Poverty, Neighbourhood Antisocial Behaviour, and Children’s Mental Health Problems: Findings from the 2014 Ontario Child Health Study

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if levels of neighbourhood poverty and neighbourhood antisocial behaviour modify associations between household poverty and child and youth mental health problems. Methods: Data come from the 2014 Ontario Child Health Study—a provincially representative survey of 6537 families with 10,802 four- to 17-year-olds. Multivariate multilevel modelling was used to test if neighbourhood poverty and antisocial behaviour interact with household poverty to modify associations with children’s externalizing and internalizing problems based on parent assessments of children (4- to 17-year-olds) and self-assessments of youth (12- to 17-year-olds). Results: Based on parent assessments, neighbourhood poverty, and antisocial behaviour modified associations between household poverty and children’s mental health problems. Among children living in households below the poverty line, levels of mental health problems were 1) lower when living in neighbourhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and 2) higher when living in neighbourhoods with more antisocial behaviour. These associations were stronger for externalizing versus internalizing problems when conditional on antisocial behaviour and generalized only to youth-assessed externalizing problems. Conclusion: The lower levels of externalizing problems reported among children living in poor households in low-income neighbourhoods identify potential challenges with integrating poorer households into more affluent neighbourhoods. More important, children living in poor households located in neighbourhoods exhibiting more antisocial behaviour are at dramatically higher risk for mental health problems. Reducing levels of neighbourhood antisocial behaviour could have large mental health benefits, particularly among poor children.

Family and School Context: Effects on the Mental Health of Brazilian Students

“…Globally, the prevalence of mental health disorders in children and adolescents is between 10% and 20%, according to the WHO [ 5 ]. The development of mental health problems in adolescence is strongly related with situations and experiences that a child or adolescent goes through in their social circles, primarily those involving family and school [ 4 , 7 , 8 ].…”

Latent Class Analysis of Mental Health in Middle Childhood: Evidence for the Dual-Factor Model

“…The only unexpected result was the association between membership of the 'emotional symptoms but content' class and increased neighbourhood affluence. Neighbourhood poverty is generally considered a risk factor for mental health (Boyle et al, 2019). Because this class was associated with being female, having lower prior academic attainment, and being in a more affluent area, it is possible that symptom expression is rooted in a sense of failing to live up to the high expectations of parents and teachers.…”

2014 Ontario Child Health Study Findings: Policy Implications for Canada

“…Children from low-income families had fewer mental health problems when living in poor compared to wealthy neighbourhoods but far more problems when exposed to neighbourhood adversity. 12 These findings suggest that relative socioeconomic disadvantage likely influences children’s mental health, and that children from low-income families are disproportionately harmed by exposure to adversities such as unsafe neighbourhoods. 12…”

“…7 The study also has high policy relevance 8 in providing new data on population burden and service reach for emotional and behavioural disorders (including anxiety disorders, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, and conduct disorder), changes in prevalence over time, and social influences on children’s mental health. 9 –12 To inform policymaking intended to improve children’s mental health outcomes in Canada, we 1) summarize 4 of the 2014 OCHS findings with particular policy salience; 2) describe the policy context for children’s mental health services, which influences how these findings may be used; and 3) propose 6 next steps given this policy context.…”