Neighborhood Qualities and Parenting Among Mothers With Young Children: Variation by Relationship Status

Abstract

This study investigates associations between neighborhood social processes and parenting qualities among mothers of young children and tests variation according to relationship status. Data come from Year 3 of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (n = 3,535). Aim 1 is to examine associations between neighborhood collective efficacy and social disorder and parenting qualities (parenting stress, parental efficacy, harsh discipline, and neglect). Aim 2 is to test relationship status (married, cohabiting, or single) as a moderator of links between neighborhood social processes and parenting. Results showed significant associations in expected directions; collective efficacy was related to more positive parenting qualities, and social disorder had negative implications for parenting. Interactions by relationship status revealed that neighborhood social processes had stronger implications for single relative to married or cohabiting mothers. Discussion centers on the importance of identifying neighborhood risk and protective factors for parenting qualities among mothers with young children.

Keywords

parenting quality family structure neighborhood collective efficacy neighborhood social disorder

Parenting is determined in large part by the environmental contexts in which families live. Taking an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), social scientists are increasingly attuned to neighborhood conditions as risks or resources for parenting. Growing research demonstrates the challenges of raising children in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where high levels of poverty, residential turnover, and crime can heighten parental stress and impair parenting efficacy and appropriate discipline (Beyers, Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 2003; Brody et al., 2001; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, & Duncan, 1994; Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, & McIntosh, 2008; Mrug & Windle, 2009; Pinderhughes, Nix, Foster, Jones, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2001). In contrast, neighborhoods that are residentially stable, low in poverty, and high in social capital have been identified as resources for parenting (Riina, Martin, Brooks-Gunn, 2014; Turney & Harknett, 2010). Understanding how neighborhood conditions relate to parenting qualities is important given the role that parents play in transmitting neighborhood effects to children.

The focus of neighborhood research has shifted from the implications of structural neighborhood characteristics such as levels of concentrated poverty and disadvantage, to a focus on the dynamic social processes that are thought to transmit the effects of neighborhood structures to individuals and families (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). According to social disorganization theory, neighborhood social processes, including collective efficacy and social disorder, are organizing factors that facilitate the transfer of risks and resources among residents (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Collective efficacy encompasses social cohesion, the degree to which neighbors develop mutual trust and supportive relationships, and social control, which reflects shared social norms and the extent to which neighbors intervene for the common good (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). In contrast, neighborhood social disorder is characterized by a lack of order in social relations, including the presence of crime, disorderly behavior, drug problems, gang violence, or loitering in the street (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996; Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2001; Skogan, 1990). Prior research has examined links between some forms of neighborhood social processes and parenting (Chung & Steinberg, 2006; Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005); however, very little is known about whether the associations between neighborhood dynamics and parenting vary according to relationship status. This study focuses on mother’s parenting because mothers are considerably more likely to have custody of children when parents live apart. Single mothers often face greater parenting challenges than their married counterparts (Copeland & Harbaugh, 2005), due to lower average levels of financial and emotional support (Hofferth, 2006). Therefore, from a social disorganization standpoint, neighborhood social processes stand to facilitate resources available to single mothers or exacerbate the challenges they face.

This study draws on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a large national sample of urban mothers with young children to expand the scope of research on neighborhoods and parenting qualities. The focus is on mothers of preschool-aged children because parenting is very hands-on and demanding during this period of development (Crnic & Booth, 1991). Accordingly, neighborhood strains and supports may be especially salient for mothers with children in this age group. The first aim of this study considers the implications of two neighborhood social processes, collective efficacy and social disorder, for multiple dimensions of parenting in early childhood, including parenting stress, parenting efficacy, harsh discipline, and neglect. Aim 2 is to examine whether patterns of association vary according to whether mothers are married, cohabiting, or single. Identifying social processes by which neighborhoods can support optimal parenting is one avenue to promoting stronger families and healthier child adjustment.

Neighborhood Processes and Parenting

A growing body of work directs attention to the importance of neighborhood characteristics for parenting. Much of the neighborhood literature applies social disorganization theory to understand the role of neighborhood risks and resources for families. Social disorganization theory posits that neighborhood structural disadvantage, marked by high concentrated poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential turnover, leads to social disorganization among residents (Shaw & McKay, 1942). According to this perspective, neighborhoods can negatively impact families and youth indirectly through weakened community organization and support. In contrast, socially organized neighborhoods offer resources (i.e., social relationships, instrumental supports) to families that contribute to healthy parenting. Prior work finds that these informal neighborhood dynamics play an important role in understanding connections between neighborhoods and parenting. Specifically, research suggests that characteristics of socially organized neighborhoods can ease some burdens of parenting (Beyers et al., 2003) and may foster more effective parenting qualities (Byrnes & Miller, 2012). While the value of neighborhood social organization for single mothers, in particular, has yet to be explored, it is likely that neighborhood social resources can help to offset some of the parenting challenges experienced by single mothers.

Collective Efficacy

Given the role of collective efficacy in fostering mutual trust and support among neighbors, residents in neighborhoods with high social cohesion tend to report lower levels of stress than those in less cohesive neighborhoods (Henderson, Child, Moore, Moore, & Kaczynski, 2016; Robinette, Charles, Mogle, & Almeida, 2013). According to collective efficacy theory (Sampson, 2008), collective efficacy fosters support and access to resources that promote positive parenting qualities. Therefore, mothers in neighborhoods with high collective efficacy may have higher quality parenting because they have additional supports to help them meet the needs of their children.

Several recent studies suggest that neighborhood collective efficacy protects against the incidence of parental abuse and neglect (Freisthler & Maguire-Jack, 2015; Fujiwara, Yamaoka, & Kawachi, 2016; Guterman, Lee, Taylor, & Rathouz, 2009; Kim & Maguire-Jack, 2015; Maguire-Jack & Showalter, 2016; Maguire-Jack & Wang, 2016), although others have found a lack of evidence for this association (Coulton, Korbin, & Su, 1999; Molnar, Buka, Brennan, Holton, & Earls, 2003). A study of child maltreatment found that neighborhoods low in collective efficacy and high in social disorder were linked with increased parental stress, decreased parenting efficacy, and greater propensity for parental aggression and neglect (Guterman et al., 2009). Other findings for maltreatment suggest that neighborhood social control was related to lower incidence of parent–child physical aggression (Kim & Maguire-Jack, 2015). In studies of positive parenting outcomes, Byrnes and Miller (2012) found that neighborhood cohesion was related to greater social support, and in turn, more effective parenting among mothers of young adolescents. In addition, there is evidence that neighborhood cohesion was related to better family functioning, more consistent, and less punitive parenting (Kohen et al., 2008). Together, findings from past research suggest that living in a neighborhood characterized by high collective efficacy encourages positive parenting qualities.

Neighborhood Social Disorder

Families in socially disordered neighborhoods are likely to experience disrupted social relations, high levels of crime, and reduced feelings of security (Ross et al., 2001). On the other hand, social order is depicted by quiet drug-free neighborhoods where there is not a lot of violence or people hanging out on the street. Due to the greater risk of incivilities, crime, and deviance in disordered neighborhoods, social disorder is a risk factor for depression, fear, and mistrust among adults (Ross & Jang, 2000) and youth violent offending and social withdrawal (Caughy et al., 2012; Chung & Steinberg, 2006).

Past research suggests that neighborhood social disorder impairs effective parenting in a number of ways. In one study of parents with early adolescents, neighborhood social disorder was related to less parental warmth and more inconsistent discipline (Mrug & Windle, 2009). Other findings suggest that neighborhood social disorder leads to a sense of fear and powerlessness, leaving parents with little energy to discipline and nurture with their children (Pinderhughes et al., 2001). Furthermore, disordered neighborhoods are often viewed as less safe by parents, which can threaten parenting quality. Indeed, Hill and Herman-Stahl (2002) found that when mothers perceived more safety threats in their neighborhood, they were more likely to use hostile and inconsistent discipline strategies. Neighborhood disorder may also negatively affect parenting by reducing support from neighbors (Ross & Jang, 2000) or by promoting social isolation (Ross & Mirowsky, 2009). In turn, parents who are more socially isolated from their community may be at greater risk of problematic parenting, including child maltreatment (Gracia & Musitu, 2003; Kim & Maguire-Jack, 2015). Thus, it appears that neighborhood social disorder impairs mothers’ ability to parent in a consistent and supportive manner.

Variation by Relationship Status

Given rapidly growing rates of single parenthood in the United States (Livingston, 2014), it is important to identify the different risks and resources that mothers experience according to their relationship status. Single and cohabiting mothers, in particular, have been shown to hold fewer financial, temporal, and psychological resources than married mothers (Aronson & Huston, 2004; Hofferth, 2006). In turn, single mothers experience multiple challenges, including greater economical and psychological hardships (Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004; South & Crowder, 1998), higher parenting stress (Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Copeland & Harbaugh, 2005), more intrusive and less involved parenting (Gibson-Davis & Gassman-Pines, 2010), and more harsh discipline (Mersky, Berger, Reynolds, & Gromoske, 2009) relative to their married counterparts. In contrast, there is evidence that instrumental and social supports can operate as protective factors for parenting among single mothers (Choi & Pyun, 2014; Turney & Harknett, 2010).

Although little research has explored the role of neighborhood factors in mitigating or exacerbating the challenges faced by single parents, there is evidence that social support is important. Single mothers are more likely to exchange social resources than married parents (Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993), meaning that neighborhood collective efficacy may be particularly salient as a support. For example, a study of single mothers in the FFCWS found that instrumental support from family and friends was related to lower parenting stress and more positive parenting quality (Choi & Pyun, 2014). At the same time, social disorder may amplify the challenges faced by single mothers. In a study of single African American mothers, Kotchick, Dorsey, and Heller (2005) found that neighborhood stress was related to greater psychological distress and less engagement in positive parenting over time, and findings were especially strong for mothers with low levels of perceived social support.

The Present Study

Informed by ecological and social disorganization perspectives, this study investigates the implications of neighborhood social processes for multiple indicators of parenting for mothers with young children and examines potential differences according to relationship status. Findings from this study will shed light on neighborhood risk and protective factors for parents in urban neighborhoods. Given rising numbers of single parent, female-headed households, it is necessary to understand the role of potential neighborhood risks and resources for single versus partnered mothers. Using data from the FFCWS, the first aim of this study is to examine the associations between neighborhood collective efficacy and social disorder and parental stress, parental efficacy, harsh discipline, and neglect when children are approximately 3 years old. It is hypothesized that collective efficacy will relate to positive parenting qualities whereas social disorder will undermine effective parenting. The second aim is to examine the moderating role of mother’s relationship status on links between neighborhood social processes and parenting. It is expected that single mothers and cohabiting mothers will be more susceptible to both neighborhood resources (i.e., collective efficacy) and risks (i.e., disorder) relative to married mothers.

Method

Sample

This study uses data from the FFCWS, a longitudinal birth cohort study of approximately 5,000 families with children who were born in 20 large U.S. cities (population greater than 200,000) between 1998 and 2000. Approximately 75% of the children in the sample were born to unmarried parents. Nonmarital births were oversampled (for more details about sample selection, see Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001). Recruitment and baseline interviews took place in the hospital within 48 hours of the birth. There were very few eligibility requirements to participate and the response rate for baseline interviews was greater than 80% for both married and unmarried mothers. Data was collected from mothers and fathers via phone interview at child age 1, 3, 5, 9, and 15 years. In-home assessments were added at years 3, 5, and 9 to observe the physical environment and parenting.

The present study draws on Wave 3 data from the survey and in-home assessments, when the focal child was approximately 36 months old (M = 35.77, SD = 2.58). About 72% of mothers who completed the core survey also participated in the in-home assessment with about 69% of mothers completing both. The analysis sample for this study is limited to mothers who lived with their child full time to capture parenting by a primary caregiver. This study focuses on mothers with preschool age children due to the hands-on and demanding nature of parenting during this developmental period. There were no other inclusion criteria for this study. Accordingly, the analytic sample is large and diverse (n = 3,535 mothers) with 50% African American, 31% non-Hispanic White, and 19% of another race/ethnicity.

Measures

Parenting stress was measured in home assessments with 5 items (e.g., “You feel trapped by your responsibilities as parent”) that came from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (Hofferth, Davis-Kean, Davis, & Finkelstein, 1997). Mothers responded on a scale where 1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree. Items were reverse scored and then averaged so that higher scores indicated higher levels of stress (α = .79).

Parenting efficacy was measured in home assessments by 5 questions, where mothers indicated their agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) with statements such as “I have little control over the things that happen to me” (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Higher scores indicate a greater sense of efficacy (α = .81).

Harsh discipline was assessed by mothers’ reports in home assessments of how often they engaged in various harsh discipline strategies in the past year. There were 10 items taken from the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998) with 5 items reflecting the frequency of psychologically harsh discipline (e.g., “How many times in the past year did you shout/yell/scream at [CHILD]?”), and 5 items tapping into the incidence of harsh physical discipline (e.g., “How many times in the past year did you spank [CHILD] on the bottom with your bare hand?”). Response categories ranged from 0 = this never happened to 6 = more than 20 times in the past year. Items were summed so that higher scores indicated more harsh parenting practices.

Neglect was measured using 5 items from the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al., 1998) in home assessments that tapped into how often the mother was unable to meet the child’s needs (e.g., “Were not able to make sure [CHILD] got the food he/she needed”) on a scale from 0 = never happened to 6 = more than 20 times. Items were summed and averaged such that higher scores reflected more frequent neglect.

Neighborhood collective efficacy was assessed in home assessments using 9 items reflecting levels of neighborhood social cohesion and social control. To measure social cohesion mothers indicated their agreement with how much mutual trust and support was shared among community members on 5 items (e.g., “This is a tight-knit community”). Responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Social control was measured using 5 questions pertaining to the likelihood that neighbors would intervene in a given scenario (e.g., “Children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner”) where 1 = very likely to 5 = very unlikely. Items were adapted from scales of social cohesion and informal social control (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). All but 2 items were reverse coded (“People in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other” and “People in this neighborhood do not share the same values”) such that higher scores indicate a stronger sense of collective efficacy (α = .86).

Neighborhood social disorder was measured in home assessments using 8 items where mothers reported on how frequently they observed things like disorderly behavior, drug dealers, loitering, or gang activity in the neighborhood. Items were adapted from the Neighborhood Environment for Children Rating Scales (Coulton, Korbin, Su, & Chow, 1995; Coulton et al., 1999). Responses ranged from 1 = never to 4 = frequently. Higher scores reflect a higher level of social disorder (α = .93).

Relationship status at Wave 3 was assessed by a series of dummy variables. Three dummy variables were created: married = 1 if mother was married at Wave 3; cohabiting = 1 if mother was living with a romantic partner at Wave 3; and single = 1 if other was not romantically involved at Wave 3. Approximately 40% (n = 1,427) of the mothers in this sample were married, 25% (n = 872) were cohabiting and 35% (n = 1,236) were single.

Control Variables

A number of family background variables were included in models as controls. To account for possible instrumental support from fathers, mother’s report of “how often does father look after [CHILD] when you need to do things?” (1 = never to 4 = often) was included as a control in all models. Mothers reported on the following background variables at Wave 3: Age, educational attainment (1 = high school diploma or greater, 0 = less than high school diploma), household income, employment status (1 = employed, 0 = unemployed), child age (months), child sex (0 = boy, 1 = girl), the number of children younger than 18 years living in the household, and household income (log transformed). Race/ethnicity was coded into three dummy variables: Black, non-Hispanic White, and other.

Results

Analysis Plan

This study used ordinary least squares regression to test the main effect associations between collective efficacy, neighborhood social disorder, and each parenting indicator. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. To address Aim 1, neighborhood collective efficacy and social disorder were examined for each parenting outcome. Neighborhood predictors were added to the same model to control for each effect on the other. The reference group in all models was married mothers. The dummy variable was rotated as a robustness check to ensure that no significant differences existed on the basis of relationship status relative to other reference groups. Main effect results did not vary according to the reference group (results available on request). To test the moderating role of relationship status, interaction terms involving each neighborhood social process and relationship status dummy variable were created. Interactions involving collective efficacy and social disorder were tested together for each parenting quality. Probes for significant interactions were tested following procedures outlined by Aiken, West, and Reno (1991), by examining the association between the neighborhood quality and parenting dimension separately for married, single, and cohabiting mothers.

Descriptive Analyses

Means, standard deviations, and frequencies for all study variables are shown in Table 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether mean levels of neighborhood or parenting qualities differed depending on mother’s relationship status (Table 2). Findings revealed no significant mean differences in collective efficacy or social disorder on the basis of relationship status. Similarly, there were no significant differences in any parenting quality for married versus single versus cohabiting mothers. Thus, findings indicate that average levels of the main study variables did not differ on the basis of mother’s relationship status. Descriptive statistics suggest that most families lived in relatively cohesive and organized neighborhoods and parenting qualities tended to be positive, falling above the midpoint of each scale.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable	Mean (SD)	Range	%
Collective efficacy	3.56 (0.95)	1-5
Social disorder	1.80 (0.88)	1-4
Parenting stress	2.32 (0.88)	1-5
Parenting efficacy	3.40 (0.63)	1-4
Harsh discipline	13.36 (8.37)	0-36
Neglect	0.35 (1.34)	0-6
Family structure
Married			31.91
Cohabiting			19.50
Single			28.28
Mother age (years)	28.18 (6.04)	16-50
Child age (months)	35.78 (2.58)	30-50
Child sex (female)			52.37
Number of children in household (HH)	2.30 (1.35)	0-10
HH income	35,545 (43,596)	0-499,999
Father instrumental support	3.12 (1.16)	1-4
Mother education (> high school)			35.01
Mother employed			56.20
Mother race
Black			49.80
White			31.01
Other			19.20

Table 2.

Mean Differences in Neighborhood Characteristics and Parenting Quality According to Relationship Status.

Variables	Family structure
Variables	Single, M (SD)	Married, M (SD)	Cohabiting, M (SD)
Parenting stress	2.32 (0.86)	2.34 (0.87)	2.31 (0.88)
Parenting efficacy	3.40 (0.64)	3.38 (0.64)	3.40 (0.63)
Harsh discipline	13.61 (8.11)	13.23 (8.38)	13.49 (8.55)
Neglect	0.40 (1.31)	0.36 (1.35)	0.28 (1.04)
Collective efficacy	3.54 (0.99)	3.53 (0.94)	3.62 (0.98)
Social disorder	1.80 (0.92)	1.77 (0.88)	1.79 (0.86)

Associations between Neighborhood Social Processes and Parenting

To address Aim 1, the main effects of neighborhood social processes were examined for each parenting dimension. Collective efficacy and social disorder were examined in the same model to estimate the effect of each social process controlling for the other. Findings for all main effect models are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Main Effect Regression Coefficients for Neighborhood Social Processes Predicting Parenting Qualities.

Predictor	Parenting Stress, b (SE)	Parenting Efficacy, b (SE)	Harsh Discipline, b (SE)	Neglect, b (SE)
Intercept	2.66 (.30)**	3.24 (.22)**	10.75 (2.87)**	.33 (.43)
Main effects
Cohabitating	.01 (.05)	−.01 (.03)	.35 (.45)	−.03 (.07)
Single	.01 (.04)	.01 (.03)	.07 (.45)	.02 (.07)
Father instrumental support	−.01 (.02)	−.01 (.01)	−.12 (.16)	−.03 (.03)
Mother age^a	.00 (.00)	−.00 (.00)	.01 (.03)	−.00 (.00)
Child age^b	−.01 (.01)	−.00 (.01)	−.00 (.07)	.01 (.01)
Child sex^c	.01 (.03)	−.06 (.03)*	−.29 (.34)	−.03 (.05)
Household income	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)
Children in household	−.01 (.01)	.02 (.00)*	.13 (.13)	−.01 (.02)
Black	−.07 (.03)*	.02 (.03)	.10 (.39)	.07 (.06)
Other	−.00 (.05)	−.02 (.04)	−.22 (.49)	.08 (.08)
Education^d	.04 (.04)	−.02 (.03)	.46 (.38)	.02 (.06)
Employed	−.01 (.04)	.01 (.03)	−.56 (.35)	−.02 (.06)
Collective efficacy (CE)	−.13 (.02)**	.10 (.01)**	−.15 (.20)	−.07 (.03)**
Social disorder (SD)	.12 (.02)**	−.10 (.02)**	1.91 (.21)**	.11 (.03)**
R ²	.06	.07	.05	.02

Mothers age in years. ^bChild age in months. ^cSex refers to female. ^dEducation refers to high school or higher.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Collective Efficacy

Consistent with hypotheses, significant negative associations emerged between neighborhood collective efficacy and parenting stress, b = −.13, SE = .02, p < .01, and between collective efficacy and neglect, b = −.07, SE = .03, p < .01. There was a significant positive association between collective efficacy and parenting efficacy, b = .10, SE = .01, p < .01. These findings suggest that neighborhoods with greater collective efficacy were associated with more positive parenting qualities. The association between collective efficacy and harsh discipline was nonsignificant.

Social Disorder

Also, in line with hypotheses, there were significant positive associations between neighborhood social disorder and parenting stress, b = .12, SE = .02, p < .01, social disorder and harsh discipline, b = 1.91, SE = .21, p < .01, and social disorder and neglect, b = .11, SE = .03, p < .01. As expected, the association between social disorder and parenting efficacy was significant and negative, b = −.10, SE = .02, p < .01. Together, these findings support the hypothesis that neighborhood social disorder negatively interferes with parenting.

The Moderating Role of Relationship Status

To examine whether associations between neighborhood processes and parenting differed according to mothers’ relationship status, an interaction term involving cohabiting and single status and each neighborhood social process was entered for each parenting quality. Interactions with collective efficacy and social disorder were tested in separate models. Findings for all interaction models are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Interaction Effects for Neighborhood Social Processes Moderated by Relationship Status, Predicting Parenting Qualities.

Predictor	Parenting Stress		Parenting Efficacy		Harsh Discipline		Neglect
Predictor	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Intercept	2.41 (.28)**	2.41 (.28)**	3.41 (.20)**	3.40 (.20)**	13.62 (2.71)**	13.69 (2.71)**	.31 (.43)	.33 (.43)
Main effects
Cohabitating	.01 (.05)	.01 (.05)	−.00 (.03)	.00 (.03)	.36 (.45)	.34 (.45)	−.03 (.07)	−.03 (.07)
Single	.01 (.04)	.01 (.05)	.01 (.03)	.01 (.03)	.07 (.45)	.07 (.45)	−.02 (.07)	−.02 (.07)
Father instrumental support	−.01 (.02)	−.01 (.02)	−.01 (.01)	−.01 (.01)	−.12 (.16)	−.12 (.16)	−.03 (.03)	−.03 (.03)
Mother age^a	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	−.00 (.00)	−.00 (.00)	.01 (.03)	.01 (.03)	−.00 (.00)	−.00 (.00)
Child age^b	−.00 (.01)	−.00 (.01)	.00 (.01)	.00 (.01)	−.00 (.07)	−.00 (.06)	.00 (.01)	.00 (.01)
Child sex^c	.01 (.03)	.01 (.03)	−.05 (.02)*	−.06 (.02)*	−.29 (.34)	−.29 (.37)	−.03 (.05)	−.03 (.05)
Household income	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)
Children in household	−.01 (.01)	−.01 (.01)	.02 (.01)*	.02 (.00)*	.13 (.13)	.13 (.13)	−.01 (.02)	−.01 (.02)
Black	−.07 (.04)	−.07 (.04)	.02 (.03)	.02 (.03)	.11 (.39)	.10 (.40)	.07 (.06)	.07 (.06)
Other	−.01 (.01)	−.00 (.05)	−.02 (.04)	−.02 (.04)	−.21 (.49)	−.23 (.49)	.08 (.08)	.07 (.08)
Education^d	.04 (.04)	.04 (.04)	−.01 (.03)	−.01 (.03)	.45 (.38)	.45 (.38)	.02 (.06)	.02 (.06)
Employed	−.01 (.04)	−.01 (.04)	.02 (.03)	.02 (.03)	−.55 (.35)	−.56 (.35)	−.02 (.06)	−.02 (.06)
Collective efficacy (CE)	−.12 (.02)**	−.13 (.02)**	.06 (.02)**	.10 (.02)**	−.08 (.26)	−.15 (.20)	−.09 (.04)*	−.06 (.03)*
Social disorder (SD)	.12 (.02)**	.11 (.03)**	−.10 (.02)**	−.07 (.02)**	1.91 (.21)**	1.83 (.28)**	.11 (.03)**	.08 (.04)*
Interaction effects
Cohabiting × CE	.04 (.05)		.04 (.03)		−.49 (.45)		.04 (.07)
Single × CE	−.07 (.04)		.09 (.03)**		.17 (.42)		.02 (.07)
Cohabiting × SD		−.00 (.05)		.01 (.04)		.08 (.49)		−.01 (.08)
Single × SD		.05 (.05)		−.09 (.03)**		.21 (.45)		.11 (.05)*
R ²	.06	.06	.08	.08	.05	.09	.02	.02

Mother age in years. ^bChild age in months. ^cSex refers to female. ^dEducation refers to high school or higher.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Collective Efficacy × Relationship Status

The first set of models examined mother’s single status as a moderator of collective efficacy on parenting qualities. There was one significant interaction; the association between collective efficacy and parenting efficacy was moderated by single status, b = .09, SE = .03, p < .01. The interaction was probed by examining associations between collective efficacy and parenting efficacy for single versus non-single mothers. This probe indicated that the positive link between collective efficacy and parenting efficacy was significant for both groups, but stronger for single mothers, b = .17, SE = .02, p < .01, relative to non-single mothers, b = .09, SE = .01, p < .01. Findings revealed no significant interactions involving collective efficacy and cohabiting status for any parenting quality.

Social Disorder × Relationship Status

Two significant interactions emerged involving social disorder and single status. The association between social disorder and parenting efficacy was moderated by single parenthood, b = −.09, SE = .03, p < .01. Follow-up tests indicated that the negative implications of social disorder were significant for single and non-single mothers, but effects were stronger for single, b = −.18, SE = .03, p < .01, relative to married and cohabiting mothers, b = −.11, SE = .02, p < .01. Single status also emerged as a significant moderator of the association between social disorder and parenting neglect, b = .11, SE = .05, p < .05. Similar to the finding for parenting efficacy, follow-ups suggested that social disorder was positively related to neglect for both groups, but associations were significantly stronger for single mothers, b = .20, SE = .05, p < .01, compared with non-single mothers, b = .09, SE = .04, p < .05. There were no other significant interactions involving social disorder and mother’s relationship status.

In sum, results suggest that the implications of collective efficacy varied according to relationship status for one dimension of parenting—parenting efficacy. Relationship status moderated social disorder for several parenting qualities, including parenting efficacy and neglect. Together, findings indicate that neighborhood social processes were more significant for single compared with married or cohabiting mothers.

Discussion

A growing body of research suggests that neighborhood processes are highly salient for family and youth well-being. In general, study findings suggest that collective efficacy fosters positive parenting qualities, whereas neighborhood social disorder undermines effective parenting. Findings also indicate that, for unmarried mothers, parenting is somewhat more susceptible to the positive and negative implications of neighborhood processes, compared with parenting among married mothers. Overall, findings are consistent with hypotheses and prior research in that collective efficacy operates as a support and social disorder as a risk factor, particularly for unmarried mothers who may rely more heavily on neighborhood resources than their married counterparts.

This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, by examining multiple parenting outcomes, the results shed light on implications of neighborhood social processes for a range of parenting qualities. In addition, by examining collective efficacy and social disorder in the same model, findings isolate the effects of each social process on each dimension of parenting. Findings reveal that the roles of collective efficacy and social disorder are not merely two ends of the same continuum, especially when relationship status is taken into consideration. Investigating the role of relationship status highlights the salience of each type of neighborhood social process for mothers who may lack other sources of support. Findings from this study suggest that strengthening community ties and promoting social order can support healthy parenting. Policy makers and practitioners may draw on these findings to develop programs that foster trust, support, and shared values within communities to improve parenting and, ultimately, youth outcomes.

Neighborhood Social Processes and Parenting

Mean levels of parenting qualities suggest that parenting was generally high quality, on average, with above average levels of parenting efficacy, moderate levels of parenting stress, and relatively low harsh discipline and neglect. In contrast with some findings that single mothers face greater parenting challenges than married parents (Copeland & Harbaugh, 2005), there were no mean level differences in parenting according to relationship status. Given the nature of the sample, it is likely that even partnered mothers had been single parents at some point in time perhaps making parenting quality less variable with current relationship status. Although beyond the scope of this study, a longitudinal investigation that includes partner transitions over time would shed light on the current and transient role of relationship status for parenting quality.

In line with expectations about the associations between neighborhood social processes and parenting, collective efficacy was related to greater parenting efficacy and lower levels of parenting stress and neglect. Consistent with past research, these findings suggest that collective efficacy operates as a neighborhood resource for some parenting qualities. Parents in more tight-knit neighborhoods may be able to draw on emotional or instrumental supports or solicit advice from neighbors, which can reduce parenting stress or increase parents’ availability. Moreover, social support from neighbors has been directly linked to more effective parenting (Byrnes & Miller, 2012). Adherence to social norms that is reflected in neighborhoods with high collective efficacy may also enhance feelings of security and support among mothers. Indeed, the willingness of residents to monitor behavior in the neighborhood facilitates trust and a sense of security (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993) that can, in turn, benefit parenting.

In contrast to expectations, collective efficacy was unrelated to harsh discipline. Discipline can be characterized as a parenting style (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), whereas efficacy is a feeling that relate to parenting roles and responsibilities. Thus, it could be that the types of supports generated by collective efficacy may be protective for parenting qualities that encompass how mothers feel toward their parenting roles, but less effective in protecting what mothers do as parents. Further research is needed to investigate the mechanisms that transmit the effects of collective efficacy to different parenting qualities.

In line with hypotheses, social disorder was found to have negative implications for each parenting quality, independent of the role of collective efficacy. Thus, neighborhoods high in disorder and crime appeared to undermine parenting efficacy and predispose mothers to experience greater parenting stress, harsh discipline, and neglect. It could be that social disorder operates as a proxy for low support; indeed, neighborhoods with more crime and deviance tend to offer fewer resources and foster a sense of social isolation among residents (Rankin & Quane, 2000; Tigges, Browne, & Green, 1998). These associations may also be due to persistent stressors that parents often face in disorganized neighborhoods, which may disrupt parental energy and patience to engage in consistent and warm parenting practices and discipline (Pinderhughes et al., 2001).

Differences by Relationship Status

Significant differences emerged on the basis of single status for some associations between neighborhood social processes and parenting. Specifically, the positive implications of collective efficacy for parenting efficacy were especially strong and salient for single mothers relative to cohabiting or married mothers. Even though collective efficacy remained significant for partnered mothers, single mothers may draw more heavily on supports that help them feel better about what they are doing as parents. Indeed, feeling united and secure within one’s neighborhood may offer benefits that help single mothers feel less overwhelmed and more satisfied in their parenting. These social resources appear to be especially beneficial for single mothers who may have fewer supports in the home. As with the main effect associations between collective efficacy and parenting qualities, findings suggest that the positive implications of collective efficacy operate for how mothers feel regarding their parenting role (i.e., efficacy) more so than their parenting behaviors (i.e., discipline strategies, neglect, etc.).

Several associations between social disorder and parenting qualities varied according to mothers’ relationship status. Social disorder undermined parenting efficacy particularly for single mothers compared with married and cohabiting mothers. Similarly, social disorder was more strongly and positively related to neglect for single mothers relative to their partnered counterparts. Thus, as with collective efficacy, social disorder was more strongly related to parenting qualities for single compared with non-single mothers. This finding adds further support to the idea that single mothers are more susceptible to neighborhood resources and strains compared with partnered mothers. As prior work suggests, social disorder can foster mistrust among neighbors (Ross & Jang, 2000) which may overwhelm single mothers and lead them to more negative parenting experiences. Furthermore, findings suggest that the implications of social disorder for single mothers extend to both a form of parenting roles (efficacy) and parenting behaviors (neglect). It may be that social disorder is more pervasive, interfering with how mothers perceive parenting and with how they engage with their children. Taken together, findings direct attention to the importance of examining connections between different dimensions of neighborhood qualities and multiple aspects of parenting. Given that this study did not explicitly test for potential mechanisms in these associations, the role of perceived support for single and partnered mothers remains to be explored in future research.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study makes important contributions to the literature on neighborhoods and parenting, it is not without limitations. Although this work takes an important first step in establishing cross-sectional associations between neighborhood processes and parenting for single versus partnered mothers, future research should examine these trends over time. Indeed, longitudinal data will be useful to better understand connections between neighborhoods and parenting as changes in child development and family structures unfold. In addition, measures of neighborhood and parenting were based on mother-reports and may be subject to self-reporter bias. A next step is to identify whether the same patterns hold up for fathers’ parenting. Finally, this study reveals significant patterns of association among neighborhood collective efficacy, social disorder, and multiple indicators of parenting, however, the mechanisms that may underlie these linkages are unclear. Future research should elucidate whether and how supports and stresses from neighborhood contexts operate in relation to parenting.

Implications and Conclusion

In sum, this study sheds light on the significance of neighborhood social processes for parenting qualities for diverse family types. These findings are valuable in highlighting the specific effects of neighborhood risks and resources for single mothers, as rates of single parenthood climb. In general, neighborhood collective efficacy and social disorder appear to have more salient implications for single compared with non-single mothers. Our results are relevant to ecological models and answer recent calls to carefully examine contextual factors for family functioning. Our findings suggest that enhancing neighborhood supports and mitigating risks are helpful in promoting healthier parenting across multiple dimensions, especially for single mothers, and ultimately may improve youth adjustment outcomes. Practitioners and policy makers can use these findings to identify and develop neighborhood resources that foster trust and connection among parents. An important next step is to investigate these associations over time to understand the role of youth development in neighborhood and parenting links, and to explore mechanisms that underlie these associations to facilitate intervention development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York, PSC-CUNY Award # 60195-00 48.

ORCID iD

Elizabeth M. Riina

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aneshensel

C. S.

Sucoff

C. A.

(1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 293-310.

Aronson

S. R.

Huston

A. C.

(2004). The mother-infant relationship in single, cohabiting, and married families: A case for marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 5-18.

Beyers

J. M.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

Dodge

K. A.

(2003). Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 35-53.

Brody

G. H.

Conger

Gibbons

F. X.

McBride Murry

Gerrard

Simons

R. L.

(2001). The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African American children’s affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72, 1231-1246.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr. Grasmick

H. G.

(1993). Economic deprivation and neighborhood crime rates, 1960-1980. Law & Sociology Review, 27, 263-268.

Byrnes

H. F.

Miller

B. A.

(2012). The relationship between neighborhood characteristics and effective parenting behaviors: The role of social support. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1658-1687.

Caughy

M. O. B.

Franzini

Windle

Dittus

Cuccaro

Elliott

M. N.

Schuster

M. A.

(2012). Social competence in late elementary school: Relationships to parenting and neighborhood context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1613-1627.

10.

Choi

J. K.

Pyun

H. S.

(2014). Nonresident fathers’ financial support, informal instrumental support, mothers’ parenting, and child development in single-mother families with low income. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 526-546.

11.

Chung

H. L.

Steinberg

(2006). Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42, 319-331.

12.

Cooper

C. E.

McLanahan

S. S.

Meadows

S. O.

Brooks-Gunn

(2009). Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 558-574.

13.

Copeland

Harbaugh

B. L.

(2005). Differences in parenting stress between married and single first time mothers at six to eight weeks after birth. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 28, 139-152.

14.

Coulton

C. J.

Korbin

J. E.

(1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 1019-1040.

15.

Coulton

C. J.

Korbin

J. E.

Chow

(1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66, 1262-1276.

16.

Crnic

K. A.

Booth

C. L.

(1991). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of daily hassles of parenting across early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 1042-1050.

17.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

18.

Freisthler

Maguire-Jack

(2015). Understanding the interplay between neighborhood structural factors, social processes, and alcohol outlets on child physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 20, 268-277.

19.

Fujiwara

Yamaoka

Kawachi

(2016). Neighborhood social capital and infant physical abuse: a population-based study in Japan. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 10, 1-7.

20.

Gibson-Davis

C. M.

Gassman-Pines

(2010). Early childhood family structure and mother–child interactions: Variation by race and ethnicity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 151-164.

21.

Gracia

Musitu

(2003). Social isolation from communities and child maltreatment: A cross-cultural comparison. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 153-168.

22.

Guterman

N. B.

Lee

S. J.

Taylor

C. A.

Rathouz

P. J.

(2009). Parental perceptions of neighborhood processes, stress, personal control, and risk for physical child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 897-906.

23.

Henderson

Child

Moore

J. B.

Kaczynski

A. T.

(2016). The influence of neighborhood aesthetics, safety, and social cohesion on perceived stress in disadvantaged communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 80-88.

24.

Hill

N. E.

Herman-Stahl

M. A.

(2002). Neighborhood safety and social involvement: Associations with parenting behaviors and depressive symptoms among African-American and Euro-American mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 209-219.

25.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53-77.

26.

Hofferth

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Davis

Finkelstein

(1997). The child development supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: 1997 user guide. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

27.

Hogan

D. P.

Eggebeen

D. J.

Clogg

C. C.

(1993). The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1428-1458.

28.

Kim

Maguire-Jack

(2015). Community interaction and child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 146-157.

29.

Klebanov

P. K.

Brooks-Gunn

Duncan

G. J.

(1994). Does neighborhood and family poverty affect mothers’ parenting, mental health, and social support? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 441-455.

30.

Kohen

D. E.

Leventhal

Dahinten

V. S.

McIntosh

C. N.

(2008). Neighborhood disadvantage: Pathways of effects for young children. Child Development, 79, 156-169.

31.

Kotchick

B. A.

Dorsey

Heller

(2005). Predictors of parenting among African American single mothers: Personal and contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 448-460.

32.

Leventhal

Brooks-Gunn

(2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309-337.

33.

Livingston

(2014). Fewer than half of US kids today live in a “traditional” family. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

34.

Maguire-Jack

Showalter

(2016). The protective effect of neighborhood social cohesion in child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 29-37.

35.

Maguire-Jack

Wang

(2016). Pathways from neighborhood to neglect: The mediating effects of social support and parenting stress. Children and Youth Services Review, 66, 28-34.

36.

Mersky

J. P.

Berger

L. M.

Reynolds

A. J.

Gromoske

A. N.

(2009). Risk factors for child and adolescent maltreatment: A longitudinal investigation of a cohort of inner-city youth. Child Maltreatment, 14, 73-88.

37.

Molnar

B. E.

Buka

S. L.

Brennan

R. T.

Holton

J. K.

Earls

(2003). A multilevel study of neighborhoods and parent-to-child physical aggression: Results from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Child Maltreatment, 8, 84-97.

38.

Mrug

Windle

(2009). Mediators of neighborhood influences on externalizing behavior in preadolescent children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 265-280.

39.

Pearlin

L. I.

Schooler

(1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.

40.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Nix

Foster

E. M.

Jones

, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2001). Parenting in context: Impact of neighborhood poverty, residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 941-953.

41.

Rankin

B. H.

Quane

J. M.

(2000). Neighborhood poverty and the social isolation of inner-city African American families. Social Forces, 79, 139-164.

42.

Reichman

N. E.

Teitler

J. O.

Garfinkel

McLanahan

S. S.

(2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 303-326.

43.

Riina

E. M.

Martin

Brooks-Gunn

(2014). Parent-to-child physical aggression, neighborhood cohesion, and development of children’s internalizing and externalizing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 468-477.

44.

Robinette

J. W.

Charles

S. T.

Mogle

J. A.

Almeida

D. M.

(2013). Neighborhood cohesion and daily well-being: Results from a diary study. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 174-182.

45.

Ross

C. E.

Jang

S. J.

(2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 401-420.

46.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(2009). Neighborhood disorder, subjective alienation, and distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 49-64.

47.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

Pribesh

(2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568-591.

48.

Sampson

R. J.

(2008). Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 189-231.

49.

Sampson

R. J.

Morenoff Jeffrey

Gannon-Rowley

(2002). Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-478.

50.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

51.

Shaw

C. R.

McKay

H. D.

(1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Sigle-Rushton

McLanahan

(2004). Father absence and child well-being: A critical review. Future of the Family, 116, 120-122.

53.

Simons

R. L.

Simons

L. G.

Burt

C. H.

Brody

G. H.

Cutrona

(2005). Collective efficacy, authoritative parenting and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating community-and family-level processes. Criminology, 43, 989-1029.

54.

Skogan

W. G.

(1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American cities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

55.

South

S. J.

Crowder

K. D.

(1998). Avenues and barriers to residential mobility among single mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 866-877.

56.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270.

57.

Tigges

L. M.

Browne

Green

G. P.

(1998). Social isolation of the urban poor: Race, class, and neighborhood effects on social resources. Sociological Quarterly, 39, 53-77.

58.

Turney

Harknett

(2010). Neighborhood disadvantage, residential stability, and perceptions of instrumental support among new mothers. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 499-524.