Mothers’ work–to–family strain in

single and couple parent families: the

role of job characteristics and supports
Jennifer Baxter and Michael Alexander

Abstract
For parents there can be negative aspects of how work ‘spills over’ to family.
This analysis focuses on mothers of young children and considers how
aspects of work–to–family strain differ for single and couple mothers. While
there has been increased focus on the work–family strains of mothers, less is
known about single mothers and their experience of work–family strain. We
might expect that single mothers would have more difficulty in combining
work and family, given that they do not have the support of a resident
partner to assist with childrearing responsibilities. This paper explores the
relationships between several demographic, employment and supports
factors and work–family strain. It also examines whether these associations
are different according to family form; that is, whether certain factors make
the work–family balance significantly worse or better for single mothers than
for otherwise similar couple‑parent mothers. The analysis is based on the
2004 Growing up in Australia: the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
(LSAC). This dataset contains detailed family and child data for around
10,000 families, all with at least one child aged 5 or under. With such a large
sample size, the number of single mothers is sufficiently large to enable
more analyses than is often possible from survey data.
Keywords: work and family; single mothers; employment

195
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

There is considerable evidence that for parents, aspects of work ‘spill over’ into
family life, sometimes in a positive way (work–family gains) and other times in
a negative way (work–family strains). This analysis focuses on some negative
aspects of these work–to–family spillover effects for single and couple mothers.
While there has been increased focus on the work–to–family strain of mothers,
given the increased participation of women in employment, less is known about
single mothers and their experience of work–to–family strain. We might expect
that single parents would have more difficulty in combining work and family
responsibilities, given that they do not have the support of a partner to assist
with childrearing and other household responsibilities.
This paper explores the relationships between work–to–family strain of
employed mothers and a number of factors, broadly grouped as demographic,
job characteristics and supports. Amongst these factors, we consider how single
motherhood makes a difference. We also consider whether there are certain
factors that are particularly pertinent to single mothers, either making the
work–family balance significantly worse or better than it is for otherwise similar
couple‑parent mothers.

Background
Overview
By its very nature, the research surrounding work–to–family gains and strains
recognises that the interplay between the work and home environments is crucial
to the understanding of individual and family wellbeing. The concept of ‘work–
to–family spillover’ recognises that the demands and resources – emotional and
structural – of one domain can flow into and affect a person’s fulfilment of a
role in another domain. This ‘flow’ or spillover can be positive or negative,
depending on whether it enhances or deters a person’s fulfilment in the other
role. This paper focuses on mothers’ experiences of negative spillover from the
work domain to the family domain.
Negative measures of work–to–family spillover capture the degree to which
parents believe that family time is compromised by work responsibilities, and
can include how work affects the amount or quality of family time. Various
theoretical models have been developed to demonstrate the nature of work–
to–family spillover and the possible antecedents of this type of spillover (for
example, Barnett, 1998; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Hill, 2005; Voydanoff,
2005a), although differences across studies in the manner in which the concept
has been operationalised has no doubt contributed to the inconsistencies in some
of the published results (Keene & Reynolds, 2005). The antecedents of work–
to–family spillover are likely to relate to the demands and resources that exist in
both the work domain and the family domain. Job characteristics, however, are
usually found to be the more important in explaining work–to–family spillover
than family factors (Keene & Reynolds, 2005), although both have been found
to play a part.

196 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

In the work environment, factors associated with more work–to–family spillover
include longer hours of employment, non‑standard work schedules (such as
evening work, weekend work, shiftwork, or excessive overtime) (Barnett, 1998;
Mennino, Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005; Roehling, Jarvis, & Swope, 2005), the
quality, complexity and skill–level of jobs, as well as the degree of flexibility
and schedule control a worker has over their tasks (Keene & Reynolds, 2005;
Mennino, Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005; Roehling, Jarvis, & Swope, 2005). Higher
quality jobs are often associated with higher status occupations, and therefore
higher status occupations may be associated with less work–to–family spillover.
However, higher status jobs have also been linked to higher stress, which is
likely to increase work–to–family spillover (Roehling, Jarvis, & Swope, 2005).
The nature of the employment contract has also been shown to be a factor. In
earlier analyses of the LSAC data, Alexander and Baxter (2005) found that for
partnered mothers, those in self‑employment experienced the least work–to–
family spillover, followed by those in casual jobs, with those in permanent jobs
experiencing the most work–to–family spillover.
Work–to–family spillover is expected to be greater in families in which there
are greater family demands. For example, the presence of young children or
others needing higher levels of care is associated with more work–to–family
spillover (Barnett, 1994; Barnett & Marshall, 1992a, 1992b). This strain can
also be greater if a mother’s ability to cope with the demands of work and
family is reduced. Factors likely to be related to a reduced ability to cope with
these demands are poor health, lower income and having language difficulties
(Ciabattari, 2007).
Based on the existing literature, it is expected that having a higher level of
support within the home would assist in managing both work and family
responsibilities. One obvious source of support for women is a partner –
whether married or cohabiting. Voydanoff (2005a) identifies spousal support
(as well as spousal demands) as elements in a model of how work and family
domains interact. Other research indicates that support received from partners
and other family members appears to moderate the negative aspects of work–to–
family spillover (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Eagle, Icenogle, Maes, & Miles,
1998; Westman & Etzion, 1995). This support can be invaluable to parents in
jointly managing work and family responsibilities.
The obvious difference between employed single and couple mothers is that
single mothers do not have a resident partner to share in the day‑to‑day
management of the balancing of childrearing responsibilities with the demands
of employment. Of course, couple mothers do not all receive the same amount
of support from their partner in relation to childrearing. Likewise, there is some
variation in the relationship single parents have with children’s non‑resident
parent, with some receiving considerable support or sharing childrearing
duties and others none at all. On balance though, as a result of the absence
of a resident partner, we might expect that an employed single mother might
experience more work–to–family strain than might an employed partnered
mother.

197
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

Apart from partner support, single and couple mothers are also likely to differ
in the types of jobs in which they are employed, as well as some demographic
and family characteristics, and their levels of other types of support. For
example, the education levels of single mothers are, on average, lower than of
couple mothers (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2005), and as a result
single mothers are more likely to be employed in lower status occupations
(Baxter, Gray, Alexander, Strazdins, & Bittman, 2007). In the context of this
analysis, differing job characteristics and demographic and support variables
may also contribute to differences in the overall levels of work–to–family strain
experienced by those single and couple mothers who are in employment.
These differences between single and couple mothers are usually not explored
in the existing literature. When single parents are included, they are not always
separately identified in the analyses or the results (Frone, Russell, & Cooper,
1992; Hill, 2005). An exception is Mennino et al (2005), who analysed
work–family strain for employed men and women, with and without children.
They predicted that having a partner would increase work–family strain, as
having a partner would make for a more complicated life. However, this analysis
did not interact partner status with child‑related variables (as childless workers
were also included), so the results do not differentiate between single and couple
mothers.
Morehead (2002) also noted the lack of research on work and family for
single mothers. Her qualitative analysis of work and family arrangements
experienced by single mothers working in a hospital identified a number of
resources and supports that were important to single mothers in managing their
work and domestic circumstances. These resources and supports were “jobs
that are family‑friendly, secure, and that provide a reasonable income; support
from ex‑partners and new partners that includes minding the children; help
from family and friends particularly with child care and to provide emotional
support; and access to further education” (Morehead, 2002, p. 61). Ciabattari’s
(2007) research on work–family conflict amongst single mothers in the US
also demonstrated the importance of social, family and workplace supports.
She emphasised the importance of workplace supports to single mothers, in
particular access to flexible work hours (Ciabattari, 2007), while also noting
the role played by extended family members who often live with single mothers.
Hughes and Gray (2005) used New South Wales data collected in 2000 to
compare the use of family‑friendly work arrangements of single and couple
mothers. As they discuss, these two groups of mothers are not only likely to
vary in the extent of support they have, they also differ in the types of jobs they
work in. Their research showed that single and couple mothers reported about
the same usage of flex‑time as a means of combining work and family, but that
single mothers were more likely than couple mothers to say they would have
liked to make greater use of flex‑time.
To help address some of the gaps in the literature, the above‑mentioned work,
individual, family and supports variables are considered in this analysis to
identify factors that ameliorate or exacerbate negative work–to–family spillover

198 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

for employed mothers. This analysis then leads to a more detailed examination
of differences in work–to–family strain for single and couple mothers, to see if
the same factors are at play, or if some factors have a more prominent effect on
employed single mothers relative to their partnered counterparts.
By addressing these issues, we hope to provide valuable information with regard
to how the work–family balance could be improved for all mothers, but also,
if there are particular supports that could be encouraged to reduce work–to–
family strain for single mothers. Reducing work–to–family strain would have
benefits to employed parents, but also might encourage greater participation in
employment, if some of the not‑employed elect to remain out of employment
because they wish to avoid work–to–family strain.

Data and method

Data
This paper uses data from the first wave of the Longitudinal Study of Australian
Children (LSAC), collected in 2004 (see Soloff, Lawrence, & Johnstone, 2005
for details). LSAC aims to examine the impact of Australia’s unique social,
economic and cultural environment on children growing up in today’s world.
The essential focus of the study is on the early years of children’s lives, and
therefore ‘the child’ is the primary sampling unit of interest, although the
collection of detailed personal and employment information from the child’s
resident parent(s) makes this a very useful dataset for work and family research.
The LSAC sample is broadly representative of all Australian children in each
of two selected age cohorts: children born between March 2003 and February
2004 (infants) and children born between March 1999 and February 2000
(children aged 4‑5 years). For this paper, both the infant and 4‑5 year old
cohorts were used, with mothers of these children the subject of the analysis.
The focus in this paper is on mothers who were at work and not on leave at the
time of the survey (46 per cent of all mothers in the sample), with comparisons
made between partnered mothers and single mothers. Partnered mothers include
married and cohabiting mothers. Single mothers are mothers who are not living
with a partner.
The sample of employed mothers available for analysis was 3,850. As single
mothers were less prevalent than couple mothers, as well as being less likely to
be employed than couple mothers (across both cohorts, 48 per cent of couple
mothers were employed and 29 per cent of single mothers were employed),
there were far fewer single mothers than couple mothers in this sample (289
compared to 3,561). (We discuss this difference in employment rates further
below.)
The LSAC survey contains a number of subjective measures of how the work
domain of parents ‘spills over’ into their family domain. Two standard items,
originally taken from Barnett (1994), measure negative perceptions of how work
spills over to family, or work–to–family strain. These are:

199
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

“Because of my work responsibilities I have missed out on home

or family activities that I would like to have taken part in” and
“Because of my work responsibilities my family time is less
enjoyable and more pressured”.
Voydanoff (2005b) refers to two aspects of spillover as due to time‑based
demands and strain‑based demands. The first of the measures used here relates
to a time‑based demand, in which work responsibilities result in an absence
from the family and therefore a greater sense of missing out. The second relates
more to a strain‑based demand, in which time that is available to share with
the family is negatively affected by the demands of work. Levels of agreement
with these statements were measured on five‑point Likert scales, from ‘strongly
disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5) such that a higher value of the score indicates
more work–to–family strain.
To first identify the differences between single and couple mothers, these
measures of work–to–family strain for single and couple mothers were
compared. Multivariate techniques were then used to determine which
factors were associated with work–to–family strain. In addition to the single
parent indicator, the models included a number of variables capturing job
characteristics, demographics and supports (described below). Ordinary least
squares regression was used and the analysis took into account the sample
design and initial selection probabilities. Additional model specifications were
tested, for example, using an ordered logit instead of OLS, to account for the
categorical and ordered nature of the data. The results of the ordered logit
analyses yielded comparable results, but as the OLS models were more easily
interpreted, they were retained.
To identify whether coefficients differed according to family type, these models
were then re‑estimated separately for single and couple mothers, as well as for
all mothers but with all variables interacted with the single‑parent indicator.
These findings were then considered in respect of the different characteristics
of single and couple mothers, which are described below, to consider whether
any apparent difference in work–family spillover was due to those different
characteristics, rather than single‑parenthood per se.
Explanatory variables
A range of variables that characterise the domains of work and family were used
to investigate the distribution of the two measures of work–to–family strain and
included job characteristics, demographics and measures of support available to
employed mothers.
Job characteristics pertaining to working hours were the usual weekly hours
worked (grouped into 1 to 15, 16 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 or more hours), as well
as scheduling information on whether work was sometimes done on weekends
and whether work was sometimes done after 6pm or overnight. Information
was also included on the flexibility of start and finish times (inflexible – could
not change start and finish times, can change hours with approval, and

200 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

flexible hours – can change hours without first seeking approval). Other job
attributes included were job autonomy (level of agreement with “I have a lot
of freedom to decide how I do my own work”), job security (rating of “how
secure do you feel in your present job?”), the type of employment contract
(self‑employed, permanent or ongoing, casual, and fixed term or other), and the
employee’s broad occupation group (five groups were: (1) manager, professional,
associate professional; (2) tradespersons and related workers, advanced clerical
and service workers; (3) intermediate clerical, sales and service workers; (4)
intermediate production and transport workers; and (5) elementary clerical, sales
and service workers, labourers and related workers).
Table 1: Job characteristics, employed couple and single mothers

Couple Single Total

Per cent
Usually work 1 to 15 hours per week 37.2 34.2 37.0
16 to 24 hours 26.1 26.9 26.2
25 to 34 hours 14.3 14.6 14.3
35 hours or more 22.4 24.3 22.6

Sometimes works weekends 54.2 52.1 54.0

Sometimes works evenings or after 6pm 52.1 42.6 51.4

Permanent employee 48.7 51.7 49.0

Casual employee 19.5 30.8 20.4
Fixed‑term or other employee 5.7 7.7 5.9
Self‑employed 26.0 9.8 24.7

Can change work times: flexible hours 56.9 47.2 56.1

Can change times with approval 26.0 35.5 26.8
Cannot change work hours 17.1 17.3 17.1

Manager, administrator, professional, associate professional 47.3 31.4 46.0

Tradespersons and related workers; advanced clerical and service 15.1 10.0 14.7
workers
Intermediate clerical, sales and service workers, intermediate 22.9 34.9 23.8
production and transport workers
Elementary clerical, sales and service workers, labourers and related 14.8 23.7 15.5
workers
Mean
Level of job security (from least to highest security, 1 to 5) 3.0 2.7 2.9
Autonomy at work (from least control to most control over the work you 3.7 3.6 3.7
do, 1 to 6)

Single and couple mothers worked similar hours, had similar proportions
sometimes working weekends, and similar ratings of their job’s autonomy (Table
1). There were more differences in other job characteristics. Self‑employment
was a common employment type for employed couple mothers, but much less
so for single mothers, who were more likely to be casual employees than were

201
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

couple mothers. Single mothers were also less likely to work after 6pm or
overnight and had lower perceived job security. Similar proportions of single
and couple mothers reported to work inflexible hours, but single mothers were
somewhat more likely to need approval to change their hours, rather than the
greater degree of flexibility. Almost half of the employed couple mothers were in
the higher status occupations (manager, administrator, professional or associate
professional). While a sizable 31 per cent of single mothers were in this category,
they were more likely than couple mothers to be in the lower status occupations.
Demographic information included mother’s age, as well as age of the youngest
child (under 1 year old, 1 year, 2‑3 years, 4‑5 years), the number of children
(1, 2, 3 or more), the presence or otherwise of a child with a long‑term medical
condition, mothers’ ratings of personal health (poor or fair health versus
good, very good or excellent health), and main language spoken (English
versus another language). The perceived financial wellbeing of the family was
assessed by responses to the question “given your current needs and financial
responsibilities, how would you say you and your family are getting on?”. Those
who responded ”just getting along”, “poor” or “very poor” were classified
as ‘poor’ and contrasted with those who indicated they were “reasonably
comfortable”, “very comfortable” or “prosperous”.
A number of variables were included as possible sources of support, capturing
potential support from the child’s father, from other household members, and
from a broader network of family and friends. The extent to which the father of
the child assisted in the care of the child was incorporated by identifying families
in which the father regularly cared for the child. The information source for this
item depended on whether the father was resident or non‑resident. For resident
fathers, the source was mothers’ responses, when asked if there were any regular
times during the week that the father cared for the child while she was not
there (for example, when at work or doing the shopping). Those who indicated
“yes” were coded as ‘other parent cares’. Note that this doesn’t necessarily
capture all times the father helps, since a subtext to this question says ‘not just
casual sharing of care that parents do for each other’. For non‑resident fathers,
the indicator was based on single mothers’ responses, when asked how often
the child’s other parent looks after the child when she needs to do other things
such as working, studying or attending appointments. Those who answered
sometimes or often were also coded as ‘other parent cares’. To capture possible
support from other household members, the household composition was used
to identify if a grandparent or another adult (but not grown‑up children) lived
with the family. For support from the wider network of family and friends,
respondents were also asked about how they felt about the amount of support
or help they got from family or friends living elsewhere. Those who said they
didn’t get enough help or didn’t get any help at all were said to have an unmet
need for help or support (as opposed to those who said they got enough help or
didn’t need any help).

202 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

Table 2: Demographic characteristics and supports, employed couple and single
mothers

Couple Single Total

Mean
Age (years) 33.8 32.9 33.8
Per cent
Single mother 0.0 100.0 8.0
Has poor health 6.6 10.5 6.9
Financially ‘just getting along’, ‘poor’ or ‘ very poor’ 28.1 53.9 30.1
Main language is not English 9.9 7.1 9.7
A child has long‑term medical condition 22.5 33.3 23.3

Youngest child aged<1 37.4 16.1 35.7

Aged 1 15.4 9.4 14.9
Aged 2‑3 14.8 12.8 14.6
Aged 4‑5 32.4 61.8 34.8

1 child in the family 25.1 36.8 26.0

2 children 47.7 40.7 47.1
3 or more children 27.2 22.6 26.8

Other parent helps with caring for child sometimes 60.8 34.4 58.6
Has unmet need for help/support 20.4 19.5 20.3
A grandparent lives with the family 3.3 12.6 4.1
Other adults (not older siblings) live with the family 2.1 13.6 3.0
N 3,558 289 3,847

There were some marked differences between employed single and couple
mothers in their demographic and supports variables (Table 2). Employed single
mothers were more likely to be in poor health, to be doing less well financially,
and to have a child with a long‑term medical condition. Employed single
mothers were more likely to have only one child and to have older children
compared to employed‑partnered mothers.
Single mothers were expected to have less support available to them compared
to couple mothers, given that they don’t have a partner to share in the
childrearing responsibilities. Based on the measure of ‘other parent cares’,
over one‑third of single mothers received assistance with childrearing from the
child’s non‑resident parent (34 per cent). In comparison, 61 per cent of the
partnered mothers indicated that their partner regularly spends time caring for
the child. As outlined earlier, these data were based on different questions, so
are not directly comparable. Single mothers were more likely to have the child’s
grandparent or another adult (not including adult siblings of the study child)
living with them. The proportion of employed mothers who reported having an
unmet need for help was the same for single and couple mothers (20 per cent).
An argument could be made that these supports variables are not useful in
explaining variation in work–family strain, because lower levels of support

203
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

would always be expected to be associated with greater work–family strain.

This, however, is not necessarily the case, especially since we are considering
support from a range of places. Understanding how these supports relate to
differences in the perception of work–family strain is valuable.
A note about employed single and couple mothers
While the difference in employment rates of single and couple mothers is not
a focus of this paper, to some extent, this difference is likely to be explained
by the different characteristics of single and couple mothers, such as single
mothers having, on average, lower levels of education. In the context of an
analysis of work–to–family strain, however, employment rates are also likely
to be influenced by the capacity of mothers to manage work–to–family strain,
which in turn will be influenced by the nature of the jobs available, the
supports a mother has both in the workplace and at home, and individual
circumstances (Keene & Reynolds, 2005). At the extreme, difficulties with
managing both work and family responsibilities would be evidenced by some
women withdrawing from employment altogether, to avoid the high work–to–
family strain that would occur if they did work. This may be more influential
in the employment decision for single mothers, and may be one reason for the
lower employment rate amongst single mothers compared to couple mothers
(Ciabattari, 2007; Hughes & Gray, 2005).
As a result, it is possible that the employed mothers in LSAC are a select
group of mothers who are able to satisfactorily balance work and family
responsibilities, with the higher employment rate of couple mothers reflecting
that it is easier for them to combine work and family responsibilities. As the
analyses presented in this paper focus only on employed women, this issue is
not explored further. It is, however, an important point in considering how
these analyses are applicable to the wider population of not employed as well as
employed single and couple mothers with young children.

Results
Work–family strain: employed single and couple mothers
To consider whether employed single mothers experience more work–to–family
strain than couple mothers, the distributions of the work–to–family strain
measures were initially compared. Single mothers were more likely than couple
mothers to agree that because of their work responsibilities they had missed out
on home or family activities that they would have liked to have taken part in.
Also, single mothers were more likely to ‘strongly agree’ that their family time
was less enjoyable and more pressured because of their work responsibilities
(see Table 3). In both cases, the difference in the mean scores of single and
couple mothers was significant at least at the 0.05 level. Considered in isolation
from other factors, these data suggest that single mothers experience more
work–to–family strain on average than couple mothers. However the differences
are not large in size. Considering that a 1‑unit difference in the scores would
signify the difference between adjacent response categories, a difference of 0.2 to
0.3 appears fairly marginal.

204 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

Table 3: Work–to–family spillover, employed single and couple mothers

Strongly
Disagree Strongly
disagree Neither (3) Agree (4) Total
(2) agree (5)
(1)

Per cent Mean SD

Because of my work responsibilities…
I have missed out on home or family activities that I would like to have taken part in
Couple 17.3 30.8 12.5 28.9 10.5 2.84 1.30
Single 11.8 26.3 14.3 33.2 14.5 3.12 1.28
difference ***
My family time is less enjoyable and more pressured
Couple 22.2 37.8 17.8 18.1 4.2 2.44 1.14
Single 19.0 34.6 19.0 17.2 10.2 2.64 1.25
difference *

Legend: # p<0.1, * p <0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001 .

Multivariate analysis of work–family strain

To test whether differences in work–to–family strain were evident after
controlling for different characteristics of single and couple mothers, both
measures of work–to–family strain were regressed against single parent status,
along with the other demographic variables, supports variables and job
characteristics. This section discusses the associations between each of these
factors and work–to–family strain and the results are shown in Table 4.
Demographics
Some demographic characteristics were very important in explaining work–to–
family strain, although single parenthood is not one of them. After controlling
for other demographic variables, supports variables and job characteristics, there
was no longer a significant difference between single and couple mothers for
either measure of work–to–family strain. In fact, the reduction in the significance
of single parent status was primarily due to the inclusion of the other
demographic variables, rather than the support or job characteristic variables
(analysis not shown). This suggests there is little evidence that once other factors
are controlled, single parenthood in itself is associated with large differences in
work–to–family strain.
The associations between other demographics and work–to–family strain
indicated that there was more strain when the family perceived they were poorer
and the mother in worse health. Older mothers and those with a child with a
long‑term medical condition also were more likely to perceive that their family
time was more pressured or less enjoyable because of work.

205
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

Table 4: Work–to–family and family‑to‑work spillover main effects (OLS coefficients),

employed mothers

Work–to–family spillover

I have missed out Family time is less

at home enjoyable
Constant 2.38*** 1.96***
Couple mother, partner employed (reference)
Couple mother, partner not employed 0.19 ‑0.02
Single mother 0.08 0.11
Just getting along, poor or very poor 0.28*** 0.23***
Poor health mother 0.40*** 0.44***
A child has medical condition 0.09# 0.15**
English is not main language ‑0.05 0.00
Age mother (centred at 33.6 years) 0.00 0.02***
Youngest child aged <1 (reference)
Youngest child aged 1 ‑0.04 0.05
Youngest child aged 2‑3 0.05 0.03
Youngest child aged 4‑5 0.22*** 0.08
1 child in the family (reference)
2 children in the family 0.03 0.08#
3 or more children in the family 0.09 0.13*
Has unmet need for help/support 0.23*** 0.35***
Father helps with caring for child sometimes 0.10* ‑0.11**
Grandparent lives with family 0.10 ‑0.03
Other adult lives with family ‑0.08 ‑0.04
1 to 15 hours (reference)
16 to 24 hours 0.41*** 0.17***
25 to 34 hours 0.65*** 0.29***
35 hours or more 0.94*** 0.54***
Sometimes works weekends 0.22*** 0.08#
Sometimes works nights ‑0.05 0.10*
Level of job security (centred at 2.95) 0.01 ‑0.02
Autonomy at work (centred at 3.73) ‑0.09*** ‑0.07***
Permanent employee (reference)
Self‑employed ‑0.34*** ‑0.06
Casual employee ‑0.19*** ‑0.13*
Fixed‑term and other employee ‑0.15 0.05
Cannot change work times (reference)
Can change work times: flexible hours ‑0.39*** ‑0.19***
Can change times with approval ‑0.11# ‑0.09
Manager, administrator, professional, associate professional 0.05 0.18**
Tradespersons and related workers; advanced clerical and service ‑0.08 0.04
workers
Intermediate clerical, sales and service workers, intermediate ‑0.11 0.09
production and transport workers
Elementary clerical, sales and service workers, labourers and related
workers (reference)
N 3698 3680
R‑square 0.23 0.14
Legend: # p<0.1, * p <0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001 .

206 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

Work–to–family strain was greatest in families with older children for the
‘missed out at home’ item. This may be a genuine effect: perhaps once children
reach older ages, parents are more aware of what they are missing out on when
at work. There are, however, other plausible reasons for this effect. It may be a
selection effect: that mothers of very young children stay at home, rather than
go to work, if the available job offers a poor fit between work and family. The
effect may also be due to the question wording which, being in the past tense,
might elicit more positive reports amongst those who have been caring for
children for longer.
Supports
The extent of support received by mothers was also important in explaining
work–to–family strain, with mothers who reported having an unmet need for
help or support having higher levels of work–to–family strain. This was highly
significant, and a relatively large effect across both measures.
Having the child’s father sometimes helping with care had different associations
with the two measures. Mothers reported being more likely to have missed
out at home when the father sometimes helped with care. This may reflect that
fathers are more likely to help with the care when the mothers’ work–family
strain is greater. However, having the father sometimes provide care was not
associated with higher levels of work–family strain as measured by the measure
of time pressure – it was associated with reduced levels of work–family strain.
Another possible reason for the first finding is that mothers are more aware of
the family time they are missing out on when the children spends time with the
father. The finding for the second measure of work–family strain then is likely
to reflect that this assistance with childcare from the father helps to reduce the
sense of time pressure.
Residing with the child’s grandparent, or having another adult in the home,
did not have a significant association with work–family strain. Variations on
these two measures were also explored, taking into account whether or not
these people had long‑term medical conditions, but even then, no significant
relationships were evident.
Job characteristics
Overall, most of the job characteristics were important in explaining the
variation in work–to–family strain. In particular, working longer hours was
associated with more work–to–family strain. Having access to flexible hours,
having a job with more control and being in casual employment were factors
related to less work–to–family strain. Other factors were important to one of the
measures of work–to–family strain but not the other.
Specifically, working longer hours was strongly and positively associated
with both work–to–family strain measures, with mothers working full‑time
(compared to mothers working short part‑time hours) reporting strain at a
whole category higher in terms of ‘missing out at home’ and half a category
higher in terms of ‘family time is less enjoyable’. As one of the strongest effects

207
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

in the model, this result identifies hours worked as one of the key influences on
these measures of work–to–family strain.
Potential family time can be cut short if mothers are working weekends, so
it is not surprising that working weekends was also associated with a greater
likelihood of reporting to be missing out at home. It was not, however, related
to family time being less enjoyable or more pressured, which is consistent with
weekend work being more associated with an absence from the family domain
rather than being time pressured within the home.
Evenings are usually busy times for families with young children, and if parental
employment encroaches into this time, it is easy to imagine how this can
increase the time pressure that parents are under to get done those aspects of
parenting that are fixed and not easily substituted with alternative supports or
market solutions. It is therefore not surprising that those who sometimes worked
evenings or nights were more likely to agree that their work responsibilities
meant their family time was less enjoyable and more pressured. However,
evening work was not a significant influence on parents feeling liked they had
missed out on home or family activities. This may be because parents who
work evenings or nights have time available at other parts of the day in which
they can spend time with children, such that they do not experience a sense of
missing out.
In contrast to the difficulties of weekend or evening work, the ability to easily
change start and finish times can provide a useful support for employed mothers
in managing both the absence from the family and the additional pressures
(particularly time pressures) that employment can bring. Working flexible hours
(and not having to seek approval to change times) was associated with less
strain on both work–to–family spillover measures (compared to having inflexible
start and finish times) and was stronger in ameliorating the effects of family
absence. This is presumably because some flexibility in the work schedule allows
mothers to more easily schedule parenting responsibilities.
In a similar vein to flexible hours, higher levels of job autonomy were associated
with less work–to–family spillover, since greater autonomy is likely to be
associated with more capacity for and control over scheduling of work to fit
around family demands. In contrast, job security, whilst important for other
aspects of wellbeing (Baxter, Gray, Alexander, Strazdins, & Bittman, 2007), did
not have a significant relationship with these two measures of work–to–family
spillover.
Self‑employment, relative to permanent employment, was associated with a
lower reporting of missing out at home, presumably because some of this work
can be done at home or with children. Relative to permanent employment,
casual work was also associated with less spillover from work to family, both
in terms of missing out at home and home being less enjoyable and more
pressured. Casual employment for mothers of young children may offer greater
flexibilities around managing work–to–family strain than does permanent
ongoing employment. This is an interesting result because in other research, for

208 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

fathers in these same families, casual employment was found to increase work–
to–family strain (Alexander & Baxter, 2005).
The inclusion of broad occupational groupings in the model is designed to
examine the association with work–to–family strain of job of different status,
as well as act as a control and capture any residual effect of job characteristics
not already controlled for by the proceeding variables. The analysis finds
that relative to low status jobs, mothers employed in the highest status jobs
(managers, professionals, associate professionals) were more likely to report
their family time to be less enjoyable and more pressured because of work
responsibilities independent of the other job characteristics already controlled
for. It is possible that this reflects these jobs involving more job stress and
pressure.
Single‑couple mother interactions
To determine whether any effects were stronger or weaker for single mothers
than couple mothers, these two models were re‑estimated with each factor
interacted with single parent status. There were very few significant effects,
which is very likely a consequence of the relatively small sample size for
employed single mothers compared to employed couple mothers. These results
are given in Table 5 (in the Dif column). To see the extent of differences in
effect between single and couple mothers, separate models were also estimated
for each measure. The results of these models are also shown in Table 5. Just as
the interaction terms were often not significant, the terms in the single mother
models were often not significant, again, no doubt due to small sample size.
Only three sets of variables were significantly different between single and
couple mothers, and were primarily associated with one measure – that of
missing out on activities at home. Firstly, for single mothers, access to flexible
hours or the ability to change hours with approval had a significantly stronger
effect (relative to having inflexible hours) on reducing this type of work–to–
family strain. Secondly, the difference between the highest occupation group and
the lowest occupation group in terms of missing out at home was significantly
greater in single mother families. And thirdly, the age of youngest child effects
were greater for single than couple mothers.
Unfortunately the small sample size appears to have reduced the ability to
identify other factors that differ between single and couple mothers. The effects
that were identified, however, are interesting. The fact that flexible hours had a
more beneficial effect on single mothers’ experience of missing out at home is
consistent with Ciabattari’s (2007) findings, that such workplace supports are
likely to be particularly beneficial to single mothers.

209
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

Table 5: Work–to–family spillover, employed single and couple mother

I have missed out at home Family time is less enjoyable
  Couple Single Dif. Couple Single Dif.
Constant 2.40*** 2.44*** 1.93*** 2.09***
Couple, partner is not employed 0.18 n.a. ‑0.02 n.a.
Just getting along, poor, very poor 0.28*** 0.23 0.26*** ‑0.01
Poor health mother 0.40*** 0.45# 0.43*** 0.53
A child has medical condition 0.10# ‑0.12 0.17*** ‑0.16 #
English is not main language ‑0.03 ‑0.36 0.02 ‑0.11
Age mother (centred at 33.6 years) 0.00 0.00 0.02*** 0.00
Youngest child aged <1 (reference)
Youngest child aged 1 ‑0.07 0.50# * 0.02 0.50# #
Youngest child aged 2‑3 0.02 0.55# * 0.00 0.35
Youngest child aged 4‑5 0.19*** 0.61** * 0.06 0.36
1 child in the family (reference)
2 children in the family 0.05 ‑0.10 0.12* ‑0.28 *
3 or more children in the family 0.13* ‑0.13 0.15* 0.12
Has unmet need for help/support 0.23*** 0.21 0.33*** 0.72**
Father helps with caring for child 0.11* 0.02 ‑0.10* ‑0.17
sometimes
Grandparent lives with family 0.07 0.11 0.03 ‑0.40
Other adult lives with family ‑0.15 0.08 ‑0.17 0.24
1 to 15 hours (reference)
16 to 24 hours 0.41*** 0.41* 0.17** 0.18
25 to 34 hours 0.67*** 0.54* 0.31*** 0.13
35 hours or more 0.95*** 0.87*** 0.53*** 0.65*
Sometimes works weekends 0.19*** 0.44* 0.07# 0.05
Sometimes works nights ‑0.03 ‑0.25 0.10* 0.07
Level of job security (centred at 2.95) 0.01 0.02 ‑0.02 ‑0.08
Autonomy at work (centred at 3.73) ‑0.10*** 0.00 ‑0.07*** ‑0.02
Permanent employee (reference)
Self‑employed ‑0.35*** ‑0.10 ‑0.07 0.21
Casual employee ‑0.18** ‑0.23 ‑0.15** 0.02
Fixed‑term and other employee ‑0.16# ‑0.13 0.06 ‑0.23
Cannot change work times
(reference)
Can change work times: flexible ‑0.35*** ‑0.82*** * ‑0.19** ‑0.14
hours
Can change times with approval ‑0.05 ‑0.60* * ‑0.07 ‑0.27
Manager, administrator, professional, 0.01 0.43* * 0.17** 0.20
associate professional
Tradespersons and related workers; ‑0.13 0.35 # 0.06 ‑0.12
advanced clerical and service
workers
Intermediate clerical, sales and ‑0.16* 0.25 # 0.08 0.24
service workers, intermediate
production and transport workers
Elementary clerical, sales and service
workers, labourers and related
workers (reference)
N 3427 263 3411 261
R‑square 0.23 0.29 0.14 0.23

Legend: # p<0.1, * p <0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001 .

210 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

Implications of differences in single and couple mothers’ characteristics
Given these associations between demographic, supports and job variables and
work–family strain, we can then consider whether differences in characteristics
of single and couple mothers could lead to different experiences of work–to–
family strain. (These differences were identified in the Data section.)
There were quite large difference between single and couple mothers in relation
to their demographic and family characteristics. Single mothers had poorer
health and lower perceived prosperity than couple mothers, and these factors
were both significantly related to work–to–family strain. The poorer status
(in health and perceived prosperity) of single mothers therefore increases their
likelihood of experiencing work–to–family strain relative to couple mothers.
Also, single mothers in this sample were more likely to have older children,
compared to couple mothers, and having missed out on family activities due to
work was more likely amongst mothers with older children. This also means
single mothers would experience more of this work–family strain.
Looking at support, the greatest difference was that couple mothers were more
likely to have the child’s other parent provide care sometimes, than were single
mothers. However, the results above showed that for couple mothers this
support was associated with a greater sense of missing out at home, although
was associated with a lower reporting of time pressure. Single mothers would be
more likely to be time pressured, in part because of this lower level of parental
support. Couple mothers, however, may have a greater sense of missing out
because of work, since they are more likely to be in a position of having the
other parent sometimes provide care.
Single mothers were more likely to have the child’s grandparent or another adult
(not including adult siblings of the study child) living with them. However, the
multivariate analyses showed that mothers who had another adult living in the
home did not have any less (or more) work–to–family strain than those who did
not. Surprisingly, in total these supports measures did not appear to contribute
to differences in work–to–family strain of single and couple mothers. It was
expected that for single mothers the lack of support of the father and the added
support of other resident family members would make a difference to work–to–
family strain, but as measured here, these variables had little or no association.
In terms of job characteristics, there were a few differences between employed
single and couple mothers. In particular, single mothers were more‑often casual
employees and less‑often self‑employed, compared to couple mothers; they
were more likely to be employed in lower status jobs; they were less likely than
couple mothers to work evenings and were less likely to have flexible working
hours, being more likely to need to seek approval to change work times. These
differences contribute in various ways to work–to–family strain differences.
For couple mothers, according to the multivariate analyses, having higher use
of self‑employment and flexible hours would be of benefit in reducing their
work–to–family strain, but being more likely in higher status occupations and
undertaking work in the evenings increases strain for some measures. These

211
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

differences are of particular interest in ensuring single mothers have access to the
workplace supports that help in managing work and family. In particular, having
access to more flexible hours, it appears, would be of benefit.

Discussion
This paper set out to explore the differences in work–to–family strain of
employed single and couple mothers, both in regard to work responsibilities
meaning missing out on home of family activities, and in terms of family time
being less enjoyable and more pressured. Unexpectedly, before controlling
for other variables, the difference in the experience of work–to–family strain
between single and couple mothers was not large.
One possible explanation for the smaller than expected difference lies in the fact
that employed single mothers are a more select subgroup of all single mothers
than employed couple mothers are of all couple mothers. Perhaps the potential
work–to–family strain for single mothers with young children is more of a
barrier to employment than it is for couple mothers with young children. On
the other hand, those in paid employment have somewhat similar experiences of
work–to–family strain because those who face potentially excessive strain may
withdraw from or not enter employment in the first instance.
The employment characteristics of single and couple mothers were similar,
especially in regard to some of the variables that had strong relationships with
work–to–family strain, such as hours of employment and level of job autonomy.
There were, however, other differences that were more important in explaining
the work–to–family strain of single mothers relative to couple mothers. One
of these was access to flexible working hours that could be changed without
needing prior approval. Improving access to more flexible hours may well reduce
experiences of work–to–family strain for all mothers, but for single mothers in
particular.
Another important factor in describing the work–to–family strain of employed
mothers was whether they expressed an unmet need for help or support – those
who reported an unmet need experienced more strain. Of all the supports
variables included in this analysis, this had the strongest association with work–
family strain, but it is interesting that the proportion expressing this unmet need
for help was similar for single and couple mothers. The degree of supports in
the community or extended family may also have strong associations with the
likelihood of being employed, as some women may not enter employment unless
they have help or support to back them up to attempt combining work and
family. There was, not surprisingly, more difference between single and couple
mothers in the proportion who had assistance from the child’s other parent in
providing care sometimes. While this assistance appeared to alleviate some of
the pressure within families, it was associated with a heightened sense of missing
out.
It should be noted that the measures of work–family strain used in this paper
are subjective, capturing the degree to which mothers perceive their work spills

212 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008

over to family, as experienced as ‘missing out’, or being ‘more pressured and
less enjoyable’ in the family domain. Responses to such items may vary across
individuals according to a range of characteristics not captured in this analysis,
and may indeed vary according to recent events that elicit more positive or
negative responses.
Overall, the work–to–family strain of employed mothers is much more strongly
determined by employment characteristics, demographics, and selected supports
variables, than it is by single parent status. Having a resident partner does not
automatically reduce the work–to–family strain for employed mothers. However,
having a resident partner is associated with a higher likelihood of being
employed. It is possible that potential work–to–family strain has a stronger
impact on those with no partner, which contributes to decisions about staying
out of employment.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and
family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with
job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60‑74.
Alexander, M., & Baxter, J. (2005). Impacts of work on family life among
partnered parents of young children. Family Matters(72), 18‑25.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2005). House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Balancing
Work and Family submission from the Australian Institute of Family
Studies. Melbourne, Vic.: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Barnett, R. C. (1994). Home‑to‑Work Spillover Revisited: A Study of Full‑Time
Employed Women in Dual‑Earner Couples. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56(3), 647‑656.
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/
family literature. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs
124(2), 125‑182.
Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1992a). Men’s Job and Partner Roles:
Spillover Effects and Psychological Distress. Sex Roles, 27(9‑10), 455‑472.
Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1992b). Worker and Mother Roles, Spillover
Effects, and Psychological Distress. Women and Health, 18(2), 9‑40.
Baxter, J., Gray, M., Alexander, M., Strazdins, L., & Bittman, M. (2007).
Mothers and fathers with young children: Paid employment, caring and
wellbeing (Social Policy Research Paper No. 30). Canberra: Department of
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Ciabattari, T. (2007). Single Mothers, Social Capital, and Work–family Conflict.
Journal of Family Issues, 28(1), 34‑60.
Eagle, B. W., Icenogle, M. L., Maes, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1998). The
Importance of Employee Demographic Profiles for Understanding
Experiences of Work–family Interrole Conflicts. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138(6), 690‑709.

213
Mothers’ work–to‑family strain in single and couple parent families: the role of job characteristics and supports

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes
of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65‑78.
Hill, E. J. (2005). Work–family Facilitation and Conflict, Working Fathers and
Mothers, Work–family Stressors and Support. Journal of Family Issues,
26(6), 793‑818.
Hughes, J., & Gray, M. (2005). The use of family‑friendly work arrangements
by lone and couple mothers. Family Matters(71), 18‑23.
Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The Job Costs of Family Demands:
Gender Differences in Negative Family‑to‑Work Spillover. Journal of
Family Issues 26(3), 275‑299.
Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B. A., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home‑to‑job and
job‑to‑home spillover: The impact of company policies and workplace
culture. Sociological Quarterly, 46(1), 107‑135.
Morehead, A. (2002). Behind the paid working hours of single mothers:
managing change and constructing support. Family Matters(61), 56‑61.
Roehling, P. V., Jarvis, L. H., & Swope, H. E. (2005). Variations in Negative
Work–family Spillover Among White, Black, and Hispanic American Men
and Women: Does Ethnicity Matter? Journal of Family Issues, 26(6),
840‑865.
Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., & Johnstone, R. (2005). Sample Design (LSAC
Technical Paper No. 1). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Voydanoff, P. (2005a). Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work–family
Fit and Balance: A Demands and Resources Approach. Journal of Marriage
& the Family, 67, 822‑836.
Voydanoff, P. (2005b). Work Demands and Work–to–family and
Family‑to‑Work Conflict: Direct and Indirect Relationships. Journal of
Family Issues, 26(6), 707‑726.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of Stress, Strain and Resources
from One Spouse to Another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2),
169‑181.

214 Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.43 No.2 WINTER 2008