The Myth That Single Mothers Don’t Work

October 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm

For several decades, policy debates about cash assistance for very low-income families have focused almost exclusively on work requirements:  what work activities should welfare recipients have to perform, and for how many hours, to remain eligible?  These work requirements, in turn, are rooted in a basic assumption:  that mothers who have never been married and who have a high school education or less — a high-poverty group that comprises the majority of cash assistance recipients — are much less likely to work than others with comparable levels of education.

That assumption is wrong — and it’s been wrong for the last decade.  Among women with a high school education or less, never-married mothers are just as likely to work as single women without children and more likely to work than married women with children.  (See graph.)

The share of never-married mothers who worked jumped from 51 percent in 1992 to 76 percent in 2000, eliminating a 25 percentage-point gap between their employment rate and that of single women without children.

This sharp improvement reflected a combination of factors, including a very strong labor market (with unemployment as low as 4 percent), expansions in work supports such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child care assistance, and welfare reform.

A highly regarded study by University of Chicago economist Jeffrey Grogger found that the EITC (which policymakers expanded in 1990 and 1993) accounted for about 34 percent of the increase, the strong economy accounted for about 21 percent, and welfare reform accounted for about 13 percent.

Since 2000, the employment rate has fallen considerably among never-married mothers.  But it’s also dropped among other women with limited education, which suggests that the causes are the economy and low education levels — not the availability of public benefits or anything particular to single mothers.

The recession hit people with a high school education or less especially hard and they are still losing ground, according to a recent report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce.  Women with a high school education or less lost 2 million jobs during the recession and an additional 600,000 jobs since the recovery started.

These job losses, combined with low wages in available jobs, meant that 59 percent of never-married mothers with a high school education or less lived below the poverty line in 2011.  Moreover, cash benefit levels are lower, and benefits are harder to get, than ever.  (Indeed, that has driven an increase in deep poverty for jobless single mothers.)

These findings suggest that if we want more single mothers with limited education to work, simply reducing welfare benefits or tightening work requirements won’t likely succeed.  Instead, we need to help them compete for jobs in a period when there are three times as many job seekers as job openings — or provide jobs when jobs are not available.  Possibilities include:

  • Subsidized jobs. During the recession, states placed about 260,000 unemployed low-income parents and young adults in subsidized jobs — but Congress allowed the federal funding that supported these programs to expire.  Transforming TANF’s Contingency Fund, which is supposed to help states respond to periods of economic distress but is poorly designed, into a Subsidized Employment Fund would be a good step towards helping unemployed single mothers find jobs.
  • More access to education and training to build marketable skills. The TANF work requirements discourage participation in education and training.  Policymakers should eliminate these constraints.  All individuals, regardless of whether they are on welfare, should be encouraged to complete high school or earn a GED or to attend industry-based or community college programs to earn a credential that will help them qualify for better-paying, more stable jobs.
  • More funding for child care. Child care is essential for single mothers — many of whom have young children — to succeed in the labor market.  Yet, funding for child care and early education for low-income families is inadequate.  The Child Care and Development Block Grant serves only one in six children eligible for help under federal rules, for example, and Head Start serves only 40 percent of eligible preschoolers.
Print Friendly

More About Danilo Trisi

Danilo Trisi

Trisi joined the Center in January 2007. He’s a Senior Research Analyst in the Family Income Support Division. He works on issues related to poverty, income inequality, and the effectiveness of the safety net.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

3 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Coni #
    1

    Jan, I completely agree. It is hard to live off of the meager check you receive each month. A mother has to work to survive! I was on welfare during my junior year as an undergraduate. That whole idea of living in a mansion and driving a Cadillac was a complete myth in my world! I worked 2 jobs—a work study position on my campus and at McDonald’s. I drove 160 miles round trip twice a week to get to my campus. Sure, I could have left that school and went to one closer to home, but what sense would that make when my scholarship wouldn’t transfer?

    I am a success story. I was eventually able to pull myself out of poverty, but it still took some time—and an education to get where I am today. I have 2 bachelors, a masters, and now I am a doctoral student. I put in 15 years at McDonald’s as a cook and I had a master’s degree! I scrimped and scraped for years to get to the salary I have today. It’s not a lot, but I do make a lot more now than I ever have in my lifetime. Forget my success story, what about the women who are presently living the life that I did 12 years ago?

    It’s easy to make comments about people who receive public assistance, but try living off of $248.00 a month! Try living that life for a while and you can see what life is really about, you will know the true definition of struggle!

  2. Jan Baer #
    2

    A glance through the “Comments” section of any online news story about this topic will reveal many who share the strong and often angry assumption that these women are so comfortable with their meager welfare allowances that they not only have no intention to work, but live in relative luxury as well. While there are some who manage to defraud the system, this is done at the state/local level and is usually due to a lack of oversight there; not at the federal level.

    The reason to focus on them is that they are living below the poverty level, often while working one or more jobs and raising children. The idea is to boost more Americans from poverty and into vocations offering self-sufficiency.

  3. matthew johansen #
    3

    A bit of a straw-man here isn’t it? Can you demonstrate that this “basic assumption” was held by anyone?

    Given that there are “three times as many job seekers as job openings” why would the correct policy be to aim programs at a narrow group of workers? Married, unmarried, mom, dad, no kids, HS or college…why focus on any one of them? Rebate 25% of the savings of cash assistance or subsidized unemployment insurance to any firm who hires and retains a worker (currently receiving benefits) for 1 year.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




− 4 = five

 characters available