DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 371 892 PS 022 522

AUTHOR Goetz, Kathy, Ed.TITLE Work and Family. Special Focus.INSTITUTION Family Rescurce Coalition, Chicago, IL.

REPORT NO ISSN-1041-8660PUB DATE 92

NOTE 25p.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022)

JOURNAL CIT Family Resource Coalition Report; v11 n2 1992

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage....,ESCRIPTORS *Employed Parents; Employee Assistance Programs;

Employer Attitudes; *Employer Employee Relationship;Employer Supported Day Care; *Family Programs;*Fringe Benefits; Personnel Needs; Personnel Policy;Program Descriptions

IDENTIFIERS *Family Support

ABSTRACTThis newsletter issue focuses on issues concerning

families with both parents employed outside the home and describesseveral employer programs designed to help employees balance theirwork and family life. The newsletter includes the following articles:(1) "Work and Family: 1992"; (2) "Levi Strauss and Co.--A Work/FamilyProgram in Action"; (3) "Employer Guidelines for Work/FamilyPrograms"; (4) "One Company's Experience: Fel-Pro Family Policies Pay

Off"; (5) "Corporate Funds Build Resources for Working Families"; (6)

"Program Providers' Roundtable on Work and Family Issues"; (7) "Work

and Family Policy: An International Perspective"; (8) "Making State

Government a Model Employer"; (9) "One Small Step: A CommunityResponse to Work and Family Issues"; and (10) "The Work and FamilyAgenda: Not for Women Only?" In addition, the newsletter includes aprogram providers' roundtable discussion of work and family issues,

and a resource file of information sources, organizations, andpublications pertaining to work-related family issues. (HTH)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied iy EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Volume 11, Number 2-1992

2 An Overview of Workand Family Issues:Reflections on the Present andProjections for the Future

4 Levi Strauss & Co.:Portrait of a Corporate Workand Family Program

6 Creating Work andFamily Programs: Guide linfor Employers

4,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice oil Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

AThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

1:1 Minor changes have been made tofJ improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position cr policy

"111All

AL

8 Current Research:A Case Study on theEffects of Fel-Pro's

Family Responsive Policies

10 The Fund: A NewCorporate Strategy to BuildResources for Families andCommunities

12 FRC Interview: Insightsfrom Five Community-BasedProgram Providers

16 Work/Family PublicPolicy: Comparing the UnitedStates and Europe

18 Making Government aModel Employer: NorthCarolina Efforts

19 One Small Step: The BayArea Employer Work andFamily Coalition

20 Gender: An Issue in theWork/Family Arena

22 Resource File

SPECIAL FOCUS

URK & FAMILY"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Deckx-vzTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 2

by Ellen Galinsky

WORK AND FAMILY: 1992

In 1980, when I began my first work-family research project and people wouldask me what kind of work I did, myresponse required a long explanation.The terminology work and family had noname recognition. Twdve years later,there is absolutely no confusion. Peopleusually respond to the statement thatconduct research on work and family lifeissues with a personal story offeeling torn by too much to doand not enough time.

Today, it is also more widelyunderstood that work-familyproblems are a result of familieschanging faster than public andcorporate institutions. Theworkplace with its last minutemeetings or mandatory overtime,the schools which provide littlewarning of events that parentsare expected to attend, thedoctors or dentists who don'tkeep evening hours, the banksthat close at three o'clock seemto be responding less flexibly thanmembers of the family.

The guilt and strain of trying "to do itall, to have it all- are, however, begin-ning to produce changed attitucies. Pollson the work ethic are for the first timerevealing that a majority of employedparents do not want to live such pres-sured lives. A recent survey, conductedby the Hilton Corporation, found thatabout two-thirds of Americans wouldprefer to take a salary reduction in orderto get more time off.

numbers of companies which were ateach stage.

We found:33% are in Pre-Stage I, with few

policies to address the issue, and manage-ment resistant to or barely aware of theconcerns.

Paralleling the change in individualattitudes, there is also a gradual change inthe awareness and responsiveness ofcompanies to employees' work andfamily concerns. In this status report onwork and family in 1992, I will describethe nature and direction of these work-place changes.

Some work-family assistance exists inall large companies, but most compa-nies have only a limited or piecemealapproach.

In a study of the largest companies in30 industries for the recent book. TheCorporate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs. and in other studies.the Families and Work Institute defineddistinct stages of development for work-family initiatives and tabulated the

2 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT 1%2 NO 2

46% are in Stage I. with severalpolicies but not an overall response:work-family is seen mainly as a women'sissue with a focus on childcare.

19% are in Stage II. with an inte-grated approach to meeting the work-family needs of employees.

2% are in Stage III, with a focus thathas moved beyond programs towardchanging the company culture to be morefamily-friendly as well as towardcommunity intervention.

It is in Stage II and Stage III thatcompanies review their existing time andleave policies to try to provide greaterflexibility. It is also in these stages thatmanagement rea1izes that while theircompany may have excellent time-offprogram ;, such programs will be of littlevalue if supervisors measure employees'commitment primarily by the number ofhours employees spend on the job,classifying those who use flexible timeand leave policies as "not serious abouttheir jobs.- In fact, at one of thc mostprogressive U.S. companies. 52% of theemployees reported that they believedtaking advantage of the company's timeand leave programs would jeopardizetheir jobs or careers. In response to suchconcerns, some companies have insti-

tuted management training programs tohelp change managers' attitudes and toteach skills in handling subordinates'work-family issues productively. Tenpercent of large companies now offerwork-family management training tosupervisors.

Despite the prevalence of some sort offlextime policies, few companiesoffer real time and leaveflexibility or are truly family-friendly.

Studies of employee popula-tions, company by company,conducted by Families and WorkInstitute, reveal that the kind ofassistance that employed parentsmost desire is greater timeflexibility. They want to takeleaves to be with a new baby orsick child, to be late withoutcensure if there is a childcareproblem, to be able to attend aschool play or teacher's confer-

ence. or to be able to take an elderlyparent to the doctor.

Most large companies do have time-offpolicies. For example, 77% offerflextime, allowing employees somediscretion in the times they arrive at andleave work, as long as they accumulatethe required number of hours per day orper week. However, only 45% of theseprograms are written into companypolicy and only one-fourth are availablecompanywide. Likewise, while all thesefirms have disability leaves for childbirth.only 28% have policies providing time-off for mothers beyond the disabilityperiod. Such leaves are offered to fathersin just 22% of the companies and toadoptive parents in 23%. Furthermore,only 16c/c permit the use of their leavepolicies for the care of sick children orother family members. And we estimatethat only one in seven companies of allsizes has a formal or informal time-offpolicy which meets the requirements ofthe Family and Medical Leave Actpassed by Congress in 1992, which wassent to and vetoed by President Bush thisfall.

The research that provides a ratio-nale for these programs is beginning todocument the costs of work-familyproblems and the benefits of thesolutions.

Most of the research to date on the costof not addressing work-family problemshas been focused on childcare. It hasidentified the following problems:

(I) Difficulty finding and maintainingchildcare. The research indicates thatdifficulty finding out about and obtainingchildcare is a major predictor of parents'absenteeism. Workers who have to makelast-minute, ad-hoc arrangements havehigher rates of absenteeism and tardiness,are more likely to spend unproductivetime on the job, and are also prone tohigher levels of stress and more stress-related health problems than thosewithout such childcare problems.

(2) Difficulty paying for childcare. Anational study reveal-, that poor familiespay proportionately .aore for childcare-23% of their family income compared to6% for higher-income families.= The lackof affordable childcare leads manyemployed parents to settle for patchworkarrangements that can disrupt theirproductivity.

(3) Coping with sick children. In theNational Childcare Survey 1990, 35% ofemployed mothers reported that theirchildren were sick within the precedingmonth. Of these, 51% stayed home atsome point to care for their children.3

The primary benefits of an employer-sponsored childcare center appear to hereduced turnover and improved recruit-ment.' but managers and center users aremore likely to believe that morale andabsenteeism are the greatest benefits. TheFamilies and Work Institute is currentlydoing a study assessing the costs andbenefits of an on-site center that includescare for mildly ill children. It is veryplausible that when a company addressesthe sick-child care issue, absenteeismmay decrease.

Research on flextime has shown thatthe degree of flexibility offered makesthe greatest difference in whether itreduces work-family conflict and stressfor employed parents and leads to morefamily time. Flextime has also beenshown to provide a return to the companythrough reductions in tardiness andabsenteeism and improvements inmorale. Since the costs of implementingflextime are so low, little change isneeded to show a return on investment.

Several studies have shown thatpregnant women who work for compa-nies with accommodating policies aremore likely to return to their jobs aftermaternity leave.5 Cost/benefit analyses

have likewise shown it is cheaper toprovide a leave than to replace theemployee." A study conducted by Marraand Lindner to be published by Families

. and Work Institute this fall reveals that itcosts 32% of an employee's ycarly salaryto provide a leave, whereas it costsbetween 75% and 150% of the salary toreplace the employee.'

Work-family initiatives were nothalted by the recession.

Many people have speculated that thecurrent recession might slow or stopwork-family initiatives. Instead, althoughactual implementation of these programsmay have slowed, corporate interest hascontinued to grow. even during thesehard economic times.

A survey of 170 companies, conductedby The Confereilee Board in mid-1991,found that only '2 'Yr of respondents hadcut work-family p,ograms more thanother human resource programs. Sixtypercent had enhanced their work-familyprograms during the past recessionaryyear, and nearly half (47%) of compa-nies' work-family programs wereexpanded more than other humanresource programs.s

Future trends include extendinginitiatives to new constituencies andcreating collaborations.

Companies are extending theirchildcare initiatives into emergencychildcare and school-age care. Forexample. a few companies are buildingemergency centers (The Chase Manhat-tan Corporatiom Goldman, Sachs, & Co.:Time Warner, Inc.), while others arecreating collaborations such as Emer-gency Child Care Services (ECCS), aservice developed by 15 companies inNew York City to provide and subsidizein-home care when children are sick.

In this decade, creative programs willbe developed to provide before and after-school care as well as summer andvacation care. Since children betweeneight and ten-years-old often tend to dropoff from school-age initiatives becausethe programs are seen as "too babyish."some companies (for example, Corning)are beginning to develop more age-appropriate programs for older children.This strategy dovetails nicely withanother corporate concern: developingscience, math, and literary skills in thefuture workforce. In addition, a growingnumber of companies subscribe to anational hotline where parents can gethelp with their school-age children'shomework issues.

Eldercare is another growth ar... In

4

The Corporate Reference Guide study,almost one-fourth of the companiessurveyed reported that they are planningto institute Elder Care Consultation andReferral, a service which proviaesinformation, personal consultation, andreferrals to community-based services forthe elderly. There has been little innova-tive thinking in the development of otherbusiness programs to assist employeeswith eldercare concerns. Given thenumber of employees expected to assumeresponsibilities caring for elderlyrelatives in the 1990s (possibly up to40% of the workforce), one can expect tosee more attention to eldercare in thecoming decade.

This fall's announcement of theAn terican Business Collaborative forQuality Dependent Care (ABC) alsoheralds a new trend in the work-familyfield. Over a dozen companies havejoined together in several communities tospend tens of millions of dollars todevelop far ranging solutions to theiremployees' dependent care needs. Thecompanies include IBM, which hasspearheaded this initiative. Johnson &Johnson, NationsBank, AT&T. AllstateInsurance Company, Eastman KodakCompany, and others. The word qualityin the title of this effort is cruciallyimportant. Recent national studies on thesupply and demand of childcare indicatethat while the supply of childcare hasincreased dramatically over the lasttwenty-jive years, cost has remained flatand quality has declined.9 Furthermore,the regulations governing the 1990Childcare and Development Block Grant(CCDBG) hamper states' ability todevelop initiatives that improve quality."'The ABC collaboration indicates that thecorporate community, aware of howmuch it has to lose by a poorly preparedworkforce, is taking up the banner ofquality. In doing so, the corporatecommunity seems to be saying that if thegovernment will not provide safeguardsand quality assurances for their employ-ees' children, they will.

Additional future trends: trying tochange the culture of the workplace tomake it more family-friendly.

Work-family management trainingefforts will continue but will also change.It is becoming increasingly clear toleading companies that four hours oftraining cannot change a culture. In thefuture, one can expect to see trainingexpanded beyond one session and

Continued on page 21

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO 2

- . .-

by Christine Vogel

LEVI STRAUSS AND CO.A Work/Family Program in Action

Levi Strauss and Co., the blue jeansmaker founded in 1850, leads MoneyMagazine's June, 1992 list of majorcompanies providing the best employeebenefits. Long vacations, all Fridayafternoons off, and health insurance forunmarried partners (irrespective of sexualorientation) are just some of the benefitsthat make the world's largest apparelmanufacturer a leader in helping employ-ees balance their work and personal lives.

The company's corporate mission andaspiration statement vows a "commit-ment to balanced personal and profes-sional lives," and more than three yearsago U.S. employees, nearly 23.000strong, challenged the company to definethat commitment. An 18-member Work/Family Task Force, sponsored by RobertD. Haas the company's chair and CEO,set itself to meet the challenge.

The task force, diverse in ethnicity.gender, lifestyle, family status, and jobresponsibilities, was a microcosm of thecompany itself. Its intent was to makerecommendations which would posi-tively affect employees overall qualityof life. As a result, members focused onthe concept of balance and recognized asan issue anything that caused stress in anemployee's life, regardless of whether itoccurred at work or at home. And fromthe very start, the task force :...pressed itsrespect for diversity by defining "family"in the broadest possible sense, to includeall those with whom employees haveimportant relationshipsparents,children, siblings, and significant others.

With the help of the Families andWork Institute in New York. the taskforce developed surveys for the threemajor employee groups: managementand other white collar workers; localpayroll employees in plants and customerwrvice centers; and sales employees.More than 17,000 employees (nearly 80percent of Levi Strauss' U.S. workforce)completed the surveys.

A Work/Family PhilosophyBased on the findings, the task force

identified different needs and issues aspriorities for each employee segmentwithin the company. Their recommenda-

4 FAMILY RESOURCE; COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO 2

tions, approved by executive manage-ment in late 1990, were combined withexisting company initiativessuch aspart-time work, telecommuting, flex-timeand job sharingto create an overallWork/Family Program, aimed at makingLevi's a family-friendly workplace. Thelong-range goal: to change ways ofthinking so that work/family will beviewed not only as a program, but as theoutgrowth of a philosophical perspective,a new way of doing business thatultimately contributes to the company'sbottom line.

Providing Flexible WorkSchedules

Flexibility and time off were majorconcerns of professional employeesbased at the home office. The Time OffWith Pay Program (TOPP) was designedto meet those needs. While many othercompanies have instituted flexible time-off plans. Levi's is unusual in that itdoesn't differentiate between sick days,vacation time. etc. And because thecompany expanded its definition offamily. employees can, if they wish, takea [unpaid] leave of absence to care foranyone they regard as a significant other.In addition, the company redefined thenotion of "family leave," calline it leavefor "compelling versus noncompellingreasons." This gives both employee andemployer greater flexibilicy in arrangingand granting time off.

Addressing Childcare isa Must

Recognizing the need for a broadlybased approach to childcare, especiallyamong hourly field location employees,the company has created severalchildcare initiatives. It created a Corpo-rate Childcare Fund to provide employ-ees with greater access to affordable,quality childcare. The goal of the fund isto increase the supply, and improve thequality, of childcare services for hourlyemployees and the communities in whichthey live and work. The Child Care Fundallows the company to make grants to

5

local, certified, non-profit providerswhose services are judged to be of highquality. The providers must serve or havethe potential to serve Levi's employees.Grant monies can be used for expansionof services, start-up of new programs orquality improvement of existing pro-grams. [For more information -nCorporate funds see article on page 10 ofthis issue.]

To accommodate the needs of hourlyemployees with lower incomes, thecompany is also testing the concept ofChild Care Vouchers. This is a relativelynew approach to childcare; only fivemajor companies in the U.S. currentlyuse it. Levi Strauss is model testing theprogram for its hourly employees inTexas and Arkansas. Employees whoqualify, based on need, receive a monthlysubsidy that covers childcare costs.Levi's gives the employees a check at thebeginning of each month made out to thechildcare provider. The company willevaluate the program at the end of 1993.Part of that evaluation will includesurveys of those who used the vouchersand of those employees who wereeligible, but did not take advantaee of thebenefit.

At the other end of the spectrum,eldercare research is underway and pilotprograms will soon be implemented. Thisarea emerged as a priority concernamong all surveyed employees, particu-larly those in the company's sales staff,many of whose children are beyond theage where childcare is an issue.

Healthcare benefits, which nowinclude a vision-care membership plan.are available to all Levi's employees inthe U.S.. and Employee AssistanceProgram services in the field have beensignificantly expanded.

Despite a generally innovativeapproach to employee benefits, LeviStrauss has not yet embraced a "cafeteriastyle" program. While the company givesemployees some latitude in how they"spend" their healthcare benefits, theycannot shift benefits from one arena toanother. For example, an employee whoexercises regularly and doesn't smokecan't yet move a portion of his or herhealthcare benefits to cover the cost of ahealth club membership.

Recognizing CulturalDiversity

Cultural diversity is an issue for a largemultinational like Levi Strauss. whichhas operations worldwide, and thecompany has a specific program whichfocuses on all aspects of cultural diversityas they affect employees. The companyhas a three-part training program for allemployees, including managers. oneaspect of which focuses in culturaldiversity. At the home office. there arefour active affinity groupsAfrican-American professionals. a Latinoleadership group. an Asian-PacificIslander group. and a gay and lesbiangroup. They meet regularly to network,and sponsor awareness programs onissues that are relevant to their particulargroup. Senior management representa-tives from each of these affinity groupssit on the company's diversity council(one of whose members is the SeniorHuman Resource Manager). Thisprovides a structure through which thecompany can effectively address a widevariety of cultural issues.

In the U.S.. the work/family programhas already taken steps to address several

employee needs. All in-house work/family materials are printed in Englishand Spanish. A bilingual resource phoneline is in the planning stages and shouldbe in operation before the end of the year.Employees will be able to use it to getanswers to any questions they may haveabout childcare issues.

The Challenge of ManagerialTraining

The task force discovered that manyemployees viewed Levi's work/familypolicies as progressive, even before theformal creation of the Work/Familyprogram. At the same time, they felt thatthe company needed to train its managersto implement these policies. RobynChew-Gibbs, Manager of Work/FamilyPrograms for Levi Strauss, agrees that thebiggest challenge she's faced has beenadequate supervisor and managerialtraining. "Many just don't see the need tobalance work and family as a businessissue. Others get frustrated because theymay not know how to do what we'reasking of them. For instance, an em-ployee may request a leave of absence toclimb the Himalayas becailse he's

6

'stressed out.' The employee may regardthis [stress] as a 'compelling reason.' Toa manager. it may not make any sense.We need to help them listen to what theemployee is saying, assess their businessneeds and then decide if they canaccommodate a request. Many of themhaven't been asked to manage like thisbefore."

In training managers and supervisors.Chew-Gibbs plans to focus on basicissues such as the company's history andcorporate culture, as they affect theLevi's goal of creating a "family-friendly" work environment, as well asissues of overall family diversity.

Change takes time. and Robyn Chew-Gibbs has no doubts about the company'soverall commitment to helping theiremployees balance the demands of workand family. The employees themselveshave indicated strong support for thecompany's wide range of policies andbenefits: Eighty-seven percent "stronglyapprove" of benefits being offered, evenif they don't need those benefits them-selves.

Chthrine Vogel is staff writer for the FamilyResource Coalition.

FAMILY RESOURCE COAUTION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 5

Employer Guidelines for Work/Family ProgramsWe asked Arlene Johnson. t Director of

the Conference Board's Work-Fwnil,.Roundtable) who tracks new work/familyefforts how an employer who is inter-ested in becomine more supportive ofworking families should approach thetask. Johnson said that all employersdeveloping work and family programsneed to: examine the needs of theiremployees: determine what resources arecurrently available: and clarify theobjectives of the proposed program.

Most employers review their currenthuman resource policies and benefits andconduct an employee-needs assessmentas they begin their work. According tojehnson. the essential ingredients of abasic work/family program are:

family leave policies.flextime or some kind of alternativework schedule. anddependent-care resource and referralservices.Once the basics are in place. an

employer may seek to enhance theseprograms by adding part-time. jobsharing or work-at-home options. specificchildcare benefits, opportunities forfamily leave with part-time return towork. and/or eldercare assistance.

There are some consistent lessonsbeing learned by employers who haveimplerneeied work/family programs:

No one kind of program addresseseveryone's work-family need. Inapproaching work and family concerns:the more comprehensive, the better.

Work and family programs are not. norshould they be. solely designed forwomen. Family responsibilities are notsolely a woman's issue but everyone's.

Work and family programs are not onlyfor parents of young children. Benefitsand services extend beyond leave policiesand childcare. Indeed, in addition toaddressing school-age children andteenagers. work and family concernsinclude eldercare and the quality of eachworker's home life.

Time and flexibility are the "unchartedfrontier" of work and family programs.(See sidebar.

Work and family programs are not ascostly as feared. but they are not as easyas is imagined either. Changing the waypeople think about work is the largestbarrier to implementing work/familyprograms.

Employers are most successful whenthey view work and family programs aspart of their overall business strategyrather than as accommodations forspecial employees. Work/family initia-tives tied to objectives of quality andproductivity are the most effective.

Johnson identified four differentapproaches which employers use forplanning their work and family programs.Determining which fits with thecompany's goals and philosophy helpsfocus the planning process. They are:

A life cycle approach. meetingemployees' nt :ds throughout theircareers as workers. I See the chart.opposite page. I

2) Working incrementally throughstages such as those identified by EllenGalinsky of Families and Work Institute.(see her article on page 2) or workingcomprehensively to revamp theorganization's policies and benefitsrelating to work and family concerns.

(3) A benchmarking approach in whichan employer looks at what other similarindustries or organizations provide in thework and family area and decideswhether to be a leader or in the middle.

(4) Responsive, using the results of theemployee Needs Assessment to planwork and family programs. Thesesuggestions can be the least costly, mostcreative, and most closely tied toproductivity.

In summarizing. Johnson said "Thereis an essential core of work and familyprograms. Around the core, companiesare experimenting. Many programs donot require extensive plannina andresources, and can be offered fairlysimply and at low cost."

Contact Arlene Johnson at the Families and Workinstitute, 330 Seventh Avenue. New York. .VY/000/. 2/2/465-2044.

TIME FOR WORK AND TIME FOR FAMILY: The Unmet Challengeby Barney Olmsted

There is no more pressing need for members of today's working families than discretionary time. And as a result of employeepressure for more flexibility and of a closer look at bottom-line issues like recruitment, retention.absenteeism and turnover, more

firms are beginning to understand that in today's social and economic context, flexible work arrangements make good business sense.Flexible work arrangements like job sharing, regular-part-time, compressed scheduks. flextime. and telecommuting can be viable

options for employees. "It's a paucity of good part-time opportunities that drives both partners to have to work full-time" says FaithWohl, Director of Workforce Parmering at Dupont.

But the emphasis in this statement must be put on good if families are to benefit. Women and men shouldn't have to becomesecond-class workers in order to reduce their work schedules. Too often. flexibility in today's workplace is purchased at the cost ofpay scale, benefits, and standing in the labor force. Pay for part-timers averages 10-15 percent less than full-timers doing the same

work; most part-timers still do not receive health benefits and many are subject to unequal treatmentdenied training, careeradvancement, and job security. Ensuring that flexible work arrangements are offered equitably is a major challenge for the 1990s.

Employer awareness and interest are defmitely growing. But continued efforts by pioneering employees and progressive companiesare needed to make a 'business case' for options like job sharing and flexplace that will createsupportive management attitude.. ..nd

organizational cultures. After all, just a few years ago. the complete separation of work and family issues was the norm. Makingbalance the new norm, so that people can be both good employees and good family members. is the challenge that remains before us.

Barney Olmsted is Co.Direaor of New Ways to Work (NWW), a San Francisco-based resource development and advocacy organization that she co-founded in 1972. NWW has been a leading pioneer in the field of work thee options. promoting wider use of new arrangements like job sharing, jiexf,me.flexplace, phased retirement, and work sharing. A NWW publication list is available by sending a seg-addressed stamped envelope to: 149 Ninth St., SanFrancisco, CA 94103.

6 FAMILY RESOURCE COAUTICN REPORT - 1992 NO.2 7

Nbvi Worker

From "A Life Cycle Approach to Family Benefits and Policies"by Dana E. Friedman and Wendy B. Gray

The Conference Board, Perspectives, Copyright 1989

Life-Cycle Stages and Company Programs

Programs & Counseling &Financia! Assistance Services Information Time*Health and Dental *Fitness Center Wellness and Health *Holidays

Insurance *Employee Assistance Promotion Programs *Vacations

*Disability Insurance Programs (EM') EAP *Sick Time

Life Insurance *Health Risk Appraisals *Disability Leave

*Pension and/or other Leave of Absence

Retirement Programs Death in Family

Other Benefits Other

Marriage *Spouse Benefits *Spouse Relocation EAP Marriage Leave

*Flexible Benefits *Job Search AssistanceSpouse Becomes for SpouseJoint Annuitant inPension Planning

Pregnancy andAdoption

*Adoption Benefits *Prenatal Courses *Parental Leave 9f

*Medical Coverage for Information from Absence

Prenatal and Post- Benefits Manager Maternity Disability

natal Care Leave

*Coverage for Delivery Use of Accumulated

at Hospital or Birthing Sick Leave

Center Alternative WorkChange nt Beneficiary Schedules and Job

Coverage for Arrangements

Employee Benefits

Childrearing *Medical and Dental On-site Child Care Referrals *Parental Leave

Coverage for Depend- *Family Day Care Seminars *Flexible Work Hours

dents School-age Care *Support Groups Use of Accumulated

*Well-Baby Care *Sick Care Handbooks Sick Leave

Dependent Care Assis- *Breast Feeding EAP Earned Time-Offtance Plans (DCAPs) on site Policies

Vouchers, Discounts Sick Leave for Family

*Life Insurance for De- Illness

pendents

Divorce *Garnishing Wages *Pre-paid Legal AP Personal Leave of

SI.-p-Children EAP Absence

*Coverage in Medical andDental Plans

Dis arced Spouse andDependents can con-tinue MedicalCos erage for up to 36months (COBRA)

Elder Care DCAPs *Adult l)ay Care *Referrals *Family Leave

Long-term Care for Pre-paid Legal Seminars *Flexible Work Hours and

Dependents EAP *Support Groups Job Arrangements

*Respite Care Use of AccumulatedSick Leave

*Earned Time-Off Policies

Retirement PensionsRetiree Health & Dental

Care: Life InsuranceLong-Term Care-t() (k) Plans and otherbefore-tax Savings Plans

Death *Spouse and Eligible De-pendents can continueMedical Coverage

*Beneficiaries receiveLife Insurance andother Benefits

*Spouse receives atleast 50% of remainingBenefits

*Pre-retirementCounselng

*Ness sletters for RetireesTelephone Hotlines

*Part-time Employmentfor Retirees

4:AP *Grief Counselingthrough EAP

*Funeral LeavePersonal Leave of

Absence

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 7

by Susan Lambert, Ph.D.

One Company's Experience:Fel-Pro Family Policies Pay Off

The University of Chicago's School ofSocial Service Administration andGraduate School of Business conducted astudy of corporate family-responsivepolicies at Fel-Pro, Inc., a manufacturingfirm located in Skokie, Illinois Fel-Proprovides many family-responsive policiesand programs, including an on-site child-care center, an employee assistanceprogram. a dependent care resource andreferral service, a sick-child care service,subsidized tutoring, a summer day camp,and scholarships for employees' children.The study focused on identifying theconditions under which family-respon-sive policies are 'ranslated into both goodwork performance and personal andfamily well-being. The study also tried todetermine the role that family-responsivepolicies, in general, play in creating asupportive work culture, a culture whichmay make it easier for workers tomanage their w _7' '.nd family responsi-bilities. The conceptual expectation wasthat family responsive policies leadworkers to perceive their organization assupportive, as responsive to them as aperson, and that this is true whether ornot workers actually use the benefits.This sense of perceived organizationalsupport, was anticipated to promote bothorganizational and family well-being.

MethodologyThe research combined survey data

with data on worker performance fromorganizational records. A self-adminis-tered questionnaire was used to gatherinformation on employees' use andappreciation of Fel-Pro's benefits, theirjob characteristics, their attitudes towardsupervisors and coworkers, their personalproblems and responsibilities, and thequality of their parental and maritalrelationships. Organization recordsprovided information on employeedemographics, absenteeism, disciplinaryactions, performance ratings. jobpromotions, and participation in decision-making. Questionnaires were distributedto a total of 879 of Fel-Pro's 2000employees. Random sampling techniqueswere employe0 `n sample work groups.headed by a firs, ievel supervisor.Because the responses to the survey wereconfidential, but not anonymous,

8 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2

responses of a worker to his or hersupervisor, and the respon.;es of workersin the same work group could be linked.This allowed for the study of attitudesand behaviors up and down the chain ofcommand, and could help identify therole that work group norms play inexplaining workers' use of benefits.

The Fel-Pro workforce is a diverseone, and the sample reflects this diver-sity. The respondents represented a widerange of occupations. from assembly lineworkers and clerical workers to engineersand managers: 37% of the respondentswere women; 20% of the respondentswere Hispanic; 12% were African-American; and 60% were Caucasian. Theoverall response rate was about 70percent: 96% of the office workers, 52%of the factory workers, and 80% of thesupervisors returned their completedquestionnaires. There was some "re-sponse bias" in that Hispanics andAfrican Americans have a lower re-sponse rate than whites.

Use of benefitsThe data indicate that Fel-Pro employ-

ees make good use of the benefitsto them. Employees were asked

to identify the benefits they have usedwiqe working for Fel-Pro. Fully 72% ofthe respondents have used at least onebenefit. Forty-one percent of respondentshave availed themselves of psychologi-cal. substance abuse, or legal counseling;54% have participated in some kind ofhealth promotion activity, such as the on-site fitness center. weight-loss program,or smoke cessation program; 13% havebeen supported in their responsibilities

.it:ing care of an elderly familyme, ''.ter, either through the and

referral service or by using the emer-gency dependent care service; 30% ofthe respondents have gotten a tuitionreimbursement from Fel-Pro. Amongworkers with children, 26c/c have securedsummer employment at Fel-Pro for atleast one of their children; 24% havereceived a scholarship for their child'seducation; 15% have secured subsidizedtutoring for a child; and 40% have sent achild to Fel-Pro's summer day camp.

Use by employeecharacteristics

There is some variation as to who useswhich benefits the most. Supervisors andoffice workers were more likely thanlower-level factory workers to havegotten a tuition reimbursement, to havereceived some kind of counseling, and tohave participated in some health promo-tion program. But there are no differ-ences between supervisors and workersor between office and factory workers ontheir use of supports for their children.Neither are there many differences in theuse of benefits by men and women.although when we look at the use ofindividual benefits, significantly morewomen have used the on-site childcarecenter and the summer camp.

The use of benefits by Fel-Pro'sethnically diverse workforce has revealedinteresting patterns, especially ineducational supports for children: 28%of Caucasian respondents with children,21% of' Hispanic respondents, and 14%of African-American respondents withchildren have received a scholarship fromFel-Pro for their child's post-high schooleducation. Of respondents with children,14% of Caucasian employees, l9rict ofHispanic respondents, and 9% of AfricanAmerican respondents have takenadvantage of Fel-Pro's subsidizedtutoring program for at least one of theirchildren.

Benefit satisfactionFel-Pro employees not only use many

of the benefits available to them, theyplace a high value on them as well: 92%of those responding to the survey agreedor strongly agreed with the statement "IfI had to pay for them myself. I couldn't

afford most of the benefits and servicesFel-Pro provides:" 91% disagreed withthe statement that "Fel-Pro wastes itsmoney by offering all the benefits itdoes:" Indeed 63% disagreed with thestatement: "I'd rather have more profit-sharing and fewer benefits:" 77% agreedthat one of the major reasons thtycontinue to work for Fel-Pro is thatanother company might not match theoverall benefits they have. What haveFel-Pro's benefits helped workers to do?Ninety percent i:ereed that Fel-Pro'sbenefits have made it easier for them to"balance their work and personal life:"75% said that Fel-Pro's benefits havehelped them through some bad times.And 70% of respondents with childrenagreed that Fel-Pro's benefits havehelped their children "do things theywouldn't have been able to do other-wise." In summary, the data indicate thatFel-Pro's family-responsive benefits are areal strength of the company. People usethem, and in general, appreciate them.

Perceived organizationalsupport

The findings seem to indicate that themore benefits workers use, and the morethcy value those benefits, the moresupportive they perceive Fel-Pro to be incieneral. This is true no matter what kindof job they hold, how long they havebeen at Fel-Pro, and or what their genderor race. Also, the more supportive thesupervisor and cohesive the work group,the more workers perceive Fel-Pro assupportive. But it is not just how muchworkers like their supervisor andcoworkers. it is also how supportivesupervisors and coworkers are whenworkers htwe personal and familyproblems. Nearly a quarter of therespondents reported that they regularlyapproach their supervisor for help withpersonal and family problems. Eighty-one percent of workers said theirsupervisor is helpful when they havefamily emergencies or when they haveroutine personal or family matters toattend to. And almost three-fourths of allsupervisors (72%) reported that workerscame to them with personal or familyproblems during the past year. Thepreliminary results suggest that when

1441.184111111r-LY

workers perceive their organization assupportive, they, in turn, are supportiveof the organization, and this presumablyaffects their work performance.

SummaryAlthough these are preliminary results.

they seem to hold some importantimplications for companies and individu-als interested in developing moreresponsive workplaces. First, thc resultssuggest that although the majority ofworkers may not use any one benefit,when workers are provided with a menuof supports, they use what is appropriateand useful for them. Thus a companyshould think of providing multiplesupports which meet the various needs ofworkers with different characteristics andin different stages of the life cycle.Second, these results suggest that havingsupportive organizational policies is notenough; other factors in a workplace mayhave to change as well for workers to feeltheir organization is a supportive one.Companies need supervisors who are

supportive and flexible when workershave personal and family problems. Theyneed work groups which have positiveattitudes about the seeking and offeringof help in the workplace, and jobs whichdo not overwhelm workers with ambigu-ous and conflicting responsibilities.

The study's final report. which will beoisseminated to the business communityand polirymakers, will examine the useand appreciation of family-responsivepolicies and how these relate to workperformance in traditional and non-traditional ways. That report will alsodiscuss in greater detail how benefit userelates to workers' mental and physicalhealth, and to the quality of their maritaland parental relationships.

Susan lAnnhcrt. Ph.D.. is Assistant Professor atdie School of Social Services Administration at theUniversity of Chicago. Her doctorate is in SocialWork and Organization Psychology from dieUniversity of Mkhigan.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 50.2 9

N by Dana E. Friedman

Corporate Funds Build Resources forWorking Families

In the past two years. IBM, AT&T,NYNEX, Levi Strauss & Co., and PacificBell have together contributed more than$42 million dollars to childcare andeldercare programs to benefit theiremployees and local communities. Thestrategy used is the "Fund," the newestform of corporate support which desig-nates a sum of money for investment inthe improvement of community services.While the Funds have specific guidelinesand goals, as well as formal proceduresfor releasing corporate dollars, manymore companies have developed "set-asides" for specific childcare andeldercare initiatives that arc less highlystructured. A new form of corporatefunding that provides a direct benefit forthe contributing company, while improv-ing thc overall supply and quality ofservices in the community seems to beemerging.

Why the Fund?The concept of the Fund is a natural

next step for companies that have alreadyresponded to other childcare andeldercare needs of their employees. Mostemployers help their employees find orpay for services through resource andreferral programs, vouchers and Depen-dent Care Assistance Plans (DCAPs).The effectiveness of these effortsdepends on the adequacy of services inthe community. If services arc in shortsupply or thcy are of low quality, thenemployees will be absent or tardy whileconducting a lengthy search or lookingfor backup arrangements when theservice breaks down. They may becomedistracted at work due to worry about thccare their dependents are receiving. TheFund is a way to help improve the supplyand quality of services so that othercorporate efforts can yield their intendedeffects.

Another attraction of the Fund is theway it improves relations with thecommunity. R. Michelle Green ofNYNEX talks of the "warmth" that theFund creates between services and hercompany. Community relationships areparticularly important when a company'sdownsizing or layoffs negatively affectthe local economy.

For multisite companies, the Fund

1 0 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2

offers a very flexible strategy for meetinga variety of needs in a variety of commu-nities. "It's a perfect application ofequity." says Michelle Green ofNYNEX. "We're telling our employees,'You're important whether you're atheadquarters or in Podunk.

Some companies feel that the Fund is amore visible way to make communityinvestments than foundation grants.Given the novelty of the approach, it isthe new darling of the media. In addition,employees may be more aware of Fundefforts because of priority enrollment orother direc benefits they receive. TheFund offers a doable, flexible alternativethat can be adapted to a wide variety ofsituations.

How do Funds work?There are two basic models of Fund

activity, with some variations on thosethemes. First is the employee sponsormodel that requires employees of thecompany to recommend wotthwhilecommunity programs for funding. Theother mode is the targeted approachwhich involves an assessment ofcommunity needs and the disseminationof a Request for Proposals for localorganizations to meet those needs.

Thc biggest advantage of the employeesponsor model is that it gets employeesinvolved and educated, which may leadto further advocacy or work-familypolicies internally. This seems to be apreferred model for heavily unionizedcompanies. The biggest disadvantage isthat it is extremely labor-intensive,requiring significant communicationsefforts, thorough research of proposals tomake sure they meet a real need amongemployees or the community, and aBoard structure for review.

The greatest advantage of the targetedmodel is the assurance that the fundedprogram meets a real need in thecommunity. Most assessments and theRFP process are contracted out, so thatthe labor effort is not borne by thecompany. The biggest disadvantage is itstop-down orientation and less involve-ment by employees.

Both models require significant start-up time and communication efforts, butthe employee sponsor model requires

11.L -+ L . _a

greater effort before grants are made (tostimulle employee sponsorship), wherethe targeted model requires morecommunication after grants are made (toassure that employees are aware of thenewly funded programs in the commu-nity). According the Mary Kay Leonardof' Work/Family Directions, whichadministers several targeted Funds, theemployee sponsor and targeted models"work best together.- This is the direc-tion that AT&T has taken. Its initiative,along with those of several othercorporations, are described below:

AT&T: The Family Care DevelopmentFund was created as a result of bargain-ing between management an z! the unions(Communication Workers of America1CWAI and the International Brother-hood of Electrical Workers LIBEW1). Acommitment of $10 million was made fora three-year period for childcare andeldercare initiatives. Begun in January,1990 with assistance from the Familiesand Work Institute, FCDF has disbursedapproximately $8 million as of June,1992. with a commitment of $15 millionover the next three years.

The Fund is administered by twoBoardsone for programs that benefitunion members and one for management.A staff reviews those applicationssubmitted by employee sponsors and theBoards make final funding decisions.Work/Family Directions helps AT&Twith its targeted funding in specificcommunities where AT&T has a largepresence. A specific set-aside of$300,000 has been made to helpchildcare programs used by AT&Temployees to become accredited by theNational Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC). Approxi-mately 2,000 employees have requestedinformation about the accreditation grantsand 268 programs have applied to gothrough the process. Besides improvingthe quality of childcare program. thisstrategy also helps employees to becomeeducated about what constitutes programquality.

IBM: Also begun in January, 1990,IBM's Fund plans to make $25 millionworth of grants$22 million for

childcare and S3 million It ir ekiercare.IBM uses the tarixted approach exclu-sively. and works with Work/FamilyDirections to assist in the identification ofcommunity needs and in the RFPprocess. During 1990 and 1991. IBMlimded 149 projects (129 in childcare. 20in eldercare), providing $9.6 million andleveraging it with approximately $3.5million of other companies' funding.

Like AT&T, IBM has made a commit-ment to NAEYC to help centers used byemployees to go through the accredita-tion process. They also have a focus onafter-school care, creating new programsthrough the schools in Danbury andSouthbury. Connecticut and Brewster.New York. and through the YMCA inBurlington. Vermont.

In San Francisco. IBM funded acomputer learning center for seniorcitizens.

IBM will use its fund to createcommunity collaborations. This effort.called the "American Business Collabo-ration for Quality Dependent Care" willenable IBM to fund projects in smallercommunities where they are not themajor employer.

NYNEX: Begun in September. 1991. theDependent Care Development Fund has acommitment to spend $6 million overfour years for childcare and eldercareservices. The Fund was the result ofcollective oargaining and is administeredby joint labor-management committees.One of the most positive aspects of theFund has been the sound workingrelationships developed between laborand management staff responsible for theFund's administration. Relying on theemployee sponsor model, applicationsare reviewed by Local Work-FamilyCommittees in each of the five operatingcompanies that make up NYNEX. ARegional Work-Family Committeemakes final decisions based on recom-mendations from the Local Committees.In the first year of the Fund's operations.$1.8 million has been granted to 66organizations-52 childcare. 11eldercare. and 3 intergenerational.

Levi Strauss & Co.: The Levi's ChildCare Fund is part of a long-term strategydeveloped by the comany's Work/FamilyTask Force. Launched in January, 1992.in four pilot communities, the Fund isunique in that grants are made withcharitable dollars and administered bycommunity affairs. This means that onlynon-profit programs can be funded andthere can be no direct benefit to Levi's.This does not mean that the needs of

Levi's employees don't affect fundingdecisions. Levi's is often the lamestemployer at its plant sites. and thereforeany improvement in services willultimately benefit Levi's employees.

the Levi's Fund may follow moreof the targeted model, grants are drivenby employees' needs identified throughfocus groups and surveys. In 1992, it isanticipated that $51.XMX/0 in grants willbe made.

Knowing that half of their employees'children were between the ages of 6 and12. Levi's concentrated on school-agechildren and summer programs. Forinstance, in Fayetteville. Arkansas. a$41.000 grant created 20 new slot; in asummer program. allowed the program toopen 20 minutes earlier to conform withthe hours of the plant. provided transpor-tation so that children could be picked upat the plant and taken to the program. andimproved program quality with newequipment. In Warsaw. Vireinia.$50,000 Levi's grant helped stabilize anon-profit childcare center.

Pacific Bell: This is one of the few Fundsdevoted exclusively to school-agechildcare. 1989 bargaining made theFund possible. A survey of employeesindicated the presence of more school-age children than preschoolers. Accord-ing to Emily Bassman who administersthe Fund, Ite decided to have a largeimpact on a single ;ssue. rather than asmall impact on lots of issues."

Pacific Bell and CommunicationWorkers of America representativesselected seven sites where it had aconcentration of employees and hiredWork/Family Directions to assess needsand develop RFPs for funding. Theyhave made 10 grants. funding 18programs in multiple locations. Theaverage size of the grant has been$20,000430,000. depending on whether

12

funding is for start-up or expansion.Pacific Bell employees receive priorityenrollment in funded programs. andabout 100 employees have benetittedfrom the initiative thus far.

Recommendations for OtherEmployers

One of the most important ingredientsfor the success of a Fund is to be part ofan overall work-family strategy. Re-source and referral services are critical tothe success of Funds because theyprovide a means of community needsassessment and a way to offer ongoinginformation to employees. Also, asemployees become better educated aboutdependent care issues because of theFund, they may feel "safer" voicing theirconcerns. The company should beprepared to respond to new demands.

Communication is critical. As MerleLawrence of Levi's said. -The idea maycome from the top. but you need time tocommunicate to the bottom." It is alsoimportant to have clear goals for theFund and a strategy for measuringsuccess. These will help justify continuedfunding.

While some of the largest companiesin America pioneered the Fund concept.it is clear that smaller sums of money canmake a difference, particularly in smallor rural communities. According toDeborah Stahl of AT&T. "It doesn't haveto be $10 million...A company can do alot in one community with $20,000."Community groups should considerrecommending this option to employersand be ready to advise them aboutcommunity needs if the idea of a Fund ispursued.

Dana E. Friedman is Co-President of the Familiesand Work Institute. 330 Seventh Avenue. NewYork, NY 10001 212\465-2044.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 1 1

by Christine Vogel

Program Providers' Roundtableon Werk and Family Issues

Family SupportProgramsRichmond, VirginiaSally Zerden, Education andTraining SupervisorEstabiished: 1984Organizational structure:outgrowth of primary preven-tion programs of MemorialChild Guidance ClinicFunding: United Way,corporate contracts, grants,fees-for-serviceFees: none for direct serviceemployees, sliding scale forcommunity residentsAccessibility: extendedevening hours, work-siteprogramming for employees,program site services, commu-nity site programmingPopulation served: 25,000direct service via 5 corporatecontracts, indirect services toanother 15-20 companiesDirect Employee Services:parent education workshopsparent support groupsoutpatient mental healthservices24-hour warrnline (KIDTALK)for parents and childcareproviders

Services to employers:'employee needs assess

ments*consultations re: family

policies and benefits*managerial training*employer roundtable discus-

sions on childcare issues*customized program designAdditional services:technical support for commu-

nity programsresource center and toyequipment library

*provider recruitment andtrainingreferrals for childcare, camp,community resources

12 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT 1992 NO.2

cribL_

Many community-based serviceproviders focus their programming andservices on ways to help parents andchildren better meet the often over-whelming demands of work and familylife. Some provide an array of resourcesto employers to assist them in supportingworking families and in developing andretaining a productive worktbrce.

Recently. we talked with the directorsfive such programs. Based on input

from a work/family survey conducted bythe Family Resource Coalition in late1991. we selected these programsbecause of the comprehensiveness of theservices they offer employers, employeesand family members in the communitiesthey serve. They differ in their locations.organizational structures, and sources of

funding.[See sidebars for details.]In our discussion. we were particularly

interested in how these program provid-ers work with employers: how theyaddress the special needs of lower-income employees: how they addressfamily and cultural diversity: and whatthey see as the major differences betweenemployee and employer needs when itcomes to work and family issues.

.... ..............................

Family Resource Coalition: What sortsal services do ym provide lov.--incomeemployees?

Sally Zierden (Educational andTraining Supervisor, Family SupportPrograms): We adapt the content of ourparent education workshops to meet theneeds of lower income parents. many ofwhom have a lower literacy rate. Forinstance, we might go into a settlementhouse to present a program and usevideotapes or games. instead of the bookwe might use with another group ofattendees. We also offer our technicalservices at no charge to people lin thecommunity l who are developing literacyprograms.

Kathy Palamara (Director, Center forKids & Family): We offer our parentingprograms at a variety of levels and we'llpresent them at our own site or at theworksite, as requested by the employer.

We also work with many parentswho've been referred by the courts or bythe Department of Youth and FamilyServices, and we've developed some ofour programs in direct response to theneeds of those parents.

Rae Goodell Simpson, Director, (MIT

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Parenting Programs): Because MIT hassuch a diverse population. we've donespecial needs assessments of the "hiddenemployees" who are less likely to seekout help. We do a lot of networking andlisten carefully to what we hear from themedical and human services communitieshere, as well as from the office of unionrelations.

If we offer a program that attractspeople we haven't seen before, we followup to get their evaluation. We're alsoaware that some employees who aren'tcomfortable with classroom learning mayalso be uncomfortable with workshopformats. We're currently exploringalternate ways to reach those employeesand we have formed a parent advisorycommittee to help us with overallplanning.

Mary Dooley Burns, (Director, Work& Family Spectrum): Our noontimebrown bau lunch seminars focus onissues of work and family balance.We've found that nearly 60 percent ofthose who attend these downtownseminars are support employees.

We work with the community. publicschools and area colleges, and they offernumerous programs for low-incomefamilies. For instance, the technicalcollege system sponsors the "Discover"program. which is designed to help low-income and displaced homemakersexplore non-traditional career paths. Wework with the time management andparenting skills portion of the program.

FRC: What about program fees?

Palamara: When we do charge fees.such as for multi-session parent educa-tion classes, they're structured to matchwith the hospital's sliding scale. We offerscholarships for our latchkey andchildren's programs. When state agenciesrefer parents to us for ree-ired parenteducation classes, they pay the fees:families don't have to pay at all.

Joan Hoskins (Director, Work andFamily Resource Center): We don' tcharge fees to anyone, but we are able tospend more time with parents and familymembers who are employees of compa-nies with whom we have direct servicecontracts.

Zierden: We're able to offer all ouroutpatint psychiatric services on asliding scale. A flat $15 fee every sixmonths gives community parents whoaren't employees of the companies withwhich we contract access to a current

detailed listing of all the childcareproviders in their zip code area. We canadjust this. as well as the fee for ourparent education classes if parentsindicate they can't afford to pay. We'vegotten grant monies to provide parenteducation services to hieh-risk parentsand children. One of the ways we usethis money is to make an fsubcontractoriarrangement with another agency. likeBig Brothers or Big Sisters, to run parenteducation classes for them. The service isfree to the families they serve.

Simpson: We used to charge five to tendollars for a workshop series, mainly tocover copying costs. But now all of ourworkshops and seminars are free. Wealso offer no-cost confidential individualconsultations and group briefings aboutchildcare. often focusing on affordabilityissues. to MIT employees. We see about500 parents a year for that service. whichisn't available to the general community.And we tend to see even wider ethnic andeconomic diversity here than in ourpublic workshops.

Burns: We charge $3 for our noontimeseminars. For people who are unable topay for other services. the Minneapolisschools have an initiative that providesscholarship monies to the underservedpopulation in the community. such ashigh-risk parents or those who arc inwork-readinesss programs.

FRC: How are jamily diversity andcultural diversity addressed in yourprograms?

Palamara: We work closely with localcultural associations and offer on-siteprograms in their own support areas.individualizing our programs to meettheir needs. We've set up outreachprograms and opened satellite centers onbehalf of local social service agencies,and we've done our best to sensitize localsocial service agencies and businessesabout the different cultural pockets in thecounty.

Not long ago. we ran a four-weekcultural awareness program in one of theschools which had a high percentage oflow-income, poorly educated parents. Webrought parents from that community inas a way of strengthening their connec-tion with the school and we focused ongiving the staff communication toolswhich would help them work moreeffectively with this population.

Simpson: Family diversity is a given at

Massachusetts.InstituieTechnology (pArnParenting ProgramsCambridge, MassachusettsRae Goodell SImpson;13.irectorEstablished: 1972Organization: part of theuniversity's Office of ppecialCommunity Services'Funding: MTFees: none for M1t'erriPlojf-6es; workshops anct.Seiiiinarsfree to non-MIT emPidieasAccessibility: on (*piaPopulation served: 20,000 MITemployees, students, 'and theirfamesDirect EmployeeServices:*parent education work-

. ,shopsongoing support gro6ps*referrals for childcare,

eldercare, camp*school activities

individual consultatiOnsfor childcare referhals

Services to employers:employee needaaSs-esi-mentsconsuttation on family,policies and benefits

*referrals to communityresourcesdevelopment of collabor-ative community relation-ships with city ofCambridge

Additional Semices: work-shops and seminars open tocommunity on-campusresource library

MIT. We have first-time parents whorange in age from their teens to theirforties. We run support groups fordivorced parents. working mothers, dualincome parents. Recently. we offered aprogram on gay and lesbian parenting.

We're very sensitive to cultural issuesbecause MIT is such an internationalcommunity. We've done parentingprograms on raising children for a

FAMILY RESOURCE COALMON REPORT - 1992 NO.2 13

Work & FamilySpectrumMinneapolis, MinnesotaMary Dooley Bums, DirectorEstab tieback 1987Organizational structure:cooperative sponsorshipbetween Minneapolis publicschools and downtownemployers Corporate acMsoryboardFunding: Minneapolis publicschools and some businessdonationsFees: $3noontime seminars,public school initative providesscholarship monies forunderseryed populationAccessibility: 3 downtownlocations flexible worksiteprogramsPopulation served 100downtown employers andemployees (3,000); students,unemployed, elders, homeless,in downtown weir (1,000)Direct employee services:workshops, seminarssupport groups

indNidual consultationschildcare, eldercare referralsSer -Ines to employers:

iyee needs assess-..s

_in-site programsmanagerial awareness,training seminars

Additional services:resource librarydowntown information kioskmobile information kiosk

multicultural world; raising biculturalchildren; and the challenges of mixed-faith holiday celebrations.

We're also sensitive to the fact thatdifferent cultural groups responddifferently to family support. Many ofour Asian families, for example, feelshame about seeking help mtside theimmediate family; they also have a fearof authority, which includes MIT itself.We try to get to know these families insocial settings first.

14 FAMILY RESOURCE COALMON REPORT - 1992

Hoskins: We have programs andqualified staff to focus on issues of ethnicand cultural diversity, and what that maymean for employees in the workplace.hut we don't yet get many requests forthese programs from the companies we1.ork v..ith. Many still view work andfamily as "soft" issues. totally separatefrom bottom-line concerns about profitand productivity.

Burns: We've found diversity to be areal "hot button- in the corporate sectorright now. So we offer a wide range ofprograms that address these issuesraising children without bias, racialawareness. living in step-families.success for single parenting, non-custodial parenting. and grandparenting.

We've developed a series of programsthat look at diversity through the eyes ofa child and we use them when we workdirectly with companies who areexploring these issues. It's a basicapproach. but it helps them begin to meettheir goals.

FRC: How specifically do you work withemployers to educate them about workand family issues and their impact on theemployee in the workplace?

Hoskins: We focus on employee needsassessments and on the critical impor-tance of training managers and supervi-sors to view employees holistically. Mid-level and front-line management trainingcan really change a company's opera-tions. Of course, many companies areconcerned about spending money in thiseconomy, and if the company CEOdoesn't "get it" programmatic sugges-tions are hard to implement.

NO.2

Burns: We offer cost-effective on-sitemanagers' awareness seminars. Wepresent "employee" case studies based ona variety of family and cultural contexts.get managers to relate current companypolicies to these issues and then explorepossible future practices. We've devel-oped training and participam manuals forseveral programs. Companies canpurchase the materials and run theprograms themselves or invite us in asfacilitators.

Simpson: I see our work as part of aprocess that conveys information andchanges attitudes. I think the verypresence of our program has establishedthe idea that thinking about work andfamily issuesand seeking informationand supportis appropriate. The fact thatMIT has established a work and familytask force is evidence of their commit-

15

inent to iew this issue as part of theirongoing work as an institution.

Palamara: Most of the employers in ourarea use us for "by-the-way" referrals.Say a manager is talking with anemployee about excessive tardiness, andthe employee begins voicing concernsthat seem related to issues at home. Themanager can give the employee ournumber: it gives him a chance to dosomething active without being intrusive.

When we work directly with employ-ers, our aim is to sensitize them to theidea that family concerns affect on-the-job performance. We also speak a lotabout balanceboth with companies andwith employees.

Zierden: When companies contractdirectly with us. we spend time educatingthem about employee needs. getting themto understand why we suggest particularemployee benefits. especially in the areaof childcare. We also provide them withregular reports illustrating specific waysemployees benefit from new policies.

When FRC asked about the differencesbetween employer and employee needs.the representatives of these programs allgave similar responses. On the employeeside: flexibility, greater sensitivity on thepart ot' managers and supervisors, moresupportboth financial and informa-tionalto meet family-related needs(especially in the area of childcare) and adesire to feel that it's all right to beconcerned about family issues.

On the employer side: a feeling thatit's difficult to respond to all theiremployees' needs: some reluctance toview their employees as other than 'lustemployees," and some question abouthow much they're willing to change theircorporate cultures with respect to familyvalues. As Sally Zierden observed:"Even when companies address familyneeds. I sometimes think it's because theemployees have agitated for change. notbecause they feel a sense of conviction.And even if they have a real commitmenton the national level, it isn't always easyto implement work and family policieslocally."

Finally, FRC asked: What do you seeas the directions of family needs andpolicies and what does that mean Pr theworkplace and agencies such as yourown?

Burns: Families and child-rearing trendshave changed. My own daughter spendsmore time in childcare in one week than I

did during my entire childhood. Compa-nies are looking more seriously atbenefits they mieht offer, such asadoption assistance, childcare vouchers.permanent pan-time work arrangmentsand "cafeteria benefits."

Those who embrace work/familypolicies increasingly see them as a way tomake cost-effective decisions, and ouravailability makes us part of their overallprogram for change.

Palamara: I see increasing stress placedon families as well as a renewed empha-sis on the importance of families.

Employers need to look seriously atwhat alternatives they can pro' ideemployees: employees need t, :cognizethat employers just can't do everything.

As an agency, we need to be creativeand flexible and to maintain connectionswith employers and employees afterwe've provided services so they'll stillhave a support system. And we need tobe part of educating young children, thefuture work/family sensitive employersand employees.

Simpson: Families appreciate thelegitimacy being given to their concerns.Our accessibility and support eases theirminds. We can't yet measure productiv-ity, but we know it improves morale. I'dlike to see a family center in everycommunity, as much a part of life as thelibrary or the post office.

Zierden: We've got to recognize thattoday's families need support: thetraditional structures are no longer there.We need a national family policy whichrecognizes the relationship between thehealth ot' our families and the health ofour nation as a whole.

16

..Valaine families is more importantthan 'family values'." c.tmcludes .loanHoskins. echoing the need for institution-alized policies that promote that recogni-tion. She points out that demands formore quality family time are convergingwith a corporate recognition of anddemand for total quality in productivity."Family concerns effect productivity andthat affects the bottom line. It's not amushy issue."

Christine Vogel is staff writer tor the hunilvResouny

Work & FamilyResource CenterDenver, ColoradoJoan V. Hoskins, Director

Established: 1990Organizational structure:program of the CommunityCollege of Denver, DMsion ofContinuing Education

Funding: Community Collegeof Denver; corporate contracts;state and federal grants,foundations

Fees: none

Accessibility: CommunityCollege site, worksite pro-

gramsPopulation served: 118Denver metro-area companies

Direct employee services:*parent education workshops

*enhanced childcare*referral services

access to provider database

Services to employers:employee needs assess-ments

customized program design*consultations on family

policies, benefits

*Corporate Response Line

*managerial training

Additional services:*provider recivitmentchildcare tip sheets

provider training and ass-

_ BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Center for Kids &FamilyToms River, New JerseyKathy Palamara, Director

Established: 1990Organizational structure:Department of Family and SeniorSenrices at Community Medical

Center

Funding: hospital, grants,community eionations

Fees: free or sliding scale,scholarships for latchkey andchildren's programs

Accessibility: program officesin community settings, worksiteprograms

Population served: "severalthousand" employees within

community

(no direct corporate contracts)

Direct services toemployees:

workshops, seminars

childcare referrals

*latchkey education

eldercare

camp referrals

sick child care*homework help

*college counseling

24-hour warmline

Services to employers:needs assessment surveys

consuttation on famity policies

comrnunity resource

information

*managerial training workshops

'customized program design

Additional service=*community consultation

serve on childcare taskforces

*outreach: satellite centers onbehalf of social service

agencies

MALY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 15

by Lina Cramer

WORK AND FAMILY POLICY:An International Perspective

AJ --egomIgNiwt_

ir4r1INwaiPi "ASarglikrais

Ilk

Imagine this:You're a woman who has been

working for a number of years, and nowyou want to start a family. You becomepregnant and receive all necessaryprenatal care at no cost to you. You takea leave of six weeks before your baby isdue and remain at home for five moremonths following your baby's birth.During this time, your job is held for you,and you receive 80% of your salary tohelp support your family while takingcare of your newborn. Once your child isborn, you also begin receiving a familyallowance for support of your newlyenlarged family. You and your familyreceive whatever medical care you needat no cost. You decide to return to workpart time so that you and your husbandcan share childcare until your child is twoand a half years old. You receive a cashbenefit to partly compensate for your lostearnings. At two and a half years of age,your child begins attending preschool,which is available for all children untilthey reach school age, and you return towork. The cost of the childcare isminimal and is based on your income. Ofcourse your family allowance willcontinue until your child finishes school.

16 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1592 NO.2

va*A-

limmaimer

Sound unreal? Too good to be true?Something from the 21st century?

Not at all. In Europe, all families raisetheir children knowing they can count onthese kinds of supports to help them.

European nations have supportedworking families for many years. "Cashbenefits for employed women, as asocial-insurance benefit, were firstestablished by Otto Von Bismarck inGermany more than 100 years ago. ByWorld War I several European countries,including France, Italy and Britain, hadalready legislated some form of nationalmaternity insurance for workingwomen." T..day, while there is somediversity in specific length of leave orpercentage of salary paid during theleave, or as to whether fathers are eligiblefor some of the leave benefits, allmothers in Europe know that their jobsare guaranteed when they take a leave tohave a child. All families know that theywill receive income while on leave toreplace all or some of their pay whilethey are at home with their newborn.2Furthermore, all families, whether theyare working or at home, receive a familyallowance for each child (which in mostcountries is tax-free,) AND free medicalcare. Finally, all families have access topreschool for their youngsters ages two

411

and a half till school-age whether or notparents are in the workforce.3

The big difference between the UnitedStates and European nations is that in ournation, concerns of working families are,by and large, solely the responsibility offamilies themselves. While a growing .number of companies are beginning toaddress some work/family issues, theyare doing so to remain competitive, toretain valued employees, and to enhancetheir public image. There are few, if any,legal mandates, (even a guaranteed,unpaid family leave with promise of jobupon return), and no social insurance toassist companies in paying for the familyfriendly benefits they offer their employ-ees. Companie c. are on their own (justlike families) when it comes to investingin their working families. Only federalemployers get assistance in paying for thefamily supportive benefits they provide.Our tax dollars pay for the leaves,childcare assistance, and continuity ofmedical care during leaves which mostfederal employees enjoy.

In spite of this, today a small butgrowing percentage of Americzn familieswork for companies which guaranteetheir ability to have babies and return totheir jobs within a short period of time

(8-12 weeks). But few, if any, familiesreceive pay other than that which theyhave earned, (such as vacation or sicktime) while on leave. A sizeable numberof American families must pay their ownhealth insurance premiums while they areon unpaid maternity or family leavc toassure contiuity of coverage of theirnewborn and other family members.

Assistance in finding childcare oreldercare has become more common forfamilies working in large nationalcompanies. Resource and referralservices are more available generally forparents of young children. However.almost no family enjoys free or highlysubsidized childcare. And infant carecontinues to bc extremely costly.

Finally, in the United States, no familyreceives a "family allowance" tosupplement its earnings. The closest wecome to an allowance is the income taxpersonal exemption which is $2,000 perchild per year and the earned incomecredit for low-income families (maxi-mum EIC benefit, $953/year).4 Thestandard dependent deduction has failedto keep pace with inflation over the lastthirty years. If the personal exemptionhad kept pace with inflation, and familiestoday were compensated as were familiesin the 1950's. the personal exemptionwould be over $6,000 per child per year.5

In European countries, family issuesare a concern of the state, with lawsnandating employer compliance. Indeed,as Sheila Kammerman and Alfred Kahnwrite: "These benefits are now widelyseen as a policy strategy or device inwhich society shares in the economiccosts of rearing children, just as it sharesultimately in the economic benefits of ahealthy, productive adult, nurturantparent and good citizen."'

They add, "The program componentsof the system include universal andincome-tested child allowances or childtax credits; child-support or advancedmaintenance payments, maternity andparental benefits (both cash and job-protected leaves) housing allowances;paid sick leaves to care for ill children;and so forth. In addition, there areimportant service elementschildcare, in

particular."'"Family allowances are usually

financed out of general revenues orthrough the contributions of employers,and are administered as part of acountry's social-security system. Thesebenefits are almost always popularwherever they are provided, and all whocan qualify take advantage of them.About sixty-seven countries (includingall European countries) and everyindustrialized country except the UnitedStates provide such benefits today."'

All the European benefits supplementearned income rather than substitute forit. While there are some benefits whichhave income-eligibility guidelines, mostare universal (cash benefits to replaceincome foregone at time of childbirth,health insurance, guaranteed job protec-tion, childcare for children over two anda half years of agc.)

In contrast, American family benefitsare defined by income. Our "familyallowance" or Aid te Dependent Familiesand Children is only partial support forfamilies with no other income. It is not asupplement for other earnings. Oncefamilies begin to work at paying jobs.most are expected to pay for the cost of,(or find a different source of support for)childcare and health insurance within 12to 18 months.

In the United States, our lack ofpolicies and programs to assist workingfamilies contributes greatly to our highand growing rate of child and familypoverty.9 Our family poverty rate is thehighest of any industrialized country inthe world except Australia.10 Today, aparent with two children, working jilt!time at minimum wage, still falls belowthe poverty level. The United States hasfew policies in place to assure that lowerwage earners can afford to keep working.Many of our poverty assistance benefits.such as Medicaid, food stamp,. Section 8Housing, and Title XX Child Care areunderfunded. The results are that a largepercentage of families who are eligibleare unable to receive the assistance.These programs often have eligibilityrequirements which are intrusive if notpunitive, and are administered in a

demeaning, often stigm itizing way.Many working families choose not tosubject themselves and their families tothis kind of "support".

Just imagine what family allowances,free medical care and paid maternityleaves, job-guarantees for child birth anduniversal preschool for children two anda half years and up would do in Americato help all familiesespecially thoseearning hourly wagesto strengthenthemselves and raise healthy, capable,well-cared-for children.

Lina Cramer, M.S. W.. is Director of ProgramDevelopment Jar the National Resource Center forFamily Support Programs Id' the Family ResourceCoalition. Currently, Ms. Cramer is developing anannotated bibliography of parenting curricula andrelated family support tools. She is also du,principal autlun. and e(1itor of the FRC-PACEParent Time Curriculum Guide.

References'Kamerman, Sheila and Kahn, Alfred. "ThePossibilities for Child and Family Policy: A Cross-National Perspective,' in Caring for America'sChildren, Frank J. Macchiarola and Alan Donner, eds.(New york: The Academy of Political Science. 1989),pp.84-98.-EC Legislated Parental Benefits, EuropeanCommission - 1988 in Global Perspectives on CareerAdvancement and Employee Family SupportElizabeth Carlson, unpublished master's thesis, 1992.'Kamerman, Sheila. "Child Care Policies andPrograms: An International Overview' in Journal ofSocial Issues, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1991, pp. 179-196.'For more information on the Earned Income Credit,contact the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.777 North Capitol Street, N.E.,Suite 705,Washington, D.C. 20002, (202) 408-1080.'Humbert, Thomas, "Ending the Tax Code's Anti-Family Bias by Increasing the Personal Exemption to$6,300," Backgrounder, The Heritage Foundation,January 30, 1989.6Karnerman and Kahn, p. 92.'Ibid., p. 91.

p. 92."Chicago Tribune, September 4, 1992.'"Kamerman and Kahn. p. 86.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT 1992 NO.2 17. iirrimoriorri

by Florence Glasser

Making State Government a Model EmployerDramatic changes in American

families and in the American labor forcehave been carefully documented andreported by government agencies overthe past two decades. In North Carolina.almost half (49%) of the labor force wasfemale as of 1990. The 1990 Censusreported that two thirds (66.8%) ofmothers of preschool children and fourfifths (80%) of mothers of school-agechildren in North Carolina work. Anestimated 20 to 30 percent of employeesin this country care for elderly relatives.Seventy percent of men in the nation'slabor force have employed wives.

Recognizing the importance of thisdata, government has called on privatesector employers to reevaluate theirpersonnel policies in the light of today'snew more diverse, more female laborforce. Some concerned companies havebecome aware of the overlapping andsometimes conflicting demands of workand family life and have designedinnovative programs that are good forfamilies and good for employers.

But what has government done to helpits own employees manage tb- dualdemands of work and family? Govern-ment is the largest employer in the stateof North Carolina. If. in fact, governmentwants to encourage the adoption offamily supportive personnel policies inthe private sector. should it not begin athome. reevaluating its own policies andprograms and. as a model Lmployer.encourage the private sector to follow itslead?

Little information existed as of 1992about the prevalence of work-familyprograms in government workplacesNorth Carolina. In an effort to promotefamily-supportive personnel policies forpublic sector employees. NC Equityinitiated The Government As ModelEmployer Project. Foundation :,..:pportenabled NC Equity's Work and FamilyCenter to pursue the following goals:

(1) Surey public sector employers tolean) more about the status of work-family programs in North Carolina

(2) Create a computerized data base toprofile family-supportive policiesoffered bypublic sector employers

(3) Identify and recognize modelgovernment employers

18 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2

(4) Interview public sector employees tolearn more about their efforts tojuggle work and familyresponsibilities

(5) Disseminate information on thestatus of family supportivepersonnel policies in North Carolinagovernment workplaces

(6) Recommend policies to raakegovernment a model employer

MethodologyWith the help of an advisory commit-

tee representing all sectors of govern-ment, a survey was drafted and mailed topersonnel directors. Governmentorganizations were asked about fiftyspecific programs, practices. and policiesto help employees fulfill their family

"But what has govern-ment done to help its ownemployees managethe dual demands of workand family?"

responsibilities while remaining produc-tive members of the workforce. Theywere also asked about the availability andutilization of family-supportive policiesin the following areas: information andcounseling; dependent care assistance;flexible benefit programs; flexible workarrangements; and a variety of leavepolicies, particularly parental leave andfamily illness leave. Two months oftelephone follow-up to the mailed surveygenerated a final response tally of 77percent, or 555 completed surveys of the711 that were mailed. NC Equity staffalso conducted focus groups andindividual interviews with governmentemployees to leam firsthand aboutspe,:ific family prot lems and issues theyface.

FindingsPersonnel directors and employees alike

identify the following as major orsignificant issues resulting in stress andcontributing to loss of productivity atwork: preschool childcare problems;

l`J

school-age childcare problems; sick-childcare and emergency childcare; marital orfamily conflict; family financial prob-lems; and burnout.

Women constituted the majority ofworkers in five of the seven sectors ofgovernment surveyed. Those sectorswere: county, region, state, schooldistricts, and community colleges. Onlymunicipalities and some public universi-ties employed 50 percent or fewerwomen.

Government employers were motivatedto establish family supportive personnelprograms to respond to employee needand to improve employee morale.

Private sectors employers cite theuse of work-family programs to recruitnew employees as a far more importantmotivating factor than do governmentpersonnel directors.

In government workplaces, leavepolicies are favored over all other family-supportive initiatives offered by publicsector employers in North Carolina.

Childcare and eldercare programs arethe least popular family supportiveinitiatives offered by public sectoremployers in North Carolina.

Future PlansThe publication of the full report is

scheduled for October, 1992.Meanwhile NC Equity, in conjunction

with an advisory committee composed ofprofessionals from government and fromthe private sector, will solidify an agendabased on this report by the end of 1992.NC Equity will hold a press conferenceto award, reward, and recognize the 47most family-friendly governmentworkplaces to advance its agenda forchange. There are plans afoot to identifysomeone in the personnel department ofeach state government agency to promotefamily-supportive personnel policies aswell as sensitize supervisors on the needfor responding to the family needs ofemployees. NC Equity also plans totestify before legislative and executivecommittees at all levels of government tofurther its goal of making government amodel employer.

Florence GhtAser is Director Qf NC Equity. Formore Mfiwniation. or to order a mpy of the NCEquity report, write to her at North Carolina Workand Family Center. NC Equity, 505 Oberlin Road,Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27605

by Judith David

ONE SMALL STEP:A Community Response to Work andFamily Issues

Over the past decade, NorthernCalifornia's Bay Area, like most commu-nities in the United States, has facedmajor changes in its economy, familylife, and labor force. The need for quality,affordable and accessible childcare hasemerged as a critical concern for workingparents as well as their employers.Members of the baby boom generationare caring for their elderly parents, oftenat the same time as they are raising theirown children. Employers are realizingthat in order to attract and maintain ahigh quality workforce, they must findways to help their employees balancework and family responsibilities.

In 1986, One Small Step (initiallyknown as The Bay Area Employer ChildCare Coalition) was convened by UnitedWay of the Bay Area to help localemployers address childcare issues in theworkplace. Early discussions with localbusiness leaders revealed that manybusinesses had no idea how to respond totheir employees' family needs. Employ-ers were also unfamiliar with programmodels from other companies that couldhelp influence strategies for their ownworkplaces.

The initial objective of the Coalition'sfoundersa group of fifteen public andprivate sector representativeswas toeducate local employers about the widerange of policy and program optio-available to meet the needs of botnemployees and businesses. In order tojoin the Coalition, Bay Area employersmade a commitment to take at least "onesmall step" to address the childcare needsof their employees. The rationale forbuilding a membership association was toprovide employe-- in the communitywith a regular forum to exchangeinformation, experiences, and strategies.

The One Small Step Coalition hasbeen a great success in the Bay Area.Today. its membership has grown toalmost 100 employers, and it scope hasexpanded to other "work and family"issues (e.g., members are now addressingeldercare as well as childcare issues). Amajority of participating employers haveinstituted family-supportive programssuch as dependent care flexible spending

"n1=111.

..

accounts, family leave policies, regularpart-time work schedules, flextimepolicies, and a wide variety of informa-tional assistance in the form of brochures,resource libraries, lunchtime seminars.and resource fairs. Growing numbers ofemployers in the Coalition are alsoinitiating job-share arrangements.telecommuting programs, compressedwork weeks, resource and referralprograms, and training for managers tosensitize them to the needs of workingparents and caregivers.

The members of One Small Steprepresent a diverse spectrum of publicand private organizations of various sizesand industries. Active participantsinclude, among others: Chevron Corpora-tion, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, LeviStrauss & Co., Pacific Gas & ElectricCompany, Pacific Telesis Group.Raychem Corporation, San MateoCounty, University of California, andWells Fargo Bank. Employer representa-tives in One Small Step are typicallyfrom human resources departments andresponsible for designing and overseeingwork and family policies and programs.Onr Small Step offers participantsvi.tious networking and educationalservices, including an annual conference,quarterly employer roundtables, issue-focused subcommittees, publications, andspecial updates on current topics such asthe new California family leave law. TheCoalition is primarily funded by annualmembership dues, in addition to assis-

2 0

)11 1111\(0 I

tance provided by United Way of the BayArea.

One of the greatest strengths of theCoalition is its unique ability to coordi-nate information and resources fromthroughout the community to helpadvance work and family initiatives. Thisyear, in an effort to build communicationamong local employers and experts in thechildcare and eldercare fields, One SmallStep introduced an Affiliate Membershipcomposed of select service providers,consultants, labor representatives,university faculty, public policy advo-cates, and research professionals. And theCoalition has been able to facilitatenumerous innovative projects. includinga recently formed Bay Area Back-upChild Care Consortium.

The strategy of working with andthrough employers to meet communityneeds has proven to be particularlyeffective because changes in organiza-tions can affect significant numbers ofworking parents and caregivers. Ulti-mately, it is Bay Area families, and thecommunities in which they live andwork, that benefit from the initiativestal-en by employers participating in OneSmall Step.

Judith David has served as Director ry One SmallStepThe Bay Area Employer Work and FamilyCoalition since 1988. Contact her at: The UnitedWay, 50 California St., Suite 200, San Francisco,CA 94111, 415/772-4315.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 1 9

by Charles S. Rodgers, Ph.D. and Fran Sussner Rodgers

THE WORKs& FAMILY AGENDA:Not For Women Only?The new programs and policy changes

which have developed in recent years toaddress the work and family agenda(including childcare, dependent adultsand eldercare, and workplace flexibility)have been directed in theory towardsboth women and men. Indeed for years,virtually all corporate communicationsabout work and family activities, be theypronouncements of senior management,newspaper interviews, or internal memoshave stressed that work and familyconcerns are not just women's issues.This belief has been expressed so oftenthat it suggests a case of 'protesting toomuch'.

Why do people feel so compelled todefend the work and family aQenda as notfor women only? Weill, it clearly is truethat children and dependents are not justthe concern of women. Work and familyissues at the workplace primarily ariseout of a concern for productivity:removing conflicts between effectivework and family care helps employees tocontribute their best. Since the work andfamily issue is one of productivity andeconomic health, it is not just a concernof women.

Another explanation is the widespreadbelief that these issues will not beconsidered serious or important if theyaffect primarily the female half of thepopulation. !I is reasoned that men inpower will only act in this area if theythink men are also affected. Manywomen also fear that if the family issue isseen as affecting men and womendifferently, that this will reinforce the oldstereotype that motherhood is incompat-ible with a serious career.

Lastly, it is understood that menbecoming more involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of the home is acritical ingredient to the success ofwomen. If the connection between workand family is to be defined primarily as awomen's issue, that could let men "offthe hook" from being more involved. The1990 Virginia Slims/Roper Poll showedthat 70% of working mothers considermore assistance from their husbands athome to be the single change that wouldhelp them the most.

In our view, the politicall. Lorrectstatement that work and family issues arenot just women's issues, while accurate,

20 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2

often obscures very important genderdiffer ices. After two decades ofexamining family issues in dozens ofworkplaces, we know that the changingfamily has widespread consequences forproductivity, economics, and society. Butwe are also struck by how much the careof family members still resides withfemales and how much more familyresponsibilities have an impact on thework lives and careers of women.

The major gender differencesThe world has changed less than we

are led to believe by the anecdotes in thepress on new roles for men. In fact,gender roles are very slow to change andit is useful to keep in mind the still-profound differences that separate menand women. Women still bear the majorshare of the responsibilities for the careof children and the household. In ourown research, women continue to spendtwice as much time on household andchildcare tasks as do men, even infamilies where the women are alsoemployed full time outside the home.Married women with children have, onaverage, over ten hours less leisure timebecause of their dual roles at work and athome than their male counterparts.

Partly as a result of this unequaldivision of labor in the home, women arefar more likely to take advantage ofcorporate policies that support parentalresponsibilities. Employees who havetaken family leaves or who work part-time are overwhelmingly female. Usersof dependent care programs are alsoprimarily female. And they are morelikely to be the ones who stay homewhen a child is sick, who go to teacherconferences, or who leave work to pickup their child at a day care center.

Consequently, it is women whooverwhelmingly pay the price in slowercareer progression. They are more likelythan men to refuse relocations or jobsthat require extensive travel or overtime.These behaviors are still seen by mostcompanies as signs of seriousness aboutone's career and are used as symbols ofproductivity.

There is evidence, however, that menare changing. There are signs of aconsiderable shift in men's attitudes and

21

interest, which may signal future changesin behavior. In surveys we have con-ducted over the past ten years, thepercentage of men who report feelingincreased stress from work and familyconflict and who are interested in policiesand programs to address these changeshas grown steadily. Men are far morelikely now than in the past to expresstheir frustrations with a work environ-ment that discourages participation in thelives of their families. But they report aneven more unforgiving culture thanwomen if they do act on their desires tobe more involved. The risks are stillperceived to be too high for many men touse .he policies which are in place.

Men and women are a long way frombeing equal partners in the home, and theconsequences of this put women in theforefront of discussions of corporatefamily policies. Equal numbers of menare not nowand are not likely to be inthe foreseeable futurewilling to makethe same trade-offs for their families aswomen have. But a significant minorityof men are going tu demand reasonableworkplace accommodations for familyresponsibilities.

It is clear that businesses will not beable to achieve diversity goals such as thebreaking of the glass ceiling and thegeneral advancement of women withouta strong work and family agenda inplace. The vast majority of women havechildren during their working years andmost of them will be in families wherethe father is either absent or a less thanequal partner in parenting. To takeadvantage of the talents and education ofwomen, we must acknowledge thisreality. However, in the long run,creating workplaces where men feel freeto assume greater family roles, and whereall employees have a way of contributingwhich is consistent with their personalcircumstances, will be the greatestcontribution of the work and family field.

Fran Sussner Rodgers is du, Founder andPresident of Work/Fondly Directions, a consultingfirm Olich works with leading corporations onstrategies to address the changing workforce. Sheis recognized as a national authority on dependentcare and women in the workplace.

Charles S. Rodgers, Ph.D. is an espert inworkplace research and program evaluations andPresident or' Rodgers and Associates.

Both can be contacted through Work/FondlyDirections, 930 Commonwealth Avenue South,honor:, MA 022/ 5, 617/566-280o.

Wcrk and Family: 1992continued from pag.te 1

broadened to include t!.e development offlexibility guidelines, communicationefforts, and even changing performanceappraisal systems to include how well thesupervisor handles the work-familyconcerns of his or her subordinates.

One of the problems with currentwork-family management training effortsis their lack of coordination withcompany diversity programs. Doublemessages abound. Diversity programsemphasize breaking the glass ceiling anddeveloping the career of employees. Assuch, their messages emphasize movingonto the fast track. In contrast, work-family messages emphasize balance,even taking time off. When these twoconflicting messages are given, employ-ees feel safer listening to the those thatpromote the development of their careers,especially in a period of busin 2ssdownturn.

One of the tasks of Stage III is to begintrying to reconcile these two corporateinitiatives with each other. It is not asimple matter to do so, however, becausedifferent departments and differentconstituencies are involved, and turfissues often arise. Will work-familyissues be treated under diversity initia-tives? Will these two areas begin tocollaborate more and if so, how?

Work will be redefined in the comingdecade.

As the anytime, anyplace officebecomes more commonplace (faxes andcomputer in the home, phones in cars),and as the United States moves toward aninformation-based economy, boundariesbetween work and family will becomeeven more diffuse. Standards formeasuring performance are expected tohinge less on duration (the number ofhours one works equals commitment andproductivity) and more on results. Inaddition, the recession has led to reductions in middle management, greaterreliance on team approaches. anddifferent paths for promotions includingmore lateral moves. These preconditionsare ideal for the inclusion of work-familyconcerns. At the present time, however,the leaders discussing the workplace ofthe future are not thinking of these issues.And it is always possible that theworkplace will continue to demand morework over longer hours.

As promising and exciting as theemergence of business involvement inwork-family issues has been, there are

limitations on how much employers canchange the work-family situation.

A concern: corporations alonecannot solve societal problems.

The conservative political agendaholds that government should do less andthat private enterprise should play themajor role in resolving social problems.Some feel it is up to the businesscommunity to voluntarily provideparental leave, to promote quality .achildcare, and to offer supports foremployees struggling with wor (-familyresponsibilities. If one looks, however, atthe communities with the strongestbusiness response to work-family andchildcare problems, these are thecommunities in which government hasbuilt the strongest infrastructure. Compa-nies are less likely to invest in commu-nity services that are of poor quality.Thus, government involvement is apreconion to business activity.

A concern: the involvement ofbusiness may widen the gap betweenthe haves and the have nots.

If one notes the companies named inthis article as being the most family-friendly, it is immediately apparent thatthe most responsive companies are thecompanies that employ the most privi-leged workers. Not surprisingly, ananalysis of the predictors of family-responsiveness in a four-state study weconducted revealed that larger companiesand companies with a higher number ofprofessional employees were the mostlikely to be family-friendly." Thus,those who are helped most by businessinvolvement are the havesemployeeswho work for companies that alreadyprovide good salaries and benefitsandthose who are not helped are the havenotsernployees who work for employ-ers, which offer lower salaries, andfewer, if any, benefits. Work-familyassistance could have the unintendedeffect of creating a larger distancebetween social classes.

A concern: companies are morelikely to provide work supports thanfamily supports.

Most of the assistance of business hasbeen aimed at reducing the obstacles toemployees coming to work. This is, ofcourse, a very important function, butfrom a family perspective, it is worri-some that there is much less attention tothe provision of family supports,programs and policies that enableemployees to spend time with theirfamilies. 22

A final concern: it is difficult to befamily-supportive.

In other studies, we have investigatedthe predictors of being family supportive,looking at the relationships betweenparents and children's childcare provid-ers. We have found numerous obstacles.For example, we have found thatdifferences of race, income, and educa-tion between parents and staff arepredictive of poorer relationshipsbetween them. Likewise, we have foundthat attitudinal difference are important.Teachers who believe that mothersshouldn't work (and one in four feels thisway) are less likely to be supportive ofemployed parents.

All of this suggests that change is noteasy. It requires altering attitudes as wellas behavior, and that takes time. It ishard, in corporate parlance, to get fromhere to where we are going. But itcrucially important to do so for the sakeof the families of today and tomorrow.12

Ellen Galinsky is Co-President (lf the Families andWork lnstituw, 330 Seventh Avenue, Nov York. NY10001.212/465-2044. Site is a fornwr boardmember af the Family Resource Coalition.

References'Hilton Corporation, as cited by B. Edmondson in"Remaking A Living Little Reader. July August.1991.S L. Hofferth. A. Brayll eld. S. Deitch and P. Holcomb, MeNational Child Care Survey 1990 (Washington. D TheUrban Institute Press, 1991).Ibid

Fnedman. Linkng Work-Family Issues to the BottomLine, Report No. 962 (New York. The Conference Board. 19901E. Galinsky. 'Labor Force Participation of Dual-Earner Couples

and Single Parents'. in Investing in People. BackgroundPapers. Vol. IL p.1259 (Washington, DC: Commission onQuality and Labor Market Efficiency, US. Department of Labor,1989)

'E Trzcinski and W.T. Albert. Leave Policies in SmallBusinesses: Findings from the U.S. Small BusinessAdministration Employee Leave Survey (Washington. DC: U SSmall Business Administration. Office of Advocacy. October1990).

'R Marra and J. Lindner, 'Parental Leave Cost Model." toappear in Parbntal Leave and Productivity (New York. NewYork: Families and Work Institute. 1992).

Vork-Family Roundtable Survey (New York: The ConferenceBoard. 1991)S.L. Hofferth et al. 1991. E.E. Kisker. S.L Hoffert.h. D APhillips, and E. Farquhar. A Profile of Child Care Settings. EarlyEducation and Care in 1990. Vol. 1 (Princeton, New Jersey:Mathematics Policy Research. Inc 1991): B Willer, S L.Hofferth. E.E. Kisker. P.D Hawkins. E. Farquhar and F B.Glans, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990(Washington. DC: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children. United States Department of Health andHuman Services, Administration on Children. Youth andFamilies. United States Department of Education. Office of theUndersecretary. 1991).

'Department of Health and Human Services. Child Care andDevelopmental Block Grant: interim Final Rule (Washington,DC: Federal Register. Vol.55, p.109. 1991).

E. Galinsky and A Morris. Employers and Child Care(Pediatncs. in press).

-E Galinsky and B. Weissbourd, 'Family Centered ChildCare, to appear in Yearbook in Early Chddhood Education,Vol. B. Spodek and 0.Saracho, Editors (New York, NewYork: Teachers' College Press, in preparation)

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 21-

Resource File

BALANCING WORK RESPONSIBILITIES ANDFAMILY NEEDS: The Federal Civil ServiceResponseA report by the Office of Policy and EvaluationUnited States Merit Systems Protection Board1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.Washington. D C. 20419202/653-8900

The United States Government is trying to keel)pace with the private sector in offering benefits to itsemployees which balance the demands of theworkplace and family responsibilities. Growing out ofthe requirements of the Civil Service Reform Act of1978. this report provides an overview of significantactions taken by the U.S. Office of PersonnelManagement and some of the Government's humanresource management programs. It details employeebenefits to assist federal workers in balancing thedemands of work and family. The report aisoexamines ways the federal government can becomea vanguard in work and family employment issues.Topics discussed Include: childcare. eldercare.alternative work schedules, part-time employmentand job sharing, flexplace. and leave-sharingprograms.

WOMEN'S BUREAU WORK AND FAMILYCLEARINGHOUSEUnited States Department of Labor200 Constitution Avenue. NB.Washington. D.C. 20210202/523-4486

The Work and Family Clearinghouse wasestablished in 1989 by the Women's Bureau of theDepartment of Labor to provide information toemployers seeking to develop work and familypohcies to address the issues of childcare andeldercare. Information is available in five optioncategories: Girect services, information services,financial assistance, flexible policies, and public-private partnerships. The Clearinghouse producestwo information folders: Choices provides overviewsand a guide for employers to decision making oneldercare and childcare program options: and theWork and Family Resource Kit contains a summary ofthe work and family conflict and discusses pertinenttopics such as benefits, leaves, services, alternativework schedules, and dependent care options. Ofparticular interest is a document describing strategiesfor employers on how to distinguish and choosebetween work and family options. The kit alsoincludes an extensive reference and resource list TheWomen's Bureau also offers a list of relevantpublications, booklets, and fact sheets availablethrough the Department of Labor.

WORK AND FAMILY PROGRAM CENTERUnited States Office of Personnel Management1900 E Street, N.WWashington. D.C. 20415-0001202/606-5520

The Work and Family Program Center wasrecently established in June. 1992 to provideleadership and assistance to federal agencies indeveloping and implementing work and familypolicies. The Center intends in the near future toestablish an Interagency Partnership on Work andFamily to address significant dependent care issues.Participating agencies are to include the GeneralSemces Administration, and the Departments ofDefense. Transportation, Health and Human Services,

22 FAMILY RESOURCE COAUTION REPORT - 1992 NO.2

Labor, and Veteran Affairs The Office of PersonnelManagement's literature includes: its 1992 report toCongress entitled A Study of the Work and FamilyNeeds of the Federal Work Force, detailing the OPM'sfindings on dependent care needs and programs,work and family employment options, key measuresto increase the effectiveness of work and familyprograms, and agency program implementation: ASurvey of Work and Family Provisions in FederalLabor Agreements. discussing maternity leave,Paternity leave, childcare. employee assistanceprograms. flex time, compressed workweek, leave-transfer, adoption leave, flex place, part-timeemployment, and job sharing: and Dependent CarePolicies for Federal Employees, an overview ofavailable work and family options for governmentemployees.

NEW WAYS TO WORK149 Ninth StreetSan Francisco, CA 94103415 '552-1000Barney Olmsted & Suzanne Smith, Co-Founders andDirectors

New Ways to Work is a respected not-for profitresearch, training, and advocacy organizationpromoting flexible work arrangements. Ft:it twentyyears, NWN has worked with corporations. tradeunions, and policymakers to design and implementalternative scheduling and staffing options. NWIN hasbeen at the forefront in advocating work options suchas flexplace and flextime, work sharing, compressedwork week, telecommuting, alternative staffing.regular part-time. v-time programs. leave of absence.and phased retirement. MAW has launched severalcommunity-based pilot programs to demonstrate thevalue of adopting alternative work strategies. NewWays Workers is a youth empioyment projectpromoting year-round private sector lob opportunitiesfor high school youth. The Equiflex Project addressesinequities inherent in using a two-tier workforce. TheWork and Family Prolect seeks to identify strategiesfor balancing work and family time. NWW publishes aresource book to assist managers in using the toolsprovided by NIWV's consulting arm entitled Creatinga Flexible Workplace. Other publications include WorkTimes, a quarterly newsletter, a mail-order library ofhandbooks, how-to manuals, and audio-visualmaterials.

THE CONFERENCE BOARD845 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022212/759-0900Fax: 212/980-7014

The Conference Board is a global businessmembership organization whose purpose is toImprove the business enterprise system and toenhance the contribution of business to society byenabling executives to explore and exchangebusiness practices and policy issues through a varietyof forums.

Of particular interest to FRC members. theConference Board sponsors the Work and FamilyResearch Council which produces a number ofpublications including a substantive report titledLinking Work-Family Issues to the Bottom Line. whichaddresses tne questions: What is the impact of work-family problems on absenteeism, turnover, andemployee stress? Who bears the brunt of work-familyconflict? and What are the effects of on-site childcare,maternity leave, flextime, and employeeqs4tance

prcgrams on productmly?

FAMILIES AND WORK INSTITUTE330 Seventh AvenueNew York, NY 10001212/465-2044FAX: 212/465-8637

Founded in 1989. the Families and '-:vork Instituteis a not-for-profit research and pla':,ung organizationdedicated to balancing the chang ng needs ofAmenca's families with the continuing need forworkplace productivity. The Institute's programaddresses the entire life-cycle of the family, maintainsa commitment to both the public and private sectors.examines the effects of work on family life as well asthe effects of families on work performance, andforecasts future trends with input from all sectors ofsociety The four major activities of the Institute are:policy research, dissemination, strategic planning,and management training. The Institute operates anational clearinghouse on work and family life andpublishes a many materials on the topic, includingTne Corpc ate Reference Guide to Work-FamilyProgram. a 437-page volume ranking and profilingthe work-family programs and policies of the largestFortune 1000 companies in each of 30 industryareas.

THE NATIONAL WORK/FAMILY ALLIANCE52 Chestnut StreetBoston, MA 02108617;248-0809Contact: Kathy Cramer

The Alliance is a new trade association to supportthe development of the emerging worKlamilyindustry. Members will be organizations that helpbusinesses implement worklamily programs. The

produce and maintain an in-depthdirectory of known work/family organizations andsupport rggi mai work/family associations andorganizatico s. The Alliance will connect the emergingwork/fam:,y industry to the business community andto the media.

CHILD CARE ACTION CAMPAIGN330 Seventh Avenue 17th FloorNew York, NY 10001212/239-0138Fax: 212/268-6515

CCAC, formed in 1983. is a national agencywhose mission is "to stimulate and support thedevelopment of policies and programs that willincrease the availability of quality, affordable childcarefor the benefit of children, their families, and theeconomic well-being of the nation." Toward this end.CCAC publishes several guides to assist employersand employees in learning about various issues inchildcare. An Employer's Guide to Child Care aidsemployers in choosing a childcare consultant whobest fits the specific needs of the firm, and providesresources for locating these consultants. Not TooSmall to Care: Small Businesses and Child Careprofiles 29 small businesses which have successfullyimplemented chitdcare benefits in the form of on- ornear-site childcare centers, employee subsidies,flexible work hours, parental leave, family day carehomes, and Dependent Care Assistance Plans.Making the Connections: Public-Private Partnershipsin Child Care highlights 20 successful and innovativepartnerships between private business, voluntary

from CCAC is a series of brief information guidesde,ailing specific topics such as "How to use theFederal Childcare Tax Credir and "EmployerSupported Childcare. Current Options and Trends."CCAC is currently establishing a data base ofemployers nationwide that provide their employeeswith some type of work and family benefit.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN53 West 23rd StreetNew York, NY 10010212/615-4048Fax: 212/645-7466

The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) isa volunteer organization of 100,000 membersnationwide which has served for a century in assistingchildren and families of all ethnic, economic, andreligious backgrounds. The NCJW's Work/FamilyProject has recently written and published the reportOptions for the 90's: Employer Support for ChildCare. This project discusses childcare in light of directcare services, employee financial assistance, flexiblepersonnel policies, and community investments. TheWork/Family Project has also compiled a publicationsand resource list to supplement the report.Additionally. the NCJW Center for the Child hasprepared several fact sheets concerning childcareand the workplace.

SOLVING THE WORK AND FAMILY PUZZLEBy Bonnie Michaels and Elizabeth McCartyPublished by Business One Irwin1818 Ridge RoadHomewood, IL 60430708/206-2700

This book addresses questions sun ounding thework and family issue. How does balancing familyand work affect the personal and professional lives oftoday's workers? Practical "how-to" information isgiven, using case studies, on successfully juggling theresponsibilities of work and of the family. Michaels,president. and McCarty, vice president and generalcounsel of Managing Work & Family Inc. offerinformation for both employer and employee on howto identify organizational values and goals, howemployers can take a proactive role to assureemployee satisfaction in the workplace, and how toset priorities and construct a plan to balance careerswith personal lives. The book also addresses suchsubjects as the special needs of single paents,blended families, and parents that travel.

WORK AND FAMILY LIFECirculation and Customer Service:6211 West HowardChicago, IL 606481-800-727-7243Katie Thorndike 1-800-676-2838Dr. Susan Ginsberg 2121875-4651

Published in collaboration with Bank StreetCollege of Education in New York, Work and FamilyLife is an excellent resource for managers andemployees alike. W&FL has been called an"unyuppitied" newsletter designed to address thewide spectrum of concerns both in the home and inthe workplace: how to squeeze in chores on theweekend, keys to a happy marriage, negotiatingconflicts with co-workers, easing the transition to anew job, coping with the needs of older familymembers, why managers fail, and similar subjects.W&FL currently reaches 20,000 employees in 140firms in 37 states nationwide. Dr. Susan Ginsberg,editor and publisher, is Associate Dean and Directorof the Work and Family Life Seminars at the College.

Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute is theexecutive editor.

THE WORK AND FAMILY NEWSBRIEFWork and Family Connection350 East Michigan AvenueSuite 301Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3851616/343-07701-800-334-4094Fax: 616/343-6260

The W&FN is compiled and written by Work andFamily Connection, a firm in Minneapolis, providingconsulting services and on-site management training.The W&IN is published monthly and consists of asummary for that month of all the work and familynews published in newspapers, trade journals,periodicals, and other newsletters. The Trend Report,pubished bi-weekly and included in the subscription,offers opinions and commentary on trends and newprograms. A hotline is available to subscribers only forquestions about work and family programs andpolicies across the country.

11-

THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.1231 25th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 200371-800-372-1033

BNA is the largest pnvate information source in theUnited States. They publish more than 80 daily,weekly, biweekly, and monthly Information servicesfor business executives, human resource executives.labor officials, financial analysts, and other profession-als concerned with issues of business andgovernment interaction. BNA Plus, a subdivision ofBNA, provides cu 'tomer service and support toAipplement BNA's publications, compiles andpublishes a Special Report Series on Work &These monthly Work and Family reports can beordered individually or by yearly series of twelveissues, dating back to 1988. In addition, BNA hascompiled a Directory of Work and Family Programswhich outlines and describes work and familyprograms now in place, those scheduled to beimplemented this year, and those under considerationby more than 200 employers nationwide. Topicsexplored in this volume include childcare, eldercare,and leave programs. The Directory also includes thenames, addresses, and telephone numbers ofhundreds of individuals working in the field of workand family. Work and Family: The Complete ResotirceGuide provides details on the latest survey results,studies, and reports; state laws and regulations;proposed federal legislation; innovative corporatepolicies; and ,:ertinent court cases and arbitrationdecisions. And Jean D. Linehan. consultant on Work& Family Programs for the Bureau of National Affairs,Inc. has identified 178 Family-Oriented Policy &Program Options for Employers.

MANAGING WORK AND FAMILY, INC.912 Crain StreetEvanston, IL 60202708/864-0916Bonnie Michaels, President

Managing Work and Family, Inc. is a privateconsulting firm which serves lininesses across thecountry in developing and implementing strategies toassist employees in balancing the demands of workand home. MW&F publishes a number of pamphletsand guides which are available to the public:ComprehensiVe Meeting Leader's Guide; DevelopingWork/Family Policies: Guidelines for SeniorManagement; Helping Employees Handle Work/

24

Family Conflicts: Strategies and Skills for Managers;Employee Planning Guides for day care, eldercare,and maternity leave; and How to CommunicateFamily-Care Needs to your Supervisor. MW&F hasalso compiled several Kopy Kit curricula to helpemployees balance personal responsibilities withcareer demands including: Managing Work andFamily and Family Ties & Bottom Lines, which covertopics such as the working parent, working options,proactive approaches to absenteeism, and creatingwin/win situations. These curricula are concise, clear,and legally reusable for photocopying, displays, andpresentations. In addition, MW&F has produced avideo entitled Managing Your Career and YourPersonal Lite.

WORK/FAMILY DIRECTIONS, INC.930 Commonwealth Avenue WestBoston, MA 02215-1212617/278-4000FAX: 617/566-2806

Work/Family Directions, Inc. is a human resourcesconsulting firm, helping companies effectively managethe work/family balance by addressing the diversean changing family needs of their employees. To thist ,d, Work/Family Directions comes as part of acorporation's employee benefits package, andencompasses programs and strategies for dependentcare, workplace flexibility. strategic labor forceplanning, research, education, and training. The menuof services includes among others: addressing the fullrange of dependent care needs; offering assistance inadoption, childcare, special needs childcare, schoolachievement issues, school selection, and eldercare;providing workplace surveys and employee research,work and family labor force planning and strategydevelopment; assisting companies in designing andadministering customized systems to help employeeswith dependent care; and publications, seminars, andvideos.

THE PARTNERSHIP GROUP, INC.840 W. Main StreetLansdale, PA 19446215/362-5070

Since 1982, the Partnership Group has beenworking with employers nationwide to help create aworkplace which is friendly to the personal familyneeds of its employees. Their consulting servicesutilize the case manager approach and are designedto complement and to be compatible with existingemployee benefits and specific corporate cultures.TPG's general services include detailed analysesconcerning managerial training and assessment,flexible work arrangements, leave policies andpractices, financial assistance, dependent careservices, community resource development, andfamily and work management support. TPG's FamilyResource Service to its clients includes: writteneducation materials tailored to suit a specificbusiness's needs: on-site workshops and FamilyResource Centers which include video presentationson childcare, parenting, and eldercare topics andwhich serve to help employees with similar problemsto network and form informal support groups; andconsultation by Resource Consultants available 24hours a day via a toll-free hotline. TPG also employsfollow-up and ongoing assessment programs to helpovercome any obstacles encountered in thebusiness's transitionary phases. TPG is active incommunity service and sponsors numerousneighborhood activities for children, elders, and socialservice providers.

Researched and written by John A. Finger, FamilyResource Coolition Su,,uner Research Associatefront the Irving B. Harris School of Public PolicyStudies, University of Chicago.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT - 1992 NO.2 23

IN THIS ISSUEyAs we go to press, the timeliness

of the focus of this issueWork andFamilyis forcefully impressed. Atthe national level, the presidentialcandidates revive the familiar debateabout a national family leave policywhich would guarantee workers upto 12 weeks of unpaid leave to carefor a new baby or a severely illfamily member.

The American Business Collabo-ration for Quality Dependent Carean alliance of 111 companies in 44citieslast month announced that itwill spend $25.4 million to improvechildcare and eldercare options fortheir employees. And WorkingMother Magazine released its newestlist of the 100 most family-friendlyfirms in the nation. The pace ofprogress is the work-family arena isincreasing.

In this FRC Report we provideocrspectives on work and

family. It contains insights fromsome of the foremost leaders in thisfield. Ellen Galinsky, Co-Presidentof Families and Work Institute (andformer FRC board member) guidedthe planning of the issue. Her articleprovides an overview of the topic ofwork and family as we know it andraises important concerns which willneed to be addressed as the fieldgrows.

Following Ellen, we profile LeviStrauss, an exemplary corporatework and family program. We askArlene Johnson to reflect on her tenyears of experience developing asound framework for employers toimplement work and family programs.

The Family Resource Coalition200 South Michigan AvenueSuite 1520Chicago, IL 60604

312/341-0900FAX 31 2/34 1-9361

Next, Susan Lambert, Ph.D.reports on the findings of her researchregarding family-friendly policiesand the pay-off for both the companyand the families at FEL-PRO, Inc.

And Dana Friedman writes aboutcorporate funds, a new strategy toimprove the quality and supply ofservices for employees.

The centerpiece of this issue is anFRC interview with the directors offive community-based work/fan.ilyprograms, building dialogue aboutwork with employers and employees.

After this, we move to questions ofstrategy for promoting the work/family agenda. The piece I contrib-uted compares American andEuropean policies which affectworking families. And there arereports from two regional organiza-tions regarding their efforts to helpthe field grow.

Fran and Charles Rodgersaddress the issue of gender and work/family issues.

Finally, there's a Resource File atthe end of this Repon to help youadvance the agenda of work andfamily in your workplace. We hopeyou enjoy the issue and we welcomeyour comments.

Lina CramerDirector of Program DevelopmentNational Resource Center forFamily Support ProgramsFamily Resource Coalition

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDCHICAGO. IL

Permit No. 2353

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

25

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

BERNICE WEISSBOURD, PresidentFamily Focus, IL

SHARON LYNN KAGAN, ChairmanYale University Bush Center, GT

FRANK FARROW, Past ChairmanCenter for the Study of Social Policy, DC

ANN ADALIST.ESTRINParent Resource Association, PA

BARBARA BOWMANErikson Institute, IL

CHARLES BRUNERChild and Family Policy Center. IA

BETTE CARLSONNational Futures Association, IL

DONALD M. FRASERCity of Minneapolis, MN

EUGENE GARCIAUniversity of California.rSanta Cruz, CA

IDY B. GITELSONJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, IL

SANDRA KESSLER HAMBURGCommittee for Economic Development, NY

SOPHIA BRACY HARRISFederation of Child Care Centers. AL

JAMES HINCHLIFFPeople's Energy Corporation, IL

MARY HOLTARC International, IL

REBECCA K LEETRebecca Lest & Associates, VA

LUBA H. LYNCHA.L. Mailman Foundation, NY

RUTH MASSINGACasey Family Program, WA

MARIA ELENA ORREGOThe Family Place, DC

AMY RASSENJewish Family and Children's Services, CA

HAROLD A. RICHMANChapin Hall Center for Children. II.

BEA ROMERFu st Lady of Colorado. CO

ANN ROSEWATERAtlanta, Georgia

LISBETH SCHORRHarvard School of Public Health, MA

ANNE L. 1UOHYAssociation of Junior Leagues. IL

ALETHA WRIGHTOffice of Policy and Program Evaluation, NJ

STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOE YOUNG. SR.House of Representathres, MI

STAFFExecutive Director, JUDY CARTERDirector, National Resource Center for FamilySupport Programs, LYNN POOLEYAssociate Director, KAREN KELLEY

Secretary, VIVIAN BRADFORDAssistant to the Director, ANN CARRAResource Specialist, ADRIENNE COFFEYDirector of Program Development, LINA CRAMERCoordinator, African American Caucus,EDITH CRIGLERSecretary, JENNIFER CRITTLEDirector of Information Services, NRCFSP,PAUL DEANEResearch Associate, JOHN FINGERDirector of Publications, KATHY GOETZProject Coordinator, Best Practices, DIANEHALBROOKMarketing Director, SUSAN OLIVERDirector of Research, BRYAN SAMUELSTraining Associate, LOURDES SULLIVANInformation Specialist, LINDA TURNERStaff Writer, CHRISTINE VOGELSchool-Linked Programs Specialist, BE . FE WILSON

FRC REPORTEditor, KATHY GOETZDesign, LYNN PEARSONCopy Editing, JONATHAN WOLFPrinting: BOOKLET PUBLISHING CO., INC.Cover INustration: BILL HARBINSON

The FRC Roport is published quarterly in the public interest by the Family Resource Coalition, a lax exempt, non-profit organization. Membership in the Coalition includesa subscription lo the FRC Report. Readers areencouraged to copy and share its content; we request you credit the Family Resource Coalition as the original source ol Mforrnation.