U S C E N S U S B U R E A UHelping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S.Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Maternity Leave andEmployment Patterns: 1961-1995 Household Economic Studies

Issued November 2001

CurrentPopulationReports

ByKristin SmithBarbara DownsMartin O’Connell

P70-79

INTRODUCTION

Over half of American women with a childless than 1 year of age are currently in thelabor force.1 For many women, a child’sbirth signals numerous changes in the dailyschedule at work and at home that both thefamily and employer must confront andresolve. This report examines trends inmaternity leave and employment patternsof women who gave birth to their first childbetween January 1961 and December1995.

The report primarily uses retrospective fer-tility, employment, and maternity leave datafrom the 1996 panel of the Census Bureau’sSurvey of Income and Program Participation(SIPP), conducted in 1996. However, previ-ously published results based on similarlycollected information from the 1984 and1985 SIPP panels are also included.2

The report first discusses changes in char-acteristics of first-time mothers since the1960s that are related to the likelihood ofemployment during pregnancy. Thesechanges are placed in the historical contextof the enactment of family-related legisla-tion over the last quarter-century to betterunderstand major work transformationsthat have occurred in women’s pre- andpost-birth employment experiences.

1Amara Bachu and Martin O'Connell. Fertility ofAmerican Women: June 2000. Current PopulationReports, P20-543. U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC,2001.

2Data shown for 1981 to 1994 were collected in theSIPP 1996 Panel, Wave 2. Data shown for 1961 to 1980was collected in the SIPP 1984 and 1985 panels. Formore information on the previously published report,see Martin O'Connell. "Maternity Leave Arrangements:1961-85," in Work and Family Patterns of AmericanWomen. Current Population Reports, Series P23, No.165.U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1990.

What’s in this Report?

INTRODUCTION

FIRST-TIME MOTHERS ANDFAMILY LEGISLATION SINCETHE 1960sCharacteristics of mothers at firstbirth

Legislation related to employmentand childbearing

EMPLOYMENT HISTORYBEFORE THE FIRST BIRTHOverall trends: 1961-65 to 1991-95

Women who work during firstpregnancy

Duration of work during pregnancy

Working during pregnancy: Whoworks the longest?

MATERNITY LEAVE ARRANGE-MENTSChanges in leave arrangementssince the 1960s

Leave arrangements before andafter first birth

Who receives maternity leave andwho leaves their job?

RETURNING TO WORKTrends since the 1960s

Likelihood of a rapid return to work

Returning to the same or a differentemployer

2 U.S. Census Bureau

Second, the report examines the FIRST-TIME MOTHERS ANDtrends in women’s work experience FAMILY LEGISLATION SINCEprior to their first birth and the fac- THE 1960stors associated with employment Over the time period studied in thisduring pregnancy. Third, it considers report, many social, economic, andthe maternity leave arrangements legislative changes have occurred inwomen use both before and after American society. This sectiontheir first birth and identifies the begins with a summary of the char-shifts that have occurred in the mix acteristics of mothers around theof leave arrangements used by first- time of their first birth and ends withtime mothers. The report concludes a discussion of these societalwith an examination of how rapidly changes.mothers with newborns return towork and the factors related to the Characteristics of motherslength of time absent from the labor at first birthforce in the post-birth period. Two important factors are likely to

shape women’s employment historiesIn addition to updating childbearing,

prior to first birth: their age at theemployment, and maternity leave

time of the birth and their education-trends through the mid-1990s, this

al attainment level. Younger womenreport covers new substantive

are still developing job skills andground. Specifically, it details

often have yet to complete their edu-changes the mother experienced in

cational careers as teenagers or eventhe number of hours worked, pay

by their mid-twenties, the age bylevel, and job skill level after the

which marriage and motherhood fre-birth of the first child relative to the

quently have begun. Women wholast job held before the child was

have delayed childbearing until theirborn. These changes are examined

thirties are more likely to have com-in relation to whether a woman

pleted their schooling and accumulat-returned to the same employer she

ed more years of work experiencehad during pregnancy or changed

prior to their first birth. This experi-employers after the birth of the child.

ence, in turn, may affect their incomelevel and job security and influencetheir decisions about working during

pregnancy and how soon after theirchild’s birth to return to work.

How have these two characteristicschanged over time? Data from theNational Center for Health Statistics(NCHS) show that first-time mother-hood at age 30 and over tripledbetween 1960 and 1995, from 7 per-cent to 22 percent.3 The educationalattainment level of first-time mothershas also increased since 1970, partlybecause older women, who make upan increasing proportion of first-timemothers, have higher education lev-els than younger first-time mothers.In 1970, 10 percent of first-timemothers had 16 or more years ofeducation, compared with 23 percentin 1995.

During this time, increasing propor-tions of women in these older child-bearing age groups—women 25 to34 years old—continued their educa-tion beyond high school.4 The pro-portion of women 25 to 34 years oldwho had completed 4 or more yearsof college increased from 8 percentin 1960 to 12 percent in 1970 andfurther increased to 21 percent by1980. These years closely corre-spond to the development of thewomen’s movement and issues relat-ed to the family and the workingenvironment. By 1995, this propor-tion again increased, but only slightlyto 25 percent. As the age and edu-cational composition of first-timemothers may be related to changesin their workforce behavior, thesetwo indicators will often be exam-ined in the ensuing sections of thisreport.

SIPP FERTILITY, EMPLOYMENT, AND MATERNITY LEAVE DATA

The 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation(SIPP), which was a nationally representative survey of approximately37,000 households, included a fertility module in the second wave ofinterviews conducted in August-November, 1996. Information was col-lected on the birth dates of the first and last children born to all women15 to 64 years old at the time of the survey. Women whose first birthoccurred between 1980 and the survey date were also asked a seriesof questions concerning their employment history before and aftertheir pregnancy, as well as their receipt of maternity leave benefits.Data from this survey were used in combination with similar informa-tion collected in the 1984 and 1985 SIPP panels to provide an extendedseries of employment and maternity leave data between 1961 and1995.

3National Center for Health Statistics. VitalStatistics of the United States, Vol. 1-Natality.U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,DC, annual issues. Data on educational attain-ment of the mother were not published until1969 and only then from a sample of states.

4Jennifer Day and Andrea Curry. EducationalAttainment in the United States: March 1995.Current Population Reports, P20-489. U.S.Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1996, Table 17.

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Legislation related to employ-ment and childbearingIn addition to the changes noted inthe age and educational structure ofmothers, changes in the work envi-ronment related to maternity andemployment issues need to be con-sidered. In the 1960s, a commonexpectation for women was that theywould leave work upon becomingpregnant.5 In 1978, the PregnancyDiscrimination Act was passed whichprohibited employment discrimina-tion on the basis of pregnancy orchildbirth. This act covered hiringand firing policies as well as promo-tions and pay levels. Also at thistime, changes to the federal tax codein 1976 permitted working familieswith a dependent child to take a taxcredit on child care costs. Both theseactions clearly marked the beginningof federal involvement in work-relat-ed issues and concerns of mothers.These laws affected both employ-ment practices during pregnancy andnet child care costs after the childwas born, the latter item stronglyrelated to the affordability of childcare services which would enable amother to return to work.

Job security and flexibility in thework schedule are important con-cerns a mother with a newborn childfaces when deciding when to returnto work. Flexible work schedulesand employment-based child carebenefits became popular employeeissues during the 1980s, just aboutthe time when fertility rates in theUnited States began to increasesteadily, especially among women 30years and older.6 In addition, a land-mark U.S. Supreme Court decision in

5Andrew Cherlin. Marriage, Divorce,Remarriage. Harvard University Press:Massachusetts, 1992.

6David E. Bloom and Jane T. Trahan. FlexibleBenefits and Employee Choice. Pergamon Press:New York, 1986; Martin O'Connell and David E.Bloom. Juggling Jobs and Babies: America'sChild Care Challenge. Population Trends andPublic Policy, No. 12. Population ReferenceBureau: Washington, DC, 1987.

1987, California Federal Savings andLoan Association v. Guerra, upheld aCalifornia law requiring most employ-ers to grant pregnant women 4months of unpaid disability leave andthe right to return to their same job.

The most comprehensive federal actto date relative to maternity leaveand employment policies is theFamily and Medical Leave Act of1993 (FMLA) which mandates up to12 weeks of unpaid leave for child-bearing or family care over a 12-month period for eligible employees.Eligible employees are defined asthose who worked for at least 1 yearfor their current employer, and whoworked for at least 1,250 hours dur-ing the previous 12 months, andwho worked for a business employ-ing 50 or more employees. Forwomen who are employed part timeor work in small businesses forwhich the FMLA does not apply, boththe families and employers are facedwith a dilemma: how to reconcile themedical and emotional needs of themother and infant with the require-ments of the employer and the finan-cial needs of the family.

Another noteworthy change over thistime period is the increased impor-tance of a second income to thehousehold’s overall economic well-being. Stagnant men’s wages cou-pled with rapidly rising housingprices and the prices of other goodsbeginning in the 1970s and continu-ing into the 1980s translated intoboth spouses working outside thehome.7 To remain in the middleclass, mothers were increasinglycalled upon to remain in the workforce.

It is important to interpret the notedchanges in the age and educationalstructure of mothers with infants inconjunction with the historical back-

7Frank Levy. Dollars and Dreams: TheChanging American Income Distribution.Russel Sage Foundation: New York, 1987.

ground of the women’s movement,and the legislative and economicchanges of the 1970s and 1980s.While the demographic factors mayhave changed the normative balancebetween work and family life formothers, the legal, economic, andcultural changes in this period werealso important and may have fos-tered a working environment for thisBaby Boom generation of womenthat was quite different from that oftheir mothers.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORYBEFORE THE FIRST BIRTH

This section starts with a descriptionof overall trends in women’s employ-ment histories from 1961-65 to1991-95 and then describes the char-acteristics of women who work dur-ing their first pregnancy.

Overall trends: 1961-65 to1991-95 Over the years, the disparity betweenthe percentage of women who everworked before becoming mothersand the percentage working whilepregnant with their first child (here-after referred to as “pregnant” or“pregnancy”) has diminished.8

Figure 1 shows that the percentageof women who have ever worked for6 or more consecutive months9

increased from 60 percent in 1961-65 to 74 percent in 1991-95.10

Only 44 percent of women workedduring their pregnancy in 1961-65but by 1991-95 the threshold had

8For the remainder of this report, the term"pregnancy" is used to refer to the pregnancypreceding the first birth to facilitate reader com-prehension, although a woman's first pregnan-cy may not result in her first birth.

9Working for 6 consecutive months is astandard labor force indicator which measuresthe likelihood of a serious commitment to thelabor force.

10The estimates in this report are based onresponses from a sample of the population.As with all surveys, estimates may vary fromthe actual (population) because of samplingvariation, or other factors. All statementsmade in this report have undergone statisticaltesting and meet Census Bureau standards forstatistical accuracy.

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Women Who Ever Worked for Pay Continuously for6 or More Months Before Their First Birth, and WhoWorked During Pregnancy: 1961-65 to 1991-95(Percent)

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ever worked

Worked full time during pregnancy

Worked part time during pregnancy

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

Worked during pregnancy

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

Year of first birth

risen considerably, as 67 percentworked while pregnant.

Most of the gains in these indicatorswere made by the 1976-80 period,about the time that the PregnancyDiscrimination Act was passed.Although we cannot disentangle theeffects of social change and legisla-tion, it is important to note thatthese social and legislative changesoccurred at roughly the same pointin time. Between 1976-80 and 1991-95, the proportion of womenwho had ever worked for 6 or moreconsecutive months ranged between74 percent and 75 percent, while theproportion who worked during preg-nancy increased by 5 percentagepoints. In comparison, both thesemeasures increased — by 13 per-centage points and 17 percentagepoints, respectively — between the1961-65 and 1976-80 periods (seeTable A).11

11In contrast, overall labor force participa-tion rates for women, regardless of pregnancystatus, progressed more smoothly for theseperiods: 32 percent in 1960, 43 percent in1970, 52 percent in 1980, and 58 percent in1990 (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website at www.bls.gov/pdf/cpsaat2.pdf).

As previously mentioned, age andeducational level strongly influencethe likelihood of entering the laborforce. Table B presents, for the most

recent period, the percentage ofwomen employed for at least 6 con-secutive months at any time beforethe birth of their first child, by age.The likelihood of working rises rapid-ly with age. By ages 25 to 29,approximately 9 out of 10 womenwho had a first birth in 1991-95 hadworked for at least 6 consecutivemonths.

Table B also shows this proportion byeducational attainment level forwomen 25 years and over, an agewhen most women are old enoughto have graduated from high schoolor have attended or graduated fromcollege. Clearly, educational back-ground and attendant job skills aresignificantly related to the likelihoodof working before the first birth.Significant differences in employmentexperience occur between thosemothers who did not graduate fromhigh school and those with moreeducation. No significant differenceswere found in employment rates

Table A.Employment History Before First Birth:1961-65 to 1991-95(In thousands)

Ever worked 2Worked during pregnancyNumber of 6 or moreYear of first birth women with monthsfirst births continuously1 Total Full time Part time

1991-95 . . . . . . . . . . 8,599 73.8 66.8 54.5 12.2(72.5-75.1) (65.4-68.2) (53.0-56.0) (11.2-13.2)

1986-90 . . . . . . . . . . 8,568 75.5 67.2 58.3 8.9(74.2-76.8) (65.8-68.6) (56.8-59.8) (8.0-9.8)

1981-85 . . . . . . . . . . 8,306 73.4 62.0 55.3 6.7(72.0-74.8) (60.5-63.5) (53.8-56.8) (5.9-7.5)

1976-80 . . . . . . . . . . 7,192 73.1 61.4 53.1 8.3(71.4-74.8) (59.5-63.3) (51.2-55.0) (7.2-9.4)

1971-75 . . . . . . . . . . 6,920 68.9 53.5 47.6 5.9(67.1-70.7) (51.6-55.4) (45.6-49.6) (5.0-6.8)

1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 6,956 66.4 49.4 44.2 5.2(64.6-68.2) (47.5-51.3) (42.3-46.1) (4.3-6.1)

1961-65 . . . . . . . . . . 6,306 60.0 44.4 39.7 4.7(58.0-62.0) (42.4-46.4) (37.7-41.7) (3.8-5.6)

1At any time before first birth.2Full-time/part-time status refers to last job held before first child’s birth.

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

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Tables Cand B-2, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table B.Women Who Ever Worked for Pay Continuously for 6 orMore Months Before Their First Birth: 1991-951

Characteristic Number ofwomen with

first births

Number ofwomen whoworked 6 or

more months

Percent ofwomen whoworked 6 or

more months

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

Age at first birthLess than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 years or older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Edcuational attainment2

Less than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

8,599

8141,2231,1481,5432,0241,847

184781

1,1841,721

6,345

218638752

1,2361,7981,703

103675

1,0931,630

73.8

26.852.265.580.188.992.2

56.186.492.394.7

1Includes work at any time before the first birth, regardless of whether a woman workedduring the pregnancy.

2Limited to women age 25 and over at the time of first birth.

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

among college-educated mothers by Women who work duringwhether they had completed college. first pregnancy

In 1991-95, the majority of women Table C summarizes the trends inwho worked during pregnancy women’s work experience duringworked at full-time jobs (35 hours or pregnancy since the early 1960s.more per week; see Table A). The With one exception (1966-70), moth-proportion of women working full ers under age 18 and age 18 and 19time during pregnancy increased had consistently lower rates offrom the 1960s to the 1980s, and employment compared with womendeclined slightly in the early 1990s. 25 to 29 years old and 30 years oldHowever, there was an increase in and over. Of course, many youngerpart-time work in the 1990s. mothers had not finished school andWhether this relative shift from full to would not be expected to favorablypart-time work is a function of the compete in the job market, even iftype of work available or women’s they were not pregnant. desires to minimize work hours out-

Differences in employment ratesside the home cannot be discernedbetween age groups also increased.from the data. However, subsequentSince 1961-65, employment ratessections of this report will show theincreased from 29 percent to 46 per-importance of the number of hourscent for mothers 18 and 19 yearsworked while pregnant and theold, and from 54 percent to about amount of leave taken from the84 percent for mothers 25 to 29workforce around the time of theyears old. Again, it should be notedfirst birth in determining the type ofthat the greatest increases in employ-maternity benefits received.ment for women 25 years and overoccurred in the first 20-year segmentshown in the table (1961-65 to 1976-

80) rather than in the second 15-yearsegment since the 1980s.

Since 1961-65, White women havebeen most likely to have worked dur-ing their first pregnancy.12 Asian andPacific Islander women haveincreased their employment ratesduring their pregnancy since 1981-85, the first year with data for analy-sis. Hispanics and Blacks haveremained at fairly constant levelssince 1981-85, although Blackwomen have experienced significantincreases in employment rates since1961-65.

Figure 2 shows for the most recentbirth period, 1991-95, employmentrates by age and race and ethnicityof the mother. Among women whohad their first child between 1991and 1995, White non-Hispanicwomen, regardless of age, weremore likely to work while pregnantthan either Black women or Hispanicwomen. Among mothers under age18, Black women and Hispanicwomen were equally likely to haveworked during pregnancy (about 17 percent). After age 22, Blackwomen were more likely to haveworked during their pregnancy thanHispanic women. It is interesting tonote that the large differences thatexisted between White non-Hispanicwomen and Black women betweenthe ages 18 and 19 (about 18 per-centage points) were considerablyless for older age groups (about 8 percent for ages 22 to 24 and 25and over). It may be that womenwho delay childbearing do so becausethey are employed, and are thereforemore likely to be in the labor force atthe time of their pregnancy.

12Categories are not exclusive. Blacks maybe Hispanic. Hispanics are of any race. Datafor the American Indian and Alaska Native pop-ulation are not shown in this report because oftheir small sample size in the Survey of Incomeand Program Participation (SIPP) in the 1996Panel. Based on the 1996 SIPP Panel, Wave 2maternity leave data, 6 percent of the Blackpopulation and 6 percent of the Asian andPacific Islander population are also of Hispanicorigin.

6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table C.Women Who Worked During Pregnancy by Selected Characteristics:1961-65 to 1991-95(Percent working in specific category)

CharacteristicYear of first birth

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

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

Age at first birthLess than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 and 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 and 21 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicityWhite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian and Pacific Islander. . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Timing of first birth1

Before first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .After first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainmentLess than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree . . . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . .

66.8

20.545.757.770.583.685.1

70.375.650.458.4

44.0

50.774.581.5

28.660.275.587.1

67.2

29.344.760.672.778.383.0

70.376.353.262.0

39.0

53.273.073.7

35.461.674.285.2

62.0

18.542.657.869.977.774.1

65.268.449.243.6

42.6

46.666.675.4

30.657.369.679.0

61.4

23.540.857.473.181.174.0

65.5(NA)40.5(NA)

(NA)

41.767.569.4

28.261.072.581.8

53.5

25.138.357.466.673.160.7

57.0(NA)39.8(NA)

(NA)

42.056.967.9

25.653.762.677.0

49.4

19.140.150.861.466.244.3

51.6(NA)37.9(NA)

(NA)

42.950.658.3

26.050.257.867.0

44.4

25.029.249.456.854.451.9

46.7(NA)32.2(NA)

(NA)

36.746.540.7

21.848.851.562.9

NA Data not available for these years.

1Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first birthsoutside or within second or subsequent marriages.

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

A mother’s educational level is alsoassociated with the probability thatshe will work during her first preg-nancy. Table C shows that in 1991-95, women with college degreeswere much more likely to work dur-ing pregnancy (87 percent) than werewomen with less than a high schooldiploma (29 percent) or women whohad just graduated high school (60 percent). Women with more edu-cation may have jobs more con-ducive to accommodating pregnancy.For example, they may be more like-ly to sit during the day, not engagein manual labor or be exposed tohazardous materials or conditions,and may have rest facilities available.Their schedules may also be moreflexible, allowing for ease of schedul-

ing medical appointments, or latearrivals/early departures.

Since 1966-70, women who hadtheir first child before their first mar-riage were least likely to haveworked while pregnant, while thosewho had their first child after theirfirst marriage ended were more likelyto have worked while pregnant.13

Women who have their first childprior to marriage are generallyyounger and more likely to be of aminority race or ethnic group, andthus to have lower levels of educa-tion and labor market experience or

13Discussion of estimates for 1966-70 to1976-80 is on page 14 of "Maternity LeaveArrangements: 1961-85," by Martin O'Connell,in Work and Family Patterns of AmericanWomen. Current Population Reports, Series P23,No.165. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC,1990.

skills. Women who have their firstbirth within or after their first mar-riage are more likely to be older andalready in the labor force at the timethey become pregnant. As will beshown, after statistically controllingfor the effect of these variables—age,education, and race—the marital sta-tus of the mother at the time of herfirst birth has very little relationshipto the likelihood of her working dur-ing pregnancy.

In general, the changing age andeducational composition of motherssince the 1960s has shifted to thosegroups who are also more likely tohave either a prior work historybefore first birth or are more likely towork while pregnant—namely, olderand more educated women.

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Duration of work duringpregnancyIn 1961-65, 13 percent of womenwho worked during pregnancyreported they stopped working dur-ing their first trimester (6 or moremonths before the birth), and only23 percent worked until less than 1 month before the birth of their firstchild (see Table D). A key transitionoccurred between 1971-75 and1981-85 when the percentage ofwomen who left work in their firsttrimester declined from 13 percent to5 percent while the proportion work-ing within 1 month of their child’sbirth jumped from 27 percent to 53 percent. Since 1981-85, thosepercentages have varied only by 2 percentage points for either indica-tor.14

Since 1981-85, the percentage ofpregnant women who worked full

14It is interesting to note that of the 53 per-cent of women who worked within 1 month oftheir child's birth in 1991-95, about one-half ofthese women (27 percent) reported that theyhad never stopped working during their preg-nancy.

time has declined slightly from 89 percent to 82 percent.15 Perhapsthe composition of available workhas changed, making part-time workincreasingly available. On the otherhand, women with more labor forceexperience or education may nowhave the skills or seniority todemand part-time work while preg-nant, more than they did in the past.This change may be tied to the shiftin age structure of women at firstbirth, to older ages since 1961.

The bottom panel of Table D showsthat in the early 1960s there was lit-tle variation in the proportion ofwomen who were full-time workersby the month they stopped workingin their pregnancy. Among womenwho had their first birth in 1961-65,about 9 out of 10 women worked atfull-time jobs, regardless of whenthey stopped working. With theexception of 1976-80, for all subse-quent periods, women who left theirjobs in their first trimester of their

15Bureau of Labor Statistics data show thatthe percentage of employed workers workingpart time increased over the 1970s and 1980s,and then began to decrease in the late 1990s.

pregnancy were less likely to be full-time workers than women whoworked within a month of the birthof their child. In 1961-65, 88 percentof women who stopped working intheir first trimester were full time,not different from the percentage forwomen who worked until 1 monthbefore their child’s birth. In 1991-95,89 percent of women who workedwithin one month of their child’sbirth worked full time compared with72 percent of women who stoppedworking in their first trimester. Ingeneral, Table D suggests thatwomen who expressed the mostcommitment to their jobs, the full-time workers, remained at work untilthey became mothers.

Working during pregnancy:Who works the longest? As shown previously, women withmore years of schooling are morelikely to be employed during theirpregnancy, reflecting both their jobskills and educational training gear-ing them towards employment afterschool. The previous report in thisseries noted that in the early 1960s,women who worked longer into theirpregnancy were those in need ofmore financial assistance, especiallyhigh school dropouts who may havehad low paying jobs.16 However, dur-ing the 1980s and 1990s, college-educated women began to work intothe last trimester of their pregnancymore often than women with lessthan a high school education (seeFigure 3). The earlier report suggest-ed that women in the 1980s mayhave begun to work longer into theirpregnancy for reasons other thanimmediate financial needs, perhapsviewing their jobs from a long-termperspective such as subsequent jobopportunities with their employerafter the birth of their child. Thiscurrent report corroborates this find-ing.

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

Figure 2.

Women Who Worked During Pregnancy by Age atFirst Birth and Race and Ethnicity: 1991-95

(Percent)

2 54

55 32

30

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

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

Age at first birth

25

17 16

55

3631

65

4740

77

69

45

89

81

66

White non-HispanicBlackHispanic (of any race)

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3 shows that this pattern has encouraged to stay as long at workcontinued since the 1980s. By as possible. 1991-95, 90 percent of college grad-

For the most recent study period,uates who had worked during their

1991-95, Table E presents data forpregnancy were employed at least

different socioeconomic groups onuntil their last trimester (less than 3

their likelihood of working during dif-months before their child’s birth)

ferent stages of pregnancy. Becausecompared with 62 percent of women

the characteristics shown in Table Ewho had not graduated from high

are closely related to each other—forschool. In fact, Table E shows for the

example, younger women also tendmost recent 5-year period of births

to be less educated—a multivariate(1991-95), a much higher proportion

analysis was used to ascertain theof college graduates had worked dur-

independent effects of each of theing the last month of pregnancy

listed variables on the likelihood of(64 percent) as did women with less

working during pregnancy, statistical-than a high school education (35 per-

ly controlling for each of the othercent). The changing relationship of

factors. For each of the time inter-educational attainment and work

vals shown in Table E, two columnsduring pregnancy is perhaps related

are shown: the “Percent” columnsto the changing composition of the

show the simple percentage ofU.S. workforce. As more women

women working, while the “Oddsenter the workforce, highly educated

ratio” columns show the likelihood ofemployees may be more valued and

a woman with that characteristicrewarded by their employer and

working in that time interval relative

to a woman in the reference catego-ry. It is this latter column that indi-cates the relationship between thecharacteristic and the likelihood ofworking, after taking into accountthe other variables in the analysis.17

In general, women most likely towork late into their pregnancy arefull-time workers, older women, andwomen with more years of school-ing. Table E shows percentages andodds ratios predicting the likelihoodof working during different stages ofpregnancy. Working at a full-time jobduring pregnancy is strongly associ-ated with the likelihood of workingin both the last trimester and the lastmonth of pregnancy. After statistical-ly controlling for the effects of other

17An odds ratio of 1.0 indicates that awoman with this characteristic is as likely to beworking as a woman with the specified refer-ence or comparison characteristic. Ratios under1.0 or over 1.0 indicate that a woman is lesslikely or more likely to work, respectively.

Table D.Women Who Worked During Pregnancy: 1961-65 to 1991-95(In thousands)

CharacteristicYear of first birth

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

Number of women with first births. . . . . . .Number of women working during first

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

Percent distribution of women bynumber of months before first birththey stopped working1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent working full time2 beforefirst birth

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .By number of months before first birth

they stopped working:1

Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 to 5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,599

5,740

100.052.620.3

9.011.07.1

81.7

89.078.771.266.272.4

8,568

5,758

100.054.820.9

9.110.0

5.2

86.7

91.087.582.173.472.0

8,306

5,147

100.052.721.010.710.2

5.4

89.2

92.190.688.475.783.1

7,192

4,414

100.040.918.014.718.6

7.7

86.6

89.190.884.579.883.2

6,920

3,700

100.027.116.020.922.913.1

88.9

89.991.593.786.980.0

6,956

3,435

100.026.213.218.328.413.9

89.5

91.891.690.088.585.1

6,306

2,797

100.022.711.917.135.412.9

89.5

88.291.986.291.887.5

1Among women who worked while pregnant.2Full time employment status refers to last job held before birth of first child.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, TableBureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

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

U.S. Census Bureau 9

factors, women who worked full time works at all during her first pregnan-at their last job during pregnancy cy, with White non-Hispanic womenwere about two times as likely to being more likely to work than otherwork until the last trimester and two groups. However, there were no dif-and a half times as likely to work ferences by race in the proportionsuntil the end of their pregnancies of women working until late in theirthan part-time workers. pregnancies.

Likewise, women who were older at Similarly, although women who hadthe time of their first birth were more a child before their first marriagelikely to work during pregnancy and appear to be the least likely group ofalso later in pregnancy than their women to work either during preg-younger counterparts. Older women nancy or late into their pregnancy,may have more permanent jobs that these differences are minimized byenable or require them to maintain controlling for the other factors. involvement in their work until close

For all of the intervals shown in to the time their child is born. The

Table E, educational attainment clear-odds that pregnant women age 25 or

ly maintains a significant relationshipolder at their first birth were working

with working during pregnancy.in the last trimester of pregnancy,

More highly educated women maywas about twice that of teenagers.

be in career positions that require aHowever, there were no statistically

greater show of commitment thansignificant differences by age in the

the jobs of women with fewer yearslikelihood of working in the last

of school completed. Only 35 per-month of pregnancy, after controlling

cent of women who had failed tofor other factors in the statistical

complete high school worked in theirmodel.

last month of pregnancy comparedRace and ethnicity are significantly with 64 percent of pregnant workersassociated with whether a woman with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Other factors in the statistical modeldid not diminish this pattern.

The data suggest that working dur-ing pregnancy is closely associatedwith job commitment and skill levelof the worker. Women who areemployed at full-time jobs and who,by the nature of their level of educa-tional attainment, are employed atmore highly skilled jobs, maintaintheir ties to the labor force for themajority of the months of their preg-nancy. As will be shown, employ-ment history is closely related to thetypes of maternity benefits receivedand the rapidity of returning to workafter childbirth.

MATERNITY LEAVEARRANGEMENTS

This section first provides anoverview of the changes in maternityleave arrangements since the 1960s.Next, it discusses leave arrange-ments women use before and afterthe birth of their first child, and endswith a comparison of women whotake maternity leave and return towork with women who quit workingwhen they have their first child.

Changes in leave arrange-ments since the 1960sPeriods of maternity leave are impor-tant for families as infants requireconsiderable care and mothers needtime to recover from pregnancy andchildbirth. Businesses also benefitfrom offering maternity leave (bothpaid and unpaid) if it leads to greaterjob retention, because they can avoidthe time and financial costs of find-ing and training new employees.18

Because there is no consistent formalstructure for maternity leave in theUnited States, women must oftenindividually patch together a plan ofboth paid and unpaid leave, the sumtotal of which may or may not be

18Commission on Family and Medical Leave.A Workable Balance: Report to Congress onFamily and Medical Leave Policies. U.S.Department of Labor: Washington, DC, 1996.

(Percent)

2 54

32

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bachelor's degree or more

Less than high school

High school graduate

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

Some college, no degree

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Table B-7, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Year of first birth

Figure 3.

Women Who Worked in the Last Trimester ofPregnancy by Education Level: 1961-65 to 1991-95(Among women who worked during pregancy)

10 U.S. Census Bureau

satisfactory to them. Thus, materni- worked during their pregnancy. In Simultaneously, an equally importantty leave in the United States is a com- the early 1960s, 63 percent of preg- increase has occurred in the use ofmon occurrence, yet hardly a uni- nant working women quit their job paid and unpaid maternity leave. Inform experience. around the time of first child’s birth. the early 1960s, the use of paid leave

This percentage decreased to 27 per- arrangements was reported by 16Table F shows the overall changes

cent by the late 1980s, where it percent of women who worked dur-since the 1960s in the type of leave

seems to have recently stabilized. ing pregnancy. However, by the latearrangements used by women who

1980s and the early 1990s, larger

Table E.Work History During Pregnancy by Selected Characteristics: 1991-95

Characteristic

Among women who worked atall during pregnancy

Among women who worked1last trimester of pregnancy

Among women who worked last1month of pregnancy

Percent Odds ratio Percent Odds ratio Percent Odds ratio

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

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

Employment status at last jobFull time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birthLess than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicity2

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

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

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

White, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timing of first birth3

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainmentLess than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

Unweighted N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .chi-square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .degrees of freedom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66.8

5,740

54.512.2

20.545.757.770.583.685.1

70.375.650.458.4

44.0

(X)(X)(X)(X)

50.774.581.5

28.660.275.587.1

(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NI)(NI)

1.00*2.58*3.55*5.70

*10.76*10.68

(X)(X)(X)(X)

(X)

1.00*0.53*0.32*0.39

1.000.940.85

1.00*2.25*3.86*4.47

2935766.97

13

81.9

4,699

84.769.1

63.869.367.982.086.988.7

81.982.379.587.0

78.2

(X)(X)(X)(X)

76.384.082.7

62.377.382.189.7

(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

*1.971.00

1.000.960.771.53

*2.03*2.27

(X)(X)(X)(X)

(X)

1.000.951.351.00

1.000.86

*0.59

1.00*1.88*2.27*3.04

1910137.91

14

52.6

3,019

57.331.5

37.334.841.749.359.260.3

52.552.953.551.8

49.3

(X)(X)(X)(X)

44.855.652.9

35.245.950.664.4

(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

*2.481.00

1.000.690.770.921.211.17

(X)(X)(X)(X)

(X)

1.001.190.891.05

1.001.040.80

1.001.49

*1.65*2.41

1910139.99

14

* Significant at the 90-percent confidence level.NA Not applicable.NI Not included because employment status at job held during pregnancy was omitted from the logistic regression predicting employ-

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

1Among women who worked while pregnant.2Mutually exclusive race categories shown for logistic regression only.3Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages.

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165, Table B-7, and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau,Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

U.S. Census Bureau 11

proportions of pregnant working No more than 5 percent of pregnantwomen used paid maternity leave women were let go from their job(43 percent). The use of unpaid over the entire study period. The useleave increased in a similar manner. of disability leave increased from 6Of the 5.7 million women who percent in the early 1980s to 11 per-worked during pregnancy, only a cent in the early 1990s (disabilitysmall percentage (14 percent) used leave data were not specifically col-both paid and unpaid leave in lected in earlier periods but may1991-95. have been reported in the other

types of paid or unpaid leavearrangements).

These trends are likely related toother changes in the lives ofAmerican women over this sametime period. Women are havingbirths at later ages and are more like-ly to be college graduates, trendswhich translate into greater workexperience before first birth andstronger commitment to the laborforce. Employers, more than ever,may perceive women as integral totheir work force and may be morelikely to offer maternity leave as ajob benefit when they weigh thecosts of finding and training a newemployee against a short leave ofabsence.

Leave arrangements beforeand after the first birthTable G provides a detailed picture ofmaternity leave arrangements usedby employed women—both beforeand after their child’s birth—who hadtheir first birth in 1991-95.

In general, women are more likely toquit their job before the birth of theirchild (23 percent) than wait untilafter their child is born (4 percent).On the other hand, both paid and

MATERNITY LEAVE ARRANGEMENTSIn the 1996 SIPP panel, two separate questions on maternity leave wereasked of every woman who worked during pregnancy. The first ques-tion concerned arrangements used between the time she stoppedworking and when the child was born, while the second questionasked about the arrangements used between the child's birth and up to12 weeks after the child was born. The 1984 and 1985 SIPP panelsasked only one question about arrangements used at any time duringpregnancy or up to 6 weeks after the child was born.

In both surveys, women who reported that they had never stoppedworking before the child's birth were not asked about arrangementsused prior to the child's birth but were asked about any arrangementsused after the child was born. Respondents in the surveys wereallowed to report as many arrangements as they used (in the 1996panel, 6 percent and 11 percent of women provided multiple answersto the questions on maternity leave before and after birth, respective-ly). The most important addition to the list of leave arrangements inthe 1996 panel was the inclusion of "disability leave," which may havebeen conceptually included as responses in either the paid or unpaidleave categories in the prior SIPP panels.

Table F.Leave Arrangements Used by Women Who Worked During Pregnancy: 1961-1965 to1991-95

Type of leaveYear of first birth

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

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

Leave arrangements used (inpercent)1

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

3Unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Disability leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Let go from job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,740

26.942.740.311.24.2

5,758

26.543.341.07.52.3

5,147

35.737.333.76.33.5

4,414

41.334.020.2(NA)

4.9

3,700

51.123.420.8(NA)

4.6

3,435

58.918.317.6(NA)

4.2

2,797

62.816.014.1(NA)

5.0

NA Data not available for these years.

1Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leave arrangements may have been used before or up to 12weeks after the birth for periods 1981-85 to 1991-95 and before or up to 6 weeks after the birth for periods 1961-65 to 1976-80.

2Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.3Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.

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

12 U.S. Census Bureau

unpaid leave respectively are more A sizable proportion of women takelikely to be used after the child’s birth “maternity leave” either before orthan during pregnancy. The same after their child is born, with morepattern holds true for use of disabili- mentioning that this leave wasty leave: 5 percent of pregnant unpaid (35 percent) than paid women use this type of benefit when (31 percent). Sick or vacation leave,pregnant, while 9 percent of mothers however, is more likely to be paiduse it after the child is born. This than unpaid. Furthermore, this paidsuggests that women may use a sick or vacation leave is used more“save it up” strategy by working as frequently after the birth than beforelong as possible into their pregnancy the birth of their first child. and then taking their leave after their

Over the time period 1981-85 tochild’s birth. Another leave taking

1991-95, there was an increase instrategy that women use is to com-

the use of both paid and unpaidbine different types of leave.

leave arrangements after the child’sSeparate analysis shows that in

birth (data not shown for the 1980s).1991-95, 6 percent of women com-

Use of paid leave after the child’sbined one or more types of leave

birth increased from 32 percent inarrangements (i.e., quit, paid, unpaid,

1981-85 to 36 percent in 1991-95,or disability leave) before their child’s

while use of unpaid leave increasedbirth while 11 percent combined

from 30 percent to 37 percent overleave arrangements after their child’s

the same time period. This maybirth.

reflect an increased effort on the partof employers to accommodate

women’s childbearing by offeringpaid or unpaid maternity leave andholding their job for them. It mayalso reflect increased compliancewith the various legislative and judi-cial rulings established during thatperiod or the family’s increasedreliance on mother’s wages for finan-cial well-being.

Who receives maternityleave and who leaves theirjob?Younger women in 1991-95 weremore likely to quit their jobs thanwere women who had their firstchild at older ages (see Table H).More than twice as many women (44 percent) who had their birthbefore age 22 quit their jobs in1991-1995, compared with womenwho had their first child at age 25 orolder (19 percent).19 Part-time work-ers were also more likely to quittheir jobs (53 percent) than full-timeworkers (21 percent).

Older women were more likely toreceive paid maternity benefits. Theproportion of women using paidleave for their first birth increasessteadily with age, from only 7 per-cent of women whose age at firstbirth was less than 18 years old, to59 percent among those who hadtheir birth at age 30 or older. It islikely that the greater labor forceexperience and job security enjoyedby older women translates into bet-ter benefits when interrupting theirjob to have a baby.

Employment characteristics areimportant factors associated with thetype of leave arrangements womenuse for the birth of their first child.Full-time workers were more likely toobtain paid leave benefits than part-time workers. Women who worked

19 This statement and other statements inthis section based on Table H were also statisti-cally significant when a multivariate analysiswas performed controlling for other characteris-tics shown in the table. The results of thisanalysis are available in the detailed tablesaccompanying this report on the Internet.

Table G.Detailed Leave Arrangements Used by Women WhoWorked During Pregnancy: 1991-95(In percent)

Type of leaveTotal

Leave taken

Before birth After birth

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

Leave arrangements used (in percent)1

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

Maternity leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sick leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacation leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other paid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3Unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maternity leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sick leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacation leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disability leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Employer went out of business. . . . . . . . .Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

5,740

26.942.730.710.611.31.5

40.334.8

2.72.13.4

11.26.41.00.64.84.2

5,740

22.824.318.4

4.23.50.8

19.716.9

1.21.00.84.92.80.30.42.03.6

5,740

4.135.924.7

8.89.71.0

36.731.0

2.01.53.09.44.70.90.13.73.2

1Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leavearrangements in the total column may have been used before or after the birth, and areonly counted once if used at both times.

2Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.3Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.

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

U.S. Census Bureau 13

into the last month of pregnancy at all for the remainder of their preg- Increasing levels of education appearwere more likely to obtain paid leave nancy. to go hand-in-hand with increases inbenefits than those who left work the use and perhaps the availability

While no other job-related character-earlier in their pregnancy. Very few of paid maternity benefits. Sixty-

istics of the mother while pregnantwomen who worked until their last three percent of women with a bach-

were collected from this survey, edu-month of pregnancy were let go from elor’s degree or more used paid ben-

cational attainment at the time of thetheir job (only 1 percent). However, efits, compared with 18 percent of

interview may be a good proxy for13 percent of women who left in women who had less than a high

the type of job one holds, the wagetheir first trimester were let go from school education. In addition, these

one earns, and in turn, the type oftheir job and did not return to work highly educated women were less

maternity leave benefits offered.likely to use unpaid leave surround-

Table H.Type of Leave Arrangements Used by Women Who Worked During Their Pregnancy:1991-95(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic Number ofwomen

Percent of women using specified leave arrangement

Unpaid Disability1 2Quit job Paid leave leave leave

Let gofrom job

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

Employment status at last jobFull time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Month stopped working before birthLess than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 to 5 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birthLess than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicityWhite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Timing of first birth3

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainmentLess than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,740

4,6881,052

3,0191,167

514631409

166559662

1,0871,6921,573

4,8714,332

631199

568

1,4893,826

424

3631,5352,0881,754

26.9

21.053.4

13.823.645.859.758.4

49.143.043.629.621.216.1

27.526.522.421.5

34.1

33.925.118.7

46.332.226.119.2

42.7

48.616.3

54.744.728.712.212.7

7.215.919.236.652.659.4

43.244.635.749.2

32.4

23.848.358.4

18.229.140.162.7

40.3

41.335.8

43.545.933.830.024.9

35.943.741.039.440.240.0

40.140.243.338.2

39.7

44.239.237.2

47.141.643.034.6

11.2

12.26.7

10.313.316.411.54.6

6.48.95.98.6

13.613.8

11.110.710.815.7

14.3

9.011.614.8

9.310.110.213.7

4.2

4.62.5

1.24.46.4

10.713.3

6.67.76.84.82.53.0

3.84.08.21.4

4.0

7.43.04.0

6.25.74.71.9

1Paid leave includes all paid maternity, sick, vacation, and other paid leave.2Unpaid leave includes all unpaid maternity, sick, vacation, and other unpaid leave.3Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first births

outside or within second or subsequent marriages.

Note: Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answers. Leave arrangements may have been used before or upto 12 weeks after the birth.

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

14 U.S. Census Bureau

ing the birth of their first child (35 percent) compared with womenwith less than a high school educa-tion (47 percent).

The striking relation between educa-tional level and use of paid maternityleave is a relatively new trend thatbegan in the early 1970s and thathad intensified by the 1990s. Figure 4 shows that in the early1960s, the use of paid maternityleave did not differ depending oneducational level. Over time, the per-centage receiving paid leave amongwomen who were not high schoolgraduates has remained steady atroughly 18 percent. However, therehas been a distinct rise in the use ofpaid maternity leave among womenwith higher levels of education sincethe 1960s.

Over this same period, women haveincreasingly acquired more years ofschooling and entered the labor forceat unprecedented levels. Their ageat first birth has risen, and they worklonger into their pregnancy and havedone so in a period when family-friendly legislation has providedmore job security during pregnancy.All of these factors contribute to agreater commitment to the laborforce. The combination of thesechanges in American society helpsexplain the simultaneous declines injob quitting during pregnancy andthe increases noted in the receipt ofboth paid and unpaid maternityleave.

RETURNING TO WORK

Juggling work and family activitiesoften becomes difficult after the birthof a child. This section looks at howrapidly women begin working afterthe birth of their first child. Overalltrends since the 1960s will be exam-ined first. The next subsection willlook at the characteristics of womenwho return most rapidly to work.Finally, new data from the 1996 SIPPpanel will be examined to determine

which women are most likely to Among those who returned to workreturn to their same employer after by the 12th month after childbirth,their child’s birth and the types of most had returned by the 3rd month.changes that have occurred in their In 1991-94, over half had returnedjobs. by 3 months after the first birth and

over three-fourths were working byTrends since the 1960s

the 6th month.Table I shows the cumulative month-ly percent of women working after Figure 5 clearly illustrates the rela-

the birth of their first child. In the tionship between work experience

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

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

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

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

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

17 percent by the 12th month. who did not work during their preg-

These percentages more than dou- nancy. For example, 57 percent of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12th month. during their pregnancy and 17 per-cent of women who did not were

If a woman decides to return to work employed. These differences byduring the first year of her child’s life, prior employment history are notedshe will probably return earlier rather for each time period (see second andthan later in the child’s infancy. third panels of data in Table I). This

Figure 4.

Women Who Received Paid Leave for Their FirstBirth by Educational Attainment, Selected Years:1961-65 to 1991-95(Percent)

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

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

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table B-9 and this report, P70-79, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Year of first birth

1916 16 14

1822

26 27

19

32

39

47

18

40

29

Less than high schoolHigh school graduateSome college, no degreeBachelor's degree or more

63

U.S. Census Bureau 15

finding suggests that the entry rate one-third of all mothers), had com- birth, 3 to 5 months after birth, or 6for those women not employed dur- paratively lower post-birth employ- to 11 months after the child’s birth.ing their pregnancy is slower due to ment rates than mothers who

For the first group, all mothers, thethe time and energy involved in the worked during pregnancy. To exam-

characteristics of those women whosearch for a new job. It may also be ine the relationship between specific

return to work quickly after theirthat they reflect a more selective job characteristics of women who

child’s birth are similar to those whogroup of women who have decided worked during pregnancy—for exam-

worked during their pregnancy.to remain out of the labor force both ple, hours worked and leave bene-

Women who are older are more likelybefore and after pregnancy to devote fits—and when they returned to

to return to work both within 3more time solely to family-raising work, data are shown in Table J in

months and 3 to 5 months afteractivities. two ways: first, for all mothers and

childbirth than younger women (seethen only for mothers who worked

Likelihood of a Rapid Table J). Those who have attainedduring pregnancy. Employment rates

Return to Work high levels of education are moreare also shown for three different

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

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

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

Table I.Women Working at a Job by Monthly Interval After First Birth: 1961-65 to 1991-94(Numbers in thousands)

CharacteristicYear of first birth

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

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

Worked after birthCumulative percent:

Less than 1 month1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worked during pregnancyNumber of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cumulative percent:Less than 1 month1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did not work during pregnancyNumber of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cumulative percent:Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6,995100.0

3.313.029.940.845.748.952.360.1

(I)(I)

4,621100.0

4.557.370.477.7

2,374100.0

1.18.7

17.325.8

8,568100.0

3.413.531.841.646.949.952.960.866.672.7

5,758100.0

4.557.370.678.6

2,810100.0

1.19.4

16.624.3

8,306100.0

3.613.227.835.940.843.748.356.363.069.9

5,147100.0

5.452.966.974.4

3,160100.0

0.68.3

18.026.9

7,192100.0

2.57.2

16.822.427.129.532.238.848.064.3

4,414100.0

3.732.645.452.6

2,778100.0

0.56.3

11.116.8

6,920100.0

1.86.7

12.115.617.619.421.927.937.050.0

3,700100.0

2.624.132.138.8

3,221100.0

1.05.9

10.115.3

6,956100.0

1.34.69.0

12.715.216.518.323.929.841.1

3,435100.0

2.419.626.732.7

3,522100.0

0.26.0

10.215.3

6,306100.0

1.93.87.89.9

11.212.313.716.822.533.5

2,797100.0

4.116.521.425.8

3,509100.0

0.24.67.59.6

I Incomplete interval.

1Includes women who responded that they never stopped working during their pregnancy or after their birth.

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

Source: Tabulations derived from Current Population Reports, Series P23-165 Table B-5 and this report P70-79, U.S. CensusSurvey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel, Wave 2.

Bureau,

16 U.S. Census Bureau

levels of education. White non-Hispanic women are also more likelyto work after the birth of their firstchild than are Black women orHispanic women.

A different picture emerges whenone looks only at employment ratesfor women who worked during theirpregnancy. The large differences inreturning to work within threemonths just noted for all women bythese demographic characteristicsare reduced or become insignificantfor women who have worked duringtheir pregnancy. For all mothers,teenagers returned within 3 monthsless often than women 30 years andover, but among women who hadsome work experience during preg-nancy, only a few percentage pointsseparated these age groups. Higherreturn rates, however, were stillfound for older women in the 3 to 5month interval.

Employment differences betweenhigh school dropouts and womenwith college degrees disappeared,although higher return rates for the 3 to 5 month interval were similarlynoted for college graduates. As fordifferences by ethnicity, no differ-ences were noted for any of theintervals between Hispanics andWhite non-Hispanics for any of theintervals in Table J.

For women who worked during theirpregnancy, job characteristicsseemed to play the most importantrole in determining when theyreturned to work.20 Women whoworked into their last month of preg-nancy returned to work more rapidlythan those who left work before theirlast trimester of the pregnancy. Forexample, 50 percent of women whostopped working less than onemonth prior to their child’s birth wereback at work less than 3 months

20The ensuing results were also verified andupheld by performing a multivariate statisticalanalysis which controlled for the other variablesshown in this table.

after their child’s birth compared with 22 percent of women who left 6 ormore months before their child’s birth.

Likewise, the type of maternity leavewomen use is also related to howsoon they return to work. Womenwho use maternity leave—either paidor unpaid—or disability leave, areroughly twice as likely to experiencea rapid return to work (within lessthan 3 months) compared withwomen who either quit or are let gofrom their job. Women who are letgo or who quit obviously havegreater difficulty in securing employ-ment after their child’s birth as timefor a job search may be scarce con-sidering the newly acquired responsi-bilities of motherhood.

These findings imply that there is astrong association between work-related variables and rapid returns towork. It is unclear whether thesewomen are more motivated to main-tain ties to the labor force because ofcareer goals or whether the jobsthese women hold offer benefits thatfacilitate these ties to the labor force,such as promising a job after child-

birth without experiencing any nega-tive job sanctions. Clearly, the coststo employers associated with findingand training new employees are highas well as are the costs to employeessearching for a new job. In contrast,previous research showed that in the1960s and 1970s, the women mosteconomically in need and dependenton their own earnings (teenagers,Black women, and women with pre-marital first births) experienced themost rapid returns to work.21

Women’s commitment to the laborforce now appears to be stronger,and maternity leave benefits mayplay a more important role in contin-ued employment after the child’sbirth.

21Martin O'Connell. "Maternity LeaveArrangements: 1961-85," in Work and FamilyPatterns of American Women. CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P23, No.165. U.S.Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1990. Forother research also showing economic need asan important factor in rapid returns to work,see Frank Mott and Lois Shaw. "TheEmployment Consequences of Different FertilityBehaviors," in Lois Shaw, ed., Midlife Women atWork. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, 1986;and Steven McLaughlin. "Differential Patterns ofFemale Labor-Force Participation Surroundingthe First Birth," Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 44(2): 407-420, 1982.

(Cumlative percent)

2 54

32

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Did not work during pregnancy

Less than 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

Worked during pregnancy

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

Number of months after birth when work began

7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 5.

Women Who Returned to Work by Work Status During Pregnancy and Interval After First Birth: 1991-94

U.S. Census Bureau 17

Since the early 1980s, approximately birth (see Table I). Among these75 percent of women who worked mothers, most of them secured their

Returning to the same or aduring their pregnancy returned to first job after childbirth (about

different employerwork by 12 months after their child’s 76 percent) with their pre-birth

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

Characteristic

Percent returning to work

All women Women who worked during pregnancy

Less than3 months

3 to 5 6 to 11months months

Did not Did notreturn returnwithin Less than 3 to 5 6 to 11 within

1st year 3 months months months 1st year

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

Employment status while pregnantNot employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Part time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first birthLess than 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 and 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 and 21 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and ethnicityWhite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . .

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

Timing of first birth1

Before first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Within first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .After first marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational attainmentLess than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . .

Month stopped working before birthLess than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 to 5 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 or more months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of maternity leavearrangement2

Quit job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Unpaid leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Disability leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Let go from job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29.9

5.943.138.3

11.821.925.833.337.135.4

30.832.925.332.6

19.6

24.931.839.8

14.829.433.235.3

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

19.0

8.625.917.4

10.214.912.317.123.726.8

19.620.715.221.3

14.5

13.222.120.6

8.514.621.627.8

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

9.5

9.79.49.5

11.210.312.010.1

7.97.8

9.710.210.02.5

6.9

9.59.86.7

7.810.3

9.99.0

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

41.5

75.821.634.8

66.852.849.939.531.429.9

39.936.249.543.6

59.0

52.436.332.9

69.045.635.427.9

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

42.2

(NA)43.138.3

37.736.343.445.543.440.8

41.341.346.750.9

41.3

42.841.546.7

39.543.643.240.3

50.442.029.627.222.0

21.349.144.445.119.229.7

24.4

(NA)25.917.4

12.519.516.220.827.330.6

25.225.217.029.0

25.7

17.527.322.1

15.718.125.430.9

28.423.322.616.213.6

13.331.928.535.3

8.118.9

9.4

(NA)9.49.5

4.011.414.410.8

8.07.7

9.39.5

11.04.2

8.5

8.510.0

6.5

9.711.19.08.3

7.09.0

13.314.215.8

15.57.08.92.2

20.610.6

24.0

(NA)21.634.8

45.832.835.923.021.420.9

24.224.125.315.8

24.5

31.221.124.7

35.127.322.420.5

14.325.734.442.448.5

49.912.018.317.452.140.7

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

1Refers to marital status at time of first birth. Before first marriage includes never married women. After first marriage includes first birthsoutside or within second or subsequent marriages.

2Leave arrangement may have been used before or after the birth. Individual leave arrangements exceed 100.0 because of multiple answ

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

18 U.S. Census Bureau

employer (see Table K). The majoritywho returned to their pre-birthemployer also experienced nochange in the numbers of hours theyworked per week after having a childcompared with their work schedulebefore their child was born.However, this proportion declinedfrom 84 percent in 1981-85 to 77 percent in 1991-94. There was acommensurate increase in the per-centage of women working fewerhours after having their first child (14 percent in 1981-85 to 20 percentin 1991-94).

Table K indicates also that for thethree periods shown in the table, atleast 95 percent of women returningto their pre-birth employer earnedthe same or higher pay as before thebirth. In addition, 97 percent ormore were at the same or greater jobskill level. When combining all threeof these characteristics together, 69 percent of women who had a firstbirth in 1991-94 experienced nochange for any of these three indica-tors, down slightly from 77 percentin 1981-85.

Compared with mothers whoreturned to their pre-birth employers,women who changed employers fortheir first job after childbirth experi-enced considerable variability in thenumber of hours they worked eachweek, their pay level, and the skilllevel of their job. In 1991-94, 42 percent worked the same numberof hours after the child’s birth, 23 percent worked more hours, and36 percent worked fewer hours.Switching employers meant decreas-ing their hourly work schedule forabout a third of mothers for all threeperiods shown in Table K.

Changing jobs also meant more vari-ability in pay. While 88 percent ofwomen in 1991-94 who returned totheir same employer returned at thesame pay level, only 35 percent ofwomen who switched employers had

their job at the same pay level. A for mothers in the earlier time peri-larger percentage of women ods (1981-85 and 1986-90).switched to employers that paid

Ninety-seven percent or more ofthem more than their pre-birth

women returning to their pre-birthemployer (38 percent in 1991-94)

employer worked jobs requiring thethan who paid them less (27 per-

same or greater skills, but about 80cent). This difference is not evident

percent of women with new employ-

Table K.Women Who Worked During Pregnancy and Returned toWork Less Than 12 Months After Birth of Their FirstChild: 1981-85 to 1991-94(In percent)

CharacteristicYear of first birth

1991-94 1986-90 1981-85

Number of women returning to work(in thousands)1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Returned to pre-birth employer . . . . . . . . . .Returned to different employer . . . . . . . . . .

Women returning to work (in percent) . . . . . . .Returned to pre-birth employer . . . . . . . . . .Returned to different employer . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to pre-birth employerNumber of hours worked after first birth . . . . .

More than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fewer than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pay level after first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Higher than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lower than before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skill level after first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Greater than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lesser than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hours, pay, and skill level all the same afterfirst birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Returned to different employerNumber of hours worked after first birth . . . . .

More than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fewer than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pay level after first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Higher than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lower than before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skill level after first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Greater than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as before first birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lesser than before first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hours, pay, and skill level all the same afterfirst birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,5392,750

790

100.077.722.3

100.02.8

77.220.0

100.07.5

88.34.1

100.05.6

92.61.8

69.1

100.022.741.635.8

100.038.034.727.3

100.024.853.921.2

16.0

4,4743,4161,059

100.076.323.7

100.03.0

81.016.0

100.05.9

90.83.3

100.03.1

94.12.8

74.1

100.018.548.133.4

100.033.737.828.5

100.030.446.822.8

19.1

3,7612,891

870

100.076.923.1

100.01.7

84.114.2

100.05.8

92.61.6

100.04.2

93.91.9

76.5

100.018.247.534.3

100.031.139.929.0

100.028.848.922.3

17.0

1Excludes self-employed women and women whose pre-birth employer went out ofbusiness.

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

U.S. Census Bureau 19

ers were working at jobs with thesame or greater level of skills afterthe birth of their child. However,among those women who experi-enced a change in their skill level,more generally advanced their skilllevel rather than taking a job needingless skill. Overall, between 15 per-cent and 20 percent of women whochanged employers maintained con-sistency on all three of these charac-teristics before and after the birth oftheir child. Clearly, women who finda new job after becoming mothersuse a variety of paths to supportthemselves and their new child.Some move up in the work world,while the majority maintain or scaleback their commitment to the laborforce.

Figure 6 shows the types of leavemothers used by whether theyreturned to their pre-birth employerby the 12th month after their child’sbirth.22 Leave arrangements usedeither before or after the first birthare included because some arrange-ments, such as quitting, occur almostexclusively before the birth of thechild, while others (for example, paidleave) tend to occur most often afterthe child is born. These leavearrangements can be taken concur-rently and are not mutually exclu-sive—that is, a woman could useboth paid and unpaid leave, or anyother combination of leave arrange-ments.

Among women who returned towork by the 12th month after theirchild’s birth, those who returned totheir pre-birth employer most fre-

22This analysis was limited to women return-ing to work by the 12th month after theirchild's birth as employer benefits are not likelyto extend for more than 1 year after birth.Some countries, like Sweden, do extend mater-nity leave benefits for more than 1 year afterthe child's birth. For a cross-national compari-son of parental leave, see Sheila Kamerman."Parental Leave and Infant Care: U.S. andInternational Trends and Issues, 1978-1988" inJanet Shibley Hyde and Marilyn Essex, eds.,Parental Leave and Child Care: Setting aResearch and Policy Agenda. Temple UniversityPress: Philadelphia, PA, 1991.

quently used paid leave (61 percent) went to a new employer post-birthor unpaid leave (48 percent). Very also used unpaid leave. It appearsfew quit their job (5 percent) or were that the use of unpaid leave does notlet go during their pregnancy (1 per- have as strong a retention effect ascent) and subsequently returned. does paid leave. It may be that someAmong women who returned to forms of unpaid leave are a legalwork by the 12th month but who mandatory benefit given to employ-switched employers, most had quit ees but are not strong enough totheir job during their pregnancy promote job retention.(63 percent), followed by unpaidleave (29 percent). Nine percent had CONCLUSIONSbeen let go by their previous employ- Since the 1960s, women have expe-er. About 12 percent of women who rienced considerable gains in educa-switched employers did receive some tion beyond the high school yearstype of paid maternity leave either and have continued to delay child-before or after their child’s birth. bearing to older ages. These factorsThese patterns are consistent with have contributed to the increase inthe use of paid leave as an incentive the work experience of women bothfor employee retention, whereas before and during their first pregnan-those who quit their jobs before or cy. Not only are women more likelyafter having a child exhibit minimal to work during their pregnancy thanamounts of employer loyalty. they did 30 to 40 years ago, but they

work longer into their pregnancy.Unpaid leave, however, shows mixedMore than half of women work upresults. About half of women return-until one month before the birth ofing to their pre-birth employer usedtheir first child. In addition, womenunpaid leave. They may also haveare returning to work after theirused other types of leave, as the cat-pregnancy at a faster rate than inegories are not mutually exclusive.previous decades. The cumulativeTwenty-nine percent of those who

Returned to same employer

Note: Includes women who worked during pregnancy and returned to work within 12 months oftheir first child's birth.

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

Percent used leave arrangements before or after first birth

11

1

48

61

5

10

12

9

6

29

63

Figure 6.

Type of Leave Arrangement Used Before or After First Birth by Return to Post-Birth Employer: 1991-94

Returned to different employer

3

Quit

Let go from job

Paid leave

Unpaid leave

Disability leave

Other leave

20 U.S. Census Bureau

effect is that women’s work sched- Data in this report also show thatules are less likely to be interrupted receiving paid leave is related toby a pregnancy. As shown in more rapid returns to work and thatFigure 7, the largest changes in the majority of workers return totrends in women working surround- their same employer after theiring their first birth came about in the child’s birth. The cumulative effect oflate 1970s and early 1980s (see these findings indicates that womenTable I for percentages). today are making longer term com-

mitments to the labor force thanThese trends have occurred during

women in the 1960s and are incor-time periods when family legislation

porating work life on a concurrentwas enacted which increasingly pro-

basis with childbearing and childrear-tected a pregnant worker’s employ-

ing. Some recent trends, however,ment status both before and after

suggest that the major increases inbirth and made it easier for families

employment noted in the 1970s andto adjust their work and family lives

early 1980s will not be duplicated inafter the birth of their first child.

the future and that while employ-Whereas in the 1960s, around 60

ment rates are still high, a shift topercent of women quit their jobs

more part-time work is beginning toeither before or shortly after the birth

occur, both before and after child-of their child, only 27 percent did so

birth. Perhaps this is an indicator ofby 1991-95 (see Table F). Paid leave

a growing flexibility in the workforcebenefits were received by 43 percent

or represents the desires of familiesof pregnant workers in 1991-95 — a

with newborn children who seek tosimilar proportion also received

balance work and family life.unpaid leave (40 percent), and 11 percent received disability leave.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The estimates in this report comefrom the Survey of Income andProgram Participation (SIPP) collectedin June through September of 1996,and in June through September of1985, by the U.S. Census Bureau.Data from the 1996 survey wereused in combination with similarinformation collected in the 1984and 1985 SIPP panels to provide anextended series of employment andmaternity leave data between 1961and 1995. Data in this report areusually shown as 5-year averages(for example, 1961-65). Statistics forthe 1961-65 to 1976-80 periods arefrom the previously cited report(“Maternity Leave Arrangements:1961-85”) while data shown for theperiods 1981-85 to 1991-95 are fromthe 1996 panel of the SIPP.

The data highlighted in this reportcome primarily from the maternityleave topical modules in respectiveSIPP panels (1996 Wave 2, and theoverlapping panels in 1984 Wave 8and 1985 Wave 4). The SIPP is anationally representative longitudinalsurvey conducted at four-monthintervals by the Census Bureau.Although the main focus of the SIPPis information on labor force partici-pation, jobs, income, and participa-tion in federal assistance programs,information on other topics, such asmaternity leave arrangements, is alsocollected in topical modules on arotating basis.

Since these data are from surveys,they may not accurately reflect pastfertility and employment eventsoccurring decades before the inter-view date due to the respondent’sinability to recall events and the sub-sequent mortality and migration ofwomen after a birth has occurred.These data only reflect the experi-ences of the women who are livingat the time of the survey. To theextent that the experiences of the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

(Percent)

1991-94

1981-85

1971-75

1961-65

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

Months before birth

Figure 7.

Women Who Worked Before and After Their First Birth by Month Before and After Birth: Selected Birth Cohorts, 1961-65 to 1991-94

Less than

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Birth

123456789Less than

1 Months after birth

1961-65

1971-75

1981-851991-94

U.S. Census Bureau 21

deceased or the migrants who left survey differ from those interviewed CONTACTSthe United States are different from in ways other than the categories For additional maternity leave infor-the surveyed population, the esti- used in weighting (age, race, sex, mation, you may contact the authorsmates are biased. and Hispanic origin). All of these

of this report in the Fertility andconsiderations affect comparisons

Family Statistics Branch, at 301-457-ACCURACY OF THE across different surveys or data

2416. You may also contact theESTIMATES sources.

authors of this report by e-mail.Statistics from sample surveys are For further information on statistical

Kristin Smithsubject to sampling and nonsam- standards and the computation andpling error. All comparisons present- ksmith@census.gov

use of standard errors, contact ed in this report have taken sampling Tim Stewart, Demographic Statistical Barbara Downserror into account and meet the U.S. Methods Division, at 301-457-6849 barbara.a.downs@census.govCensus Bureau’s standards for statis- (TTY) or on the Internet attical significance. Nonsampling Martin O’Connelltimothy.d.stewart@census.gov.errors in surveys may be attributed moconnel@census.govto a variety of sources, such as how MORE INFORMATION Statistical Information Staffthe survey was designed, how

The report is available on the Internet 301-457-2422respondents interpret questions, how(www.census.gov); search for mater- pop@census.govable and willing respondents are tonity leave data by clicking on the let-provide correct answers, and howter “F” in the “Subjects A to Z” section USER COMMENTS

accurately answers are coded andof the web page and selecting “fertili-classified. The Census Bureau The Census Bureau welcomes thety data” and scrolling to the materni-employs quality control procedures comments and advice of users of itsty leave data section. A detailedthroughout the production process – data and reports. If you have anytable package presenting more in-including the overall design of sur- suggestions or comments, pleasedepth maternity leave information isveys, testing the wording of ques- write to:also on the Internet. tions, review of the work of inter-

Chief, Population Divisionviewers and coders, and statistical Other research on maternity leave U.S. Census Bureau review of reports. can be found in the following report: Washington, DC 20233

Kristin Smith and Amara Bachu,The SIPP employs ratio estimation,Women’s Labor Force Attachment or send an e-mail inquiry to:whereby sample estimates are

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

the national population by age, race, Review of the Literature, PopulationSUGGESTED CITATIONsex, and Hispanic origin. This Division Working Paper Series,

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

due to under coverage, but how it Washington, DC, 1999. This report is Martin O’Connell. 2001. Maternityaffects different variables in the sur- on the Internet on the “Population: Leave and Employment Patterns:vey is not precisely known. Working Paper;” section under 1961-1995. Current PopulationMoreover, biases may also be present “Subjects A to Z.” Reports, P70-79. U.S. Censuswhen people who are missed in the Bureau, Washington, DC.