Overlapping Adversities: Precarious Employment and Child Welfare System Impacts Among Low-Income Parents

Background: Substantial research has identified adversities associated with precarious employment and precarious employment schedules for parents, such as child behavior problems, parental stress, and childcare obstacles (e.g., Harknett et al., 2022; Luhr et al., 2022; Walther & Pilarz, 2024). Existing evidence indicates that low-income adults are more likely to be hourly employees, experience precarious employment, and navigate work scheduling instability (Lambert et al., 2019; Boushey & Ansel, 2016). At the same time, low-income parents are also significantly more likely to be impacted by the child welfare system (e.g., Fong, 2019; Pac et al., 2023; Thomas et al., 2023).

Low-income, system-impacted parents also have additional layers of scheduling precarity to navigate in the form of child welfare system requirements such as random drug tests, required services/classes, and court hearings (e.g., D’Andrade & Chambers, 2012). Despite the likely overlap between the precariously employed, hourly workforce and low-income child welfare-impacted parents, we know little about the intersection in these two populations (Schneider, Feely, & Kang, 2024) – child welfare system-impacted parents who are also navigating precarious employment and unstable work schedules.

Purpose: This study provides descriptive analysis of the (1) employment type and amount, (2) scheduling stability, and (3) income and wages of child welfare-impacted parents.

Methods: We use data from the baseline survey (n=315) of the Empower Parenting with Resources (EmPwR) Study, collected in 2025 and 2026, and ongoing. Respondents to this survey were parents receiving Intact Family Services – a case management program for lower-risk child welfare cases in the state of Illinois. In addition to participating in Intact Family Services, participants were also enrolled in the EmPwR Study – the first and largest experimental study of unconditional cash transfers to child welfare-impacted parents in the U.S. Our sample includes both treatment (n= 150) and control participants (n= 140). We conducted descriptive statistics of survey responses.

Results: We find that a substantial number of EmPwR respondents are hourly workers (81%) earning a very low income – an average of $544 per week in the past 12 months. In the face of this precarious, low-income employment, 62% of our sample reported that they were currently looking for a new or additional job. Furthermore, parents reported high levels of stress related to scheduling stability on survey questions based on the Emelen 2007 Scale for Work Flexibility, with an average reported scheduling stress rating of 2.42 (on a scale of 1-4). On top of work scheduling stress, about one-third of participants (32%) reported attending 2 or more social service programs.

Conclusion/Implications: Though child welfare system-impacted parents and low-income, precariously employed workers are often discussed in siloed policy and practice environments, our results indicate that there is substantial overlap in these two populations. Policies and services targeted at child welfare-impacted parents must consider work scheduling instability and precarious employment. To best support low-income parents in the child welfare system, practitioners and policymakers should implement more flexible service and appointment schedules, and consider additional employment supports to reduce barriers to participation and improve family well-being.