Search News


Browse Archives

News

Welfare Reform and Women's College Enrollment

November 14, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The whole idea behind the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 -- the formal name of the biggest reform of the federal welfare system in decades -- was to push more people off the federal dole and into the work force. By that measure, it undeniably worked: Welfare rolls have declined by about half since 1996, with much of the decline attributable to the policy changes, and employment rates have grown for many of those groups historically well-represented on welfare.

But from the very beginning, some advocates for low-income Americans and for higher education feared that that job gains might come at a cost, particularly in terms of access to a postsecondary education and the financial and other benefits that often accrue from it. Although rules governing the law vary from state to state, all of them -- to varying degrees -- significantly limit the extent to which time spent in a classroom or training count toward "work" requirements.

A new study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research seeks to measure the extent to which those policies have reduced the educational attainment of a key constituent of welfare programs -- low-educated single mothers. The study, conducted by researchers at Bentley University, Rider University, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, finds "robust and convincing evidence" that federal welfare reform reduced the college attendance of high-school-educated unmarried mothers, aged 24 to 49, by between 20 and 25 percent.

"The more heavily the women are working, and the more women are living in states that require a lot of work and don't count education as work, the less likely they are to be in school," said Hope Corman, a professor of economics at Rider University and one of three authors of the study. "They can't seem to do both, so 'work first' comes at the expense of education."

The researchers focus their study not merely on actual welfare recipients but on what they call "women at risk of being on public assistance," which they define, in the case of college going behavior, as unmarried mothers ages 24-49 with less than a college education. (The reason the scholars examine this group, as opposed to women who are actual recipients of welfare benefits, is because the latter group would ebb and flow based on the policies over time. "There are a lot of people [these policies] might be affecting who might never show up on welfare rolls," said Corman.) The researchers compare the target group to a control group of women who are similarly situated -- in terms of their age, education levels and marital status -- but do not have children and are thus generally ineligible for the welfare rolls.

Examining the representation of the two groups from 1992 to 2005, as states experimented with their approaches to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (which was eventually replaced by block grants under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program), the researchers found that "being in the high risk group and living in a state that had [sought a waiver to adopt work-related requirements under AFDC] made you 2 percentage points less likely to go to college, and about 1.1 percentage points less likely to go to college full time," said Corman.

Because about 9 percent of the total population of high-school-educated single mothers were enrolled in college, the two-percentage-point reduction meant a drop of about 22 percent in the number of such women in college, and a comparable decline in the proportion of such women enrolled in college full time. The drop was steepest, not surprisingly, in states that had less lenient policies on which educational activities counted as "work," and for how long, with dips as large as four percentage points in some states.

The full study is available for purchase from the National Bureau of Economic Research for $5.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Welfare Reform and Women's College Enrollment

  • Want to know more?
  • Posted by Sara Goldrick-Rab at UW-Madison on November 14, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • Anyone interested in an explanation for these effects, and an earlier accounting of them, should refer to Putting Poor People to Work: How the Work-First Idea Eroded College Access for the Poor, published by Russell Sage in 2006 (authors: Kate Shaw, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Jerry Jacobs, Chris Mazzeo).

  • Welfare reform
  • Posted by Bettina Mason on November 14, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • For my doctoral dissertation, I conducted research on the experiences of single low income mothers in college.Although American society has a long tradition regarding education as a means to achieve material security and social status, access to higher education has been extended to certain disadvantaged and deserving groups, such as minorities and war veterans, to enable them to improve the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, this opportunity has not been readily extended to welfare recipients. The potential of higher education as a means by which financially disadvantaged women could achieve independence and become productive members of society was addressed in this study, with the primary focus on academic retention. I would recommend the following:
    1. Educate the welfare bureaucracy about the importance of education for recipiends of subsidies. 2. Initiate a liaison between higher educatio and departments of social services. This non-biased person should be trained in most aspects of the welfare system, as well as the higher education functions. 3. Educate the welfare caseworkers to enable them to relate to the student/mother in a compassionate manner, rather than in demeaning or discriminatory fashion. 4. Involve higher education participation in government welfare policy issues.

  • Welfare & College Enrollment
  • Posted by Kim at Tacoma Community College on November 14, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • We need to commend the mothers and fathers who are juggling work, school and caring for children in an uphill climb out of poverty. Unfortunately, federal changes the past two years have made it more difficult. Many of our students receiving TANF assistance work in federal or state funded work study jobs. Previously they could work 16 hours a week while attending school full time. The federal government changed the requirement to 20 hours a week, without examining the impact to the hardworking parent-students and employers. Federal and state work study is a shared cost; part of the cost of wages is paid by the employer. In addition to increased cost for wages, the increased hours affect employer costs for health & retirement benefits. Most employers who employ, train and coach work study students are non-profit organizations and state agencies with lean budgets. Our students and community would be better served if WorkFirst participants could work less hours, not more, to focus on attaining more education and training before they enter the job market full time.

  • Posted by J. Barton on November 14, 2008 at 5:15pm EST
  • Researchers should know more than anyone else that causation and correlation are two different things.

  • Math challenged
  • Posted by Michael on November 20, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • I haven't read the article, but I'm not sure about the math used by the authors of this report on the article. If welfare recipients are 2 percent less likely to go to college because of welfare reform, that means out of 100 people who were in college before welfare reform only 98 were in it afterward. It doesn't mean that the 2 percent are all taken from the 9 percent who attended college. It means that 98% of them would still be in college. Or am I missing something?

  • Women welfare & College
  • Posted by Amanda Mason , Ph.D. on December 8, 2008 at 10:25am EST
  • Hi Bettina: I am very much interested in reading your dissertation on women leaving welfare and seeking a college education. Can you direct me to your dissertation? Thanks
    Amanda