Why forcing people back to work doesn’t always help the kids


Jess Berentson-Shaw

The Morgan Foundation's Geoff Simmons says forcing people back to work isn't good for children

0:00 0:10

One response to our series on child poverty last week was that instead of giving the poor money we should force them (particularly solo mums) to work. Commenters pointed to the tough US welfare reforms in the 1990s as an example of the success of this policy, concluding that poverty clearly is a choice

There is no doubt that these reforms increased employment (if there is no choice, of course you will work) and, depending on the measure used, it also reduced poverty. But was it any good for the kids? The evidence says no; and given that we were interested in the most effective policy for children in poverty, by that measure this policy is a failure.  

Isn’t it good to work? 
Getting poor people to work is generally seen as a good thing. It generates income for the family, and increases skills that can be passed on to the children. 

However, a lot depends on the circumstances. Working does not always pay well, and it can create many new costs for the family – including transport to work and childcare for the children. So it is worth asking the question: does forcing parents back to work improve their children’s lives?

The short answer is they can in some circumstances but they mostly don’t.

The working poor
We know that having working parents is no guarantee that a child won’t grow up in poverty. In New Zealand between 2012 and 2014, more than 50% of children in material hardship were living in families that did not receive a benefit at any time in the previous 12 months (Perry, 2014). 

The carrot or the stick?
Welfare employment interventions are often referred to as ‘welfare to work’ programmes and they fall into two main types: 

  1. Those that have a ‘rewards framework’ where the policies are designed to give parents MORE income as their employment and earnings increase, for example cash supplements are provided (tax credits) or welfare payments are kept as earnings increase and 

  2. Those that have a ‘punishment framework.’ These include mandatory employment services, sanctions of benefit payment and time limits. 

Welfare-to-work programmes in the US have in fact shown small but consistent effects in moving welfare recipients into work, increasing earnings and lowering welfare payments if they are well designed. However, depending on whether you use the carrot or the stick, welfare-to-work programmes can either help or hurt the kids. 

The carrot works better for kids
Assisting those on welfare to work using a rewards framework, one which supplements caregiver earnings, has been found to increase family income and also the use of formal centre-based childcare (there is a need for this to be high quality for it to have a positive effect on kids). It is these programmes that are most able to improve children’s achievement. The importance of the quality of childcare needs to be emphasised, here, because, as we will discuss further this year, those in low-income areas have limited access to high quality childcare .

On the other hand, those interventions that use the stick (for example, you have to take the job or lose your benefit) do not increase family income once you account for the additional costs such as transport and childcare. In fact (as detailed in the box below) it is childcare that often suffers – forcing parents into any work they can get pushes them to use informal and low-quality childcare, which harms the kids. The punch line is that these sorts of programmes – the sort we are pursuing in New Zealand right now – lead to no improvements in children’s achievements. 

This is particularly the case for solo mothers. Research has shown that when there are mandated employment conditions associated with welfare payments, additional income tends to go on increased costs associated with working (for example, transport) and not on children in sole parent families

Below we outline the findings of Next Generation Project, a project that has looked closely the impacts on children of a series of welfare to work programmes in the US.


The Next Generation Project (Duncan et al, 2008)

Across the US a number of welfare to work programmes have been delivered over the past 30 years. These programmes have been subject to a large-scale evaluation and assessment via the Next Generation Project.

The Next Generation Project looked at how all these programmes affected children’s achievements (using an IQ type test). They looked across different age groups of children and between the different types of programmes. When they brought all the individual programmes’ data together, what they saw was that programmes where parents' incomes were supplemented had a significant positive effect on two to five-year-olds' achievement. Those that provided mandatory employment services and included time limits and penalties saw no benefit to children of that same age group. There was not enough information to tell what impact the programmes had on older children. 

Interestingly, in programmes with income supplementation, there was an increase in the use of formal childcare arrangements, while in those without there was an increase in casual arrangements of childcare. Of course, if time at home with children is reduced through participation in mandatory programmes and income does not increase, then paying for formal childcare is  challenging.

Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw is a science researcher working for the Morgan Foundation. This post first appeared on Gareth's World.

3 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

3 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Solution: Weigh up the costs of having a child. If you cannot afford it, don't have one.

Simple and logical, but then again, common sense doesn't seem to be so common these days...

Some will argue, "but having children is a basic human right". Unfortunately, basic human rights don't pay the bills or care whether you're in financial hardship. It's a basic human right to have freedom of travel, but that doesn't mean I go to Bora Bora every 6 months and blow out my finances just because I want a vacation. (I think this argument is a crock anyways; children ARE a privilege!). Others will argue that, "it's selfish not to have children because you want to be rich". Unfortunately, this is a good example of informal fallacy and lacks any credibility, as you cannot be selfish if the thing you are mean to be being selfish towards does not even exist! Finances and work, however, are a very real thing which cannot be neglected.

  • 0
  • 0

Aye Moose you are of course correct, but that doesn't help those wee ones already here. These guys (Morgan F..) do have an answer but I'd like to hear from them further. For instance. Can they assure us their "solution" will not grow the problem? 'Coz I'm fairly sure it will not discourage it.

  • 0
  • 0

A caveat first - I believe good enough parenting involves many factors (parental support, children's individual physical & emotional needs, stressors, stimulation, access to good advice, health, family of origin experiences etc) and that what works will vary from family to family according to their circumstances, personal capacity and wider support. There's certainly things I could have done much better as a parent. And that the definition of 'family' is richly diverse, but has in common, that it's two or more people who live together, support & care about each other.

What I'm curious about is whether any studies have looked at the impacts on children in terms of secure attachment? We seem to live best in groups (like other animals) and secure attachment between children and adults (not necessarily a parent) is essential to thriving and growing emotionally. There's talk of intergenerational welfare dependency, but maybe what matters is strong intergenerational attachment and emotional security?

That may be a bigger protector in negotiating the challenges of adolescence and establishing secure relationships to in turn parent the next generation. And may have longer term financial implications both for the health sector and households?

I'm really interested in the work of Canadian researcher Sue Johnson and the EFT Emotionally Focussed Therapy which she has initiated and has spread internationally, including NZ's former Relationship Services. Powerful stuff in making sense of relationships from a human perspective.

So this isn't a 'women/men should /or shouldn't be in paid work' comment - it depends on what each family needs, including balancing the needs of individuals within that family. My question is: what's the longer term impact of forcing people back to (paid) work on developing secure emotional attachments?

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.