State-level Welfare Policies and Nonmarital Subsequent Childbearing

Abstract

Using discrete time event history analyses of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we examine the association between state-level welfare waiver policies implemented before the 1996 welfare reform legislation and the risk of a nonmarital subsequent birth. Our study makes a unique contribution to the existing literature by using a national-level sample of unmarried mothers who ever received welfare. This high-risk sample represents the women of most interest to policymakers, as it is the exact group to whom welfare reform is targeted—welfare mothers at risk of having nonmarital additional births. The state policies we study include: family cap, earnings disregard, work exemptions, work requirements, and sanctions. We conclude that, although reducing the number of nonmarital births is a key goal of welfare reform, state-established welfare waiver policies do not have any influence on women’s childbearing behaviors in this sample, net of women’s individual characteristics and state economic environments. Even the family cap policy, which was designed for the sole purpose of reducing additional births, has no significant association with nonmarital subsequent childbearing. Instead, personal characteristics, not public policies, are stronger determinants of women’s childbearing decisions. Age, race/ethnicity, marital status, number of previous children, education level, and welfare receipt are significantly associated with nonmarital subsequent births. Overall, this paper contributes to an expanding body of research that shows minimal effects of welfare waivers on fertility. Our work suggests that more targeted policies are necessary to be able to influence individual family formation behaviors. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006Family cap, Fertility, Nonmarital childbearing, Welfare,

Welfare as Maternity Leave? Exemptions from Welfare Work Requirements and Maternal Employment

“…A large body of research on the relationships among welfare policies, marriage, and fertility behaviors produce mixed and inconclusive results on this point (Acs 1996; Grogger and Bronars 2001; Hu 2003; Bitler et al 2004; Joyce et al 2004; Ryan, Manlove, and Hofferth 2006). Notably, even family cap policies designed specifically to decrease fertility among single mothers are found to have no consistent effect on these behaviors (Grogger and Bronars 2001; Jagannathan, Camasso, and Killingsworth 2004 a , 2004 b ; Ryan et al 2006; Camasso and Jagannathan 2009). As a direct test of this identifying assumption, the author estimates models that predict the probability of single motherhood as a function of the length of the exemption policy in a given state (analyses not shown here).…”

Assessing Welfare Reform, Over a Decade Later

“…Joyce et al (2003) in their study using birth records across the nation also find little consistent evidence of an effect of welfare provisions (AFDC waivers, time limits, family cap, work exemptions, and sanctions) on nonmarital childbearing. Similarly, Ryan et al (2006) using national‐level data on fertility and testing the effects of several welfare waiver policies (the family cap, earnings disregard, work exemptions, work requirements, and sanctions) found the policies did not influence childbearing among their sample of unmarried mothers who ever received welfare. In New Jersey, however, Camasso (2004) finds that the family cap lowered births and increased abortions and contraception use, but only for women who were short‐term welfare users.…”

State Welfare Policies and Children’s Living Arrangements

“…Nevertheless, research is mixed on the relation between family caps and nonmarital fertility. Several studies find no association between the family cap policy and nonmarital births (Dyer and Fairlie 2004;Joyce et al 2004;Ryan, Manlove, and Hofferth 2006). Others (Horvath-Rose and Peters 2001;Horvath-Rose, Peters, and Sabia 2008) find evidence that the family cap is associated with a decline in nonmarital births.…”