When employers say they can’t find or retain talent, they often blame skills gaps or shifting workplace expectations. But what if the real answer is already here? Single mothers in the workforce represent one of the largest and most overlooked segments of American labor. Instead of viewing them through a social services lens, experts argue it’s time to treat them as essential economic contributors. The question isn’t whether they’re ready for opportunity. It’s whether the system is designed to include them.
According to Chastity Lord, president and CEO of the Jeremiah Program, the issue is structural—not personal. She points to the “feminization of poverty,” where women are overrepresented in low-wage sectors like retail, hospitality, and childcare. These jobs often offer flexibility, but at the cost of predictable income, paid leave, and long-term advancement. Missed shifts mean lost wages, and repeated absences can mean termination. For single mothers balancing caregiving responsibilities alone, the margin for error is razor thin. Economic instability, in this context, is less about ambition and more about architecture.
Layer in the absence of federally mandated paid parental leave, and setbacks compound quickly. A hospital bill doesn’t get split between two incomes. Time away from work often means no pay at all. Without national childcare infrastructure, even small disruptions can trigger financial freefall. In 2026, the Jeremiah Program plans to convene hundreds of mothers and thousands of virtual participants in Boston to focus on career mobility and systemic reform. The goal isn’t charity—it’s economic participation at scale.
The United States does have a childcare subsidy system through the Child Care Development Fund, but it reaches only a fraction of eligible families. Limited funding means most single mothers rely on the private market, where childcare averages roughly $12,000 annually. For many households, that’s close to a third of total income before rent, transportation, or healthcare. And the expenses don’t stop when a child starts school. Afterschool programs, holidays, and summer breaks introduce new financial strain.
The logistical paradox is clear: you need a job to afford childcare, but you need childcare to get a job. This isn’t a motivation gap. It’s a structural barrier. When policymakers frame underemployment as a personal failing, they miss how system design dictates outcomes. Childcare, in this light, isn’t a lifestyle perk. It’s economic infrastructure.
Nearly one in three U.S. households is led by a single parent, with women heading the majority of those homes. A significant portion live at or below the poverty line, not because they lack drive, but because work structures assume employees have backup support. Many organizations still design roles around predictable schedules and financial cushions. That assumption excludes millions of capable workers.
Some companies are starting to adjust. Ulta Beauty, whose workforce includes many hourly women employees, offers emergency financial assistance with zero-interest loans to cover unexpected disruptions. A flat tire or sudden childcare gap can mean a missed shift—and cascading losses. Meanwhile, New York Life has tailored messaging to single parents, reframing life insurance as a strategic necessity rather than a luxury. These shifts recognize reality instead of ignoring it.
Retention conversations often center on quarterly performance. But careers are long-term commitments. When companies fail to account for caregiving realities, turnover becomes expensive. Recruitment, onboarding, and retraining costs quickly outweigh the investment required to support stability. Flexible scheduling, emergency assistance, and childcare partnerships aren’t perks—they’re retention strategies.
Research consistently shows that inclusive design improves engagement and productivity. When employees feel structurally supported, performance follows. Treating single mothers as a workforce asset strengthens entire organizations. It also builds economic resilience beyond the workplace.
There’s a persistent myth that supporting single mothers is a feel-good initiative rather than a business imperative. Leaders like Lord argue the opposite. Budgets reveal priorities. Where companies allocate resources signals what—and who—they value. Designing for families improves retention, engagement, and community impact.
The broader consequences matter too. Economic instability doesn’t stop with the parent. It affects children and neighborhoods, multiplying harm across generations. But when single mothers thrive, the benefits ripple outward just as powerfully. Investing in childcare and inclusive workforce policies isn’t social engineering. It’s economic strategy.
If single mothers already make up a substantial portion of the labor force, and if childcare remains a primary barrier to stable employment, then the debate shifts. The issue isn’t whether they belong in leadership pipelines or growth sectors. It’s why systems continue to operate as if they don’t exist.
Reframing childcare as infrastructure—and single mothers as the workforce powerhouse they already are—could redefine talent strategy in an economy that claims it can’t find workers. The opportunity is here. The only question left is who will design for it.
Array