Head Start center prior to and at the very beginning of the school year. Children who reached four years of age by March 31 of the study year were eligible to participate in the research. Researchers made a presentation about the study at the orientation meetings. Parents completed the questionnaire at the time of providing consent for their participation and their child’s participation in the study. Research assistants assessed children individually at the beginning of the school year (September to early October). Before research assistants began testing children, they received supervised training to ensure that standardized testing procedures were followed. The test was administered during the school day, usually in one session in a quiet and familiar place outside of the

11

classroom. In order to establish familiarity with the children to be assessed, researchers spent time in classrooms before inviting children to participate in testing sessions. Children gave assent before testing began. Analytic Plan The hypothesized model (see Figure 1) was tested via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in AMOS 19.0. All analyses involved 76 cases and regression imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 8 cases that had some missing data (usually one item) on parent questionnaires. There were no missing data for expressive vocabulary. Model fit was determined by a non-significant chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI of .93 or greater; Byrne, 1994), and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .06 or lower (Hu & Bentler, 1999, as cited in Froiland et al., 2013). In order to address indirect relations between neighborhoods and vocabulary (hypothesis three), the bootstrapping test was used to examine the significance of the indirect effect (Shrout & Bolger, 2002; as cited in Froiland et al., in press). Results Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses Children in the study lived in 21 neighborhood blocks, with an average of 3.61 children per neighborhood block (8 of the 21 blocks had more than 3 study children each and none had more than 8 study children). Thus, participants generally were not nested within the same neighborhood blocks. On average, children in the study demonstrated expressive vocabulary standard scores at the national average (M = 100.07, SD = 9.54, range 75-124). Furthermore, expressive vocabulary scores were not significantly different for European American (M = 102.14, SD = 10.11) and children of minority background (M = 99.33, SD = 8.88) based on an independent samples t-test; t(74) = -1.29, p = .20. Vocabulary scores were not significantly

12

different among children of parents with some college education (M = 102.17, SD = 8.96) and children whose parents had a high school education or less (M = 98.31; SD = 10.11); t(74) = 1.74, p = .09. The mean for Neighborhood Social Networks was 18.85 (SD = 5.35, range 9-29) and the mean for Home Literacy was 29.15 (SD = 4.40, range 18-37). Children’s age was not significantly related to expressive vocabulary standard scores (r76 = -.18, p = .59) or home literacy (r76 = .06, p = .11); therefore age was not included in analyses. The standard scores for expressive vocabulary are based on age, of course, so this is not surprising. Neighborhood Social Networks were not significantly correlated with expressive vocabulary (r76 = -.02, p = .86). Home literacy was significantly correlated with neighborhood social networks (r76 = .25, p < .05) and expressive vocabulary skills (r76 = .24, p < .05). Structural Equation Model Findings The model (see Figure 1) provided a decent fit with the data, according to the following fit statistics: χ2(2) = 2.57, p = .28; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06. The first hypothesis stated that parent perceptions of neighborhood social networks would predict home literacy behaviors. As expected, perceived neighborhood social networks were positively related to home literacy (see Figure 1). A standardized regression coefficient (B) of .25 indicates that for every elevation in neighborhood social networks by one standard deviation, home literacy may increase by a fourth of a standard deviation, suggesting a moderate effect. This effect was significant, whereas the effect of parental education on home literacy was not significant. Consistent with the second hypothesis, home literacy was positively related to children’s vocabulary skills (see Figure 1). A standardized regression coefficient of .24 indicates that a one

13

standard deviation increase in the home literacy score would correspond with a .24 standard deviation increase in the standard score on the expressive vocabulary test. This effect is equivalent to an average of approximately 3.6 standard score points per child. The third hypothesis stated that neighborhood social networks would be indirectly and positively related to expressive vocabulary via home literacy. Confirming this hypothesis, the indirect effect of perceived neighborhood social networks was small but significant for expressive vocabulary (unstandardized indirect effect = .11, p < .05; standardized indirect effect = .06). This indirect effect is equivalent to approximately 1 standard score point on the expressive vocabulary test per child. Discussion Many studies have established a positive association between home literacy and children’s vocabulary skills (e.g., Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). Furthermore, preschool language skills contribute to later reading skills (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). From an ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), it is important to determine whether neighborhood social supports are related to home literacy and indirectly to children’s vocabulary at the beginning of the pre-kindergarten year, before most children learn to read. Understanding neighborhood contexts of home literacy practices is especially important for children from low SES families, who are at considerable risk for experiencing school difficulty (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008) and whose early success in school may be influenced indirectly by the strength of their parents’ neighborhood social networks (Waanders et al., 2007). Findings from the current study indicate that parents’ perceived neighborhood social networks were positively associated with home literacy, which in turn was positively related to

14

children’s vocabulary skills. The indirect effect of neighborhood social networks on children’s expressive vocabulary was modest but significant. The current study provides a major advance in the research literature by including a directly-assessed child outcome and demonstrating that the expressive vocabulary skills of children who are at-risk are indirectly linked to their parents’ perceptions of their neighborhood social networks. These results with Head Start families living in a suburb are comparable to the Waanders et al. (2007) finding that urban Head Start parents reported greater levels of home-based parent involvement when they perceived stronger social networks in their neighborhood. The standardized regression coefficient for the relation between neighborhood social networks and home-based involvement was .25 in the current investigation and .18 in the Waanders et al. study. In general, results indicate that neighborhood social networks in suburbs may be a modest but potentially valuable source of social support for parents of children who are at-risk. The current study also adds to a fledging research literature on low-income families with young children living in suburbs. Most research on neighborhood social networks has been conducted in urban neighborhoods, yet in recent years the problem of increasing poverty in U.S. suburbs has received greater recognition (e.g., Berube & Kneebone, 2011). Several patterns are noteworthy. First, children in the current study overall had higher expressive vocabulary skills than a nationally representative sample of children in the U.S. who also were entering Head Start in the fall semester. In the national Head Start sample (Hulsey et al., 2011), children on average scored more than one standard deviation below national norms on expressive vocabulary (81.6; assessed in English) whereas children in the current study had an average score overall (100.07). Second, the current sample of Head Start parents averaged higher education levels than Head Start parents nationally. In the current study, 10.5% of parents had a bachelor’s degree. This is in

15

contrast to a nationally representative Head Start sample in which only 2.3% of parents had a bachelor’s degree or higher (O’Brien et al., 2002). Third, Head Start families in the current study had neighbors with higher education levels than their own. Overall, the families lived in neighborhoods where the mean percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher was about 38%, as reported earlier. The education levels of the current sample, when compared to the Head Start population nationally and to their suburban neighbors, prompt specific questions about parents’ commitment to furthering their own education and perhaps their interest in upward educational mobility for themselves and their children. Educational aspirations, plus a desire to escape gangs, are among the top motivations for families moving from lower SES urban neighborhoods (Ludwig, et al., 2012). The average expressive vocabulary scores of children also may be indicative of a press for educational achievement among families in the current study. These questions about upward mobility and parents’ decisions about where to live may be useful points of departure for future research on the experiences and outcomes of low-income families with young children in suburban areas. For example, it might be productive to examine the extent to which generally higher education levels of residents in the Head Start parents’ neighborhoods served to facilitate or hinder social integration into the neighborhood. Head Start parents in the current study perceived differing levels of social support in their neighborhoods and those who perceived more support generally reported a stronger home literacy environment, which was associated with their children’s higher expressive vocabulary scores. A future research agenda is to determine specific relations between neighborhood social networks and parents’ provision of literacy experiences at home. Limitations

16

Because this study used a correlational design, we do not know if neighborhood social networks facilitated home literacy activities and resources. Future studies could improve upon this one by following the development of neighborhood social networks, home literacy, and children’s expressive vocabulary over time. As in the Waanders et al. (2007) study, parents completed measures of both neighborhood perceptions and home practices. This shared variance could inflate statistical estimates. Future studies could improve upon this by employing independent observations of the home literacy environment, using a measure such as the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (Caldwell & Bradley, 2003). Because this study collected data from Head Start families in one U.S. suburb, the results may not generalize to other suburbs or to at-risk families in urban environments. Implications for School Psychologists and Educators Findings of the current study underscore the potential benefits of preventive programs aimed at promoting positive interpersonal ties within neighborhoods. Future program development work could examine the premise that parent involvement in children’s literacy experiences at home is enhanced through organized efforts to strengthen parents’ neighborhood social networks. A recent study points to the potential benefits of using a community-based organization to promote parent involvement (Lawson & Alameda-Lawson, 2012). Small neighborhood-based group sessions could provide opportunities to form on-going supportive relationships with other parents, especially if group leaders were trained to foster social interdependence using cooperative group learning principles (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). Because supportive neighborhood social networks have also been linked to positive child behavior in England (Barnes & Cheng, 2006) and broader parent involvement (at school and home) in the U.S. (Waanders et al., 2007), there is the potential that neighborhood-based group

17

sessions could foster broader parent involvement and positive child behavior, as well as home literacy and vocabulary. Reaching beyond the walls of the schools to help families in their neighborhoods could promote parents’ participation in parent involvement programs. Providing sessions in a community center or in homes may lead to less attrition. A recent school psychologist-developed parenting intervention had no attrition and nearly perfect attendance throughout seven weeks in family’s homes, which is much better than typically found in clinic or school sites (Froiland, 2011b). In accordance, after examining barriers (e.g., transportation issues) to low SES parents’ participation in a preschool-based home literacy intervention, Mendez (2010) suggested home visits may facilitate participation. Research with Mexican American and Mexican parents living in the U.S. indicates that both groups prefer attending parent programs with people they already know and that Mexican parents were more likely to say that they would not attend a group if they did not already know someone in the group (Powell, Zambrana & Silva-Palacios, 1990), suggesting that the familiarity provided by a neighbor or family member in the group could increase their likelihood of attending. In some countries, the role of school psychologists as parent consultants is more accepted than in others. For example, in Thailand pre-service educators perceive that parent consultation is more crucial to the role of school psychology than do their counterparts in Korea (Tangdhanakanond & Lee, 2013). In Singapore, educational psychologists seek to proactively promote parent involvement such that it enhances the relationships between home, school and the community (Chong, Lee, Tan, Wong, & Yeo, 2013); thus, the notion of educational psychologists seeking to enhance neighborhood social networks to promote home literacy and children’s vocabulary may resonate with educators there. More effort may be required on the

18

part of school psychologists to form neighborhood parent support groups in some countries than in others. Because neighborhoods and families hold the potential to promote academic success and psychological health among children (Froiland, 2013), developing supportive programs for parents is worthy of diligent research.

19

References Barnes, J. & Cheng, H. (2006). Do parental neighborhoods contribute to child behaviour problems? A study of disadvantaged children. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 1, 2-14. doi:10.1080/17450120600659044 Barnes McGuire, J. (1997). The reliability and validity of a questionnaire describing neighborhood characteristics relevant to families and young children living in urban areas. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 551-566. doi:10.1002/(sici)15206629(199711)25:63.0.co;2-s Berube, A. & Kneebone, E. (2006). Two steps back: City and suburban poverty trends 1999-2005. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Berube, A. & Kneebone, E. (2011). Parsing U.S. poverty at the metropolitan level. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved August 28th, 2012, from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2011/09/22-metro-poverty-berube-kneebone Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2008). Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development, 19, 4567. doi:10.1080/10409280701838835 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading-related abilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 408-426. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.4.4

20

Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis of intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment: Administration Manual. Tempe, AZ: Family & Human Dynamics Research Institute, Arizona State University. Chong, W. H., Lee, B. O., Tan, S. Y., Wong, S. S., & Yeo, L. S. (2013). School psychology and school-based child and family interventions in Singapore. School Psychology International, 34, 177-189. doi:10.1177/0143034312453397 Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents' perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 371-383. doi:10.1023/A:1010303419034 DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004). Literacy and health outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 1228-1239. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x Fantuzzo, J. W., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367-376. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367 Froiland, J. M. (2011a). Examining the effects of location, neighborhood social organization, and home literacy on early cognitive skills in the United States. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 9, 29-42.

21

Froiland, J. M. (2011b). Parental autonomy support and student learning goals: A preliminary examination of an intrinsic motivation intervention. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40, 135-149. doi:10.1007/s10566-010-9126-2 Froiland, J. M. (2013). Neighborhood effects. In J. Ainsworth & G. Golson (Eds.), Sociology of education: An A-to-Z guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A., & Davison, M. L. (2013). The long-term effects of early parent involvement and parent expectation in the USA. School Psychology International, 34, 3350. doi:10.1177/0143034312454361 Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., & Son, S.-H. (in press). Neighborhood socioeconomic well-being, home literacy, and early literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Psychology in the Schools. Garbacz, S. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2011). A multidimensional examination of New Zealand family involvement in education. School Psychology International, 32(6), 600-615. doi:10.1177/0143034311403034 Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310-331. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Hulsey, L. K., Aikens, N., Kopack, A., West, J., Moiduddin, E., & Tarullo, L. (2011). Head start children, families, and programs: Present and past data from FACES (OPRE

22

Report 2011-33a). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8 Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 369-409. doi:10.1177/1078087406294043 Keels, M. (2008). Neighborhood effects examined through the lens of residential mobility programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 235-250. doi:10.1007/s10464-0089204-x Kim, Y-S. (2009). The relationship between home literacy practices and developmental trajectories of emergent literacy and conventional literacy skills for Korean children. Reading and Writing, 22, 57-84. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9103-9 Kohen, D. E., Leventhal, T., Dahinten, V. S., & McIntosh, C. N. (2008). Neighborhood disadvantage: Pathways of effects for young children. Child Development, 79, 156-169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01117.x Lawson, M. A., & Alameda-Lawson, T. (2012). A case study of school-linked, collective parent engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 651-684. doi:10.3102/0002831211427206 Lonigan, C. J., Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A. with the National Early Literacy Panel (2008). Impact of shared-reading interventions on young children’s early literacy skills. In

23

National Early Literacy Panel (Eds.), Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. (pp. 153-170). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science, 337(6101), 1505-1510. doi:10.1126/science.1224648 McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical Manual. Woodcock Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 Mendez, J. L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in education by ethnic minority parents of children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 26. doi:10.1037/a0016258 Nakhid, C. (2009). The meaning of family and home for young Pasifika people involved in gangs in the suburbs of South Auckland. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 35, 112–128. O’Brien, R. W., D’Elio, M. A., Vaden-Kiernan, M., Maggee, C., Younoszai, T., Keane, … Hailey, L. (2002). A descriptive study of Head Start families: FACES technical report I. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Powell, D. R., Zambrana, R., & Silva-Palacios, V. (1990). Designing culturally responsive parent programs: A comparison of low-income Mexican and Mexican-American mothers' preferences. Family Relations, 39, 298-304. Schoon, I., Parsons, S., Rush, R., & Law, J. (2010). Childhood language skills and adult literacy: A 29-year follow-up study. Pediatrics, 125(3), e459-e466. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2111

24

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J-A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445-460. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00417 Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 Sink, T., & Ceh, B. (2011). Relocation of urban poor in Chicago: HOPE VI policy outcomes. Geoforum, 42, 71-82. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.10.001 Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 Tangdhanakanond, K., & Lee, D. H. (2013). Thai and Korean Students’ perceptions about the roles and functions of school psychologists. School Psychology International. doi:10.1177/0143034312469153 U.S. Census Bureau (2010a). State and County Quick Facts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 6-12-12 from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states U.S. Census Bureau (2010b). United States Census 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 2-1-13 from: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2010.html Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 619-636. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.003 Whitehurst, G. J. (1993). Stony Brook Family Reading Survey. Stony Brook, NY: Author.

25

Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children? Identifying predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22, 67-81. doi:10.1080/02702710121153

26

Figure 1. Final model showing associations between neighborhood social networks, home literacy and expressive vocabulary. All unidirectional paths are significant at p < .05, with the exception of parent education to home literacy (p = .13). The standardized indirect effect of neighborhood social networks on expressive vocabulary is .06, p < .05.

27

Author Biographies John Mark Froiland, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of School Psychology at the University of Northern Colorado. He worked at Purdue University for two years as an Institute of Education Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies. John’s research interests include neighborhood supports for families, the effects of parent involvement on achievement, parental autonomy support, and promoting children’s motivation to learn and happiness. John serves on the editorial boards of four psychology journals. Address: Department of School Psychology, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Douglas R. Powell, PhD is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Purdue University. His research focuses strategies for improving the impact of early childhood programs and parenting practices on positive outcomes for children atrisk for school failure due to poverty. He has led six major intervention studies related to this interest with diverse populations in urban and rural communities, including collaborative work with Prof. Karen Diamond on early childhood teacher professional development for the past decade. He serves on the editorial boards of four scholarly journals and is a consulting editor for Child Development. Address: Fowler Memorial House, Purdue University, 1200 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2055, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Karen Diamond, PhD is Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Purdue University. Her research focuses on effective approaches for teaching preschool children at-risk for later school failure because of poverty or disability. She has collaborated with Profs. Douglas Powell (at Purdue) and Samuel Odom (at the University of North Carolina) on four different intervention projects seeking to improve children’s early

28

developmental outcomes through work with their teachers. She is a past Editor of Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Address: Fowler Memorial House, Purdue University, 1200 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2055, USA. E-mail: [email protected]