April 9, 2008

“It is easier and better to build boys than to repair men.”

Children at-risk

The last forty years has witnessed the eclipse of the traditional family.  In 1960, only one child in ten lived in a home without both biological parents. By 2006, due to a soaring divorce rate and nanny-state programs that rendered obsolete the need for active fathers, it was one in three.

The meteoric rise in single-parent homes is alarming to anyone concerned with the welfare of children. Studies show that, when compared against homes with both biological parents, children reared in single-parent homes exhibit, among other things: 

• Five times the risk of growing up in poverty
• Three times the incidence of emotional and behavioral problems
• Five times the risk of becoming teen parents
• Three times the likelihood of joining a gang
• Twice the incidence of dropping out of school
• And up to 10 times the involvement in criminal behavior

The reasons are clear. Children in non-traditional homes have significantly less parental supervision and involvement. More often than not, the parent is a single mother holding down one or two jobs, who entrusts child care to female relatives or professionals. For older juveniles and adolescents, after-school supervision is often absent.

Reduced contact with biological parents means less opportunity for nurturing, monitoring and mentoring from emotionally-invested, genetically-linked adults. It is a void all too readily filled by peer groups, as evidenced by the near ten-fold increase in gangs from 1970 to 1998.

To a lesser degree, children in traditional, two-parent homes have experienced some of the same problems. 

Risks in traditional families

In 1960, few mothers with children under the age of six worked outside of the home; in 2006, 65 percent did so.  Even for families with both biological parents, workplace demands divert precious time and energy from that needed to be effectively engaged in the lives of children.