Food Insecurity and Violence in the Home: Investigating Exposure to Violence and Victimization Among Preschool-Aged Children

Abstract

Children experiencing or witnessing violence in the home are at risk of a number of cognitive, social, and behavioral challenges as they age. A handful of recent studies have suggested that food insecurity may be one factor associated with violence against children in the home. The present study uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort to explore the link between household food insecurity during the first three waves of data collection (i.e., the first few years of life) and witnessing or being the victim of violence in the home among very young children (~ age 4). The results suggest that the predicted probability of early childhood exposure to violence and/or victimization in the home is nearly 6 times greater in persistently food-insecure households (i.e., households that are food insecure across all three waves) relative to food secure households. Limitations and avenues for future research are noted.

Keywords

children Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B)food insecurity victimization violence

Food insecurity is a major public health concern. Today, a little more than 13% of children in the United States are living in food-insecure households (Coleman-Jensen, Rabbitt, Gregory, & Singh, 2016). These children are more likely to have a variety of physical, developmental, and emotional difficulties (for review, see Cook & Frank, 2008). There are reasons to believe that food-insecure households face many of the same social and environmental risk factors as households at risk for family violence. Even though recent studies have supported the association between food insecurity and family violence (Chilton, Knowles, & Bloom, 2017; Chilton, Knowles, Rabinowich, & Arnold 2015; Chilton, Rabinowich, & Woolf, 2014; Hernandez, Marshall, & Mineo, 2014; Ricks, Cochran, Arah, Williams, & Seeman, 2016; Sun, Knowles, Patel, Frank, Heeren, & Chilton, 2016), prior analyses have been limited by geographically circumscribed samples, cross-sectional data, and the lack of controls for potential covariates (except see Hernandez et al., 2014, for a study on intimate partner violence). This gap in knowledge may be a missed opportunity for prevention, as the lack of access to food is a potentially modifiable antecedent to child abuse. The present study seeks to explore the link between young children’s experiences of household food insecurity and witnessing or being the victims of violence in the home.

Recent estimates suggest that in any given year approximately 1 in 12 children (~ 8%) in the United States witness violence in the home, while nearly 4% of children are victims of physical violence in the home (Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013; Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, Hamby, & Kracke, 2015). As is the case with food insecurity, exposure to violence and victimization have far-reaching consequences for the health and development of children. Exposure to violence and violent victimization have been linked to a wide array of deleterious consequences, including physical health problems (Graham-Bermann & Seng, 2005; Lanier, Kohl, Raghavan, & Auslander, 2015), cognitive deficits (Cromheeke, Herpoel, & Mueller, 2014; Margolin & Gordis, 2000), psychiatric disorders (Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Valle & Silovsky, 2002), diminished social competence and peer rejection (Kim & Cicchetti, 2010), externalizing/bullying behaviors (Baldry, 2003; Finkelhor et al., 2013; Valle & Silovsky, 2002), and even reductions in educational and occupational prospects during adulthood (Currie & Widom, 2010). Researchers have identified a number of potentially modifiable risk factors for both child exposure to violence and physical violent victimization in the home. For example, low parental attachment appears to increase the risk of physical violence against children (Rodriguez & Tucker, 2011), whereas father involvement and father support of the mother tend to decrease the risk of physical violence against children (Guterman, Lee, Lee, Waldfogel, & Rathouz, 2009). Additionally, substance use problems (Appleyard, Berlin, Rosanbalm, & Dodge, 2011) and criminal history (Coohey, 2006) among parents have also been linked to an increased risk of child exposure to violence and violent victimization in the home.

Despite the attention given to a number of risk factors for violence in the home, most studies only focus on caregiver maladies, overlooking factors beyond the parent–child dyad. Recently, researchers have begun to consider the possible association between household food insecurity and violence in the home (Chilton et al., 2014, 2015, 2017; Hernandez et al., 2014; Ricks et al, 2016; Sun et al., 2016). The proposed connection between food insecurity and a heightened risk of violence in the home is rooted in research indicating that persistently food-insecure households are characterized not only by economic disadvantage but also by diminished mental health and heightened psychological distress among family members, including parents/caregivers (Heflin, Siefert, & Williams, 2005; Knowles, Rabinowich, De Cuba, Cutts, & Chilton, 2016). It seems plausible that households experiencing these stressors, especially when persistent, may be at increased risk of cascading psychological distress and, consequently, violent family interactions, including violence against children (Nair, Schuler, Black, Kettinger, & Harrington, 2003) and violent behavior among offspring as they age (Jackson & Vaughn, 2017). In this way, food insecurity may serve as an important marker for children’s risk of witnessing and/or being the victim of violence at home and even potentially perpetrating violence themselves.

Although the research to date has generally supported the link between food insecurity and violence in the home, the current literature is limited in some important respects. First, research generally employs mothers’ retrospective reports of their own adverse childhood experiences (including physical abuse) as predictors of later raising children in a food-insecure household (Chilton et al., 2014, 2015, 2017; Sun et al., 2016). Prospective studies examining early, persistent food insecurity as a predictor of child exposure to violence and violent victimization—all occurring in the same home—are lacking. Furthermore, much of the research is cross-sectional and necessarily relies on small samples possessing limited generalizability. Studies exploring the link between household food insecurity and violence in the home that are longitudinal and nationally representative are largely absent from the literature (except see Hernandez et al., 2014). Finally, studies to date have not specifically explored the link between persistent food insecurity, exposure to violence, and violence against children in the home during the first few years of life when neurological sensitivity to violent victimization (and exposure to violence) is heightened (Schore, 2001).

In an effort to address these limitations, the present study employs a large, nationally representative sample to examine whether persistent household food insecurity from the first year of life increases the risk of exposure to violence and/or violent victimization in the home among very young children (~ age 4 years) at the third wave of data collection. Specifically, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Household food insecurity, at Waves 1, 2, and 3 of data collection (when children were 9 months, 2 years, and 4 years of age, respectively), will be associated with a significant increase in the odds of violence in the home (i.e., child victimization and/or exposure to violence in the home) at Wave 3.

Hypothesis 2: Household food insecurity at Waves 1, 2, and 3 will also be associated with a significant increase in the odds of each of the measured components of violence in the home at Wave 3: child exposure to violence and child violent victimization.

Hypothesis 3: As household food insecurity becomes more persistent across time, the odds of violence in the home at Wave 3 will significantly increase.

Materials and Methods

Data for the present study are derived from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). The ECLS-B is a longitudinal, nationally representative study of approximately 10,000 U.S. children and their caregivers (> 98% mothers) from birth to early childhood. The current study also employs data from a subsample of approximately 6,000 fathers who participated in the study by completing questionnaires concerning their relationship with the child, life history, and personality. Ultimately, approximately 5,100 households provided both maternal and paternal data at the first wave of data collection. ECLS-B researchers utilized a multistage, stratified sampled approach to obtain the data. Specifically, birth certificates were sampled from the National Center for Health Statistics in the year 2001, permitting the coverage of approximately 99% of U.S. births.

Measurement

Household Food Insecurity

The data are well suited to the current study, as they include a large number of items tapping food insecurity across multiple waves, in addition to questions about the focal child’s exposure to violence and violent victimization in the home.¹ Data concerning food insecurity were obtained from the first three waves of the ECLS-B (when focal children were approximately 9 months, 2 years, and 4 years of age). The same questions that comprise the core food security module were used in the present study to identify homes that were food insecure (for a complete list of items, see the appendix). In accordance with the recognized criterion (see Bickel, Nord, Price, Hamilton, & Cook, 2000), households in which at least 3 of the 18 questions were responded to in the affirmative were categorized as food insecure at that particular wave. For a follow-up analysis, we also constructed a series of dummy variables reflective of whether the household was food insecure and the number of waves at which the household was food insecure (ranging from 0 to 3). Households that were categorized as food insecure at only one wave were labeled Transient, households that were categorized as food insecure at two waves were labeled Persistent, and households that were categorized as food insecure across all three waves were labeled Very Persistent. Households that were categorized as food secure across all three times points were labeled None.

Violence in the Home

At the third wave of data collection primary caregivers (> 98% mothers) were given a self-administered questionnaire containing a number of questions pertaining to the focal child (average age of 4 years at Wave 3) and the family. In a section titled “Relationship Quality and Other Personal Information,” caregivers were asked questions about the quality of their marriage or partnership and the extent to which conflicts and arguments occur in the home. In this context, caregivers were also asked the following question: “In the past year, has your child ever been witness to a violent act within the home? By violent act, we mean physical fighting, destruction of property, or other kinds of violence.” Caregivers were subsequently asked, “In the past year, has your child ever been the victim of a violent act within the home? By violent act, we mean physical fighting, destruction of property, or other kinds of violence.” Using these two items, we created two binary measures assessing child exposure to violence and child violent victimization. In the case of the child exposure to violence item, households in which mothers reported at Wave 3 that their child had witnessed violence in the home during the previous 12 months but had not been the victim of violence in the home were assigned a value of 1 (approximately 5% of the sample), whereas all other households with valid data were assigned a value of 0 on this variable. In the case of the child violent victimization item, households in which mothers reported at Wave 3 that their child had been the victim of violence in the home during the previous 12 months were assigned a value of 1 (approximately 2% of the sample), whereas all other households with valid data were assigned a value of 0 on this variable.

We also constructed a dichotomous measure of violence in the home that assesses the overall pattern of violence in the home, regardless of whether the child was directly victimized. As illustrated in the questions, this item specifically references the young children in the sample, either through personal victimization or vicariously through exposure to the victimization of others in the home. To create this measure, households in which mothers reported child exposure to violence, child victimization, or both during the year prior to the interview were assigned a value of 1 (approximately 7% of the sample). The remaining households with valid data were assigned a value of 0 on this variable.²

Control Variables

Nine control variables from Wave 1 were included in the present study as covariates to minimize the potential for confounding. In short, bivariate associations between food insecurity and victimization/exposure to violence could be a product of other variables that covary with both of those factors (e.g., maternal depression, socioeconomic status [SES], parental antisocial history, spousal conflict, etc.). For this reason, we included the following variables as covariates: SES (a composite measure of maternal and paternal education, employment, and occupational prestige; see Moss & Yeaton, 2011), maternal depression (a composite index of 12 items tapping focus, appetite, sadness, restlessness, loneliness, motivation, etc.; α = .87), paternal depression (a composite index of 12 items tapping focus, appetite, sadness, restlessness, loneliness, motivation, etc; α = .86), maternal antisocial behavior (e.g., drug use, criminal justice contact, driving while intoxicated; see Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Jackson, Newsome, & Beaver, 2016), paternal antisocial behavior (see Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Jackson et al., 2016), maternal race (non-White = 1), paternal race (non-White = 1), marital status (married = 1), and spousal conflict (composite index of 10 items concerning arguments over child, chores, money, affection, sex, religion, leisure, in-laws, affairs, and drinking; α = .80).³

Plan of Analysis

The analyses were carried out in a series of steps using logistic regression techniques. First, we estimated the odds of violence in the home (i.e., child exposure or victimization) as a function of food insecurity at each wave, adjusted for covariates. These same analytical steps were also taken in models predicting child exposure to violence and child violent victimization in the home separately. Subsequently, we also employed logistic regression to calculate whether greater persistence of household food insecurity across the waves was associated with significantly higher odds of violence in the home at Wave 3. Finally, we calculated the predicted probability of violence in the home at Wave 3 as the persistence of food insecurity increased and illustrated these findings in Figure 1. Because of the inclusion of maternal and paternal data, as well as the nine covariates, sample sizes ranged from 4,556 to 4,570, depending on the specific variables analyzed.⁴

Figure 1.

The predicted probability of violence in the home by the persistence of household food insecurity.

Results

Table 1 contains the results of the 9 logistic regression models addressing our first two hypotheses. The results in the first column examine our first hypothesis: that household food insecurity, across the first three waves of data, will be associated with a significant increase in the odds of violence in the home at Wave 3. The final two columns examine our second hypothesis: that household food insecurity, across the first three waves of data, will be associated with a significant increase in the odds of both child exposure to violence and child violent victimization at Wave 3.

Table 1.

The Association Between Household Food Insecurity and Violence in the Home.

Household food insecurity	Violence in the home (Wave 3), OR [CI]	Child exposure to violence (Wave 3), OR [CI]	Child violent victimization (Wave 3), OR [CI]
Wave 1	1.54* [1.04, 2.29]	1.49* [1.01, 2.29]	2.18* [1.08, 4.39]
Wave 2	2.38* [1.59, 3.56]	2.07* [1.30, 3.29]	3.14* [1.56, 6.34]
Wave 3	2.67* [1.85, 3.83]	2.49* [1.65, 3.75]	2.92* [1.49, 5.75]
N (Wave 1)	4,570	4,570	4,570
N (Wave 2)	4,558	4,558	4,558
N (Wave 3)	4,570	4,570	4,570

Note. OR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Controls for socioeconomic status, maternal depression, paternal depression, maternal antisocial behavior, paternal antisocial behavior, maternal race, paternal race, marital status, and spousal conflict are included in the models.

p < .05.

The pattern of results illustrated in Table 1 reveals consistently significant associations between household food insecurity across each of the three time points and violence in the home at Wave 3. For example, relative to food-secure households, the adjusted odds of violence in the home (i.e., child exposure or victimization) at Wave 3 (when child subjects were approximately 4 years of age) increases by 54%, 138%, and 167% in households that were food insecure at Waves 1, 2, and 3 of data collection, respectively. Thus, the results yield support for our first hypothesis. The models shown in the second and third columns of Table 1 also indicate that the statistical significance of the relationship between household food insecurity and violence in the home holds regardless of whether children are only exposed to violence (column 2) or are personally violently victimized (column 3), which is consistent with our second hypothesis. In comparison with food-secure households, for instance, the adjusted odds of exposure to violence in the home among very young children (~ age 4 years) increases by 49%, 107%, and 149% in food-insecure households at Waves 1, 2, and 3 of data collection, respectively. Moreover, relative to food-secure households, the adjusted odds of exposure to violent victimization in the home among very young children (~ age 4 years) increases by 118%, 214%, and 192% in food-insecure households at Waves 1, 2, and 3 of data collection, respectively. Collectively, the results displayed in Table 1 consistently indicate that violence in the home, including exposure to violence and violent victimization among young children, is significantly more likely in households with histories of food insecurity.

Table 2 displays the results of an analysis examining our third hypothesis: that households in which food insecurity has persisted across time will incur significantly greater odds of violence in the home, relative to households in which food insecurity has been transient. The findings generally yield support for our third hypothesis, particularly when examining the odds of violence in households where food insecurity is very persistent. To illustrate, the adjusted odds of violence in households with a history of very persistent food insecurity (i.e., across all three waves) is 486% higher than the odds of violence in households with no reported history of food insecurity from Wave 1 to Wave 3. Comparatively, the adjusted odds of violence in households exposed to transient food insecurity (i.e., food insecurity at only one wave) is only 83% higher than the adjusted odds of violence in households with no reported history of food insecurity across the waves. Furthermore, the adjusted odds of violence in households exposed to persistent food insecurity (i.e., food insecurity at two but not three waves) is 111% higher than the adjusted odds of violence in households with no reported history of food insecurity across the waves.

Table 2.

The Persistence of Household Food Insecurity and the Odds of Violence in the Home.

	Violence in the home (Wave 3)
Persistence of household food insecurity	OR	[CI]
Transient (one wave)	1.83*	[1.21, 2.76]
Persistent (two waves)	2.11*	[1.17, 3.79]
Very persistent (three waves)	5.86*	[3.02, 11.38]
N	4,556

Note. OR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Reference category for the persistence of household food insecurity is “None.” Controls for socioeconomic status, maternal depression, paternal depression, maternal antisocial behavior, paternal antisocial behavior, maternal race, paternal race, marital status, and spousal conflict are included in the models.

p < .05.

Apart from the substantively larger effect of very persistent food insecurity on violence in the home (relatively to transient and persistent food insecurity), these differences in odds ratios are statistically significant when comparing very persistent food insecurity with transient food insecurity (i.e., 95% confidence intervals do not overlap). Thus, very persistent food insecurity does indeed have a significantly stronger effect on violence in the home than food insecurity that does not persist across time. This pattern is also demonstrated in Figure 1, which plots the predicted probability of violence in the home by the degree of food insecurity persistence over time. As illustrated in the figure, household food insecurity across all three waves (i.e., during the focal child’s infancy and early childhood) results in the largest predicted probability of young children witnessing or being the victim of violence in the home—or a predicted probability of about 1 in 5 (.209), adjusted for covariates. The predicted probability of violence in the home for persistently food-secure homes is .037, or less than 1 in 25. Relative to the impact of persistent household food insecurity on the predicted probability of violence in the home, the shift in the predicted probability of violence in the home going from no food insecurity to transient food insecurity is quite modest (.037 vs. .07).

Discussion and Conclusion

The nascent literature on food insecurity is beginning to reveal important associations with childhood experiences including violence and victimization in the home. The present study provided evidence that children living in homes where food insecurity is very persistent are at a significantly increased risk of experiencing exposure to violence and violent victimization at home compared with those from food secure homes and those from homes exposed to transient food insecurity. Results held even after adjusting for a number of confounds linked to violence and victimization. Furthermore, the present study is among the first to employ a longitudinal perspective to examine the association between persistent food insecurity from the first year of life and violence against very young children. As such, the findings provide an initial platform from which to more thoroughly examine a potentially malleable risk factor such as food insecurity in relation to violence and victimization during childhood.

Nevertheless, the results should be considered in light of several limitations. First, given that our sample was not a clinical or high-risk sample, only 7% of children were exposed to violence in the home in some form, and 2% of children were victims of violence, resulting in limited variability on the outcome measures. Even so, the ECLS-B is a large, nationally representative sample, and therefore has the power to detect significant relationships, even among relatively rare phenomena in the sample. Relatedly, our study is generalizable to the U.S. population of young children. Second, the data contained limited information about the broader context of the focal child’s exposure to violence and physically violent experiences in the home (e.g., which family member perpetrated the violence). However, the structure of these measures may increase reporting and reduce social desirability bias in maternal respondents. Had the questions been structured to identify the perpetrator of violence, mothers may have been less likely to report the occurrence of violence against children in the home if they themselves had been responsible for the child’s exposure to violence or violent victimization. Third, the data cannot speak to children’s exposure to violence and violent victimization beyond early childhood. Ideally, it would be preferable to follow these children through late childhood and adolescence, but the ECLS-B data do not permit it. Doing so would allow us to explore the persistence of food insecurity as a risk factor for violent victimization and/or perpetration during late childhood and adolescence (Jackson & Vaughn, 2017).

Finally, the specific causal mechanisms by which food insecurity might influence violence in the home cannot be fully examined in the present study. A large body of literature has shown that food insecurity, particularly when it is persistent, can be detrimental to the mental health and impulse control of parents and can at times be a result of parental impulse control deficits and mental health problems (Belsky, Moffitt, Arseneault, Melchior, & Caspi, 2010; Casey et al., 2004; Melchior et al, 2009). Although our study controls for these factors to the extent possible, it is not designed to tease apart the likely bidirectional relationship of food insecurity and mental health. Despite its inability to account for bidirectional processes, our results indicate that the association between food insecurity and violence in the home does not appear to be fully explained by parental impulsivity/antisocial history and/or depression, as food insecurity was linked to household violence independent of these factors. Additionally, our study provides a unique contribution in other respects, as its focus is on young children at a critical stage of neurological sensitivity to violence (Schore, 2001). The data, moreover, are prospective and capture the specific ages at which the violence and food insecurity occurred, allowing for better precision compared with previous cross-sectional investigations in understanding these issues from a developmental perspective.

Concerns for child physical and developmental health have helped galvanize public health efforts to reduce food insecurity. Our study is consistent with these prevention activities to alleviate food insecurity, especially persistent food insecurity, among families with young children. To the extent that persistent food insecurity is indeed antecedent to violence in the home, policies and attendant programmatic efforts that decrease the prevalence of persistently food-insecure households may have very broad effects, including reduced aggression and violence in the home . Importantly, food insecurity is a topic that may possess policy support from those on the left and right, especially when communicated within a human rights framework (Chilton & Rose, 2009). Our results imply that addressing persistent food insecurity may have the additional benefit of minimizing the risk for violence in the home, including violence against children. Future research should build on the present study and further investigate the social dynamics of food-insecure homes that increase the risk of child exposure to violence and violent victimization.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Table – Supplemental material for Food Insecurity and Violence in the Home: Investigating Exposure to Violence and Victimization Among Preschool-Aged Children

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Table for Food Insecurity and Violence in the Home: Investigating Exposure to Violence and Victimization Among Preschool-Aged Children by Dylan B. Jackson, Kellie R. Lynch, Jesse J. Helton and Michael G. Vaughn in Health Education & Behavior

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Table S1 is available in the online version of this article at .

References

Appleyard

Berlin

L. J.

Rosanbalm

K. D.

Dodge

K. A.

(2011). Preventing early child maltreatment: Implications from a longitudinal study of maternal abuse history, substance use problems, and offspring victimization. Prevention Science, 12, 139-149.

Baldry

A. C.

(2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713-732.

Belsky

D. W.

Moffitt

T. E.

Arseneault

Melchior

Caspi

(2010). Context and sequelae of food insecurity in children’s development. American Journal of Epidemiology, 172, 809-818.

Bickel

Nord

Price

Hamilton

Cook

(2000). Guide to measuring household food security, revised 2000. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Boutwell

B. B.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and offspring externalizing behavioral problems: A propensity score matching analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 146-163.

Casey

Goolsby

Berkowitz

Frank

Cook

Cutts

. . . Meyers

(2004). Maternal depression, changing public assistance, food security, and child health status. Pediatrics, 113, 298-304.

Chilton

Knowles

Bloom

S. L.

(2017). The intergenerational circumstances of household food insecurity and adversity. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 12, 269-297.

Chilton

Knowles

Rabinowich

Arnold

K. T.

(2015). The relationship between childhood adversity and food insecurity: “It’s like a bird nesting in your head.” Public Health Nutrition, 18, 2643-2653.

Chilton

Rose

(2009). A rights-based approach to food insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 1203-1211.

10.

Chilton

M. M.

Rabinowich

J. R.

Woolf

N. H.

(2014). Very low food security in the USA is linked with exposure to violence. Public Health Nutrition, 17, 73-82.

11.

Coleman-Jensen

Rabbitt

M. P.

Gregory

C. A.

Singh

(2016). Household food security in the United States in 2015 (ERR No. 215). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

12.

Coohey

(2006). Physically abusive fathers and risk assessment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 467-480.

13.

Cook

J. T.

Frank

D. A.

(2008). Food security, poverty, and human development in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 193-209.

14.

Cromheeke

Herpoel

L. A.

Mueller

S. C.

(2014). Childhood abuse is related to working memory impairment for positive emotion in female university students. Child Maltreatment, 19, 38-48.

15.

Currie

Spatz Widom

(2010). Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect on adult economic well-being. Child Maltreatment, 15, 111-120.

16.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 614-621.

17.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

A. M.

Hamby

S. L.

Kracke

(2015). Children’s exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2015(Sept), 1-13.

18.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

Seng

(2005). Violence exposure and traumatic stress symptoms as additional predictors of health problems in high-risk children. Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 349-354.

19.

Guterman

N. B.

Lee

S. J.

Waldfogel

Rathouz

P. J.

(2009). Fathers and maternal risk for physical child abuse. Child Maltreatment, 14, 277-290.

20.

Heflin

C. M.

Siefert

Williams

D. R.

(2005). Food insufficiency and women’s mental health: Findings from a 3-year panel of welfare recipients. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1971-1982.

21.

Hernandez

D. C.

Marshall

Mineo

(2014). Maternal depression mediates the association between intimate partner violence and food insecurity. Journal of Women’s Health, 23, 29-37. doi:10.1089/jwh.2012.4224

22.

Jackson

D. B.

Newsome

Beaver

K. M.

(2016). Does early paternal involvement predict offspring developmental diagnoses? Early Human Development, 103, 9-16.

23.

Jackson

D. B.

Vaughn

M. G.

(2017). Household food insecurity during childhood and adolescent misconduct. Preventive Medicine, 96, 113-117.

24.

Kim

Cicchetti

(2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 706-716.

25.

Knowles

Rabinowich

De Cuba

S. E.

Cutts

D. B.

Chilton

(2016). “Do you wanna breathe or eat”? Parent perspectives on child health consequences of food insecurity, trade-offs, and toxic stress. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20, 25-32.

26.

Lanier

Kohl

P. L.

Raghavan

Auslander

(2015). A preliminary examination of child well-being of physically abused and neglected children compared to a normative pediatric population. Child Maltreatment, 20, 72-79.

27.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.

28.

Melchior

Caspi

Howard

L. M.

Ambler

A. P.

Bolton

Mountain

Moffitt

T. E.

(2009). Mental health context of food insecurity: A representative cohort of families with young children. Pediatrics, 124, e564-e572.

29.

Moss

B. G.

Yeaton

W. H.

(2011). Young children’s weight trajectories and associated risk factors: Results from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25, 190-198.

30.

Nair

Schuler

M. E.

Black

M. M.

Kettinger

Harrington

(2003). Cumulative environmental risk in substance abusing women: Early intervention, parenting stress, child abuse potential and child development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 997-1017.

31.

Ricks

J. L.

Cochran

S. D.

Arah

O. A.

Williams

J. K.

Seeman

T. E.

(2016). Food insecurity and intimate partner violence against women: Results from the California Women’s Health Survey. Public Health Nutrition, 19, 914-923.

32.

Rodriguez

C. M.

Tucker

M. C.

(2011). Behind the cycle of violence, beyond abuse history: A brief report on the association of parental attachment to physical child abuse potential. Violence and Victims, 26, 246-256.

33.

Schore

A. N.

(2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 201-269.

34.

Sun

Knowles

Patel

Frank

D. A.

Heeren

T. C.

Chilton

(2016). Childhood adversity and adult reports of food insecurity among households with children. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50, 561-572.

35.

Valle

L. A.

Silovsky

J. F.

(2002). Attributions and adjustment following child sexual and physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 7, 9-24.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB