~e Ntiond hn~timd Smeys @LS) pro- SUPP- mmy Smdlesdwiad

m timme ~dmstiding of tie labor mwket md methtis of daa mumtion. me

Dkcussion Pqers sena hcopomks mme of tie I&each -g out of tie pro~.

Mmy of the ~~rs in thisserieshavebmn defiverti w find repor~ mmtisio”d m

pm of a extimd gmt pm~, under which pmb ~e awtid tio”gh a

competitiveprmas. ~e seriesis titended~ ci=tilate tie findingsm kteresti EAem

titim md ou~ide theBmau of Mor Statistics.“:

Pemonstimstd h obtiting a copy of my Dimuwion Rpr, otherNLS repfi,

or geneti itiomation &ut the~ pm= ad sweys Aould conmtitheBUW d

Wr Satistics, Office of =onotic Resemch, Wmhingmn,K 20212-~1, or d

(202) do&745.

Matid h b publicationis k the public domtin md, witi wpmptiate credit,

may& Eprtiu& tithout ptission,

Opinionsmd inclusions exprwsedin thisdwment a hose of theauthor(s)md

do not n=m~y representm official positionof theB=au of tir Smtisticsor the

U.S. Depment of Labm.
Employment Continuity Among New Mothers

Jacob Alex Kleman

Arleen Leibowitz

Rand Corporation

Mach 1994

~s paper W= fidd by tie U.S. Dep_ent of hbor, Bweau of hbm SbtistiG under Gmt Number

E9-J- l@67. me views expressd hme - those of tie authors md do not nwesstily reflwt tie views of

tie U.S. Deptient of bhr. Sally bon, L- P&nkr, Jom K~ey, Na@& Kostm, md Jerene

Kelly pmvidd excellent m~tice.
Emplo~ent Continuity bong New hthe~

Jacob Mex ~emm and &leen Leihtiti

The last two demdes have seen radical ch=ges in the work pattams of new mothers.

In the early seventies, work ~ong new mofiers was a rtity. To&y nmrly half of dl

mothers of one-month-old infmts are employed. Only about 10 percent of these mofiers of

one-month-old infats me actually at work. The difference – those who me employed, but

not at work — are the la~e number of women on ptid ad wptid leave. This leave tipers

off qtickly, By tbe time the infant is three-months-old, work is nearly at its long-tern level

(i.~, it is nemly the same as it is for mothers of children between 12 ad 24 months). ~is

me of paid ad unptid leave constitutes the de facto matimity leave POET of kericm

employers.

Le@slation at the state ad federal level now reqtires employem h Waratae that

women may return h their old jobs &r a maternity leave of several months (three h the

federal stitute, one h four in the state stitutis). This paper evaluates the impotice of

su& legislation How mmy women already returned ti theti pre-childbifih jobs ti the

&smce of a legislated right ti maternity leave, ad how many women me covered by

matimity leave laws @ven their non-universal covemge.

The protections of matamity leave stitutes are d~tic. They ~rmtie h women

the right to return to their pre-c~dbitih employer *T a leave of up to a ~mtied length.

Similarly, the eligibl~ty reqtirementa for coverage mder the maternity leave statites me

d~amic. To be covered women m~t have had a cetitin number of months of fill-time

tenme (a year mder the federal Family Leave A&). Considetig the impact of these

maternity leave laws reqtires, not only information on women’s I*or market choices at a

point h time, but also longitudinal data on labr market choices before ad &r chil=lfih.

To evaluata the likely effects of such Ie@slation, we use the longitudinal dati colleded

h the Employer Supplements as pati of the continuous work histo~ da& of the National

Lon@tudinal Sumey-Youth (NLS-W. Doing so is comphcatad beca~e the NLS-Y is a cohofi

study. It follows a sample of about Sk thousmd womm who were aged 14 to 21 h 1979.

Some recent mothers were born before the cohort represenhd in the NLS-Y, some were born

—
-2-

&r. For our pumoses, we want to m~e statements about all recent mothers. We

extrapolate our NLS-Y based results h the set of dl recent mothers using re~ession

standardization. We estimate models of the labor supply bebatiors of recent mothem using

the NLS-Y sample. Tboaa models include re~essom which describe how tie NLS-Y s-pie

@ers from the set of all racent mothers (We, ye= of birth, racdetbnicity, marital stitus,

education). We then use the model h predict bebatior for a s-pie of all recent mothers.

The characteristics of recent mothers are derived from the Fertihty Supplement to the Jue

1990 Cument Population Sumey.

Ow basic finding is that the matamity leave stitutes ~oditi etisttig practice. The

overwhelming majtity (88 percent) of women who work fill-time both before md &r the

birth of a child return to their pre-childbirth employer. This percentage is, however, lower

tha the corresponding number among all women (wbetber or not they had a child in the

titerim) tith stiilar demo~aphic cbmacteristics as the mothers (97 percmt). Both among

new mothers and among all demo~aphimlly similar women, far from all womm are still

working Ml-time eightaen months latar; for new mothers, the fiwre is 51.3, for all wome”n

the fiWre is 56.5. bong women who worked full-time a yanr before their cMd was born,

about 20 percent are working pati-time Sk months&r the child is born, md 28 pement are

not working at all. Among all demo~aphidly sitilar women, only 10 percent are not still

working fill-time.

These high rates of return to the same employer are particular h fall-time workers.

&ong partitime workers, only about 8 percent work for their pre-pre~mcy employer

(whether full- or pafitime) sk months fir childbirth. kong all women, ratas ofjob

continuity over a similar 18 month intemd are dso low (34 percent), but not as low as for

new mofiers.

These emplo~ent continuity rates va~ titb the demoWaphic characteristics of the

new mothers. In particular, emplo~ent continuity mtis for full-time work, before ad after

the bitih of the ckild are lowaat for first births md higher for Iatir bifihs (33.8 percmt for

first bitihs vs. 52.1 percent sacond bitihs, md 56.3 percent for third and higher bi~s).

Thus, although most women are working sbotily afier the btib of the child, even some

women wbo worked full-time before the birth of their first child, titilly leave the ~or force.

Across all first bitihs, about 19 percmt of all women worked fall-time &fore the birth of the

child md are not working at all sti months nfter the bitih of the child.
-3-

The paper then uses fiis combind NLS-Y/CPS approach ti estimate the coverage of

the federal Family Leave &t (FLA). k the effoti to bnild a walition for passage, tie federal

FLA was dell%erately wafted to cover only some new mothers. Specifically, only employers

tith 50 or more employees, md employees with 12 months tenure md 1250 hours duting the

pretious year (about 24 hours per week) are covered. Using the data on job tenure, hews

worked, and firm size in the ~-Y, we show that the FLA covers only a minoriti of wortig

new mothers. Each of the exclusions is importit. Among the 63 percent of new mothers

who were working a year before the bifih of the child, only 77 percent meet the fill-time

work requirement. Of them, only 68 percent meet the job tenure requirement. Of those

women who meet the full-time work and the job-tinure requirement only about 59 percent

are working in large enoWh fires. Thus, the FM guarantees h only about 32 percent of

working women the right to return to their pre-childbifi employer.

Together, these findings have impotiant imphcations for the likely effec~ of the FW

Both analyses sWgest that the FLA till have only minimal effects on the lnbor supply of new

mothers. First, only women who work full-tilme are covered by the FW tiong Were,

n~rly all women wbo are working six months afir the hirtb of the child are working for the

same employer they worked for during pre~ancy. Thus, the ~’s right h return to the

pre-preWanW employer is alr=dy stidard business practice. Second, the FLA only rovers

about a third of all new mothers who were working a year before the bitih of the child md 41

percent of new mothers who worked full-time. Thus, the law’s pmtactions do not apply b

many new metiers, and those covered new mothers were almost always returned h theti

employers evm before the FLA.

Family leave legislation may tiect other dimensions of women’s labor market

behatior. &we emphasized in our model, it is possible that, prior to tbe new laws, women

would have liked to have tiken longer l~ves fier the birth of their children, but that

employers strictly limited the amomt of leave. Given tie ‘&oice” of a vev shotil-ve or

qtitting her job, a women may ‘chosen the sborhleave. Perhaps given tie right mder tie

FLA te longer job protectid leaves, new mothers till we longer leaves.
ABSTRA~

Recmtly both state md federd govements have enacted matertity leave Iegidation.

The key protision of tit legislation is that afier a leave (of a tiited dmation), the recent

mother is ~mateed the right to retmn to her pre-leave employer at the sme or equivalent

position. Ustig data tiom the National Longitudind Sumey-Youth, ttis paper comelatis

work statis afir cMdbitih tith work stitus before pre~mcy. ~ost W women (nealy 90

percent) who work fi~-ttie botb before ud after tildbitih continue to work at the sne

employer. Thus maternity leave legislation is unlikely to have a major effed on emplo~ent

continuity. However, compared to all demo~aptically similar women, new mothers do have

an excess probabfity of Ieating their jobs. Finally,. most matefity leave legislation limits its

protections to ffl-tme workers titb sufficient job tenme mfficientiy lmge -s. Ustig the

NLS-Y, the paper estimates that the federal Fmily Leave Act covers ody about a third of dl

wortig new mothers. The restriction to ffl-ttie workers is rdatively utimpotint because

few pati-time workers would satisfy the tenure ad firm-size requirements.
L ~ODUC~ON

The Ftiy Leave A& of 1993 (FLA) was the first piece ofle~slation that Beaident

CEnton si~ed into law. The FLA, which took effed AuWst 1, 1993 W~aties to new

mothers (mong others) the right to up to 12 weeks of leave tithout pay ad the right h

retitatement tithout penalty at the job held at the s~ of the leave. Mthough the passage

of this legislation tid enormous pofiticd md social si~cmce, the pradicd &@ace of

the FLA is yet b be detirmtied. In this paper we assess the Iikdy effects of the FM by

exaitig pre-FLA labor supply patterns for women fo~owtig c~dbtih ad by de~g

what propotiion of new mothers would be coverqd by the FLA.

Much of the tipetis for the passage of the FM cme horn the substmtid fise h labor

force pticipation by mothers of you~ W&en. Women’s labor supply, espeddly =oud

the bfih of a cti~ has &own rapidy over the past two decades (Leibotitz md ~emm,

1994). In the past, women tended to quit their jobs when thek fist ctid was born md did

not rem to the labor force until their youngest child entered school. To&y, more thm hti

of dl new mothe= =e in the labor force ody thee months &r giting b~ Such a high

level of labor supply suggests that women =e retiting the jobs they held h pre~=q =d

re~ng to work tier a shoti mathW leave.. Yet, there has been fi~e ~~ysis Of

whether, in the absence of legislation, women rek to the s=e job her Wdbtih, or

whether they be& a new job. Such itiomation is mcid b understitig the &pa& of

the FLA, wM& Waatees a right to ret- to the job held h pre~mcy.

From the -ployer’s point of tiew it dso impotimt to bow whether a female worker is

~ely to retire to the job afisr hatig a ctid. Dotig so requires” comptig job chxg

=ong women who =e new mothers tith job chan~ng song stim women who did not

give btih b the period stidied. Bemuse the FLA ody covers womm worm more tha 25

hours a week with at Iecct a y- of job tenme ti fires tith at least 50 ~ployees,

mderstading which new mothers continue to work &r gitig btih md how this relates h

the cover~e provisions of the FLA is dso tipotimt to uderstatig the ~ely tipact of

ttis new legislation.

In this paper we use Iongitutial data from the National h.git.ti S~ey of Youth

(NLS-~ and representative population data from the Cument Popdation S-y (CPS) to

dets-e wkt propofion of new mothers me covered by the F@ -g into accomt the

wverage restrictions relating to fmm size, job tanure md hours worked. We dso tivesti~k
2

the @a&titics of women who return to the job they held in pre~~cy md whethm they

wotid be cmered by the FM. Tfis allows us to dete-e whether the FM stiply coties

&sting bustiess practiw with regal to matetity leave, or whether it protides new options

fm women who have not returned to their jobs in the period &fore the FU was h force.

The balance of the paper proceeds as follows. Section II retiews the stylized fatis snd

the fiteratire on wom-’s labor supply by age of the youngest chdd. Sedion III presenb a

stiple economic model.of time away from work =ound the bitih of a child md the decision to

retire b the pregnm~ employer. Section W motivates md describes ow methodology,

wfich combties the NLS-Y and the CPS using a system of logistic re~essions. Se&ion V

presents ow r=ults on job continuity. Section W presents ow restits on coverage of the

federal Fmfly L=ve M. The conclusion relates the results b the famfiy leave debate md

identies diredions for fitire res=rch.

The last two decades have seen major ad widely noted chages ti the work patterns of

mothers of yomg c~tien. Writing in 1974, Mincer ad Polachek btit a theov of women’s

etings on the followtig chmactirization of women’s labor force behavior

Blfier their schooling, the life qcle of martial women features seueral stages which

differ in the nature and dewee of labor-market and home inuestint. %m is usually

continuous mrht work prior to the birth of the first child. The sg.cond stage ia a

petiod of non-participation related to childbeari~ and child mre, laeting between 5

and 10 years, followed by intermittent participation before the youngest child reaches

school we. The third stage is a more permanent return to the labor force for some,

though it my mwin intermittent for others. (Mincer ~d Polachek, 1974, p. S83).

This characterization w- based on tabulations from the (then rmently avtilable) fist wave

of the National Lo@tidinal Sumey of Mature Women. Most of these women, who were 30

to 44 b 1967, had their first c~d during the baby boom of the mid-1950s.

The patims tit Mticer ad Polachek described were begiting to chmge by the 19709.

Fi~re 1 shows women’s labor force paficipation by age of the yomgest ctid in months,

based on data from the Jme Cument Popdation Sumey (CPS).1 Clemly, at Iatir dates, a

lThe basic CPS “titsfiew is desi~ed to supply the nation,s official uemplo~ent stitistim, and it

therefore contiins carefti probes about work statm, distitisfig labor force paficipation from

non-paticipation, emplowent from work, -d paid from unpaid leave. See ~emm and
3

~eater percent~e of women were labor force pafitipats, at ea~ the period fo~otig

c~dbtih. h the emhest period, 1973-75, about 35 percent of mothem of tio-yem-olds (aged

25-36 montk) pticipated in the labor form. Eight ye=s Iati (1981-83), the permntige

had tisen ten points to about 45 percent. For the most recent period (1990), work is now the

nom, tith about 55 p~cmt of mothers of two-yar-olds p~itipatig h the labor for=

Leibotiti (1994) for a description to tie Jme CPS data =d the ksues tivolved b utig it b

mdyze women’s labor force behtior. The dati for 1973-75 ad 1981-83 .we sbple averages of the

rates of pficipation over the thee-year bands, using the Jme sumey, wtich is the month h

which the intifiew includes information about the age of a wom~’s yomgest ctild h months.

The da& for 1990 is computed differently. The CPS is a rolling pael where indtiduals - be

htetiewed for up to fom consecutive months. me dati for 1990 cornb~e i~o~ation for UP ~

fow monthfy 1990 interviews that women responding in Jwe 1990 dso protide& Reweigti

accounts for &flerentid match rates (each inktietis weight is computed as one over tie nmber

of intefiews fomd for a patiicdm worn=). Detds of the matitig procedure me av&lable on

request,
700A

6070

500A

aYo

3070

200A

4

i 6 11 16 21 26. 31 36

Fig. l—LAor Force PAitipation (LFP) for Mothers by Age of Y:mgest

CMd, 1973-75, 1981-83, and 1990

Source Authors’ tabulations from 1973, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1982, 1983 June

CPS ad from matched Jue 1990 CPS file.

Not ody has tie level of the pmtitipation-age relation s~ed up, but the fines have

become less steep. In the emliest period, as the youngest child aged horn 7 b 36 months,

labor force patiicipation rose nemly 10 percentage points. By 1990, despite the higher levels

of work song mothers of older &l&en, the ticrease b ptiltipation between 7 =d 36

months fo~otig tidbtih was ofly two percentage points. ti ch=ge cm be seen more

demly in fiWre 2, wtich ma~fies the sde of the previous plot for the most recmt Wriod

(1990). FiWre 2 dso plots emplo~ent, which subtratis the unemployed from labor force
5

pticipmts. The fi~e demonstrates &aati@y that mothem of on~yea-ol~ ae ne=ly

as Wely to kve a job as mothers of tkee-yem-olds.

65.0

63.0

1

61.0

59.0

57.0

55.0

53.0

51.0

49.0

47.0

45.0

If/

, t , , , , t , , , , , I t , , , , , ,

, , u I

135 7911131517192123 252729313s35

— Employment ‘–––- LFP

Fig. &Deti of Emplowent by Age of Youngest Child b Months, 1990.

Sowce: Authors' tabdations &omauthor's matched 1990Jme CPS~e,

These ckges b women’s labor force pticipation song new mothers have bmn tiddy

noted. Hayghe (1986, tith updates in the Statistical Abstrmt) is m offidd somce. VComeU

(1990) uses Smey of Income =d Rowm Ptiupation retiospetive &ta on the tig of

leatig work dutig pre~nq ad re~g to work ofter c~dbtih for fist bfi h

iden~ stifi~ tie-series tiende. Several papers used h=md models to adyze the_

of retire to work ~r childbtih. Papers by Even (1987) usiog the fist wave of the NatioA
6

Sumey of F-fly Grofi (agti retrospective data on fist btis), McLaugMin (1982) us~

the National Longititid Sumey–Matie Women, OComell (1990) using the SEP, md

Lsibotiti, ~em= md Wtiti (1991), ad ~eman (1993) using the ~S-Y have W shown

stim patterns.

Tke Importace Of Homd Matirnity Leave

This stitige of the tie away from work m~es possible different stiats~es for

jugg~ng c~d-rtistig ad a weer. For women who ti~ be away from the labor maket for

several yeas (= h the quote from Mincer md Pola&ek or the -Eer period of FIWre 1),

quitting the pre-pre~acy job is the ody alternative. When women ti~ be away from the

labor force for well waler a ye=, it becomes possible for employers ad employees jotifly to

mde mmgements that flow both for emplo~ent conttitity ad for the new mother h

spend some be away horn the workplace ctiw for/enjoying the new ctid. In the neti

sefion, we outke a simple model of these choices.

The labor force patiicipation (LFP) measwe used h the plots k the pretious sedon is

a ag~egab of fom mtsgories the reemployed (those actively se&g emplo~mt), those

who me employed md at work, those on paid leave, ad those on wpaid leave. The last two

categories include women who =e employed, but not at work. Such ptid or unptid leave

allows women to mainti their comefion to theti pre-pre~a~ employer while st~

enjoying tie away from work h the early post p~ period. In fad, this leave t~ng in

the months timediatiy folloting childbtih, accomts for a l=ge shine of the labor force

pticip~ts (see FiNe 3). The percent of new mothers of one-month-old chil&en atidly

at work w= 15% k 1990, not vw different from the percentage of new mothers who were

kbor force paficipati ti 1973-1975. By 1990, however, as may women wwe on ptid leave

as were wortig, ad mother ten percent were on unpaid leave. Thus, LFP is newly thee

*es ~eater in 1990 tha in 1973-1975, but most of these labor form phitipmts were

atidly on leave born a job.

This use of ptid and unptid leave is a vev shofimn acco-odation. Fiwe 4

emphasizes this point by plottig ptid ad unptid leave explicitly. The ptid leave has

essentidy disappeared &er tio months and the mptid leave ~er ttiee month.

Convemely, the permntige of mothers actidly at work wows 25 percentage pobts by the

foti month folloting Mdbtih.
7

60°A

5070

400A

3070

200/.””

1oOA

07.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2

■ W ❑ V ❑ L ■ U

Fig. &Components of Labor Force P*itipation by Age of Yo~gest

Ctild, 1990. W-Work, V-Ptid Leave, L-Unptid Leave, U-Emplopent

Somce: Tabulations from autiors’ matded 1990 Jwe CPS me.. —
30

25

20

15

10

5

0

8

\

1 3 5 9 11

e

Fig. -Paid and Unpaid ~ 1990 by &e ofYomgest

Child h Months V-Ptid Leave, L-Unpaid Leave,

Souce: Tabulations from authors’ matchti 1990 Jue CPS me..

However, ustig CPS data it is not possible to detertine whether these women are

retting to a job held dufig prewacy or whether they ae working for a different

employer (or whether they held no job in pre~anw). The next two sections describe a stiple

model for time away from work tier childbfih incorporating the decision to return to the

s-e employer, ad a methodolo~ for exploring these dpaic aspects of matemal work

pattirm. Tfis methodology combties cross-section data from the CPS tith lon~tutid data
9

&om the NLS-Y to adtiess questions about new mother’s contitiw tith a given employer

md how this compmes tith job continuity for women who ad not give bifi in the period.

~. A MODEL ~Am FOR ~~~~

The essence of the new mother’s labor supply choice — when b reti to work, whether

b reti h the pre-~dbtih employer, md the role of matefity leave is mptied by the

folloting stiple model. Women (fmfies) m-ize a Me-tie u~ty fiction U wtich is

the titegd over tititmeous additive subutifity tition V, a tidion of Me-the

co=umption C(t) ad leisure L(t)

U = j:e-*V[c(t),L(f~t] dt (1)

where B is the be@g of working life, E is “the end of Me, ad it is usefi to thi~ of t=O as

tie of the bitih of the c~d.

To fores on the essence of the problem, we titiher tipw by ass-g tit the labor

&oice at each inst-t is dichotomous (a womm either works or does nOt w.Ork), fiat the_ sub

utity fiction V is additive h leisure and consumption, =d that the mm@ utflity of

consumption is comtat ad equal to y. Thus,

v(t) =v[L(t);t]+ ye(f) (2)

Note that we explicitly allow the utfiity of leisure to vv tith the age of the c~d, t, thus the

nom fization of t=O noted above. Specfic~y, we ass-e that the utfity of Ieiswe is

monototic~y inmeastig though pre~mcy h chfldblfih, ad monotofidy d-e- as

the c~d ages.

The household faces a life-time budget constrfit (ass-g pefied capiti mmke~) of

~:e-r’pC(f,dt=y +j:e-r’w(t,[l-L(t)]dt (3)

Discounted He-the consu.rnption equals discounted lifetime income, where Metie ticome

k the sum of the present value of other hous~old inwme, y, (e.g. from a spouse) md

woma’s labor etings (a tindion of when she work). For convenience, we ass-e that

utity is discounted at the m=ket titerest rate.
10

Then the =smptions on the utility of Ieisue tiply that the household &ooses tiee

it~s

3) lifetime consumption.

Substititig tito the lifetime utfiity expression horn the budget eonstitint, we have

We illustrate this ~aphicdly k Fi~e 5. The utiity of Ieisme is f~g tith a

inmease in the nmbr of weeks since c~dbtih. Lifetime utity ti be mtimtied if the

end of leave is chosen at e=e*, where the utifity of Ieiswe equals the weeMy wage.

$

wee~y wage = w.

weeHy wage at

dtermtive job = w=

wage

e.

~*ea

Weeks since ctidbtih

Fi~re 5 Wage md .tiEty of lesiure by weeks fo~otig tidbtih

Wo wage at pre~acy job

wa wage at dtemative joh (forfeitkg accutiated * spdc mpitd)

e* wconstified retm date to pre~~q job

ea sti dak for a new (dtemative) job

eO m-urn dowable leave for matifity at pre~mey job
11

So f=, we have dscussed the optim e as though it depended ofly on the woma’s

valuation of leisure ~d her wage. In fact women do not hose whether to work or not on my

givm day in a spot m~ket. Rather, a new mother faces a labor market tith tied offs. A

higher wage, Wo, is avtilable to her if she retmns to the employer she had in pre~m~ but

the abfity h come back to the pre~aney job is condition on retwfing before etiaustig

the employer’s dewed matetity leave of e. weeks. Alternatively, the woma cotid chmse

e’ weeks of leisme, where e“> eo, but, at a new job, she tiU e- a lower wag&2 At that new

(dtirnative) job the opttid reti date would be latw (ea>e*) =d the wage lower. K a job

with a higher wage were avtilable h her, she would already hve chosen that job h

pre~aq. Therefore, we cm assme that w ~ > Wa. Cle=ly, if the womm’s prefemed

dwation of materfity leave does not exced the employer’s matefity l~ve e“, there ia no

problem. However if e’ > e. as iHustratid in Fi~e 5, the womm must choose betieen

forgotig Ieiswe by retiting to work amber tbn she would have &osen, or sa~tig

consumption by reti~g to work (at a later date) at a new job tith a lower wage (shorn %

point e= k Fi~e 5).

Equation 5 c-be used b m~ne the tioice. Instead of bebtig ~ though he faces a

spot mmked for labor, a woma comparw hfetime utility at the old job (Uo) where the

matertity leave lasts e. weeks, tith lifettie utiity on a new job (Ua) tith mat~~ l~ve of

ea we&s. That difference k Metirne utitity is:

where the fit tam is the lowermtility of working from e. b e= (tha hited leave vs.

-itsd leave, but ret- g at the the appropriate for the lower wage w=), the second

tim ia the additiond consumption horn emtings &om work betieen e. md e=, ad the

tfid term is the higher eatigs (w. - Wa) horn not forfeiting the at-dated fim-spetic

humm ~pital on the mment job over the remaiting working life.

Clemly a higher ifitid wage mWor a lower dtemative wage m~es re~g to the

pre~aq job more attractive. Mso, the longer the Nowed leave, the more attractive ti be

stiying with this employer. In evaluating the gtin from hating a tigher wage &er the

‘Sin= spetic h~m capital is a major c’mponent of eafings (Topel, 1991), the mst ti ~gs,

mns~ption of changing jobs ~ be comiderable.
12

return from matefity leave, we shotid consider the expected dwation of this job, rather

thm the remtining worbg fife. OW results show that there is more tiover k pd-ttie

jobs, even mong women who do not become mothers. Thus, we expect that women tith

more job specfic trfing, longer offered leaves, ad til-time jobs wotid be more ~ely to

retmn to the job held h pre~mcy.

In ttis section, we destibe a method for combtig data horn the National Longitidin~

Suey-Youth (NLS-W md the Jme Cummt Population Sumey (CPS) to estimate

longitutid patterns ad labor supply for a representative popdation. The NLS-Y data me

Iongitidid and dow us to detimine if a ptiiwlar inditidud chnges -ployers.

However, the NLS-Y smple is not representative of new mothers. In contrast, the CPS has

a representative s~ple of the U.S. population (and thus of new mothem), but does not fo~ow

inditiduds for ~ extended period of time. Therefore, we combtie data horn the two sources

b yield poptiation estimates of job mntinuity.

The NLS-Y is a longitidind saple ofyowg people sponsored by the U.S. Depatiment of

Labor, Bweau of Labor Statistics. The otigind sample was &am ti 1978 from 14- h 21-

year-old men md women. Appro*ately 12,000 tiditiduds wwe selected b a s~pltig

sheme that over-smpled blacks, Hisptics, ad poor whites. This original smple has been

titefiewed audly shce 1979. Here we use dab tiough the 1990 intetiew. ConsiWent

tith the NLS-YS pu~ose of measutig labor market d~mics, at each intetiew ~

Employer Supplement colleds itiormation on each job held stice the pretious intefiew.

bong the tiormation colleded is hours worked ad whether this job is the sme as the one

repotied ti the pretious intetiew. Thus, using the NLS-Y data it is possible to track

emplo~ent conttitity though time.

~though the NLS-Y has longitutil job chage data, it pos~ four problems for

computing went, representative estimates of matifity leave. fist, the NLS-Y is not a

stiple probability saple, but a stratified smple that deliberately oversmpled black,

Wsptics, -d poor whites. This is stiply comected ustig the 1979 sample weighti (which

dso cometi for differential non-response at the fwst intefiew).3 Second, the avtiable data

3Work & more mmon h the weightd than in the wweighted dati, - seen in Appenti Table B-1.
13

tidude women who @ve btih between 1978 (retrospective aswtis at the 1979 titiew)

ad 1990. Bemuse of the lage the-series chmges h behatior, skuply avma@g ovm W

NLS-Y b~ W not destiba the behatior of recent mothers. ~rd, the NLS-Y is a cohoti

smple that emo~ed women who were aged 14-21 in 1979. These women were 25-33 h 1990,

there is no tiormation on women gitig bwhs at later ages. Fmdly, as always, the smpIe

is ader tha we woufd We, mhg it difficult to present ~yses moss-dmmg by

Covanates.

To ad&ess W of these problems simul@eously, we employ a two-stage shateg. In the

first st~e, we estimate . system of weighted logistic regessio~ on the W NLS-Y s=ple.

The re~essors expfititly conhol for the non-representativeness of the NLS-Y saple (black,

Hsptic, age, ad cdendm yew) as well as for the demo~aphic dimensions of sub~tive

titaest (ptity, education and the period). The weights contiol for nomespome and

stratified smpfig. Then in the second stage, we use the re~ession model to prediti labor

form bektior for a smple tith the d-o~aphic chmacteristics of d rwmt mothem &am

from the 1990 June CPS.

In order h exmtie tiasitions across labor force statuses md over employers, we WOS*

das~ Iabr fo- status prior b pregua~ (12 months before the bti of a ctid) md

folloting c~dbktb (6 months &er the bifi of a c~d). We &ose 12 months before the

btih for MO remom. fist, we wmt a point where labor supply wm not tieded by the

pre~~. Secoti, 12 months before the bifi is consistent tith the ~s ~ month tenme

re~ement. We amine emplo~ent Sk months afier the bifi bemuse this titi~ is

long enough so that most women who are returting to work hve come ba& from mateti~

leave. We could not ex~ne emplo~ent at a much emlier time (for ==ple 3 months)

becausa the W-Y does not distinguish we~ betw~n those who me employed ad on leave

=d those who =e employed md at work (see ~em= ad Leibotitz, 1994). With a lower

titmd tha Sk months, more women may have chmged jobs tier ret -g tititiy to

th& pre~a~ employer, thus obswtig tie matetity leaves.

Our ~d is to iden~ the set of women who wodd have returned to thek pre-pre~=cy

employer if a moderately long maktity leave had been offered (e.g. the 12 weeks of the

FM), but instead quit becawe thek mploy= dewed ody a much shotier Ieava. Stice we

notid above that LFP ties ody shghtly tier the fist few months post-p~, sti months

is a plausible cutioff for ths concept. To check the robustness of this cukoff, we dso comider
14

resdts tith a 18 months post-dehve~ tindow. For intends seater tb 18 months ti~

tidbfih, the mother faces a findmentally different emplo~ent detisio~ c~d c~e

options differ for tedders md timts ad employers ae udikely to offer matefity leave for

absences of more tha 18 months.

OW pre-btih dassfitition has thee statuses: no work, pati-time work, and fill-tie

work (mud hous 35 or .rnore hours per week). For postidetivew status, we d-e five

uossible stituses: no work, pa~time work for the same employer or for a Merent employer, .-

-d fi~-ttie work for the sme employer or new employer. Cross-class-g pre-btih md

post-defive~ stituses yields thifien C* (3 x 5, less the two impossible c=es: no work

before to tiU-tie work for sae employer after, ~d no work before b pd-ttie work for

s-e employer &er).

We -age the 13 c~s into a tiee-stidure as represented h Fiwe 6. At the root

(highest Ievd) of the tree is the decition whether or not b work before pre~=g. Those who

work bsfore pre~an~ decide bebeen pal-time md Ml-time emplowent. At the n%

level, women detide whethw or not to work &r c~dbtih. At the next Ievd, they detide

whetha to work pd-tfie or ~-ttie. At the lowest level of the tiee, those who work both

before tid fier ctidbtih detide whether to rem to the sme employer.

Ustig this bee stidue, there me 12 didbtomous decision points, ltieled tith letbrs A

to L. Fi~re 6 shows the percentage of women &oostig each option at emh decision node.

The nmber of women in each of the 13 fid statises =d the percentages ae breed on the

smple of d btihs to women h the ~S-Y for which we obseme labor force b&tior

12 months before the bifi of the tid =d 18 months &r the b~ of the cMd.4 It is

kPOtimt tO note that some of the ce~s kve ody a small number of obsemations (espetiWy

the tr~sitio~ from patittie to fi~-time work, =d &om til-ttie to p-time, whi~ have

less th= a hmdrd obsemations each).

4N0ta that many women appear h the smple mo~ tia onw (they have sevwd bti over the 12

yems). We have mde no com=tiom for my indwed m=elation.
15

‘“’k”ur’ngpregnancy &-

Pati.trmti”ll-time

/ ~s~

E&&

Work afier Chlldbitih (n~m) B

E 1

88% / 12% 5s~h14?% 41%159Y.

Same EmPloyer (“olyes)

F J

45-AI 55~h 30%I 70%

Pan-tlm@ull-tlm, c G H K

&

L

41%[ 5s~h 497. [5?% 78% I 22% 31%169% <t%/m%

Ffnal Satus 12345678 9 10 71 12 13

Raw cell tint 2169 169 2M Ml 85 83 166 m 823 171 242 96 7M

-II Peme.mge W.0% 3.1Y. 4.4-A 8.1‘k 7.6-A1.6°h3.1% 0.9% i 52-A 2.1Y. dS% i S% ?3.%

Fig. &fiee Representation of Systim of Logistic Re~essions

Ustig the shotihnd BP–Before Pre~mW ad AC-&er Chldbtih. me hd

stituses md detisions =G

Final Shtus

1: No work BP or AC

2 -No work BP , p~ttie work AC

3 -No work BP , ~-time work AC

4- Ptittie work BP , no work AC

5- Pti-time work BP , pati-time work at Merent employer AC

6; Pti-ttie work BP, fill-ttie work at different employer AC

7- P&-the work BP , pti-ttie work at sme employer AC

8- Pti-ttie work BP , fill-the work at same employer AC

9- Ml-the work BP, no work AC

10- N-ttie work BP , pti-tie work at ~erent employer AC

11- Fti-tie work BP, fiU-time work at ~erent employ= AC

12- N1-tie work BP , p&tie work at sme employer AC

13- N1-tie work BP , ffl-ttie work at sme employer AC

Decision Points

.—

A - Work at M BP

B - bong those not working BP , work AC

C - hong those not wortig BP, Ml or p@tfie work AC

D - Fall-time or p~-ttie work BP

E - hong those worting p&ttie BP , work AC
16

F - ~o~ those wor~ pati-time BP ad working AC, return to the sme employer or a

different employs

G - bong those working pti-ttie BP ad retuting to a different employer, fill-tie or

pti-time work

H - bong those working p~-time BP and returning b the sae employer, fi~-ttie or

p-time work

I - kong those working full-time BP, work AC

J - hong those wor@ til-.@e B_Pand working AC, return to the s-e employer or a

~erent employer

K- hong those working fi~-time BP ad retuting to a different employer, fi~-ttie or

p-time work

L - bong those working fall-time BP and retuing to the sae employer, W-time or patitime work

The dichotomous tioice at each of the 12 decision nodes is estiated by a weighted

logistic re~esaion. ReWessors that were av~lable ti both the CPS and the NLS-Y md that

were wcha~g &aactafitics of the. mothers were selected ustig a stiple two-step

procedure. At the first step the followtig vtiables were entered ti levels md titeracted

tith a dmmy for first b~ black, ~ISpmic, age, age squared, ye= of biti, national

memplo~ent rati, high school tiopout, some coUege (i.&, 13 or more yeas Of edu=tion),

college ~aduate (16 or more ye=s of education), never m.-ed, once matied but not

-enfly mfied, -d m intercept. In the second step the fo~oting vtiables were always

indude~ black, Hispmic, cdendm yea, first child, age ad the intercept. AnY other

vtiable with a t-stitistic less than 1.26 (p= O.50) was &opped from the second step.

Appendix C presents the logistic re~aasion equations estimatid on the NLS-Y s-pie of

new mothers. Each col~n pre-ts results for the predictors of a choic6 made at a node

represented schematidly in Fi~re 6. For example, Table C-1 shows Iogit coefficients for

the probability of ay work before pre~~cy (node A in Fi~e 6) and for. those not worhg

before pre~acy, whether they worked afier childbearing (node B) and if this job was fiUtime or p~ttie (node C). ColUn fow relates the fill-fidpti-tke choice for women

who worked before pre~acy (node D).

The tables cont~ a l=ge nmber of parameters that interact in com”pficatid ways to

yield the obs-ed statuses. To tiaw out these tipliations h a scale that is more eatily

interpreted, we present simtiations of the distibutiori 6f women across dynmic labor form

behatiors. A comptison of the obse~ed probabilities in the NLS-Y tith the predicted

probabiEties for each ie~ (@ven the NLS-Y covtiates) shows that the model fits the data

well (See Appendix Table B-2). However, as noted wher, the NLS-Y mothers me not

representative of dl new mothws.
17

To etirapolati to dl mothers, we selectid dl women in the 1990 June CPS who had

given btih b the l~t 36 months md who were age 19 or over at tie bti of the c~d (so

that they were over age 18 a yea before the bfih). Compatig the ctiadtiati~ of

represmtative new mothers from the CPS tith the new mothers h tie NLS-Y data, we fid

as expe~ed that the NLS-Y saple is cotiiderably yo~ger thm the CPS smple (more &

ttiee yeas). me NLS-Y dso over-represents bla&s, Mgh shool hop-outs, those who wwe

never retied, =d fist btihs. We then use the system of lo~stic re~ession modds b

estiate the probabfities of each choiw at each node for each worn= h the CPS smpla

fidy, we mtitiply the probabilities at each di&otomous detision point to field the

probabfity of each fid stiti. The estimatas we present below me averages of these

predictions across tie CPS smple.5

V. ~S~TS ON JOB CONTI~

To mderstmd recmt mothers’ job mobifity, we fist present stidations of d~mic labor

mmket behtiors for women tith the &matieristics of new mothws as of 1990, which me

then compmed to job mobfity of demo~apticdy simflm smples of dl womem We then

~lore the robustness of those comparisons. Fin~y, we use the system of logistic

re~essiom h ~tie how job mobfity vties between fist ~d later bfihs md tith

diffmences in education.

Job Contitity

Table 1 shows work statis after cbifdbtih (the colmns) moss tibrdated by work titis

prior to pre~~. The estiates for new mothas ti the left pad me ob~ed by ustig

the Iogit re~essiom on NLS-Y described above to m~e predictions for womm tith the

chmackristics obsmed for new mothers b tie CPS kr 1990.

5Appenti T&le B-3 mmpmes the weightad NLSY &b titb the ~tiapolation b the weightad CPS

popdation. Compmed tothe NLS-Y, the CPS has a smaller shine of women who work neither

before pre~cy nor &er c~fiti, a smaller stie of women who work ~ tie hfore

pre~mcy ad then stop worki~, and a lager she of women who work M tie before and &er

their prewancy.
18

Table 1

Job Conttitity for New Mothers ad for Demo~aphidy Sitilm Non-Mothers

~) ta of Be for fiea

Work before

mm State

Pati Pati Full Fdl ~ti Ptie N1 ~

pre~aw. None .._DM Same Diff Sme Total None DM S-e Diff. Sme Toti

New mothers — M months before bifi b 6 months tier bitih (18 months titwd)

None 25.6 2.7

Pa&time 14.4 4.6 1.5 6.0 0.6 27.0 53.2 16.9 5.5 22.1 2.3 100.0

fiH-time 11.6 2.2 6.3 2.5 18.8 41.3 28.1 5.2 15.3 5.9 45.4 100.0

Total 51.5 9.4 7.8 11.9 19.4 100.0 . .. . .....<

N women — internal of 18 rnotiths

None

Ptitime 3.4 3.7 4.0 7.8 3.7 22.6 15.0 16.5 ‘17.8 34.2 16.4100.0

~-fie 4.9 2.9 12.6 0.8 25.7 46.9 10.5 6.3 26.8

Total

1.8 54.7100.0

26.5 11.4 16L6__16.2 29.4 100.0

NOTE: Weighted tabulations &om the Jwe 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~ession

model. N1-time work is 35 or more hours per week Columns refer h emplowent twelve

months before c~dbtih. Rows refer to emplowent six months afier ctidbtih. N=5793

The fist thee rows of the tdle tidex whether a woma was not employed, employed

ph-ttie or employd til-ttie 12 months before gitig bifi. The fist five colmns

represent emplo~ent status foUoting delive~. The colmns distb~sh whether the

womm was not employed, employed pal-time tith sme (as pr+pre~a~) mployer,

employed p~time tith a different employer, employed fill-time tith sae employ=, or

employed til-time with a different employer,

The fist pmel of Table 1 relates to women who gave btih -d shows that nemly onetbird of women were not working at all before the btih of theti child. These women ae ve~

udikely to be labor force pticipmts when their Mat is 6 months old+fly 19.4 percent

ae at work fo~oting defive~. However, the probability of worhg was higher for women

who worked pti-ttie before the bifih (46.8 percent) =d even higher for women who worked

ti-time before the btih (71.9 percent). Overfl, about hdf of new mothers (4S.5 percent)

work when their timt is 6 months old.

bong women who worked in pre~acy, the high propofion who we working whw

theti c~d is Sk monti old suggests that many women retin to the job they had prior b

the pre~mq. To exmine how job continuity differs by level of pre-pre~mw work status,
19

tie five columns on the right show distributions of post defive~ work status sepmately for

women who worked ti-time, ptittie or not at dl before pre~=~. Table 1 shows that

mong women who worked til-tie before the bkth, levels of job continti~ ae qtik high.

More tha 60 percent of these women retm to theti pre-pre~mcy employer, on a ptitie

or fall-time basis. PA-time workws were much less ~ely to retire to the job they held

before becomtig pre~~kfewer than 10 percent did so. More than htihad not re-ed h

work by the ttie their child was 6 months old. tiong those who w-e wortig, the majority

had chmged employers.

How does this level of job mobtiity comp=e titb tie general experience of

demo~apbica~y simflm women who did not give btih? To protide a comptison we used

the NLS-Y data to estiate chmge in emplo~ent status ad employer over a 18 month

period (equivalent to the 12 months before pre~mcy md 6 months @m ~dbfih in the

top pmel of Table 1) for women. We then used this equation to m~e preditiom for women

with the chmatietistics of the new mothers obsemed in the CPS. Therefore, the second

pael in Table 1 shows job continuity f6r women tith idaticd demo~aphic chmatieristim

(race/ettitity, age, education, ptity before the cument bitih) who differ ody in whether or

not they had a Afld. The second panel shows that the contiol ~oup women who work P*

the dso &age jobs frequently. ~er an intemd of 18 mon~s, over h= of pti-tie

workers were wor~g for a different employer. Job stabfity was much WeaWr for women

who work Ml-the. Over 80 percent (26.8+54.7=81.5) of young women who are wortig ~-

time at a petit in time me stiU wortig for the sae employer 18 months later.

There is considerable movement across the fill-time/pti-ttie boundq for both new

mothers ad others. &out hdf (51.3 percent) of.new mothers who worked fi~=tie before

pre~anq retwn to fi~-tbe work. kother 20 percent retire to work on a pti-tie basis.

hong the control WOUp who did not give bitih ody sfightly more (56.57.) mtinttied their

fi~-time status over m 18 month period. bother 33 percent moved to p-tie work, for

the sme or a new employer. Women worting pti-time before pre~mcy were vew -dy

to return to full-tie work &er childbtih. bong those who re~ed b work, the vast

majority were working p~tiie six months following ctidbiti. In contrast, more th=

fti@ percent of the pa-tie workers who did not give btih moved to ti~-tie work, eithw

at the s-e or a new job. Ody 43 permnt of these women were still worm p-tie 18

montk later. Thus, women wor~g patitime tend to move to fi~-tfie jobs, except if they

give bitih.
20

The data k Table 1 show that almost au (85%) new mothers who work fill-time both

before the bitih ad work fier the btih of the @d, retain to the s-e employer, tithin 6

months on either a W1-time or pti-time basis. One titerpretation of this finding is that

FMs @amtee of the tight to retmn to the pre-leave job merely coties etittig pratiice.

Even tithout the protetion of the FM, relativdy few of the woma tith this high labor

mmket comtitmwt (those who worked til-time before the bti of their c~d) did not

retmn to their pre-pre~m~ employers.6

However, mother inte~retation is possible. Our model emphasties that new mothers

ofien face a choice between titig a shorter leave tha they would like, k order h return h

theti pre~mw’ employer, or a longer leave, but to reti to a different job at lower w~es.

Perhaps our sti-month cut-off is too shoti. Perhaps at that intemd stice the bifi almost au

of the women who retm m~ retnkg to thek old employer, w~e women choostig longer

leaves tha allowed by their prewancy jobs, stti new jobs tier the sk month cut-off. Since

thek wages on a new job till be lower, it is possible that ttie out of the labor force cmdd be

quite 10ng.7

To comider this possibility, Table 2 repotis the s=e information as Table 1, except that

the ret-off is 18 months tier the bifih (so the totil internal k 30 months). ~~n, at this

longer titemd, most women (79Yo) who were wortig fill-tie before the bitih ad who me

wortig &r the btih have the sae employer. This is comistent with the restits in FiWe

2 shoting that labor forw patiicipation does not tise much between sti ad eighteen months.

The fati tkt few fill-ttie workers retmed to work for a new employer in the int=vd

between 6 =d 18 months post-patium suggests tbt few women who w=ted h retire to

theti pre~mcy jobs were prevented from doing so be~use of lack of matafity leave.

It is possible that @ven that they could not tak long leaves or were defied the right to

~Y leave, wOmen chOse tO stay away from the wOrkplace for even longer tha eighteen

months. This however, does not seem ti be a plausible =Wment. In terns of ow model, the

utihty of staying home hops qtite quictiy over the twelve month tibwd. Most of the

6~s not to say that they might not have prefefid longer leaves. The m~ent of the model setion

w= that liti@d (or non-etistent) employer leave polities tight hve cawed tiem ti retm to

work emlier than they wotid have like~

71nthe Imwge of the model, for my women 6 months is between eo and e%
21

women who _ sfl not working at 18 months presmably have much tigher utity of

leiame,

The tiysis presmted above uses the Cemus definition of fill-time work as 35 or more

how per week. However, the ~ covers women wortig 20 hems a we& or more. he

there many women wortig 20-35 hours before pre~mmy for whom the FU tiH pmtide a

option they do not c-ently have to return h theti pre-prewmmy job? The second pmd of

Table 2 presents estiates of job continti~ for women worm more thm ~d less th~ 20

hous a week. & W- tie case tith the 35 hom per week mhoff, 60 percent of women

wortig 20 or more hours per week return to thek pr+pre~mmy employ=. Thw, the types

of women who ~ently reti in l~ge nmbers to theti pre-pre~n~ jobs would be

fomdy protetid by the FM Fewer thm 10 percent of the working women who work less

thw 20 hews per week before pre~aq md therefore me not mverd by the FQ

cmently reti h theti old employer. Under this dtition as we~, most Ml-tie workem

reti to N-tie work after childblfih. Few women who worked pti-tie before

we~acy work ti-tie fiw childbtih ad most non-workem do not work at d fo~o~g

deEvev.

Table 2

Job Contitity for New Mothers 18 Months -r

C~db&h -d by Detition of N-Time Work

Fork Statis &er Childbtih (%1 % of Before ~em~m Sta~

Work Before Pti Pd Full Fdl P& Pti N Ftil

Wemaw None DM Sme DIff Same Total None DIff Same Diff Same ToM

New Mothers —18 Months tier CMdb~

None

P&-tie 5.0 11.3 1.7 7.5 0.0 25.5 19.6 44.4 6.7 29.3 0.0 100.0

Fti-time 18.6 3.5 8.9 3.5 17.7 52.2 35.7 6.6 17.1 6.7 33.8 100.0

Total 39.6 19.2 10.7 12.9 17.7 100.0

—

New Mothws —Ftil-We=20+ hourtiweek

None 25.6 2.7 - 3.4 - 31.7 25.6 2.7 = 3.4 = 3L7

P&tie 144 46 1.5 6.0... 0.6 27.0 14.4 4.6 1.5 6.0 0.6 27.0

~U-time 1L6 2.2 6.3 2.5 18.8 41.3 11.6 22

..

6.3 2.5 18.8 4L3

Total 51.5 9.4 7.8 1L9 19.4 100.0 51.5 9.4 7.8 11.9 19.4 100.0

NO~ Wtightid tabulations from the Jtie ‘1990 CPS ustig MS-Y”” logistic

re~ession model. ~U-ttie work is 35 or more ho~s per week. Colws refer to

amplowent twelve months before c~dbfi. Wws refer @ emplopent sk months

& ctidbtih. N=5793
22

Job Continuity Differences by Patity ad Education Gvel

TMs setion presmts tidations of labor force bhtior tbt big~~t &ermces h

p~icipation rates by ptity md by education levd. These skuulations compae the

behatior of mothers h one catsgow (e.g., first bitihs) tith that of those h mother mtiww

(e.g., second bfis). In each rose, we allow dl the chmatiefitics of the women to Amge.

Thin, for ex-pie, the r-tits for women hatig thek second biti dso include the eff~s of

dl other &erences betie= women at their fist ad women at thek second btihs (e.g.

~ea~r age). Mtsmatively, one codd -mine patid effetis by dloting ody one covtiate

to &=ge at a time. Restits from those simdations are presented =d dismssed h Appenti

C. Appendix Table A-2 conttis the smple me= for the sub-~oups considered below.

Table 3 mines differences in labor force pattsms sumomding the fist =d second

bfihs. The top panel presents work statis foUowing the fist btih md the botim pand

presenti work status follotig the second btih.

Table 3

~.

None 16:0 4.4 _ 1.9- 22.3 71.8 19.9- 8.3 ~ 100.0

P&time 5.0 11.3 1.7 7.5 0.0 25.5 19.6 44.4 6.7 29.3 0.0 100.0

Ffl-time 18.6 3.5 8.9 3.5 17.7 52.2 35.7 6.6 17.1 6.7 33.8 100.0

ToM _39.6 19.2 10.7 12.9 17.7 100.0

Second Bitih

None 25.3 2.4 ~ 31.9 79.3 7.4~ 100.0

Pti-time 20.8 1.4 1.8 5.2 1.1 30.2 68.9 4.6 5.9.. 17.1 3.5 100.0

Ftil-time 8.5 1.6 5.6 2.6 19.8 38.0 22.3 4.1 14.7

Total

6.7 52.1 100.0

54.5 5.3 7.3 12.0 20.9 100.0

-d Btih

None 36.1 1.3 4.2 41.6 86.8 3.0 ‘1O.2 100.0

Pti-time 17.2 0.9 0.9 5.3 0.8 25.0 68.7 3.6 3.8 21.0 3.0 100.0

~-tie 7.7 1.4 4.3 1.2 18.8 33.3 23.0 4.2 12.9 9.5 56.3 100.0

Total 61.0 3.6 5.3 10.7 19.5 100.0

NO~: Weighted t~tiations from the Jme 1990 CPS using ~S~ logistic “re~ession

model. ~-tie work is 35 or more hems per week. Colums refer to emplopent tielve

months before c~dbitih. Rows refer to employmmt Sk month &r Wdbtih. N=5793
23

Before the birth of the first child, nealy 80 percent of d wom.m work, md more h

hdf of d women work til-time. But tier the first ctid is born, ofly 60 percent of women

work and ody 31 percent me working full.tbne when the c~d is & months old. The prebirth labor supply for the second birth is measmed 12 months prior to the d&ve~ date of

the second child. Work ratis inmeme in the intmd between sti months tier the bti of

the fist c~d ad ow neti measure 12 months prior to the second birth. fites of non-work

kve dectied about 8 percentage potits, but raks of til-ttie work me SM 14 permntige

pobts lower thm bdore the first birth.

Table 3 reveals considerable etidence of heterogeneity -ong women. Before the birth of

their fust ad, more thm tiee-qwrters of all women (77.7=25.5+52.2) ae worti~ b&ore

the birth of the second c~d, the fignre is 10 percmtage points lower (68.2=30.2+38.0). The

contrasts me even stionger for ti-time work before pre~aW, wM& declties from 52.2

percent to 38.0 percent. bong those who work full-tie before theti second pre~aq,

however, job contiuity is mnsiderably higher (77.7 percent wortig ad 66.8 percent for the

sme employer) thm after the first btih (64.3 percent worbg and 50.9 percent fOr the sae

employer). No* dso tbt p@ttie work, which grew &om pre-pre~mW level of 25 percent

before the first birth to a level of about 30 percent”fi~oting the dr~ bfih, deches mmkedfy

titer the second birth (horn 30.2 percent to 12.6 percent).

The third pael of Table 3, relatig to higher order births, fids additional etidence of

heterogeneity. The percentage of women worbg md wortig ti-time fds as the nwber

of children iumeases, but the perwntage of women who worked ti-tie re~g b titime work tith the sme employer increases tith parity.

T&le 4 presents stiilm comptisons across edu=tion groups. Both before ~d &er the

pre~anq, high school ~aduates me much more Ekely to work th= high school &op-outi.

Newly hdf of high school drop-outs do not work before the birth, in wntiast to ody 21

percent of high school gaduates. Fufiemore, high school graduafes ~e much more ~ely

to continue wortig ~er the birth of a c~d. S& months tier the birth, 73 perc~t of drop

outs, but ofiy 47 percent of ~aduates me not working. Condition on re=g to ~-tie

work, high s&ool gradwtes ~e more likely to return to the s~e employer. If we XSotiata

more education tith more on-the-job trtitig, fiese titigs =e consistent tith ou

expedatiom =d tith the findings of Desti =d Wtite (1990).
24

Table 4

Job Continuity of New Mothers, by Edutition

Work After Ctildbtib(%) % of Before Prem~ m state

Work before Pti Pam FuU fill Pd Pti ml mu

pre~ancy None Diff Sae Diff Sme Total None DIff Same D~ Sae Total

Wgh School Drop-outs

None ~ 48.1 2.1 4.8 87.5 3.7 8.8 100.0

Pat-time 11.6 2.8 1.0 1.2 0.3 16.9 68:7”--16.4 5.9 7.2 1.7 100.0

Full-time 12.9 .1.2 3.8 0.7 9.6 28.2 45.9 4.3 13.3 2.5 34.0 100.0

TOtd 72.6 6.1 4.7 6.~” 9.9 100.0

,...

~gh School Graduates

None 21.0 2.8

Pd-tiie 14.9 4.9 1.6 6.9 0.7 29.1 51.4 16.9 5.5 23.9 2.3 100.0

FUU-ttie 11.4 2.3 6.8 2.8 20.6 43.9 25.9 5.3 15.5 6.4 46.9 100.0

TOtd 47.3 10.1 8.4 12.9 21.3 100.0

CoUege Graduates

None 14.1 3.7 1.9 19.7 71.7 18.7 9.6 100.0

Ph-time 17.2 4.4 1.5 11.8 0.9 35.8 48.1 12.3 4.2 32.9 2.5 100.0

Full-time 10.9 2.8 4.5 5.5 20.8 44.5 24.6 6.3 10..1 12.4 46.6 100.0

TOtd 42.3 10.9 6.0 19.2 21.7 100.0

NOTE: Weightid tabdations from the Jme 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y Iogistilc re~ession

model. Fall-time work is 35 or more hours per week. Columns refer to emplopent

twelve months before c~dbitih. Rows refer to emplo~ent sti months afier c~dbti.

N=5793

Siti=ly, compared tith high school ~aduates, college gaduates me as likely to be

worting fu~-time before the pre~acy. Condition on fall-time work statis, theti rates of

retmn to work me stiflm to those of high school ~aduaks. Compared h high school

~aduates, college ~aduates me somewhat more ~ely to be worki~ pal-time rather tha

not working. CoUege ~aduates who work patitime before the pre~ancy =e somewhat

more ~ely to stitch to Ml-time work &r ctildbtih b me high school women.

In the pretious section, we presented esttiates of job contitity b the absence of

matetity leave le~slation. Those restiti suggested that, bwause most women who work

ffi-time before md ~er the bfih of a child ~e &eady reting to their pre-preW~cy

employer, matefity leave legislation, ad pditi~ly the federd FLA, me ufliely to have
25

major effects on job contitity. In this section, we suggest ~other reason why matetitY

leave legislation, and in pticdm the federd FM, is tiiely h have major effecti on job

contiui@ The legislation’s covemge is fm horn tiversd.

The FLA was deliberately crtied to cover ody some employers. Tbe Est of -emptid

employers ad employees wm desi~ed to btild a codtion stitiently stiong h flow

passage of the legislation. The FLA applies ody to mployers tith 50 or more workers.

Futiemore, to be covered by the A&s Wmmtses, m employee must have been

continuously -ployed over the past year and must have worked more thm 1250 hotitbin the pretious 12 months. Finally, there is = exception for %gMy mmpemated

&ditiduds=: those who receive the top ten percent of ea&gs titi this workplati The

General Accomting Office (uted h Letioff nd Becker, 1989) estimatd that a 50 employee

tieshold protides coverage for feww th- hdf of dl workers. Howevw, the GAO estiak

did not accomt for the job tmure requtiemmt.

In this section, we apply methods s~a to those of the pretious setion to estimate the

coverage of the ~ These estimatis consider the job tenme, k ske =d ho- per week

tbesholds. We dete-e the employment Watus a yew before defive~ for each womm over

age 19 at the hfih of the chifd. From that point we C= identfi if she W= worhg =d

whether or not she was working fill-time (here defined as 24 hems per week 1250 hems per

ye=/52 weeks). To kco~orate the job tenure reqtiement, we compme the sent

employer to the employer 12 months ealier (24 months before the bfih). ~dy, h mo~

yeas (but not 1981-1985), the ~S-Y asb about fm dze for the employer as of the

intetiew. We qlore the mitimu effects of the &m size exemption” for the subset of-es

for which we have fm she dab.

To detemtie etigiiflity for the FLA, we estirnati the systim of logistic reflessions

mm~ponding h the detision tree shorn in Fi~e 7. ID the fist levef we estiati if the

woma work 12 month bsfore M“dbtih. In the nti level we esttiate if tie worked a

sticient number of hems (24 or more hems per week). If she qufied on hews at the neti

Ievd, we detemtie if she was at work 24 months before the bitifi. At the lowest level, we

esttiate K she worked for a fim tith at least 50 workers.
26

&&

A

Work B&ore 37Y. 1 63”k

Pregnancy (no/yes)

B

Pa fl-timelFuIl-time

(~4 hour#>*4houm) 23°k 177%

Job Tenure

c E

(<12 months/>=12 months) %7. 165% 32% 168%

Firm Size D

(*O employeeti

F

>=50 employees) 9TA I 37. 41 okI 59V.

Final Status 5

Cell Percentage 36.99. 5.0% 8.8% 0.390 .15.470 13.370 20.490

Fig. % ~ee@presentation of- Coverage ~tiapolated to CPSS~ple

Ftid Stati

1 -No work before pre~a~ (BP)

2- Pati-tiie work BP, job tenure less thm 12 months

3- P-time work BP, job tenwe ~eatir th~ 12 months, fim size less thm 50 employees

4- Pti-ttie work BP, job tenure ~eater thm 12 months, fim size 50 or more employees

5- fill-tine work BP, job tinure less than 12 months

6- fill-time work BP, job @nwe ~eatsr than 12 months, firm size less thm 50 employees

7- W-tie work BP, job tenme ~eatir than 12 months, fim size 50 or more employees

Decision Points

A - Work at d before pre~aq (BP)

B - fi~-ttie or ptitime work BP

C - hong those worbg pti-time BP, job tenure ~eater or less b 12 months

D - bong those wortig pati-tie BP md tith job tenwe of 12 months or more, h Aze

Weater or less th 50 aployees

E - bong those wortig Ml-the BP, job tenme ~eater or less thm 12 months

F - bong those worting fill-time BP ad titb job tenue of 12 monti or more, fim size

~eater or less th~ 50 employees

FoUoting a procedure sW= to that of the pretious setion, we estimated weighted

logistic re~es&ons for ea& node of the tree (h Fi~e 7). We do not repoti the logistic

re~estions for the brzches below pa~tie work beawe the smple sties me smd md

because these women wotid not be revered by FM due to the hews of work retistion.
27

Ag~n, we &op ay vtiable with a t-statistic below 1.28, wcept for a fist of key vtiabl=

(which for these mdy~s does not include time or tie-squmed). The logistic re~es<o~ ~

then usd to stidate the popdation percentages for the represtintitive CPS s-pie of

women.s These ~e show in Fi~e 7. Complete logistic re~ession resdts me avtil~le

upon request.

The etiapolations to the CPS data show that about 63 percent of new mothem =e

working a ye= before the btih of the ctid (Node A). Of those who work, 77 permnt meet

the hems per week requirement of 24 hous per week (Node B). Of those who work enough

hours, ody 68 percent meet the 12 months tenure requirement (Node E). Together, the

hours md tenure requirements elimfiate eligiblhty for nemly h~ of those who remtin

eligible. Ody 59 percent meet the fim size requirement of 50 employees (Node F). Thus,

ody 20 percent of dl women md 31 percent of M wortig women me covered by the

legislation.

Each of the conditions contributes to ttis low coverage rate. Most wortig women meet

the hours requirement, but even -ong til-time workers the coverage ra@ is ody 40

percent (.68 x .59). Bemuse pti-time workers me ofly 23 perwnt of the toti, the red

constitints ae the t=me and fire-size requirements. bong Ml-time workers, neither

eltiinates a majority of women, but together they efitiati co~erage for 60 percent of

women worti~ til-ttie.

Tables 5 ad 6 show the effecti of covfiates.on mverage. Table 5 presmts the per~t of

d] women tith tiven ch=acteristiw who meet the efigibfity requti-ent at each node of the

tiee. Each COIU- represents women tith @ven charaderistics. bong dl wor~ women,

second btihs me more likely to be covered than first bitihs, but ttird btis me less ~ely b

be covered. ~gh school hop-outs me less Ekely to be covwed tha those tith more

education (22 percent vs. 33 percent for high school ~aduates, those tith some co~ege, =d

co~ege ~aduates)..

‘Table B4 shows tbe percent of women at each br~ch of the tiss. Ths fist ml- shows the s~ti of

women obsemed ti the NLS-Y. The second cola comp=es the obsemed da~ tith the pmdibd fiquenties

for tie NLS-Y data The model fib the NLS-Y dati qti~ well, as he mmpation ad predckd value for the

NLS-Y shown h Appenti Table B4 indicates. figwe B1 ti the appenti shows the tie estiakd on tie raw

NLS-Y data.
28

Table 5

~ N Women tith Given Chmacteristics

ma ~ch

Frst Second Ttird or s&;Ol s&;Ol Some COUece

Node CMId Child More C~d Drop-out Grad COUege Gra~

A 81.48 58,88 . ..4823 39..28. 67.92 72.57 76.05

B .87.17 74.21 69.32 80.25 76.38 71.90 67.57

c 51.78 55.92 57.37 41.14 57.76 64.79

D

71.56

0.20 7.56 7.79 0.58 ....6.09” ““” 5.45 4.59

E ““” ._. 58.69 75.19 69.80 .49.74 71.63 74.39

F

79.02

58.97 65.78 52.36 56.15 59.93 62.08 62.14

Percent Covered hong

Ml New Mothem 24.56 21.61 U22 8.80 22.27 24.10 25.23

Workers 30.17 36.70 25.33 22.41 32.79 33.20 33.18

Full-time Workers 34.61 49.46 36.55 27.93 42.93 46.18 49.10

NOTE: N covtiates v~ from case to case. Subsmples are Mb June 1990 CPS saple of

.—.

recent mothers.

Ptid effects of v@ng one (or two) covtiates at a time are, presented in Table 6.

Comptisons are made relative to the base case of a second bifih to a 27-yem-old, married

wtiti high stiool ~aduate. Table 6 shows that black women me comiderably more Ekely to

be covered by MM th= wfites (56 percent vs. 39 percent). This is due b the fact that

blacks me more ~ely to be wortig fu~-ttie (96 percent vs. 82 percmt) ad more Wely h

work for lmge fis (76 percent vs. 62 percent).

Table 6

P~ial Effeds on Coverage Under FM

tie 32

Base Never Not &e 19 tie 32 2nd

Case Black Marned Wed ls;Btih lst-Biti Btih

A 59.65 60.10 47.37 59.65 71.80 89.57 68.75

B 81.83 95.77 81.83 90.51 75.53 91.72 78.04

c 54.92 6491 54.92 34.88 16.89 8L06 80.94

D 11.92 56.85 11.92 11.92 0.00 0.00 0.69

E 76.92 77.72 67.39 64.57 27.22 85.32 92.90

F 61.92 75.71 61.92 61.92 55.00 58.80 63.33

Perunt Covered

~ New Mothers 23.25 33.87 16.17 21.59 8.12 41.21 31.57

~ Workers 38.97 56.35 34.15 36.19 11..3.1. 46.01 45.91

Ffl-ttie 47.63 58.84 41.73 39.98.. 14.97 50.17

Workers

58.83

NOTE: Base Case second bitih h a 27-yem-old retied white high school ~aduate.
29

Coverage is most Ekely for the wmently mded md least Wely for those who ~e never

retied (39 per=nt for the wmently retied, 34 percent for the never retied, 36 percmt

for tidows ad divorwes). Coverage is clemly lower for the ve~ yomgest mothers (19-yemrdda) became they do not have sough job tenme. Conversely, older mothers (32-yem-olds)

almost always have the required tinure (one ye=). ~ti, first bifis me more Mely to be

covered due to the ~eater Nelihwd of til-ttie stitis.

In summ~, coverage is not ve~ sensitive to demogaptics. The major vtiation is that

both blacks ad older mothers me more ~ely to be covered. Effests of edumtion =e motiy

due to tie comelation of education tith age at bitih of a child.

~. Conclusion

The last ho decads have seen radid changes h the work patte~ of new mothers. h

the early seventies, work -ong new mothers was a rtity. Today newly hti of W mothers

of one-month-old ctitien me employed. Ody about 10 percmt of them ue actidy

working. The difference is the lmge nuber of women on ptid ad mptid leave. This

unpaid leave tapers off quic~y. By the time the ctid is ttiee-months-ld, work & n-ly at

its long-tern level (i.e., it is ne=ly the s=e for mothers of c~tien betieen W md 24

months). This use of ptid and unpaid leave comtitites the de facto matetity leave poliq of

herican employers.

Legislation at the fedwd ad state level now requires employers to ~matee that

women my ret- to thek old jobs aRer a matedty leave of sev=d months (thee h the

federd statute, one h fom h the state le~slation). Our mdyses of work pattern of new

mothers show high levels of job contiuity with the s-e employer even prior to the W

bong those women who work fill-time before theti c~d is born, over 60 percent reti to

work for the s-e employer. This fi~e is rougtiy comparable with the fi~e for fl women

(whether or not they =e mothers). The majority of frdl-ttie workers who do not *OP out of

the labor force me wortig for the s=e employer they had before de~vew. fitihemore,

the number of women ret-g to fill-time work between the time thti titien =e 6- nd

18-months-old is small. Therefore, we conclude thnt for most new mothem the reqtiementi

of the FM ae ~eady tico~orated tito mment bwtiess practice women tie leave =d

then reti to their ori~d employers. This statement is not meat b tiply that this b

tifomly the c=e, but rather that the legislation mere~ codifies st=dad business pratice

factig most women.
30

Fmfly leave legislation..may dfect other dimensions of women’s-labor m=ket behatior.

& we emphmized b om model, it is possible that, prior w the new laws, women would have

liked ti have tden longer leaves fier the bti of their c~&en, but that employers stitily

Emited the amount of leave. Given the ‘@oice” of vq shofileaves or quittkg thek job,

women may ‘chose” the shorhleave. Perhaps @ven the right under the new laws. h longer

job protectid leaves, new mothers dl tde longer leaves. Ofiy rese=~ that covem the

period &r the FM was implemented can adhess this question.

We dso ex-ine the coverage of the federal Fmily Leave Act, wfich excludes pati-time

workers (less tk 24 hours per week), those tith shoti job tinure (under a yew), md those

wortig for small firms (fewer thm 50 employees). We estimate that ody about 20 percent

of W new mothers or 30 percent of worting women are covered by the legislation. If

employers adjust their bebtior b avoid the law, coverage could be even lower (e.g., hiring 49

workers, being reluctat to hire women of tidbetig age; see Heabbe Saddkerm “Small

fires Tg to Cmb Impad of Leave Law: Wall Street Journal, Au@st 5, 1993, Bl). For

emmple, Gmbw’s (1992) stidy of the effetis for mandating coverage of rnatemi~ benefits in

employer-sponsored health tisumnce P1=s, found etidence that employers inmemed hours

md reduced emplowent =ong eligible womm h ordw to avoid the legislative

requirements.

Ou computations suggest that the hems of work requtiement is not ve~ impotiant in

limiting coverage. Most pti-time workers would not satisfy the tenme reqtiements anWor

the firm size requirements. The binbg constraints me the tenwe requhement ad the fia

size requirement. We therefore conclude that the FLA codifies, b a lmge extent, tisttig

labor force pattim for new mothers. The limitation of coverage to til-tfie workers tith a

yew of tenwe me- that women tith the geatest labor force corntitrnent me coverd by

the FLA. These women me ~eady quite likely to return to theti pre-pre~anq jobs.
–31 -

Appendlx A

SAMPLE ~ANS

Table Al

Smple Statistiw for NLSY md CPS S-pies ad the B~e Case

NLSY CPS

Unweighed Weighted

Mea Me=

Black 0.2771 0.1686

0.1958 0.0619

83.9450 84.0579

7054.11 7073.07

Hisptic

Year

Wem)2

Unemployed

Age

(Age)2

HS Drop Out

Some COUege

COUege

Graduate

Not Mtied

Never Mded

Retiom

C~d 1

Eetious

CMd 2+

Ftist X Black

fist x

mspdc

FlrM x Yew

Firti x (Yw)2

First x

Unempl

Ftist x Age

fist x (Age)2

Ftist X HS

Dropout

Ffist x Some

COUege

Ftist x CoUege

Graduate

Ftist X Not

Mtied

Ftist x Never

7.3038 7.2571

2L2575 24.5936

597.3804 613.8418

0.3188 .0.2406

0.2456 0.2740

0.0731 0.0876

0.0937 0.0848

0.2333 0.1531

0.5614 0.5252

0.2072 0.1723

0.1054 0.0634

0.0817 0.0338

36.5952 39.7081

3056.79 3324.34

3.2561 3.4936

10.3002 11.3251

245.6390 274.2268

0.0911 0.0748

0.1417 0.1610

0.0472 0.0568

0.0240 0.0265

0:4756 0.0815

Weighted Weighted Weighted Base

Std. Dev. M=n Std. Dev. Case

0.3744 0.1458 0.3529 0

0.2742

2.7099

454.5517

1:3252

2.9997

149:8643”

0.4274

0.4460

0.2828

012786

0.3601

0.4994

0.3776

0.2437

0.1808

41.6043

3510.34

3U7866

12.0818

305.0118

0.2630

0.3675

0.2315

0.1606

0.2736

0.1165-

90.0006

8100

5.40

27.7500

796.089~

0.1670

0.4237

0.2040

0.1033

0.1343

0.6647

0.3124

0.0359

0.0322

30.1777

2716.00

1.8107

8:7790

237.2243

0.0341

0.1636

0.0859

0.0268

0.0582”

0.3212

0

0

0

5.1018

297.1577

0.3729

0.4941

0.4030

0.3043

0.3410

0.4721

0.4635

0.1861

0.1766

42.488S

3823.99

2.5493”

12.6552

366.6132

0.1815

0.3699

0.2802

0.1614

0.2342

MAed

o

90

6100

5.4

27

189

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
–32–

Ttile A2

Smple Means for CPS Subs~ples

~rst Second fid

Child CMld CMld HSDO HSG CG

Black .1071 .1368 .1975 .2005 .1348 .0610

Wptic .0961 .1070 .1501 ‘.3184 .0764 .0407

HSDO .1017 .1453 .2614

Soco

COGR

MamSpP

MmNot

timNev

Child2

Child3

Bla&l

Hisp 1

Yew 1

Ye= Sgl

Unempl

Age 1

Age Sgl

HSDO 1

Soco 1

COGR 1

MamNOtl

M=Nevl

Yem

Ye=Sq

Unempl

Age

&eSq

.4878

.2561

.7465

.0?98

.1737

0

0

..1071

.0961

“90.0000

6100.0

5.4000

26:1818

707.4813

..1017

.4878

.2561

.0798

.1737

90.0000

8100.00

.4447

.2124

.8065

.0859

.1076

1

0

0

.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

90

6100

.3312

.1388

...7297

.1481

.1222

1

1

0

0

0

0

Q

o

0

o.

0

0

0

0.

90

8100

1

0

0

.5561

.1618

.2821

.7958

.4693

.0215

.0661

18.3780

1654:02 “““

1.1027

4.8567

119.3250

.2042

0

0

.0209

.0773

Slfi

o

.5086

.2449

..8037

““”.0916 ,1047 ....

.6384

.2770

.0388

.0254

32.5426 .29=,84..

1.9526

9.5651

260.8536

0

.1964

.1031

.0279

.0544

90

8100

o

1

1 .. . .

.9293

.0382

.0325

..5792

.2126

.0162

.0187

37.8704

3403,33

2.2722

12.2131

360.3183

0

.4208

.4208

.0127

.0239

al.%

5.4000 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

26.1818 27.5361 29.5639 25.8679 28.1272 30.6514

707.4813 760.3974 908.8661 695.6780 816.2132 956.9756

N 1940 2052 1801 888 4905 1221

NOTE: Table presents the saple mess for subsaples of recent btih h the

June 1990 CPS. Columns are

First CWd – N fist btihs

Second Ctid – N second bifis

Third Child – fll third (or higher) order bkths

HS DO – Ml High School Drop-outs (12 or less ye=s of schootig)

HSG – Ml those tith erectly 12 ye=s of comple~d edumtion

CG – Ml those titb 16 or more yeas of mmpleted edumtion

Most smple members we included h two columns (one for their ptity, one for

their education WOUE the reception is those tith 13-15 ytis of completed

schooltig, who me not ticluded in a schooling ~up).

SOCO - Some COUege

COGR - CoUege Graduate
Appendix B

–33–

SUPPORTING T~~S

Table B1

NLS-Y Unweighed vs. Weightsd

Vnw ei~hted (7.) ~

Not working 63.3 60.5

Worting <35 hours, different aployer 6.7 7.5

Work <35 hours, S=e Employer 6.1 6.3

Work >35 hems, Merent employer 9.3 10.4

Work >35 hems, S~e Employer 14.6 15.3

NO~: Wsighted tabdations from the NLS-Y. Weights =e 1979 sap~

weights. fill-time work is 35 or more hours per week. Coluns refer to

emplo~ent Sk months before c~dbtih. ROWS refer to -plo~ent Sk

months ~r childbtih.

TAle B2

Work Statm Before md Mer CWdbtih Comparison

of Actual ad Predi&ed Frequwties

None DM Sae Diff Sme Total None Diff Sqe DM S-e ToM

None 34.3 3.3

Pti-time 8.7 1.6 1.7 4.1 0.6 17.1 8.7 1.6 1.7 4.2 0.8 17.1

Ftil-time 17.5 2.4 4.6 2.2 14.5 41.2 17.5 2.4 4.7 2.2 145 41.1

Total 60:5 7.5 ..6.3 10.4 15.3 100.0 60.5 7.5- 6.3 10.4 45.3 100.0

NOTE: Weighted tidations horn the NL&-Y. Weights me 1979 sapling weighti.

FuH-time work ti 35 or more hours per week. Columns refa to emplopent &

monti before ctidbitih. ROWSrefer to emplo~ent six months ~r ~dbtih.
–34–

Table B3

Work Stabs Before =d Mter CWdbfih fiedi~ed

Frequencies for NLS-Y ad CPS Smples

~S-Y Preditilons 1990 CPS Wedictions (%) ‘-

Percent WOrki~ fier Percent WOr~ Mer

Ctidbitih CMdbtih

Work before Pd Pti fill Ftil

PA ~a . ...mm

pre~ancy None D,ff Same Diff Sa& Total None Diff S“mi” DW. Sme ToW

None 34.3 3,3- 4.1- 41.7 25.6 2.7- 3.4- 31.7

PA-time 8.7 1.8 1.7 4.1 0.8 17.1 14.4 46. . L5 6.0 0.6 27.0

fi~-time 1.7.5 2.4 4.6 2.2 14.5 41.2 11.6. 2.2 6.3 2.5 18.8 41.3

Toti 60.5 7.5 6.3 10.4 .15.3 100.0 51.5 9.4 7.8. 11.9 .19.4 100.0

NOTE: “Weighted tabulations from the June 1990 CPS.usfig NLS-Y lo~stic re~eision

modd. Fall-tie work is 35 or more hems per week. Columns refer to emplo~ent

twelve months before c~dbirth. ROWS refer to emplo~ent eighteen month *r

ctildbifi. N=5793
Table B4

~

~d ivht ~U

Obs~ed Predicted Redic@d

-35–

NO work Before Pre~mcy

P&time Work Otiy

P-time, LT 50 employees

Ptitime, GT 50 employees

fi~-time, LT 12 months

h~-time, GT 12 months, <50

mployees

Ffl-time, GT 12 months> 50

40.36

4.64

2.68

1.10

21.05

13.11

17.06

100.00

% of women

40.3s

4.66

....2.19

1.60

21.00

13.05

..1OO:OO 17.M

. ..

.36.87

4.99

8.82

0.30

15.36

13.31

20.35

100.00

% of women at ead node

A - worting 59..64 59.52 63.13

B - if~ hours >24 hems 85.88 84.36 77.03”

E -if B, have 12 month tenure 58.,90 54.90 67.98

F -if E, firm sim >.50 56.55 55.61.. 59.30.

NOTE: 1-7 ““””Percentage in Find Stak

—

..—

A-D Permntage in Lefi Branch

(less fikely to be covered by FM)

COIWS do not sum to exactly 100.0% bemuse of rountig
Covemge of FLA

Work Before

PreQnancy (“dyes)

Pan-timti”ll.ume

(@4 hourslti4ho”rs)

Job Tenure

(<12 month&12 montis)

Fl,m Hz,

(60 employesl

tio emplopes)

final Stare,

Raw Cell Count

C41 Percentage

–36–

A

A

40% ! 60%

~i~;

B

9% I91-A

c E

56-A(M% 42?. 158Sh

D F

n% /2m 4%/ 557.

1 234 567

2600 147 % 13 1385 330 U3

40.470 2.8Sk 1.6W 0.6Sh Z.7% 14.1v. 17.57.

Fig. B-1: free Representation of ~ Coverage for -w NS-Y Data

Using the shorthand BP–Before Rep=q md AC-tir CMdbti. The find

statuses -d detisions we

Find Status

1 -No work BP

2- P-time work BP, job tinure less tha 12 months

3- Pti-time work BP, job tenure ~eater tha 12 months, fim sue less tha”50 -ployees

4- Pati-time work BP, job tenwe ~eater thm 12 months, firm size 50 or more employees

5- Full-time work BP, job tenwe less tkn 12 months

6- Ml-time work BP, job tenure ~eakr than 12 months, fim size less tha 50 employees

7- RU-time work BP, job tenure ~eatir than 12 month, firm size 50 or more employees

Decision Points

A - Work at afl .B.P.

B - N-ttie or p-time work BP

C - Among those worh.ng ptitime BP, job tenure ~eakr Or less th- 12 month

D - Among those worki~ pti-time BP and with job tenure of 12 months or more, fim size

geatw or less b 50 employees

E - Among those wortig Ml-time BP, job tenure WeaWr or less thm 12 months

F - Among those wortig fill-time BP ad tith job tame of 12 months or more, & size

geatir or less thm 50 employees
-37–

Append~C

LOGIS~C MG~SSION P~ ~R ES~~S FOR JOB

CO~W AN&YSIS

Table Cl

Dete~mts of Work Before ~egum@

(&o@t Coefficients ad Stad=d Emors)

Node .._A . B —–=.c D.

If No Work ~or

If NO Work Prior. md Work tier ~Work ~or.

Decision Point by Work =0~ wo~k &r?. ‘ fig ~me Ml tie? ‘

Intercept -24.0 36.7 -17.0 -9.644

(46.6) [47.4) (7.7) (2.280)

Black -0.028 0.127 0.242

(0.067)

0.418a

(0.086) (0.194) (0.118)

=sp~ic

Yew

Unemplo~ent Rate

Age

Age Squmed

~gh School Drop out

Some COUege Credit

College Graduati

Not Mtied

-0.131C

(0.068)

-1.697a

(0.587)

o.oloa

(0.003)

o.059a

(0.013)

-0.348a

(0.059)

o.173a

(0.065)

-0.288a

(0.059)

93.72C

(52.68)

-o.335a

-0.091

(0.106)

1.067

(1.157)

-0.00.6

(0.007)

-0.082C

(0.046)

-0.029C

(0.017)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.101

(0.082]

o.202b

(0.082)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-o.510a

(0.119)

-8.128b

(3.268)

-0.218a

“-0.042

“(0.239)

0.068b

(0.034)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.038

(0.034)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000) .0:294

(0.204)

0.000

(0.000)

12.169C

(7.318)

o.421b

0.203C

(0.106)

—

-0.046a

(0.014)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.060a

(0.018)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.176a

(0.065)

-o.440a

(0.149)

o.225b

(0.103)

0210

(0.158)

E.318a

(2.189)

-o.204b

Never Mtied

One Pretious CMd

Ro ~etiow CMtien

&055) (0.079). .._. ,,... [0.4?3) (0.089)

Note: *a= P<O.O1; b=p<05; c=Pc.1O
Table Cl (continue@

–38–

(b~t Coefficients Work and Stm&d Emors

Detemti~ts of Work Before Pre~mcy)

Node A B c D

If NO Work ~lor

If no Work Wor, and Work After, If Work %or,

Detision Petit &y Work Work After? FW me fiU Tree?

Black*l -o. 168C 0.000 ““. 0.635C -0.538a

(0.101) (0.000) (0.372) (0.164)

Hisptic*l 0.000 0.000 0.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Yem*l 2.041 0.000 0.000 0.000

(1.279) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000]

Ye= Squmed*l -0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000

(0.008) (0.000) (0.000}” (0.000)

Une”mploment Rate*l -0.059 o.lo8b 0.000 0.000

(0.037) (0.052) (0.000) (0.000)

&e*l o.7Q9a

(0.152)

Me Squaed*l -o.o14a

(0.003)

mgh S&OOl DroP- -o.lggb

out*l (0.097)

Some COUege Credit*l -o.210b

(0.094)

CoUege Graduate*l

-o.739a

(0.272)

o.o15a

(0.006)

-o.352b

(0.154)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

1.105C

(0.622)

-0.025C

(0.013)

0.000”

(0.000)

0,000

(0.000)

0.0.00

(0.000)

o.997a

(0.177)

-o.o19a

(0.004)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

o.456b

(0.180)

Divorced*l -o.319a 0.301 .o..o.o&- .0.000

(0.116) (0.192) (0.000) (0.000)

Never Mtied*l 0.195 0.000 -0.313

(0.170) (0.000) (0.190)

Note “1 tidi~tes interaction tith first birth indimtor

a= p<O.Ol; b=p<.05; c=P<.1O
–39–

Table C2

Detemtits of Work Mer Childbtih for Those

WOrtig Pa+tbe Prior b Pre~~W

(Lo@t Coefficients ad Standzd Emors) _ .__. ,. .

Node E F G. H

If Ret-to Different If Retire to S=e

Return to Sme Employer, Work Employer, Work

Detision Point Work ~ter? .Employer? Pti-ttie? P&tie?

Intercept z67.3b 3.776 -36.0 -523.8

Black

FIisptic

Yw

Ye= Squared

Unemplo~ent Rate

&e

&e Squared

Mgh School Drop-Out

Some COHege Cre&t

CoUege Graduate

Divorced

Never Mtied

One Pretious CMd

(108.0)

0.465

(0.211)

-o.126b

(0.201)

5.2ggb

(2.278)

-0.032

(0.014)

-0.178

(0.095)

o.099a

(0.032)

0.000

.(0.000)

-o.255b

(0.128)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-o.717a

(0.208)

0.000

(0.000)

-489.1a

(143.6)

(2.568)

-0,311

(0.221)

-o.u3b

“(0:330)

-0.087

(0.037)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0:000)

0.158a

(0.0s9)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.058

(0201)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.553

(0.435)

-0.093

(0.205)

(13.6)

0.628

(0.390) ‘“

0.268

(0.474)

0.110

(0.079)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000) ““““

.o.127C

(0.072) :

0.000

(0.000)

0.000.

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000..

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000]

0.000

(0.000)

2g.63b

(13.47)

(324.5)

0.533

(0.330)

0.443

(0.505)

0.114

(0.079)

0..000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-o.130b

(0.059)

0.000

(0:000)

0-000

(0.000)

Omoo

(0,000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.00

(0.00)

Ro PretiOus CW&en -0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000

(0.148) .. . (0.000) (0.000) ..= (0.000)

Note: * - p<O,Ol; b=pe.05; c=P<.1O
–40-

Tdle C2

Determin=ts of Work After Childbfi for Those

Worbg Pad-time Prior to Prep~cy

(LO@t co~cients ad Stadmd Emors)

Node E ., F G H

If Ret-h Different If Return to Sae

&tum to Same Employer Work Employer Work

Detition Petit Work ~er? Employer? P&-the? Part-time?

Bkck *1 --:o”~g ‘ 0.000 -0.67S 0.0”00.

(0.279) (0.000) (0.569)” (0.000)

Hisptic *1 0.000 0.000 0.000. 0:000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Ye~*l -a.22a. 0.000 0.000. 12.592

(3.49) (0.000) (0.000) (7.852)

Ye= Squared*l 0,074 0.000 -o.oo2b -0.076

(0.021) (0.000) (0.001) (0.047)

UnemplO~ent*l o.410a 0.000 -o.274b -0.267

(0.131) (0.000) (0.138) (0.251)

&e*~ 1.293 0.000 3.852 0.000

(0.360) (0.000) (1.231) (0.000)

Age Squared*l -0.029 0.000 -0.076a 0.000

(0.007) (0.000) (0.026) (0.000)

Mgh School Drop- 0..000 -o.g60b 0.000 0.000

out* 1 (0:000) (0.396) (0.000) (0.000)

Some College Credit*l .0.000 0.201 -0.968b 0.000

(0.000) (0.312) (0.409) (0.000)

COHege Graduate*l o.505b -0.313 0.709 0.442

(0.229) (0.322) (0.623) (0.456)

Divorced 0.000 -0.839 0.000 0.00.0

(0.000) (0.842) (0.000J”

Never Mtied

(0.000)

0.000 -0.845c

0-000 0.000

(0.000) (0.491) (o.ooo)’”- (0.000)

Note *1 indicates interaction with first biti indicator,

a= pcO. Ol; b=p<.05; c=P<.1O
–41–

Table C3

Determinants of Work Mer Ctidbti for Tkose Wortig

N1-fime fior to Pre@ancy

.—

~

Node 1

——

J K L

If Retire to ~-Re~”to Sme

I Wtum to Sme Different Employer, Employer, Work

Detision Point Work &er? ,=, Emflloyer? Work P@-tie?. . ,.= P@-time

Inkrcent -11.4 L892 4.170 14.313

Bla&

msptic

Year

Ye= Squ=ed

Unemplo~ent Rati

be

~e Sqmed

~gh School Drop-Out

Some COUege Cre&t

CoUege Graduate

Divorced

Nevw Mtied

One Pretious CNd

ho PretiOus CMtien

(2.6)

0.001

(0.129)

-0.040

(0.183)

o.048a

(0.015)

0:000

(aooo)

0.000

(0.000)

0:034

(0.022)

0..000

(0.000)

-o.463a

(0.093)

o.431a

(0.127)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.257

(0.147)

-0.175C

(0.103)

6.820a

(2.534)

0.000

(1.422)

0.097

(0.118)

.0.107

(0.155)

-o.051b

(0.020)

0.0.00

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.138a

(0.028)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.686a

(0.197)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.507

(0.409)

-0.260

(2.556)

0.658

(0.232)

0.404

(0.30.1)

0.059

(0.037)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.057

(0.037)

0.00.0

(0.000)

-0.585C

(0.318)

-o.383b

(0.161)

O.m.o

(0.000)

0.000

(0.oo”m

0.000

(0.000)

0.236

(0.170)

0.000

(5.502)

0.747

(0.220)

0.260

(0237)

-0.032

(0.037)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(o.000j

-o.811b

(0.S81)

o.o16b

(0.007)

0.000

(0.000)

0.000

(0.000)

._ -o.945a

(0.271)

-0.488

(0.337)

0.000

(0.000)

-0.079

-“(0.514)

0.600

(0.000) (0.153) (0.00’0 (0.000)

NOW * a= p<O.Ol; b=p<.05; c=F<.1O

=.
–42–

Table C3 (Contiued)

Dete-mts of Work tier Childbti for Those Worbg

Ftil-Ttie Prior to PreWacy

(Lotit Coefficients ad Stadmd Emors)

Node I J K L

If RetuM to If Retire to S=e

Return to S-e Different Employer Employer, Work

Detision Point Work tier? Employer? Work Pafitie? Ptitie?

Black*l 0.448b 0.000 0.000 0.000

(0.178) (0.000) (0:000)

~o:ooo)

fisptic*l .0.401. .0.000 .0.000 0.0.00

(0.235)

Yem*l

(0.000)” (0.000) (0.000)

0.000 0.000 .0.000 0.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Yea Square*l 0.000 0.000 .0.000 0.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) 70.000)

Uiemplo~ent Rate*l 0.000 .0.000 0.000 -0.036

(0.000) (0.000} (0.000) .. ,. (0.968)

4.*1 0.562a 0..000 0.000 0.000

(0.201) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

*e Squme*l -o.o12a -0.001 0.000. _, 0.000

(0.004) (0.001) (0.00”0) (0.000)

~gh School Drop- 0.000 0.000” 0.632 0.000

out*l (0.000) (0.000) (0.465) (0.000)

Some COUege Crsdit*l -o.386a 0.000 ..0.000 0.000

(0.149) (0.000) =.(O:OOO). (0.000)

CoUege Graduate*l 0.000 0.00Q 0.000 0.454

(0.000) (0.000] (0.000) “(0.320)

Dlvorced*l o.571b 0.355 0.000c 0.888

(0.225) (0.285) (0.000) “(0.555)

Never Mtied*l 0.000 0.319 0.000c ~~~0.000

(0.000) (0.173) (0.000) ..”’ (0.000)

Note: *1 indicates .titirastion tith fwst bitih indicator

a= p<O.O”l; b=p<.03 c= P<.1O
–43–

APPE~= D

S~ATIONS FOR P-m EF~CTS

Tdles D1 tiough D6 protide a dtemative mdysis of demo~aphic effeb. Tables 1 tiough 4

h tke body of the paper protided total effe&s. They consid-ed the chaatiti~ of d motkers h

the CPS tith the relevant chaactefistic (ptity or edumtion), dlotig dl of the covtiates b

chmge betieen the subsets. Tables D1 through D6 compuk a ptial effeti, ONY the stigle

vtiable’s chaged, the women me othefise identicd. They mmespond b tit~retig ti~tidud

reWession coefficients in a stmd=d stigle reWession equation model.

We be- tith a base case A wfite, 27-ye~-old high school gaduate hatig ha second Wd.

This is approfimatily the media worn- k the June CPS popdation saple of mothers. We then

vw One (Or sOmetimes Mo) Of these ch~acteristia md hews the effects on the joint labor force

statuses. When titirpreting these tibles it is tipotimt h note” that (at leati before the one-s~p

P-g of the system of lo@tic re~essiom) these effects were ticluded at eafi node of the tiee, so

these tables reprment chages h (at least) 12 p=ametws. In addition, for the ptity effeds of the

Ori@d spetication (up to a relatively mfld data-tiven step-me procedue), the system of Iosatic

re~essions was completely intiraded with fimt b~h.

Table D1 considers the ptial effect of race. The top pael is the base case (whites). The bottom

pael is for (othetise identiml) blacks. ~e-pre~m~ rates of work in the&o smples me mm,

though blacks =e more ~ely to work ~-tie (49.2 percent vs. 39.2 permnt). After pre~aq,

whitis =e mu~ more Udy to not ~vork (56.4 vs. 47.3) ad sfighfly less ~ely to rem to theti prepregn=W employer conditional on retutig toti-time work (84.9 vs. 96.3).
–44–

Table D1

Job ContinuiW for ~ti Mothws ad Black Mothers: Ptiid Effetis

Work Status After Cb ‘ldbifih(~~ re %emmcv Stat?

Work before Pti Pafi RU Full Pti Pti NI N

pre~anW None DIH Sae .Diff S~e Total ~~~e Dw .S=e Diff Sme Tot~

White High Schml Graduate, Age 27, Second C~d

None 24.6 2.5= 3.8 ~ 30.8 79.6 8.19 12.2- 100.0

P-time 21.7 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.2 29.9 72.6 5.7 6.9 10.7 4.1 100.0

Ffl-time 10.1 1.6 6.7 3.1 17.7 39.2 25.8 42 17.0 8.0 45.1 100.0

Total 56.4 5.9 8.7 10.1 18.9 100.0

Black High School Graduate, &e 27, Second CWd

None 24.2 2.4

Pti-time 10.5 1.1 3.8 1.8 1.7 19.0 55.4 5.9 20.1 9.7 8.9 100.0

Fall-time 12.7 0.6 8.6” 1.0 .26.3 49.2 25.7 1.2 17.6

Total

2.1 53.4 100.0

47.3 4.1 12.5 8.2 28.0 100.0 :.” . .

NOTE: Weighti tabulations horn the Jwe 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~esaion model. ~Utime work is 35 or more hems per week. N=5793

Table D2 comiders. the ptial effwt of education. The tip panel refers to high school tiopouts. The midde pmel is for (othefise identicd) high school Waduabs. The botim panel rdatis

h coUege ~adwtes. High school tiop-outs ae more ~ely to be wortig pti-tie kfore

pre~mcy, slightly less Wdy to be wortig md much less tikely (nearly 15 pwcentage points) to be

working M-tie. Post-childbifi labor form sbtuaes me, however, quite stifi~. The difference is

that high school tiop-outs we both more likely ti be~ worting *SF c~dbifih ad mOre likdy ~

contiue wortig fdl-tke ~r chfidbitih. However, condition on sta@g tith f~-time

emplo~ent, more educated. women ae much more likely h. remti. tith the pre-prem-cy

employer (84.9 vs. 53.5 percent). This is consistent with Desai ad Waite (1991).

The bottim panel shows that, comp=ed tith high school Waduates, co~ege ~aduatas me

less Wely. h be wortig, but more likely to be working fiU-tie both before md tier the

pre~ancy. Con&tiond on pre-pre~mcy employment status, nonworkers aud ~-time workers

look quite sidar; p-time college ~aduates me more lik~y h @p wor~w. Mm cOnsist~t

tith Des& md Waite, the ra~s of retire to the sme employer a+ higher for mUege ~adua~s.

When total effetis where extied above, more sducation was asso~tid tith lower ratis of return

to the s~e employer. This appears to be due to differences awoss tiditidu~ h other covtiates

fiat combract the pum education effeti.
–45–

T*le D2

Job Continuity for High School Graduates and High S~OOl Drop-outi: Pfid Effeds

—.

Work &ter Chdd ti(

Pad Pad Fu~’ Fu~

1 ~amw state

Work before Pti P“ti Fti w

pre~an~ _..No~e DIff Sme Diff ‘“~me Total Ngne._ D= S-e Diff S-e Tow _

Pti-ttie 36.6 3.0 3.7 5.2 2.0 50.4 72.6 6.0 7.3 10.2 3.9 100.0

FuU-time 3.4 1.9 4.1 7.0 8.1 24.6 14.0 7.8 16.7 28.6 32.9 100.0 ..

Total .=.4 7.6 7.8 16.2 “: 10.1 100.0

— =gh School Graduate, &e 27, White

None —. 24.6 2.5 ~ 3.8 m 30.8 79.6 8.1- 12.2- 100.0

Pti-time 21.7 1.7” 2.1 3.2 1.2 29.9 :72.6 5.7 6.9 10.7 4.1 100.0

10.1 1.6 6.7 32 .“ 17.7 39.2 25.8 4.2 17.0 8.0 ““45.1 100.0

Total 56.4 5.9 .._

8.7 ,10.1. 18.9 100.0

CoNege Graduate, &e 27, ~te

None 30..5 2.0 ~ 1o.5- 42.9 71.0 4.6 _ 24.4- 100.0

Pti-ttie 4.4 0.3 1.3 3.4 0.7 10.1 43.7 2.7 12.7 33.8 7.1 100.0

Ftil-time 12.4 3.4 16.6 0.6 13.9 46.9 26.4 7.1 35.4 1:4 29.6 100.0

TOt~ . . 47.3 5.6 .17.9 .14.5 14.6 100.O _ _, , . . ..

NO~: Weighted &“bdations tiom the Jme–i990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic reflection modeL

N=5793

Table D3 considers the P*4 effeti of mtitd statis. The top pmel is the base -e

(c~ently retied). The bottom pael ti for (othefise identid) nev= retied womem Compmed

tith the cuentiy retied, never matied women =e more ~ely to not be wortig both before ad

~r the pre~mcy (41.6 vs. 30.8). Whermor% full-ttie never retied women =e more ~ely b

stop working ~r the btih of a c~d (31.7 vs. 25.8). Condition4 on retire to work, ratis of reti

b the s-e employer =e -=.
–46-

Table D3

Job Continti@ by Mtitd Status: Patiid Effecti

Work Before ~~nancv StX

Work before P& Pati fill Fdl Pd Pati Fdl N1

pre @mcy None Diff Sme DM Sae Total None Dlff $-e Diff S-e Total

Mtied Woman, Age 27, Wbi&

None 24.6” 2.5 m 3.8 m 30.8 79.6 8.1- 12.2, 100.0

Pti.time 21.7 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.2 29.9 72.6 5.7 6.9 10.7 4.1 100.0

Fall-time 10.1 1.6 6.7 3.1 17.7 39.2 25.8 42 17.0 8.0 45.1 100.0

Total 56.4 5.9 8.7 10.1 18.9 100.0

Never Mtied Wom~, Age 27, White

None ‘“37.8”” 1.5m 2.3 m 41.6 9~~ 3.6 5.4 100.0

Pti-time 14.9 0.7 0.8 3.0 1.2 20.6 72.6 3.2 3.9 14.7 5.7 100.0

fi~-ttie 12.0 1.5 5.9 2.8 15.7 37.8 31.7 3.8 15.6 7.4 41.4 100.0

Toti 64.8 3.6 6.7. 8.1 16.9 100.0

NOTE Weightid tabulations &om the June 1990 CPS using NLS~Y lo~stic re~ession model.

N=5793

Table D4 considers the ptiial effek of age. The top pael k for a (othetise identicd) 19-

year-old. The midde pmel is the base case (a 27-yea-old). The bottom pmel is for & 32-ye=-old

mother. Both bdore ad fier the pre~mW the yomger mothers =e much less Ikely to be

working (48.9 vs. 30.8 btiore pre~acy; 71.4 vs. 56.4 tier pre~mq). The difference is clem h

both patitime ad fi~-time work pre-pre~anq where the yomger women =e less ~ely to stip

wortig (for pti-time work 91.9 vs. 72.6, for ftil-tke work 35.3 vs. 25.8). However, mnditional on

retire to work the younger workws me more likely h return to the pre-pre~m~ mployer. Note

that this is tiwnsistsnt with Desti ad Wtite; younger workers should have fewer job spe~c sMIs.

Compared to a 32-yew-old mother, a 27-year-old mother is mud less ~ely to be working

(30.8 vs. 21.3 before pre~m~ 56.4 vs. 42.4 tier pre~mcy). Both before and aftw pre~=cy the

younger women me slightly more likely to be working patitie, but the older women =e much more

likely to be working fiU-time (53.5 vs. 39.2 before, 49.4 vs. 29.0 &er). Condition on retig to

til-time work, retwn to the sme employer is more comon song older workers (dike the 18 to

27 comparison, this is comistent with e~edations about job-specific s~s).
Table D4

Job Contiuity by Matemd Age Paid Effec&

–47-

“”Work After C~-dbtih(%) ~~mw 0 Stak

work before Pati Pfi Ftil fill P& P& ml m

pre ~ncy None D1ff Sae Diff Sme Total No&_e Diff S~e Diff Sme Toti -...

None 35.4 3.9

Pti-time 29.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 31.7 91.9 0.9 6.2 0.3 0.7 100.0

Full-the 6.9 0.8 8.0 0.2 “3.5 19.4 35.3 4.3 41.3

Total

0.9 18.2 100.0

71,4 5.0 10.0 9.9 3.7 100.0 _ ..-

...~e 27, White, High School Graduate ...

None 24.6 2;5 m 3.8 ~ 30.8 79.6 8.1- 12.2- 100.0

Pti-time 21.7 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.2 29.9 72.6 5.7 6.9 10.7 4.1 100.0

Fdl.ttie 10.1 1.6 6.7 3.1 17.7 39.2 25.8. A2 17.0 8.0 45.1 100.0 “-–

ToM ..55>4. .5,9.– 8.7 10.1 18.9 100.0 .—.—

Age 32, fite, High School_Gradua*.

~ None 17.8 1.7 1.8 83.5 7.8 8.6 100.0

Pati-time 13.6 1.5 0.7 8.4 1.0 25.2 54.1 5.9 2.6 33.3 4.0 100.0

Full-ttie 11.0 ...1.3 3.2 1.8 36.2 53.5 ,.20.6 2.4 5.9 3.4 67.7 100.0 ,_

Total 42.4 4.4 3.8 M.1 37.3 100.0

NOTE Weighted tabulations &om the June 1990 CPS ustig kS-Y Io&stic” re~ession modd.

N=5793

Table D5 considers the ptiiaf eff~ of ptity for yomg mothers. Here both paels (~etig

from the base case) refer to 19-yem-olds. The top pmel is for a fist cM@ the bottom pael for a

second tild. & k the comptison amoss dl ages, women tith more M&en me more ~ely to not

work both before md after childbitih (before 48.9 vs. 33.3: after 71.4 vs. 40.4) .- The difference is

mostly the M percent hop in pti-ttie work by mothers of two c~tien compmed tith a drop of

ody a quher mong mothers of one c~d. Mmost dl yomg mothem of ho W&en who worked

pafi-time, stip working, mothers of one child =e more likely to conttiue worhg.
–48–

Table D5

Job Continuity by Parity for Young Mothers P@@ Effects

Work ~er Cm dbitih(%l ~e t

Work before Pti Pati fill Full Pti Pti Fdl Full

~re~=~ None Diff Sue Dti S=e Tot~ .None Diff Same DW Sae Total

Ftist Ctid, 19 Ye=-old Mothw

None ..-

23.3 3.2 m 6.9 m 33.3 69.7 9.5_ 20.8= 100.0

Pd-ttie 7.3 34.0 0.1 5.6 0.0 47.1 15.6 72.2 0.3 11,9

~-time

0.0 100.0

9.8 0.9 5.4 0.2 3.3 19.5 50.0 4.6 27.5 1..1 16.8 100.0

Total 40.4 38.1 5.5 M.8 3.? 100.0

Second CMd, 19 Ye=-old Mother

~ None 9.6 48.9 72.4 7.9 19.7 100.0

Ph-t&e 29.1 0.3 2,0 0.1 0.2 31.7 91.9 0.9 62 0.3 0.7 100.0

Fti-ttie 6.9 0.8 8.0 02 3.5 B.4 35.3 4.3 41.3 0.9 18.2 100.0.

Total 71.4 5.0 10.0 9.9 3.7 100.0 .,

NOTE: Weighted tabtiations from the June 1990 CPS usfig NLS-Y lotistic. r?~essiOn mOdel.

N=5793

Table D6 comiders the paid effeti of ptity for older mothrs, aged 32. The tip panel is for

a first chilm the mid~e pmel for a second c~d. The bottim pand is for a &d c~d. Here the

differences me stitigly different from the younger womem As e~eded, before the bitih women

tith no chfitien .we more likely to be working fill-time (60.0 vs. 53.3) thm women who tieady have

one c~d. However; &er the btith, these relations reverse, so that while 49.4 percent of those who

have just hti theti second child work full-time tier the biti~ ody 32.3 percent of those women

hatig their first bltihs do. The sae ~ermces are clem in tie con&tiond responses. 67.7

percent of those women who worked fill-time before the bitih of their second tid continue to work

fill-time and at theti pre-pre~~cy employer. For fwst btihs, ody 36.5 percent of the fiU-ttie

workers continue to work fill-time. The .differmce is that more of the single pfity mothers simply

stop working (51.1 vs. 20.6). Perhaps, betig older they have the satings to be able to tiord to spmd

time sclusivdy tith the cud.
–49–

Table D6

Job Conttiuity by Parity for Older Mothe~ Pti Effeti

.~kSt CMd, 32 Y--old Moth= ,

None li.o 4.5 ~~ ““ 0.1 16.6 72.2 27.2 100.0

Pti-ttie 12.8 1.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 23.4 .54.7 7.3 0.0 38.0 0.0 100.0

Fdl-ttie 30.6 2.2 3.8 “1.4 21.9 60.0 51.1 3.7 ‘6.3 2.4 36.5 100.0

Toti ————— 55.4 8.5 .3.8 10.4 21.9 100.0

_SSco_nd Ctid, 32 Ye=-old Mother __

None 17.8 1.7

Pfitime 13.6 1.5 0.7 8.4 1.0 25.2 54.1 5.9 2.6 33.3 4.0 100.0

Fdl-ttie 11.0 1.3 3.2 1.8 36.2 53,5 20.6 2.4 5.9

Total

3.4 67.7 100.0

42,2 4.4 3.8 12.1 37.3 100.0 ,-.-“

. .

~d Ctid, 32 YeW-old Mother

None 28.5 1.2

Ph-ttie 16.5 1.3 0.6 7.5 0.9 26.9 “6”1.5 5.0” 2.2 27.9 3.4 100.0

N-time 8.4 1.5 3.7 1.3 26.0 40.9 20.6 3.6 9.0 3.2 63.6 100.0

ToM 53,4 4.0 .4,3 11.4 :.26.9 100.O –. :..:... . ~ ~~

NO~: Weighted tabdations horn the Jme 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~ession model.

Ftil-tie work is 35 or more hours per week. N=5793 “-.”

The bottim p=el relates to third bitihs for older mothers (32-yem-olds). Before theti tfid

bitih, mothem me less likely to be worbg full-the (40.9 vs. 53.0 ad more Wely to not be wortig

(21.3 vs. 32.2) thm women hating a second ctid. Mer the btith, those tith more c~tien me less

Ekely to work fi~-time, although the conditioml rates ~e quits stiar.
B~LIOGW~

Cherb, hdew. 1990. ~went Chages h beri- FetiiE@, Mtiage, md Divorce,n

hnals, Ame%an Acahmy of Political and Social Sctince 510:145-157.

Des&, Sonalde, ad Lfida J. Wtite. 1991. “Women’s Emplowent Dting Ee~WcY =d

~er the Mst BWh. Occupational Ch=acteristim ad Work Commi@ent,” American

Sociological Review 56(4):55.1-566.

Even, W~m E. 1987. “Cmeer Intemptions Folloting Childbitih,” Journal of Labor

Economiw 5(2).

Gmber, Jonatha. 1992. ‘The Effitien~ and a Group-Speufic Mmdated B=efi~ Etidence

horn Health Insurace Benefits for Matertity: NBER Working Paper, 4157, C-bridge

Massachusetts.

Hayghe, Howmd. 1986. “Rise in Mother’s Lahr Form Atiitity Includes Those tith

ItiatsY Monthly hbor Revtiw 109(2k4345.

mermm, Jacob, ad &leen Mlbotitz. 1994. ‘The Work-Emplowent Distition bong

Mothers of Ve~ Yomg C~tien,m fotihcoming in Journal of Human fisources.

~emm, Jacob. 1993. “Chmactititig have for Matefity,” fotihcomtig as National

Lo~itudiml Survey Discussion Paper (also RAND Labor md Poptiation Profl=

WOrkiug Paper 93-3~ DRU-505-NICHD).

me-, Jacob, md &leen Leibotitz. 1992. ‘Tfittie Work by New MOthe.~,n paper

prep=ed for Poptiation hsotiation of berica bud Meettigs, Denver, CO.

Leibotitz, &leen, Jacob ~m~ and Linda J. Wtite. 1992. ‘%mplopent of New Mothers

ad C~d Cme Choice Differences by Chiltien,s Age; Journal of Human Resources,

112-133.

hibotiti, hlea, Jacob ~em~ ad Linda Wtite. 1991. Wown’s EmplWment During

Pregnancy and Following Birth. RAND N-3392-DO~CHD.
– 5.1 –

Lefioff, Doma R., md Syltia M. Be&er. 1989. “Fmfly ad Me&cd Leave Legidation b

the Statw: Townrds a Comprehensive Approach,” Hmvard Jou~l of b~”slation

26403-463.

McLaughlin, Steven D. 1982. “DiffersntiaZ Patterns of Female Labor-Force Pticipation

Sumountig the First Bom/ Journal of Martiage and the Family ,44 407–20.

hcer, Jacob, and S. Polachek. 1974. “F~fly Investments in Hmm Capitnk Etings of

Women,m h Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children and Human Capital, cd., T. W.

Schultz (New York Colombia University Press), pp. 397+29.

Nakmma, Nice, ad Masao Nokamura. w88. New York. The Second Pay Che&.

Academic Press.

OCOmd, Mhk. 1990. “Maternity Lsave fiagementx 1961~5,n h U.S. Bweau of the

Census, Cument Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 165, Work ad Family Patirns of

American Women, Washington, D. C., U.S. Gvement Printtig Office pp. 11–57.

Saddkem, Heabbe. 1993. “SmW Ftis Try to Cmb Impact of Leave Law,- Walz Street

Journal, Auwst 5, B1.

U.S. Bmeau of the Census. 1990. Statistical Abstiad of the United States: 1990. llOtk

Edition, Waiti@n, D.C.
National Lon@tidn~ Smveys (NLS)

DMcWion Paper Seri=

-

01.

02.

03.

05.

Od.

07.

08.

09.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Nomm M. Bmdburn

Mdn R. F-cl

Reginald P. B&er

Michael R. Pergfit

Saul SchwRobeti Hrrtchens

George J*bsmr

Frti L. Mott

PaulaBWer

Lisa M. Lynch.

Evmgelos M. Fdtis

H. Efimbeth Petem

Anne HI1l

Jme E. ONeill

&leen hibowi&

Jacob Mex ~emrm

Unti Wtite

Joseph G. Mtonj

Thomti A. Dunn

~

How the Fdemf Government Uses Dam fmm

the Natimrd hngimdind Suweys

A Comptilon of Computer-Assisted Pemond

Intwiews (CAPI)”witi Paper-ad Pencil hterviews @APD in tie Natimmf hngimtind Smey

of Youth

Dyntic Models of tie Joint Detemdntion of

hbor Supply md Ftiy Smcti

me effwk of UnaplOyment COmWnsatiOn

on the Unemployment of Youth

Evaluating Competig ~mries of Worker

Mob~lty

Evaluation of the 1989 Child-m Supplement

in tie Nationti bn~mti Sumey of Youth

&n&r Difference ti the Qtit Behatior of

Young Workers

The Impwt of Wvae Sectur Trtiting on Rme

md Gendm Wage D1fferentiils md the &eer

Patternsof Young WOrhrs

R=pons= of Fetie bkr Supply md Fetiiity

to the Demo~apMc Cycle

A Study of Inticohmt Chmge in Women’s

Work Patternsmd &ngs

Women’s Employment D*g Regnmcy

md Following BN

Work Experience, Job Tenu% Job Sepxation,

md Wage Gmwtb

Folly Bmkgmund ad Labor M&et Outcomw
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

m.

21.

22.

tige J. Borj=

Stephen G. Bronms

Skphen J. Trejo

Jm= J. Hwhm

S@phen V. Cmemn

Pew Z. Schmhet

me De@tinm@ md Consquenc= of Wbfic

Swtm md Private Swtor Ttirdrrg

Pticipation in bw-Wage bkr Muk@ by

Youg Men

Retirement in a Ftily Context: A Sticti M&l

for Husbmds md Wiva

Trmsitions tim Schml to Work A Smey of

Rm-h Ustig the National hngimdind Smeys

CMsmpher J. Rub Mgb SchWl E~lo~enL Consumption or

hvs~ent

~omd TtiNng A Review of Msting Dam md

Some New Evi&nm

Jacob AJex JGemm