One year ago, EPI published a blog post summarizing research on the effectiveness of youth work permits in reducing child labor violations. Updated findings by the study’s authors reveal the mechanisms and features of work permits that make them so effective.

Amid increased child labor violations, youth work permit systems have been under attack in some states

In recent years, child labor violations have been on the rise across the country. At the same time, lawmakers in many states have proposed bills to reverse long-standing state child labor standards that prohibit employers from exposing youth under 18 to hazardous jobs or overly long work hours that interfere with their health and well-being. Youth work permits—which many states have historically required—have been a repeated target of this coordinated, industry-backed campaign to weaken child labor laws. Such permits typically require employers to outline the potential hours and work duties for a minor worker, as well as parental approval and verification that the minor is attending school.

Since 2021, lawmakers in at least nine states have proposed weakening or eliminating youth work permit systems, and four have enacted such legislation (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, and West Virginia). Most recently, in 2025, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy encouraged the legislature to pass a bill that would have eliminated the requirement that minors receive individual authorization to work (and replaced it with a general authorization for employers to hire minors). And in West Virginia, lawmakers successfully eliminated youth work permits for 14- and 15-year-olds and replaced them with age certificates following a two-year push by the right-wing think tank Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). FGA has played a leading role in efforts to eliminate youth work permits in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

New research explains how and why youth work permits are so effective

Proponents of eliminating youth work permits have often argued that work permits are not necessary, are overly burdensome for employers, or that they infringe on parents’ right to decide whether, where, and how long their child should work. In reality, work permits are a proven, effective policy for ensuring that young teens can enter the workforce safely by making sure employers are aware of child labor laws and that parents are fully informed about the conditions of a proposed job.

A year ago, we reported on research providing new quantitative evidence that work permits help prevent federal child labor violations. Using comprehensive data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division from 2008 to 2020, researchers at the University of Maryland and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, found that states requiring employment certificates saw 13.3% fewer violation cases and 31.8% fewer minors involved in these violations.1 States with work permits also saw 34.9% lower civil penalties per minor, indicating reduced severity of violations that do occur.

New findings from the same research team now reveal two key mechanisms that explain how work permits provide this protection: 1) work permits create a documentary paper trail that increases employers’ accountability and aids government enforcers, and 2) work permits improve compliance with state and federal standards by increasing employers’ awareness of child labor laws. According to the new analysis, requiring verification of parental consent for a minor to work and providing education to employers about hours restrictions are the main features that make work permits effective. State lawmakers can use the new findings to strengthen and modernize their youth work permit systems, using strategies proven to reduce violations and protect youth well-being.

Work permits create legal accountability and enable effective enforcement

Researchers found that work permits enable more effective enforcement of child labor standards by creating a record that employers were informed of child labor standards, therefore making it harder for employers to claim ignorance if violations occur. By analyzing publicly available federal court records, researchers found that in states with work permit mandates, 91% of child labor cases were classified as “willful” or “repeated” violations. These more serious classifications carry higher penalties. In contrast, only 33% of cases in states without work permit mandates received these classifications.

This finding implies that when employers hiring teens must complete a work permit that documents the minor’s age, obtains parental consent, and acknowledges legal requirements, they are made aware of child labor standards and can fully comply with state and federal laws. Work permits also enhance the investigatory capacity of federal enforcement agencies by providing basic documentation about youth employment that investigators can scrutinize when they suspect violations of federal law, as well as bolstering their ability to take effective action if an employer violates the law despite having been informed.

Work permits enhance awareness of specific child labor standards

Second, researchers found that work permits enhance awareness and monitoring of employers’ compliance with federal and state laws—but only for standards that are explicitly mentioned in the permitting process. Analyzing all relevant Department of Labor news releases detailing specific violations (118 in total) from 2020 through 2025, researchers found that work permits reduce precisely the types of violations that the permit forms explicitly warn employers are prohibited under federal law. As Figure A highlights, states with work permits showed: 1) fewer hours violations—minors working beyond federally permitted hours (e.g., federal law limits 14–15 year-olds to 18 hours per week during school weeks); 2) fewer age-limit violations—employment of children below minimum working age (typically 14 for nonagricultural work); and 3) fewer recordkeeping violations—failure to maintain required documentation such as age verification. On the other hand, hazardous occupation violations remained similar across both types of states. Analysis of employment certificate forms from all 38 states with mandates reveals why: While 100% mention age requirements and 60% mention work hours restrictions, most forms do not enumerate the specific hazardous occupations prohibited under federal law.

Figure A Parental consent and hour limits provide strongest protection

The researchers also examined which features make permits most effective. Figure B highlights the findings. Examining employment certificate forms from 37 of the 38 states that require them (Mississippi’s form was not publicly available), researchers found that parental consent requirements had the strongest protective effect, reducing violations by 13.9% and case severity by 38.7% (measured by civil penalties assessed). Work hours documentation—in which the certificate must record the minor’s planned work schedule (typically completed by employers, though responsibilities vary by state)—also proved effective, reducing the number of minors involved in violations by 24.0%. In contrast, more passive requirements, such as employer signatures and job description requirements, showed lesser independent effects. This suggests that active oversight mechanisms, particularly parental involvement and explicit requirements to record work schedules to show compliance with legal guidelines on hours of work, drive the protective benefits. That these two features are particularly impactful provides further evidence that requiring employer documentation on work permits and verifying parental consent make work permits effective.

Figure B Work permits prevent violations. State lawmakers should strengthen, not eliminate them.

Understanding how work permits prevent violations points to ways for states to further increase their effectiveness. The researchers identified four best practices lawmakers should consider:

• Strengthen parental consent requirements: Youth work permit applications should require parental signature and include a process for parents to revoke their consent in the future. 
• Strengthen requirements to outline the specific duties of the potential job: Youth work permit applications should require employers to document specific duties of the potential job and include the minor’s planned work schedule. 
• Include information about hazardous occupation restrictions on permit forms: Youth work permit applications should include a list of prohibited jobs for minors under state and federal law and affirm the employer’s commitment not to employ a minor for hazardous tasks and occupations.
• Clearly state hour limits: Youth work permit applications should include permitted daily and weekly hours and prohibitions on overnight work under both state and federal law. These forms should also clearly state that, where there are discrepancies between state and federal law, the more protective law applies.

These new insights into how youth work permits function reinforce the researchers’ original conclusion: Youth work permits are a proven method for reducing child labor violations. And they show that the permitting process can be a highly effective vehicle for educating employers, teen workers, and parents about legal rights and protections. States with existing work permit systems can strengthen them to enhance their protective effects—as Illinois, Michigan, and Washington have done—and states that do not have work permit requirements should take immediate steps to implement or reinstate them.

1. Throughout this report, the terms “work permits” and “employment certificates” are used interchangeably. Age certificates are distinct and more limited; they typically verify age but do not include the same safeguards.

Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 50,000 jobs added in December. Read the full thread here. 

 

Today’s #JobsReport tells us the economy is decidedly weaker than a year ago:
-unemployment rate is 4.4%, up from 4.1% last Dec
-payroll employment up 50k; total gain this year only 585k compared to 2.0 million in 2024
-federal employment is down 277k since Jan, a loss of 9.2% federal jobs
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 7:47 AM

The slowdown in job growth this year is stark compared to 2024. The average monthly gain was only 49,000 in 2025 compared to 168,000 in 2024. Over the last three months, average job growth was actually negative, meaning there are fewer jobs now than in September.

#NumbersDay #EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 8:05 AM

Leisure and hospitality gained 47k jobs in Dec after falling in Nov. Health care and social assistance continue to add jobs. Retail jobs fell along with construction, professional and business services, and manufacturing. Manufacturing has lost jobs every month over the last 8, down 72k since April.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 8:20 AM

Attacks on the federal workforce were astounding in 2025. Federal employment has shrunk an alarming 277,000 since January. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers. The cost of these losses are only beginning to be felt.
#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 8:29 AM

The unemployment rate is higher than at the start of the year (4.4% vs 4.0%). Black unemployment (7.5%) is far higher than any other group and up since in Jan (6.2%). Unemployment rise was worst for Black women (7.8% in Dec vs 5.4% in Jan). See www.epi.org/blog/whats-b… for more context.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 8:49 AM

 

The unemployment rate for U.S. born workers is up over the last year as well, from 3.7% in December 2024 to 4.1% in December 2025, evidence against the myth that the slowdown in the labor market in 2025 was limited to immigrants.

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 9:03 AM

In recent months, uber-rich families and companies have pledged millions of dollars to support a new savings program for children, known as Trump Accounts. In early December, for example, Dell Founder and CEO Michael Dell made a historic pledge of $6.25 billion to strengthen the new infrastructure for Trump Accounts. This gift aims to provide about 25 million children under age 11, from economically disadvantaged zip codes, with about $250 as an incentive to join the new savings vehicle. Soon after this, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pledged $75 million to certain children in Connecticut in another effort to encourage additional participation.

The Trump-Vance administration has announced each of these charitable contributions with considerable fanfare, staging press and campaign-style events and promising that U.S. companies and other philanthropist will soon follow. What is often missing from the White House celebrations is an explanation of how exactly these gifts and the new Trump Accounts will alleviate child poverty and inequity.

The truth is that the U.S. falls behind peer countries from the developed world in its fight against child poverty. These deprivations are particularly harmful to children of color due the deterministic role that structural racism plays in the American economy. A pretax and voluntary savings vehicle with little government support, and at the mercy of charitable inclinations, will do little for the millions of low-income families who can’t afford to save. In fact, these accounts are poised to compound structural inequities that have persistently delivered disparate outcomes for disadvantaged families. This is because the Trump Accounts fail to adequately account for the scope of child poverty and inequity. They also crudely overlook the root causes of these issues by framing them as the result of insufficient savings.

Child poverty is a defining feature of the U.S. economy

More than 9 million children struggle with poverty in the United States. This amounts to more than 1 in 10 children who live in households with insufficient resources to provide an adequate and dignifying standard of living in the world’s richest country. This is not a new economic reality. Since 2009, child poverty has declined by less than 4 percentage points in the U.S., leaving the country with the second-highest child poverty rate in the rich world—behind only Urugay, a Latin American country with a significantly lower living standard.

Child poverty in the U.S. is especially harmful to children of color. More than 1 in 5 Black and Hispanic children struggled below the poverty line (see Figure A). Similarly, more than 1 in 6 (16.6%) American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) children have remained under the poverty line since 2022. Overall, children of color are more than twice as likely as their white peers to experience material shortcomings. This prolonged exposure to poverty is likely to translate into even broader disadvantages throughout these children’s lives, with relatively poorer outcomes than their more affluent peers in health, education, earnings, and even retirement.

Figure A

Making a significant dent on child poverty in the U.S. will require more than a voluntary savings vehicle backed by a one-time federal government contribution of $1,000 for each of the 3 million children born annually through 2028. This promise under the new Trump Accounts severely understates the problem of child poverty in the U.S. and it carelessly misidentifies the drivers of early deprivation and inequity.

Child poverty is a policy choice driven by a withering welfare state and structural inequities in the labor market

In 2021, the U.S. proved that it deliberately tolerates high poverty rates for children. The expanded welfare state that followed the pandemic led to a historic decline in child poverty. Economic relief measures and expanded access for low-income families to tax credits (like the Child Tax Credit) and basic needs programs (like SNAP) helped reduce the prevalence of child poverty by nearly half between 2020 and 2021. However, all these gains quickly vanished when this enhanced social safety net expired. Today, child poverty is higher than it was in 2019, and it is likely to worsen with major cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid the Trump-Vance administration signed into law last summer. These programs lifted 1.4 million and 6.1 million children out of poverty in 2024, respectively.

Alleviating child poverty in the U.S. will also require confronting the low-wage employment regime sustained by a federal minimum wage that officially became a poverty wage in 2025. Low-wage work leaves more than 10 million workers in poverty. The growing divergence between the productivity of the U.S. economy and the earnings of the typical worker leaves millions of workers vulnerable to poverty and economic insecurity. About 67 million workers earn less than $25 per hour, a threshold considerably lower than the hourly earnings of a typical worker had their pay kept pace with productivity.

The defining role of structural racism in the U.S. labor market means that workers of color are more likely than their white peers to be part of the low-wage workforce. These workers of color are also more exposed than their peers to unemployment and lack dependable and consistent income. Compared with less than 1 in 3 (31.5%) of their white peers, more than 2 in 5 Black (43.3%) and Hispanic (46.3%) adults report having difficulties paying their bills due to monthly fluctuations in income. This economic insecurity means that less than half of Black and Hispanic adults have enough savings to cover expenses for three months in case of a job loss or other emergency (see Figure B). A savings vehicle without continued government support for disadvantaged families will only deepen existing inequities for families who can’t even afford to maintain their living standard in the event of an unexpected economic shock. 

Figure B Trump Accounts distract us from real solutions that lean on the functional power of wealth, a strong labor market and welfare state

Trump’s new savings vehicle for children falls short of the more ambitious Baby Bonds proposed by economists like Darrick Hamilton and William Darity. Since 2021, versions of Baby Bonds legislation have been introduced federally and in several states. Unlike Trump Accounts, national Baby Bonds commit the federal government to a publicly funded account beyond an initial endowment with additional contributions until the child reaches the age of 18. These continued contributions by the federal government would follow a progressive structure, with children from resource constrained households receiving relatively larger endowments that they can later access at the age of 18 to purchase a home or start a business.  

The continued commitment to a federally funded and progressively seeded account means that Baby Bonds are intentionally designed to narrow racial disparities in wealth. Since families of color only have a fraction of the net worth that their white peers enjoy, the larger public contributions to children from resource constrained households would disproportionately benefit children of color. This explains why impact assessments show that Baby Bonds can effectively narrow the racial wealth disparities that reflect a long history of economic exploitation and exclusion.

Without these characteristics, Trump’s voluntary savings accounts are poised to widen wealth disparities for generations. The more resource constrained families will be unable to keep up with the contributions of their more affluent peers—broadening inequities in wealth even further. This is particularly true under the Trump-Vance economy, characterized by sluggish job growth and rising unemployment. Trump’s economy is also one in which food insecure families that rely on nutritional assistance programs like SNAP—and those that rely on Medicaid and CHIP for health coverage—face ever more stringent conditions intentionally designed to limit access to support and to raise questions about the deservingness of social assistance. At this rate, the Trump-Vance administration is looking to make the U.S. the leader of child poverty in the rich world.