LATCHKEY CHILDREN

Prevalence

There is evidence that the number of children needing before- and after-school care is growing. Two factors are of particular importance in this growth. First, the number of single-parent families has grown at an astounding rate since the 1970s. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the number of family groups maintained by one parent grew from 3.8 million in 1970 to 11.8 million in 1998. Second, there are more mothers of school-age children in two-parent families choosing to enter the out-of-home workforce. From 1986 to 1998, the number of husband and wife couples in the workforce grew from 25.4 million to 30.6 million.

Estimates of the number of unsupervised or inadequately supervised children range from 3.5 million to 17.5 million for children between the ages of five and fourteen. The large discrepancy in estimates is mainly due to the variety of definitions. Some estimates include only children who have no supervision; others include those with no adult supervision. Still other estimates include those who are inadequately supervised, periodically unsupervised, or supervised by a parent or other adult who is emotionally or psychologically unavailable. No matter which estimate is used, it is clear that too many children do not receive the supervision that would maximize their physical, social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual development.

Dilemmas for Parents

Parents work outside the home because they desire to be in the workforce or because they feel that they have financial needs. Lois Hoffman, in a 1974 study, found that children did better when parents were in their preferred situation (working outside the home or being home with the children) than when they were in their nonpreferred situation. Parents with the greatest financial needs but limited financial resources are often surprised to find that it actually costs more for the second person to work outside the home than that person earns. Thus, such parents are less able to meet their financial obligations when both persons work. Solutions for providing appropriate care for children must also examine the needs and resources of the parents.

Children have varying characteristics that affect their need for supervision and the type of supervision that will be adequate. Among these factors are age, developmental level, maturity, and physical, social, and emotional problems. Environmental resources such as the neighborhood, the home itself, and the quantity and quality of available community programs are also important.

It is a mistake to lump all children together and fail to recognize the wide variation among them and also the variation in situations and resources. For example, one situation might involve a mature twelve-year-old child who follows an agreed-upon routine while at home, has a secure home, can communicate via telephone or computer with at least one parent, and has a neighbor who checks in once or twice and watches the house. Quite another situation might involve a thirteen-year-old child who is beginning to explore drugs and sexuality, cannot be depended upon to follow an agreed-upon routine, has little contact with parents after school, and lives in an unsafe neighborhood. The range of individual and situational variables must be taken into account when attempting to understand both problems and solutions for children in need of supervision.

Mixed Empirical Findings

Numerous studies have been conducted since the 1970s investigating unsupervised children from psychological, sociological, and educational perspectives. The findings have been quite mixed, with some researchers finding clear differences between supervised and self-care children and some failing to do so. Among the former, Ruth C. Reynolds found that un-supervised children were at greater risk than supervised children for negative feeling, insecurity, accidents, abuse, neglect, and fear. Thomas J. Long and Lynette Long found that 30 percent of the un-supervised African-American children in their study reported high levels of fear. Peter Mulhall reported that middle school and junior high school students who were home alone after school two or more days per week were four times more likely to have gotten drunk in the previous month than those who had parental supervision five or more times a week. Merilyn B. Woods reported that low-income urban fifth graders who were unsupervised had more academic and social problems than similar children of higher income who were in after-school supervision. Lynne Steinberg found that fifth to ninth graders who were more removed from adult supervision were more susceptible to peer pressure to commit antisocial acts than were their supervised peers. Lorene C. Quay found that latchkey children revealed more loneliness than did children who went home to their mother. John M. Diamond and his colleagues found that un-supervised boys in the fifth and sixth grades scored lower on achievement tests than supervised boys. Javaid Kaiser found similar results.

Other studies found no differences between self-care and supervised children on a number of variables. Nancy L. Galambos and James Garbarino found that supervised and unsupervised fifth and seventh graders in rural settings did not differ on school adjustment, school orientation, achievement, and levels of fear. Stephen C. Messer and his colleagues reported no differences in personality tests and SAT scores between college students who had previously been in self-care and those who had been in supervised care. J. L. Richardson and colleagues found that stress levels of unsupervised students did not predict substance use. Hyman Rodman, David J. Pratto, and Rosemary S. Nelson found no differences among supervised and unsupervised children on measures of self-esteem, internal or external locus of control, and a behavior rating scale for urban and rural children of racial diversity. Deborah Lowe Vandell and Janaki Ramanan reported that children in the care of single mothers after school had lower scores on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tests and higher ratings for antisocial behaviors than children in other types of adult after-school supervision.

The type of after-school activities in which children are engaged also plays an important role in their adjustment. Jill K. Posner and Deborah Lowe Vandell found that children involved in coached sports and after-school academic activities were better adjusted in the fifth grade than children who spent their time after school watching television and hanging out.

Programs

A wide variety of after-school programs have been lauded in the literature. These programs vary on several dimensions. Some programs focus on contact with working parents by telephone or computer. Some child-care facilities provide video monitoring of children, with the video stream transmitted to the parent's work computer. This technology could certainly be adapted to the home. Other programs stress after-school sitters in the home or neighbors who regularly look in on older children and youth. Many programs emphasize adult-supervised activities in the community such as sports, drama, dance, music, academics, and recreation. It appears that these programs vary in quality, cost, and availability in any given community. Too often parents with sufficient resources can provide high-quality and varied adult-supervised activities after school, whereas those with limited resources do not have these same possibilities.

Conclusions

Most communities have before- and after-school supervised programs, but these opportunities may not be financially available for those who need them most, namely children who have single mothers and dual-worker low-income families. Parents must not only be aware of and have access to quality adult-supervised programs, but also know the particular strengths and needs of their child. Such strengths and needs change as the child matures. Children under age twelve should not be left alone in self-care or in the care of those who cannot adequately provide for their needs and safety. For mature adolescents, partial care and periodic supervision may be sufficient. Reevaluation should occur regularly. It is much less expensive to provide these programs for children than to deal with the consequences in adulthood.

See also: STREET CHILDREN; WORKING FAMILIES

Bibliography

Berns, Roberta M. Child, Family, School, Community: Socialization and Support, 4th edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997.

Diamond, John M., Sudesh Kataria, and Stephen C. Messer."Latchkey Children: A Pilot Study Investigating Behavior and Academic Achievement."Child and Youth Care Quarterly 18 (1989):131-140.

Galambos, Nancy L., and James Garbarino. "Adjustment of Unsupervised Children in a Rural Ecology." Journal of Genetic Psychology 14 (1985):227-231.

Hoffman, Lois W. "Effects of Maternal Employment on the Child:Review of the Research." Developmental Psychology 10 (1974):204-228.

Kaiser, Javaid. "The Role of Family Configuration, Income, and Gender in the Academic Achievement of Young Self-Care Children." Early Child Development and Care 97 (1994):91-105.

Lamorey, Suzanne, Bryan E. Robinson, Bobbie H. Rowland, and Mick Coleman. Latchkey Kids: Unlocking Doors for Children and Their Families, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.

Long, Thomas J., and Lynette Long. "Latchkey Children: The Child's View of Self Care." ERIC Database no. ED211229 (1981).

Messer, Stephen C., Karl L. Wuensch, and John M. Diamond."Former Latchkey Children: Personality and Academic Correlates." Journal of Genetic Psychology 150 (1988):301-309.

Mulhall, Peter F. "Home Alone: Is It a Risk Factor for Middle School Youth and Drug Use?" Journal of Drug Education 26, no. 1 (1996):39-48.

Posner, Jill K., and Deborah Lowe Vandell. "After-School Activities and the Development of Low-Income Urban Children: A Longitudinal Study." Developmental Psychology 35 (1999):868-879.

Quay, Lorene C. "Personal and Family Effects on Loneliness." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 13, no. 1 (1992):97-110.

Reynolds, Ruth C. "What Research Has to Say about Latchkey Programs." ERIC Database no. ED267922 (1985).

Richardson, J. L., K. Dwyer, K. McGuigan, W. B. Hansen, C. Dent, C. A. Johnson, S. Y. Sussman, B. Brannon, and B. Flay. "Substance Use among Eighth-Grade Students Who Take Care of Themselves after School." Pediatrics 84 (1989):556-565.

Rodman, Hyman, David J. Pratto, and Rosemary S. Nelson. "Child Care Arrangements and Children's Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Care and Adult-Care Children." Developmental Psychology 21 (1985):413-418.

Shafritz, Jay M., Richard P. Koeppe, and Elizabeth W. Soper. The Facts on File Dictionary of Education. New York: Facts on File, 1988.

Steinberg, Lynne. "Latchkey Children and Susceptibility to Peer Pressure: An Ecological Analysis." Developmental Psychology 22 (1986):433-439.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. "All Parent/Child Situations, by Type, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder or Reference Person, 1970 to Present." Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Married Couples by Labor for Status of Spouse, 1986 to Present." Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998.

Vandell, Deborah Lowe, and Jill K. Posner. "Conceptualization and Measurement of Children's After-School Environments." In Sarah L. Friedman and Theodore D. Wachs eds., Assessment of the Environment across the Lifespan. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 1999.

Vandell, Deborah Lowe, and Janaki Ramanan. "Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Choices in After-School Care and Child Development." Developmental Psychology 27 (1991):637-643.

Woods, Merilyn B. "The Unsupervised Child of the Working Mother." Developmental Psychology 6 (1972):14-25.

Dennis H. Karpowitz