Entering the Labour Market by Single Mothers

Decision to enter the labour market for singleand have 12.5 years of education. Only 26% live
mothers is linked with the issue of taking care ofin poverty, but two-thirds have income less than
their young children. Child care costs will continuetwice the poverty threshold. Approximately
to be an important factor determining welfareone-fourth work part time, and 53% report
participation in the welfare reform environmentpaying for child care. The oldest single mothers
because of the low expected earnings ofare those who are employed and paying for child
low-skilled workers and the high percentage ofcare, and this subgroup also reports the highest
earned income that must be devoted to purchaseeducation levels, with 12.6 years of education.
reliable quality care. In addition to facilitatingFocusing further on the issue of paying for child
mothers' employment and thus reducing povertycare, those single mothers employed and paying
and the need for income supplements, quality childfor care are a bit less likely to be nonwhite and
care is also an important social concern in and ofless likely to live in poverty or receive welfare
itself, given the strong link between quality childthan all employed single mothers. Additionally, they
care and positive child outcomes, particularly forare less likely to work part time, and they earn
at-risk children.higher average hourly wages ($8.96 vs. $8.25 an
In this paper, we analyze the effectiveness ofhour).
child care assistance policies indirectly by4. Employment and Welfare Status
considering explicitly the effect of the cost of childAccording to Berger and Black (1992), the
care on welfare recipiency. We find that, over aworking single mothers not reporting welfare
set of alternative specifications, welfare recipiencyrecipiency are the oldest and have the most
and employment of single mothers are sensitiveeducation and the lowest poverty rates. Their
to the predicted hourly price of child care.higher nonlabor income may indicate that they are
1. Brief Review of Existing Evidencemore likely to be receiving child support payments.
There are three main sources of informationThe other group with relatively higher nonlabor
related to our research question on the effect ofincome is the group not employed and not on
the price of child care on employment andwelfare. Some of these women are also receiving
welfare recipiency. The first source is econometricchild support, but there is substantial variation
works on the effect of child care costs onamong themselves, as the high poverty rate
employment. Second is a set of papers focusedindicates. Others may be queued for welfare,
on the welfare side of the coin. Finally, there iswaiting for their savings to be depleted.
some evidence from evaluations of welfareThe nonwelfare group is far less likely to be
-to-work demonstration projects of theemployed part time and receives a considerably
importance of child care costs to employmenthigher average hourly wage. In addition, while the
and welfare recipiency.welfare recipient group is less likely to pay for
In terms of the econometric work on the effectcare (36% vs. 56%), the recipient group pays a
of child care costs on employment, that body ofhigher hourly price for child care. This may reflect
work has been well summarized elsewherethe higher cost of part-time child care or the
(Berger&Black 1992; Blau&Alison 1998). Almost allreceipt of child care subsidies.
the studies on employment find a significant5. Child Care Mode Choice and Weekly
negative effect of child care costs on women'sExpenditures by Mode of Care for Employed
employment, although the estimated child careSingle Mothers
price elasticity with respect to employment variesAccording to Bowen and Neehan (1993), single
widely across studies. Most relevant to ourmothers receiving welfare are more likely to rely
current topic are three papers—Berger andon relative care and less likely to rely on
Black (1992), Blau and Alison (1998), and Bowencenter-based care. But recall that they are also
and Neehan (1993)--each of which uses data tomore likely to work part time, an employment
look at differences across marital status. Each ofstate more often associated with this pattern of
these papers finds evidence that the elasticity ofmodal choice. In addition, the welfare recipients
single mother's employment with respect to childare less likely to pay for relative care and less
care costs is greater in absolute value thanlikely to pay for center-based care. Neither
married mother's employment elasticity.subgroups are very likely to pay for relative care.
Blanck (1985, 1989) review the relationshipsThe welfare recipient subgroup's average weekly
between welfare recipiency and childcare costspayment for center-based care is considerably
and suggested that a 50% child care subsidyhigher than for those not receiving welfare. For all
would increase the labor force participation ofsingle mothers, center-based care is the most
single parents by 2.9 percentage points and that aexpensive, followed by home-based care and
20% reduction in the AFDC guaranteed paymentrelative care.
would increase the labor force participation ofChild care costs present a problem for the
single parents by 1.6% and reduce their welfareresearchers in that they are often unknown
transfer program participation by 1.2 percentageunless the mother is engaged in market work.
points.This situation is similar to the problem of wages
Evidence of a positive relationship between childthat are unobserved if the person is not
care costs and welfare recipiency can also beemployed. In addition to the problem of limited
found in a number of evaluation studies ofobservation of the relevant variable, child care is
welfare -to-work demonstration projects, thoughcomplicated by the fact that many families do not
the results are not uniform. Graham and Bellerpay the "market price" for child care. Nonprofit
(1989) reviewed evidence from several majorcenters are often subsidized in the form of free
welfare -to-work demonstration projects thatrent and require no return on investment capital.
included child care components. They wrote,Relatives and friends may be willing to provide
"Although the confluence of services, mandates,child care at a reduced price or at no charge
and incentives in these demonstrations suggestseither because they receive in-kind payments or
caution is required in interpreting their results,because they enjoy caring for the child.
based on this evidence it seems reasonable toHow one approaches this problem depends in part
conclude that subsidized child care may have aon the information available and in part on the
modest effect, at best, in increasing employmentquestion one is trying to answer. Because the
levels of very low-skilled, single mothers with smallfocus here is on the mother's decision, only the
children" (Graham and Beller, 1989, p.665).portion of the cost she pays is relevant. Since we
However, as the authors point out, none of theseare interested in the effect of child care costs on
demonstrations explicitly examined the importancewelfare recipiency and employment, we analyze
of child care costs within an experimentalthe cost of child care per hour of employment,
framework, so any conclusions relating to thenot the cost per hour of child care used. This is
importance of child care costs are tentative atthe relevant decision choice for mothers of young
best.children who are evaluating the costs and benefits
The Minnesota Family Investment Programof entering the labor market, with one alternative
(MFIP), which was included in Joesch reviewbeing receiving welfare.
(1991), deserves extra scrutiny. This programAs it was previously mentioned, differences
was an innovative program based on the dualamong families in their access to low- or no-cost
(and often competing) goals of encouraging workcare is a very pertinent issue for our problem.
and making work pay. It contained two key workUsing the average local market price of child care
incentive provisions, the second of which relatedalone ignores substantial differences among
to child care. The MFIP paid child care costsfamilies in access to below-market child care. The
directly to providers for all parents working orproblem is that there is not really an exogenously
participating in employment-related activities. Thegiven price of child care that is relevant to all
AFDC reimbursement scheme differed becauseconsumers in the marketplace. Instead, because
the parents paid the providers directly and wereof differences in family circumstances and location
reimbursed later. The practice of reimbursing theof residence, each individual faces her own price
mother after the expenditure occurred may haveper hour of child care. Nonwhite mothers, mothers
hindered the mother's efforts to get and staywho reside in urban areas, and mothers reporting
employed. Also, the AFDC reimbursement rulespoor health are more likely to receive AFDC. The
tend to discourage providers from accepting suchstate's average AFDC payment per enrollee is
subsidized clients because of the uncertainty ofrelated positively to AFDC recipiency, but the
receiving payment. The report finds significantaverage Medicaid expenditure per enrollee is
impacts in numerous areas, including employmentrelated negatively (Graham and Beller, 1989,
rates and earnings of the MFIP approach.p.668).
Finally, Waldfogel (2001) analyzed Massachusetts6. The effect of predicted child care expenditures
state data on current and former TANF recipientson the probability of AFDC recipiency
who also receive child care vouchers. He foundAccording to findings of Berger and Black (1992),
that increased funding for child care subsidies andthat effect of predicted child care recipiency is
availability of full-day kindergarten are associatedpositive and significant. Those with higher nonlabor
with increased probabilities that current andincomes are also less likely to receive welfare,
former welfare recipients will work.while families in which the youngest child has one
In sum, a thorough review of the broad literatureor more siblings under the age of six are more
relevant for this paper reveals a uniformity in thelikely to receive welfare.
direction and significance of the child care priceWith child care expenditures reduced to one-half
effect but a rather broad range of empiricalfor all single mothers, AFDC recipiency would fall
estimates concerning the importance of child carefurther to 12.5%, while employment is predicted
costs on employment probabilities of singleto rise to 74.7% (Blau and Allison, 1998, p.105).
mothers.Tying the child care subsidy to a reduction in
2. Single mothers’ choices in welfareaverage state benefits reduces the receipency
recipiencyrate still further to 15.1% and increases the
One of the most important aspects of theemployment rate to 69.5% with further cost
market for child care is that individuals face widelysaving in AFDC expenditures (Blau and Allison,
different costs for similar services depending on1998, p. 104). Subsidizing child care costs for all
the availability of low- or no-cost child caresingle mothers may be an important policy tool
options. We begin with analysis of individualleading to lower AFDC recipiency rates. These
decision making that represents the discretesubsidies could be packaged with existing federal
choices about welfare recipiency and employmentTANF program restrictions on length of total,
of mothers with young children. In our case, welifetime welfare recipiency, and work requirements
assume that mothers of young children seek toto improve living standards for ex-recipients by
maximize their utility over goods and childhelping to "make work pay."
services, subject to four constraints: a moneyConclusion
budget constraint combining the mother's laborThis paper looks specifically at the effect of child
income and nonlabor income, a production functioncare costs on the decisions of single mothers
for child services, a mother's time constraint, andconcerning employment and AFDC recipiency. In
a child's time constraint. Child services are thedoing so, it seeks to answer the questions made
commodity parents are consuming from theirso relevant first by the Family Support Act of
children; it could be companionship or love or pride1988 and more recently by the Personal
in one's progeny. They are produced with aResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
combination of the mother's time at home, theAct of 1996: Can subsidizing child care reduce the
child's time with other caregivers, and moneywelfare dependency of single mothers? The
inputs. Total nonlabor income is the sum of familyanswer seems to be an unequivocal yes, though
income from sources other than the mother'sthe size of the estimated effect is found to be
labor market participation and means-tied transfersensitive to the estimation strategy used.
income, such as welfare payments. Mothers haveIn the short run, AFDC benefits should be made
three uses of their time: work in the labormore uniform across states, and raised, at a
market, time spent with children, and leisure. Theminimum, up to the federal poverty level. If the
child has two types of time: time with the motherpolicy goal is to expand the labor market options
and time with a nonmaternal caregiver.available to welfare recipients, the most important
From these assumptions, we derive that singleconsideration should not be welfare reform, but
mothers decide whether to be employed or notrather raising the effective wages of the work
taking into account two or four different valuesthat is available. Such a change, which would
corresponding to the different possible work andaffect all single mothers, not merely those
welfare outcomes. Increased expenditures on childcollecting public assistance, would begin with the
care lower a woman's effective wage in the laborimportant first step of raising the minimum wage.
market when she is not receiving AFDC. AlsoPublicly provided health care and child care
included among these factors will be her predictedprograms are needed if women are to support
wage, nonlabor family income, dichotomousthemselves and their families through participation
factors indicating that the mother is nonwhite orin the labor market. Child care must also be
unhealthy or lives in an urban area or in the South,available for low-income working women. First
factors affecting the value of a woman's time atsteps toward the establishment of a national child
home (specifically, two factors indicating whethercare system include the extension of Head Start,
the youngest child is age zero to two years anda federally funded program for economically
whether there are two or more preschoolers indisadvantaged preschool children.
the family), the state's average MedicaidFor too long social policy has assumed that single
expenditures per enrollee, the state's averagemothers should derive income from either the
monthly AFDC payment, and the state'slabor market or the state. Today's
unemployment rate.welfare-to-work programs presume that paid
Because of kinks in the budget line caused byemployment will end women's need for
AFDC regulations, as well as possible discontinuitiesgovernment support. However, the reality for
in hours of employment and child care availability,most single mothers is that neither labor market
it is reasonable to suspect that decisions aboutincome nor public assistance at current levels can
AFDC recipiency are made jointly with decisionsadequately support their families. A meaningful
to work for pay.family policy would expand the opportunities and
3. Demographics, Employment, and Child Carethe income available to women with children--both
According to Berger and Black (1992), employedfrom the labor market and from the state.
single mothers are 28.5 years of age, on average,