Best and Worst States for Working Moms in 2025

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/08

WalletHub’s 2025 study analyzed the best and worst states for working moms based on childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance, using 17 metrics from reputable sources like the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island topped the list, offering high-quality childcare and supportive environments despite high costs. In contrast, states like Mississippi and Louisiana ranked low due to poor daycare quality and limited opportunities. The study highlights how structural supports like childcare are more impactful for working mothers than professional metrics alone, especially for single moms facing distinct challenges in balancing work and caregiving.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, this is Chip from WalletHub again.

Women now represent nearly half the U.S. workforce—about 47% as of 2025. That marks a dramatic shift from a century ago when their participation was significantly lower.

In 2024, 74% of mothers with children under 18 were active in the labour force. Despite this progress, working moms continue to face notable challenges. For instance, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned in 2024. Additionally, women held only 7.8% of CEO positions in S&P 500 companies as of 2024.

Many are familiar with Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In movement, which gained prominence during her tenure at Facebook (now Meta). The movement encouraged women to pursue leadership roles and sparked widespread conversations about workplace equity.

Given these dynamics, WalletHub conducted a study to identify the best and worst states for working moms in 2025. We analyzed all 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance. Within these categories, we applied 17 metrics, including daycare quality, cost of childcare, women’s median salary, and the ratio of female to male executives. What’s the deal?

Chip Lupo: Our findings revealed a notable regional trend: New England states dominated the top rankings. Massachusetts secured the number one spot, followed by Connecticut at number two and Rhode Island at number three. These states stood out due to their high-quality childcare services, supportive parental leave policies, and strong professional opportunities for women.

Interestingly, while Rhode Island ranked third overall, it placed 19th in the professional opportunities category. This was primarily due to a lower median salary for women and a significant gender representation gap in various economic sectors.

Other top-performing regions included Maine, at number five, and the District of Columbia, at number four. These areas also excelled at providing supportive environments for working mothers.

The concentration of top-ranked states in the Northeast suggests that progressive policies and a focus on gender equity contribute significantly to better outcomes for working moms. This is a compelling insight into how regional approaches can impact the professional and personal lives of mothers across the country.

Jacobsen: Work-life balance is tied to critical professional opportunities. However, Massachusetts ranked number one in both work-life balance and childcare—two closely related areas. So, even though Massachusetts did not top the list of professional opportunities, it excelled in the other two categories.

Professional opportunities include factors like the gender pay gap, the ratio of female to male executives, and median women’s salaries. In contrast, work-life balance and childcare cover metrics such as daycare quality, childcare costs, pediatricians per capita, school system quality, parental leave policies, and women’s average commute time. In many ways, those two—work-life balance and childcare—are more directly connected to the daily well-being of working mothers than raw professional metrics.

It is almost as if those two categories act as structural supports—buttresses, if you will—for the overall health of working mothers, more so than just having access to a job or the nature and quality of that job. It also makes sense that childcare is weighted more heavily in the analysis. If a mother knows her children are in good hands, that is a significant stress reliever—probably one of the biggest.

Lupo: What I found interesting in the data is that among the top three states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—Massachusetts ranked first, Rhode Island third, and Connecticut sixth in terms of daycare quality. However, all three states were also among the highest in terms of childcare costs.

Of course, these are states with a high cost of living and relatively high median household incomes, which may help offset some of the costs. Still, it’s notable: the best quality childcare comes at a price. But then again, many parents may be willing to pay more for better quality care if they know it will be a safe, enriching environment for their children. That peace of mind reduces stress significantly.

Another point worth discussing is that the data reflects the experience of working moms in general—not just single working mothers. So, when considering the additional burdens of single motherhood, there are likely differences that are not fully captured by this study. For example, in two-parent households, the partner’s support level varies: some are absent, others are present but uninvolved, and others are active participants in childcare and housework. Those differences matter but are difficult to quantify without a more targeted attitudinal survey.

Jacobsen: That nuance between single and partnered working mothers is crucial. The situation for a single mother—who may not have any support—is very different from that of a mother in a household with an actively engaged co-parent.

Lupo: I also reviewed the methodology and looked at the metric regarding the share of families living in poverty. That metric is likely impacted by household structure, but it is not broken down by marital or partnership status in this study. So, while it adds insight, it does not fully reflect the different layers of difficulty single moms may face.

Jacobsen: Now, when we refer to “families,” that does include single mothers with children aged 0 to 17. So, in the study context, that demographic is included.

: So then we expect significant differences among those four categories: single working moms, married working moms with a supportive partner, married working moms without a supportive partner and married working moms with a partner who is present but not contributing. That last one becomes a baseline for comparison.

Lupo: Depending on the situation, the priorities for each group would differ. For instance, if you’re a single working mom, work-life balance might be the top priority—ensuring you have enough time and flexibility to spend with your children.

After that, professional opportunities would also be critical. Equal pay becomes even more important when you’re the sole breadwinner. In fact, in some cases, single working moms may even require higher compensation just to maintain stability since there’s no second income to fall back on.

Jacobsen: That makes a lot of sense. Are there any areas we have not covered yet?

Lupo: Yes, Scott. I also wanted to examine the study’s bottom half of the rankings.

So, some of the lowest-ranked states for working moms in our analysis were New Mexico, Mississippi, Nevada, Alabama, and Louisiana. It is not that these are “bad” states in general, but in terms of support and conditions for working mothers, they ranked among the worst.

A key issue is the very low quality of daycare in several of these states. Many of them are located in the Deep South, with the exception of Nevada. These are predominantly lower-income states, which often translates into limited public funding for childcare infrastructure. That affects both access and quality.

On top of that, these states tend to be economically depressed overall, so even beyond childcare, there are fewer job opportunities—and even fewer paths to career advancement, especially for women.

Many of these states ranked in the 40s across nearly all three dimensions: childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance. For example, My home state of South Carolina came in at 46, sliding all the way down to 51 in some categories.

That’s consistent with broader social and economic patterns in the Deep South. Many of these states still hold on to more traditional gender roles, reflective of the nuclear family model standard in the 1950s and early 1960s. Cultural and structural changes still need to take root in those regions.

Jacobsen: How quickly do states move on to that kind of cultural change?

Lupo: Some move more quickly than others. However, this study clearly illustrates the disparity in progress. States that have invested in policy innovation, infrastructure, and gender equity are seeing better outcomes. Others are still catching up.

I mean, your blue states—especially many of the Northeastern states—tend to be more proactive regarding societal change. They are generally high-tax states, but in many cases, when it comes to childcare and the public school system—which was a key factor in evaluating childcare quality—those higher taxes may translate into stronger public services.

So, even though the cost of living is higher, many families see it as a worthwhile trade-off if the overall experience for their children is positive.

Jacobsen: Your data sources for this study included a broad range of institutions from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Child Care Aware of America, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Council for Community and Economic Research, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the NEE Regulatory Research Center. WalletHub also conducted an analysis to synthesize the findings.

That is quite comprehensive. Could you give us a little more insight into the research methodology—mainly how you selected those sources and ensured the accuracy and reliability of the data?

Lupo: Sure. We try to place more weight on government-sourced data—like the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the EEOC—because they’re generally more consistent and publicly accountable. I do not personally compile the data, but I know there’s a vetting process involved when it comes to nonprofit sources, particularly when we evaluate their credibility and relevance.

The organizations we pull from are reputable and widely used in research and policy analysis.

Jacobsen: What about the weightings in the study? How much weight is each category given? Are there any parts you found particularly noteworthy in terms of their inclusion or influence on the final rankings?

Lupo: The weightings are pretty reasonable. Obviously, I’m not a working mom, but if I had to guess what matters most, I’d say childcare comes first. If a mother knows her child is in good hands during the workday, that peace of mind goes a long way.

The other categories—professional opportunities and work-life balance—are certainly important, but they tend to work themselves out once the major stressor of childcare is removed. Children do not need childcare forever, so over time, families can start placing greater focus on career growth and overall balance.

Jacobsen: That makes sense. And your top three states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—seem to strike that balance pretty effectively.

Lupo: No pun intended, but they manage to juggle all those priorities well. They’re providing quality childcare, a strong support infrastructure, and professional opportunities all at once.

Jacobsen: Is there anything else we should add before wrapping up?

Lupo: No, that covers it for today.

Jacobsen: Great.

Lupo: Fantastic. All right, Scott. Have a good weekend. 

Jacobsen: All right. You take care. Thank you.

Lupo: Be good.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.