The study explored a model that integrates human capital, family resource, employment and psychosocial factors to explain variation in economic self-sufficiency (ESS) among single mothers. A sample of 851 single mothers on Aid to Families with Dependent Children was selected from the Washington State Family Income Study data base. Data from a three-year period (6/88-5/91) were utilized to describe and analyze single mothers in transition from welfare. When compared to a sample of non-poor single mothers, mothers on public assistance differed significantly in several ways: They were younger, had more children and were more likely to have parents who received public assistance. Educational levels were significantly lower, as was employment activity. Economic self-sufficiency was measured as the ratio of welfare benefits to household income. Degree of ESS improved over the three-year period: While 60 percent of single mothers relied on welfare for more than half their income in the first year, only 45 percent did by the third year. In analyzing differences in degrees of economic self-sufficiency among single mothers, the following groups of mothers had significantly higher degrees of welfare reliance: never-married and divorced mothers; mothers with a child under age two; mothers with three or more children; non-white mothers; and mothers living in public housing. A path analysis was conducted to determine the relative influence of human capital, family resource, employment and psychosocial factors on later economic self-sufficiency. Number of children and receipt of subsidies positively affected welfare reliance. Education, number of adults in the household and number of months employed negatively affected degree of welfare reliance. A key finding was that, after controlling for differences in human capital, family resources and employment activity, workplace support retained a highly significant, inverse relationship with degree of welfare reliance. Sense of personal control and social support had both direct and indirect effects on degree of welfare reliance, establishing that psychosocial factors mediate impacts of human capital, family and employment factors on economic self-sufficiency. The results support the viability of utilizing stress models to examine objective economic outcomes in future research. / Graduation date: 1993

This study explored the experiences of individuals who were raised in single-mother families. Children of single mothers (COSM) constitute an understudied population that has often been misrepresented in literature on diverse family structures. The present study builds on current knowledge about the barriers to thriving COSM experience and how COSM build strength in the face of challenges. Data were gathered through 20 semi-structured interviews with self-identified adult children of single mothers. Analysis of the data was guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014). A theoretical framework emerged from the data that suggested a core narrative of cultivating capacities through strategies that manage social stigma and at-home strain. Participants described taking an active role in navigating the complexities of holding an identity that falls outside of dominant norms. A combination of participants’ at-home, familial environment and their broader, societal environment provided the foundational context for this process to emerge. Cultivating growth-fostering capacities or simply “capacities” was a process that allowed COSM participants to take agency in managing their circumstances. This process was described by participants as “bittersweet,” as it was born through experiences of overcoming, yet left them with traits that had the potential to be assets. Often, these capacities served COSM participants well across different contexts and throughout the lifespan. The findings of this study therefore offer a broadened understanding of a group that is represented by more than 17.2 million children being raised by a single mother in the U.S. today (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Findings also provide insight into the impact of stigma and how strength is built in the context of the various life stressors, negative attitudes, and discrimination that previous studies have shown COSM experience (e.g., Dowd, 1995; Hoffman & Avila, 1998; Jarrett, 1996; Kennelly, 1999; Kjellstrand, 2011; Wilson, 2011; Worell, 1986). The present investigation serves as a foundation to inform future research and practice with COSM, and it assists in repositioning single-mother households so that greater validation may be given to these families as legitimate social constructs, while counteracting the stigma that presents barriers to optimal functioning. Specific implications for practice, training, research, and policy are provided and include a need for greater attention to family structure diversity as well as the accompanying process of “othering” that can result when this is lacking. Among clinicians, COSM identity ought to be seen as an important clinical consideration, rather than a concern. Suggestions for future research include: (a) continuing to explore COSM adversity management and strength construction within today’s societal context; (b) seeking a deeper understanding of how capacities built under hardship are utilized; and (c) examining further the impact of intersectionality of COSM identity with other social group affiliations. Implications for policy suggest that addressing the systemic shaming that this group has faced for decades requires structural-level work.

In many real-world settings, individuals face a dynamic decision problem: choices in the present have an impact on future outcomes. It it important for researchers to recognizing these dynamic forces so that we are able to fully understand the trade-offs an individual faces and to correctly estimate the parameters of interest. I study dynamic decision making in three diverse contexts: residential choice of families in New Zealand, search strategies of ridesharing drivers in Texas, and welfare participation of single mothers in Michigan. In each of these, I motivate the analysis using a theoretical model, and bring the model to the data to estimate parameters and evaluate testable implications. In the first chapter, I ask: how do schools affect where families choose to live and does their effect contribute to residential segregation? I study these questions using unique administrative microdata from Auckland, New Zealand, an ethnically diverse -- but segregated -- city. I develop and estimate a dynamic model of residential choice where forward-looking families choose neighborhoods based on their children's schools, local amenities, and moving costs. Previous studies typically estimate school quality valuations using a boundary discontinuity design. I leverage attendance zones in this setting to also generate reduced form estimates using this methodology. The structural model estimates show that the valuation of school quality varies by the child's school level and the family's ethnicity; the reduced form approach, however, cannot capture this heterogeneity. Moreover, I find that the reduced form estimates are aligned only with white families' valuations of quality. The model estimates also show that families experience a high disutility from moving houses if it results in their child changing school. In counterfactuals, I show that residential segregation increases as the link between housing and schools weakens. In the second chapter, co-authored with Vinayak Iyer, we ask: what drives the efficiency in ridesharing markets? In decentralized transportation markets, search and match frictions lead to inefficient outcomes. Ridesharing platforms, who act as intermediaries in traditional taxi markets, improve upon the status quo along two key dimensions: surge pricing and centralized matching. We study how and why these two features make the market more efficient; and explore how alternate pricing and matching rules can improve outcomes further. To this end, we develop a structural model of the ridesharing market with four components: (1) dynamically optimizing drivers who make entry, exit and search decisions; (2) stochastic demand; (3) surge pricing rule and (4) a matching technology. Relative to our benchmark model, surge pricing generates large gains for all agents; primarily during late nights. This is driven by the role surge plays in inducing drivers to enter the market. In contrast, centralized matching reduces match frictions and increases surplus for consumers, drivers, and the ridesharing platform, irrespective of the time of the day. We then show that a simple, more flexible pricing rule can generate even larger welfare gains for all agents. Our results highlight how and why centralized matching and surge pricing are able to make the market more efficient. We conclude by drawing policy implications for improving the competitiveness between taxis and ridesharing platforms. In the third chapter, co-authored with Lucas Husted, we ask: does removing families from welfare programs result in increased employment? Using detailed administrative data from Michigan, we study a policy reform in the state's TANF program that swiftly and unexpectedly removed over 10,000 families from welfare while quasi-randomly assigning time limits to over 30,000 remaining participants. We motivate our analysis using a dynamic model of welfare benefits usage. Consistent with economic theory, removing families from welfare increases formal labor force participation by roughly 4 percentage points (20\% over control group mean), with increases in annualized earnings of roughly \$500. However, despite this, the majority of families remain formally unemployed after welfare removal, and using quantile regressions we show that even the highest percentile wage gains fail to offset the loss in welfare benefits. The policy even affects families who are far from exhausting their time-limited benefits. Under a dynamic model, families have an incentive to bank benefits for future use -- an effect we observe in the data. Overall, our findings provide evidence that, contrary to their stated goals, welfare reform measures that either kick families off welfare or make welfare harder to access could possibly deepen poverty.