Household Hardships, Public Programs, and Their Associations with the Health and Development of Very Young Children: Insights from Children’s HealthWatch

America’s low-income families struggle to protect their children from multiple threats to their health and growth. Many research and advocacy groups explore the health and educational effects of food insecurity, but less is known about these effects on very young children. Children’s HealthWatch, a group of pediatric clinicians and public health researchers, has continuously collected data on the effects of food insecurity alone and in conjunction with other household hardships since 1998. The group’s peer reviewed research has shown that a number of economic risks at the household level, including food, housing and energy insecurity, tend to be correlated. These insecurities alone or in conjunction increase the risk that a young child will suffer various negative health consequences, including increases in lifetime hospitalizations, parental report of fair or poor health,1 or risk for developmental delays.2 Child food insecurity is an incremental risk indicator above and beyond the risk imposed by household-level food insecurity. The Children’sHealthwatch research also suggests public benefits programs modify some of these effects for families experiencing hardships. This empirical evidence is presented in a variety of public venues outside the usual scientific settings, such as congressional hearings, to support the needs of America’s most vulnerable population through policy change. Children’s HealthWatch research supports legislative solutions to food insecurity, including sustained funding for public programs and re-evaluation of the use of the Thrifty Food Plan as the basis of SNAP benefits calculations. Children’s HealthWatch is one of many models to support the American Academy of Pediatrics’ call to “stand up, speak up, and step up for children.”3 No isolated group or single intervention will solve child poverty or multiple hardships. However, working collaboratively each group has a role to play in supporting the health and well-being of young children and their families. 1. Cook JT, Frank DA, Berkowitz C, et al. Food insecurity is associated with adverse health outcomes among human infants and toddlers. J Nutr. 2004;134:1432-1438. 2. Rose-Jacobs R, Black MM, Casey PH, et al. Household food insecurity: associations with at-risk infant and toddler development. Pediatrics. 2008;121:65-72. 3. AAP leader says to stand up, speak up, and step up for child health [news release]. Boston, MA: American Academy of Pediatrics; October 11, 2008. http://www2.aap.org/pressroom/nce/nce08childhealth.htm. Accessed January 1, 2012.

Commentary on "Household Hardships, Public Programs, and Their Associations with the Health and Development of Very Young Children: Insights from Children's HealthWatch"

This commentary, written in response to the article "Household Hardships, Public Programs, and Their Associations with the Health and Development of Very Young Children: Insights from Children's HealthWatch", highlights the importance of the research done by Children's HealthWatch in relation to childhood food insecurity. Childhood food insecurity has been linked with various adverse health effects, including undernutrition, poor or delayed child development, and social and psychological consequences. Children's HealthWatch provides important data that can be used to monitor threats to our children's well-being and address problems with effective interventions.

Middle managers' attitudes toward employee assistance programs in the corporate setting

Several studies have shown that successful Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) have strong management endorsement. Strong management endorsement is defined as positive support in utilizing EAP services for themselves and their employees. This study focuses solely on middle management as opposed to upper or general management support. The study further examines success or lack of success of an EAP by the utilization rate defined as the number of employees over a year period who access EAP services.^ A analytical cross-sectional design was used to compare and observe differences between two groups of middle managers (utilizers and nonutilizers). Middle manager data was collected through a mail questionnaire. The study focused on identifying predictors that influence middle managers' utilization rate specifically: attitude toward EAPs, EAP knowledge level, attitude toward mental health professionals, age, gender, years worked as a middle manager, education level, training, and other possible predictors of utilization. The overall hypothesis states middle manager utilizers of EAP services have more positive attitudes and a better understanding of their EAP than middle management nonutilizers.^ As predicted, nonparametric bivariate results showed significant differences between the two groups. Middle managers in the utilization group (n = 473) tended to show more positive attitudes toward their EAP and mental health professionals and demonstrated greater EAP knowledge compared to the nonutilization group (n = 154). These findings support past studies on variables that influence EAP utilization rates.^ Further variables found to influence middle management utilization were identified by multivariate logistic regression results. These variable were gender (female supervisors), educational levels of employees supervised (employees with lower levels of education), number of employees supervised (greater the number supervised, more likely to utilize), managerial EAP training (trained supervisors) and awareness that problems do influence an employee's productivity.^ These findings strengthen the assertion that middle management's attitudes, as well as other variables may influence utilization. Study findings add new information about important variables specifically influencing middle management who utilize EAPs. An understanding of these variables is essential in developing competent EAP program training and orientation programs for middle managers. ^

Evaluating the relative status of health and safety programs for minority academic and research institutions

A variety of occupational hazards are indigenous to academic and research institutions, ranging from traditional life safety concerns, such as fire safety and fall protection, to specialized occupational hygiene issues such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation sources, and infectious microorganisms. Institutional health and safety programs are constantly challenged to establish and maintain adequate protective measures for this wide array of hazards. A unique subset of academic and research institutions are classified as historically Black universities which provide educational opportunities primarily to minority populations. State funded minority schools receive less resources than their non-minority counterparts, resulting in a reduced ability to provide certain programs and services. Comprehensive health and safety services for these institutions may be one of the services compromised, resulting in uncontrolled exposures to various workplace hazards. Such a result would also be contrary to the national health status objectives to improve preventive health care measures for minority populations.^ To determine if differences exist, a cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the relative status of health and safety programs present within minority and non-minority state-funded academic and research institutions. Data were obtained from direct mail questionnaires, supplemented by data from publicly available sources. Parameters for comparison included reported numbers of full and part-time health and safety staff, reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) values, and reported workers compensation experience modifiers. The relative impact of institutional minority status, institution size, and OSHA regulatory environment, was also assessed. Additional health and safety program descriptors were solicited in an attempt to develop a preliminary profile of the hazards present in this unique work setting.^ Survey forms were distributed to 24 minority and 51 non-minority institutions. A total of 72% of the questionnaires were returned, with 58% of the minority and 78% of the non-minority institutions participating. The mean number of reported full-time health and safety staff for the responding minority institutions was determined to be 1.14, compared to 3.12 for the responding non-minority institutions. Data distribution variances were stabilized using log-normal transformations, and although subsequent analysis indicated statistically significant differences, the differences were found to be predicted by institution size only, and not by minority status or OSHA regulatory environment. Similar results were noted for estimated full-time equivalent health and safety staffing levels. Significant differences were not noted between reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) data, and a lack of information provided on workers compensation experience modifiers prevented comparisons on insurance premium expenditures. Other health and safety program descriptive information obtained served to validate the study's presupposition that the inclusion criteria would encompass those organizations with occupational risks from all four major hazard categories. Worker medical surveillance programs appeared to exist at most institutions, but the specific tests completed were not readily identifiable.^ The results of this study serve as a preliminary description of the health and safety programs for a unique set of workplaces have not been previously investigated. Numerous opportunities for further research are noted, including efforts to quantify the relative amount of each hazard present, the further definition of the programs reported to be in place, determination of other means to measure health outcomes on campuses, and comparisons among other culturally diverse workplaces. ^