Does having more money make it easier to raise children? Intuitively, the answer would seem to be yes. To be able to afford a house in a safer neighborhood, better schools, healthier food, and more time with family would seem to be a great relief to harried parents—and, by extension, a boon to children. Unfortunately, a new study doesn’t bear this out. Indeed, the study showed that extra cash has a limited impact on the development of children. It also showed that providing mothers with more money
did not relieve their stress levels.
Experts in child welfare have argued that a boost in cash not only offers more and better material goods that would improve children’s lives but also that “giving cash to families who are struggling also helps reduce parents’ financial stress, giving them more time and energy to focus on their children’s well-being and development.” Indeed, there are pilot programs in Illinois and Washington, D.C, offering women involved with the child welfare system unrestricted cash payments, with the idea that the payments will reduce the likelihood of child abuse and/or neglect. According to Prevent Child Abuse America, child-care subsidies and child tax credits can reduce “reduce the stressors of poverty that can overload families, [and] promote safe and nurturing family environments.”
But recently released results from the Baby’s First Years study found that unconditional cash transfers of $333 to low-income mothers beginning shortly after their child’s birth did not affect the child’s development by age 4, including their social-emotional skills, language skills, and executive functioning, when compared to the children of mothers who received only $20 a month. The study involved 1,000 mothers with incomes under the federal poverty line from New York, Greater New Orleans, the Omaha area, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. It was the largest study of its kind—funded by the National Institutes of Health and private foundations—and involved researchers at several prominent universities. It found that though the mothers who received the higher amount spent a little more on toys, books, and clothing for their child and spent 5percent more time with them, this didn’t seem to change outcomes for the child or, for that matter, the parents. (These results contradict earlier studies from Baby’s First Years, and researchers have suggested a variety of explanations for these outcomes—the pandemic, not enough money, or too short a period of study.)
Also a paper using the earlier data from Baby’s First Years on cash payments to parents found no differences between the mothers who received the cash payment and the control group in food insecurity or worries about expenses, no differences in perceived maternal stress, and no differences on a parenting stress index, maternal depression, maternal anxiety, or psychological stress measured through hair cortisol.
Another paper published in JAMA in June found no differences in maternal anxiety and depression. In other words, as much as such a simple solution would be welcome news to policy makers, handing a poor mother more than $300 extra per month did nothing to make her less anxious.
As it happens, though, this data comport with other evidence on the effect of money on parenting across the income spectrum. For instance, some countries have tried in recent years to increase their fertility rate using government-funded baby bonuses. Hungary showed some success initially with its baby bonus approach, but its birth rate fell back again after a few years. Scandinavian countries, which have large welfare states and allow lengthy maternity and paternity leaves, have among the lowest birth rates in the world.
Having more money doesn’t reduce the stress of parenting, because parenting is inherently stressful. Bringing a new being into the world, worrying about whether that child is ill or injured, wondering whether you are doing the right things to guide that child to adulthood—it’s all baked into the parenting cake, no matter what the income level is.
When parents are given cash, they may well spend it on their kids, but (corny as it sounds) the things that kids need most are not things money can buy. It may appear that what low-income children like the ones in the Baby’s First Years study need is more income. But after the basic needs like food and shelter are covered, what they need is what all kids need—love and attentiveness. They need the security of adults who are consistent in their parenting, rewarding good behavior and sanctioning bad. They need parents who will encourage them to work hard in school and who will protect them from the depredations of other adults. But some of the same factors often keeping parents poor—substance use disorders, mental illness, etc.—may also be the things preventing them from being the kind of parents their kids need. It would be a relief to imagine that cash would solve this issue, but it does not.
