U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Maternity Leave and

Employment Patterns: 1961-1995 

Household Economic Studies

Issued November 2001

Current

Population

Reports

By

Kristin Smith

Barbara Downs

Martin O’Connell

P70-79

INTRODUCTION

Over half of American women with a child

less than 1 year of age are currently in the

labor force.1 For many women, a child’s

birth signals numerous changes in the daily

schedule at work and at home that both the

family and employer must confront and

resolve. This report examines trends in

maternity leave and employment patterns

of women who gave birth to their first child

between January 1961 and December

1995.

The report primarily uses retrospective fertility, employment, and maternity leave data

from the 1996 panel of the Census Bureau’s

Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP), conducted in 1996. However, previously published results based on similarly

collected information from the 1984 and

1985 SIPP panels are also included.2

The report first discusses changes in characteristics of first-time mothers since the

1960s that are related to the likelihood of

employment during pregnancy. These

changes are placed in the historical context

of the enactment of family-related legislation over the last quarter-century to better

understand major work transformations

that have occurred in women’s pre- and

post-birth employment experiences. 

1

Amara Bachu and Martin O'Connell. Fertility of

American Women: June 2000. Current Population

Reports, P20-543. U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC,

2001.

2

Data shown for 1981 to 1994 were collected in the

SIPP 1996 Panel, Wave 2. Data shown for 1961 to 1980

was collected in the SIPP 1984 and 1985 panels. For

more information on the previously published report,

see Martin O'Connell. "Maternity Leave Arrangements:

1961-85," in Work and Family Patterns of American

Women. Current Population Reports, Series P23, No.165.

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1990.

What’s in this Report?

INTRODUCTION

FIRST-TIME MOTHERS AND

FAMILY LEGISLATION SINCE

THE 1960s

Characteristics of mothers at first

birth

Legislation related to employment

and childbearing

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

BEFORE THE FIRST BIRTH

Overall trends: 1961-65 to 1991-95

Women who work during first

pregnancy

Duration of work during pregnancy

Working during pregnancy: Who

works the longest?

MATERNITY LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS

Changes in leave arrangements

since the 1960s

Leave arrangements before and

after first birth

Who receives maternity leave and

who leaves their job?

RETURNING TO WORK

Trends since the 1960s

Likelihood of a rapid return to work

Returning to the same or a different

employer
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Second, the report examines the FIRST-TIME MOTHERS AND

trends in women’s work experience FAMILY LEGISLATION SINCE

prior to their first birth and the fac- THE 1960s

tors associated with employment Over the time period studied in this during pregnancy. Third, it considers report, many social, economic, and the maternity leave arrangements legislative changes have occurred in women use both before and after American society. This section their first birth and identifies the begins with a summary of the char- shifts that have occurred in the mix acteristics of mothers around the

of leave arrangements used by first- time of their first birth and ends with

time mothers. The report concludes a discussion of these societal

with an examination of how rapidly changes. mothers with newborns return to

work and the factors related to the Characteristics of mothers

length of time absent from the labor at first birth

force in the post-birth period. Two important factors are likely to

shape women’s employment histories In addition to updating childbearing, prior to first birth: their age at the employment, and maternity leave time of the birth and their education- trends through the mid-1990s, this al attainment level. Younger women report covers new substantive are still developing job skills and ground. Specifically, it details often have yet to complete their edu- changes the mother experienced in cational careers as teenagers or even the number of hours worked, pay by their mid-twenties, the age by level, and job skill level after the which marriage and motherhood fre- birth of the first child relative to the quently have begun. Women who last job held before the child was have delayed childbearing until their born. These changes are examined thirties are more likely to have com- in relation to whether a woman pleted their schooling and accumulat- returned to the same employer she ed more years of work experience had during pregnancy or changed prior to their first birth. This experi- employers after the birth of the child. ence, in turn, may affect their income

level and job security and influence

their decisions about working during

pregnancy and how soon after their

child’s birth to return to work.

How have these two characteristics

changed over time? Data from the

National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS) show that first-time motherhood at age 30 and over tripled

between 1960 and 1995, from 7 percent to 22 percent.3 The educational

attainment level of first-time mothers

has also increased since 1970, partly

because older women, who make up

an increasing proportion of first-time

mothers, have higher education levels than younger first-time mothers.

In 1970, 10 percent of first-time

mothers had 16 or more years of

education, compared with 23 percent

in 1995. 

During this time, increasing proportions of women in these older childbearing age groups—women 25 to

34 years old—continued their education beyond high school.4 The proportion of women 25 to 34 years old

who had completed 4 or more years

of college increased from 8 percent

in 1960 to 12 percent in 1970 and

further increased to 21 percent by

1980. These years closely correspond to the development of the

women’s movement and issues related to the family and the working

environment. By 1995, this proportion again increased, but only slightly

to 25 percent. As the age and educational composition of first-time

mothers may be related to changes

in their workforce behavior, these

two indicators will often be examined in the ensuing sections of this

report.

SIPP FERTILITY, EMPLOYMENT, AND MATERNITY LEAVE DATA

The 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP), which was a nationally representative survey of approximately

37,000 households, included a fertility module in the second wave of

interviews conducted in August-November, 1996. Information was collected on the birth dates of the first and last children born to all women

15 to 64 years old at the time of the survey. Women whose first birth

occurred between 1980 and the survey date were also asked a series

of questions concerning their employment history before and after

their pregnancy, as well as their receipt of maternity leave benefits.

Data from this survey were used in combination with similar information collected in the 1984 and 1985 SIPP panels to provide an extended

series of employment and maternity leave data between 1961 and

1995. 

3

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Statistics of the United States, Vol. 1-Natality.

U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,

DC, annual issues. Data on educational attainment of the mother were not published until

1969 and only then from a sample of states.

4

Jennifer Day and Andrea Curry. Educational

Attainment in the United States: March 1995.

Current Population Reports, P20-489. U.S.

Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1996, 

Table 17.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Legislation related to employment and childbearing

In addition to the changes noted in

the age and educational structure of

mothers, changes in the work environment related to maternity and

employment issues need to be considered. In the 1960s, a common

expectation for women was that they

would leave work upon becoming

pregnant.5 In 1978, the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act was passed which

prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or

childbirth. This act covered hiring

and firing policies as well as promotions and pay levels. Also at this

time, changes to the federal tax code

in 1976 permitted working families

with a dependent child to take a tax

credit on child care costs. Both these

actions clearly marked the beginning

of federal involvement in work-related issues and concerns of mothers.

These laws affected both employment practices during pregnancy and

net child care costs after the child

was born, the latter item strongly

related to the affordability of child

care services which would enable a

mother to return to work.

Job security and flexibility in the

work schedule are important concerns a mother with a newborn child

faces when deciding when to return

to work. Flexible work schedules

and employment-based child care

benefits became popular employee

issues during the 1980s, just about

the time when fertility rates in the

United States began to increase

steadily, especially among women 30

years and older.6 In addition, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in

5

Andrew Cherlin. Marriage, Divorce,

Remarriage. Harvard University Press:

Massachusetts, 1992. 

6

David E. Bloom and Jane T. Trahan. Flexible

Benefits and Employee Choice. Pergamon Press:

New York, 1986; Martin O'Connell and David E.

Bloom. Juggling Jobs and Babies: America's

Child Care Challenge. Population Trends and

Public Policy, No. 12. Population Reference

Bureau: Washington, DC, 1987.

1987, California Federal Savings and

Loan Association v. Guerra, upheld a

California law requiring most employers to grant pregnant women 4

months of unpaid disability leave and

the right to return to their same job.

The most comprehensive federal act

to date relative to maternity leave

and employment policies is the

Family and Medical Leave Act of

1993 (FMLA) which mandates up to

12 weeks of unpaid leave for childbearing or family care over a 12-

month period for eligible employees.

Eligible employees are defined as

those who worked for at least 1 year

for their current employer, and who

worked for at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12 months, and

who worked for a business employing 50 or more employees. For

women who are employed part time

or work in small businesses for

which the FMLA does not apply, both

the families and employers are faced

with a dilemma: how to reconcile the

medical and emotional needs of the

mother and infant with the requirements of the employer and the financial needs of the family.

Another noteworthy change over this

time period is the increased importance of a second income to the

household’s overall economic wellbeing. Stagnant men’s wages coupled with rapidly rising housing

prices and the prices of other goods

beginning in the 1970s and continuing into the 1980s translated into

both spouses working outside the

home.7 To remain in the middle

class, mothers were increasingly

called upon to remain in the work

force.

It is important to interpret the noted

changes in the age and educational

structure of mothers with infants in

conjunction with the historical back7

Frank Levy. Dollars and Dreams: The

Changing American Income Distribution.

Russel Sage Foundation: New York, 1987.

ground of the women’s movement,

and the legislative and economic

changes of the 1970s and 1980s.

While the demographic factors may

have changed the normative balance

between work and family life for

mothers, the legal, economic, and

cultural changes in this period were

also important and may have fostered a working environment for this

Baby Boom generation of women

that was quite different from that of

their mothers. 

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

BEFORE THE FIRST BIRTH

This section starts with a description

of overall trends in women’s employment histories from 1961-65 to

1991-95 and then describes the characteristics of women who work during their first pregnancy.

Overall trends: 1961-65 to

1991-95 

Over the years, the disparity between

the percentage of women who ever

worked before becoming mothers

and the percentage working while

pregnant with their first child (hereafter referred to as “pregnant” or

“pregnancy”) has diminished.8

Figure 1 shows that the percentage

of women who have ever worked for

6 or more consecutive months9

increased from 60 percent in 1961-

65 to 74 percent in 1991-95.10

Only 44 percent of women worked

during their pregnancy in 1961-65

but by 1991-95 the threshold had

8

For the remainder of this report, the term

"pregnancy" is used to refer to the pregnancy

preceding the first birth to facilitate reader comprehension, although a woman's first pregnancy may not result in her first birth.

9

Working for 6 consecutive months is a

standard labor force indicator which measures

the likelihood of a serious commitment to the

labor force.

10The estimates in this report are based on

responses from a sample of the population.

As with all surveys, estimates may vary from

the actual (population) because of sampling

variation, or other factors. All statements

made in this report have undergone statistical

testing and meet Census Bureau standards for

statistical accuracy.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Women Who Ever Worked for Pay Continuously for

6 or More Months Before Their First Birth, and Who

Worked During Pregnancy: 1961-65 to 1991-95

(Percent)

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ever worked

Worked full time during pregnancy

Worked part time during pregnancy

1961-65 1966-70 1971-75 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95

Worked during pregnancy

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Tables C and B-2, and 

this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 

Panel, Wave 2.

Year of first birth

risen considerably, as 67 percent

worked while pregnant. 

Most of the gains in these indicators

were made by the 1976-80 period,

about the time that the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act was passed.

Although we cannot disentangle the

effects of social change and legislation, it is important to note that

these social and legislative changes

occurred at roughly the same point

in time. Between 1976-80 and 

1991-95, the proportion of women

who had ever worked for 6 or more

consecutive months ranged between

74 percent and 75 percent, while the

proportion who worked during pregnancy increased by 5 percentage

points. In comparison, both these

measures increased — by 13 percentage points and 17 percentage

points, respectively — between the

1961-65 and 1976-80 periods (see

Table A).11

11In contrast, overall labor force participation rates for women, regardless of pregnancy

status, progressed more smoothly for these

periods: 32 percent in 1960, 43 percent in

1970, 52 percent in 1980, and 58 percent in

1990 (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web

site at www.bls.gov/pdf/cpsaat2.pdf).

As previously mentioned, age and

educational level strongly influence

the likelihood of entering the labor

force. Table B presents, for the most

recent period, the percentage of

women employed for at least 6 consecutive months at any time before

the birth of their first child, by age.

The likelihood of working rises rapidly with age. By ages 25 to 29,

approximately 9 out of 10 women

who had a first birth in 1991-95 had

worked for at least 6 consecutive

months. 

Table B also shows this proportion by

educational attainment level for

women 25 years and over, an age

when most women are old enough

to have graduated from high school

or have attended or graduated from

college. Clearly, educational background and attendant job skills are

significantly related to the likelihood

of working before the first birth.

Significant differences in employment

experience occur between those

mothers who did not graduate from

high school and those with more

education. No significant differences

were found in employment rates

Table A.

Employment History Before First Birth:

1961-65 to 1991-95

(In thousands)

Ever worked Worked during pregnancy2

Number of 6 or more Year of first birth women with months

first births continuously1 Total Full time Part time

1991-95 . . . . . . . . . . 8,599 73.8 66.8 54.5 12.2

(72.5-75.1) (65.4-68.2) (53.0-56.0) (11.2-13.2)

1986-90 . . . . . . . . . . 8,568 75.5 67.2 58.3 8.9

(74.2-76.8) (65.8-68.6) (56.8-59.8) (8.0-9.8)

1981-85 . . . . . . . . . . 8,306 73.4 62.0 55.3 6.7

(72.0-74.8) (60.5-63.5) (53.8-56.8) (5.9-7.5)

1976-80 . . . . . . . . . . 7,192 73.1 61.4 53.1 8.3

(71.4-74.8) (59.5-63.3) (51.2-55.0) (7.2-9.4)

1971-75 . . . . . . . . . . 6,920 68.9 53.5 47.6 5.9

(67.1-70.7) (51.6-55.4) (45.6-49.6) (5.0-6.8)

1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 6,956 66.4 49.4 44.2 5.2

(64.6-68.2) (47.5-51.3) (42.3-46.1) (4.3-6.1)

1961-65 . . . . . . . . . . 6,306 60.0 44.4 39.7 4.7

(58.0-62.0) (42.4-46.4) (37.7-41.7) (3.8-5.6)

1

At any time before first birth.

2

Full-time/part-time status refers to last job held before first child’s birth.

Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the 90-percent confidence interval for the estimated percent.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Tables C

and B-2, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table B.

Women Who Ever Worked for Pay Continuously for 6 or

More Months Before Their First Birth: 1991-951

Characteristic Number of

women with

first births

Number of

women who

worked 6 or

more months

Percent of

women who

worked 6 or

more months

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birth

Less than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years or older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Edcuational attainment2

Less than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

8,599

814

1,223

1,148

1,543

2,024

1,847

184

781

1,184

1,721

6,345

218

638

752

1,236

1,798

1,703

103

675

1,093

1,630

73.8

26.8

52.2

65.5

80.1

88.9

92.2

56.1

86.4

92.3

94.7

1

Includes work at any time before the first birth, regardless of whether a woman worked

during the pregnancy. 2

Limited to women age 25 and over at the time of first birth.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996

Panel, Wave 2.

among college-educated mothers by Women who work during

whether they had completed college. first pregnancy

In 1991-95, the majority of women Table C summarizes the trends in

who worked during pregnancy women’s work experience during

worked at full-time jobs (35 hours or pregnancy since the early 1960s.

more per week; see Table A). The With one exception (1966-70), mothproportion of women working full ers under age 18 and age 18 and 19

time during pregnancy increased had consistently lower rates of

from the 1960s to the 1980s, and employment compared with women

declined slightly in the early 1990s. 25 to 29 years old and 30 years old

However, there was an increase in and over. Of course, many younger

part-time work in the 1990s. mothers had not finished school and

Whether this relative shift from full to would not be expected to favorably

part-time work is a function of the compete in the job market, even if

type of work available or women’s they were not pregnant. 

desires to minimize work hours outDifferences in employment rates side the home cannot be discerned

between age groups also increased. from the data. However, subsequent Since 1961-65, employment rates sections of this report will show the increased from 29 percent to 46 per- importance of the number of hours cent for mothers 18 and 19 years worked while pregnant and the old, and from 54 percent to about amount of leave taken from the

84 percent for mothers 25 to 29 workforce around the time of the

years old. Again, it should be noted first birth in determining the type of that the greatest increases in employ- maternity benefits received. ment for women 25 years and over

occurred in the first 20-year segment

shown in the table (1961-65 to 1976-

80) rather than in the second 15-year

segment since the 1980s. 

Since 1961-65, White women have

been most likely to have worked during their first pregnancy.12 Asian and

Pacific Islander women have

increased their employment rates

during their pregnancy since 1981-

85, the first year with data for analysis. Hispanics and Blacks have

remained at fairly constant levels

since 1981-85, although Black

women have experienced significant

increases in employment rates since

1961-65. 

Figure 2 shows for the most recent

birth period, 1991-95, employment

rates by age and race and ethnicity

of the mother. Among women who

had their first child between 1991

and 1995, White non-Hispanic

women, regardless of age, were

more likely to work while pregnant

than either Black women or Hispanic

women. Among mothers under age

18, Black women and Hispanic

women were equally likely to have

worked during pregnancy (about 

17 percent). After age 22, Black

women were more likely to have

worked during their pregnancy than

Hispanic women. It is interesting to

note that the large differences that

existed between White non-Hispanic

women and Black women between

the ages 18 and 19 (about 18 percentage points) were considerably

less for older age groups (about 

8 percent for ages 22 to 24 and 25

and over). It may be that women

who delay childbearing do so because

they are employed, and are therefore

more likely to be in the labor force at

the time of their pregnancy.

12Categories are not exclusive. Blacks may

be Hispanic. Hispanics are of any race. Data

for the American Indian and Alaska Native population are not shown in this report because of

their small sample size in the Survey of Income

and Program Participation (SIPP) in the 1996

Panel. Based on the 1996 SIPP Panel, Wave 2

maternity leave data, 6 percent of the Black

population and 6 percent of the Asian and

Pacific Islander population are also of Hispanic

origin.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table C.

Women Who Worked During Pregnancy by Selected Characteristics:

1961-65 to 1991-95

(Percent working in specific category)

Characteristic

Year of first birth

1991-95 1986-90 1981-85 1976-80 1971-75 1966-70 1961-65

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birth

Less than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 and 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 and 21 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicity

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian and Pacific Islander. . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timing of first birth1

Before first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainment

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some college, no degree . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . .

66.8

20.5

45.7

57.7

70.5

83.6

85.1

70.3

75.6

50.4

58.4

44.0

50.7

74.5

81.5

28.6

60.2

75.5

87.1

67.2

29.3

44.7

60.6

72.7

78.3

83.0

70.3

76.3

53.2

62.0

39.0

53.2

73.0

73.7

35.4

61.6

74.2

85.2

62.0

18.5

42.6

57.8

69.9

77.7

74.1

65.2

68.4

49.2

43.6

42.6

46.6

66.6

75.4

30.6

57.3

69.6

79.0

61.4

23.5

40.8

57.4

73.1

81.1

74.0

65.5

(NA)

40.5

(NA)

(NA)

41.7

67.5

69.4

28.2

61.0

72.5

81.8

53.5

25.1

38.3

57.4

66.6

73.1

60.7

57.0

(NA)

39.8

(NA)

(NA)

42.0

56.9

67.9

25.6

53.7

62.6

77.0

49.4

19.1

40.1

50.8

61.4

66.2

44.3

51.6

(NA)

37.9

(NA)

(NA)

42.9

50.6

58.3

26.0

50.2

57.8

67.0

44.4

25.0

29.2

49.4

56.8

54.4

51.9

46.7

(NA)

32.2

(NA)

(NA)

36.7

46.5

40.7

21.8

48.8

51.5

62.9

NA Data not available for these years.

1

Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table C and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau,

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

A mother’s educational level is also

associated with the probability that

she will work during her first pregnancy. Table C shows that in 

1991-95, women with college degrees

were much more likely to work during pregnancy (87 percent) than were

women with less than a high school

diploma (29 percent) or women who

had just graduated high school 

(60 percent). Women with more education may have jobs more conducive to accommodating pregnancy.

For example, they may be more likely to sit during the day, not engage

in manual labor or be exposed to

hazardous materials or conditions,

and may have rest facilities available.

Their schedules may also be more

flexible, allowing for ease of scheduling medical appointments, or late

arrivals/early departures. 

Since 1966-70, women who had

their first child before their first marriage were least likely to have

worked while pregnant, while those

who had their first child after their

first marriage ended were more likely

to have worked while pregnant.13

Women who have their first child

prior to marriage are generally

younger and more likely to be of a

minority race or ethnic group, and

thus to have lower levels of education and labor market experience or

13Discussion of estimates for 1966-70 to

1976-80 is on page 14 of "Maternity Leave

Arrangements: 1961-85," by Martin O'Connell,

in Work and Family Patterns of American

Women. Current Population Reports, Series P23,

No.165. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC,

1990.

skills. Women who have their first

birth within or after their first marriage are more likely to be older and

already in the labor force at the time

they become pregnant. As will be

shown, after statistically controlling

for the effect of these variables—age,

education, and race—the marital status of the mother at the time of her

first birth has very little relationship

to the likelihood of her working during pregnancy.

In general, the changing age and

educational composition of mothers

since the 1960s has shifted to those

groups who are also more likely to

have either a prior work history

before first birth or are more likely to

work while pregnant—namely, older

and more educated women. 
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Duration of work during

pregnancy

In 1961-65, 13 percent of women

who worked during pregnancy

reported they stopped working during their first trimester (6 or more

months before the birth), and only

23 percent worked until less than 

1 month before the birth of their first

child (see Table D). A key transition

occurred between 1971-75 and

1981-85 when the percentage of

women who left work in their first

trimester declined from 13 percent to

5 percent while the proportion working within 1 month of their child’s

birth jumped from 27 percent to 

53 percent. Since 1981-85, those

percentages have varied only by 

2 percentage points for either indicator.14

Since 1981-85, the percentage of

pregnant women who worked full

14It is interesting to note that of the 53 percent of women who worked within 1 month of

their child's birth in 1991-95, about one-half of

these women (27 percent) reported that they

had never stopped working during their pregnancy.

time has declined slightly from 

89 percent to 82 percent.15 Perhaps

the composition of available work

has changed, making part-time work

increasingly available. On the other

hand, women with more labor force

experience or education may now

have the skills or seniority to

demand part-time work while pregnant, more than they did in the past.

This change may be tied to the shift

in age structure of women at first

birth, to older ages since 1961. 

The bottom panel of Table D shows

that in the early 1960s there was little variation in the proportion of

women who were full-time workers

by the month they stopped working

in their pregnancy. Among women

who had their first birth in 1961-65,

about 9 out of 10 women worked at

full-time jobs, regardless of when

they stopped working. With the

exception of 1976-80, for all subsequent periods, women who left their

jobs in their first trimester of their

15Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that

the percentage of employed workers working

part time increased over the 1970s and 1980s,

and then began to decrease in the late 1990s.

pregnancy were less likely to be fulltime workers than women who

worked within a month of the birth

of their child. In 1961-65, 88 percent

of women who stopped working in

their first trimester were full time,

not different from the percentage for

women who worked until 1 month

before their child’s birth. In 1991-95,

89 percent of women who worked

within one month of their child’s

birth worked full time compared with

72 percent of women who stopped

working in their first trimester. In

general, Table D suggests that

women who expressed the most

commitment to their jobs, the fulltime workers, remained at work until

they became mothers. 

Working during pregnancy:

Who works the longest? 

As shown previously, women with

more years of schooling are more

likely to be employed during their

pregnancy, reflecting both their job

skills and educational training gearing them towards employment after

school. The previous report in this

series noted that in the early 1960s,

women who worked longer into their

pregnancy were those in need of

more financial assistance, especially

high school dropouts who may have

had low paying jobs.16 However, during the 1980s and 1990s, collegeeducated women began to work into

the last trimester of their pregnancy

more often than women with less

than a high school education (see

Figure 3). The earlier report suggested that women in the 1980s may

have begun to work longer into their

pregnancy for reasons other than

immediate financial needs, perhaps

viewing their jobs from a long-term

perspective such as subsequent job

opportunities with their employer

after the birth of their child. This

current report corroborates this finding.

16 Op cit., O'Connell, 1990, pp. 16-17.

Figure 2.

Women Who Worked During Pregnancy by Age at

First Birth and Race and Ethnicity: 1991-95

(Percent)

2 54

55 32

30

Less than 18 18 and 19 20 and 21 22 to 24 25 and over

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Age at first birth

25

17 16

55

36

31

65

47

40

77

69

45

89

81

66

White non-Hispanic

Black

Hispanic (of any race)
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3 shows that this pattern has encouraged to stay as long at work

continued since the 1980s. By as possible. 

1991-95, 90 percent of college grad- For the most recent study period, uates who had worked during their 1991-95, Table E presents data for pregnancy were employed at least different socioeconomic groups on until their last trimester (less than 3 their likelihood of working during dif- months before their child’s birth) ferent stages of pregnancy. Because compared with 62 percent of women the characteristics shown in Table E who had not graduated from high are closely related to each other—for school. In fact, Table E shows for the example, younger women also tend most recent 5-year period of births to be less educated—a multivariate (1991-95), a much higher proportion analysis was used to ascertain the of college graduates had worked dur- independent effects of each of the ing the last month of pregnancy listed variables on the likelihood of (64 percent) as did women with less working during pregnancy, statistical- than a high school education (35 per- ly controlling for each of the other cent). The changing relationship of factors. For each of the time inter- educational attainment and work vals shown in Table E, two columns during pregnancy is perhaps related are shown: the “Percent” columns to the changing composition of the show the simple percentage of U.S. workforce. As more women women working, while the “Odds enter the workforce, highly educated ratio” columns show the likelihood of employees may be more valued and a woman with that characteristic rewarded by their employer and working in that time interval relative

to a woman in the reference category. It is this latter column that indicates the relationship between the

characteristic and the likelihood of

working, after taking into account

the other variables in the analysis.17

In general, women most likely to

work late into their pregnancy are

full-time workers, older women, and

women with more years of schooling. Table E shows percentages and

odds ratios predicting the likelihood

of working during different stages of

pregnancy. Working at a full-time job

during pregnancy is strongly associated with the likelihood of working

in both the last trimester and the last

month of pregnancy. After statistically controlling for the effects of other

17An odds ratio of 1.0 indicates that a

woman with this characteristic is as likely to be

working as a woman with the specified reference or comparison characteristic. Ratios under

1.0 or over 1.0 indicate that a woman is less

likely or more likely to work, respectively.

Table D.

Women Who Worked During Pregnancy: 1961-65 to 1991-95

(In thousands)

Characteristic

Year of first birth

1991-95 1986-90 1981-85 1976-80 1971-75 1966-70 1961-65

Number of women with first births. . . . . . .

Number of women working during first

pregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of women by

number of months before first birth

they stopped working1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent working full time2 before

first birth

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

By number of months before first birth

they stopped working:1

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,599

5,740

100.0

52.6

20.3

9.0

11.0

7.1

81.7

89.0

78.7

71.2

66.2

72.4

8,568

5,758

100.0

54.8

20.9

9.1

10.0

5.2

86.7

91.0

87.5

82.1

73.4

72.0

8,306

5,147

100.0

52.7

21.0

10.7

10.2

5.4

89.2

92.1

90.6

88.4

75.7

83.1

7,192

4,414

100.0

40.9

18.0

14.7

18.6

7.7

86.6

89.1

90.8

84.5

79.8

83.2

6,920

3,700

100.0

27.1

16.0

20.9

22.9

13.1

88.9

89.9

91.5

93.7

86.9

80.0

6,956

3,435

100.0

26.2

13.2

18.3

28.4

13.9

89.5

91.8

91.6

90.0

88.5

85.1

6,306

2,797

100.0

22.7

11.9

17.1

35.4

12.9

89.5

88.2

91.9

86.2

91.8

87.5

1

Among women who worked while pregnant.

2

Full time employment status refers to last job held before birth of first child.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Table

Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

s B and B-6, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census
U.S. Census Bureau 9

factors, women who worked full time works at all during her first pregnanat their last job during pregnancy cy, with White non-Hispanic women

were about two times as likely to being more likely to work than other

work until the last trimester and two groups. However, there were no difand a half times as likely to work ferences by race in the proportions

until the end of their pregnancies of women working until late in their

than part-time workers. pregnancies. 

Likewise, women who were older at Similarly, although women who had

the time of their first birth were more a child before their first marriage

likely to work during pregnancy and appear to be the least likely group of

also later in pregnancy than their women to work either during pregyounger counterparts. Older women nancy or late into their pregnancy,

may have more permanent jobs that these differences are minimized by

enable or require them to maintain controlling for the other factors. 

involvement in their work until close For all of the intervals shown in to the time their child is born. The Table E, educational attainment clear- odds that pregnant women age 25 or ly maintains a significant relationship older at their first birth were working with working during pregnancy. in the last trimester of pregnancy, More highly educated women may was about twice that of teenagers. be in career positions that require a However, there were no statistically greater show of commitment than significant differences by age in the the jobs of women with fewer years likelihood of working in the last of school completed. Only 35 per- month of pregnancy, after controlling cent of women who had failed to for other factors in the statistical complete high school worked in their model. last month of pregnancy compared

Race and ethnicity are significantly with 64 percent of pregnant workers

associated with whether a woman with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Other factors in the statistical model

did not diminish this pattern. 

The data suggest that working during pregnancy is closely associated

with job commitment and skill level

of the worker. Women who are

employed at full-time jobs and who,

by the nature of their level of educational attainment, are employed at

more highly skilled jobs, maintain

their ties to the labor force for the

majority of the months of their pregnancy. As will be shown, employment history is closely related to the

types of maternity benefits received

and the rapidity of returning to work

after childbirth.

MATERNITY LEAVE

ARRANGEMENTS

This section first provides an

overview of the changes in maternity

leave arrangements since the 1960s.

Next, it discusses leave arrangements women use before and after

the birth of their first child, and ends

with a comparison of women who

take maternity leave and return to

work with women who quit working

when they have their first child.

Changes in leave arrangements since the 1960s

Periods of maternity leave are important for families as infants require

considerable care and mothers need

time to recover from pregnancy and

childbirth. Businesses also benefit

from offering maternity leave (both

paid and unpaid) if it leads to greater

job retention, because they can avoid

the time and financial costs of finding and training new employees.18

Because there is no consistent formal

structure for maternity leave in the

United States, women must often

individually patch together a plan of

both paid and unpaid leave, the sum

total of which may or may not be

18Commission on Family and Medical Leave.

A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on

Family and Medical Leave Policies. U.S.

Department of Labor: Washington, DC, 1996.

(Percent)

2 54

32

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bachelor's degree or more

Less than high school

High school graduate

1961-65 1966-70 1971-75 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95

Some college, no degree

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Table B-7, and this 

report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, 

Wave 2.

Year of first birth

Figure 3.

Women Who Worked in the Last Trimester of

Pregnancy by Education Level: 1961-65 to 1991-95

(Among women who worked during pregancy)
10 U.S. Census Bureau

satisfactory to them. Thus, materni- worked during their pregnancy. In Simultaneously, an equally important

ty leave in the United States is a com- the early 1960s, 63 percent of preg- increase has occurred in the use of

mon occurrence, yet hardly a uni- nant working women quit their job paid and unpaid maternity leave. In

form experience. around the time of first child’s birth. the early 1960s, the use of paid leave

This percentage decreased to 27 per- arrangements was reported by 16 Table F shows the overall changes cent by the late 1980s, where it percent of women who worked dur- since the 1960s in the type of leave seems to have recently stabilized. ing pregnancy. However, by the late arrangements used by women who 1980s and the early 1990s, larger

Table E.

Work History During Pregnancy by Selected Characteristics: 1991-95

Characteristic

Among women who worked at

all during pregnancy

Among women who worked1 last trimester of pregnancy

Among women who worked last

month of pregnancy1

Percent Odds ratio Percent Odds ratio Percent Odds ratio

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employment status at last job

Full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birth

Less than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicity2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timing of first birth3

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainment

Less than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

Unweighted N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

chi-square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

degrees of freedom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66.8

5,740

54.5

12.2

20.5

45.7

57.7

70.5

83.6

85.1

70.3

75.6

50.4

58.4

44.0

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

50.7

74.5

81.5

28.6

60.2

75.5

87.1

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NI)

(NI)

1.00

*2.58

*3.55

*5.70

*10.76

*10.68

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

1.00

*0.53

*0.32

*0.39

1.00

0.94

0.85

1.00

*2.25

*3.86

*4.47

2935

766.97

13

81.9

4,699

84.7

69.1

63.8

69.3

67.9

82.0

86.9

88.7

81.9

82.3

79.5

87.0

78.2

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

76.3

84.0

82.7

62.3

77.3

82.1

89.7

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

*1.97

1.00

1.00

0.96

0.77

1.53

*2.03

*2.27

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

1.00

0.95

1.35

1.00

1.00

0.86

*0.59

1.00

*1.88

*2.27

*3.04

1910

137.91

14

52.6

3,019

57.3

31.5

37.3

34.8

41.7

49.3

59.2

60.3

52.5

52.9

53.5

51.8

49.3

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

44.8

55.6

52.9

35.2

45.9

50.6

64.4

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

*2.48

1.00

1.00

0.69

0.77

0.92

1.21

1.17

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

1.00

1.19

0.89

1.05

1.00

1.04

0.80

1.00

1.49

*1.65

*2.41

1910

139.99

14

* Significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

NA Not applicable.

NI Not included because employment status at job held during pregnancy was omitted from the logistic regression predicting employment during pregnancy.

X Race/ethnicity categories allow overlap between groups, therefore mutually exclusive categories were used in the logistic regressions.

1

Among women who worked while pregnant.

2

Mutually exclusive race categories shown for logistic regression only.

3

Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Table B-7, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau,

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

proportions of pregnant working No more than 5 percent of pregnant

women used paid maternity leave women were let go from their job

(43 percent). The use of unpaid over the entire study period. The use

leave increased in a similar manner. of disability leave increased from 6

Of the 5.7 million women who percent in the early 1980s to 11 perworked during pregnancy, only a cent in the early 1990s (disability

small percentage (14 percent) used leave data were not specifically colboth paid and unpaid leave in lected in earlier periods but may

1991-95. have been reported in the other

types of paid or unpaid leave

arrangements).

These trends are likely related to

other changes in the lives of

American women over this same

time period. Women are having

births at later ages and are more likely to be college graduates, trends

which translate into greater work

experience before first birth and

stronger commitment to the labor

force. Employers, more than ever,

may perceive women as integral to

their work force and may be more

likely to offer maternity leave as a

job benefit when they weigh the

costs of finding and training a new

employee against a short leave of

absence. 

Leave arrangements before

and after the first birth

Table G provides a detailed picture of

maternity leave arrangements used

by employed women—both before

and after their child’s birth—who had

their first birth in 1991-95. 

In general, women are more likely to

quit their job before the birth of their

child (23 percent) than wait until

after their child is born (4 percent).

On the other hand, both paid and

MATERNITY LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS

In the 1996 SIPP panel, two separate questions on maternity leave were

asked of every woman who worked during pregnancy. The first question concerned arrangements used between the time she stopped

working and when the child was born, while the second question

asked about the arrangements used between the child's birth and up to

12 weeks after the child was born. The 1984 and 1985 SIPP panels

asked only one question about arrangements used at any time during

pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after the child was born. 

In both surveys, women who reported that they had never stopped

working before the child's birth were not asked about arrangements

used prior to the child's birth but were asked about any arrangements

used after the child was born. Respondents in the surveys were

allowed to report as many arrangements as they used (in the 1996

panel, 6 percent and 11 percent of women provided multiple answers

to the questions on maternity leave before and after birth, respectively). The most important addition to the list of leave arrangements in

the 1996 panel was the inclusion of "disability leave," which may have

been conceptually included as responses in either the paid or unpaid

leave categories in the prior SIPP panels.

Table F.

Leave Arrangements Used by Women Who Worked During Pregnancy: 1961-1965 to

1991-95

Type of leave

Year of first birth

1991-95 1986-90 1981-85 1976-80 1971-75 1966-70 1961-65

Number of women (in thousands) . . . . . . .

Leave arrangements used (in

percent)1

Quit job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Paid leave .........................

3 Unpaid leave ......................

Disability leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let go from job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,740

26.9

42.7

40.3

11.2

4.2

5,758

26.5

43.3

41.0

7.5

2.3

5,147

35.7

37.3

33.7

6.3

3.5

4,414

41.3

34.0

20.2

(NA)

4.9

3,700

51.1

23.4

20.8

(NA)

4.6

3,435

58.9

18.3

17.6

(NA)

4.2

2,797

62.8

16.0

14.1

(NA)

5.0

NA Data not available for these years.

1

Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leave arrangements may have been used before or up to 12

weeks after the birth for periods 1981-85 to 1991-95 and before or up to 6 weeks after the birth for periods 1961-65 to 1976-80. 2

Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.

3

Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table D and this report P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.
12 U.S. Census Bureau

unpaid leave respectively are more A sizable proportion of women take

likely to be used after the child’s birth “maternity leave” either before or

than during pregnancy. The same after their child is born, with more

pattern holds true for use of disabili- mentioning that this leave was

ty leave: 5 percent of pregnant unpaid (35 percent) than paid 

women use this type of benefit when (31 percent). Sick or vacation leave,

pregnant, while 9 percent of mothers however, is more likely to be paid

use it after the child is born. This than unpaid. Furthermore, this paid

suggests that women may use a sick or vacation leave is used more

“save it up” strategy by working as frequently after the birth than before

long as possible into their pregnancy the birth of their first child. 

and then taking their leave after their Over the time period 1981-85 to child’s birth. Another leave taking 1991-95, there was an increase in strategy that women use is to com- the use of both paid and unpaid bine different types of leave. leave arrangements after the child’s Separate analysis shows that in birth (data not shown for the 1980s). 1991-95, 6 percent of women com- Use of paid leave after the child’s bined one or more types of leave birth increased from 32 percent in arrangements (i.e., quit, paid, unpaid, 1981-85 to 36 percent in 1991-95, or disability leave) before their child’s while use of unpaid leave increased birth while 11 percent combined from 30 percent to 37 percent over leave arrangements after their child’s the same time period. This may birth. reflect an increased effort on the part

of employers to accommodate

women’s childbearing by offering

paid or unpaid maternity leave and

holding their job for them. It may

also reflect increased compliance

with the various legislative and judicial rulings established during that

period or the family’s increased

reliance on mother’s wages for financial well-being.

Who receives maternity

leave and who leaves their

job?

Younger women in 1991-95 were

more likely to quit their jobs than

were women who had their first

child at older ages (see Table H).

More than twice as many women 

(44 percent) who had their birth

before age 22 quit their jobs in

1991-1995, compared with women

who had their first child at age 25 or

older (19 percent).19 Part-time workers were also more likely to quit

their jobs (53 percent) than full-time

workers (21 percent). 

Older women were more likely to

receive paid maternity benefits. The

proportion of women using paid

leave for their first birth increases

steadily with age, from only 7 percent of women whose age at first

birth was less than 18 years old, to

59 percent among those who had

their birth at age 30 or older. It is

likely that the greater labor force

experience and job security enjoyed

by older women translates into better benefits when interrupting their

job to have a baby.

Employment characteristics are

important factors associated with the

type of leave arrangements women

use for the birth of their first child.

Full-time workers were more likely to

obtain paid leave benefits than parttime workers. Women who worked

19 This statement and other statements in

this section based on Table H were also statistically significant when a multivariate analysis

was performed controlling for other characteristics shown in the table. The results of this

analysis are available in the detailed tables

accompanying this report on the Internet.

Table G.

Detailed Leave Arrangements Used by Women Who

Worked During Pregnancy: 1991-95

(In percent)

Type of leave

Total

Leave taken

Before birth After birth

Number of women (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . .

Leave arrangements used (in percent)1

Quit job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Paid leave ............................

Maternity leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sick leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vacation leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other paid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Unpaid leave ..........................

Maternity leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sick leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vacation leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disability leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employer went out of business. . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let go from job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,740

26.9

42.7

30.7

10.6

11.3

1.5

40.3

34.8

2.7

2.1

3.4

11.2

6.4

1.0

0.6

4.8

4.2

5,740

22.8

24.3

18.4

4.2

3.5

0.8

19.7

16.9

1.2

1.0

0.8

4.9

2.8

0.3

0.4

2.0

3.6

5,740

4.1

35.9

24.7

8.8

9.7

1.0

36.7

31.0

2.0

1.5

3.0

9.4

4.7

0.9

0.1

3.7

3.2

1

Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leave

arrangements in the total column may have been used before or after the birth, and are

only counted once if used at both times. 2

Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.

3

Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996

Panel, Wave 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

into the last month of pregnancy at all for the remainder of their preg- Increasing levels of education appear

were more likely to obtain paid leave nancy. to go hand-in-hand with increases in

benefits than those who left work the use and perhaps the availability While no other job-related character- earlier in their pregnancy. Very few of paid maternity benefits. Sixty- istics of the mother while pregnant women who worked until their last three percent of women with a bach- were collected from this survey, edu- month of pregnancy were let go from elor’s degree or more used paid ben- cational attainment at the time of the their job (only 1 percent). However, efits, compared with 18 percent of interview may be a good proxy for 13 percent of women who left in women who had less than a high the type of job one holds, the wage their first trimester were let go from school education. In addition, these one earns, and in turn, the type of their job and did not return to work highly educated women were less maternity leave benefits offered. likely to use unpaid leave surroundTable H.

Type of Leave Arrangements Used by Women Who Worked During Their Pregnancy:

1991-95

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic Number of

women

Percent of women using specified leave arrangement

Unpaid Disability 1 2 Quit job Paid leave leave leave

Let go

from job

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employment status at last job

Full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Month stopped working before birth

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birth

Less than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicity

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timing of first birth3

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainment

Less than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,740

4,688

1,052

3,019

1,167

514

631

409

166

559

662

1,087

1,692

1,573

4,871

4,332

631

199

568

1,489

3,826

424

363

1,535

2,088

1,754

26.9

21.0

53.4

13.8

23.6

45.8

59.7

58.4

49.1

43.0

43.6

29.6

21.2

16.1

27.5

26.5

22.4

21.5

34.1

33.9

25.1

18.7

46.3

32.2

26.1

19.2

42.7

48.6

16.3

54.7

44.7

28.7

12.2

12.7

7.2

15.9

19.2

36.6

52.6

59.4

43.2

44.6

35.7

49.2

32.4

23.8

48.3

58.4

18.2

29.1

40.1

62.7

40.3

41.3

35.8

43.5

45.9

33.8

30.0

24.9

35.9

43.7

41.0

39.4

40.2

40.0

40.1

40.2

43.3

38.2

39.7

44.2

39.2

37.2

47.1

41.6

43.0

34.6

11.2

12.2

6.7

10.3

13.3

16.4

11.5

4.6

6.4

8.9

5.9

8.6

13.6

13.8

11.1

10.7

10.8

15.7

14.3

9.0

11.6

14.8

9.3

10.1

10.2

13.7

4.2

4.6

2.5

1.2

4.4

6.4

10.7

13.3

6.6

7.7

6.8

4.8

2.5

3.0

3.8

4.0

8.2

1.4

4.0

7.4

3.0

4.0

6.2

5.7

4.7

1.9

1

Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.

2

Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.

3

Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages.

Note: Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leave arrangements may have been used before or up

to 12 weeks after the birth.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

ing the birth of their first child 

(35 percent) compared with women

with less than a high school education (47 percent). 

The striking relation between educational level and use of paid maternity

leave is a relatively new trend that

began in the early 1970s and that

had intensified by the 1990s. 

Figure 4 shows that in the early

1960s, the use of paid maternity

leave did not differ depending on

educational level. Over time, the percentage receiving paid leave among

women who were not high school

graduates has remained steady at

roughly 18 percent. However, there

has been a distinct rise in the use of

paid maternity leave among women

with higher levels of education since

the 1960s. 

Over this same period, women have

increasingly acquired more years of

schooling and entered the labor force

at unprecedented levels. Their age

at first birth has risen, and they work

longer into their pregnancy and have

done so in a period when familyfriendly legislation has provided

more job security during pregnancy.

All of these factors contribute to a

greater commitment to the labor

force. The combination of these

changes in American society helps

explain the simultaneous declines in

job quitting during pregnancy and

the increases noted in the receipt of

both paid and unpaid maternity

leave.

RETURNING TO WORK

Juggling work and family activities

often becomes difficult after the birth

of a child. This section looks at how

rapidly women begin working after

the birth of their first child. Overall

trends since the 1960s will be examined first. The next subsection will

look at the characteristics of women

who return most rapidly to work.

Finally, new data from the 1996 SIPP

panel will be examined to determine

which women are most likely to Among those who returned to work

return to their same employer after by the 12th month after childbirth,

their child’s birth and the types of most had returned by the 3rd month.

changes that have occurred in their In 1991-94, over half had returned

jobs. by 3 months after the first birth and

over three-fourths were working by Trends since the 1960s the 6th month.

Table I shows the cumulative monthly percent of women working after Figure 5 clearly illustrates the relathe birth of their first child. In the tionship between work experience

early 1960s, relatively few women during pregnancy and the rate at

worked within one year of childbirth which women returned to work.

– only 14 percent of all mothers with Women who worked during their

newborns had returned to work by pregnancy in 1991-94 were back to

the 6th month, increasing to only work much sooner than were women

17 percent by the 12th month. who did not work during their pregThese percentages more than dou- nancy. For example, 57 percent of

bled by 1976-80 with another large women who worked during their

increase occurring by 1981-85 after pregnancy were back to work by the

the passage of the Pregnancy 3rd month, compared with only 

Discrimination Act. By 1991-94, 9 percent among women who had

52 percent of mothers had returned not worked during their pregnancy.

to work by the 6th month after their By the 6th month after childbirth, 

child’s birth, and 60 percent by the 70 percent of women who worked

12th month. during their pregnancy and 17 percent of women who did not were

If a woman decides to return to work employed. These differences by

during the first year of her child’s life, prior employment history are noted

she will probably return earlier rather for each time period (see second and

than later in the child’s infancy. third panels of data in Table I). This

Figure 4.

Women Who Received Paid Leave for Their First

Birth by Educational Attainment, Selected Years:

1961-65 to 1991-95

(Percent)

1961-65 1971-75 1981-85 1991-95

Note: Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave used before or 

after the birth.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table B-9 and this 

report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 

Panel, Wave 2.

Year of first birth

19

16 16 14

18

22

26 27

19

32

39

47

18

40

29

Less than high school

High school graduate

Some college, no degree

Bachelor's degree or more

63
U.S. Census Bureau 15

finding suggests that the entry rate one-third of all mothers), had com- birth, 3 to 5 months after birth, or 6

for those women not employed dur- paratively lower post-birth employ- to 11 months after the child’s birth.

ing their pregnancy is slower due to ment rates than mothers who For the first group, all mothers, the the time and energy involved in the worked during pregnancy. To exam- characteristics of those women who search for a new job. It may also be ine the relationship between specific return to work quickly after their that they reflect a more selective job characteristics of women who child’s birth are similar to those who group of women who have decided worked during pregnancy—for exam- worked during their pregnancy. to remain out of the labor force both ple, hours worked and leave bene- Women who are older are more likely before and after pregnancy to devote fits—and when they returned to to return to work both within 3 more time solely to family-raising work, data are shown in Table J in months and 3 to 5 months after activities. two ways: first, for all mothers and childbirth than younger women (see then only for mothers who worked Likelihood of a Rapid Table J). Those who have attained during pregnancy. Employment rates Return to Work high levels of education are more are also shown for three different

As shown previously, women who likely to return to work both within 3 time intervals after the child’s birth—

did not work during their pregnancy months and 3 to 5 months after working less than 3 months after

in 1991-94 (which made up about childbirth than women with lower

Table I.

Women Working at a Job by Monthly Interval After First Birth: 1961-65 to 1991-94

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Year of first birth

1991-94 1986-90 1981-85 1976-80 1971-75 1966-70 1961-65

Number of women with first births. . . . . . .

Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worked after birth

Cumulative percent:

Less than 1 month1 .................

1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worked during pregnancy

Number of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cumulative percent:

Less than 1 month1 .................

3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did not work during pregnancy

Number of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cumulative percent:

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6,995

100.0

3.3

13.0

29.9

40.8

45.7

48.9

52.3

60.1

(I)

(I)

4,621

100.0

4.5

57.3

70.4

77.7

2,374

100.0

1.1

8.7

17.3

25.8

8,568

100.0

3.4

13.5

31.8

41.6

46.9

49.9

52.9

60.8

66.6

72.7

5,758

100.0

4.5

57.3

70.6

78.6

2,810

100.0

1.1

9.4

16.6

24.3

8,306

100.0

3.6

13.2

27.8

35.9

40.8

43.7

48.3

56.3

63.0

69.9

5,147

100.0

5.4

52.9

66.9

74.4

3,160

100.0

0.6

8.3

18.0

26.9

7,192

100.0

2.5

7.2

16.8

22.4

27.1

29.5

32.2

38.8

48.0

64.3

4,414

100.0

3.7

32.6

45.4

52.6

2,778

100.0

0.5

6.3

11.1

16.8

6,920

100.0

1.8

6.7

12.1

15.6

17.6

19.4

21.9

27.9

37.0

50.0

3,700

100.0

2.6

24.1

32.1

38.8

3,221

100.0

1.0

5.9

10.1

15.3

6,956

100.0

1.3

4.6

9.0

12.7

15.2

16.5

18.3

23.9

29.8

41.1

3,435

100.0

2.4

19.6

26.7

32.7

3,522

100.0

0.2

6.0

10.2

15.3

6,306

100.0

1.9

3.8

7.8

9.9

11.2

12.3

13.7

16.8

22.5

33.5

2,797

100.0

4.1

16.5

21.4

25.8

3,509

100.0

0.2

4.6

7.5

9.6

I Incomplete interval.

1

Includes women who responded that they never stopped working during their pregnancy or after their birth.

Note: 1991-94 estimates are used for comparing worker rates before and after birth for the most recent first birth cohort.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table B-5 and this report P70-79, U.S. Census

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Bureau,
16 U.S. Census Bureau

levels of education. White nonHispanic women are also more likely

to work after the birth of their first

child than are Black women or

Hispanic women.

A different picture emerges when

one looks only at employment rates

for women who worked during their

pregnancy. The large differences in

returning to work within three

months just noted for all women by

these demographic characteristics

are reduced or become insignificant

for women who have worked during

their pregnancy. For all mothers,

teenagers returned within 3 months

less often than women 30 years and

over, but among women who had

some work experience during pregnancy, only a few percentage points

separated these age groups. Higher

return rates, however, were still

found for older women in the 3 to 5

month interval. 

Employment differences between

high school dropouts and women

with college degrees disappeared,

although higher return rates for the 

3 to 5 month interval were similarly

noted for college graduates. As for

differences by ethnicity, no differences were noted for any of the

intervals between Hispanics and

White non-Hispanics for any of the

intervals in Table J.

For women who worked during their

pregnancy, job characteristics

seemed to play the most important

role in determining when they

returned to work.20 Women who

worked into their last month of pregnancy returned to work more rapidly

than those who left work before their

last trimester of the pregnancy. For

example, 50 percent of women who

stopped working less than one

month prior to their child’s birth were

back at work less than 3 months

20The ensuing results were also verified and

upheld by performing a multivariate statistical

analysis which controlled for the other variables

shown in this table.

after their child’s birth compared with 

22 percent of women who left 6 or

more months before their child’s birth.

Likewise, the type of maternity leave

women use is also related to how

soon they return to work. Women

who use maternity leave—either paid

or unpaid—or disability leave, are

roughly twice as likely to experience

a rapid return to work (within less

than 3 months) compared with

women who either quit or are let go

from their job. Women who are let

go or who quit obviously have

greater difficulty in securing employment after their child’s birth as time

for a job search may be scarce considering the newly acquired responsibilities of motherhood. 

These findings imply that there is a

strong association between workrelated variables and rapid returns to

work. It is unclear whether these

women are more motivated to maintain ties to the labor force because of

career goals or whether the jobs

these women hold offer benefits that

facilitate these ties to the labor force,

such as promising a job after childbirth without experiencing any negative job sanctions. Clearly, the costs

to employers associated with finding

and training new employees are high

as well as are the costs to employees

searching for a new job. In contrast,

previous research showed that in the

1960s and 1970s, the women most

economically in need and dependent

on their own earnings (teenagers,

Black women, and women with premarital first births) experienced the

most rapid returns to work.21

Women’s commitment to the labor

force now appears to be stronger,

and maternity leave benefits may

play a more important role in continued employment after the child’s

birth.

21Martin O'Connell. "Maternity Leave

Arrangements: 1961-85," in Work and Family

Patterns of American Women. Current

Population Reports, Series P23, No.165. U.S.

Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1990. For

other research also showing economic need as

an important factor in rapid returns to work,

see Frank Mott and Lois Shaw. "The

Employment Consequences of Different Fertility

Behaviors," in Lois Shaw, ed., Midlife Women at

Work. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, 1986;

and Steven McLaughlin. "Differential Patterns of

Female Labor-Force Participation Surrounding

the First Birth," Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 44(2): 407-420, 1982.

(Cumlative percent)

2 54

32

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Did not work during pregnancy

Less 

than 1

1234 5 6

Worked during pregnancy

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Number of months after birth when work began

7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 5.

Women Who Returned to Work by Work Status 

During Pregnancy and Interval After First 

Birth: 1991-94
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Since the early 1980s, approximately birth (see Table I). Among these

75 percent of women who worked mothers, most of them secured their Returning to the same or a during their pregnancy returned to first job after childbirth (about different employer work by 12 months after their child’s 76 percent) with their pre-birth

Table J.

Returning to Work in Stated Intervals After First Birth by Selected Characteristics: 1991-94

Characteristic

Percent returning to work

All women Women who worked during pregnancy

Less than

3 months

3 to 5 6 to 11

months months

Did not Did not

return return

within Less than 3 to 5 6 to 11 within

1st year 3 months months months 1st year

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employment status while pregnant

Not employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birth

Less than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicity

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timing of first birth1

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainment

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

Month stopped working before birth

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of maternity leave

arrangement2

Quit job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disability leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let go from job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29.9

5.9

43.1

38.3

11.8

21.9

25.8

33.3

37.1

35.4

30.8

32.9

25.3

32.6

19.6

24.9

31.8

39.8

14.8

29.4

33.2

35.3

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

19.0

8.6

25.9

17.4

10.2

14.9

12.3

17.1

23.7

26.8

19.6

20.7

15.2

21.3

14.5

13.2

22.1

20.6

8.5

14.6

21.6

27.8

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

9.5

9.7

9.4

9.5

11.2

10.3

12.0

10.1

7.9

7.8

9.7

10.2

10.0

2.5

6.9

9.5

9.8

6.7

7.8

10.3

9.9

9.0

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

41.5

75.8

21.6

34.8

66.8

52.8

49.9

39.5

31.4

29.9

39.9

36.2

49.5

43.6

59.0

52.4

36.3

32.9

69.0

45.6

35.4

27.9

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

42.2

(NA)

43.1

38.3

37.7

36.3

43.4

45.5

43.4

40.8

41.3

41.3

46.7

50.9

41.3

42.8

41.5

46.7

39.5

43.6

43.2

40.3

50.4

42.0

29.6

27.2

22.0

21.3

49.1

44.4

45.1

19.2

29.7

24.4

(NA)

25.9

17.4

12.5

19.5

16.2

20.8

27.3

30.6

25.2

25.2

17.0

29.0

25.7

17.5

27.3

22.1

15.7

18.1

25.4

30.9

28.4

23.3

22.6

16.2

13.6

13.3

31.9

28.5

35.3

8.1

18.9

9.4

(NA)

9.4

9.5

4.0

11.4

14.4

10.8

8.0

7.7

9.3

9.5

11.0

4.2

8.5

8.5

10.0

6.5

9.7

11.1

9.0

8.3

7.0

9.0

13.3

14.2

15.8

15.5

7.0

8.9

2.2

20.6

10.6

24.0

(NA)

21.6

34.8

45.8

32.8

35.9

23.0

21.4

20.9

24.2

24.1

25.3

15.8

24.5

31.2

21.1

24.7

35.1

27.3

22.4

20.5

14.3

25.7

34.4

42.4

48.5

49.9

12.0

18.3

17.4

52.1

40.7

NA Not applicable for women who did not work during pregnancy.

1

Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages. 2

Leave arrangement may have been used before or after the birth. Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answ

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

employer (see Table K). The majority

who returned to their pre-birth

employer also experienced no

change in the numbers of hours they

worked per week after having a child

compared with their work schedule

before their child was born.

However, this proportion declined

from 84 percent in 1981-85 to 

77 percent in 1991-94. There was a

commensurate increase in the percentage of women working fewer

hours after having their first child 

(14 percent in 1981-85 to 20 percent

in 1991-94). 

Table K indicates also that for the

three periods shown in the table, at

least 95 percent of women returning

to their pre-birth employer earned

the same or higher pay as before the

birth. In addition, 97 percent or

more were at the same or greater job

skill level. When combining all three

of these characteristics together, 

69 percent of women who had a first

birth in 1991-94 experienced no

change for any of these three indicators, down slightly from 77 percent

in 1981-85. 

Compared with mothers who

returned to their pre-birth employers,

women who changed employers for

their first job after childbirth experienced considerable variability in the

number of hours they worked each

week, their pay level, and the skill

level of their job. In 1991-94, 

42 percent worked the same number

of hours after the child’s birth, 

23 percent worked more hours, and

36 percent worked fewer hours.

Switching employers meant decreasing their hourly work schedule for

about a third of mothers for all three

periods shown in Table K. 

Changing jobs also meant more variability in pay. While 88 percent of

women in 1991-94 who returned to

their same employer returned at the

same pay level, only 35 percent of

women who switched employers had

their job at the same pay level. A for mothers in the earlier time perilarger percentage of women ods (1981-85 and 1986-90).

switched to employers that paid Ninety-seven percent or more of them more than their pre-birth women returning to their pre-birth employer (38 percent in 1991-94) employer worked jobs requiring the than who paid them less (27 per- same or greater skills, but about 80 cent). This difference is not evident percent of women with new employTable K.

Women Who Worked During Pregnancy and Returned to

Work Less Than 12 Months After Birth of Their First

Child: 1981-85 to 1991-94

(In percent)

Characteristic

Year of first birth

1991-94 1986-90 1981-85

Number of women returning to work

(in thousands)1

..........................

Returned to pre-birth employer . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to different employer . . . . . . . . . .

Women returning to work (in percent) . . . . . . .

Returned to pre-birth employer . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to different employer . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to pre-birth employer

Number of hours worked after first birth . . . . .

More than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fewer than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pay level after first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lower than before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skill level after first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Greater than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lesser than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hours, pay, and skill level all the same after

first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to different employer

Number of hours worked after first birth . . . . .

More than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fewer than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pay level after first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lower than before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skill level after first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Greater than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . .

Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lesser than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hours, pay, and skill level all the same after

first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,539

2,750

790

100.0

77.7

22.3

100.0

2.8

77.2

20.0

100.0

7.5

88.3

4.1

100.0

5.6

92.6

1.8

69.1

100.0

22.7

41.6

35.8

100.0

38.0

34.7

27.3

100.0

24.8

53.9

21.2

16.0

4,474

3,416

1,059

100.0

76.3

23.7

100.0

3.0

81.0

16.0

100.0

5.9

90.8

3.3

100.0

3.1

94.1

2.8

74.1

100.0

18.5

48.1

33.4

100.0

33.7

37.8

28.5

100.0

30.4

46.8

22.8

19.1

3,761

2,891

870

100.0

76.9

23.1

100.0

1.7

84.1

14.2

100.0

5.8

92.6

1.6

100.0

4.2

93.9

1.9

76.5

100.0

18.2

47.5

34.3

100.0

31.1

39.9

29.0

100.0

28.8

48.9

22.3

17.0

1

Excludes self-employed women and women whose pre-birth employer went out of

business.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996

Panel, Wave 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

ers were working at jobs with the

same or greater level of skills after

the birth of their child. However,

among those women who experienced a change in their skill level,

more generally advanced their skill

level rather than taking a job needing

less skill. Overall, between 15 percent and 20 percent of women who

changed employers maintained consistency on all three of these characteristics before and after the birth of

their child. Clearly, women who find

a new job after becoming mothers

use a variety of paths to support

themselves and their new child.

Some move up in the work world,

while the majority maintain or scale

back their commitment to the labor

force.

Figure 6 shows the types of leave

mothers used by whether they

returned to their pre-birth employer

by the 12th month after their child’s

birth.22 Leave arrangements used

either before or after the first birth

are included because some arrangements, such as quitting, occur almost

exclusively before the birth of the

child, while others (for example, paid

leave) tend to occur most often after

the child is born. These leave

arrangements can be taken concurrently and are not mutually exclusive—that is, a woman could use

both paid and unpaid leave, or any

other combination of leave arrangements.

Among women who returned to

work by the 12th month after their

child’s birth, those who returned to

their pre-birth employer most fre22This analysis was limited to women returning to work by the 12th month after their

child's birth as employer benefits are not likely

to extend for more than 1 year after birth.

Some countries, like Sweden, do extend maternity leave benefits for more than 1 year after

the child's birth. For a cross-national comparison of parental leave, see Sheila Kamerman.

"Parental Leave and Infant Care: U.S. and

International Trends and Issues, 1978-1988" in

Janet Shibley Hyde and Marilyn Essex, eds.,

Parental Leave and Child Care: Setting a

Research and Policy Agenda. Temple University

Press: Philadelphia, PA, 1991.

quently used paid leave (61 percent) went to a new employer post-birth

or unpaid leave (48 percent). Very also used unpaid leave. It appears

few quit their job (5 percent) or were that the use of unpaid leave does not

let go during their pregnancy (1 per- have as strong a retention effect as

cent) and subsequently returned. does paid leave. It may be that some

Among women who returned to forms of unpaid leave are a legal

work by the 12th month but who mandatory benefit given to employswitched employers, most had quit ees but are not strong enough to

their job during their pregnancy promote job retention.

(63 percent), followed by unpaid

leave (29 percent). Nine percent had CONCLUSIONS

been let go by their previous employ- Since the 1960s, women have expeer. About 12 percent of women who rienced considerable gains in educaswitched employers did receive some tion beyond the high school years

type of paid maternity leave either and have continued to delay childbefore or after their child’s birth. bearing to older ages. These factors

These patterns are consistent with have contributed to the increase in

the use of paid leave as an incentive the work experience of women both

for employee retention, whereas before and during their first pregnanthose who quit their jobs before or cy. Not only are women more likely

after having a child exhibit minimal to work during their pregnancy than

amounts of employer loyalty. they did 30 to 40 years ago, but they

work longer into their pregnancy. Unpaid leave, however, shows mixed More than half of women work up results. About half of women returnuntil one month before the birth of ing to their pre-birth employer used their first child. In addition, women unpaid leave. They may also have are returning to work after their used other types of leave, as the cat- pregnancy at a faster rate than in egories are not mutually exclusive. previous decades. The cumulative Twenty-nine percent of those who

Returned to same employer

Note: Includes women who worked during pregnancy and returned to work within 12 months of

their first child's birth.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Percent used leave arrangements before or after first birth

11

1

48

61

5

10

12

9

6

29

63

Figure 6.

Type of Leave Arrangement Used Before or After First 

Birth by Return to Post-Birth Employer: 1991-94

Returned to different employer

3

Quit

Let go 

from job

Paid leave

Unpaid leave

Disability 

leave

Other leave
20 U.S. Census Bureau

effect is that women’s work sched- Data in this report also show that

ules are less likely to be interrupted receiving paid leave is related to

by a pregnancy. As shown in more rapid returns to work and that

Figure 7, the largest changes in the majority of workers return to

trends in women working surround- their same employer after their

ing their first birth came about in the child’s birth. The cumulative effect of

late 1970s and early 1980s (see these findings indicates that women

Table I for percentages). today are making longer term commitments to the labor force than These trends have occurred during women in the 1960s and are incor- time periods when family legislation porating work life on a concurrent was enacted which increasingly pro- basis with childbearing and childrear- tected a pregnant worker’s employ- ing. Some recent trends, however, ment status both before and after suggest that the major increases in birth and made it easier for families employment noted in the 1970s and to adjust their work and family lives early 1980s will not be duplicated in after the birth of their first child. the future and that while employ- Whereas in the 1960s, around 60 ment rates are still high, a shift to percent of women quit their jobs more part-time work is beginning to either before or shortly after the birth occur, both before and after child- of their child, only 27 percent did so birth. Perhaps this is an indicator of by 1991-95 (see Table F). Paid leave a growing flexibility in the workforce benefits were received by 43 percent or represents the desires of families of pregnant workers in 1991-95 — a with newborn children who seek to similar proportion also received balance work and family life. unpaid leave (40 percent), and 

11 percent received disability leave.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The estimates in this report come

from the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP) collected

in June through September of 1996,

and in June through September of

1985, by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Data from the 1996 survey were

used in combination with similar

information collected in the 1984

and 1985 SIPP panels to provide an

extended series of employment and

maternity leave data between 1961

and 1995. Data in this report are

usually shown as 5-year averages

(for example, 1961-65). Statistics for

the 1961-65 to 1976-80 periods are

from the previously cited report

(“Maternity Leave Arrangements:

1961-85”) while data shown for the

periods 1981-85 to 1991-95 are from

the 1996 panel of the SIPP.

The data highlighted in this report

come primarily from the maternity

leave topical modules in respective

SIPP panels (1996 Wave 2, and the

overlapping panels in 1984 Wave 8

and 1985 Wave 4). The SIPP is a

nationally representative longitudinal

survey conducted at four-month

intervals by the Census Bureau.

Although the main focus of the SIPP

is information on labor force participation, jobs, income, and participation in federal assistance programs,

information on other topics, such as

maternity leave arrangements, is also

collected in topical modules on a

rotating basis.

Since these data are from surveys,

they may not accurately reflect past

fertility and employment events

occurring decades before the interview date due to the respondent’s

inability to recall events and the subsequent mortality and migration of

women after a birth has occurred.

These data only reflect the experiences of the women who are living

at the time of the survey. To the

extent that the experiences of the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

(Percent)

1991-94

1981-85

1971-75

1961-65

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 

Panel, Wave 2.

Months before birth

Figure 7.

Women Who Worked Before and After Their First 

Birth by Month Before and After Birth: Selected 

Birth Cohorts, 1961-65 to 1991-94

Less 

than 

1

12 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Birth

6789 12345

Less 

than 

1 Months after birth

1961-65

1971-75

1981-85

1991-94
U.S. Census Bureau 21

deceased or the migrants who left survey differ from those interviewed CONTACTS

the United States are different from in ways other than the categories For additional maternity leave infor- the surveyed population, the esti- used in weighting (age, race, sex, mation, you may contact the authors mates are biased. and Hispanic origin). All of these of this report in the Fertility and considerations affect comparisons Family Statistics Branch, at 301-457- ACCURACY OF THE across different surveys or data 2416. You may also contact the ESTIMATES sources. authors of this report by e-mail.

Statistics from sample surveys are For further information on statistical

subject to sampling and nonsam- Kristin Smith standards and the computation and

pling error. All comparisons present- ksmith@census.gov use of standard errors, contact 

ed in this report have taken sampling Tim Stewart, Demographic Statistical Barbara Downs

error into account and meet the U.S. Methods Division, at 301-457-6849 barbara.a.downs@census.gov Census Bureau’s standards for statis- (TTY) or on the Internet at

tical significance. Nonsampling Martin O’Connell timothy.d.stewart@census.gov.

errors in surveys may be attributed moconnel@census.gov

to a variety of sources, such as how MORE INFORMATION Statistical Information Staff the survey was designed, how The report is available on the Internet 301-457-2422 respondents interpret questions, how (www.census.gov); search for mater- pop@census.gov able and willing respondents are to nity leave data by clicking on the let- provide correct answers, and how ter “F” in the “Subjects A to Z” section USER COMMENTS accurately answers are coded and of the web page and selecting “fertili- classified. The Census Bureau The Census Bureau welcomes the

ty data” and scrolling to the materni- employs quality control procedures comments and advice of users of its

ty leave data section. A detailed throughout the production process – data and reports. If you have any

table package presenting more in- including the overall design of sur- suggestions or comments, please

depth maternity leave information is veys, testing the wording of ques- write to:

also on the Internet. tions, review of the work of inter- Chief, Population Division viewers and coders, and statistical Other research on maternity leave U.S. Census Bureau review of reports. can be found in the following report: Washington, DC 20233

Kristin Smith and Amara Bachu, The SIPP employs ratio estimation,

Women’s Labor Force Attachment or send an e-mail inquiry to: whereby sample estimates are

adjusted to independent estimates of Patterns and Maternity Leave: A pop@census.gov

the national population by age, race, Review of the Literature, Population

SUGGESTED CITATION sex, and Hispanic origin. This Division Working Paper Series, 

weighting partially corrects for bias No.32, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Smith, Kristin, Barbara Downs, and

due to under coverage, but how it Washington, DC, 1999. This report is Martin O’Connell. 2001. Maternity

affects different variables in the sur- on the Internet on the “Population: Leave and Employment Patterns:

vey is not precisely known. Working Paper;” section under 1961-1995. Current Population

Moreover, biases may also be present “Subjects A to Z.” Reports, P70-79. U.S. Census

when people who are missed in the Bureau, Washington, DC.