Poverty effects

I recently found two articles dealing with effects of poverty on children. First, Cooper, Bayly, Tennie, Lupini & Wadsworth (2025) published “Family Risk Classes Predict Longitudinal Parent and Child Outcomes: Understanding the implications of poverty-related adversity” in Journal of Family Psychology. Here are highly edited excerpts:

Experiencing poverty and associated risk factors can be detrimental to families’ mental health and well-being. However, it is unclear whether experiencing specific types or patterns of adversity leads to distinct outcomes. Guided by the Family Stress Model, the objective of this study was to (a) identify unique family risk classes based on exposure to various combinations of poverty-related adversity and (b) examine whether the family risk classes differed in their levels of parental coping strategies, couple relationship quality, parenting practices, and child behavior problems. The sample included 301 mother–father–child triads (602 adults and 301 children) with a combined income ≤ 200% of the federal poverty level from diverse racial backgrounds: 26% White, 20% Black, 15% Hispanic/Latiné, 35% Interracial, and 3% Other. Measures were based on a combination of both mother and father reports and were assessed at multiple timepoints. Using latent class analysis, we identified four unique family risk classes: Low Adversity (low on most poverty-related adversities except job instability; 15%), Mothers At Risk (high mother victimization; 11%), Economic Stress, Depressive Parents (moderate economic distress and parental depressive symptoms; 41%), and Extreme Adversity (high on most adversities; 33%). These risk classes reported numerous differences in longitudinal family outcomes. This study provides critical information about which combinations of risk are most harmful to family health and well-being and can inform the development of preventive interventions tailored to each family’s risk exposure patterns.

About 16% of U.S. children live in poverty (Shrider et al., 2021), which often involves exposure to various poverty-related adversities, including economic distress and family adversities, such as parental mental and physical health problems and domestic violence (Adjei et al., 2024). Prior studies have found that family adversities are particularly common risk factors for children living in poverty and can negatively impact children’s future development and well-being. For example, results from the National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect indicated that parents categorized as low-income had nearly five times greater odds of maltreating their children compared to other parents (Sedlak et al., 2018).

A large body of empirical evidence has found links between poverty-related adversity and detriments to later parent and child outcomes, such as increased parenting stress, parent–child conflict, and child behavior problems. One prominent framework is the Family Stress Model (Conger & Conger, 2002), which posits that exposure to poverty can lead to a cascade of disruption and disorder starting with (a) economic distress, which can lead to (b) compromised parental psychological functioning and couple relationships, which (c) can interfere with parenting skills and parent–child relationships, which ultimately can lead to (d) negative child outcomes. This model has been tested with and applied to various economically disadvantaged populations in dozens of studies.

It is well-known that the chronic stress of economic disadvantage can lead to an accumulation of risk factors, including economic distress and family adversities (e.g., parental mental and physical health problems and domestic violence). One study with economically disadvantaged families found that most individuals clustered into subgroups experiencing one or more family adversities, such as caregiver psychological distress and domestic violence (Seay et al., 2023). A nationally representative study of married/cohabitating couples found that those living in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods had a 2–4 times greater likelihood of experiencing domestic violence as compared to those living in more advantaged neighborhoods. In alignment with the assumptions of the Family Stress Model, these poverty-related adversities are associated with future levels of parental psychological dysfunction, marital difficulties, disrupted parenting, and child behavior problems. 

Existing literature on the associations between poverty-related adversity and family outcomes has often been limited to single informants, especially mothers’ reports. A study of over 17,000 parents from 39 countries found only modest correlations between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of their own parenting practices (Bornstein & Putnick, 2016). In addition to better capturing variation in parent outcomes, using multi-informant assessments may enhance the accuracy of measuring children’s behavior. This is especially true for children too young to self-report on their behavior (e.g., under 3). Using multiple reports is also important because children may behave differently in various environments or with different people, and reporters’ biases can affect their evaluations (De Los Reyes & Epkins, 2023). Taken in concert, these findings suggest that relying on single informants of parent and child outcomes is a limited approach that may lead to incorrect conclusions about families’ functioning (De Los Reyes & Epkins, 2023).

We identified four risk subgroups, including families who had moderate levels of job instability and low adversity across other domains (Low Adversity; 15%), families with mothers reporting high levels of domestic violence victimization and fathers reporting low levels of domestic violence victimization (Mothers At Risk; 11%), families with moderate levels of economic distress and parental depressive symptoms along with low domestic violence exposure (Economic Stress, Depressive Parents; 41%), and families who experienced high levels of adversity across all domains (Extreme Adversity; 33%). The most pronounced differences in adversity exposure between classes were in their levels of domestic violence (classes ranged from 0% to 100% exposure). Classes also ranged in the patterns of adversity they experienced. For example, whereas the Extreme Adversity class reported high levels of all domestic violence indicators, the Mothers At Risk class had mothers and fathers who reported conflicting levels of domestic violence victimization.

It is worth noting that these four family risk classes were similar across most of the demographic characteristics we examined, such as family size, parent and child age, household income, education level, intervention participation, and relationship status, adding support for our assertion that differences in adversity were the main drivers of variability in longitudinal outcomes. Overall, the Extreme Adversity and Economic Stress, Depressive Parents classes had the least favorable outcomes. Specifically, parents in these classes showed lower levels of engagement coping strategies and couple relationship quality as compared to the Low Adversity class. Moreover, as expected, the lowest risk class (Low Adversity) had the most consistently favorable outcomes compared to other classes. Our finding that two of the highest adversity classes had the greatest behavioral and relational problems was consistent with prior literature using variable-centered methods. A study of over 13,000 individuals across 30 European countries found that experiencing multiple economic adversities (e.g., economic distress, unemployment, having three or more children) was most harmful to family life satisfaction (Blom et al., 2019). Moreover, a national survey of U.S. families found that higher economic adversity was associated with impaired coping processes (Bartholomae & Fox, 2017). However, departing from this past research, our study was among the first to use person-centered methods to examine the association between poverty-related adversity and parent coping and relationship quality. Therefore, additional studies using person-centered approaches are needed to substantiate these findings.

Although it was expected that two of the highest risk groups (i.e., Extreme Adversity and Economic Stress, Depressive Parents) would experience worse outcomes than the lowest risk groups (i.e., Low Adversity), it was somewhat surprising that the Extreme Adversity and Economic Stress, Depressive Parents classes shared similar levels of various family outcomes considering they were experiencing different levels of adversity (especially levels of domestic violence exposure). This finding suggests that experiencing high levels of domestic violence in combination with high levels of other poverty-related adversities (i.e., Extreme Adversity) does not lead to worse outcomes as compared to experiencing low levels of domestic violence in combination with moderate levels of other poverty-related adversities (i.e., Economic Stress, Depressive Parents). Although few studies have compared the effects of these unique combinations of adversities, empirical evidence suggests that higher domestic violence is associated with worse individual and relational outcomes (e.g., Stewart et al., 2021). However, it could be that higher levels of domestic violence are not as impactful to these outcomes when families are also experiencing many other co-occurring adversities. These findings extend the Family Stress Model and wider cumulative risk literature by suggesting that specific combinations of adversity (i.e., moderate economic stress and parental depressive symptoms) may be especially detrimental to family outcomes. This underscores the value of using cluster-based approaches to assessing poverty-related adversity that go beyond solely counting the number of adversities experienced.

The Mothers At Risk class demonstrated a conflicting pattern of family-related outcomes. Parents in this class reported higher levels of inconsistent discipline than the Low Adversity and Economic Stress, Depressive Parents classes. These differences could be due to the high rates of domestic violence exposure among families in the Mothers At Risk class, which in previous literature has been linked with greater maladaptive disciplinary practices. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 33 studies found that domestic violence victimization was associated with negative parenting practices, including harsh and inconsistent discipline (Chiesa et al., 2018). Although parents in the Mothers At Risk class reported higher rates of mother-reported domestic violence and inconsistent discipline, they also reported having children with fewer behavior problems. Sensitivity analyses revealed that these results were only present for externalizing behaviors (we found no differences in internalizing behaviors). These findings were somewhat unexpected because research and theory suggest that greater rates of domestic violence and inconsistent discipline are associated with greater child behavior problems (Conger & Conger, 2002). However, this was not replicated in our study. One explanation is that children in this class may have shown a resilient response by minimizing their externalizing behaviors to avoid punishment from their fathers, while their internalizing behaviors remained unchanged. Indeed, some studies suggest that children can exhibit resilience to domestic violence. A meta-analysis found that although children exposed to domestic violence were more likely to develop behavior problems, about 54% of these children maintained nonclinical levels of internalizing and externalizing issues, demonstrating a resilient response (Martinez-Torteya et al., 2009).

Interestingly, we found no differences in parental warmth across the four family risk classes. This is surprising because the Family Stress Model suggests that economic distress can drain parents’ emotional resources, leading to inconsistent or harsh discipline, less warmth, and ultimately worse child outcomes (Masarik & Conger, 2017). For example, one study guided by the Family Stress Model found that increased economic strain was associated with increased parental depressive symptoms, which was then associated with decreased parental warmth (Davis et al., 2020). Another study found that economically distressed parents were most likely to be hostile toward their children when parents were also experiencing couple conflict (Landers-Potts et al., 2015). Although our study found that families experiencing higher levels of economic distress and family adversities had impaired coping and inconsistent discipline, these impairments did not extend to parental warmth. Unlike prior studies, families in our sample seemed to show a unique response, maintaining their warmth even when experiencing high levels of adversity. This finding aligns with one previous study that found a positive association between material hardship (e.g., food insecurity, residential instability, inadequate medical care) and positive parenting behaviors (Gershoff et al., 2007), which suggests that parents who are in greater financial distress may compensate for the lack of resources through positive parenting.

We identified four classes of poverty-related adversity, largely driven by differences in domestic violence exposure. Families with greater adversity tended to report worse outcomes, such as impaired individual and relational functioning. Those facing moderate economic distress and parental depression, particularly alongside domestic violence, were at the highest risk for negative impacts. Our study highlights the need to examine both the number and the unique clusters of adversities families encounter. Interventions should aim at reducing the negative individual and relational effects of adversity for families with low income. Programs like unconditional cash transfers can directly increase income and have shown effectiveness in alleviating adverse family outcomes (Banerjee et al., 2021). Additionally, interventions to strengthen family relationships can enhance resilience to poverty-related adversity and its harmful effects on parent and child outcomes. Finally, our multi-informant approach revealed a crucial subgroup (Mothers At Risk) that would have been missed with single reports, emphasizing the need for multiple perspectives in family assessments.

This article is available in full text. I wanted to present it for several reasons. First, I like the theoretical model and their argument for the use of multiple informants, especially in identifying the Mothers At Risk. I found the discussion of resilience and the data on warmth fascinating. The next study looks at a different sample. Harden, Martoccio, Lee & Jaramillo (2025) published “Intergenerational Trauma, Parenting, and Child Behavior among African American Families Living in Poverty” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here are the edited abstract and impact statement:

Limited research has documented the continuity of trauma exposure between parents and young children and the relation between intergenerational trauma and maternal parenting and child outcomes. This study examined intergenerational trauma among African American families from low-income backgrounds and its relation to parenting processes and children’s behavior. Method: Participants represent a subsample of 157 African American mothers and their 4- to 7-year-old children in an urban prekindergarten program. Researchers collected data on maternal and child exposure to trauma, demographics, parenting stress, and child behavior in families’ homes. Parent–child interaction was videorecorded and coded. Parent and child trauma exposures were strongly related. Elevated parent and child trauma was related to higher sensitive-engaged parenting. Parenting stress moderated maternal and child trauma’s association with sensitive-engaged parenting, as well as the association between child trauma and harsh parenting. Higher parent trauma, child trauma, and parenting stress scores were associated with increased child externalizing behavior. This study documented intergenerational continuity of trauma and trauma’s impact on child behavior. Findings revealed complex relations between trauma and parenting that were moderated by parenting stress. 

Young children often experience disturbing (i.e., traumatic) events if their mothers had similar experiences when they were children. Children having these experiences tended to have behavior problems. However, their mothers tended to be caring and involved with their children, especially if they did not feel great stress as parents. Clinical implications of these findings include tailoring interventions to families with histories of trauma to support parents to be nurturing to their children despite the trauma and to address the stressors parents may feel through providing psychological (e.g., coping strategies) and concrete (e.g., respite care) resources. 

I thought this study was important in identifying the prevalence of intergenerational trauma and the higher level of sensitive-engaged parenting in the presence of elevated parent and child trauma. It’s not surprising that it is parenting stress that predicts more externalizing problems. Together, these studies illustrate the importance of considering the impacts of poverty on family dynamics and child behavior and resilience.