Content uploaded by Joseph L. Mahoney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph L. Mahoney on Jul 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Joseph L. Mahoney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph L. Mahoney on Jul 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Should We Care About Adolescents Who Care for Themselves?
What We’ve Learned and What We Need to Know About Youth in
Self-Care
Joseph L. Mahoney and Maria E. Parente
Department of Education ,University of California, Irvine
Abstract
This article provides an overview of existing research on the prevalence and predictors of
adolescent self-care and on the consequences associated with it. Self-care, in which the young are
left unsupervised during out-of-school hours, is a common experience for millions of American
youth, and existing studies suggest that this arrangement may represent a risk for the development
of behavior problems. However, the behavior problems associated with self-care depend on both
individual and environmental factors and are most likely to develop when self-care (1) occurs out
of the home, (2) involves permissive parenting and/or low parental monitoring, (3) takes place in
neighborhoods with high levels of crime and disorganization, (4) involves adolescents with
preexisting behavioral problems, and (5) represents an intensive and persistent arrangement.
Following our survey of current research on self-care, we offer recommendations regarding future
research and policy.
Developmental consequences for youth who experience self-care (unsupervised time during
the out-of-school hours) have been of interest to researchers, policy-makers, and families for
decades (e.g., Mahoney, Vandell, Simpkins, & Zarrett, in press; Vandell & Posner, 1999).
Prior to the mid-1980s, youth in this arrangement were often referred to as “latchkey
children” because of the house key they often wore around their neck (e.g., Long & Long,
1982). However, some considered this term to have negative connotations (Rodman, Pratto,
& Smith Nelson, 1985), and descriptors such as “self-care” and “non-adult care” have been
increasingly used instead. The changing terms coincide with an ongoing debate over the
consequences of this arrangement for the healthy development of young people. Proponents
argue for a positive impact of self-care, including its allowing parents the opportunity to
work and providing youth an experience that may increase their responsibility,
independence, and self-reliance (e.g., Belle, 1994; 1999; Galambos & Dixon 1984; Stewart,
1981). In contrast, opponents have pointed to risks that can arise for unsupervised youth,
such as injury, victimization, exposure to crime, and association with deviant peers (e.g.,
Galambos & Dixon 1984; Riley & Steinberg, 2004; Zigler, 1983).
This article provides an overview of the literature on adolescent self-care that is guided by
the bioecological perspective to development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This
perspective assumes that development occurs through a process of continuity and change in
interactions between the individual’s biopsychological characteristics (including physical
characteristics, behavioral dispositions, motivations, abilities, and knowledge) and features
of the nested ecologies (proximal to distal) that the individual is part of over time. In this
view, understanding whether and how self-care affects development requires attention to
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph L. Mahoney, Department of Education, University of
California, Irvine, 2001 Berkeley Place, Irvine, CA, 92697-5500. joseph.mahoney@uci.edu.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
Published in final edited form as:
Child Dev Perspect
. 2009 December ; 3(3): 189–195. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00105.x.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
relations among youth characteristics (e.g., gender, age, behavior) and ecological features
that contextualize and affect adolescents’ self-care experience (e.g., parenting, peers, home,
neighborhood). Other theoretical perspectives (e.g., routine-activity theory, person-stage-
environment fit perspective) provide additional insight about individual and social-
ecological conditions that are important for understanding consequences of self-care.
This article is organized into three sections dealing with the prevalence and predictors of
self-care; the consequences associated with self-care; and conclusions and future directions.
Prevalence and Predictors of Self-Care
Understanding the prevalence and predictors of self-care is important for at least three
reasons. First, this understanding helps to define the scope of the phenomenon: if self-care is
a common experience for adolescents, then interest in the consequences of this arrangement
should be widespread. Second, from a bioecological perspective, understanding the
individual and ecological conditions that affect the prevalence of self-care may help to target
both research efforts and practical/policy decisions concerned with how best to organize out-
of-school time for young people. Third, to the degree that those factors influencing the
selection of youth who experience self-care also influence adolescent adjustment, they
should be considered in research aimed at understanding the consequences of self-care.
How many adolescents experience self-care? The answer depends on what source is
consulted and what operational definition of self-care is employed. For example, the 2005
Census indicates that 14% (5.2 million) of 5- to 14-year-olds regularly spend some time in
self-care (U.S. Census, 2005). The National Household Education Surveys Program of 2005
reports that 7% and 27% of students in grades 3–5 and 6–8, respectively, care for themselves
at least once a week (Carver & Iruka, 2006). The America After 3PM national household
survey reports that 7% (1.3 million), 34% (3.9 million), and 52% (6 million) students in
grades 1–5, 6–8, and 9–12, respectively, take care of themselves after school (Afterschool
Alliance, 2003). Because parents or other adults are the typical information sources in these
surveys and may be reluctant to report self-care, the estimates could be conservative.
Nonetheless, it seems safe to conclude that several million American adolescents take care
of themselves on a regular basis.
Consistent with the bioecological perspective, whether and how often adolescents
experience self-care depends on ecological and individual factors. To begin with, past work
has consistently linked the prevalence of self-care with children’s age and maternal
employment. For instance, data from the 2002 Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP; Overturf Johnson, 2005) found that roughly 3% of 5- to 8-year-olds, 15% of 9- to 11-
year-olds, and 40% of 12- to 14-year-olds regularly experienced self-care when their mother
was employed. For youth whose mother was not employed, the corresponding values were
2%, 6%, and 17%, respectively. This finding parallels past research on the general positive
association between self-care and youth age (e.g., Brandon, 1999; Casper & Smith, 2002).
However, Cain and Hofferth’s (1989) analysis of the 1984 Current Population Survey (CPS)
indicates that although maternal employment predicts the use of nonparental care in general,
it does not predict the specific type of nonparental care (e.g., self-care, sibling care, relative
care). In addition, we know very little about these associations for youth beyond the age of
14 or grade 9.
Family structure and networks are also associated with the prevalence of self-care. For
example, among families in which the mother is employed, young adolescents from single-
parent families are more likely to experience self-care than are those living in intact, two-
parent households (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1990; Overturf Johnson, 2005; Richardson, Dwyer, &
McGuigan, 1989). Moreover, the availability of either nonparental adults (e.g., a
Mahoney and Parente Page 2
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
grandmother) who can check in on unsupervised youth or the presence of older siblings in
the home positively predict the use of self-care (e.g., Brandon, 1999; Cain & Hofferth,
1989).
Some other demographic predictors of adolescent self-care are less intuitive. For example,
the popular perception that poor, inner-city youth from traditionally defined minority groups
are most apt to experience self-care tends not to be supported by research. The consensus of
findings from national, regional, and local investigations shows that the adolescents who are
most likely to experience self-care are white (vs. black or Hispanic), reside in higher-income
areas, and come from middle-class or higher-income families with a mother who tends to
hold a bachelor’s degree or has completed a higher level of education (e.g., Brandon, 1999;
Casper & Smith, 2002; Overturf Johnson, 2005).
However, one study found that, compared with their white counterparts, black youth are
more likely to experience intense amounts of self-care (10 or more hours per week) (Casper
& Smith, 2002). Furthermore, research by Levine Coley and colleagues (2004) suggests
that, among low-income 10- to 14-year-olds, living in deep poverty is linked to an increased
likelihood of unsupervised care out of the home. This finding is troubling because it
suggests that, among poor families, those youth experiencing the deepest poverty may be
especially likely to experience self-care. Replication and additional research could assess
whether this owes to a lack of available and affordable supervised alternatives for
disadvantaged families.
Beyond demographics, relatively little is known about the psychosocial aspects of
adolescents or their parents that make out-of-school self-care more likely. For example,
Belle’s (1997) qualitative study of children and youth suggests that self-care is more likely
when youth are perceived as mature and rule-abiding and display low levels of disruptive
and anxious behaviors. This type of selection could also account for why some studies have
found supervised children to have relatively high levels of behavior problems compared
with those of children who are unsupervised (e.g., Levine Coley & Hoffman, 1996). With
respect to parents, research suggests that youth in self-care are more likely to have parents
with permissive parenting styles (Steinberg, 1986), who drink and smoke (Richardson,
Radziszewska, Dent, & Falay, 1989), and who are comparatively poor monitors of their
child’s behavior (Levine Coley et al, 2004; Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Meece, 1999). However,
it is difficult to sort out directionality in some of these studies because personal
characteristics have typically been assessed in tandem with the self-care experience and
relegated to control variables.
Consequences Associated with Self-Care
Research on the consequences associated with adolescent self-care is mixed. The bulk of
studies have found that regular and durable experience in self-care is associated with poor
developmental consequences, including high levels of substance use (e.g., Levine Coley et
al., 2004; Mott, Crowe, Richardson, & Flay, 1999; Richardson et al., 1989), aggression,
deviance, and misconduct (e.g., Diamond, Kataria, & Messer, 1989; Galambos & Maggs,
1991; Pettine & Rosén, 1998; Pettit et al., 1999), fear and anxiety (Long & Long, 1982;
Shulman, Kedern, Kaplan, Sever, & Braja, 1998), and low academic performance and
school attendance (e.g., Posner & Vandell, 1994; 1999; Shulman et al., 1998). However,
other studies suggest that there is no significant association between adolescent
unsupervised time and behavioral/academic adjustment (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1990; Rodman et
al., 1985; Shulman et al., 1998). Moreover, one study found that children experiencing self-
care had better academic performance compared with children attending after-school
programs of dubious quality (Vandell & Corasaniti, 1988).
Mahoney and Parente Page 3
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Why the discrepant findings? The bioecological perspective introduced at the beginning of
this article suggests that nuanced theories of adolescent leisure and development are needed
to address this question. For example, routine-activity theory (e.g., Osgood et al., 1996,
2005) indicates that unsupervised time, per se, does not necessarily constitute a risk. Instead,
risk depends in part on whether the social conditions of self-care provide opportunities that
“encourage” youth to engage in risky behaviors. Specifically, opportunities for developing
behavior problems are predicted to be greatest when youth are unsupervised
and
socializing
with peers in settings away from home without a clear structure or agenda for how they use
their time (Osgood & Anderson, 2004). This set of out-of-school circumstances is
experienced by many adolescents, which may help to explain why juvenile violence peaks
during the hours following school dismissal (Newman, Fox, Flynn, & Christenson, 2000)
and during the summer months (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004).
Consistent with this proposal, across adolescence, time spent with peers increases, and peer
interactions tend to take place farther from the home and for longer intervals without direct
parental supervision (e.g., NRC-IOM, 2003; Osgood et al., 2005). These trends correspond
to an increase in criminal offending that emerges during early adolescence (e.g., Dodge,
Dishion, & Lansford, 2006). In addition, research suggests that, compared with similar
youth in supervised arrangements, youth involved in unstructured and unsupervised out-of-
school settings are more apt to engage in antisocial and criminal behaviors (e.g., Mahoney,
Stattin, & Magnusson, 2001). Evidence further suggests that a lack of adult supervision
presents a significant associated risk for adolescents primarily when the self-care
environment is away from the home rather than inside the home (e.g., Galombos & Maggs,
1991; Mott et al., 1999; Steinberg, 1986).
Parenting styles and behaviors also shed light on the connections between self-care and
adolescent adjustment. For instance, permissive parenting is correlated with low levels of
parental monitoring and knowledge about the activities, whereabouts, and peer involvement
of youth. This knowledge gap is, in turn, predictive of adolescent susceptibility to peer
pressure and substance use, particularly for youth whose self-care environment extends
beyond the immediate home environment (Mott et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1993;
Steinberg, 1986). In contrast, authoritative parenting styles, characterized by a synergy of
warmth/support and clear expectations/rules/consequences, has been linked to a lessening of
negative consequences associated with adolescent out-of-home self-care (Mott et al., 1999).
Identifying the mechanisms behind such associations requires further study. It has been
suggested that authoritative parents are particularly effective in establishing a relationship of
trust and open communication with their adolescent children. The nature of this relationship,
and their desire to maintain it, is thought to allow adolescents greater ease in resisting peer
pressures toward deviance that may occur in the absence of adult supervision (e.g., Stattin &
Kerr, 2000). However, the situation may be different for disadvantaged adolescents who
regularly experience out-of-home self-care. Levine Coley and colleagues (2004) found that
with this group, measures of perceived parental knowledge of adolescents’ activities and
peers and of parental control were somewhat stronger predictors of reduced delinquency and
substance use than were measures of parental trust and communication.
The neighborhoods in which self-care occurs can also influence the extent to which self-care
relates to behavioral problems during adolescence. Consistent with routine-activity theory,
dangerous and disorganized neighborhoods are especially likely to offer opportunities for
deviance to unsupervised youth (Lord & Mahoney, 2007; Vandell & Ramanan, 1991).
Research tends to support this notion. For instance, early findings of negative consequences
related to self-care were more likely to involve inner-city youth than youth living in rural or
suburban areas (Galambos & Dixon, 1984; Robinson, Coleman, & Rowland, 1986). More
Mahoney and Parente Page 4
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
recent studies show that neighborhood characteristics such as low levels of perceived safety
and collective efficacy may amplify the risk of deviant behavior for youth who experience
out-of-home self-care and low parental monitoring (e.g., Levine Coley et al., 2004; Pettit et
al., 1999).
Personal factors may also affect the extent to which self-care predicts problem behaviors
during adolescence. Gender is an example. Research suggests that negative outcomes related
to self-care such as deviant peer affiliations, substance use, and peer pressure may be more
apparent for girls than for boys. This appears to be particularly true when girls perceive their
parents as lacking in knowledge of their activities (Richardson et al., 1993) and when the
parent-child relationship is characterized by conflict, control, and low acceptance (Galambos
& Maggs, 1991).
Preexisting behavior problems are a second personal factor that predicts difficulties
associated with self-care. Both Pettit and colleagues (1999) and Levine Coley and
colleagues (2004) found that antisocial behavior and misconduct associated with self-care
were marked if youth had a history of behavior problems. Richardson and colleagues (1989)
suggest that in such cases, self-care may facilitate adolescents’ perceptions of their maturity
and promote independent decision-making. Whereas this situation might be viewed in
positive terms for some youth, for adolescents with established behavior problems, it could
increase their susceptibility to the influence of deviant peers and to opportunities for
participating in risky activities (Richardson et al., 1989).
Lastly, the amount of self-care and its timing are important elements of the bioecological
model and help to clarify the consequences associated with adolescent self-care. Although
self-care has tended to be measured dichotomously (e.g., youth who experience self-care vs.
those who do not), some investigations have considered the amount of time that adolescents
spend in self-care (e.g., hours per week). In general, behavior problems are more likely for
youth who spend a good majority of their after-school time without adult supervision. This
relation seems to hold for adolescent smoking (Mott et al., 1999), externalizing behavior
problems (Pettit et al., 1999), and substance use and depression (Richardson et al., 1989;
1993). For example, after controlling for sociodemographic and school-level factors, rates of
substance use were found to be twice as high for youth who spent 11 or more hours per
week in self-care compared with those for youth not experiencing self-care (Richardson et
al., 1989).
Regarding the importance of timing, Pettine and Rosén (1998) found that youth reported
higher amounts of deviance when self-care began in elementary school as opposed to early
adolescence. Moreover, Dwyer and colleagues (1990) found that substance use in early
adolescence may depend on whether unsupervised care persisted from childhood into the
adolescent years. Consistent with a cumulative-risk perspective, Colwell, Pettit, Meece,
Bates, and Dodge (2002) showed that self-care in grade 1 and unsupervised peer contact in
grade 6 incrementally predicted externalizing problems in grade 6, and that most of the
predictive associations were explained by family background and social-relationship factors.
On this issue of stability, Laird, Pettit, Bates, and Dodge (1998) found that some after-
school care arrangements (e.g., self-care) showed considerable continuity, whereas other
arrangements (e.g., school programs) changed substantially from year to year. Time spent in
care arrangements varied by gender, behavioral adjustment, ethnicity, SES, maternal
employment, and parental marital status. These findings underscore the importance of
developmental and ecological factors in family choices of care arrangements.
Mahoney and Parente Page 5
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Conclusion and Directions for Future Research
In recent decades, important knowledge has accumulated toward an answer to the question
“Should we care about adolescents who care for themselves?” Under some conditions, self-
care is a risk associated with adolescent behavior problems. Problems are most likely to
develop for youth whose self-care experience (1) occurs outside the home, (2) involves
permissive parenting and/or low parental monitoring, (3) takes place in neighborhoods with
high levels of crime and disorganization, (4) involves adolescents with preexisting
behavioral problems, and (5) represents an intensive and persistent arrangement.
For some readers, the foregoing conclusions may have produced feelings of déjà vu, because
some of these conclusions were suggested by research conducted more than a decade ago.
Although important research advancements have been made in recent years (e.g., better
accounting for selection factors, more longitudinal studies, inclusion of broader ecologies
such as the neighborhood), research in this area has waned overall. Because neither the
prevalence of adolescent self-care nor the risks associated with it appear to have diminished,
efforts to understand this common adolescent experience need to continue. We suggest that
further attention is required in three broad areas: theory, methodology, and policy.
With respect to theory, much of the research on self-care has, with some exceptions (e.g.,
routine-activity theory), been descriptive rather than theory-driven. As a result, we know
little about mechanisms or processes by which self-care influences youth development.
However, several theoretical perspectives that have been used in research on organized out-
of-school activities may be useful in this regard (e.g., person-stage-environment fit, flow
theory, positive youth development, and social control theory). For instance, person-stage-
environment fit theory (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989) posits that behavioral development
depends on the degree of match between the individual’s existing abilities, characteristics,
and interests and the opportunities afforded to the individual by the immediate social
environment. Fit is optimal when the environmental features the child experiences are
structured according to the child’s needs and developmental level. From this perspective,
greater attention to how individuals experience self-care and to the “fit” this arrangement
represents for different youth seems warranted.
For example, in terms of an individual’s developmental stage, the bulk of knowledge about
adolescent self-care is based on studies of young adolescents. Self-care is likely to become a
normative experience by late adolescence, and the meaning and consequences of this
experience should change as a result. Because developing autonomy from parents is a
normal, healthy part of adolescence, one might expect that whether or not youth experience
self-care in late adolescence will become a less important indicator of adjustment. However,
the social-ecological conditions that moderate the associated consequences of self-care (e.g.,
parental monitoring, peer affiliates) might continue to be important.
In addition, although several studies have found negative consequences linked to self-care, it
may represent a positive person-environment fit in some circumstances. Indeed, research on
self-care has seldom looked for positive outcomes, and the notion that self-care might foster
responsibility, self-reliance, and independence for some youth remains largely untested (e.g.,
Belle, 1994). Nonetheless, just as certain person-environment conditions seem to increase
the risk of self-care, one could envision scenarios where time spent alone is beneficial. For
example, youth who are mature and responsible, able to use their solitary time
constructively, and reside in safe neighborhoods may find some self-care to be a positive
and productive experience.
Finally, from a bioecological perspective, the experience and consequences associated with
self-care may interact with family-level processes such as whether parents monitor their
Mahoney and Parente Page 6
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
children
in absentia
. Over 20 years ago, Steinberg (1986) discussed ways in which parents
could monitor youth using distal supervision strategies (e.g., phone calls, making
arrangements with neighbors to look in on the youth, and having a schedule of activities that
the adolescent is expected to follow). Today we might add email, text- and instant-
messaging as other possibilities. At least one study (Levine Coley & Hoffman, 1996) found
that distal monitoring among unsupervised children predicted significantly better teacher-
rated behavioral adjustment, but only for those living in safe (low-crime) environments.
However, many basic questions about distal parental supervision remain unanswered. How
common is distal supervision? Which families use these strategies? What strategies do
families employ today? In terms of reducing risks associated with self-care, with what types
of environments and youth is distal monitoring likely to be most (and least) effective?
Clearly, more work on monitoring
in absentia
is needed.
With respect to methodology, greater attention needs to be given to discrepancies in how
self-care is operationalized across studies and reports. Some scholars have offered a specific
definition of self-care (e.g., Rodman & Cole, 1987), but no single definition is likely to
capture the complexity of this arrangement in full. It seems less important to find one
definition that will satisfy all investigators than to be clear on the theoretical and empirical
rationale for the various parameters investigated. Moreover, neither individual trajectories of
self-care usage across development nor the associated long-term consequences of
experiencing different amounts/durations of self-care are well understood. Data from
multiwave longitudinal studies are needed to fill this knowledge gap. Ideally, nationally
representative samples of young people would be assessed, and self-care would be measured
on multiple occasions using an approach that effectively captures youth’s use of time (e.g.,
time diaries, experience sampling).
In addition, research has often not specified the supervised arrangements with which self-
care is compared (e.g., parent care, after-school programs), yet such specification is crucial
for forming conclusions about the consequences of self-care (e.g., Galambos & Maggs,
1991; Levine Coley et al., 2004; Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005). Moreover, many youth
experience self-care in conjunction with other types of care arrangements across the week
(Lord & Mahoney, 2007; Polatnick, 2002). Because the consequences of self-care may be
influenced by these other arrangements (e.g., Pettit, Laird, Bates, & Dodge, 1997),
methodological approaches that identify and compare patterns of out-of-school
arrangements seem promising (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2005).
Lastly, with regard to policy, it needs to recognized that understanding the risks associated
with self-care does not provide a solution to the problem. When children with behavior
problems live in unsafe neighborhoods and face many hours of unsupervised after-school
care, what should parents do to mitigate the potential negative consequences of self-care?
There is a sizable literature on benefits associated with youth participation in adult-
supervised organized activities (i.e., sports, clubs, lessons, after-school programs) (Mahoney
et al., in press). Unfortunately, the provision of affordable organized activities is inadequate,
particularly for poor families in high-risk areas. Although there have been increases in
federal funding (the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers) and state-level funding
(e.g., the After-school Education and Safety Program in California) to support youth
participation in these activities, the current supply of youth programs meets only a fraction
of the demand for them (e.g., Stonehill, 2006). Accordingly, to help reduce the risks linked
to self-care, there is a critical need for funding to provide additional organized activities for
low-income adolescents.
In conclusion, self-care is a common experience for millions of American youth. Progress
has been made in understanding the consequences of this experience over recent decades.
Mahoney and Parente Page 7
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Nonetheless, significant gaps in the knowledge base remain. Conducting research from a
bioecological perspective to development has advanced this field of study. Additional
investigations that are guided by this framework seem warranted.
References
Afterschool Alliance. America after 3 pm: A household survey on afterschool in America. 2003.
Retrieved November 1, 2008 from: http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/researchAmerica3PM.cfm
Belle, D. Social support issues for “Latchkey” and supervised children. In: Nestmann, F.; Hurrelmann,
K., editors. Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence. New York: de
Gruyter; 1994. p. 293-304.
Belle D. Varieties of self-care: A qualitative look at children’s experiences in the after-school hours.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1997; 43:478–496.
Belle, D. The after-school lives of children: Alone and with others while parents work. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum; 1999.
Brandon PD. Determinants of self-care arrangements among school-age children. Children and Youth
Services Review. 1999; 21:497–520.
Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, P. The bioecological model of human development. In: Daman, W.;
Lerner, RM.; Lerner, RM., editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of
human development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 793-828.
Bryant, BK. The need for support in relation to the need for autonomy. In: Belle, D., editor. Children’s
social networks and social supports. New York: Wiley; 1989. p. 332-351.
Cain VS, Hofferth SL. Parental choice of self-care for school-age children. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 1989; 51:65–77.
Carver, PR.; Iruka, IU. After-School Programs and Activities: 2005 (NCES 2006-076). 2006.
Retrieved November 1, 2008 from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006076.pdf
Casper L, Smith K. Dispelling the myths: Self-care, class, and race. Journal of Family Issues. 2002;
23:716–727.
Colwell MJ, Pettit GS, Meece D, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Cumulative risk and continuity in nonparental
care from infancy to early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2001; 47:207–234. [PubMed:
20046544]
Diamond JM, Kataria S, Messer SC. Latchkey children: A pilot study investigating behavior and
academic achievement. Child & Youth Care Quarterly. 1989; 18:131–140.
Dodge KA, Dishion TJ, Lansford JE. Deviant peer influences in intervention and public policy for
youth. Social Policy Report. 2006:20.
Dwyer KM, Richardson JL, Danley KL, Hansen WB, Sussman SY, Brannon B, Dent CW, Johnson
CA, Flay BR. Characteristics of eighth-grade students who initiate self-care in elementary and
junior high school. Pediatrics. 1990; 86:448–454. [PubMed: 2388793]
Eccles, JS.; Midgley, C. Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early
adolescents. In: Ames, RE.; Ames, C., editors. Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1989. p. 139-186.
Galambos NL, Dixon RA. Toward understanding and caring for latchkey children. Child Care
Quarterly. 1984; 13:116–125.
Galambos NL, Maggs JL. Out-of-school care of young adolescents and self-reported behavior.
Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27:644–655.
Laird RD, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. The social ecology of school-age child care. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology. 1998; 19:329–348.
Levine Coley R, Hoffman LW. Relations of parental supervision and monitoring to children’s
functioning in various contexts: Moderating effects of families and neighborhoods. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology. 1996; 17:51–86.
Levine Coley R, Morris JE, Hernandez D. Out-of-school care and problem behavior trajectories among
low-income adolescents: Individual, family, and neighborhood characteristics as added risk. Child
Development. 2004; 75:948–965. [PubMed: 15144496]
Mahoney and Parente Page 8
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Long, TJ.; Long, L. Unpublished manuscript. The Catholic University of America; 1982. Latchkey
children: The child’s view of self care.
Lord H, Mahoney JL. Neighborhood crime and self care: Risks for aggression and lower academic
performance. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43:1321–1333. [PubMed: 18020814]
Mahoney JL, Lord H, Carryl E. An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and the
development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children.
Child Development. 2005; 76:811–825. [PubMed: 16026498]
Mahoney JL, Stattin H, Magnusson D. Youth recreation center participation and criminal offending: A
20-year longitudinal study of Swedish boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development.
2001; 25:509–520.
Mahoney, JL.; Vandell, DL.; Simpkins, SD.; Zarrett, NR. Adolescent out-of-school activities. In:
Lerner, RM.; Steinberg, L., editors. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. 3. Vol. 2. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons; (in press)Contextual influences on adolescent development
Mott JA, Crowe PA, Richardson J, Flay B. After-school supervision and adolescent cigarette smoking:
Contributions of the setting and intensity of after-school self care. Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
1999; 22:35–58. [PubMed: 10196728]
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Working families and growing kids: Caring for
children and adolescents. In: Smolensky, E.; Gootman, JA., editors. Committee on Family and
Work Policies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. Board on Children, Youth, and
Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
Newman, SA.; Fox, JA.; Flynn, EA.; Christenson, W. The prime time for juvenile crime or youth
enrichment and achievement. Washington, DC: Fight Crime Invest in Kids; 2000.
Osgood DW, Anderson AL. Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology. 2004;
42:519–549.
Osgood, DW.; Anderson, AL.; Shaffer, JN. Unstructured leisure in the after-school hours. In:
Mahoney, JL.; Larson, RW.; Eccles, JS., editors. Organized activities as contexts of development:
Extracurricular activities, after- school and community programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. p.
45-64.
Osgood DW, Wilson JK, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD. Routine activities and individual
deviant behavior. American Sociological Review. 1996; 61:635–655.
Overturf Johnson, J. Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C: U.S. Census Bureau; 2005. Who’s
Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements.
Pettine A, Rosén LA. Self-care and deviance in elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical
Psychology. 1998; 54:629–643. [PubMed: 9696113]
Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Meece DW. The impact of after-school peer contact on early
adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood
safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development. 1999; 70:768–778. [PubMed: 10368921]
Pettit GS, Laird RD, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Patterns of after-school care in middle childhood: Risk
factors and developmental outcomes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1997; 43:515–538.
Polatnick MR. To old for child care? Too young for self-care?: Negotiating after-school arrangements
for middle school. Journal of Family Issues. 2002; 23:728–747.
Posner JK, Vandell DL. Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-
school programs? Child Development. 1994; 65:440–456. [PubMed: 8013233]
Posner JK, Vandell DL. After-school activities and the development of low-income urban children: A
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. 1999; 35:868–879. [PubMed: 10380876]
Richardson JL, Dwyer K, McGuigan K, et al. Substance use among eight-grade students who take care
of themselves after school. Pediatrics. 1989; 84:556–566. [PubMed: 2788869]
Richardson JL, Radziszewska B, Dent CW, Flay BR. Relationship between after-school care of
adolescents and substance use, risk taking, depressed, and academic achievement. Pediatrics.
1993; 92:32–38. [PubMed: 8516082]
Riley D, Steinberg J. Four popular stereotypes about children in self-care: Implications for family life
educators. Family Relations. 2004; 53:95–101.
Robinson BE, Coleman M, Rowland BH. The after-school ecologies of latchkey children. Children’s
Environments Quarterly. 1986; 3:4–8.
Mahoney and Parente Page 9
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Rodman H, Cole C. Latchkey children: A review of policy and resources. Family Relations. 1987;
36:101–105.
Rodman H, Pratto DJ. Child’s age and mother’s employment in relation to greater use of self-care
arrangements for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1987; 49:573–578.
Rodman H, Pratto DJ, Smith Nelson R. Child care arrangements and children’s functioning: A
comparison of self-care and adult-care children. Developmental Psychology. 1985; 21:413–418.
Shulman S, Kedern P, Kaplan KJ, Sever I, Braja M. Latchkey children: Potential sources of support.
Journal of Community Psychology. 1998; 26:185–197.
Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000; 71:1072–1085.
[PubMed: 11016567]
Steinberg L. Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: An ecological analysis.
Developmental Psychology. 1986; 22:433–439.
Steinberg L. Simple solutions to a complex problem: A response to Rodman, Pratto, and Nelson
(1988). Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24:295–296.
Stewart, M. Children in self-care: An exploratory study. Greensboro, NC: University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, Family Research Center; 1981. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No.ED 244604
Stonehill, R. 21st Century Learning Centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation and program
monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC program: 2004–2005. 2006. Retrieved November 1,
2008 from: http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/2006report.doc
U.S. Census Bureau. Survey of Income and Program Paricipation. 2005. Table 3A: Child care
arrangements of gradeschoolers 5 to 14 years old living with mother, by employment status of
mother and selected characteristics: Spring 2005.
U.S. Department of Justice. Crime in the United States 2004: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington,
DC: Author; 2004. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from: http://www.fbi.gov/
Vandell DL, Corasaniti MA. The relation between third graders’ after-school care and social, academic
and emotional functioning. Child Development. 1988; 59:868–875. [PubMed: 3168625]
Vandell, DL.; Posner, JK. Conceptualization and measurement of children’s after-school
environments. In: Friedman, SL.; Wachs, T., editors. Measuring environments across the lifespan:
Emerging methods and concepts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999. p.
167-196.
Vandell DL, Ramanan J. Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Choices in after-
school care and child development. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27:637–643.
Zigler, EF. Testimony on school-age day care for Senate Children's Caucus Policy Forum,
Congressional Record 129 (June 21~:88). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office;
1983 Jun. Latchkey children: Risks and alternatives.
Mahoney and Parente Page 10
Child Dev Perspect
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript