The Impact of after-School Childcare Arrangements on the Employment Status of Low-Income Working Mothers

Backgrounds: 75% of all employed mothers have dependent children under age 18 and 60% of working parents have children under age 6. While many studies have agreed upon the importance of after-school childcare arrangements for low-income working mothers, there is a paucity of studies addressing low-income working mothers whose children are ranged between six and 17 years old, even though the percentage of working mothers with children of these ages has rapidly increased from 33% to 79%. In addition, while numerous studies have shed light on the childcare issues of younger aged children related to maternal employment, few research projects have given any attention to after-school childcare matters concerning mothers with older children. Furthermore, as opposed to the numerous studies that have focused on finding the impact of maternal employment on selecting childcare types, there is little study of how childcare settings impact employed mothers’ job status. Therefore, research about low-income working mothers and their children in after-school care arrangements should be as widely conducted as the studies regarding after-school childcare settings, not only to help determine children’s developmental outcomes, but also to examine mothers’ employment status (working hours, hours for education/training).

Methods: This study used the National Household Education Surveys Programs: After-School Programs and Activities Survey (2005) developed by the U. S. Department of Education. The sample included 1900 low-income households whose children were attending any type of after-school care arrangements (after-school programs, relative-, parental-, self-, and some combination of care). We employed multiple regressions to detect if there are associations between independent (five different types of childcare) and dependent variables (maternal employment status) particularly, working hours per week, month, and training/education hours per week controlling for ethnicity.

Results: Compared to a reference group (after-school programs), working mothers in relative-care showed longer working hours per week (B=3.10, p<0.05) and month (B=3.11, p<0.001). In addition, working mothers in self-care (children taken care by themselves) showed lower working hours per week (B=-2.67, p<0.05) and month (B=-1.23, p<0.001) compared to the reference. However, while controlling for race/ethnicity, some combination care type (attending more than one type of care) showed a significant difference (B=10.76, p<0.001). Furthermore, White (B=5.82, p<0.05), African-American (B=3.67, p<0.05), and Asian mothers (B=9.01, p<0.05) showed longer working hours than Latino mothers.

Implications: Our study implied that low-income working mothers’ job status, in particular working hours, are significantly associated with different types of care. For instance, employed mothers who put their children in relative-care are more likely to spend their time at workplace than those in after-school programs. This suggests that the government should provide childcare subsidies to low-income parents who put their children in relative-care other than after-school programs, which helps increase mothers’ working hours outside the home. In addition, for employed mothers who are likely to spend more hours at work outside the home, practitioners should assist these mothers who need to put their children in some combination of care through improving the quality of after-school programs in poor communities which have a lack of resources and affordable childcare settings.