Abstract

This report describes the individual and household characteristics of low-income middle-aged and older women 

with childrearing responsibilities and documents the extent to which they receive food stamps and other public 

assistance benefits. The analysis is based on 1,756 low-income women in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio who 

were primary caretakers of minor children when first surveyed in 1999, and who were subsequently interviewed 

again in 2001 and 2005. We find that older and younger low-income women in this sample were similar in most 

respects but that women in the older age group were more likely than the younger women to be grandmothers caring 

for grandchildren and reported more health and disability issues. The analysis also indicates that food stamps were 

the most common public benefit received but was received more by women in the younger cohort, suggesting that 

greater outreach may be worth considering for older caregiver women.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Paula Fomby for technical and analytic advice; Maura Hardy Pillsbury, Matthew Maronick and 

Hong Zhu for research assistance; helpful reviews and comments on several drafts by Robert Moffitt and David 

Ribar; reviews by Sheena McConnell and Burt Barnow; reviews by Constance Newman and John Kirlin from 

USDA-ERS; and from Jenny Genser of USDA-Food and Nutrition Service

By Demetra Smith Nightingale, Sarah Hutcheon, and Jonathan Pollak, 

Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies

Aging Low-Income Women 

Raising Minor Children

Employment, Family Structure, and Receipt 

of Food Stamps and Other Public Assistance

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 68

June 2011

This study was conducted by John Hopkins University under a cooperative 

research agreement with USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) Food 

Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP): agreement number 

43-3AEM-4-80116 (ERS project representative: Constance Newman). The 

views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS 

or USDA.
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 The purposes of this paper are to describe the individual and household characteristics of low 

income middle-aged and older women (defined in this study as 40 and older) with childrearing 

responsibilities and document the extent to which they receive food stamps and other public 

assistance benefits. Among the questions addressed are: Does food stamp participation decline as 

women with children age? Do food stamp benefit amounts change over time? Do earnings and 

household income increase or decrease as the women age?

Older low-income women responsible for minor children are described in terms of their 

income, household circumstances, and receipt of food stamps and other public benefits. Aging 

female caretakers of children are of policy interest for several reasons. The general concern 

about the economic status of the elderly is heightened as the first of the large post-World War II 

Baby Boom generation begins to reach retirement age. Changes in the nation’s economic 

structure and demographic shifts in family arrangements mean more persons in this generation 

may, out of economic necessity, remain in the labor force into older ages. Those with low 

earnings may have difficulty sustaining themselves. Women without a spouse or partner are a 

disproportionately large portion of the low income elderly and may face particularly difficult 

economic hardships. In addition, a number of aging adults, mainly women, are raising 

grandchildren. The percentage of children living with grandparents (usually a grandmother) 

continues to increase, including many who are in child welfare and foster care as well as those 

living with both parents and grandparents; some of the women also still have their own children 

at home. There is ongoing interest in the well-being of these children and the older women

rearing (or helping to rear) them. Perhaps the most important public benefit for low income 

households is food stamps, but little research has specifically addressed the receipt of food 

stamps by the low income subgroup of aging women (mainly mothers and grandmothers) caring 

for minor children.1

 

The analysis is based on a sample of 1,756 low-income women drawn from the Three City 

Study (Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio), who were mothers or other primary caretakers of 

minor children when first surveyed in 1999, and who were subsequently interviewed again in 

2001 and 2005. Longitudinal comparisons between older women (40 years of age or older in 

1999) and younger women (under 40 in 1999) are presented across the three waves. Thus, the 

women in the older cohort were between the ages of 40 and 61 in 1999 and 46 to 68 in 2005; and 

the women in the younger cohort were between 15 and 39 years old in 1999, and 21 to 45 in 

2005. The two cohorts are described in terms of demographic characteristics, their household 

structure, number and ages of their children, employment and earnings, and receipt of food 

stamps and other public assistance benefits, and how their characteristics and circumstances 

changed over the six-year period.

 

 1 In 2008, the Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 

but since the survey on which this analysis is based used the term food stamps, the earlier program terminology is 

used in this report.
iii

All women in the sample had children in 1999 and they were all followed through the next 

two waves of interviews in 2001 and 2005, regardless of whether they still had children at home 

or not. Examining the women as they age and their childrearing responsibilities change is of 

interest because these changes could affect employment and income in various ways. For 

example, once they no longer have minor children at home, women may be more likely to work 

in the regular labor market which may increase their income, but some who had been eligible for 

cash payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) may no longer have 

that income source available to them because they do not have dependent children.

 

The analysis finds that older and younger low income women in this sample who were 

responsible for children in 1999 were similar in most respects: high poverty rates, just fewer than 

three children at all three points in time, increasing rates of employment, increasing receipt of 

food stamps, and decreasing receipt of TANF over the six years. Over 90 percent of the older 

women (and even more of the younger group)--still had children in the home in 2005. The mean 

household size was also similar throughout the period examined.

There were, however, some differences between the women in the two age cohorts, which be 

related to age or other differences that may exist between the cohorts. Women in the older age 

group were more likely than the younger women to be grandmothers caring for grandchildren, 

usually in addition to their own children. The mean household income of women in the older 

group was higher than the younger group in 1999; but by 2005, the household income was about 

the same for women in both age cohorts, after a sharp increase in earnings and income for the 

younger women over the six-year period that was not evident for the older group of women. The 

women in the older group also reported more health and disability issues than the younger group 

in all three survey years, indicating perhaps that more of women in the older group may not have 

been able to work as women in the younger group.

The analysis also identified another difference between the two groups of women related to 

their food stamp receipt. Food stamps were the most common of the four types of public 

benefits examined, for women in both age groups in all three survey waves. But women in the 

younger cohort were more likely to report receiving food stamp benefits, and there was no 

change over time in the percentage of women in either group with benefits. In both 1999 and 

2005, about 45 percent of the women in the younger group compared to 36 percent of those in 

the older group reported receiving food stamps (this difference across age groups is statistically 

significant at the .95 level but there was no change over time). Since the two groups were similar 

in many other ways (household size, employment, earnings, income) the difference in rates does 

not appear to be a result of differences in income, poverty, or household size. One possible 

explanation for the lower food stamp participation rate for the older cohort of women may be 

related to differences in access to information about food stamp eligibility or other services, or 

may reflect different preferences for food stamps between the two cohorts (e.g., there may be an 

increasing preference for food stamps generally in the population meaning this difference may be 

capturing a cohort effect rather than a pattern related to aging). Such questions are beyond the 

scope of this paper, but future analysis should examine the subgroups within each cohort more 

closely to better understand the differences in the needs of these families, their food stamp 

receipt and benefit levels, controlling for observable characteristics of the women and their 
iv

households. Nonetheless, the consistently lower food stamp rates for women in the older group 

may suggest that more focused outreach specifically for low-income older women caring for 

children may be warranted, including those caring for grandchildren and those who are under 65 

years of age.
 

 

AGING LOW-INCOME WOMEN RAISING MINOR CHILDREN:

EMPLOYMENT, FAMILY STRUCTURE, AND RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS

AND OTHER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

 

 

The aging of the U.S. population along with shifts in household structure and familial 

arrangements raise a number of important policy issues regarding low-income women who are 

the primary caretakers of minor children.2

Second, there has been an increase in the percentage of children living with grandparents, 

including children living with only a grandparent (usually a grandmother) and children living in 

multigenerational households with one or more parents as well as one or more grandparents. The 

poverty rate for children living with grandparents is nearly twice as high as for all children, and 

poverty of children living only with a grandmother with no parent present is even higher.

 First, there is concern about the economic and 

financial well-being of all aging workers and their special challenges in the period just preceding 

retirement age and different issues after they reach age 65. There are concerns about low-income 

adults who may not have accumulated adequate savings during their working years to support 

themselves in retirement. Aging low-income women in particular are less likely than higherincome persons to have accumulated enough work activity to qualify for Social Security or 

Medicare and less likely to have pensions. Many may rely on food stamp or other public 

benefits. And some will continue to work even after age 65, while others may want to work but 

face increasing difficulty finding employment.

3

 2

 The name of the Food Stamp Program has been changed to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP), but this report uses the terms Food Stamp Program, food stamp benefits, and food stamp recipients, since 

the survey was administered under, and respondents answered questions about, the old program

 

There is concern about the wellbeing of the children in these households and about the wellbeing 

of aging caretakers with childrearing responsibilities. The Food Stamp Program’s caseload 

includes these types of households, but little research has been conducted on the size or 

characteristics of this specific population subgroup of aging women caring for children. 

3

 In 1997, for example, the poverty rate for all children was 38 percent; for children living with a 

grandparent whether a parent was present or not, 68 percent, and for children living with only a grandmother with no 

parent present, 90 percent. See Casper and Bryson 1998.
2

Third, there is concern about the well-being of families who leave the rolls of the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program, particularly those whose 

income is low enough that they retain their eligibility for food stamp benefits and other supports. 

One group that loses TANF is parents whose youngest child reaches age 18. These parents, 

usually a mother, are likely to be older than the average welfare parent. They retain their 

eligibility for food stamp benefits, which may become an even more important part of their total 

household income. While most non-elderly and non-disabled adults in the Food Stamp Program 

and on TANF have worked at some point, many have little steady work experience and low 

skills which limit their job options. Obtaining employment may be particularly difficult for food 

stamp participants and former TANF recipients over the age of 40 or 45 if they also have little 

work experience or sporadic job histories.

Using data from the Three-City Study survey this report examines low-income adult 

women caring for minor children, in terms of their individual, family and economic situations, 

and their receipt of food stamp benefits and other public assistance. The Three-City Study 

conducted three waves of interviews with samples of low-income households in Boston, 

Chicago, and San Antonio in 1999, 2001, and 2005. This paper has two components: (a) a 

descriptive analysis of the employment, demographic, and family characteristics of low-income 

female caretakers who were between the ages of 15 and 61 in 1999 (the first survey wave), 

comparing older women (aged 4 to 61 in 1999) to younger women (aged 44 or younger in 1999); 

and (b) an analysis of trends in family and economic characteristics, food stamp benefit receipt, 

and participation in other public benefit programs for these two cohorts of women over a sixyear period as the women age. The results contribute to understanding the caretaking 

responsibilities, Food Stamp Program participation, and employment situations of women with 

childrearing responsibilities as they and their children age.
3

I. POLICY CONTEXT AND STUDY PURPOSE

Women in general are at higher risk for poverty in midlife than men because of a variety 

of factors: the pay gap between men and women and between traditionally female and male jobs; 

the demands of having cared for children and other family members, which may have limited 

employment options for women in their earlier years; and a loss of income for those who divorce 

or become widows (Genovese 1997). Low-income aging women face additional challenges if 

they are the sole caretaker of young children. Some may be caring for grandchildren, perhaps in 

addition to their own children, which can be particularly demanding. Those receiving cash 

assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program may lose their 

eligibility for those benefits as their children age, at which time the Food Stamp Program may 

become more important to their economic wellbeing. 

 Food Stamps and Other Public Assistance

The Food Stamp Program provides an important resource that can improve the economic 

status of low-income households and serve as a critical piece of the safety net for working and 

non-working families. In general, individuals and households are eligible for food stamp 

benefits if their gross monthly income below 120 percent of the official poverty threshold 

(meaning a family of three below about $24,000 annual income would be eligible in 2009) and if 

their resources and assets are below about $3,000 (excluding a vehicle). As the largest and 

broadest public assistance program, food stamp benefits serve as the critical piece of the 

economic safety net for individuals and households regardless of whether they have children and 

regardless of whether they work in the regular labor market. Extensive statistical reports 

describe the characteristics of households and participants, by income, age, household size, 

assets, and enrollment in other programs. The most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report 

(for fiscal year 2008) indicates that the caseload is composed mainly of children, women, and the 

elderly (defined by the program as age 60 or older) (Wolkwitz and Tripp 2009). Of the 

approximately 12.5 million households and 27.8 million individuals who received food stamp 
4

benefits in FY 2008, just over half of the households contained a child and nearly half of the 

participants were children.4

Individuals in the more than 6 million food stamp households with children often had 

some interaction with other benefit programs. For example, the USDA reports indicate that over 

a quarter received SSI, about 11 percent received TANF cash benefits, and many more lowincome families that receive TANF-funded non-cash services, such as child care and other 

supports, also receive food stamps. When individuals and families apply for food stamps, their 

eligibility for benefits through other programs is also typically reviewed simultaneously. 

Regardless of their childrearing responsibilities, many low-income adults may be eligible for 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which will make them categorically eligible for food 

stamps as well. 

 Over 60 percent of the households with children were headed by a 

woman, and about two-thirds of the nearly 12 million food stamp adults were women, including 

2.7 million 51 years of age or older and about 1.7 million who were 60 or older. Clearly, women 

and children made up the majority of participants. However, perhaps because of the scale of the 

program and the fact that there are various living and family relationships, these USDA reports 

do not typically separately describe the households of the older non-elderly women in the age 

range considered in this report. 

Changes in federal welfare policies introduced by the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 not only altered the family cash assistance program5

 4 This number does not include those receiving disaster benefits or those who were found to be ineligible 

during a Quality Control (QC) review and are dropped from the SNAP QC file (see Wolkwitz and Trippe 2009).

, 

they also affected how families connect with other related support programs, including food 

stamps, SSI, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and subsidized child care. As the TANF caseload 

declined and the time limits introduced by welfare reform began to take effect, food stamp 

benefits and other public supports played an even more important safety-net role than in the past 

and now represent important supports for low-income parents who work. The presence of a 

range of work supports can raise income substantially (Loprest 2001), moving low-wage 

working families above poverty. Those without such supports, particularly those working less 

5 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 replaced the Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children entitlement program with the TANF block grant, moving from a focus on 

permanent cash income maintenance to temporary assistance designed to move poor families from welfare to work.
5

than full time, are likely to remain in poverty. Not surprisingly, states are increasing their efforts 

to review cases that reach their TANF time limit to identify those with special needs such as 

disabilities that might qualify them for SSI, which does not have time limits, or to identify 

families that may remain eligible for food stamps benefits, which are not subject to time limits 

(USDA 2005).

Here again, there are some potential implications for older women. Aging TANF mothers 

face some unique challenges in part because they eventually lose their eligibility for cash 

assistance when their youngest child reaches 18, if they have not already reached the five-year 

lifetime limit on the receipt of federally-funded TANF benefits. Many of these mothers are 

likely to be older than the average welfare parent. To the extent that mothers are transferred 

from TANF to SSI or a state welfare program, they may be leaving welfare sooner than mothers 

in prior years, who were more likely to have remained on welfare until their youngest child was 

over 18. This means that, in terms of older women, a state TANF agency’s goal to move 

individuals from welfare to work may trigger more older women to be screened for, or assisted 

in applying for, SSI. More may be transferred sooner to SSI or a state welfare program. 

Alternatively, more older women might actively participate in employment or in training 

programs than did so in the past, as TANF agencies no longer routinely exempt older women 

from work requirements, suggesting that there may be a cohort effect rather than, or in addition 

to, changes related to aging per se.

As TANF’s five-year life-time limits have taken effect, there is growing concern about 

families that have been receiving both food stamps and TANF cash assistance for long periods of 

time, many headed by women over 40. The average age of mothers on AFDC/TANF has risen 

from 29.9 years in 1992 to 31.3 years in 2001, and the percentage of women with a youngest 

child age 12 or older rose from 12.8 percent to 17.8 percent, including 5 percent whose youngest 

child was between 16 and 19 years old in 2001 (USDHHS OFA 2003). Some of the aging 

children have special needs and disabilities that make it difficult for the mothers to work 

consistently. Some of the mothers themselves have disabilities, and some may also be reaching 

their TANF time limit (Loprest 2001).

There is some evidence that the support and safety net role of food stamps for families 

with children has increased since the 1996 welfare reforms. The drop in TANF participation was 
6

initially accompanied by a similarly large decline in the Food Stamp Program and Medicaid 

caseloads. Some of the decline was perhaps associated with some misunderstanding about 

continued eligibility for food stamps of those who leave TANF (McConnell and Ohls 2001; 

Zedlewski 2004). The decline in both the Food Stamp Program and Medicaid raised concerns 

among policy makers and program administrators that some eligible individuals and households 

in need of food stamps might not be participating. Therefore, starting in 1999, major nationwide 

efforts were launched to increase outreach and information to the eligible population so as to 

encourage their participation (USDA 2005).

The new emphasis on outreach may have contributed to the substantial increase in food 

stamp participation (USDA 2005). Between 1999 and 2009, the number of food stamp 

beneficiaries rose from 18 to 33.7 million, with particularly large increases for non-elderly adults 

(a category that can include former welfare recipients). During this time, the percent of child, 

elderly and disabled participants receiving food stamps all decreased slightly. For example, 

while the percent of nonelderly adult (or “other”) households receiving benefits increased from 

11 percent of the caseload total in 1999 to 16 percent in 2006 (Rosso and Fowler 2006, Wolkwitz 

2007). This suggests that more non-elderly adults today may be eligible for and/or interested in 

taking up food stamps than in prior years.

Both before and after welfare reform, the vast majority of AFDC/TANF recipients also 

receive food stamps. Their patterns of participation in food stamps and other programs, 

however, change as household and personal circumstances change. Families that leave TANF, 

either because they lose eligibility as their youngest child ages or because they have left the rolls 

for other reasons, may still be eligible for food stamps. Some on food stamps may be subject to 

work requirements in that program, particularly if they are determined to be employable under 

the Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) provision. Non-disabled men and 

women under the age of 50 without a child under 18 who are receiving food stamps are required 

to be working or participating in work readiness components for 20 hours a week. Individuals 

who fail to meet these requirements are eligible for only three months of food stamps in any 

three-year period. Those who do not comply may have their food stamps terminated, and those 

who work in the regular job market might see their food stamp benefits reduced due to increased 

earnings. Thus, it is possible that some aging mothers who leave TANF and no longer have 
7

children may subsequently be subject to the Food Stamp Program’s work requirements.6

 

Older Caretakers of Children

Many older women, receiving food stamps or not, are raising their own children and, 

often, their grandchildren. The poverty rate for families headed by a grandparent is higher than 

for other families, raising concerns about the well-being of the children and the, generally, 

female caretakers. There is considerable interest in, and extensive research on, the effect of 

maternal employment on child well-being (Brooks-Gunn et al 2002; Chase-Lansdale et al 2003). 

However, there has been little research on how the age of the mother affects employment and 

child well-being. Research is fairly consistent, though, about the relationship between mothers’ 

employment and presence of children. Maternal employment has been increasing for the past 

three decades regardless of the age of the children, although mothers with young children have 

somewhat lower employment rates than other mothers. While 64 percent of mothers with 

children under six were employed in 2002, over 78 percent of mothers with older children 

worked (USDOL 2004). Having an older child in the family is related to higher maternal 

employment rates, especially for unmarried mothers (Earle and Heymann, 2002; Kalil and ZiolGuest 2004). Mothers who have children of any age with health problems have lower 

employment rates and the highest probability of reaching the TANF time-limit (Seefeldt and 

Orzol 2004). 

There is also some recent research on the increasing trend of grandparents raising 

grandchildren and the emotional and economic wellbeing of both grandparents and children 

(Bachman and Chase-Lansdale 2005), but little on how grandparents’ employment and income 

are related to childrearing responsibilities. The number of children being raised by grandparents 

is increasing, and the rate is highest among low-income families, whether or not they are on 

welfare. Nationwide, there is a trend towards more grandparents having primary responsibility 

for grandchildren. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, about 5.5 percent of children lived 

with a grandparent, slightly higher than the rate in 1990, including multi-generational 

 6 ABAWD time limits have been temporarily suspended through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, from April 2009 through September 2010. Even when enforced, those living in areas with high 

unemployment were often waived from the time limits (McConnell and Ohls 2001). 
8

arrangements with children living with one or more parents and one or more grandparents 

(Bryson and Kasper 1999). But, according to the Census reports, in more of those households 

than in the past, the grandparent was the primary caretaker of children compared to previous 

decades, with between 2.4 and 2.5 million grandparent caretakers of children under the age of 

18, two-thirds of whom are grandmothers. There is concern about the children and grandparents 

in these households, in part because of their high poverty rates. In 2000, about 19 percent of the 

grandparent caretaker households had incomes below poverty (compared to about 12-13 percent 

for the general population), with poverty rates in some states much higher.

The trend towards grandparent caregiving is also evident in TANF and child welfare 

programs, which is likely an indication of the extent to which the food stamp caseload also 

includes some grandparent caretakers. Most of the cash TANF cases are still composed of a 

mother and one or more children, but the number of child-only cases has been rising while the 

number of cases headed by a parent has continued to decline, meaning that the percentage of 

TANF cases that do not include benefits for an adult has increased sharply. Child-only cases 

may exist for many reasons; for example, if the child lives with a grandparent or other relative, 

or if the natural parent is not eligible for or did not apply for benefits--such as an undocumented 

immigrant or, in some states, a former recipient of TANF who was terminated for not complying 

with various rules or work requirements. In federal fiscal year 2006, there were 851,000 childonly cases nationwide, representing about 47.2 percent of all TANF cases, up from about 

671,000 child-only cases in 1997 (HHS ACF 2007). Of these child-only cases in 2006, about 60 

percent consisted of children living with a parent, but a little over 21 percent were in a household 

headed by a grandparent, 9 percent lived with another relative, and the rest were in the household 

of a non-relative caretaker. There is also a somewhat related policy issue concerning children in 

kinship care as part of the child welfare system, some of whom may also be child-only TANF 

cases in some states such as Wisconsin. About 150,000 children in foster care are living with 

grandparents in approved kinship care arrangements (Children’s Defense Fund 2008).

Thus, aging women, including mothers and grandmothers, who are raising minor 

children, are an increasingly important population in the Food Stamp Program, TANF, and other 

public assistance programs. The intent of this study is to examine low-income aging women 

with dependent children to better understand the role of food stamps and other supports, 
9

employment, and child caretaker responsibilities in their lives as they age.

 Study Focus and Data

Three general research questions are addressed in the following sections:

1. What are the demographic, family, employment, and public assistance 

characteristics of low-income female caretakers over the age of 40 

responsible for minor children, compared to younger female caretakers of 

minor children?

2. In what ways do demographic, family, employment, and food stamp 

participation change over time for older female caretakers of children 

compared to younger caretakers?

3. What are the trends in food stamp usage for older female caretakers

of children as the women age?

Data from the Three-City Study are used to address these questions. The Three-City 

Study is a longitudinal, multi-method study that explores the well-being of low-income children 

and their families who were surveyed at three points in time: 1999 (Wave 1), 2001 (Wave 2) and 

2005 (Wave 3). The random sample of households for the overall Three-City Study was drawn 

from low-income neighborhoods in three cities: Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; and 

San Antonio, Texas. For each household, field interviewers selected and interviewed one focal 

child at random between the ages of 0-4 years or 10-14 years, and then interviewed that focal 

child’s primary caretaker. For each successive wave, that same focal child was interviewed, 

along with his or her caretaker at that time. The study also collected information about all adults 

and all children in the household and their relationship to the caretaker.

The sample for the Three Cities Study is representative of the population of low-income 

households with children in the focal child age ranges in the sampled communities. The sample 

is not representative of the national population of low-income women or households, but, 

nonetheless, provides an opportunity to describe the household and caretaker characteristics of 
10

this unique sample, and to compare older and younger female caretakers. The results are 

suggestive of the differences between these two groups as they age over a six-year period. 

The data used in this analysis are drawn from the caretaker interviews of the Three-City 

Study. This sample of 1,756 female caretakers is a subset of the 2,438 caretakers surveyed 

(Fomby et al, 2003), and includes only those women who were: a) interviewed in all three 

waves, b) below the age of 62 in the first wave (1999), c) cared for at least one child at the time 

of the first wave, and d) in all three waves, answered questions relevant to this analyses. 

Of the 1,756 female caretakers in this sample who were interviewed in 1999 (Wave 1), 

1,385 were between the ages of 15 and 39 in that year, and 371 were between the ages of 40 and 

61. In this paper, comparisons are drawn between caretakers in these two age categories, based 

on their age in 1999 (Wave 1). The two groups of women are tracked longitudinally using the 

three waves of interviews (1999, 2001, and 2005). For analytic purposes, the women in the 

sample are retained in the same age cohort in which they were in 1999. That is, the women in 

the younger group were between 15 and 39 in 1999, between 17 and 41 in 2001, and between 21 

and 45 in 2005; and the women in the older group were between 40 and 61 in 1999, between 42 

and 64 in 2001, and between 46 and 68 in 2005. Female caretakers over the age of 62 at the time 

of the first wave interview have been excluded from this analysis because at that age some might 

become eligible to receive social security, thereby possibly altering their participation in public 

assistance and their employment behavior, compared to women of a pre-retirement age.

All women in the sample had children in the home in 1999 and they were all followed 

through the next two waves of interviews, regardless of whether they still had children at home 

or not. Examining the women as they age and their childrearing responsibilities change is of 

interest because these changes could affect employment and income in various ways. For 

example, once they no longer have minor children at home, women may be more likely to work 

in the regular labor market which may increase their income, but some who had been eligible for 

cash payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) may lose that 

income source available to them if they no longer have minor children, which is a condition for 

TANF eligibility. Food stamps could become a more important resource for these women. This 

paper focuses on how the women themselves change over time, including whether or not they 

continue to have children at home, work, and receipt food stamp benefits and other public 
11

assistance.

The descriptive profile in the following sections compares older and younger low-income 

female caretakers of children in 1999. The profile describes the differences between 15-39 year 

old women and 40-61 year old women with childrearing responsibilities, across a broad range of 

characteristics including age, ethnicity, education level, receipt of benefits from major public 

assistance programs, self-reported income, employment, and health status, number and ages of 

children, and household structure.

To examine income and poverty, a measure of each household’s income-to-needs ratio 

was used, which is based on the household’s total earned income plus unearned income (food 

stamp benefits, SSI, TANF, EITC), compared to the official federal poverty income threshold for 

the household’s size. A variable was also created to determine whether each household was 

above or below the federal poverty line, given its size and counting both earned and unearned 

sources of income. 

Two final points about the data and variables are important to note. All the data

presented in the next sections are weighted statistically to adjust for differential response rates in 

the original interviews, selection due to attrition, and the exclusion criteria in our specific data 

set.7

 In addition, unless otherwise noted, where changes in dollar ($) amounts are reported and 

are drawn from all three waves of interviews, currency is adjusted to 2005 dollars, using the 

Consumer Price Index Average for Urban Areas, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 7

 A renormalization of the longitudinal dwelling unit weight was used; see “Welfare, Children, and 

Families: A Three City Study Wave 3,”

http://web.jhu.edu/threecitystudy/images/publications/users_guides/Wave_3_User_Guide.doc, undated.
12

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF LOW-INCOME FEMALE CARETAKERS IN 1999

 

This section describes low-income women who were caretakers of one or more minor 

children in 1999, providing a baseline for examining the changes in their circumstances over 

time in the next section (based on the same women’s responses to all three waves of surveys in 

1999, 2001, and 2005). The older group of women (age 40 and older in 1999) who were 

responsible for the care of minor children in 1999 are compared to the younger women (under 40 

in 1999) responsible for minor children that year (i.e., based on their responses to the Wave 1 

survey).

On many dimensions, the women in the two age groups were similar in 1999, but there 

were some important differences in terms of their poverty rates, the ages of children in their care, 

their familial relationship to the children in the household, their health, and their marital status. 

The two groups were also different in terms of their participation in the Food Stamp Program and 

other public assistance programs; and they had somewhat different levels of education and work 

experience. The patterns are described in this section and possible explanations for the 

differences are discussed. 

 Individual and Household Characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the sample of women in 1999 (at the time of the 

Wave 1 survey) are shown in Table 1. The mean age of women in the younger group in 1999 

was 28.8 years, ranging from 15 to 39, and the mean age of the women in the older group was 

45.6 years, ranging from 40 to 62. While overall, the sample is primarily composed of mostly 

Black and Hispanic women (39.4 percent and 53.7 percent, respectively), the race distributions 

of women in the two age cohorts differed significantly as can be seen in Table 1, particularly that 

women in the younger group were more likely to be Hispanic than women in the older cohort 

(55.8 percent compared to 46.6 percent). 

The women in the two age groups also differed in terms of education level. One-third of 

the entire sample of low-income women lacked a high school diploma, 24 percent had a high 

school diploma or GED, and 43 percent had some post-secondary education (e.g., vocational 
13

technical diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or some college). The women aged 40 

or older were more likely than women in the younger group to not have a high school diploma, 

and slightly more likely to also have some post-secondary education. This somewhat more 

bimodal pattern for the older cohort of women may reflect differences by age within the older 

group. In any case, the older cohort includes slightly higher percentages of women with higher 

education levels and lower education levels than the younger cohort.

Table 1. Individual and Household Characteristics of Low-Income Female 

Caretakers, by Age of the Caretaker, 1999 (Wave 1)

Caretakers’ Characteristics

15-39

years old 

(n=1385)

40-61

years old

(n=371)

Total 

(n=1756))

Significance of 

Difference 

Between Older 

and Younger 

Groups

Mean Age 28.8 years 45.6 years 32.6 years 0.0000***

Non-Hispanic Other 1.5% 1.0% 1.4%

0.0187* Non Hispanic White 4.4% 9.5% 5.5%

Non-Hispanic Black 38.3% 42.9% 39.4%

Hispanic, any race 55.8% 46.6% 53.7%

Less than a High School Diploma 31.3% 38.4% 33.0%

High School Diploma/GED 26.6% 15.9% 24.2% 0.0175*

Some post-Secondary Education 42.0% 45.7% 42.9%

Married, spouse present or Cohabitating with non-spouse 40.5% 33.5% 38.9% 0.1521

 Married, spouse present 31.9% 30.5% 31.6% 0.7701

 Cohabiting 8.6% 3.1% 7.3% 0.0096**

Not married or cohabiting/other 59.5% 66.5% 61.1% 0.1521

Household size (mean number of persons) 4.48 4.56 4.50 0.6370

Health is poor (self-report) 3.3% 8.9% 4.6%

0.0003***

Health is fair (self-report) 17.8% 26.9% 19.9%

Health is good (self-report) 32.5% 35.2% 33.1%

Health is very good (self-report) 25.7% 16.4% 23.6%

Health is excellent (self-report) 20.7% 12.5% 18.9%

Health is poor or fair (self-report) 21.1% 35.8% 24.4% 0.0001***

Health is very good or excellent (self report) 46.5% 29.0% 42.5% 0.0002***

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

In terms of marital status, over 61 percent of all the women reported they were single and 

not cohabiting with a spouse or partner in 1999, with little difference between the two age 

groups. But women in the younger cohort were almost three times as likely as older women to 

report cohabiting (8.6 percent compared to 3.1 percent); a statistically significant difference.

Also as one might expect, there were differences in the health status of older and younger 

women in 1999, probably related to age. While roughly one-third of the women in both groups 

reported they were in “good” health, women in the older group were significantly more likely 

than younger women to report “poor” or “fair” health (35 percent compared to 21 percent), and 

women in the younger group were more likely than the older women to report being in “very 
14

good” or “excellent” health (46 percent compared to 29 percent).

The older and younger women were also quite similar in 1999 in terms of children in the 

household. As shown in Table 2 there was no statistically significant difference in the mean 

number of children in their care (on average, women in both groups were responsible for 2 to 3 

children), and no difference in the total number of children in the household. Neither were there 

statistically significant differences in the distributions of number of children in their care, 

although a somewhat higher percentage of the older women were responsible for four of more 

minor children (29 percent compared to 22 percent of women in the younger group). 

Table 2. Familial Relationship of Low-Income Female Caretakers and

Minor Children in the Household, by Age of the Caretaker, 1999 (Wave 1)

Caretakers’ Relationship to Minors

15-39

years old 

(n=1385)

40-61

years old

(n=371)

Total 

(n=1756))

Significance of 

Difference 

Between Older 

and Younger 

Groups

Parent (natural, adoptive, or step-) of focal child 98.5% 81.7% 94.7%

Grandparent of focal child 0.5% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0000***

Neither parent nor grandparent of focal child 1.1% 2.3% 1.4%

Grandparent of child<18 in household 1.8% 23.8% 6.8% 0.0000***

Mean number of children responsible for 2.65 2.80 2.69 0.2748

Median number of children responsible for 2.7 2.8 2.7 n/a

Responsible for 1 child 22.0% 21.6% 21.9%

0.3728 Responsible for 2-3 children 55.6% 49.3% 54.2%

Responsible for 4-5 children 17.9% 23.0% 19.0%

Responsible for 6+ children 4.5% 6.1% 4.9%

Mean number of natural children 2.75 3.83 3.00 0.0000***

Mean number of minors in household (other than caregiver) 2.64 2.53 2.61 0.3759

Age of youngest child in household (mean) 3.7 years 8.4 years 4.8 years 0.0000***

Youngest child in household is 0-4 years old 69.6% 24.7% 59.4%

Youngest child in household is 5-9 years old 18.7% 22.6% 19.6% 0.0000***

Youngest child in household is 10+ years old 11.6% 52.8% 21.0%

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

Significantly more of the older women, though, were caring for grandchildren or had 

minor grandchildren living in the household (24 percent compared to just under 2 percent of 

women in the younger group), and more of the women in the older group reported being the 

grandparent of the focal child (16 percent compared to 0.5 percent). 

Also not surprising, children in the household of women in the older group were older 

than children with the younger women. The mean age of the youngest child in the household of 

the older women was 8.4 years compared to 3.7 years for the younger women. Nonetheless, 

about one-quarter of the women over 40 had at least one child under five years of age; and over 
15

half of those who identified themselves as grandmothers of the focal child had a minor under five 

years old in the household (not shown).

 Employment, Wages, Earnings, Income, and Poverty

Table 3. Employment, Earnings, Income, and Poverty levels of Low-Income Female 

Caretakers, by Age of Caretaker, 1999 (Wave 1)

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

Employment, Earnings and Poverty in 1999

15–39

years old

(n=1385)

40–61

years old

(n=371)

Total

(n=1756)

Significance of 

Difference 

Between Older and 

Younger Groups

Employment

Worked for pay in previous week 45.1% 39.4% 43.8% 0.2123

Works full-time 64.8% 62.9% 64.4% 0.7780

Note. Excludes respondents who did not work in week preceding interview.

Worked 0 months in previous year 37.8% 39.9% 38.2%

0.0338* Worked 1-5 months in previous year 16.2% 7.5% 14.2%

Worked 6-10 months in previous year 13.3% 12.4% 13.1%

Worked 11+ months in previous year 32.8% 40.3% 34.5%

Mean number months worked in prior year 5.477 6.080 5.614 0.2209

Ongoing health problem/disability prevents respondent from 

working 7.9% 16.7% 9.1% 0.0002**

Ongoing health problem/disability limits kind or amount of work 

respondent can do 2.8% 9.9% 4.3% 0.0002**

Earnings and Wages (1999 Dollars)

Earns $0 per month 48.0% 52.9% 49.1%

0.6418 Earns $1-$499 per month 8.3% 6.0% 7.8%

Earns $500-$999 per month 27.9% 26.5% 27.6%

Earns $1000+ per month 15.8% 14.6% 15.5%

Mean monthly earnings $482.13 $480.25 $481.70 0.9727

Note: Includes respondents with $0 earnings

Mean monthly earnings $926.87 $1018.78 $946.21 0.1438

Note: Excludes respondents with $0 earnings

Up to $6.00 hourly wage 30.4% 23.2% 28.9%

0.4829 $6.01-$8.00 hourly wage 24.2% 23.6% 24.1%

$8.01-$10.00 hourly wage 23.7% 22.8% 23.5%

$10.01 hourly wage 21.8% 30.5% 23.6%

Note. Excludes respondents who did not work in week preceding interview.

Mean hourly wage $8.25 $9.20 $8.44 0.1385

Note. Excludes respondents who did not work in week preceding interview.

Household Income and Poverty

Monthly household income from all sources

 (mean 1999 Dollars) (includes $0 values) $1264.75 $1454.51 $1307.88 0.0191*

Mean income-to-needs ratio 0.873 0.996 0.901 0.0134*

Living below federal poverty line 64.8% 54.8% 62.5% 0.0294*
16

Older and younger women in the sample were generally also similar in terms of their mployment 

status in 1999 (Table 3). While a slightly higher percentage of women in the younger group 

reported working for pay for at least one hour in the week prior to the survey (45 percent 

compared to 39 percent), the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, of those that 

reported working in the previous week, a similar percentage (about 63 percent) of women in both 

age groups reported working full time, and the mean number of months worked in the prior year 

(5 to 6 months) was also similar.

The distribution of employment over the course of the year, though, was significantly 

different. A higher percentage of women in the older group reported working 11 or more months 

in the prior year (40 percent compared to 33 percent), and a slightly higher percent of women in 

the older group also reported not working at all in the prior year. Again, there appears to be a 

more bimodal pattern for the older women, who were less likely than women in the younger 

group to work at all and more likely to work nearly the entire year, suggesting perhaps longer 

duration of employment for those who did work.

Some of the difference by age group in the percentage of women who report not working 

at all might be related to health. A significantly higher percentage of women in the older group 

reported having health problems or a work-limiting disability. Seventeen percent of the female 

caretakers age 40 or older reported having an ongoing health problem or disability that prevented 

them from working, compared to 8 percent of the younger women. In addition, 10 percent of the 

older women reported having an ongoing health problem or disability that limited the amount or 

type of work they could do, compared to only 3 percent of the younger women.

The relative earnings and wage profiles of the two groups, also shown on Table 3, are 

fairly similar as well. Earnings for both groups were quite low, although women in the older 

group reported slightly higher hourly wages ($9.20 compared to $8.25). There was no significant 

difference between women in the two age groups in their mean monthly earned income, and the 

distribution of earnings was also similar, with somewhat more women in the older group who 

were employed reporting hourly wages above $10.

Since the survey over sampled low-income households, most women in this sample were 

poor. Over 62 percent of these women had incomes below the poverty level for their family size 

in 1999 (also shown on Table 3). The poverty rate for women in the younger group was 
17

significantly higher than for those in the older group (64.8 percent compared to 54.8 percent). 

When considering all income, public benefits and transfers into the household, the income-toneeds ratio for the total sample was 0.90 (i.e., on average, they had enough income to meet about 

90 percent of basic needs based on the official poverty threshold). The younger group of women 

had a significantly lower income-to-needs ratio than the older group (0.87 compared to 1.00).

Thus, in some ways, the women in the two age groups were similar demographically and 

economically in 1999—similar numbers of children, similarly high rates of poverty and low rates 

of cohabitation, and similar employment and earnings. There were some differences, though, 

including that women in the younger group had significantly higher poverty rates than the 

women in the older group and were significantly more likely to be cohabiting with a spouse or 

significant partner. Women in the older group were significantly more likely to report health 

problems. One interesting point is that more of women in the older group had very young 

children in their care than one might have expected as well as having large numbers of children. 

Over 25 percent of the women 40 years and older in 1999 had a child under five years old in the 

household and nearly 30 percent of the women in this age group had 4 or more minor children in 

the household. The presence of young children, along with other factors such as low earnings 

and income, may have implications for the extent to which they participate in the Food Stamp 

Program and in other assistance programs, as discussed in the next section. 

Participation in the Food Stamp Program and Other Public Assistance Programs

In 1999, more than 62 percent of the low-income women in this sample reported 

receiving one or more types of public assistance that year (the four programs examined were 

food stamps, SSI, TANF, and public housing assistance) (Table 4). Public housing assistance in 

general was the most common form of aid, with nearly 50 percent of all the women reporting 

that they received housing assistance (35 percent in public housing and 15 percent with Section 8 

rental vouchers). Food stamps was the most common single public benefit (42 percent) and SSI, 

the least common (14 percent). Twenty-nine percent of the women reported receiving TANF 
18

assistance.

Table 4. Public Assistance Receipt of Low-Income Female Caretakers, by Age of 

Caretaker, 1999 (Wave 1)

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

With the exception of Section 8 housing voucher assistance (received by about 14 percent 

of women in both age groups), there were some differences by age group in the receipt of public 

benefits. While food stamps was the most common single public benefit for both groups, the 

women in the younger group were significantly more likely than the older women to report 

receiving food stamp benefits (44 percent compared to 36 percent) and TANF cash assistance 

(30 percent compared to 25 percent). And the women in the older group were significantly more 

likely to be receiving SSI for themselves or their children (23 percent compared to 11 percent). 

There also were statistically significant differences between the two age groups regarding 

the amount of benefits they reported receiving from food stamps and other programs. Table 4 

also shows the distribution of reported food stamp benefit amounts for the month preceding the 

1999 survey. Women in the older group were not only less likely to report receiving food stamp 

benefits than the younger women, but their benefits were somewhat lower. Again, differences in 

employment, income or household size could explain the differences in receipt and benefit 

Public Assistance Receipt in 1999

15–39

years old

(n=1385)

40–61

years old

(n=371)

Total

(n=1756)

Significance of 

Difference 

Between Older and 

Younger Groups

Public Assistance (1999 Dollars)

Receives food stamp benefits 44.1% 36.2% 42.3% 0.0652

Receives housing assistance 50.9% 45.1% 49.6% 0.1929

 In project-based or government owned housing 36.3% 31.1% 35.1% 0.1930

 Section-8 or other subsidized rent 14.6% 14.0% 14.5% 0.8212

Receives SSI 10.9% 23.2% 13.7% 0.0000***

Receives TANF 30.3% 23.5% 28.8% 0.0648

Receives at least one of the four, food stamp benefits, housing

 assistance, SSI or TANF 63.4% 58.4% 62.3% 0.2779

Mean Household Food Stamp Benefit Amount, 

 $0 values excluded $255.75 $242.24 $245.06 0.8767

Mean Household Food Stamp Benefit Amount, 

 $0 values included $108.59 $87.64 $103.83 0.1286

Food Stamp Benefit Amount = $0 55.7% 63.8% 57.6%

0.1070 Food Stamp Benefit Amount $1-$100 4.1% 5.7% 4.4%

Food Stamp Benefit Amount $101-$200 14.6% 11.6% 13.9%

Food Stamp Benefit Amount $200+ 25.6% 18.9% 24.1%
19

levels, as discussed in the next section.
20

III. THE CHANGING PROFILE OF LOW-INCOME

FEMALE CARETAKERS OVER TIME

 

The women in this sample who were interviewed in 1999 (at Wave 1) and described in 

the previous section were re-interviewed two years later in 2001 (Wave 2) and six years later in 

2005 (Wave 3). The multiple interviews allows an exploration of how household structure 

(including whether they still have children in the home), food stamps receipt, employment, and 

income change over time for the same sample of women in these two age cohorts, rather than 

simply describing the characteristics of multiple samples cross-sectionally. In this section, the 

women are categorized based on their age in 1999 at the time of the first interview, and changes 

are tracked for these same women over the six-year period, particularly changes that may be 

related to their receipt of food stamps. By 2005, the mean age of the women in the younger 

cohort was 34.6 years, ranging from 21 to 45 years old, and the mean age of women in the older 

cohort was 51.4 years, ranging from 46 to 68 years old. 

 

 Individual and Household Circumstances

There were a few changes between 1999 and 2005 in the individual and household 

circumstances of low-income women and their households. Some of the changes were similar 

across both age groups, but a few trends differed for the two cohorts (Table 5).8

First, as in 1999, in 2005 most women in both age cohorts were not living with a spouse 

or non-married partner (both of these situations are referred to here as cohabitation). While the 

cohabitation rate did increase slightly for the overall sample of women (from 38.9 percent in 

1999 to 41.2 percent in 2005), the change was not statistically significant. As can be seen in 

Table 5, the cohabitation rate declined slightly over this six year period for women in the older 

group and increased slightly for those in the younger group; though neither change was 

statistically significant. There was no statistically significant change in the rate of cohabitation 

with a married spouse, but a marginally higher percentage of women in both groups reported that 

they were cohabiting with a non-spouse in 2005 than in 1999. 

 8 The time that elapsed between waves interviews were not the same across waves (i.e., 1999, 2001, and 

2005). Therefore, in this section, 1999 is usually compared to 2005 (the first and third survey waves).
21

Table 5. Change Over Time in Selected Individual and Household Characteristics of Low-Income Women Who Were 

Caretakers of Children in 1999, by Caretaker Age Cohort in 1999 (Waves 1, 2, 3)

Caretakers’ Demographic and Household 

Characteristics

1999 2001 2005 Significance of Difference 

1999 to 2005

Younger 

Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total

Demographic Characteristics 

Mean Age 28.8

years old

45.6

years old

32.6

years old

30.1

years old

47.0

years old

34.0

years old

34.6

years old

51.4

years old

38.4

years old

Married, spouse present or cohabitating 

with non-spouse

40.5% 33.5% 38.9% 43.4% 40.4% 42.7% 43.6% 32.9% 41.2% 0.3453 0.9034 0.4294

 Cohabitating with spouse 31.9% 30.5% 31.6% 32.3% 32.1% 32.3% 31.8% 27.1% 30.8% 0.9875 0.5380 0.7805

 Cohabiting with non-spouse 8.6% 3.1% 7.3% 11.1% 8.3% 10.5% 11.9% 5.8% 10.5% 0.1029 0.2150 0.0545

Not married or cohabiting/other 59.5% 66.5% 61.1% 56.6% 59.6% 57.30% 56.3% 67.2% 58.8% 0.3453 0.9034 0.4294

Household size (mean number of persons) 4.48 4.56 4.50 4.51 4.59 4.53 4.60 4.02 4.47 0.2572 0.0147** 0.7472

Health Characteristics

Health is poor (self-report) 3.3% 8.9% 4.6% 3.0% 8.0% 4.1% 5.3% 10.7% 6.5%

0.2511 0.1762 0.0553

Health is fair (self-report) 17.8% 26.9% 19.9% 16.6% 25.7% 18.7% 20.5% 36.7% 24.2%

Health is good (self-report) 32.4% 35.2% 33.1% 36.3% 29.5% 34.8% 33.1% 33.5% 33.2%

Health is very good (self-report) 25.7% 16.4% 23.6% 23.6% 27.0% 24.4% 24.1% 11.4% 21.2%

Health is excellent (self-report) 20.7% 12.5% 18.9% 20.6% 9.8% 18.1% 16.8% 7.4% 14.7%

Health is poor or fair (self-report) 21.1% 35.8% 24.4% 19.6% 33.7% 22.8% 25.8% 47.4% 30.7% 0.0801 0.0314** 0.0101**

Health is very good or excellent (self report) 46.5% 29.0% 42.5% 44.2% 36.8% 42.5% 41.0% 18.8% 36.0% 0.0907 0.0470** 0.0186**

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

Some of this shift may reflect that cohabitation rates perhaps increase for women up to a certain age, or the shift could be related to 

economic factors, perhaps in combination with TANF changes that made welfare eligibility temporary. That is welfare and economic 

conditions might have encouraged some individuals to seek partners in order to increase family economic security. 

As also shown in Table 5, the self-reported health of the low-income women in this sample declined over the six-year period, 

which might be expected given general aging. About 42 percent of respondents reported they were in very good or excellent health in 
22

1999 compared to 36 percent in 2005, a statistically significant change. However, in comparing the sub-groups, the change was 

statistically significant only for women in the older group. About 41 percent of the younger group of females reported good or 

excellent health in 2005, compared to 46 percent in 1999. 

The decline in health status was sharper and statistically significant for the older group. About 29 percent of the 40-61 year 

old women reported good or excellent health in 1999, but by 2005, only 19 percent of these same women reported good or excellent 

health. In addition, while about 16 percent of the older group reported a health or disability problem that prevented them from working 

in 1999, by 2005 about 36 percent of the women in the older cohort reported such conditions; a statistically significant change. The 

increase in the reported disability rate for the younger cohort, from 7.9 percent to 13 percent, was also significant, but lower. A third 

change for these women and their households concerns the children in their care. Given the design of the sample, all of the lowincome caretakers had at least one child under 18 in their care in 1999. By 2005, 2.5 percent of the younger cohort and 7.9 percent of 

the older group reported having no dependents under the age of 18 (Table 6). That is, in 2005 nearly all the women, including 92 

percent of those in the older cohort (who were between the ages of 46 and 68 in 2005) still had dependent children or grandchildren in 

their care.

Table 6. Change Over Time in Relationship to Children of Low Income Women Who Were Caretakers of Children in 

1999, by Age Cohort of Caretaker in 1999 (Waves 1, 2, and 3)

Caretakers’ relationship to minors 1999 2001 2005 Significance of Difference 

1999 to 2005

Younger 

Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total

Grandparent of child <18 in household 1.8% 23.8% 6.8% 1.6% 22.5% 6.4% 5.4% 24.4% 9.7% 0.0013** 0.9084 0.0483*

Mean age of youngest child in household 3.7 years 8.4 years 4.8 years 4.5 years 9.1 years 5.5 years 6.4 years 9.8 years 7.0 years 0.0000*** 0.0271* 0.0000***

Mean number of children in respondents' care 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.2 2.7 0.0104** 0.0002*** 0.5905

Percent with no children under 18 years 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 2.1% 0.9% 2.5% 7.9% 3.7% 0.0000*** 0.0000*** 0.0000***

Mean age of youngest child in household 3.7 years 8.4 years 4.8 years 4.5 years 9.1 years 5.5 years 6.4 years 9.8 years 7.0 years 0.0000*** 0.0271* 0.0000***

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.
23

Employment, Wages, Earnings, Income, and Poverty

Table 7. Change Over Time in Employment, Earnings, Income, and Poverty of Low Income Women Who Were 

Caretakers of Children in 1999, by Age Cohort of Caretaker in 1999 (Waves 1, 2, and 3)

Employment, Earnings, Income, and Poverty

1999-2005

1999 2001 2005 Significance of Difference 

1999 to 2005

Younger 

Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total

Employment

Worked for pay in previous week 45.1% 39.4% 43.8% 58.1% 56.9% 57.8% 58.9% 49.7% 56.8% 0.0000*** 0.0644 0.0000***

Works full-time

Note: Excludes respondents without a job. 64.8% 62.9% 64.4% 65.3% 53.0% 62.5% 67.5% 62.8% 66.6% 0.5452 0.9968 0.5803

Mean number months worked in prior year 5.477 6.080 5.614 6.594 5.960 6.450 6.807 5.854 6.590 0.0001*** 0.7167 0.0013**

Ongoing health problem/disability prevents 

respondent from working 7.9% 16.7% 9.9% 9.2% 24.6% 12.7% 13.0% 35.7% 18.2% 0.0042** 0.0000*** 0.0000***

Ongoing health problem/disability limits kind or 

amount of work respondent can do 2.8% 9.9% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.4% 9.4% 5.3% 0.1284 0.9029 0.3860

Real Earnings (Adjusted to 2005 Dollars)

Earns $0 per month 48.0% 52.9% 49.1% 39.1% 40.4% 39.4% 39.7% 47.3% 41.4%

0.0843 0.2440 0.0487* Earns $1-$499 per month 7.2% 5.7% 6.8% 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 8.3% 11.3% 9.0%

Earns $500-$999 per month 10.8% 8.9% 10.3% 19.2% 16.0% 18.5% 11.4% 10.8% 11.2%

Earns $1000+ per month 34.1% 32.6% 33.7% 35.3% 37.1% 35.7% 40.7% 30.6% 38.4%

Mean monthly earnings $565.19 $562.98 $564.69 $745.63 $781.37 $753.75 $831.35 $686.48 $798.43 0.0000*** 0.1995 0.0000***

Note: Includes respondents with $0 earnings

Mean monthly earnings $1086.55 $1194.28 $1109.22 $1109.62 $1187.86 $1127.11 $1378.44 $1302.00 $1362.81 0.0000*** 0.3852 0.0000***

Note: Excludes respondents with $0 earnings

Mean hourly wage $9.66 $10.78 $9.90 $9.70 $10.42 $9.86 $11.89 $11.38 $11.79 0.0008*** 0.5546 0.0009***

Note. Excludes respondents who did not work in week preceding interview.

Household Income and Poverty

Mean monthly household income all sources 

(2005 Dollars) (includes $0 values) $1482.64 $1705.08 $1533.19 $1906.88 $1964.17 $1919.90 $2013.84 $2004.58 $2011.73 0.0000*** 0.0999 0.0000***

e-to-needs ratio 0.87 1.00 0.90 1.11 1.14 1.13 1.17 1.24 1.18 0.0000*** 0.0046** 0.0000***

Living below federal poverty line 64.8% 54.8% 62.5% 50.0% 51.2% 50.2% 48.8% 48.4% 48.7% 0.0000*** 0.2538 0.0000***

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001. Earnings, wages, and income in this table are adjusted to 2005 dollars; therefore 1999 data here differ from those in Table 3.
24

There were significant increases in the employment and earnings over the six years for both 

groups of low-income women in this sample, but the change was statistically significant only for 

women in the younger group (Table 7).9

This may suggest that some wage progression occurred early for the younger group when their 

wages were lower than women in the older cohort, but that they, like the older cohort, over time 

reached a similar wage of about $12.00. Without longer term data, one cannot conclude that the 

wages of both groups may have reached a plateau at $12.00, but that is a possibility to consider.

 The percentage of women in both cohorts who reported 

working in the week preceding the interview rose considerably between 1999 and 2005, from 45 

percent to 59 percent for women in the younger group and from 39 percent to 50 percent for 

women in the older group, but the change is statistically significant only for the younger group of 

women. Similarly, real hourly wages also rose for women in both groups who reported working 

at some time in the year before the survey, but, again, the increase is statistically significant only 

for the women in the younger group. The adjusted mean hourly wage (2005 dollars) of women in 

the older cohort rose from $10.78 in 1999 to $11.38 in 2005, for an increase of about 6 percent 

(but not significant), while the wages of women in the younger cohort rose much more, by about 

20 percent and the change was statistically significant (from $9.66 in 1999 to $11.89 in 2005). 

The mean wage for women in the younger group rose at each wave, and by 2005 was essentially 

the same as for women in the older group (just under $12.00). 

There were similar changes in the reported earnings in the month prior to the surveys. 

The mean real monthly earnings (adjusted to 2005 dollars) changed considerably between 1999 

and 2005, probably in part because so many more of the women in the younger group worked in 

2005 than in 1999. In 1999, 45 percent of the women in this study reported earnings in the prior 

week, and by 2005, the percentage of these women who reported earnings had increased to about 

55 percent. Again the increase was significant for the women in the younger age group, but not 

for those in the older group. There was also a substantial increase in the percentage of women 

who reported earning more than $1,000 a month, again especially for those in the younger group. 

This general trend is similar to the earnings and employment gains reported in other studies of 

women leaving welfare. The increase in employment (and, therefore, earnings) might also 

reflect the fact that the children of the women in the younger group were aging and that mothers 

 9 Earnings, wages, and income shown in Table 7 are adjusted to 2005 dollars and differ from Table 3.
25

of older children tend to have higher employment rates than mothers with very young children. 

Both possible explanations should be examined in future analysis.

Consistent with the increase in employment, wages, and earnings discussed above, 

poverty rates declined over the six-year period, as also shown on Table 7. In 1999, around 63 

percent of the women in this sample were in households with incomes below the official poverty 

line for their household size. The poverty rate declined to 48 percent in 2005. The mean incometo-needs ratio also rose for the total overall sample of women, from 0.90 in 1999 to 1.24 in 2005, 

indicating that, on average, their total income (earned and unearned) was high enough to meet 

basic needs (based on the official poverty threshold for their household size).

The poverty rates of the women in both the older cohort and the younger cohort improved 

significantly over time, but women in the younger group showed the most dramatic 

improvement, from a poverty rate of 65 percent in 1999 to 48 percent in 2005, compared to 

women in the older group whose poverty rate went from about 55 percent to 48 percent. Thus, 

while poverty rates continued to be quite high, these improvements suggest that over time, fewer 

of the households in this study, in both age cohorts, were living in poverty.

Finally, there is some indication that, as with the trend in earnings noted earlier, the 

women in the younger cohort experienced sharper increases in household income over the sixyear period, and by 2005, their mean income levels were nearly identical to the income of 

women in the older cohort. The trend for the older women was more modest, not statistically 

significant, and may have begun to flatten after 2001. Again, this may suggest that the income 

progression of the low income women in this sample reached a plateau, consistent with a similar 

pattern with earnings, reported in the earlier section.

Thus, while employment and earnings increased for women in both groups between 1999 

and 2005, the change was statistically significant only for women in the younger cohort. In 

general, their employment and earnings rose to the point where it closely resembled that of the 

women in the older group. By 2005, the women in the two groups were similar on these labor 

market factors.

Food Stamps and Other Public Assistance 

The extent to which women in both age cohorts reported receiving food stamps and other 
26

assistance also changed somewhat over the six-year period; with different patterns of receipt for 

the various benefit programs and a few differences by age group, as summarized in Table 8. 

Overall, across both groups of women combined, there was little change between 1999 and 2005 

in the percentage who reported receiving at least one of the four major types of public benefits 

(food stamps, public housing, SSI, or TANF); about 61 percent reported receiving one of the four 

types of assistance in 1999 and about 58 percent reported so in 2005. There was a slight (but not 

statistically significant) increase in receipt of any benefits for women in the older cohort (57

percent in 1999 and 60 percent in 2005), and a slight (insignificant) decline in the percentage of 

women in the younger cohort who reported receiving one or more of these types of benefits (63

percent in 1999 and 55 percent in 2005).

There was also little change in the percentage of women in both age groups who reported 

receiving food stamps in 2005 compared to 1999 (about 1.5 percentage points higher in 2005 but 

not statistically significant). Although the trend in receipt in food stamps was similar and parallel 

for the two age cohorts, women in the older group consistently reported lower rates of 

participation than those in the younger group. One might think that the lower rate for women in 

the older group results from smaller households, fewer children, or higher income, but that is not 

the case (Tables 6 and 7 earlier). The mean household size of women in the older group in 2005 

was lower than the mean for women in the younger group by 0.6, a statistically significant 

difference, but probably not a large enough difference to account for lower food stamp 

participation. One possible explanation, discussed further below, could be related to differential 

receipt of benefits from other programs such as TANF which may affect enrollment into food 

stamps. 

To further examine this pattern of lower food stamp receipt by women in the older 

group, the change in the level of food stamp benefits reported by both groups of women was also 

examined (Table 8). The mean real (inflation-adjusted) monthly household food stamp benefit 

amount, for those who reported receiving some amount of food stamps, did not change much 

between 1999 and 2005 for women in the older group, but rose significantly for women in the 

younger group, from $288 a month to $373 a month. 
27

Here again the difference in benefit levels between the two age groups is not what one might expect since they were similar on many 

factors, further suggesting that there may other explanations for the differences, including possibly age-related factors. And the 

increase in benefits for the younger women is also only a tentative finding on which analysis at more points in time would be needed. 

Table 8. Change Over Time in Receipt of Public Assistance by Low Income Women

Who Were Caretakers of Children in 1999, by Age Cohort of Caretaker in 1999 (Waves 1, 2, and 3)

Public Assistance Receipt (1999-2005)

(2005 $’s)

1999 2001 2005 Significance of Difference 1999 

to 2005

Younger 

Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total Younger Cohort

Older 

Cohort Total

Receives food stamp benefits 44.1% 36.2% 42.3% 39.6% 33.3% 38.2% 45.4% 36.2% 43.3% 0.6966 0.9993 0.7241

Receives housing assistance 50.9% 45.1% 49.6% 49.4% 45.7% 48.6% 43.6% 44.0% 43.7% 0.0226* 0.8400 0.0325*

 In project-based or government owned 

 Housing 36.3% 31.1% 35.1% 34.2% 31.7% 33.6% 23.7% 22.5% 23.4% 0.0000*** 0.0512 0.0000***

 Section-8 or other subsidized rent 14.6% 14.0% 14.5% 15.4% 14.1% 15.1% 19.9% 21.5% 20.3% 0.0151** 0.0478** 0.0022**

Receives SSI 10.9% 23.2% 13.7% 11.7% 22.3% 14.1% 12.7% 25.3% 15.6% 0.2732 0.6429 0.2594

Receives TANF 30.3% 23.5% 28.8% 21.1% 19.2% 20.7% 10.8% 10.4% 10.8% 0.0000*** 0.0004*** 0.0000***

Receives at least 1 of the 4, food stamp 

benefits, housing assistance, SSI or TANF 63.4% 58.4% 62.3% 59.4% 55.7% 58.6% 58.8% 55.0% 58.0% 0.1833 0.5536 0.1446

Mean monthly household food stamp benefit 

amount ($0 values excluded) $288.07 $283.96 $287.27 $304.47 $259.47 $295.55 $372.90 $260.61 $351.57 0.0000*** 0.5024 0.0000***

Mean monthly household food stamp benefit 

amount ($0 values included) $127.30 $102.74 $121.71 $120.68 $86.51 $112.91 $169.70 $94.35 $152.54 0.0013** 0.6754 0.0057**

Food Stamp Benefit Amount = $0 55.8% 63.8% 57.6% 60.4% 66.7% 61.8% 54.5% 63.8% 56.6%

0.0034** 0.3984 0.0067** Food Stamp Benefit Amount $1-$100 2.8% 4.1% 3.1% 3.7% 6.6% 4.4% 3.7% 7.9% 4.7%

Food Stamp Benefit Amount $101-$200 12.5% 8.9% 11.7% 6.9% 9.9% 7.6% 6.8% 9.0% 7.3%

Food Stamp Benefit Amount $200+ 28.9% 23.2% 27.6% 29.0% 16.9% 26.2% 35.0% 19.3% 31.4%

Note. *=p<.05. **=p<.01. ***=p<.001.

Given the unexpected pattern of differences in food stamp benefits between women in the two groups, a simple linear 

regression analysis using the 2005 data was conducted to examine possible relationships among variables that might help understand 

the differences (Table 9). 
28

Table 9. Factors Associated with Monthly Household Food Stamp Benefit Levels of Low 

Income Women Caring for Minor Children, 2005: Regression Results

Independent Variables coefficient significance

Boston (omitted)

Chicago 95.1283 

(15.203)

 

San Antonio 28.7895 

(14.758)

** 

Number of children in household 45.5294 

(9.309)

****

Age in 2005 -12.2836 

(5.983)

**

Age in 2005 squared 0.1148 

(0.071)

*

Respondent plus dependents' earned income -0.0529 

(0.011)

****

Receiving TANF at 2005 survey 62.5666 

(19.685)

***

Receiving TANF at 2001 survey 69.3746 

(19.700)

 

Respondent worked for pay in week before 2005 survey 21.8170 

(25.129)

Months worked by respondent in year prior to 2005 survey -3.1834 

(1.995)

Years of education 1.7204 

(2.277)

Household income below poverty line 22.2510 

(18.674)

Number of persons in the household 3.3704 

(7.914)

Constant 280.8049 

(124.340)

** 

n = 1726 (weighted)

standard errors in parentheses

R-squared = 0.3701

 Note: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001

The same general pattern holds; food stamp benefit levels for those who report receiving some 

food stamp benefits, are higher for women in the younger group. As expected, income is 
29

negatively associated with food stamp benefit amount, and presence of children and receipt of 

TANF are positively associated with benefit amount. However, even after controlling for 

whether or not the women had minor children in 2005, household size, months of employment in 

the prior year, income, and city in which they lived, age is significantly and negatively associated 

with food stamp benefit amount. While this finding should be more closely considered in future 

research, these patterns suggest that age, or other factors possibly associated with age but not 

measured, may help explain the difference in food stamp levels between the two age cohorts of 

women. Food stamp participation by older low income women with children is somehow 

different than participation by younger low income women with children. It could be that more 

older women than younger women lack information about food stamps or that they have less of a 

preference for food stamps, or some other reason. It is also possible that there is some cohort 

effect, for example, if there is an increasing preference for, or public acceptability of, receiving 

food stamp benefits, the food stamp receipt rate of women in the older group may be capturing 

that change rather than reflecting a general pattern related to age.

Thus, the analysis of this sample of women as they aged over time indicates that 

participation in the Food Stamp Program changed very little over the six-year period for the

older and younger women in this sample, but the rate of participation was consistently lower for 

the women in the older group. For women in the older cohort, the amount of food stamps 

benefits did not change much either, in contrast to the significant increase in mean food stamp 

benefit amounts for women in the younger cohort. This could be related to age or possibly to 

other societal or general factors differentially present in each cohort.
30

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The information in the preceding sections describe a sample of low income women who 

had children in their care in 1999, comparing older female caretakers to younger female 

caretakers in terms of their children, marital status, employment and income, receipt of food 

stamp benefits, and changing personal and household characteristics over a six-year period.

Before summarizing the patterns over time, the following points summarize the situation of 

the women at the time of the first interview in 1999 (baseline, Wave 1), when women in the 

younger cohort were between the ages of 15 and 39, and women in the older cohort ranged in 

age from 40 to 61: 

Children. For both older and younger low-income female caretakers, the mean number of 

children in their care was just under three, but older women were more likely than younger 

women to have 4 or more children in their care. As one might expect, older female 

caretakers were more likely than younger caretakers to be grandmothers of some of the 

dependent children.

Food Stamps. About 60 percent of women in this sample reported receiving some public 

assistance in 1999. Younger women were significantly more likely than older women to 

report receiving food stamp benefits (44 percent compared to 34 percent), to be living in 

public housing (36 percent compared to 31 percent), and to be receiving cash welfare (30 

percent compared to 24 percent), while older women were significantly more likely to 

report receiving SSI for themselves or their dependent children (23 percent compared to 11 

percent).

Poverty. The majority of both the older and younger women reported incomes that were 

below the official poverty level for their household size, and poverty in 1999 was most 

pronounced among women in the younger group, and significantly higher than the (also 

high) poverty rate for women in the older group.
31

Health. As one might expect, women in the older group were significantly more likely to 

report having poor health and having a disability or health problems that limit their work 

activity.

Employment. The women in the younger group were slightly more likely than those in the 

older group to report being employed in the week prior to the survey in 1999 (but the 

difference is not significant). However, women in the older group were significantly more 

likely than women in the younger group to have not worked at all in the prior year and also 

more likely than those in the younger group to have worked nearly the entire year (11 or 12 

months) and this difference is statistically significant. In other words, there was a nonlinear, more bimodal pattern for the older women than younger women: more of the older 

women than younger women did not work at all in 1999, and more of the older women 

also worked the whole year.

Marital Status. Women in the younger and older groups were almost equally likely to be 

cohabiting with a spouse or non-spouse partner in 1999 (32 percent). The women in the 

younger group were more likely to be cohabiting with a non-spouse than those in the older 

group, but the majority of women in both groups (about 62 percent) reported they were not 

married and not cohabiting, and the differences were not significant.

Six years later, when the women in the younger group were between 21 and 45 and women 

in the older group were between 46 and 67 (at the Wave 3 interview conducted in 2005), some 

important changes had taken place. Generally, employment increased and poverty decreased for 

women in both groups, but these changes were only statistically significant for women in the 

younger group. The women in the younger group also had significant increases in earnings. The 

earnings and household incomes of women in the older group were higher than the younger 

women in 1999, but by 2005 the earnings and income levels were nearly the same. This shift 

reflected the considerably sharper, and statistically significant, increase in employment and 

earnings of the younger group of women with children over the six-year period compared to 

women in the older group. However, there is some evidence that the progression for women in 
32

the younger group flattened out after 2001 at almost the identical levels as for the older cohort, 

perhaps suggesting an earnings and income plateau for the low-income women in both age 

cohorts in this study. Still, over half the women in the study still had household incomes in 2005 

that were below the official poverty level, and most still had minor children at home, including 

over 90 percent of the women in the older cohort. By 2005, more of the women in the older 

group than the younger group also reported health or disability issues, both of which could be 

related to general aging.

Food stamps was the most common public benefit these low-income women received at all 

three survey points, and the percentage of women in both age groups who reported receiving 

food stamps changed very little between 1999 and 2005 (about 1.5 percentage point more of the 

women reported receiving food stamps in 2005 than in 1999, which is not a statistically 

significant change). However, the rate of food stamp participation was consistently lower in 

each year for women in the older group than the younger group. The difference by age group in 

the rate of food stamp receipt exists even though the employment, earnings, household size, and 

poverty rates were similar for women in both age groups. Thus, if the older women had higher 

average incomes and earnings or smaller households, one might understand their lower food 

stamp levels. But that is not the case. Given the patterns described, the lower food stamp receipt 

levels for women in the older group are likely due to other factors. Perhaps the main household 

difference between the groups that might help understand the lower food stamp levels in 2005 

was that a somewhat lower, but considerable, percentage of the older women (over 90 percent) 

still had minor children at home and a lower percentage reported receipt of TANF (related to 

presence of children). This could suggest factors related to TANF might explain some of the 

difference in food stamp receipt. For example, the increased efforts to reach out to those eligible 

for food stamps in the late 1990s and early 2000s may have been more efficient at reaching 

households with younger children, such as those leaving TANF, than it was at reaching other 

eligible households, including perhaps families with children headed by older women like the 

ones in this study (e.g., grandmothers, other relatives).

The Three-City Study sample allows a unique glimpse over time into the household, 

economic and food stamp program status of low-income aging female caretakers of minor 

children. The profiles presented in this paper describe and compare older and younger female 
33

caretakers over a brief six-year period. A combination of factors likely contributes to the overall 

trends observed for this sample of women generally, towards more employment, more 

cohabitation, higher income, lower receipt of TANF, and lower poverty rates. Poverty rates, 

though, remained very high for both groups, and highest for the older women. 

Given the high poverty rate for both groups, the importance of food stamps is very clear. 

Food stamps continue to be a critical part of the safety net for women raising children. The high 

rates of poverty for both groups and continuing child-rearing responsibilities for the older group 

of women raises some concern. Future research should examine the lower food stamp receipt 

rates for the older group of women more closely to determine patterns for subgroups within each 

cohort, which could help distinguish between age-related factors per se and other factors perhaps 

related to the high poverty rates and continuing care of young children by older women. Once 

these factors are taken into account, if differences in benefit receipt between older and younger 

caretakers still remain, it might suggest a need to target Food Stamp Program outreach more 

specifically on households with older women caring for young children.
34

V. References

Bachman, Heather and P. Lindsey Chase-Lansdale. 2005. Custodial Grandmothers’ Physical, 

Mental and Economic Well-being: Comparisons of Primary Caregivers from Low-Income 

Neighborhoods, Family Relations 54(October 2005): 475-487.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne; Wen-Jui Han and Jane Waldfogel. 2002. Maternal Employment and 

Child Cognitive Outcomes in the First Three Years of Life: The NICHD Study of Early 

Child Care. Child Development 73(4) Jul. - Aug., 2002: 1052-1072.

Bryson, Ken and Lynne M. Kasper. 1999. Co-Resident Grandparents and Children. U.S. 

Census Bureau Current Population Reports, Special Studies, P23-198.

Cancian, Maria, Robert H. Haveman, Daniel R. Meyer, and Barbara Wolfe. 2002. Before and 

After TANF: The Economic Well-Being of Women Leaving Welfare. Social Service Review 

December: 603-641.

Casper, Lynne M. and Kenneth R. Bryson. 1998. Co-resident Grandparents and Their 

Grandchildren: Grandparent Maintained Families. Population Division U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, Washington, D.C. March 1998, Population Division Working Paper No. 26.

Children’s Defense Fund. 2008. State of America’s Children 2008. Washington DC.

Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay, Robert A. Moffitt, Brenda J. Lohman, Andrew J. Cherlin, Rebekah

Levine Coley, Laura D. Pittman, Jennifer Roff, and Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal. 2003. 

Mothers' Transitions from Welfare to Work and the Well-Being of Preschoolers and 

Adolescents. Science 299(5612) 1548-1552.

Earle, Alison and S. Jody Heymann. 2002. What Causes Job Loss Among Former Welfare 

Recipients? The Role of Family Health Problems. Journal of the American Medical Women’s 

Association 57(1): 5-10.

Fomby, Paula, Angela Estacion, and Robert Moffitt. 2003. Characteristics of the Three-City 
35

Sample: Wave 1 and Wave 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. 

http://web.jhu.edu/threecitystudy/images/CharacteristicsReport.pdf.

Genovese, Rosalie G. 1997. Americans at Midlife: Caught between Generations. Bergen & 

Garvey: Westport, Connecticut.

Kalil, Ariel and Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest. June 2004. Single Mothers’ Employment Dynamics 

and Adolescent Well-Being, National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #04-10. 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Korteweg, Anna C. 2003. Welfare Reform and the Subject of the Working Mother: ‘Get a Job, a 

Better Job, Then a Career.’ Theory and Society 32(4): 445-480.

Lindhorst, Taryn and Ronald J. Mancoske. 2006. The Social and Economic Impact of Sanctions 

and Time Limits on Recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Journal of 

Sociology and Social Welfare 33(1): 93-114.

Loprest, Pamela J. April 2001. How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of 

Early and Recent Welfare Leavers. New Federalism: National Survey of America’s Families 

Series B: B-36. The Urban Institute, Washington DC.

Loprest, Pamela, Holcomb, Pamela A., Martinson, Karin, and Sheila R. Zedlewski. July 2007. 

TANF Policies for the Hard to Employ: Understanding State Approaches and Future 

Directions. Discussion Papers, Assessing the New Federalism. The Urban Institute, 

Washington DC.

McConnell, Sheena and James Ohls. 2001. Food Stamp Rate Down in Urban Areas but not in 

Rural. Food Review 24(1): 8-12.

Mitchell, John J., Chadwin, Mark Lincoln and Demetra S. Nightingale. 1979. Implementing 

Welfare-Employment Programs: An Institutional Analysis of the Work Incentive (WIN) 

Program. The Urban Institute, Washington DC.

Ozawa, Martha N. and Hong-Sik Yoon. 2005. ‘Leavers’ from TANF and AFDC: How Do They 
36

Fare Economically? Social Work 50(3): 239-249.

Poulos, Stacy and Demetra Smith Nightingale. June 1997. Employment and Training Policy 

Implications of the Aging Baby Boom Generation. U.S. Department of Labor Monograph, 

Washington DC.

Rosso, Randy, and Lisa Fowler. December 2000. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: 

Fiscal Year 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington DC.

Schmidt, Lucie, and Purvi Sevak. 2004. AFDC, SSI, and Welfare Reform Aggressiveness: 

Caseload Reductions versus Caseload Shifting. The Journal of Human Resources 39(3): 792-

812.

Seccombe, Karen, Heather Hartley, Jason Newsom, Kim Hoffman, and Gwen Marchand. 2007. 

The Aftermath of Welfare Reform Health, Health Insurance, and Access to Care Among 

Families Leaving TANF in Oregon. Journal of Family Issues 28(2): 151-181.

Seefeldt, Kristin S. and Sean M. Orzol. 2005. Watching the Clock Tick: Factors Associated with 

TANF Accumulation. Social Work Research 29(4): 215-229.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and 

Evaluation. 2005. Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through 

New Technology and Partnerships, by Sheila Zedlewski, David Wittenburg, Carolyn O’Brien, 

Robin Koralek, Sandra Nelson, and Gretchen Rowe. Project Officer, Rosemarie Downer. 

Alexandria VA.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Office of Family Assistance. 2003. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Fifth 

Annual Report to Congress. Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Office of Family Assistance. 2007. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Eighth Annual Report to Congress. Washington DC 
37

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/2007/2007_family_tan.htm.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. February 2004. Women in the Labor 

Force: A Databook. BLS Report 973. Washington DC.

Wolkwitz, Kari. September 2007. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2006. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Washington DC. 

Wolkwitz, Kari and Joshua Leftin. 2008. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 

2007, FSP-08-CHAR (Project Officer, Jenny Genser). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis: Alexandria VA.

Wolkwitz, Kari and Carole Trippe. 2009, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Households: Fiscal Year 2008,” FSP-09-CHAR (Project Officer, Jenny Genser). Alexandria, 

VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and 

Analysis.

Zedlewski, Sheila. June 2004. Recent Trends in Food Stamp Participation Among Poor Families 

with Children. The Urban Institute Discussion Paper 04-03, Urban Insitute: Washington DC