Self-care: Why do parents leave their children ... - Springer Link

Self-care vs. Supervised Care for Children

285

SELF-CARE: WHY DO PARENTS LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN UNSUPERVISED?* LYNNE M. CASPER AND KRISTIN E. SMITH We used a preferences-and-constraints model to develop four hypotheses to explain why parents may choose self-care (an unsupervised arrangement) as the primary child care arrangement for their children over supervised alternatives and tested them in a multivariate framework using 1995 data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. We found that the choice of self-care over supervised care alternatives is linked to the availability of parents’ time to care for children, the child’s level of responsibility and maturity, and the neighborhood context. However, we found no evidence that parents’ ability to pay for child care is related to the choice of self-care. The results also suggest that parents use different decision-making processes, depending on their children’s ages.

M any people believe that changes in women’s family and work patterns have resulted in an increasing number of children being left to care for themselves. The perceived increase in children in self-care was dubbed the “latchkey-kid phenomenon.” This phrase invoked images of droves of children heading home from school sporting house keys on chains around their necks, letting themselves into empty houses, with danger lurking around every corner. Concern for the well-being of children in self-care spurred debates among policy makers and researchers, as well as among parents. Many were worried that while self-care may be fine for some children—presumably those who are more mature and in a safe environment—it may have deleterious consequences for others. Few studies have examined the effects of self-care or unsupervised activities on children’s well-being. Among those that have, the results have generally pointed to an increase in risky behaviors and undesirable outcomes. Research has shown that time spent in unsupervised activities affords children the chance to engage in risky behaviors (Osgood et al. 1996; Posner and Vandell 1999). Steinberg (1986) found that children who “hang out” with friends unsupervised after school are more susceptible to peer pressure to engage in antisocial activity than children who are supervised by a parent at home or those who care for themselves at home but report to a parent. Other research has linked self-care among adolescents with an increased likelihood of delinquent behaviors, such as the use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs (Mott et al. 1999; Mulhall, Stone, and Stone 1996). Another possible detrimental effect of self-care is the lack of developmental and social benefits and diminished social capital that are derived from less-frequent parentchild and adult-child interactions and decreased access to parental networks. Despite the importance of self-care and its relationship to children’s well-being, little research has been conducted to determine what leads parents to choose unsupervised care for their children. In this study, we used a preferences-and-constraints framework and *Lynne M. Casper, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Kristin E. Smith, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. The authors contributed equally to this research and are listed alphabetically. Direct correspondence to Kristin Smith, Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2351, Building 3, Washington, DC 20233-8800; E-mail: [email protected]. The findings and opinions expressed in this article are attributable to the authors. This article does not reflect the official views of the U.S. Census Bureau or NICHD. It reports the results of research and analyses undertaken, in part, by staff of the U.S. Census Bureau and has undergone a more limited internal review than do the bureau’s official publications. We thank Suzanne Bianchi, Lisa Gennetian, Martin O’Connell, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their helpful comments and suggestions. Demography, Volume 41-Number 2, May 2004: 285–301

285

286

Demography, Volume 41-Number 2, May 2004

developed four hypotheses to explain why parents may choose self-care (an unsupervised arrangement) for their children over supervised care alternatives, including care by parents, relatives, and nonrelatives. We then empirically tested these hypotheses with data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) using multinomial logistic regression models. The four possible explanations we explored were the availability of parents and other adults to care for children, the ability to pay for alternative child care, the child’s level of responsibility and maturity, and the neighborhood context. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: REASONS FOR CHOOSING SELF-CARE Researchers have studied child care choices using a model that encompasses need, cost, quality, and preferences (Blau and Robins 1988; Connelly 1992; Folk and Yi 1994; Hofferth and Wissoker 1992). Many scholars have applied Becker’s (1981) neoclassical economics models of household production to the study of employment and child care choices. According to Becker’s theory, parents derive satisfaction from consuming market- and home-produced goods and services, producing and rearing children, and engaging in leisure activities. According to new home economics theory, parents simultaneously choose a child care provider, a set of market goods and services, and the amounts of nonwork time to maximize their satisfaction, given their budget constraints (Blau 1991). Their budget constraints are determined by the prices of goods and services and the income that a family has to purchase them. Blau (1991) considered the quality of the care in combination with parents’ preferences as important contributors to determining child care choices. Child care preferences can include the specific characteristics or components of child care programs; the desire for a provider with shared values, religion, and culture; the convenience of the arrangement; or the reliability of the provider. Economic theory states that other preferences that are not directly related to child care are also important in choosing a child care provider—tastes for other consumer goods and the importance one attaches to leisure time. Trade-offs occur among all these factors, depending on the relative costs and perceived benefits that are attached to them. Social norms can also affect the choice of child care. Preferences for child care may be shaped by gender ideologies that prescribe appropriate employment and family behaviors for women (Riley and Glass 2002; Van Dijk and Siegers 1996). Significant others grant rewards or approval to parents who act in accordance with their beliefs and inflict sanctions on parents who violate these norms (Coleman 1990). Social networks not only define appropriate types of care but also are valuable sources of information about the availability and quality of child care providers. If one assumes that self-care is one type of child care among the many alternative arrangements from which parents can choose, these theories can be applied easily to the study of parents’ choice of self-care over supervised care alternatives. The theory as extended to the study of self-care predicts that in choosing self-care over other alternatives, parents take into account a child’s need for care, including whether the parents or another relative are available to care for the child; a family’s budget constraints, including family income and the cost of alternative care; the quality of care, including how well-suited the child is to care for herself or himself (e.g., the child’s level of maturity and responsibility) and the environment in which the care takes place (e.g., a safe neighborhood with neighbors around); and other parental and child preferences, including parenting styles, convenience, and the child’s particular likes and dislikes. Trade-offs occur among these factors on the basis of the relative costs and perceived benefits attached to them and to other goods and services, resulting in the choice of a particular child care arrangement. For example, a family may prefer a supervised after-school program with a strong educational component, but if such a program is too expensive, the family may choose self-care because it is free, trading educational preferences for price.


287

Although our data did not allow us to investigate all these important decision-making factors, we were able to consider need, cost, and quality factors by testing the four following major hypotheses in our preferences-and-constraints model predicting the selection of self-care over supervised arrangements: (1) the availability of parents and other adults to care for the child, (2) the ability to pay for child care, (3) the child’s level of responsibility and maturity, and (4) the neighborhood context. Availability of Parents Three factors are particularly salient in determining the need for child care: family structure, parents’ labor-force participation, and the number of adults in the household (Casper and O’Connell 1998; Presser 1989). Family structure may be important in determining self-care because two parents have more combined time to care for children than do single parents, reducing the need for child care. Married parents also may be less likely than single parents to have children care for themselves because they are likely to have more economic resources to enable them to choose other options. However, previous research has shown that children who live in married-couple families are indeed less likely to be in self-care, even when financial resources are controlled (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell 1994). The second factor that affects the need for child care is parents’ level of labor-force participation. On the one hand, parents who work more hours have less time to devote to caring for their children and may be more likely to choose self-care. On the other hand, parents who are employed full time may have more resources to purchase alternative child care and thus may be less likely to choose self-care. Most research has supported the first contention: the more hours that parents work, the more likely children are to care for themselves (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994). The third factor that affects the need for child care is the presence of other adults in the household who may be available to provide care or may free up parents’ time in other ways, rendering them available for care. Research on the role and number of nonparental adults in the household has produced mixed results. Cain and Hofferth (1989) found that children who live in households with more nonparental adults are less likely to be in selfcare than those living with fewer nonparental adults, while Casper et al. (1994) found no significant difference between the two groups. Ability to Pay for Child Care Two factors are hypothesized to be related to the ability to pay for child care—the cost of child care and a family’s economic resources. The high cost of supervised child care may be an impediment to families who see self-care as an economic necessity because of the lack of affordable types of care (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994; Peterson and Magrab 1989). To our knowledge, no study has empirically investigated the relationship between the cost of alternative care and self-care. In addition, families with greater economic or financial resources are more able to purchase child care services and may be able to avoid a self-care situation because they can afford to pay for child care. Whereas Cain and Hofferth (1989) found that children in families with higher incomes are less likely to be in self-care, Casper et al. (1994) found no significant relationship between income and self-care. The Child’s Level of Responsibility and Maturity Parents may take the child’s level of responsibility and maturity into account when they choose self-care over other types of supervised care. Presumably, children who are more responsible and mature are better able to provide higher-“quality” care for themselves. One factor that is associated with the development of maturity and responsibility is a child’s age; older children are generally more mature and better able to care for themselves.

288


Studies have shown that older children are more likely than young children to be in selfcare (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994; Casper and Smith 2002; Smith 2000, 2002; Vandivere et al. 2003). Another factor that is related to a child’s level of responsibility and maturity is whether the child participates in enrichment activities, such as sports, lessons (e.g., music, art, or dance), or clubs. The child development literature suggests that children’s everyday activities are important developmental phenomena and that the complexity and content of activities can be regarded as an index of psychological growth (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Several studies have provided evidence of links between the use of time and development among adolescents (Eccles and Barber 1999; Mahoney and Cairns 1997; Marsh 1992; Osgood et al. 1996). McHale, Crouter, and Tucker (2001) also documented a positive relationship between children’s structured activities and their positive development. They suggested that the process underlying this relationship is reciprocal: intelligent, welldeveloped children are selected into structured enrichment activities, and these activities, in turn, enhance positive social, emotional, and behavioral development. Thus, the evidence suggests that children who participate in enrichment activities are more responsible and developmentally mature, regardless of the process underlying this relationship, but whether responsibility and maturity influence self-care is not known.1 Neighborhood Context Neighborhood characteristics and parents’ perceptions of the safety of their neighborhoods are important factors to consider when determining whether a parent decides on self-care; the quality of care a child can provide for himself or herself may vary by the amount of danger in a neighborhood. Parents may choose self-care if they think that their neighborhood is safe or that there are neighbors nearby who could help out if there was a problem or an emergency (Casper et al. 1994; Hofferth et al. 1991). Previous research has found that children who reside in suburbs are more likely to be in self-care (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994). The authors of these studies suggested that parents who live in the suburbs may feel more comfortable leaving their children unsupervised because neighbors generally live closer than those in rural areas and the neighborhoods are generally safer than those in central cities. Other research has shown that direct measures of the perceived safety of a neighborhood are linked to a parent’s decision to use self-care; parents who perceived that their neighborhoods were of good quality—with safe places for their children to play outside—were more likely to choose self-care for their children (Bianchi and Casper 2000; Casper and Smith 2002). Other Factors Other demographic characteristics of the family, such as race and ethnicity, the gender of the child, the educational attainment of the parent, and region of residence, have been shown to be linked to the choice of self-care. Prior research has indicated that parents with higher educational levels and those in the Midwest are more likely to choose selfcare for their children (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994; Casper and Smith 2002; Lovko and Ullman 1989). The results for race have been mixed, with some studies finding that black children are more likely than other children to be in self-care (Cain 1. Time in enrichment activities technically may be viewed as an alternative supervised arrangement. However, for several reasons, we do not view structured activities as an alternative primary-care arrangement. First, only 5% of children have enrichment activities as primary arrangements, and most of these children have mothers who are homemakers. Second, the child development literature gives us strong theoretical grounds for using enrichment activities as a proxy for the developmental maturity of the child. Even though we do not view enrichment activities as a viable alternative primary-care arrangement, we acknowledge the possibility that enrichment activities may reduce the overall need for child care and increase self-care as a complementary arrangement.


289

and Hofferth 1989; Lovko and Ullman 1989) and others finding them to be less likely to be in self-care (Casper et al. 1994; Casper and Smith 2002). Studies have indicated that boys and girls are equally as likely to be in self-care (Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994). HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that all four of these factors—the availability of parents and other adults in the household to care for children, the ability to pay for child care, the child’s level of responsibility and maturity, and the neighborhood context—are important in parents’ decisions to use self-care, rather than supervised care. Specifically, we hypothesized that parents with less overall time, such as married couples with both partners working or single parents who work, will be more likely to choose self-care over parental care as a viable child care option because they are likely to have less time available to provide care themselves. However, we suspected that for the younger children, even working parents will be more likely to choose care by relatives and nonrelatives over self-care because they are reluctant to leave young children in unsupervised situations on a regular basis. In addition, we anticipated that children in families with other adults living in the household will be more likely to be cared for by relatives than to be in selfcare because other adults may be available to care for children when parents cannot. We also hypothesized that families with greater economic resources will be better able to afford to pay for alternative supervised care for their children and thus that children who live in these families will be less likely to be in self-care and more likely to be cared for by nonrelatives. Similarly, we expected that families who face higher alternative child care costs will be less likely to use care by nonrelatives and more likely to use self-care to avoid these costs. We expected that cost will matter less for young children because parents are reluctant to leave them unsupervised under any circumstances. In addition, we expected that children who are more responsible and developmentally mature and those who live in safer neighborhoods will be more likely to care for themselves than to be cared for in supervised arrangements. As is the case with cost, these factors may matter somewhat less for younger children because leaving them at home to care for themselves is less socially acceptable and appropriate and is against the law in most places. DATA AND METHODS Data The data used in this analysis came from Wave 9 of the 1993 panel of the SIPP, collected in fall 1995 by the U.S. Census Bureau. We used data from the SIPP core file and the child care, child well-being, and work-schedule topical module files. Respondents who were identified as the designated parents, usually the mothers, responded to questions for their four youngest children (younger than age 15) about the child care arrangements they used during their work and nonwork hours.2 Previous panels of SIPP data allowed researchers to investigate care arrangements only for children whose designated parents were employed, in school, or looking for work. The availability of new data allowed us to construct models for all children, including those whose designated parents were homemakers. The 1995 child care module surveyed 5,879 designated parents, yielding data on 10,032 children, of whom 6,189 were 5 to 13 years old.

2. In married-couple families, the mother is the designated parent. If the mother is not available to be interviewed, a proxy response from the father is acceptable. In single-parent families, the resident parent is the designated parent. If neither parent is living in the household, the guardian is the designated parent.

290


Methods Because we view self-care as one type of child care among the many alternatives from which parents can choose, we used multinomial logistic regression models to contrast the likelihood of using self-care as the primary nonschool arrangement compared with each of the three alternatives: care by parents, relatives, and nonrelatives. Our models were constructed to examine simultaneously how each of the four sets of factors is related to parents’ choice of primary child care for their children. This strategy is appropriate for our constraints-and-preferences-based theory, in which the four hypotheses are complementary, rather than competing. Using this modeling strategy, we were able to acquire a more complete picture of the complexities of people’s lives and the considerations that are involved in the child care decision-making process, net of other factors. Research has suggested that the processes that parents use to decide whether or not to use self-care differ significantly for older and younger children (Bianchi and Casper 2000; Casper and Bianchi 2002; Casper et al. 1994; Casper and Smith 2002; Smith 2000, 2002). To account for these differences, we estimated separate models for each of three age groups: 5–7 years, 8–10 years, and 11–13 years. We used these specific age groups because previous research and our own analyses with these data indicated that a major transition period in self-care occurs between ages 8 and 10 and hence requires separate analytical models. The structure and content of the SIPP data limited our ability to make causal inferences. Although the SIPP is a longitudinal data set, we did not have some of the key information needed to make a definitive determination of causality between these factors and self-care. For example, the data set does not contain the date that self-care began, so we could not determine whether self-care preceded or followed some of our independent measures. In addition, we did not have measures of some of the other key factors that have been hypothesized to be related to self-care (e.g., parenting styles, children’s behaviors, and children’s and parents’ preferences). The analyses presented here are necessarily descriptive, but nonetheless provide a good profile of the factors that are related to the choice of self-care as a primary arrangement over supervised options.3 Dependent Variable: Primary Child Care Arrangement To construct this variable, we first compared the number of hours per week that each child was reported to be in each type of child care arrangement on a regular basis. We then classified the primary arrangement as the one that the parents used for the longest number of hours per week, excluding time spent in school. In the cases in which selfcare tied with another arrangement for the longest number of hours, self-care was counted as the primary arrangement. We omitted 107 cases because of multiple ties among multiple categories of types of child care arrangements. We used a four-category variable to indicate the type of primary child care. The categories were self-care, parental care, care by relatives (grandparents, siblings, and other relatives), and care by nonrelatives (i.e., day care centers, nursery schools or preschools, family day care homes, care by a baby-sitter/nanny in either the child’s or the provider’s home). 3. Another potential problem is the possibly that employment is endogenous to the selection of child care. We acknowledge the possibility that the decision to work and the choice of child care may be jointly determined by a number of factors. For example, a mother may work or not, depending on whether she can find an acceptable and affordable child care arrangement, which may hinge on whether a relative is available to provide care, the neighborhood is safe, or the child is mature. To check for this possibility, we ran the models without the employment variables to examine how the covariates changed. In the models without employment, the income variable gained significance, but the effects of the other variables did not change. In other analyses not presented here, we found that few mothers indicate that child care problems are the primary reason they are not working. Thus, it seems unlikely that endogeneity poses a serious threat to these results.


291

Independent Variables Availability of parents for child care. We used three variables to measure the availability of parents for child care: work status, marital status, and the number of adults in the household. Our labor-force variable contained three categories: employed full time, other work schedule (one parent works at least part time), and not employed. Because both married and single parents were included in this variable, employed full time included families in which all parents present were employed full time, capturing families with theoretically the least amount of parental time for child care (i.e., two full-time employed parents and single parents employed full time). The category other work schedule included families with theoretically moderate amounts of parental time for child care: families in which at least one parent was employed only part time. The final category consisted of families with theoretically the most amount of time for child care: families in which no parent was employed (the reference category). Marital status was divided into two categories: married—spouse present and single (reference category).4 The third variable we used to measure the availability of time was dichotomous and indicated whether any other adults were present in the household. Ability to pay for child care. Our first variable indicating the ability to pay for child care was the natural log of total family income.5 Our second variable was the mean monthly cost of child care among those who paid for child care in the division in which the child lived (one of nine Census Bureau geographic areas).6 The cost calculated at the division level represents the price of child care in a more localized market than the national average amount paid for child care. Although we would like to have calculated costs at the neighborhood, city, or state level, the SIPP sampling design does not allow for representative estimates below the division level. The child’s level of responsibility and maturity. The first measure of responsibility and maturity we included in our model was a continuous variable of the child’s age. The second measure was participation in enrichment activities. We included one dichotomous variable indicating whether a child participated in sports, lessons, or clubs. Neighborhood context. We used two measures for neighborhood context. Our metropolitan-status measure was a set of dummy variables indicating central city (reference category), rural, and suburban residence. We constructed our neighborhood-context variable from a question asking for agreement on a scale of 0 to 10 with the following statement: “There are safe places in the neighborhood/community for children to play outside.” We divided the responses into four categories. The first three categories indicated a perception of low (reference category), medium, or high level of safety in the neighborhood. We also specified a fourth category to encompass missing data because about one fourth of the respondents did not answer this question. 4. The single category includes married—spouse absent because we were trying to capture available parental time for child care, and spouses who are not living in the household are less available for child care. In previous analyses, we constructed a more complex indicator with seven categories combining labor-force participation and marital status. The results indicated that marital status and cumulative time in the labor force had separate direct effects. Combining these variables presented an unnecessarily complicated model whose results were difficult to interpret. We therefore used the model with two separate variables. 5. Because we expected to find a significant relationship between income and the likelihood that a child would be in self-care and because other research has found that a curvilinear relationship exists, with more families at the high and low ends of the income distribution choosing self-care, we specified additional models that included various categorical variables and a poverty-status variable to indicate income. These variables were not significant in any of the models; we excluded them from further analysis. 6. We also specified several alternative cost variables to indicate variability in substitute child care costs (e.g., average costs paid by single and dual-earner parents, all of whom were employed full time; average costs for those using 20 or more hours per week; and average costs for those using 35 or more hours per week). None of these cost measures were significant either; we do not present them here.


292

Table 1. Age of Child Total

Primary Child Care Arrangementa, by Child’s Age: 1995 (Percentages) b

Self-careb

Parent

c

Relativec

d

Nonrelatived

15.8

49.9

18.5

15.8

5–7 Years

6.8

56.6

20.5

16.1

8–10 Years

16.0

46.6

18.5

18.9

11–13 Years

25.2

46.4

16.2

12.2

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel, Wave 9. a The primary arrangement is the arrangement used for the longest number of hours per week, excluding school. b

Ties between self-care and another arrangement are designated as self-care.

c

Relative includes care by grandparents, siblings, and other relatives.

d Nonrelative includes care in day care centers, nursery schools, or preschools and care by other nonrelatives in either the child’s or the provider’s home.

Control variables. In our analysis, we included three dummy variables to measure race/ethnicity, one each for black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and other, non-Hispanic. White, non-Hispanic was the reference category.7 We also included variables for the child’s gender, the educational attainment of the designated parent, and the region in which the family resided. RESULTS Primary Child Care Arrangements, by Child’s Age The vast majority of children are in supervised care during the time they are not in school—half are in parental care, and a third are cared for by relatives or nonrelatives (see Table 1). Only 16% are primarily in self-care during their nonschool time. Older children are much more likely to have self-care as the primary arrangement when they are not in school—only 7% of 5- to 7 year olds are in self-care, compared with 25% of 11- to 13 year olds. Multinomial Logistic Regressions Multinomial logistic regression models predicting self-care versus the other three types of supervised care are presented separately for each of the three age groups of children in Tables 2–4. For children aged 5–7, parental availability for child care is related to selfcare (see Table 2). Controlling for other factors in the model, children aged 5–7 who live with married parents who are both employed full time or with a single parent who is employed full time are significantly more likely to be in self-care than in parental care compared with children who live in families with no employed parents. Children who live with parents with other work schedules are more likely than are children with no employed parents to be cared for by relatives or nonrelatives than to be in self-care. Furthermore, young children who live with married parents are more likely to be cared for primarily by parents or other relatives than to care for themselves than are children who live with single parents, net of other factors. The results indicate that the ability to pay for alternative child care is not related to the use of self-care versus supervised options. Neither family income nor the cost of child care 7. We use the terms black, white, and other to refer to the race/ethnicity categories black, non-Hispanic; white, non-Hispanic; and other, non-Hispanic, respectively.


Table 2.

293

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting the Primary Child Care Arrangement, Children Aged 5– 7: 1995

Characteristics Parental Availability Employment statusa Full time Other work schedule Not employed (R) Marital status Married—spouse present Singleb (R) Other nonparental adultsc (yes)

Parent Versus Self-care

Relative Versus Self-care

–3.5048** –0.8803 .NA

0.8281 1.8346* .NA

1.3844** .NA 0.3079

0.8108* .NA 0.5181

Nonrelative Versus Self-care

1.1843 1.7739* .NA –0.1822 .NA –0.1137

Ability to Pay for Child Care Log of monthly income Mean amount paid for child care (Division)

–0.3203 0.0024

–0.3074 –0.0007

–0.1347 0.0017

Responsibility/Maturity Level Child’s age In enrichment activity (yes)

–0.5472** –1.9355**

–0.5876** –1.6801**

–0.3851† –1.6467**

Neighborhood Context Metropolitan status Central city (R) Suburb Rural Perception of safety Low (R) Medium High Missing

.NA –0.1133 0.1771

.NA 0.0693 0.6870†

.NA –0.3231 0.3584

.NA –0.3851 –0.3542 –0.3500

.NA –0.5956 –0.3570 –0.7781†

.NA –0.2557 –0.0416 –0.4680 (continued)

is significantly related to self-care among the younger children. However, the model shows that the child’s level of responsibility and maturity is significantly related to self-care; the older the child, the more likely she or he is to be in self-care versus any other type of care. Likewise, children aged 5–7 who participate in enrichment activities are more likely to be in self-care than to be in supervised care arrangements during their nonschool time. The neighborhood context does not appear to have a strong relationship with the choice of a primary arrangement for children aged 5–7 when the other socioeconomic and demographic factors in the model are controlled. A few of the demographic control variables are significantly related to self-care among children in the youngest age group. Children with Hispanic parents are more likely than are those with white parents to be cared for by parents or relatives than to be in self-care. Compared with children who reside in the Midwest, those in the Northeast are more likely to be cared for by parents or relatives than to be in self-care. Table 3 predicts whether children aged 8–10 will be in self-care as the primary arrangement versus the three types of supervised child care arrangements. Similar to


294 (Table 2, continued)

Characteristics Other Factors Race/ethnicity of parent White, non-Hispanic (R) Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Other Female (yes) Educational attainment of parent Less than high school High school (R) College, 1 to 3 years College, 4 or more years Region Northeast Midwest (R) West South




.NA –0.0869 1.1467† –0.0536 0.0992

.NA –0.0913 1.4260* –0.2061 0.0811

.NA 0.3255 1.0442 0.2404 0.1070

–0.2615 .NA –0.1422 –0.4622

–0.6095 .NA 0.0149 –0.4023

–0.5138 .NA –0.0702 –0.3733

1.1356* .NA 0.5406 –0.0401

0.7736 .NA –0.0652 –0.3311

1.0832* .NA 0.0754 0.1946

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Wave 9. Notes: Standard errors are adjusted to reflect the sample design of the survey and adjust for any spatial autocorrelation that may occur by including siblings in the model, who, by default, have the same parental and family characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau 1998). R = Reference category. a Full time includes married-couple families in which both parents are employed full time and single parents who work full time; other work schedule includes families in which at least one parent works part time; not employed includes families with parents who are in school, looking for work, or out of the labor force. b

Single includes widowed, divorced, separated, married—spouse absent, and never married.

c

Nonparental adults include grandparents, other relatives, or nonrelatives living in the household.

†

p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

the youngest age group of children, the availability of parents is significantly related to self-care, all else being equal. Children who live with married parents who are both employed full time or with single parents who are employed full time are significantly more likely to be in self-care than to be cared for by parents than are children who live in families with no employed parents. Similarly, children of parents who work other schedules are much more likely to be in self-care than to be cared for by their parents than are children of nonemployed parents. However, compared with children of nonemployed parents, children of working parents are more likely to be cared for by nonrelatives than to be in self-care. Children of married parents are more likely than are children of single parents to be cared for by their parents than to be in self-care, but are less likely to be cared for by nonrelatives than to be in self-care, net of other factors. The presence of other adults in the household increases the likelihood that children aged 8–10 are cared for by relatives, rather than in self-care. The variables tapping the ability to pay for child care are nonsignificant predictors of self-care among children aged 8–10. The results for children aged 8–10 suggest that the child’s level of maturity is positively related to self-care. Compared with children who are not in enrichment activities, children who are in enrichment activities are more likely to have self-care as their primary


Table 3.

295

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Primary Child Care Arrangement, Children Aged 8–10: 1995




–3.6651** –1.6632** .NA

0.8124 1.2068† .NA

1.0367** .NA 0.3326

0.4537 .NA 0.4830†


1.7527* 1.8789** .NA –0.6037* .NA 0.2613


–0.1255 0.0025

–0.1308 0.0024

–0.0051 0.0007


0.0593 –1.8436**

–0.0014 –1.5736**

–0.1064 –1.5845**

.NA 0.0554 0.3658

.NA 0.0700 0.5465†

.NA 0.0068 0.6886*


.NA –0.2637 –0.1717 –0.1892

.NA –0.4210 –0.3850 –0.5325

.NA –0.1431 –0.1346 –0.1904 (continued)

arrangement during nonschool hours than to have any of the supervised care arrangements when other factors are controlled. Although parents’ perceptions of their neighborhoods’ safety is not a significant predictor of self-care for children aged 8–10, children who live in rural areas are more likely than are children who live in central cities to be cared for by relatives and nonrelatives than to be in self-care. A few demographic characteristics have independent effects on self-care among children aged 8–10. Children of parents with higher educational attainment—1 to 3 years of college or 4 or more years of college—are significantly more likely to be in self-care than to be cared for by parents than are children of parents with a high school degree, even after the other factors in the model are controlled. Compared with children who live in the Midwest, children who live in the West are more likely to be in self-care than to be cared for by parents. Table 4 shows the regression results for children aged 11–13. Again, the availability of parental time is significantly related to self-care. When other factors in the model are controlled, children who live with married parents who are both employed full time,







.NA 0.1080 0.0362 0.0605 0.1282

.NA 0.2711 0.1704 –0.5799 –0.0604

.NA 0.5475 –0.0112 0.2519 0.0628

0.4325 .NA –0.5731* –0.6187*

0.0585 .NA –0.4132 –0.4526

0.4621 .NA –0.2616 –0.3982

–0.0645 .NA –0.7616† 0.0223

0.1273 .NA –0.6630 –0.1838

–0.4301 .NA –0.5430 –0.4304

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Wave 9. Notes: Standard errors are adjusted to reflect the sample design of the survey and adjust for any spatial autocorrelation that may occur by including siblings in the model, who, by default, have the same parental and family characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau 1998). R = reference category. a Full time includes married-couple families in which both parents are employed full time and single parents who work full time; other work schedule includes families in which at least one parent works part time; not employed includes families with parents who are in school, looking for work, or out of the labor force. b


c


†

p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

with single parents who are employed full time, or in families in which at least one parent works part time are significantly more likely to be in self-care than in parental care compared with children who live in families with no employed parents. The marital status of the parents is also related to the use of self-care among the oldest age group of children—children of married parents are more likely to be in parental or relative care than in self-care than are children of single parents. As in the previous two models for the younger children, the ability to pay for child care is not related to whether parents choose self-care over supervised care for their children aged 11–13. Neither family income nor the cost of child care is significantly related to the selection of self-care over the other types of care, net of the other factors. The child’s level of responsibility and maturity is an important factor in determining whether a child will be in self-care rather than in supervised care arrangements. Even among children aged 11–13, age has a positive effect on the likelihood of self-care, net of other factors. Children who are in enrichment activities are also more likely to be in selfcare as a primary nonschool arrangement than in any of the supervised care arrangements. For the oldest group of children, the neighborhood-context variables are significant factors. Children who live in rural areas are more likely to be in self-care than in parental


Table 4.

297

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Primary Child Care Arrangement, Children Aged 11–13: 1995 Relative Versus Self-care


–4.1032** –2.0691** .NA

0.3246 0.3995 .NA

0.8064 1.0111 .NA

1.0104** .NA –0.1805

0.8425** .NA –0.1092

–0.3815 .NA –0.1891


0.0172 –0.0003

–0.0120 –0.0014

0.1937 –0.0006


–0.2813* –2.1188**

–0.4571** –1.3733**

–0.4000** –1.5679**

.NA –0.2682 –0.5852*

.NA –0.3121 –0.0870

.NA 0.2338 0.2187

.NA 0.0541 0.2828 0.1919

.NA –0.5361† –0.0907 –0.2831

.NA –0.4266 –0.6371* –0.1963




(continued)

care than are children who live in central cities. A parent’s perception of neighborhood safety plays a role in the choice of self-care over supervised care. Parents who perceive the neighborhood to be of medium safety are more likely to allow their children to care for themselves, rather than to have relatives care for their children, than are parents who consider the neighborhood to be unsafe or of low safety. Similarly, parents are more likely to choose self-care over care by nonrelatives when they perceive their neighborhood to be highly safe, rather than unsafe. Among children aged 11–13, some control variables play a role in determining selfcare. Children of black parents are significantly more likely than are children of white parents to be cared for by parents or nonrelatives than to care for themselves, when other factors in the model are controlled. Children of parents of other races are more likely than are children of white parents to be cared for by relatives than to be in self-care. Children who live in the Northeast are significantly less likely to be in self-care than to be cared for by parents or relatives than are children who live in the Midwest.





.NA 0.5486† 0.3620 0.3817 0.0166 –0.0827 .NA –0.3609 –0.2286 0.7803** .NA 0.4614 0.4593†


.NA 0.2412 0.3725 0.9897† 0.0287


.NA 0.6912† 0.4990 0.8846 0.0519

–0.3057 .NA 0.0283 –0.3573

–0.1137 .NA –0.2194 –0.1561

0.7329* .NA –0.0087 0.1239

0.5972 .NA 0.2946 0.3792

Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Wave 9. Notes: Standard errors are adjusted to reflect the sample design of the survey and adjust for any spatial autocorrelation that may occur by including siblings in the model, who, by default, have the same parental and family characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau 1998). R = reference category. a Full time includes married-couple families in which both parents are employed full time and single parents who work full time; other work schedule includes families in which at least one parent works part time; not employed includes families with parents who are in school, looking for work, or out of the labor force. b


c


†

p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The results of the multinomial logistic regressions provide evidence in support of three of our key hypotheses: the availability of parents, the child’s level of responsibility and maturity, and the neighborhood context. Our results indicate that the need for care and the quality of care are important factors that parents consider when they choose a type of child care, lending more support to the literature on decisions about child care. For all age groups, the hypothesis of the importance of the availability of parental time for child care is supported. The less parental time available to care for children because of employment, the more likely the child will be in self-care than in parental care. However, for the younger age groups of children, this decreased likelihood of parental care is offset by an increased likelihood of being cared for by relatives or nonrelatives compared with self-care, suggesting parents’ reluctance to allow self-care for very young children. Like the younger children, older children with parents who work more hours are more likely to be in self-care versus parental care. But older children with parents who are employed more hours are not more likely to be in nonparental supervised arrangements compared with self-care, suggesting parents’ greater willingness to allow older children to care for themselves. Marital status plays a consistent role in predicting self-care


299

among all age groups of children, with children of married parents being more likely to be cared for by parents than to care for themselves. Our results show minimal support for previous research that suggested that children who live in households with more nonparental adults are less likely to be in self-care. We found no support for our hypothesis regarding the ability to pay for child care. Neither the cost of child care nor family income is a significant predictor in any of the models. These findings contradict our expectations and neoclassical economics theory and may have occurred because our cost variable is an imprecise measure of the true price of child care that a family faces and because some of the expected effects of income are absorbed by other measures. In fact, in a separate analysis (results not shown), we found that income was a significant positive predictor of self-care in models that did not include the parental-availability measures, yet all the other covariates maintained the same relationships and significance levels. Thus, the marital-status and employment variables also capture some aspect of the relationships between the different amounts of economic resources in these families and self-care. The results also consistently support our hypothesis regarding the child’s level of responsibility and maturity: the age of the child is a strong predictor of self-care among the youngest and oldest groups of children. Although the SIPP data cannot answer the important question of whether enrichment activities promote maturity and responsibility or whether more-mature and responsible children are more likely to engage in these activities, our results consistently show that participation in enrichment activities is linked to the use of self-care over supervised-care options. Thus, children who have demonstrated that they are mature enough to handle the responsibilities required to take part in these activities or have developed responsibility and maturity through participating in these activities may be viewed by their parents as mature enough to handle the responsibilities of self-care and able to provide quality care for themselves. These results also lend support to other research regarding the importance of the child’s level of responsibility and maturity in determining self-care (Bianchi and Casper 2000; Cain and Hofferth 1989; Casper et al. 1994; Casper and Smith 2002). Some support exists for the neighborhood-context hypothesis. An important factor in the decision to allow older children aged 11–13 to care for themselves is whether there are safe places to play outside. As expected, perceived neighborhood safety does not matter for younger children. The results for metropolitan status provided some support for the findings of previous research; among children in the younger age groups, those who resided in rural areas were more likely to be cared for by relatives than to be in self-care compared with children in central cities. Our results indicate that the examination of self-care by smaller age categories of children is an improvement on previous research. Likewise, modeling self-care as an alternative to other primary arrangements in a competing-choice model allows a more in-depth analysis of parents’ decision making regarding the choice of self-care. Because self-care increases with age, our findings suggest that models that combine younger and older children may reveal only the effects of the older children and may mask the effects of the younger children. For example, research by Cain and Hofferth (1989) and Casper et al. (1994) showed that children aged 5–12 of mothers who worked were more likely to be in self-care. By modeling self-care separately by age group and considering the other supervised options available, we were able to show that self-care for the youngest children is more likely only among those in the most time-poor family circumstances and only in comparison to parental care—parents’ full-time work reduces the likelihood of care by parents but not by relatives or nonrelatives, and other work schedules increase care by relatives and nonrelatives for children aged 5–7 compared with self-care. However, for the two older groups of children, any work by parents increases the likelihood of self-care over care by parents. Yet, while parents who work continue to choose

300


supervised care over self-care for their children aged 8–10 in the form of care by relatives or nonrelatives, they do not make the same choice for the oldest group of children. Using separate models for the three age groups and modeling specific alternatives to self-care also yielded interesting differences regarding neighborhood contexts. Safe neighborhoods were related to self-care only among the oldest age group. Perhaps safe neighborhoods are important only for older children because parents perceive that these children are more likely to be interacting with others in the neighborhood without adult supervision, while the quality of the neighborhood does not matter for younger children because they are more likely than are older children to be cared for by adults. Thus, parents appear to be reluctant to leave their young children in unsupervised situations, regardless of the neighborhood context. What do these findings imply for the likely trajectory and consequences of self-care? Our results indicate that the amount of time that parents work is an important factor related to self-care. Even among the youngest children, self-care is more common among parents who are the most time poor. Thus, as more mothers enter or reenter the labor force, more children will probably be called upon to care for themselves. These findings are particularly salient as welfare reform continues to move single mothers with dependent children off welfare and into jobs and as time limits expire. Requiring single mothers to work outside the home will reduce the amount of parental time available for child care and, as our results imply, could increase the number of older children in self-care; but is not as likely to increase the number of young children in self-care, except for children whose mothers work full time, because parents who are not employed full time are more likely to choose care by relatives and nonrelatives over self-care for young children. We found that parents are more likely to choose unsupervised care if the children are responsible and mature and if the neighborhood is safe. Other research has suggested that enrichment activities may be an important tool for increasing children’s level of responsibility and maturity. Providing low-cost enrichment activities in the neighborhood may not only increase children’s level of responsibility and maturity and lead to better-quality care when children are in self-care situations, but it may also improve perceived neighborhood safety by providing an adult-supervised environment for children. REFERENCES Becker, G.S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bianchi, S.M. and L.M. Casper. 2000. “American Families.” Population Bulletin 55(4). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Blau, D.M. 1991. “The Quality of Child Care: An Economic Perspective.” Pp. 145–73 in The Economics of Child Care, edited by D.M. Blau. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Blau, D.M. and P.K. Robins. 1988. “Child Care Demand and Labor Supply of Young Mothers Over Time.” Demography 28:333–51. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cain, V. and S. Hofferth. 1989. “Parental Choice of Self-care for School-age Children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:65–77. Casper, L.M. and S.M. Bianchi. 2002. Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Casper, L.M., M. Hawkins, and M. O’Connell. 1994. “Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1991.” Current Population Reports, Series P-70-36. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Casper, L.M. and M. O’Connell. 1998. “Work, Income, the Economy, and Married Fathers as ChildCare Providers.” Demography 35:243–50. Casper, L.M. and K.E. Smith. 2002. “Dispelling the Myths: Self-Care, Class, and Race.” Journal of Family Issues 23:717–27.


301

Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations in Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Connelly, R. 1992. “The Effects of Child Care Costs on Married Women’s Labor Force Participation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 74:83–90. Eccles, J.S. and B.L. Barber. 1999. “Student Council, Volunteering, Basketball, or Marching Band? What Kind of Extracurricular Involvement Matters?” Journal of Adolescent Research 14: 10–43. Folk, K. and Y. Yi. 1994. “Piecing Together Child Care With Multiple Arrangements: Crazy Quilt or Preferred Pattern for Employed Parents of Preschool Children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:669–80. Hofferth, S., A. Brayfield, S. Deich, and P. Holcomb. 1991. National Child Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Hofferth, S. and D. Wissoker. 1992. “Price, Quality, and Income in Child Care Choice.” Journal of Human Resources 27:71–111. Lovko, A. and D.G. Ullman. 1989. “Research on the Adjustment of Latchkey Children: Role of Background/Demographic and Latchkey Situation Variables.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 18:16–24. Mahoney, J.L. and R.B. Cairns. 1997. “Do Extracurricular Activities Protect Against Early School Dropout?” Developmental Psychology 33:241–53. Marsh, H.W. 1992. “Extracurricular Activities: Beneficial Extension of the Traditional Curriculum or Subversion of Academic Goals?” Journal of Educational Psychology 84:553–62. McHale, S.M., A.C. Crouter, and C.J. Tucker. 2001. “Free-Time Activities in Middle Childhood: Links With Adjustment in Early Adolescence.” Child Development 72:1764–78. Mott, J.A., P.A. Crowe, J. Richardson, and B. Flay. 1999. “After-School Supervision and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: Contributions of the Setting and Intensity of After-School Self-Care.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 22:35–58. Mulhall, P.F., D. Stone, and B. Stone. 1996. “Home Alone: Is It a Risk Factor for Middle School Youth and Drug Use?” Journal of Drug Education 26:39–48. Osgood, D.W., J.K. Wilson, P.M. O’Malley, J.G. Bachman, and L.D. Johnston. 1996. “Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review 61:635–55. Peterson, L. and P. Magrab. 1989. “Introduction to the Special Section: Children on Their Own.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 18:2–7. Posner, J.K. and D.L. Vandell. 1999. “After School Activities and the Development of Low Income Children: A Longitudinal Study.” Developmental Psychology 35:868–79. Presser, H. 1989. “Can We Make Time for Children? The Economy, Work Schedules, and Child Care.” Demography 26:523–43. Riley, L.A. and J.L. Glass. 2002. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want—Infant Care Preferences and Use Among Employed Mothers.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 64:2–15. Smith, K.E. 2000. “Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1997.” Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 70. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. ———. 2002. “Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1995.” Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 86. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Steinberg, L. 1986. “Latchkey Children and Susceptibility to Peer Pressure: An Ecological Analysis.” Developmental Psychology 22:433–39. U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. Survey of Income and Program Participation Quality Profile, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Van Dijk, L. and J.J. Siegers. 1996. “The Division of Child Care Among Mothers, Fathers, and Nonparental Care Providers in Dutch Two-Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:1018–28. Vandivere, S., K. Tout, M. Zaslow, J. Calkins, and J. Capizzano. 2003. “Unsupervised Time: Family and Child Factors Associated With Self-Care.” Occasional Paper No. 71. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.