Key Factors to Adopt Paid Family Leave Policies in U.S. States

KEY FACTORS TO ADOPT PAID FAMILY LEAVE POLICIES IN U.S. STATES

Erin M. Abramsohn

A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy and Management in the Gillings School of Global Public Health.

Chapel Hill 2019

Approved by:

Pam Silberman

Asheley Cockrell Skinner

Gene Matthews

Cathleen Walsh

Judy Waxman

ABSTRACT

Erin M. Abramsohn: Key Factors to Adopt Paid Family Leave Policies in U.S. States (Under the direction of Pam Silberman)

In 2019, The United States remains the only developed nation without a paid family leave

policy. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) passed in 1993, grants eligible employees

up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year. However, due to eligibility limitations only 60 percent of U.S. workers qualify for FMLA benefits and only about half of those eligible utilize the program. Many also report shortening the length of unpaid leave they take due to financial constraints. As of December, 2018, only four U.S. states offered paid family leave (California,

New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York). Starting in 2020, Washington state and the District of Columbia will both begin offering paid family and medical leave benefits, and beginning in

2021 Massachusetts will also provide paid family leave benefits. Bills have been introduced (but

not passed) in 23 additional states.

This study examined the question of why two states (California and New York) were able

to pass paid family leave policies, while two other states that made multiple legislative attempts

(Colorado and Illinois) failed. Through in-depth case studies I analyzed the activities of these

four states specific to their efforts to adopt a paid family leave policy. While all four states had

unique challenges and facilitating factors, I identified seven themes that helped to explain why

California and New York were successful but Colorado and Illinois were not. Some factors appeared to be necessary for the bill to pass, but were not sufficient on their

iii

own, including: 1) having a strong, broad-based, and well-organized coalition, 2) conducting a fiscal analysis to estimate potential costs and economic benefits, 3) having a supportive, or primarily Democratic state political climate, and 4) introducing a number of bills in different sessions, or having a longer history of working on efforts related to paid family leave. Three additional factors were critical to the success in both California and New York, including 5) having an existing administrative structure in place (in this case, a state temporary disability insurance program), 6) having the support of key leadership (e.g., a Governor who supported paid family leave, or was not opposed to it, and/or a strong bill sponsor), and 7) having an open window of opportunity. This work is intended to inform future efforts by advocates, policymakers, and legislative staff, and potentially contribute to agenda-setting in states that do not yet have a paid family leave law.

To my husband Sam, for selflessly supporting me on this journey.

And to my boys, Owen, Max, and Leo.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This has been a long process, and I am incredibly grateful to many people who helped

make this possible for me. To my committee, Cathleen Walsh, Gene Matthews, Asheley

Cockrell Skinner, and Judy Waxman–thank you for your steady guidance and continued support.

This is a practice-based program, and my goal was to create something that would be useful in

the real world. Your varied expertise and insights allowed me to develop products that I hope

will help move states forward on this topic. I could not have done this without you. To Pam

Silberman–thank you for taking a chance on me, for investing your time and energy in me, and

for believing in me. You saw the light at the end of the tunnel for me even when I couldn’t see it

for myself. Your steady direction and consistent feedback allowed me to refine my own ideas

and create something that I’m incredibly proud of.

To my friends and family–thank you for your continued love and support through this

process. Thank you to my neighbors who have fed my family and watched my kids, to my

friends near and far who have listened to my ideas and helped me through rough patches, and to

everyone who has given me the time and space I needed to accomplish this goal. Thank you to

my mom and dad, Terrie and Gary, for raising me in an environment where education was

always a priority, and for giving me everything that I needed to get to this point. This would not

have been possible without a strong foundation, and I owe that to you. To my grandma Patty–

you are a shining example of selflessness, self-sacrifice, and the definition of “caregiver.” You have taught us all strength and resilience, and I am grateful every day for the impact you have had on my life.

To my sisters, Emily, Elizabeth, and Erika–you are my biggest inspiration. Because of you, I feel challenged every day to be a good leader and a role model. I will always strive to make the world a better place for you. Thank you for listening to me, talking through ideas with me, commiserating with me, and supporting me through this process. To my boys, Owen, Max, and Leo–you can’t read this yet, but when you can, know that this process wasn’t easy, and definitely took me away from you more than I liked. Thank you for your unconditional love and your patience. And to Sam–I wouldn’t have started a doctoral program, let alone finished it, without your love and support. Thank you for always believing in me, and doing whatever it takes to help me pursue my dreams.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... x LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Issue ...... 1 Goal ...... 2 Importance and Rationale ...... 3 Legislative History and Background ...... 7 Conceptual Models ...... 22 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 25 Methods ...... 25 Findings ...... 26 Limitations ...... 37 CHAPTER 3: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 41 Study Overview ...... 41 Conceptual Framework ...... 48 Research Questions ...... 49 Data Collection ...... 49 Analysis ...... 53 Data Management ...... 57 IRB and Confidentiality ...... 58 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 59 California ...... 60 New York ...... 95 Colorado ...... 122 Illinois ...... 140

viii

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 156 Messaging and Communications ...... 156 Themes (lessons learned) ...... 162 Limitations ...... 181 CHAPTER 6: PLAN FOR CHANGE ...... 182 Audiences ...... 184 Products ...... 186 Executive Summary ...... 187 Analysis: Opportunities to Advance Paid Family Leave Policies...... 188 Framework for a Model Paid Family Leave Policy ...... 188 Communication Strategies ...... 189 Clarifying My Role ...... 191 APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS ...... 193 APPENDIX B: FAILED STATE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS (as of December 30, 2018), ...... 195 APPENDIX C: STATE POLITICAL COMPOSITION WHEN BILLS WERE INTRODUCED...... 209 APPENDIX D: NUMBER OF BILLS INTRODUCED BY STATE (CA, CO, NY, IL) ...... 211 APPENDIX E: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SEARCH RESULTS ...... 212 APPENDIX F: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 213 APPENDIX G: RELEVANT CALIFORNIA BILLS, 1946–2018 ...... 219 APPENDIX H: RELEVANT NEW YORK BILLS, 1998–2018 ...... 223 APPENDIX I: RELEVANT COLORADO BILLS, 2013–2018 ...... 230 APPENDIX J: RELEVANT ILLINOIS BILLS, 2005–2018 ...... 233 APPENDIX K: CODE BOOK ...... 237 APPENDIX L: SUMMARY TABLE OF RESULTS ...... 240 APPENDIX M: ANTI–LOBBYING ACT ...... 245 REFERENCES ...... 246

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: States that have Passed Paid Family Leave Legislation….………………….....………..18

Table 2: Literature Review Search Terms…………………………………………….....……….25

Table 3: Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting Health-related Policies……..…...……..…………39

Table 4: Case Study States–California and Colorado…………………………………...... 44

Table 5: Case Study States–New York and Illinois……………………………………..………..46

Table 6: Sample Data Presentation for Qualitative Data……….………………………..………..50

Table 7: (Colorado) Changes in Income Brackets and Percent Compensation………………….126

Table 8: Political Party in Control of Governorship, Upper & Lower Chamber……………….168

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: U.S. State Progress on Paid Family Leave as of December 30, 2018.…….…………….21

Figure 2: Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model………………………………..…………………..23

Figure 3: Paid Family Leave Conceptual Framework……………..……………………………...48

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AARP American Association of Retired Persons

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union

AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

AWW Average Weekly Wage

CFRA California Family Rights Act

DOL Department of Labor

EDD Employment Development Department (California)

ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act

FLI Family Leave Insurance

FLIP Family Leave Insurance Program (Illinois)

FMLA Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

FTE Full-time Equivalent (staff)

FUTA Federal Unemployment Tax Act

IDC Independent Democratic Conference (New York)

ILO International Labour Organization

NDI Non-Industrial Disability Insurance (California)

xii

NFIB National Federation of Independent Businesses

PFL Paid Family Leave

SAWW State Average Weekly Wage

SDI State Disability Insurance

SEIU Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

TABOR Taxpayer Bill of Rights (Colorado)

TCI Temporary Caregiver Insurance (Rhode Island)

TDI Temporary Disability Insurance

UI Unemployment Insurance

WCTD Workers' Compensation Temporary Disability (California)

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Issue

Many workers in the U.S. are unable to take time off from their jobs to care for a new child, an ailing family member, or themselves. Without paid leave, workers are forced to choose between physically caring for their families, and their family’s economic security. Paid family

leave allows an employee to have time away from work with a portion of their pay to care for a

family member, and in some cases, for themselves. This leave may be available to care for a new

child (biological, foster, or adopted), or a family member with a serious illness, and is provided

in addition to any sick, vacation, personal leave, or short-term disability leave that is available to

the employee (Van Giezen, 2013). Paid family leave policies are critical to helping American

families balance competing demands, especially as women (who are more likely to serve as

caretakers) make up more of the U.S. labor force, and there are fewer nonworking family

members in households to care for children and older relatives (Pew Research Center, 2013a).

In 2019, The U.S. remains the only developed nation without a paid family leave policy.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed in 1993, grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to eligible employees every year for one or more of the following reasons: 1) birth, adoption, or foster care, 2) to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent who has a serious health condition; 3) for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job; or 4) for any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty or call to covered

active duty status (United States Department of Labor, 1993). However, FMLA only applies to workers at companies with 50 or more employees who have been at their job for 12 months, and who have provided 1,250 hours of service in the past year (about 24 hours per week). Due to eligibility limitations, only 60 percent of workers qualify for FMLA benefits. Additionally, only about half of those eligible utilize FMLA, and many take less time away from work than they are eligible to take, due to financial constraints (National Partnership for Women and Families,

2013).

As of December 30, 2018, only four U.S. states (California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York) had paid family leave programs in place. Bills had passed in Washington D.C. and Washington State in 2016 and 2017 respectively, with programs slated to begin in 2020, and a bill passed in Massachusetts in 2018 with the program set to begin paying out benefits in

2021. Additionally, some private employers offer generous voluntary paid leave policies, and some use short-term disability insurance as a workaround to provide women with maternity leave. This patchwork of different laws and policies has resulted in a nation where an individual’s access to time off to care for themselves or their family is determined by the state they live in, the company they work for, or their ability to afford time without pay.

Goal

The goal of this research project was to use case studies to develop an in-depth analysis of the activities of four states related to their efforts to adopt a paid family leave policy. The intent was to determine the barriers, facilitating factors, and lessons learned specific to adopting these policies at the state level, and the relative strength and importance of each.

Importance and Rationale

Almost every worker in the U.S. will need to take time off from work at some point in order to care for themselves, a new baby, or a sick family member (National Partnership for

Women and Families, 2016). Many aging individuals require care and support to manage

illnesses or daily activities (which is frequently provided by family members), women need time to recuperate after pregnancy and the delivery of a baby, and families need time to bond after birth or adoption. Paid family leave programs benefit families and businesses through cost savings and increases in the financial and physical health of working families.

In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, women were more likely than men to

report that they had taken career interruptions to care for their family (39 vs. 27 percent) which

can have a negative impact on long-term earnings (Pew Research Center, 2013b). Paid family leave policies have been shown to promote economic stability and gender equality at work by increasing parents’ ability to maintain their attachment to the labor force after they have children

(Aitken et al., 2015). Access to leave (paid or unpaid) has been shown to increase women’s rate of employment in Europe (Ruhm, 1996), increase the likelihood of women returning to work after having children, and increase the likelihood of women returning to the same job (Hofferth

& Curtin, 2006). A 2012 study conducted by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers

University examined the economic effects of paid family leave compared to the effects of taking unpaid leave or no leave. Controlling for multiple individual‐level job characteristics and demographic indicators, women who took paid leave after a child’s birth reported stronger labor force attachment, were more likely to be working nine to 12 months after their child was born, and were more likely to report positive changes in wages in the year following their child’s birth,

compared to women who did not take any leave or took unpaid leave (Houser & Vartanian,

2012).

Providing new parents access to paid time off when a baby is born or adopted has also

been shown to result in healthier babies and stronger families (Houser & Vartanian, 2012).

Income and economic stability have been directly associated with better health outcomes in

adults (Adler & Ostrove, 1999) and the association between family poverty and children’s health

outcomes, behavior, and achievement has been well-documented (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,

1997). A parent’s ability to maintain their family’s economic security can have long-term, positive health impacts for both the parent and their children.

Previously developed economic theories suggested that parental leave policies in general

(paid or unpaid) would positively affect infant health outcomes by increasing a parent’s time away from work. However, research specifically found that policies that provided paid time off had the ability to positively impact infant health through access to medical care or household commodities, including immunizations and access to nutritious foods (Leibowitz, 2005; Ruhm,

2000). Paid and job-protected leave across a number of countries, including the U.S., has been associated with significant decreases in infant mortality rates (infant deaths before 1 year of age) compared to other forms of leave (i.e. unpaid leave or leave that is not job-protected), primarily because paid leave allows parents to spend more time with their children (Heymann, Raub, &

Earle, 2011; Ruhm, 2000; Staehelin, Bertea, & Stutz, 2007; Tanaka, 2005).

Many countries also provide substantial periods of paid leave during pregnancy which may help new mothers take better care of themselves and get recommended prenatal care, which has been shown to lead to higher infant birth weights (Alexander & Korenbrot, 1995). Low birth weight is an important risk factor for infant mortality, and the impacts of parental leave on child

health outcomes may be due in part to higher birth weights (Tanaka, 2005). Unpaid maternity

leave was not found to have a substantial effect on infant health indicators, including birth

weight, the likelihood of premature birth, or infant mortality (Ruhm, 2000; Tanaka, 2005).

Additional studies have shown that increases in income alone have the ability to improve child

health outcomes (Leibowitz, 2005).

Studies have also shown that the length of leave matters. Returning to work within 12

weeks of childbirth (whether leave was paid or unpaid) has been shown to have significant negative impacts on child health outcomes (Berger, Hill, & Waldfogel, 2005). Specifically,

children whose mothers returned to work before 12 weeks postpartum were less likely to have

regular medical check-ups and to receive all of their immunizations by 18 months. These

children were also less likely to be breastfed and for those that were breastfed, they were more likely to be breastfed for a shorter period of time.

Notably, job-protected leave in general (paid or unpaid) has been associated with increased breastfeeding initiation and duration (Baker & Milligan, 2010; Calnen, 2007;

Camurdan et al., 2008; Cooklin, Rowe, & Fisher, 2012; Guendelman et al., 2009; Ogbuanu,

Glover, Probst, Liu, & Hussey, 2011; Staehelin et al., 2007). However, multiple studies found that mothers were more likely to initiate and continue breastfeeding if they had access to paid leave, and a strong positive association was found between the length of maternity leave and a mother’s duration of breastfeeding; the longer a mother delayed her return to work post-partum,

the more likely she was to have started and continued breastfeeding (Hawkins, Griffiths,

Dezateux, & Law, 2007; Staehelin et al., 2007).

The majority of paid family leave programs are financed and administered through

private companies, require the use of an employee’s accrued sick and vacation time, or are

financed by employee contributions and administered through state disability insurance programs

(e.g., CA, NJ, RI, and NY). A 2014 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisors

examined the costs and benefits of paid family leave programs from an employer’s perspective.

The Council found that family leave, whether paid or unpaid, can have a positive effect on long-

term productivity by improving recruitment, retention, and employee motivation (White House

Council of Economic Advisors, 2014). “A modest, affordable investment in paid leave Additionally, employers can benefit from makes plain sense when balanced against costs. For employers, the cost of providing a few weeks paid family leave policies through of leave to just some of their employees each year should be measured against the alternative increased employee retention, reduced potential cost and burden of replacing experienced talent.” turnover, and increased employee loyalty (United States Department of Labor, 2015a) and morale (Rudd, 2004).

By increasing worker retention and reducing turnover, businesses can save significant

costs associated with replacing employees (United States Department of Labor, 2015b). After

California and New Jersey passed paid family leave laws, most businesses in those states reported positive or neutral experiences, and few reported negative impacts. Over 90 percent of employers affected by California’s paid family leave initiative reported either positive or no noticeable impacts on their profitability, employee turnover rates, and employee morale

(Appelbaum & Milkman, 2011).

In addition to state-level policies, many companies have established their own paid family leave programs. The National Partnership for Women and Families found that over 100 brand-name companies announced new or expanded paid leave policies that impacted U.S.

workers between 2015 and 2018. All of these policies acknowledged the importance of paid parental leave for all employees, regardless of gender, and several also provided paid leave to employees to care for other family members and recognized an expanded set of family relationships (National Partnership for Women & Families, 2018a). U.S. workers, especially millennials, are demanding more inclusive workplace policies. Offering paid family leave can help businesses attract the best workers and keep them (Connecticut Campaign for Paid Family

Leave, 2016; Wilkie, 2015).

The U.S. currently does not provide any public funding for parental leave, although the

Obama Administration made a commitment to supporting cities and states seeking to enact paid leave policies between 2014 and 2016, providing technical expertise, and investing in research and analysis to help state and local policy makers understand what works and design the best possible programs. The Administration awarded $500,000 in 2014, $1.55 million in 2015, and

$1.1 million in 2016 to help states, municipalities and federally recognized tribes conduct research, analysis, evaluation, and feasibility studies for paid leave programs (United States

Department of Labor, 2015a).

Legislative History and Background

Many other countries provide generous paid leave policies for new parents and caregivers

(European Commission, 2018; Moss, 2012; Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, 2017). Additionally, some U.S. cities have enacted strong local policies, and there has been some interest and effort at the federal level in the U.S. to support paid family leave, including the Paid Leave Analysis Grant Program described above, the FAMILY Act–most

recently introduced in 2017 by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)–and the Economic Security

for New Parents Act introduced in 2018 by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). However, it is

important to note that my research project and the resulting findings and recommendations are

intentionally focused on state-level policy adoption. States and major cities have seen more

traction with paid family leave bills compared to bills at the federal level, and although policies

in other countries may serve as good models, it is important to determine what provisions

policymakers and constituents in U.S. states will support. Continuing to build momentum at the

state level in the current political climate may help amass a critical number of state policies and

reach a tipping point where a federal policy will be more likely.

Several states already had some form of unpaid parental leave policy in place prior to

enactment of the FMLA in 1993, and a number of states have expanded access to unpaid leave

either by extending coverage to more workers or by increasing the length of unpaid, job-

protected leave (Grant, Hatcher, & Patel, 2005). State advocates and legislators are also leading

the way by introducing and adopting strong state-level paid family leave policies. However,

specific aspects of paid family leave programs vary from state to state, including who is eligible,

the amount of wage replacement offered, and how the program is funded and administered.

Temporary Disability Insurance

In 1946, Congress amended the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to allow states where employees make contributions under the unemployment insurance program to use some or all of these contributions to pay disability benefits. Five states (California, Hawaii, New Jersey,

New York, Rhode Island) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico took advantage of the law and

enacted social insurance programs to provide up to 6 weeks of partial compensation to eligible

employees for the loss of wages caused by a temporary, non-work-related disability (including pregnancy). These programs are called temporary disability insurance (TDI) because the duration

of payments is limited (Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 2011). State

TDI programs are financed through employee contributions or through a combination of

employer and employee contributions to a state fund. In most states, more workers are covered

by TDI than are covered by FMLA, but TDI policies (unlike FMLA) typically do not offer job-

protection to those taking leave (Fass, 2009).

Four states have now moved beyond this system to pass paid family leave laws. The

programs in California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York operate through each

state’s TDI program, and currently provide an additional six to ten weeks of paid family leave

for bonding with a newborn or newly adopted child, or for taking care of a seriously ill family

member (the New York program will increase to 10 weeks in 2019, then 12 weeks in 2021).

Employees in Hawaii are entitled to 26 weeks of temporary disability insurance (TDI) benefits for pregnancy or any other illness or injury that is not work-related. Benefits provide 58 percent of an employee's wages, up to a maximum weekly benefit amount that is set annually by the Disability Compensation Division (the maximum in 2018 was $620.00 per week). TDI benefits cannot be claimed for leave taken to care for a family member, and the employee’s job is not protected while taking leave under TDI. To be eligible, employees must have worked at least 20 hours per week for their employer, over at least 14 weeks, and must have been paid at least $400.00 per week during that time.

Additionally, certain types of employees are excluded from TDI coverage in Hawaii, including federal government employees, certain domestic workers, insurance and real estate

agents who are paid solely on a commission basis, student nurses and hospital interns, and other

workers who are specifically excluded by the law. Eleven bills were introduced in Hawaii

between 2014 and 2018. Almost all of these bills would have allowed eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid, job-protected family and medical leave per year, at up to 67 percent of their regular pay. In all of the bills, the program would have been funded by employee payroll contributions (State of Hawaii Disability Compensation Division, 2018).

Under the California TDI program, eligible individuals who are unable to work due to a non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy can receive partial wage replacement (60 to 70 percent, depending on income) up to a maximum of $1,216.00 per week, for up to 52 weeks.

New mothers specifically can receive partial pay for four weeks prior to a child’s birth, and for six to eight weeks after birth. This applies to women only, for all pregnancies and births. Job- protection during leave taken through TDI is extended to workers in companies with five or more employees (State of California Employment Development Department, 2016).

California passed the first paid family leave policy in 2002, and the program went into effect in 2004. California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) Insurance program offers workers up to six weeks of leave annually with partial pay to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, domestic partner, or for parents to bond with a newborn, newly adopted, or recently placed foster child. As established, the program did not cover leave for self-care, which is covered under the state TDI program (California State Legislature, 2002).

Legislation in 2013 (Senate Bill 770) expanded California’s law to include time off to care for a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or parent-in-law. Additionally, the

California program began by providing workers with 55 percent of their pay, then AB 908

(passed in 2016) increased the benefits provided by both the PFL and TDI programs and

eliminated a one-week waiting period for PFL claims. As of 2018, benefits provided under both

programs are 60 to 70 percent, depending on income, up to a maximum of $1,216.00 per week.

The California TDI and PFL programs are both funded by employee payroll deductions.

Almost all private sector workers in California are eligible for partial wage replacement

through the PFL program, including part-time workers and employees of small businesses (those who work for companies with five or fewer employees). However, PFL in California does not

provide job protection (Milkman & Appelbaum, 2004; State of California Employment

Development Department, 2018b). Eligible workers in California may have their jobs protected

for 12 weeks under FMLA or the state equivalent, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

The provisions of CFRA are similar to FMLA with respect to the birth of a child or the

placement of a child for adoption, but pregnancy is not covered as a serious health condition

under CFRA–this leave can only be used by an employee following the birth of a child, to care

for a parent, spouse, or child with a serious health condition, or for the employee’s own serious

health condition. Under FMLA, a disabling condition related to pregnancy is considered a

serious medical condition, so if a woman is having a difficult pregnancy and needs time off prior

to the birth of her child, that time will count toward her 12-week leave entitlement under FMLA

(State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2017; United States

Department of Labor, 1993).

Additionally, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (CA-FEHA), is the state law that prohibits discrimination, and provides protection from discrimination based on pregnancy-related disabilities. This law allows employees who are disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition to take up to four months of job-protected Pregnancy

Disability Leave (PDL), but does not cover time off for the birth or for the placement of a child

for foster care or adoption (State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing,

2018).

Use of California’s PFL program has grown steadily since it was implemented in 2004,

with 245,387 claims paid in state fiscal year 2016–17 (July 1–June 30). Each year, the majority of claims have been for bonding (87.3 percent in 2016–17) with the rest (12.7 percent) for providing care. In 2016–17 the average weekly benefit amount paid to a covered employee was

$585.00, and individuals that filed claims for paid leave took an average leave of 5.36 weeks

(State of California Employment Development Department, 2018d).

Despite growing use of the program over time, about half (51.4 percent) of California workers surveyed in 2009 and 2010 were unaware of it, and respondents who stood to benefit the

most from paid family leave were least likely to know about the program. This included younger

respondents, non-Whites, those with lower educational attainment, and respondents who did not have employer-provided paid sick days or vacation benefits. Additionally, a third of those who

reported knowing about the program said that they did not apply for benefits because the wage

replacement was too low. Others did not apply because they did not think they were eligible, or

because they feared retaliation by their employer (Appelbaum & Milkman, 2011).

New Jersey’s Family Leave Insurance (FLI) law was passed in 2008 and the program

went into effect in 2009. The New Jersey program provides workers with up to six weeks of coverage at two-thirds (67 percent) of their average weekly wage, up to a maximum weekly benefit of $637.00 in 2018. Benefits are provided for workers to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or to care for a seriously ill parent, child, spouse, domestic partner, or civil union partner. Like California, the New Jersey program does not cover leave for self-care (an illness or

injury that was not caused by the employee’s job), which is covered under the state’s TDI program. The FLI program is funded entirely by an employee payroll tax of 0.08 percent.

Workers who already pay into the state’s existing TDI program, have worked for at least

20 weeks in the past year, and who have earned at least $143.00 per week during that time are

eligible for wage replacement under the FLI program (State of New Jersey, 2016). Part-time

workers and employees of small businesses are covered by the program, but the FLI program

does not guarantee job protection, so only workers who are also covered by FMLA will be

guaranteed their jobs upon returning from leave.

New Jersey’s FLI program processed 32,171 eligible claims in 2016 and payments

totaled $87.9 million. The average weekly benefit amount was $524.00, and the average amount

paid for a completed case in 2016 was $2,711.00. The average duration for an FLI leave taken

was 5.2 weeks. Over 83 percent of eligible FLI claims were filed to bond with a newborn or

newly adopted child, with just over seven percent of total eligible claims filed to care for a

family member other than a child or spouse (which includes parents). Women under the age of

45 were the largest single group of FLI claimants, accounting for 77 percent of all FLI eligible

claimants (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2017).

Eligible employees in Rhode Island can take up to 13 weeks in 24 months of job-

protected, unpaid leave through the Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Act, or 12

weeks in 12 months under FMLA for a serious health condition, to bond with a new child, or in

preparation for a family member's military service (Rhode Island Department of Labor and

Training, 2014; United States Department of Labor, 2016). Additionally, in 2013, Rhode Island

became the third U.S. state to pass a paid family leave law, which took effect in 2014. Rhode

Island’s law expanded the state’s existing TDI program, which is funded by employee

contributions and provides a portion of a worker’s salary for up to 30 weeks when they are unable to work due to a temporary illness or injury, including pregnancy. This “Temporary

Caregiver Insurance” (TCI) program was folded into the TDI program to compensate workers who take a temporary leave from their job to care for a relative with a serious health condition or to bond with a new baby.

Rhode Island’s TCI program applies to all private sector employees and public employees who opt into the program (public sector employees do not automatically pay for the insurance). The TCI program is funded through a separate payroll deduction, and allows employees to take up to eight weeks of leave per year. Notably, the eight weeks of TCI leave are included in the 30 weeks of leave available to employees under the TDI program; an employee who uses eight weeks of paid caregiving leave would only have 22 weeks of TDI coverage available for the rest of the year. Benefits are paid at 4.62 percent of all wages paid to the employee in the highest quarter of their base period (for three months), ranging from a minimum of $89.00 to a maximum of $831.00 per week for the benefit year that started on July 2, 2017.

Additionally, an employee’s job and health benefits are protected while taking TCI leave (Rhode

Island Department of Labor and Training, 2014).

In Rhode Island, workers filed nearly 34,000 claims between the start of the TCI program in 2014 and the end of 2017–and more than 75 percent of approved claims were to bond with a new child. Surveys of new parents, family caregivers and businesses suggest that the employees and employers are happy with the law (National Partnership for Women & Families, 2018b).

Surveys conducted in December 2013 (just before the Rhode Island law went into effect) and in

January/February 2015 (one year after the law went into effect) looked at small and medium sized business characteristics and productivity, employee life events and work flow, and

employer-provided benefits. This study found no evidence of significant impacts on small or

medium sized employers (those with 10–99 employees), and found that a majority of the

employers interviewed in 2015 supported the new law (Bartel, Rossin-Slater, Ruhm, &

Waldfogel, 2016).

New York’s paid family leave program began in 2018 and started by providing eligible workers in the state with up to eight weeks of job-protected leave per year at 50 percent of their

average weekly wage, with benefits capped at 50 percent of the statewide average weekly wage.

Benefits increased to 10 weeks in 2019, paid at 55 percent of the worker’s average weekly wage

(capped at 55 percent of the state average weekly wage, which was $746.41 in 2019), and will

increase to 12 weeks paid at 67 percent and capped at 67 percent of the statewide average weekly

wage in 2021 (State of New York, 2016). The new law amended New York’s existing TDI law

to cover employees who need time off for injury, sickness, or pregnancy, to care for a newborn

or newly adopted child, or a seriously ill family member. The program is funded through small

employee paycheck deductions of around a dollar per week per employee (State of New York,

2016).

The District of Columbia passed the Paid Leave Act in 2016. D.C. will begin collecting

taxes on July 1, 2019 and will begin administering paid leave benefits on July 1, 2020. The

program will provide up to eight weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child, six weeks of

family leave to care for an ill family member with a serious health condition, and two weeks of

medical leave to care for the employee’s own serious health condition. The D.C. program will

provide workers with up to 90 percent of their previous average weekly wages (up to a current

maximum of $1,000.00) that will be fully funded by a new tax on employers–0.62 percent of the

wages of each of its covered employees. Employees covered under the D.C. law include those

who spend more than 50 percent of their work time for that employer working in the District, or

whose employment for the employer is based in the District and who regularly spend a

substantial amount of their work time for that employer in the District and not more than 50

percent of their work time for that employer in another jurisdiction (District of Columbia

Department of Employment Services, 2018).

Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave law was passed in 2017. Premium

assessments began on January 1, 2019 and benefits can be taken by workers starting January 1,

2020. Workers in Washington will be able to take up to 12 weeks, as needed, to care for a new child or an ill or ailing family member, for their own serious illness or injury, and for certain events connected to military service. Workers in the state may be eligible to take more than 12

weeks of leave in a given year. For example, an employee may be eligible to take up to 16 weeks

of leave if they experience multiple events in a given year, or up to 18 weeks if they experience a

serious health condition with a pregnancy that results in incapacitation. Weekly benefits will be

calculated based on a percentage of the employee’s wages and the state weekly average wage–

which is currently $1,082.00–but will be capped at $1,000.00 per week. Workers who earn less

than the state average will receive 90 percent of their income (Washington State Employment

Security Department, 2018).

The Massachusetts bill passed in 2018. Premium assessments in the state will begin on

July 1, 2019 and workers will be able to claim benefits starting on January 1, 2021. In

Massachusetts, employees will be entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a family member or bond with a new child, and up to 20 weeks of paid leave to address their own serious medical issues. Benefit amounts will be determined based on a percentage of the employee's weekly income, with a maximum weekly benefit amount of 64 percent of the state average

weekly wage (which would currently amount to a cap of $850.00 per week) (The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2018). The programs in Washington and Massachusetts will both be funded by a payroll tax that is split between employers and employees, and administered largely like unemployment insurance. In Washington, the tax will be 0.4 percent of the employee’s pay in 2019, with employers paying 37 percent of the total premium and employees paying 63 percent (although employers can elect to pay the employee’s entire portion of the premium). In Massachusetts, companies will be charged a 0.63 percent payroll tax, split roughly 50–50 between employees and employers.

Notably, Washington passed the Family Leave Insurance Act in 2007 but never identified a funding mechanism for the benefit, which delayed implementation. The state received

a $247,000 Paid Leave Analysis grant from the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of

Labor in 2015 to provide analysis of issues related to study the feasibility and impact of the 2007

Act. The Legislature approved Senate Bill 5975 during the 2017 legislative session and the new

law went into effect on October 19, 2017. The regulations necessary for this program to function

are currently being established.

Massachusetts also received a Paid Leave Analysis grant from the Women’s Bureau of

the U.S. Department of Labor. In 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards

received a grant for $117,651 to conduct research and inform key stakeholders, the legislature,

and the public about the costs and benefits of paid family and medical leave. They were also able

to use this funding to develop a micro‐simulation model to estimate eligibility, take‐up, and

benefit costs specific to a bill that had been proposed at that time (H79).

Table 1: States that have Passed Paid Family Leave Legislation

California New Jersey Rhode Island New York D.C. Washington1 Mass. Date Passed 2002 2008 2013 2016 2016 2017 2018 Date 2004 2009 2014 2018 2020 2020 2021 Implemented Davis Corzine Chafee A. Cuomo Bowser (Mayor) Inslee Baker Governor (D, 1999-2003) (D, 2006-2010) (R, 2011-2015) (D, 2011-) (D, 2015-) (D, 2012-) (R, 2015-)

State Senate D D D R 13 member D D Council State House D D D D (11-D, 2-I) D D Length of 10 weeks 6 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks (2015) 2-8 weeks 12-18 weeks 12-26 weeks Leave (2019)2 Percent 4.62% of Based on 60-70% 2/3 of AWW 55% (2019) Up to 90% Up to 90% 3 18 of Pay wages income

64% of SAWW Weekly $831/week 55% SAWW $1,000 (before $1,075 $637 in 2018 $1,000/week ($850/ wk. in Maximum as of 7/2017 (2019) Oct. 1, 2021) 2018) Includes No No No Yes Yes, 2 weeks Yes Yes Self-care? Job No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Protection: Employer & Employer & Employee Employee Employee Employee Employer Paid for by: Employee Employee contributions contributions contributions contributions contributions Contributions Contributions

1 Washington passed the Family Leave Insurance Act in 2007 but never identified a funding mechanism for the benefit, which delayed implementation. The Legislature then approved SB 5975 during the 2017 legislative session and the new law went into effect on October 19, 2017.

2 The New York law provided 8 weeks at 50% pay in 2018, up to a weekly max. of 50% of the statewide average weekly wage (SAWW); 10 weeks at 55% pay in 2019, up to a weekly max. of 55% of the SAWW, and this will increase to 12 weeks at 67% pay in 2021, up to a weekly max. of 67% of the SAWW.

3 Employees in Massachusetts will be able to claim 80% of their previous wages (capped at 50 percent of the SAWW) and then 50 percent of their wages beyond that amount (capped at $850.00 per week).

Additional State Attempts to Pass Paid Family Leave Policies

As of December 30, 2018, 23 additional states had proposed bills to provide paid family

leave that did not end up passing, including: Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii,

Illinois, Indiana,4 Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and

Wisconsin.5 All of these bills would have allowed individuals to take paid time off for the birth of a child or the placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or because of a serious health condition of the employee (Appendix B).

The states that have passed paid family leave legislation were heavily democratic in

terms of political composition (including the District of Columbia), but the 23 additional states

that have made attempts to pass similar legislation were controlled by both Democrats and

Republicans. The states listed above introduced 76 paid family leave bills between 2005 and

2018. Out of 76 bills introduced, 42 were introduced while Republicans had control of at least two out of three bodies (Governor, Senate, and House), while 34 bills were introduced while

Democrats had control of at least two out of three bodies. Twenty-six bills were introduced while

Republicans controlled all three bodies, while 22 were introduced at a time when Democrats controlled all three (Appendix C).

4 The bill in Indiana would have established a family leave insurance program to provide benefits to employees who elected to participate in the program (would have been voluntary for both employers and employees).

5 Sources include: The National Partnership for Women and Families, Work and Family Policy Database: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/work–family/work–family–policy–database/, LegiScan: https://legiscan.com/, and individual state legislature websites.

Multiple other bills have been proposed (and some passed), including bills that would

provide tax incentives for employers to offer programs to their employees (e.g., bills introduced

in Oregon in 2015 and 2017), bills that would require employers to allow an employee to take

their own accrued leave for the purpose of family leave (introduced in Michigan and Florida in

2015), or bills that would mandate a fiscal impact or other paid family leave study (e.g., bills that

recently passed in New Hampshire and New Mexico). Additionally, bills have been proposed

(and a few passed) that would provide paid parental leave only for state employees (ranging from

10 days in Missouri to 12 weeks in Delaware), or provide paid leave for both public and private

employees but only following the birth or adoption of a child (e.g., multiple bills introduced in

Vermont ranging from five to 15 weeks).

For bills providing paid time off for birth, adoption or foster care, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or because of a serious health condition of the employee, the amount of time provided ranged from 60 days in Virginia to 12 weeks in most of the other states, with a bill proposed in Louisiana recommending additional time (24 weeks total) for an employee to care for a personal health condition. The amount of compensation that would have been provided ranged from 58 percent of an employee’s previous earnings in Hawaii to 100 percent of an employee’s previous pay in some states, including Connecticut and Georgia, with maximum weekly benefits ranging from $250.00 per week in Arizona to $1,000.00 per week in

states like Colorado and Minnesota. Most of the other programs would have provided the

employee with 67 percent (2/3) of their previous earnings while on leave, capped at $1,000.00

per week. Additionally, most of the bills proposed would have been funded by employee

contributions only, with some bills proposing matching employee and employer contributions.

Figure 1: U.S. State Progress on Paid Family Leave as of December 30, 2018

Conceptual Models

Policymaking involves multiple overlapping phases, including: 1) identifying problems,

2) analyzing policy options, 3) formulating policy proposals, 4) enacting (legitimizing) policy, 5)

policy implementation, and 6) policy evaluation. The policymaking process is complex, and

multiple conceptual models exist that attempt to explain why and how specific policies get

adopted.

Multiple Streams Theory (John W. Kingdon)

In the late 1970s, John Kingdon researched the policy process of the U.S. federal government. He looked at how an agenda is set, why some ideas gain traction and others do not, how alternatives are developed and how choices and decisions are made. Kingdon described the policy process as “highly fluid and loosely coupled…” and stated that “…various streams–

problems, policies, and politics–seem to flow through and around the federal government largely

independent of one another, and big policy changes occur when the streams join” (Kingdon,

1997).

Kingdon’s theory assumes that there are three relevant ‘streams’ for agenda setting:

problems, policies, and politics (Figure 2). The policy environment serves as the arena in which these three streams independently (but simultaneously) flow. The problem stream comprises the conditions or issues that present themselves as problems and require policy makers’ attention.

The policy stream describes feasible and acceptable policy solutions to the problem(s). The politics stream describes the political conditions in the environment, including public mood, ideologies of the current political leadership, and the presence and activities of the “visible

cluster of policy actors” (including the president, president’s staff, high-level political appointees, Congress, interest groups and the media) (Kingdon, 1997).

Figure 2: Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model

Kingdon explained that an issue is most likely to make it onto a policy agenda when all

three streams (problem, policy, and politics) converge. This happens when a problem is clearly

defined and effectively communicated to policy makers, a feasible and politically acceptable

solution has already been developed and is waiting to be implemented, and public perception for

both the problem and the solution is positive. When all three streams align, a policy window can

result, creating an opportunity for a public policy. Policy windows can open due to both

predictable and unpredictable events. Predictable events include new, popular perceptions, a shift

in national mood (usually due to transformational elections), and turnover of key personnel at a

decision-making level (also related to elections). Unpredictable policy windows include major

events like disasters or crises that focus attention on the problem or issue and are hard to ignore

(Kingdon, 1997).

Policy Entrepreneurs (Michael Mintrom, Pamela A. Paul-Shaheen)

Michael Mintrom looked at the role of policy entrepreneurs (actors who seek to initiate dynamic policy change) in promoting policy innovations and energizing the diffusion process

(Mintrom, 1997). Policy entrepreneurs use multiple activities to promote ideas, including identifying and communicating the problem in a way that both attracts the attention of decision makers and indicates the need for a policy response, networking within policy circles and

developing strategies for presenting their ideas to others, shaping the terms of policy debates and

crafting arguments in support of their policy innovation, and building coalitions (Mintrom,

1997).

Mintrom looked specifically at political actors, then Pamela Paul-Shaheen expanded this

concept to include individuals in both the public and private sectors (Paul-Shaheen, 1998). This study looked at the seven states that had made the most progress enacting comprehensive health reform legislation and found that, although the majority of efforts were driven by legislators, private sector and business leaders were also considered policy entrepreneurs in one of the states

(Paul-Shaheen, 1998). This study also identified two important distinguishing characteristics that were common to policy entrepreneurs. They all had a passion for change that gave them the commitment and drive to see the idea through. Additionally, they were all very rational and pragmatic; they did not hold rigid positions about how health reform should be accomplished, or champion one specific product. Instead, they worked to design a set of politically viable concepts that could get the necessary votes.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Methods

I conducted a systematic literature review to better understand what evidence existed

about specific barriers and facilitators to adopting Health-related policies at the state-level. I

performed a single search in January 2016 of the English-language literature indexed in PubMed

over the last 20 years (from January 1996 to January 2016) using a broad set of search terms to

maximize sensitivity (Table 2). The search terms listed in Table 2 were combined for one single,

complete search: (barriers OR challenges OR facilitators OR facilitating factors) AND (state OR

state-level) AND health AND (policy OR legislation OR bill) AND (adoption OR adopting OR

passing OR passage). First, I gathered studies from the peer-reviewed literature indexed in

PubMed. Then, I used snowballing to identify additional relevant articles and related citations. I

also included a few additional articles that were brought to my attention by separate sources. I

developed a review form (an excel spreadsheet) to systematically record specific information

from each article.

Table 2: Literature Review Search Terms Barriers AND State AND Health AND Policy AND Adoption OR OR OR OR Challenges State- Legislation Adopting OR level OR OR Facilitators Bill Passing OR OR Facilitating Passage factors

My initial PubMed search returned 187 articles. Snowballing resulted in the inclusion of

8 more articles, and 5 additional studies were included for review after they were brought to my attention. I reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance and identified 39 articles that I then retrieved in full text and reviewed for inclusion (22 from PubMed, 9 from snowballing, 8 from an outside source). Of the 39 articles that I reviewed fully, I found 24 to be relevant in terms of providing information about specific barriers and facilitating factors to adopting Health-related policies at the state-level (13 from PubMed, 8 from snowballing, and 3 from an outside source).

I included articles that specifically discussed barriers and/or facilitators to passing or adopting legislative or regulatory Health-related policies within U.S. states. I excluded articles if they discussed national-level policy or policies passed in other countries. I also excluded articles if they were too specific to be relevant to other health policy issues (e.g., cost as a barrier to vaccine coverage, or barriers to adopting electronic health records). I did include a few key articles that addressed the adoption of voluntary policies or policy adoption at the local level.

Findings

The articles that I reviewed considered barriers and facilitators to passing or adopting a number of different legislative or regulatory Health-related policies. Five studies were specifically related to healthcare laws and policies, including two studies specific to Medicaid initiatives (Merryman, Miller, Shockley, Eskow, & Chasson, 2015; Sams, Rozier, Wilder, &

Quinonez, 2013), one that looked at laws aiming to make mental health care more accessible for children with limited English proficiency (e.g., requiring language interpreter services in patient settings and multicultural staff training) (Schmeida & McNeal, 2013), one that identified barriers

and facilitators to state-level implementation of primary stroke center (PSC) policies (O'Toole,

Slade, Brewer, & Gase, 2011), and one that explored legislative efforts to attain direct access to a physical therapist without a physician referral or prescription (Shoemaker, 2012).

Seven studies explored barriers and facilitators to adopting tobacco control policies at the

state or local level (Ahrens, Jones, Pfister, & Remington, 2011; Flynn et al., 1998; Francis,

Abramsohn, & Park, 2010; Goldstein et al., 2003; Satterlund, Cassady, Treiber, & Lemp, 2011;

Satterlund, Treiber, & Cassady, 2013; Satterlund, Treiber, Haun, & Cassady, 2014). Seven

additional studies looked at factors that enabled, impeded, or predicted enactment of state

legislative action to address obesity, including six articles that specifically addressed legislation

aimed at preventing childhood obesity (Boehmer, Luke, Haire-Joshu, Bates, & Brownson, 2008;

Cawley & Liu, 2008; Dinour, 2015; Dodson et al., 2009; Eyler, Nguyen, Kong, Yan, &

Brownson, 2012), and one article that looked at enactment of adult obesity prevention legislation

(Donaldson et al., 2015). One additional study looked at policy changes to support breastfeeding,

examining barriers and factors that facilitated the adoption and implementation of breastfeeding

policy changes (Johnson, Lamson, Schwartz, Goldhammer, & Ellings, 2015)

Four articles looked at barriers and facilitators related to legislative health reform efforts,

including three that specifically discussed the development and enactment of single-payer health

care reform legislation in Vermont (Blanchet & Fox, 2013; Fox & Blanchet, 2015; Hsiao,

Knight, Kappel, & Done, 2011) and one article that reviewed the activities of seven states related

to health care reform and the lessons learned from their activities (Paul-Shaheen, 1998). One

final study explored tactics commonly used by groups that advocate for state laws to regulate

firearm use, availability, or manufacture (Zakocs, Earp, & Runyan, 2001). I did not find any

studies that were specific to the barriers or facilitating factors to adopting paid family leave policies.

Many of the barriers and facilitating factors outlined in these articles fit within one of

Kingdon’s three streams, (problem, policy, or politics) or supported the concept of an open policy window. Additional barriers and facilitating factors supported Mintrom’s theory of policy entrepreneurs and the importance of dynamic political actors. Some of the factors identified from the literature did not fit neatly into one of these categories. These factors were primarily related to the socioeconomic and demographic (non-political) environment within the state that made it more or less likely to enact Health-related legislation. This is discussed in more detail below.

Environmental Context

Multiple state-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were associated with passing Health-related policies, including a higher percentage of college-educated adults, higher per capita income, a higher percentage of African Americans, more households that did not use

English as their primary language at home, and anticipated issues related to population growth

(Boehmer et al., 2008; Cawley & Liu, 2008; Schmeida & McNeal, 2013).

In a study looking at correlates of state legislative action to prevent childhood obesity, researchers found that wealthier states (based on per capita income) and states with a higher percentage of college-educated adults were more likely to introduce bills related to childhood obesity. State legislative action was also correlated with the racial composition of the state; anti- obesity policies were more likely to be enacted in states with larger African American

populations. Additionally, state legislative action to address childhood obesity was more likely in states that reported a greater gap between adults’ actual and desired weight. Controlling for state- level adult obesity prevalence rates, greater deviation from desired weight may reflect greater dissatisfaction with being overweight among adults in the state, which may lead to more public support for policies to prevent childhood obesity (Cawley & Liu, 2008).

Schmeida and McNeal looked at 18 U.S. states that passed language laws promoting equitable mental health services for children with limited English proficiency, and 32 states that had not (Schmeida & McNeal, 2013). In this study, growth management innovation, an index based on the presence of programs to address the state’s ability to manage both growth and population decline, was used as an indicator of state agency resources and a measure of a state’s ability to anticipate and respond population growth and decline. Growth management innovation was positively associated with the adoption of children’s mental health language access laws, suggesting that states that anticipated problems related to population growth or decline were more likely to adopt children’s mental health language laws. Additionally, states with a higher number of residents that did not speak English as their primary language (ages 5 and over) were more likely to adopt and implement these laws.

Problem Stream

Kingdon’s problem stream includes the conditions or issues that present themselves as problems, and changes or circumstances that lead to the issue being viewed as something that requires the attention of policy makers. Misperceptions about the problem were commonly cited as barriers to passing a bill (Fox & Blanchet, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Merryman et al., 2015).

For example, despite a window of opportunity to pass comprehensive health care reform in

Vermont in the early 1990s, the attempt failed for a number of reasons. Multiple stakeholders

that were interviewed discussed a misleading story in the media concerning a potential tax

increase and a grassroots opposition campaign that developed in response to the perceived tax

increase, which significantly weakened public support (Fox & Blanchet, 2015).

In a study looking at barriers and facilitating factors related to the adoption and

implementation of breastfeeding policies in community health clinics, misperceptions about

breastfeeding and available support were major barriers, including the perception that

breastfeeding did not need to be a focus of clinical care because it was being taken care of by

staff from The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program (Johnson et al., 2015). An

additional study investigated the primary success factors and barriers to adopting a Medicaid

waiver that would allow state Medicaid agencies to create specific programs to serve individuals

with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). States that chose not to adopt an ASD-specific waiver perceived that children and youth with ASD were served sufficiently well through other

Medicaid benefits, and that intervention and monitoring would be more difficult than what they were currently doing (Merryman et al., 2015).

Being able to demonstrate clear evidence of the consequences of the problem and the ability to personalize health concerns were common factors that facilitated bill passage (Cawley

& Liu, 2008; Goldstein et al., 2003; Satterlund et al., 2011). Additionally, national media exposure around childhood obesity helped contribute to a growing awareness regarding the need to address the problem, and aided the passage of state-level childhood obesity prevention legislation (Dodson et al., 2009). Notably, in two studies that looked at local-level tobacco control policy campaigns, arguments that were provided in opposition to the policies reduced the

perceived significance of the problem and impeded bill passage (e.g., that there were other, more

“pressing” issues, and that the need to address the problem did not outweigh perceived individual rights) (Satterlund et al., 2013; Satterlund et al., 2014).

Policy Stream

The policy stream includes feasible and acceptable policy solutions to the problem(s).

Two specific barriers were identified that were related to the policy itself, or to potential policy alternatives. High costs associated with a bill (or a lack of financial resources to address the problem) and administrative concerns about additional reporting and monitoring that would be required were reported as significant barriers to passing strong, Health-related policies (Dinour,

2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Merryman et al., 2015; O'Toole et al., 2011; Sams et al., 2013).

Insufficient funding was the primary barrier to adopting a Medicaid waiver that would allow state Medicaid agencies to create specific programs to serve individuals with ASD

(Merryman et al., 2015). Likewise, cost was a major barrier to adopting bills to limit the availability and accessibility of competitive foods in schools (competitive foods are often of poor

nutritional quality and sold in competition with reimbursable meal programs) (Dinour, 2015).

Administrative issues were the most commonly reported barriers that kept state Medicaid

programs from adopting initiatives to support the provision of preventive dental services by non-

dental healthcare professionals. Policy adoption was more likely if the initiative was perceived to

be simple and compatible with other Medicaid programs (Sams et al., 2013). Similarly, the

adoption of breastfeeding policies in community health clinics was limited by the perceived need

for organizational changes to accommodate actions like monitoring breastfeeding rates and

allowing providers training time in response to new policies (Johnson et al., 2015).

Bill content was also critical, with bills related to more politically feasible and acceptable

policy solutions (which varied by state) more likely to be adopted. For example, bills related to

“safe routes to school” (programs that aim to make it safer for students to walk and bike to

school), access to healthy food, physical activity, or educational programs, health and nutrition

content, and those related to modifying rules and procedures (e.g., preemption) were more likely

to be enacted than bills related to product or menu labeling, or food or beverage taxes (Boehmer

et al., 2008; Donaldson et al., 2015; Eyler et al., 2012). Bills related to areas considered to be

controversial by policymakers and their constituents, or by the business community or large

industries (e.g., menu labeling) were less likely to be considered or adopted. Additionally, bills

that were viewed as having the potential to create an unfavorable environment for business by

imposing regulations or fees were less likely to pass (Satterlund et al., 2014).

Politics Stream

The politics stream comprises the political conditions in the environment, including public mood, ideologies of the current political leadership, and the presence and activities of a visible cluster of policy actors. A number of facilitators and barriers associated with the political conditions in the environment were identified within the literature outlined above, and state political climate strongly predicted legislative action. Bill passage was more likely in states with a Democratic governor, a unified Democratic government (or a legislature not controlled by

Republicans), and term limits for offices held at the state level (Boehmer et al., 2008; Cawley &

Liu, 2008; Eyler et al., 2012; Fox & Blanchet, 2015; Paul-Shaheen, 1998). Legislative power and influence have long been associated with legislative success, as measured by bills being passed

into law. Legislators who held a formal office in the legislature (e.g., in the party leadership, as a

committee chair, or as a ranking member), those within the majority party, and those from safe

districts (those not facing strong competition for re-election) have been found to be more influential and effective (Ellickson, 1992). Having more than one sponsor or bipartisan sponsorship increased enactment (Boehmer et al., 2008), as did more activity in general by civil rights and interest groups (Schmeida & McNeal, 2013) and the existence of relatively weak opposition (Fox & Blanchet, 2015).

Notable other facilitating factors included obtaining the support of influential or senior legislator(s) as well as other key players, including parents, physicians, school officials, and other influential champions (Dodson et al., 2009; Goldstein et al., 2003; Merryman et al., 2015;

Satterlund et al., 2014). The ability to demonstrate constituent support for a proposed policy to policymakers was instrumental to passing tobacco control policies at the local level (Satterlund et al., 2011).

Prominent barriers to passing Health-related policies included having a small number of supporters with limited political influence, opposition by powerful lobbyists and/or a large number of opponents with greater political influence (Dodson et al., 2009; Shoemaker, 2012),

and facing legislators in powerful positions who opposed a bill (Shoemaker, 2012). Additionally,

tobacco control advocates reported multiple barriers specific to the policymaking process, including a cumbersome, lengthy decision-making process, difficulty gaining access to policymakers, and difficulty understanding and effectively presenting the right information to policymakers (information they perceived as important) (Satterlund et al., 2011).

Timing was also found to strongly influence bill passage (Fox & Blanchet, 2015; Paul-

Shaheen, 1998). In the case of health reform, the defeat of the Clinton Administration’s health

care reform package at the national level in 1993 weakened support for the state-level effort in

Vermont later that year. Seventeen years later, the passage of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 helped raise the saliency of health care reform as a political priority issue, and in May 2011 Vermont became the first state to lay the groundwork for a single-payer health care system (Fox & Blanchet, 2015). The state-level policy process can be viewed as a continuum, with major reforms being the product of earlier, smaller efforts at the state and local level (Paul-Shaheen, 1998). Pursuing a statewide policy prematurely can result in a weak policy that has the ability to stymie local efforts and delay the adoption of a more meaningful statewide policy (Francis et al., 2010). The influence of timing can be viewed both as a political condition and as the opening of a policy window.

The Policy Window

As stated above, an issue is most likely to make it onto the policy agenda when all three streams (problem, policy, and politics) converge, creating a window of opportunity for the policy

to pass (Kingdon, 1997). Policy proposals may exist but may not be viewed as feasible,

acceptable, or affordable until conditions in one of the three streams change. In 2003, despite a

packed legislative agenda focused primarily on education, the state of Arkansas enacted

innovative, comprehensive legislation to combat childhood obesity. Specific changes in the

problem and political streams helped to open a window, providing the opportunity for policy

change (R. L. Craig, Felix, Walker, & Phillips, 2010).

In the problem stream, Herschel Cleveland who was the Speaker of the House at the time

(and a Democrat) and then-Governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican, both experienced serious

personal health problems related to obesity. Their experiences brought attention to the issue and

made it clear that the fight against obesity was bipartisan. Additionally, several significant

actions occurred in the political stream leading up to the 2003 legislative session that greatly

influenced the attitudes of Arkansas policymakers. In 1999, the Legislature commissioned an

Obesity Task Force to study the effects of obesity and make recommendations for state action. In

2000, the task force recommended legislation to enact a comprehensive statewide program to raise public awareness and enhance school policies and practices related to nutrition and physical activity.

Arkansas legislators attended a series of meetings and conferences in 2001 and 2002. At the 2001 National Foundation for Women Legislators Conference, one legislator recalled that

“all across the whole wall was plastered ‘Little Rock, Arkansas–number 1 in the nation for childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes,” noting that seeing this really woke them up and influenced them to speak out. In early in 2002, Arkansas legislators and other policymakers met with leaders from six neighboring states and discussed potential approaches to addressing health issues in their states, including childhood obesity. Later in 2002, leaders were invited to a one- day summit to develop practical, achievable policy alternatives related to nutrition and physical activity in the school environment (R. L. Craig et al., 2010). These activities set the parameters for defining the problems and helped legislators develop realistic, feasible interventions.

It is important to note that an open policy window is not always enough. Legislators and advocates in Vermont they had an open policy window to pass a comprehensive health reform bill in 1991. They had elected a Democratic governor who was also a physician, the state had

already established a commission on health care to make recommendations, they had multiple

single-payer champions and policy entrepreneurs in the state, a progressive social movement

around the issue, and heightened attention was being paid to health reform efforts at the national

level. This momentum led to the development of three different proposals that were all too costly

for the fiscally conservative governor, and no single plan rose to the top for advocates and

supporters to rally behind (Fox & Blanchet, 2015).

A crisis (real or perceived) and media attention (due to a crisis or on its own) can also

serve as a facilitator and create a window of opportunity for policy change. National media

exposure was found to influence the passage of legislation intended to prevent childhood obesity

in a number of states (Dodson et al., 2009). Additionally, the perception of a crisis alone was

able to create a window of opportunity for legislation and serve as a catalyst for political action.

The escalating cost of health care in the states served as the key “crisis” (in terms of costs to the middle class, the government, and the business community) that influenced state-level health reform efforts (Paul-Shaheen, 1998).

Policy Entrepreneurs

Policy entrepreneurs are political actors who seek to initiate dynamic policy change, and who are responsible for promoting policy innovations and energizing the diffusion process

(Mintrom, 1997). Entrepreneurial leadership has been shown to be very influential in pushing a legislative agenda forward, as comprehensive policy change requires “individuals with vision, pragmatism, and dedication to guide the way” (Paul-Shaheen, 1998). Policy entrepreneurs are often legislators who serve as experts in an area, are persistent, and who have worked to “soften”

the system so that when a window opens they can push a policy through (Weissert, 1991). In the

Arkansas experience described above, the innovative, comprehensive bill to combat childhood obesity was pushed through an open policy window with the help of policy entrepreneurs who were willing to invest their own reputation and resources to advocate for the policy (R. L. Craig et al., 2010). Former House Speaker Cleveland and then-Governor Huckabee were broadly commended by respondents for their willingness to openly share their experiences and focus attention on the issue.

In the mid-1990’s, Pamela Paul-Shaheen looked at health care reform policy activity among the seven U.S. states that had shown the most progress at the time (Florida, Hawaii,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and found that effective leadership was a major factor in achieving reform in each of the states (Paul-Shaheen, 1998). An open policy window was important for legislative action to occur, but matching a problem with a potential solution or solutions was often the work of a driven and gifted leader who was able to design and shepherd innovative ideas and guide the policy process.

Limitations

My review of the literature identified multiple barriers and facilitating factors to adopting

Health-related policies that fit neatly within one of Kingdon’s three streams, (problem, policy, or politics) or supported the concept of an open policy window. Additional factors identified in the literature aligned with the theory of policy entrepreneurs and the importance of dynamic political actors. Some of the barriers and facilitating factors identified in the literature did not fit neatly into one of these policy-related categories. These factors were primarily related to the

socioeconomic and demographic (non-political) environment within the state that made it more

or less likely to enact health-related legislation.

These categories are not discrete, and some concepts, barriers, or facilitating factors may belong in more than one category. For example, the influence of timing can be viewed both as a

political condition and as the opening of a policy window. Likewise, the concept of media

coverage highlighting the importance of a specific problem may be viewed as part of the

problem stream or the politics stream, or as helping to open a window of opportunity for political

action. Additionally, the literature related to policy windows and policy entrepreneurs did not

lend itself to the same organization as the environmental context, or the problem, policy, or

politics streams, with easily recognizable barriers and facilitating factors. Instead, an open policy

window or a policy entrepreneur appeared to be a facilitating factor by itself (and a lack of one

was a barrier). The literature identified above provided strong examples of the importance of an open policy window, and the influence of policy entrepreneurs.

Table 3: Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting Health-related Policies

CONSTRUCT FACILITATING FACTORS BARRIERS

Environmental • Higher percentage of college-educated adults • Lower percentage of college-educated adults Context • Higher per capita income • Lower per capita income • Higher percentage of African Americans • More households that did not use English as their primary language • Anticipated problems related to population growth

39 • • Kingdon’s National media exposure Negative media exposure Problem • Ability to personalize health concerns • Misperceptions about the problem Stream • Ability to demonstrate clear evidence of the • Arguments that reduced the perceived consequences of the problem significance of the problem (e.g., that there were other, more “pressing” issues, or that the need to address the problem did not outweigh perceived individual rights)

Kingdon’s • More politically favorable bill content (e.g., “safe • Insufficient funding/high projected costs Policy Stream routes to school,” access to healthy food, physical • Administrative concerns about additional activity, or educational programs, health and reporting and monitoring nutrition content; specific to childhood obesity • Potential to create an unfavorable environment legislation) for business • Less politically favorable bill content (e.g., related to product or menu labeling, or food or beverage taxes)

Kingdon’s • Democratic governor • Small number of supporters with limited political Politics Stream • Unified Democratic government (or a legislature influence not controlled by Republicans) • Large number of opponents with greater political • Bipartisan support influence • More than one sponsor or bipartisan sponsorship • Opposition by powerful lobbyists • Term limits for offices held at the state level • Legislators in powerful positions who oppose a • Support of influential or senior legislator(s) bill • Support of other key players including parents, • Cumbersome, lengthy decision-making process physicians, and schools, constituents, and other • Difficulty gaining access to policymakers influential champions • Difficulty effectively presenting information to • Civil rights/interest group activity policymakers • Weak opposition • Defeat of a similar effort at the national level • Success of a similar effort at the national level

40 Characteristics • Changes in one of Kingdon’s three streams (problem, policy, politics) of an Open • Convergence of Kingdon’s three streams Policy Window • Timing (Kingdon) • National efforts • Media coverage • Crisis (real or perceived)

Characteristics • Individuals within the public or private sector of Policy • Willingness of individuals to invest their own reputation and resources to advocate for the policy Entrepreneurs • Willingness of individuals to share adverse experiences which focused attention on the issue (Mintrom, • Passion for change Paul-Shaheen) • Political pragmatists • Ability to match a problem with a potential solution(s) • Ability to design and shepherd innovative ideas • Ability to guide the policy process

CHAPTER 3: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Study Overview

I conducted four case studies to explore state-level attempts to pass paid family leave

policies and identify the barriers and facilitating factors that arose, as well as the lessons that

were learned through this process. My case studies used two sequential, qualitative strategies, including an in-depth content analysis and key informant interviews.

First, I completed a review of information that was publicly available in early 2016

(including Web sites, peer-reviewed publications, and other formal enactments) in order to determine state policy activity. Through this review I identified five U.S. states that had adopted a paid family leave policy at the time, including California, New Jersey, Rhode Island,

Washington, and New York. I also identified 20 states that had made legislative attempts to adopt a policy that did not end up passing (Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Additionally, one state (Ohio)

and the District of Columbia still had active bills as of October, 2016.

Case Selection

I then selected four states (California, New York, Colorado, and Illinois) for in-depth case studies to better understand their respective processes, barriers, facilitating factors, and lessons learned related to their efforts to adopt a policy (Tables 4 and 5 provide state comparisons). I chose California and New York over New Jersey and Rhode Island because of the potential applicability of their programs to other states, and because of the potential for a

“control” state (Colorado for California and Illinois for New York). Washington was not selected for a case study because at that time, the state still had not determined how to implement the law that had been passed. The New York budget bill was signed on April 4, 2016 and the paid family leave program went into effect on January 1, 2018. The California law was initially enacted in

2002, and was amended and strengthened in 2013, 2016, and 2018 by additional bills. Both

California and New York had ongoing efforts around paid family leave for a number of years.

Colorado and Illinois had both made attempts to pass a paid family leave policy in 2015 or 2016 that did not succeed.

My intent was to analyze the efforts of these four states as separate case studies. I attempted to select states that were comparable in terms of geographic location, population size, rurality, and political and other socio-demographic factors, in an attempt to limit external factors that would influence outcomes. While all states are different, the comparison states that were unsuccessful did share many characteristics with those that were successful in passing paid family leave legislation.

I selected Colorado as a comparison state for California because the states are very similar across a number of demographic characteristics related to age, gender, race, education, income, and household (household size and median household income). California and Colorado

are both considered “western” states, and are similar in terms of political composition. At the time of study, California had a Democratic governor, and Democrats held a majority in both chambers of the legislature. Colorado had a Democratic governor, a slight Republican majority in the Senate, and a Democratic majority in the House. However, California is much larger than

Colorado, has a higher Asian population, and a higher percent of the population that identifies as

Hispanic or Latino. Additionally, a higher percent of California residents were born in a country other than the U.S. and a higher percentage of the population in California speak a language other than English at home compared to Colorado.

I selected Illinois as a comparison state for New York because both states are very economically diverse, with a major metropolitan center (Chicago, IL and New York, NY–New

York City is the largest city in the U.S. and Chicago is the third largest city), suburbs, and rural areas. These two states are also very similar across a number of characteristics related to age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income, and household, and are comparable politically. At the time of study, New York had a Democratic governor, a Republican majority in the Senate, and a

Democratic majority in the House. Illinois had a Republican governor and a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. New York is larger and somewhat more diverse than Illinois, with a higher percentage of foreign-born individuals and more individuals who report speaking a language other than English at home.

Table 4: Case Study States–California and Colorado California Colorado State Population (2014 est.) 38,802,500 5,355,866 Percent living in Urban Areas 87% 86% Percent living in Rural Areas 13% 14% Age Distribution Under 18 years 23.9% 23.5% 18-64 years 63.6% 64.2% 65 years and over 12.5% 12.3% Gender, Female Persons 50.3% 49.8% Racial Distribution (2013 est.) White 73.5% 88.0% Black or African American 6.6% 4.4% American Indian & Alaska Native 1.7% 1.6%

44 Asian 14.1% 3.0%

Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Isl. 0.5% 0.2% Two or More Races 3.7% 2.8% Ethnicity (2013 est.) Hispanic or Latino 38.4% 21.0% White Alone 39.0% 69.4% Foreign born persons, 2009-2013 27.0% 9.7% Language other than English spoken at 43.7% 16.8% home, 2009-2013 Education (2009-2013) High school graduate or higher 81.2% 90.2% Bachelor's degree or higher 30.7% 37% Per capita income in past 12 months, $29,527 $31,109 2009-2013 (2013 dollars) $61,094 Median Household Income (2009-2013) $58,433

Persons below poverty level (2009-2013) 15.9% 13.2%

Date Most Recent Bill Passed/Failed 2016 (P) 2015 (F)

Date Most recent bill Implemented 2018? N/A

Previous attempts (Pass/Fail) 2002 (P), 2013 (P), 2014 (F) Governor Jerry Brown (D, 2011–2018) John Hickenlooper (D, 2011–2018) State Senate Majority D (26–14) R (18–17) State House/Assembly Majority D (52–28) D (34–31) Senate Sponsor(s) N/A Ulibarri (D) House/Assembly Sponsor(s) Jimmy Gomez (D), Autumn R. Burke (D) Winter (D), Salazar (D) 45

Presidential Candidate Supported (2012) Obama Obama Employees who participate in the State All employees in the state who have Who is Eligible Disability Insurance (SDI) Program or a worked at least 680 hours in the last year voluntary DI plan Length of Leave 6 weeks 12 weeks Percent of Pay Currently 55% 66% to 95% depending on earnings 60–70% in 2018 Weekly Maximum $1,075 $1,000 Includes Self-care? No Yes Includes Job Protection? No Yes Paid for by: Employee contributions Employee contributions

Table 5: Case Study States–New York and Illinois New York Illinois State Population (2014 est.) 19,746,227 12,880,580 Percent living in Urban Areas 88% 88.5% Percent living in Rural Areas 12% 11.5% Age Distribution Under 18 years 21.6% 23.5% 18-64 years 64.0% 63% 65 years and over 14.4% 13.5% Gender, Female Persons 51.5% 50.9% Racial Distribution (2013 est.) White 70.9% 77.7% Black or African American 17.5% 14.7% American Indian & Alaska Native 1.0% 0.6% Asian 8.2% 5.1% 46 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Isl. 0.1% 0.1% Two or More Races 2.3% 0.8% Ethnicity (2013 est.) Hispanic or Latino 18.4% 16.5% White Alone 57.2% 62.7% Foreign born persons, 2009-2013 22.1% 13.8% Language other than English spoken at 29.9% 22.3% home, 2009-2013 Education (2009-2013) High school graduate or higher 85.2% 87.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 33.2% 31.4% Per capita income in past 12 months, $32,382 $29,666 2009-2013 (2013 dollars) Median Household Income (2009-2013) $58,003 $56,797

Persons below poverty level (2009-2013) 15.3% 14.1%

Date Most Recent Bill Passed/Failed 2016 (P) 2016 (F)

Date Most recent bill Implemented 2018 N/A

Previous attempts (Pass/Fail) 2009 (F), 2012 (F), 2014 (F), 2015 (F) 2014 (F)

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D, 2011–2018) Bruce Rauner (R, 2015–2018)

State Senate Majority R (31–24) D (39–20)

State House/Assembly Majority D (103–42) D (71–47)

Senate Sponsor(s) Joseph Addabbo, Jr. (D) N/A

House/Assembly Sponsor(s) Catherine Nolan (D) Flowers (D) 47

2012 Presidential Election Obama Obama Employees of businesses with 50 or more Who is Eligible All employees in the state employees; state and local government employees 8 weeks in 2018 Length of Leave 6 weeks 12 weeks in 2021 50% in 2018 Percent of Pay N/A 67% in 2021 50% of statewide avg. weekly wage* $300 for F/T employees Weekly Maximum (67% in 2021) prorated amount for P/T employees Includes Self-care? Yes No

Includes Job Protection: Yes Yes

Paid for by: Employee contributions Employee contributions * Benefits were phased-in beginning in 2018 for 8 weeks at 50% of the employee’s average weekly wage (AWW), capped at 50% of the statewide average weekly wage (SAWW), increasing to 12 weeks at 67% of the employees AWW, capped at 67% of the SAWW in 2021.

Conceptual Framework

I used the theoretical models and frameworks outlined above to study the similarities and

differences between states that have tried to pass a paid family leave policy and failed, and states

that succeeded. I employed Kingdon’s multiple streams theory to understand why the issue of

paid family leave was included in the legislative agenda in each state, and what factors specific to the problem, policy, and politics streams influenced the outcome of each bill. I used

Mintrom’s and Paul-Shaheen’s findings about policy entrepreneurs to understand the role of

influential political actors in promoting policy innovations and energizing the diffusion process,

and to look at the perspectives and activities of significant interest groups and stakeholders.

Figure 3: Paid Family Leave Conceptual Framework6

6 Modified from Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model, using Mintrom’s and Paul-Shaheen’s findings regarding policy entrepreneurs.

Research Questions

My study was designed to answer the following research questions:

• What factor(s) contributed to the successful passage of paid family leave policies in states

that passed legislation, and what was the relative importance of each factor? (Ranging

from “not important” to “critical”).

• What factor(s) contributed to the defeat of paid family leave policies in states that

introduced, but did not enact legislation, and what was the relative importance of each

factor? (Ranging from “not important” to “critical”).

• What lessons were learned that can help states interested in successfully enacting paid

family leave policies?

Data Collection

Content Analysis

For each state case study, I obtained detailed information using two qualitative strategies:

in-depth content analysis and key informant interviews. I conducted my content analysis between

August 2016 and May 2017, and this included two parts. Part one was a systematic review of the

bills proposed in each state, bill actions and amendments, and testimony, transcripts, recordings

of debates, committee and floor votes, if applicable. I conducted this review using each state’s

legislative website and LegiScan, a real-time legislative tracking service that provides

monitoring of every bill in the 50 states and Congress.7 Part two was a systematic review of

7 https://legiscan.com/.

news articles, op-ed pieces, and pieces from influential columnists written about each bill from

the top three daily newspapers in each state based on circulation (as well as the Denver Business

Journal in Colorado). I conducted both systematic reviews using the search terms outlined in

Table 6, as well as the specific bill numbers and names (if applicable).

Table 6: Bill and Newspaper Article Search Terms Paid AND Family AND Leave AND Policy OR OR Parental Legislation

OR OR Caregiver Bill OR OR Maternity Law OR Paternity

At the time I conducted the content analysis, legislators in New York had introduced 24

paid family leave bills and legislators in Illinois had introduced 7 bills. Legislators in California

had introduced six bills, which was later expanded to eight to include two bills introduced in

2018. Likewise, Colorado had introduced three bills, which was later expanded to four to include

one additional bill introduced in 2018 (Appendix D).

I gathered news articles starting from the date one year before the bill was introduced to

two weeks after the bill either passed or died. A total of 660 articles were included for initial

review from 13 newspapers. I then reviewed the articles for relevance, and limited further review

to pieces that focused specifically on the state paid family leave policy. For example, articles

were included if they discussed the bill under consideration in the state, arguments for or against

the policy, barriers and/or facilitating factors to passing or adopting the policy, sponsors,

supporters, or opponents. Articles were excluded if they discussed national level politics or

policies, paid family leave policies passed in other countries, or just mentioned the idea of paid

family leave without providing substantive content.

Of the 660 articles that I reviewed, I found that 115 were relevant and provided

information about the paid family leave policies under consideration in the selected states. This

included 30 articles from California newspapers (Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury Times,

and Sacramento Bee), 60 articles from New York newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York

Times, and Daily News), three articles from Illinois newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-

Times, Chicago Daily Herald, and 22 articles from Colorado newspapers (Denver Post, The

Gazette, The Pueblo Chieftain, and Denver Business Journal). Because a search of the Colorado

Gazette did not yield any articles, and a search of the Pueblo Chieftain only provided one

relevant article, I performed a google search which led to a number of publications in the Denver

Business Journal, 10 of which were relevant and subsequently included. Likewise, newspapers in

Illinois did not yield many articles about House Bill 166 (three articles between all three papers), but a google search did not uncover any additional articles (Appendix E).

Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews are in-depth, semi-structured interviews with individuals who are knowledgeable about a specific topic and can articulate that knowledge (Patton, 2002).

Following the content analysis, I conducted key informant interviews with 20 total respondents

(4–6 respondents from each of the four states), including bill sponsors, legislative staff, committee members and staff, opponents, experts, and advocates that were identified while conducting the content analysis for each state. I initially recruited subjects by email, with follow-

up done by phone. I developed an excel spreadsheet to keep track of my efforts to recruit

participants. The resulting study participants were interviewed using a common interview guide

(Appendix F).

I structured my interview questions around important concepts that I drew from the

existing literature related to state Health-related policy adoption and my findings from the content analysis for each state, and I organized my interview guide according to my conceptual

framework provided above. I asked respondents to think broadly about efforts to pass a paid

family leave policy in their state, as well as efforts to pass the most significant bill in each state

(SB 1661 in CA, S 6404/A 9006 in NY, HB 166 in IL, and SB 14-196 and SB 15-1258 in

Colorado).

I asked respondents to recall (to the best of their knowledge) key challenges, barriers, or facilitating factors related to efforts in the state to adopt the policy or policies. I also asked respondents about the existence or lack of an open policy window, and the existence or lack of policy entrepreneurs (political actors). Interviews with key informants helped provide a more robust picture of activities and events that took place, and major challenges and facilitating factors that led to either the passage or failure of the bill. I used open-ended questions to allow for flexibility and greater interaction with participants, and to ensure that each participant was

able to provide all information that they believed to be important to my study. I also pilot-tested the interview questions prior to recruiting key informants to ensure that the questions made sense, followed a logical order, and that the interview did not take more than 45 minutes to complete.

I conducted all of my key informant interviews by phone, using an iPhone 7 on speaker

phone, recorded the interviews with the GarageBand program for Mac8 using the

“Voice/Narration Vocal” setting, and compiled field notes during each interview. Interviews

were recorded as “AIFF” (Audio Interchange File Format) files, then converted to MP3 files to

allow for compression (AIFF does not do compression while MP3 does) which made it easier to share the files for transcription (MP3 files are smaller than AIFF files). I did not use names or other types of identifiable information during the interviews, and in all files, I assigned each participant a numeric identifier so that their interview was not identified by name. I stored all

interview recordings in password-protected files on my computer, in my office, and sent the

transcripts for transcription through a secure, password-protected process. The recorded

interviews were transcribed by a transcription service,9 then I verified each transcript against the

audio recording and my field notes to ensure that the transcriptions were complete and accurate.

Analysis

While analyzing the data that was collected through the content analysis and interview,

my goal was to develop a complete picture of what happened in each state as they worked

toward passing a paid family leave policy. I also wanted to better understand what role each of

the factors outlined above (the problems that paid family leave would address, the strength of the

policy idea itself, the political context, the external or environmental context, the actors, and the

policy window) played in whether each state succeeded or failed.

8 https://www.apple.com/mac/garageband/ 9 TranscribeMe: https://www.transcribeme.com/

Content Analysis

First, I reviewed all of the paid family leave bills that were proposed in each state for

specific content, including: eligibility requirements, length of leave, amount of compensation

(percent of pay, weekly maximum if provided), whether or not the bill included paid leave for

self-care, whether or not the bill included job protection, and how the program would be funded.

I also reviewed the bill’s history, including actions and amendments, any recordings or transcripts of hearings/testimony or debates that were available, and any committee or floor votes

that were recorded. All of this information was recorded in an excel file, and relevant

information can be found in Appendices G–J.

Next, I conducted a preliminary analysis of the newspaper articles that were most

relevant to the paid family leave policy of interest in each state (SB 1661 in California,

A9006/S6406 in New York, HB 15-1258 in Colorado, and HB 166 in Illinois). This preliminary analysis was done using a combination of qualitative analysis software (NVivo 11) and hand coding in order to identify themes and patterns. I used this information along with the information that I derived from the literature and conceptual models outlined above to develop a draft code book. I then conducted a second analysis of all of the news articles using the code book, added additional sub-codes that emerged during this process, and I revised my draft code book based on these additional codes (my final code book is provided in Appendix K).

I conducted my content analysis first, which helped me identify key messages in support of or in opposition to the bills, challenges, barriers, and facilitating factors, and the existence or lack of policy entrepreneurs (political actors) in each state. Findings from my content analysis

also helped inform the questions that I asked during my key informant interviews.

Key Informant Interviews

All interviews were recorded, so during each interview I wrote field notes on paper interview guides about key themes that emerged. Once I had transcriptions of each recording and had verified that they were accurate, I followed Creswell’s eight steps for coding qualitative data

(Creswell, 2014):

1. Read all transcriptions carefully to get a sense of the whole;

2. Go through several of the documents thoroughly, think about the underlying meaning;

3. Make a list of all topics, clustering similar topics;

4. Take this list and apply it to your data. Use this as a preliminary organizing scheme, see

if new categories and codes emerge;

5. Turn your topics into categories (with descriptive wording), group related topics;

6. Decide on an abbreviation for each category and alphabetize the codes;

7. Perform a preliminary analysis;

8. Recode your data as necessary.

I started by reading all of the transcripts to get a sense of similarities and differences across the four states. Then I chose one state (Colorado) and began by reading all of the transcripts from that state thoroughly to get a deeper sense of the context in that state. I then went back through each of the Colorado transcripts one by one and identified preliminary themes/codes. I then compared this list to the draft code book that used for my content analysis and added the new themes. Using this combined code book, I applied this revised list of codes to the Colorado transcripts. This preliminary analysis was done using a combination of qualitative analysis software (NVivo 11) and hand coding (color-coding information in the transcripts by hand, then reorganizing the information into separate word files to work with specific concepts).

I repeated this process for the three additional states, revising my code book as necessary.

Each time a code was revised or a new code was added, interviews that had previously been coded were reviewed and recoded if necessary. In order to build a complete picture, I sometimes had to search for additional background information, including additional information about bills, influential actors, and context within a state. I tried to conduct the content analysis before the key informant interviews, however, some additional content was discovered and analyzed after the interviews were conducted and analyzed to help answer questions that surfaced while analyzing the interview data. Also, I conducted the content analysis before conducting the interviews, but state legislatures opened new sessions and new bills were introduced while I collected and analyzed interview data and developed the case studies. I have updated my analysis of each state to include any bills introduced before December 30, 2018.

In addition to my coding, I asked two additional individuals to independently code a subset of the documents listed above in order to minimize subjectivity that is inherent in the process of qualitative data analysis. The two additional coders reviewed three newspaper articles from three different states, and three key informant interview transcripts, also from three different states, and coded them using my draft code book. I then reviewed their coded articles and transcripts to determine reliability and discrepancies, and to identify any categories or codes that I needed to expand, collapse, or add based on their assessments. I then used this list of codes to finalize my code book.

I used the final code book to recode all of my key informant interview transcripts. I started this process in NVivo, but shifted to color-coding information in the transcripts by hand, then reorganizing the information into separate word files to work with specific concepts. Once all of the transcripts were coded I developed a case study report for each state by combining the

information from the content analysis and the interviews. I tried to the best of my ability to use

the same format for each state case study, providing background information, a legislative

history, information about efforts to pass the key bill, supporters and opponents, challenges and

facilitating factors, and lessons learned. However, each state is different; efforts were much more

robust in some states, and more information was available in some of these categories for some

states compared to others. I wrote all four case studies first, then once the case studies were complete, I looked across the states for insights, similarities and differences to answer my original research questions.

Data Management

Confidentiality for interview subjects was maintained at all times. Copies of documents collected for the content analysis were primarily publicly accessible, electronic documents, and were stored in a password-protected file on a computer that was only accessible to me. All audio recordings, transcripts, notes, qualitative analysis findings and reports were also stored in password-protected files on a computer that was only accessible to me. To protect the confidentiality of the interview data, I assigned each respondent a unique numeric identifier. I stored names and numeric identifiers of all respondents in a password-protected computer file, separate from the interview transcripts. Respondent names were not included in the transcripts and respondents were only identified by their unique numeric identifier. My results are only presented in the aggregate, and the names of all key informants have been kept confidential.

IRB and Confidentiality

Human Subjects Involvement and Characteristics

This study involved key informant interviews with 20 stakeholders. My proposal was

reviewed and approved (exempt) by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of

North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill. I was currently employed by the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC) at the time that I conducted this research, but I collected all data on my

own behalf as a graduate student at UNC Chapel Hill, and not on behalf of the federal

government (data collection was not federally-sponsored). All interview subjects were informed of this. Therefore, the study has been reviewed and exempted from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance process and the CDC

Institutional Review Board (IRB) stated their reliance (in writing) on the UNC IRB for review

and approval. Informed consent was obtained verbally and recorded, and all materials were provided at a reading comprehension level that was understandable to the subject, using lay terminology and without professional jargon.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

I selected four states for in-depth case studies to better understand their respective

processes, barriers, facilitating factors, and lessons learned related to their efforts to adopt a paid

family leave policy. Two of these states (California and New York) had passed a policy by the time I conducted my research (May through August 2017). The California law was initially passed in 2002 and enacted in 2004, then amended in 2013 and 2016. After multiple attempts, the New York Paid Family Leave Act was signed into law as part of the budget bill on April 4,

2016. The other two states that I selected, Colorado and Illinois, had both made attempts to pass a paid family leave policy in 2015 or 2016 that did not succeed. Key informant interviews in

Colorado focused on House Bill 15-1258 that was introduced in 2015 because this bill passed three House committees but did not pass the full House. Interviews in Illinois focused on House

Bill 166 which was introduced in January 2016. HB 166 was read and debated multiple times on the House floor and at the time, had received the most consideration in the Illinois General

Assembly. Appendix L provides a summary table of results.

California

Background Information

In California, members of the Senate are elected from 40 districts and serve four-year

terms; members of the Assembly are elected from 80 districts and serve two-year terms. Because of term limits, legislators are limited to a maximum of 12 years, regardless of whether they serve

those years in the Assembly or the Senate. The California legislature meets in two-year sessions.

Each session is generally convened at the beginning of December before an odd year and adjourned at the end of November. For example, the 2015–2016 legislative session convened on

December 1, 2014 and adjourned on November 30, 2016.

The California Assembly has been under Democratic control since 1970, with the exception of the 1995–1996 legislative session, even while the governor's office has alternated between Republican and Democratic leadership. The State Senate has been dominated by

Democrats continuously since 1970. In 2002, Democrats held a 26–14 majority in the Senate, and 50–30 majority in the Assembly. In 2002, California also had a Democratic Governor–Gray

Davis–who served from January 4, 1999 to November 17, 2003. Davis’s term followed a 16-year span of Republican Control (1983–1999) with George Deukmejian serving from 1983–1991, and

Pete Wilson serving from 1991–1999.

Legislative history

As previously stated, California was one of five states (California, Hawaii, New Jersey,

New York, Rhode Island) that used the amended Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to

establish a short-term disability insurance program to provide partial wage replacement to

eligible employees who took leave for a temporary, non-work-related disability or pregnancy

(Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 2011). The California State

Disability Insurance (SDI) program was established in 1946. It is state-mandated, applies to all

private employers, and is funded solely through employee payroll contributions. Under the SDI

program, eligible individuals who are unable to work due to a non-work-related illness, injury, or

pregnancy can earn a weekly benefit amount that is approximately 60 to 70 percent of their

previous wages (depending on income) for up to 52 weeks. Weekly benefits range from $50.00

to a maximum of $1,216.00.10

New mothers specifically can receive partial pay under the SDI program for four weeks

prior to a child’s birth, and for six to eight weeks after birth (this provision applies to women

only, and only for pregnancies and births). Employees are eligible to claim benefits under the

SDI program if they have received at least $300.00 in wages during a 12 month base period,

assuming that SDI deductions have been taken out of their pay. The employee taking leave must also be under the care of a doctor, and the doctor must certify that the employee is unable to work. Leave taken under SDI is job-protected for those who work for companies with five or

more employees (State of California Employment Development Department, 2016).

Most public employees in California are not covered under the SDI program, but are

covered instead by the Non-Industrial Disability Insurance (NDI) program. NDI is paid for by the State employer (employees do not contribute to the NDI program) and provides partial wages if the employee takes a qualified leave due to illness or injury. NDI provides 50 percent of the

10 Beginning January 1, 2018, Assembly Bill 908 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2016) increased the SDI and PFL wage replacement rate from 55 percent to approximately 60 to 70 percent (depending on income) and removed the seven- day waiting period for PFL. This applies to claims with a start date of January 1, 2018 or later.

employee’s gross pay for up to 26 weeks annually for employees who are enrolled in the Annual

Leave program, or $135.00 per week for up to 26 weeks annually for employees who are not enrolled in the Annual Leave program.

Public employees, through a negotiated agreement between the State of California and a recognized employee organization, have the ability to elect to be covered by SDI instead of NDI.

In 2005, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents 700,000 members in California, asked the State to switch its employees to the SDI program. Because the SDI program is paid for by employees, payroll deductions for employees in the bargaining units represented by SEIU began October 1, 2005, and these employees became eligible for SDI benefits Effective April 1, 2006. SEIU is the only union that asked the State to switch its employees to SDI–all other State employees remain in the NDI program (California Department of Human Resources, 2014, 2016).

Early Efforts

The groundwork for California’s paid family leave program began almost 20 years before it was passed. Multiple interview respondents talked about early efforts by then–California State

Assemblywoman Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Los Angeles who served from 1978 until 1994.

During her time in the Assembly, Moore was a strong advocate for family leave, and introduced eight major bills that attempted to provide unpaid family and parental leave for California workers for up to four months, including AB613 (1985–1986), AB368 and AB2738 (1987–

1988), AB77 (1989–1990), AB77 and AB2477 (1991–1992), and AB1460 and AB3619 (1993–

1994). All of these bills were variations on legislation that would allow family members to take

unpaid time off to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or for a seriously ill child, parent

or grandparent, or elderly spouse, entitle an eligible employee to take unpaid family care leave

because of their own serious health condition, or legislation that would prohibit employers from

discriminating against employees for taking unpaid time off to care for a family member

(California State Archives, 2014).

Both bills introduced in the 1993–1994 legislative session passed. Existing law stated that

it was unlawful for specific employers (including the state) to refuse to allow an eligible

employee to take unpaid family care leave. AB 1460, passed in 1993, revised the existing

language from “family care leave” to “family care and medical leave,” and, in addition to other

types of leave authorized under the law, entitled an eligible employee to take leave because of a

serious health condition of the employee, other than leave taken for disability on account of

pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. AB 1460 also made the family care and

medical leave provisions applicable to the state and any political or civil subdivision of the state

and cities, as well as employers of 50 or more employees, and revised provisions related to two

parents taking family care leave to care for a child at the same time (California State Legislature,

1993). AB 3619, passed in 1994, removed a provision that applied only to state civil service

employees–stating that family care leave, other than for birth or adoption of a child, would be

contingent upon provision in the annual Budget Act (California State Legislature, 1994).

Around the same time, the National Partnership for Women and Families11 (National

Partnership) fought to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in Congress (Firestein,

O’Leary, & Savitsky, 2011). Respondents talked about the importance of FMLA and also

11 At the time, the organization was known as the Women’s Legal Defense Fund. The name was changed to the National Partnership for Women and Families in 1998.

emphasized the importance of the passage of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) in 1991,

the state’s version of FMLA. Both FMLA and CFRA provided workers with up to 12 weeks of

unpaid leave per year for their own serious health condition, to attend to the illness of a family

member, or in connection with the birth or adoption of a child, but FMLA provided coverage for

pregnancy as a serious health condition, whereas CFRA did not.

Then, in 1999 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 656, which was introduced by then–

State Senator Hilda Solis. SB 656 raised the state’s maximum weekly SDI benefit level over a

period of 4 years–from $336.00 in 2000 to $728.00 in 2004. This made SDI benefits equal to

weekly benefits for Workers' Compensation Temporary Disability (WCTD), ensured that SDI

benefit levels in the future would be calculated the same way that WCTD benefit levels were

calculated, and required the Employment Development Department (EDD) to conduct a cost

study and report to the Legislature by July 1, 2000 on the fiscal impact of extending State

Disability benefits to individuals who were granted leave from work for family care or medical needs (California State Assembly, 1999; Firestein et al., 2011). The study found that increasing

employee payroll taxes by only one-tenth of one percent (0.01 percent) would cover the cost of

expanding the existing TDI program to include family leave benefits, with total output of around

$217 million paid out in claims in the first two years (Bernick, 2000; Firestein et al., 2011).

Around this time, multiple studies were showing that many lower-wage workers could not afford to take unpaid leave, and were not exercising their rights under FMLA (Westat, 2000).

In response to these findings, the National Partnership launched the Campaign for Family Leave

Income to push for paid leave programs at the state level, including in California (Firestein et al.,

2011). Interview respondents recalled that many national-level advocates had also been working

in states like California to educate organized labor groups and other constituencies about the

need for family and medical leave since the mid-1980s.

Statewide Coalition

Following the release of the fiscal impact study results in June 2000, the Labor Project for Working Families received support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to develop the Work and Family Coalition. The Labor Project for Working Families is a partner organization of Family Values @ Work, a national network of 27 state and local coalitions working to catalyze the growing movement for family-friendly workplace policies. The Labor

Project was founded in 1992, and works specifically to address the policy and programmatic

solutions for improving workplace standards, including paid sick days, family leave insurance,

and workplace flexibility (Family Values @ Work, 2018).

This coalition included many organizations representing diverse constituency groups, but notable early partners included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the California

Labor Federation, the California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, the Center for Policy

Alternatives, California National Organization for Women, California Women’s Law Center,

Congress of California Seniors, the Employment Law Center-Legal Aid Society, Equal Rights

Advocates, the Family Caregivers Association, the Labor Project for Working Families, and the

Older Women’s League. Most interview respondents remembered a very large and unified

coalition, and recalled that the California Labor Federation, the state’s AFL-CIO,12 was the

primary champion involved. Respondents also remembered times when coalition partners were

12 The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the largest federation of unions in the United States.

not in agreement. For example, the bill started with employers funding the entire paid family

leave program then shifted to a shared contribution from employers and employees, then finally

to employee contributions only. The bill also ended up with amendments that revised the number

of weeks covered through the program from 12 to six. Many groups were unhappy with these compromises, but respondents noted that all groups involved worked well together and that everyone still supported the bill in the end.

These early efforts focused on expanding and protecting unpaid leave, but it is important

to remember that most of these efforts preceded the passage of FMLA at the national level,

which was signed into law in February 1993. As one respondent explained, “That was the

precursor to paid family leave. It was a typical political strategy–to establish a benefit, in this

case, a family leave benefit, and then follow-up with getting it paid by state law. So it wasn't paid

family leave, but it was important to have the family leave benefit established in law first, and

then start pushing on getting it paid.” Another respondent recalled that Governor Pete Wilson signed Assemblymember Moore’s bill, and stated that “from that point forward, it was just a matter of time until the Democrats got together in office and then the unions were going to get their thing. We always just kind of knew it–it was just a matter of when it was going to happen.”

Political Climate in 2002

Multiple interview respondents talked about the importance of labor unions in California as a significant political force, and discussed their ability to influence legislative priorities. In

2017, 16.9 percent of the California workforce was covered by a union contract, compared to

12.1 percent nationally. This included 58.9 percent of public sector workers and 9.2 percent of

private sector workers (52.5 percent of union workers in California are in the public sector)

(Jacobs & Thomason, 2018).

Gray Davis won the gubernatorial election in 1998 by almost a 20 percent margin

following 16 years of Republican leadership in the state. Labor leaders–who had previously been

out of favor–were ecstatic, and gave Davis a long list of their priorities for his first year in office.

According to an August 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times, Davis took a centrist political position and courted both labor and business groups who were known adversaries (Jones,

2002c). He advised labor leaders at the time to spread their wish list out over four years. Steven

Maviglio, Davis’ press secretary said, “If you look at the wish list of both labor and business, I

think you can tick off things that have made both business and labor angry. When [the California

Chamber of Commerce] ‘job-killer’ list comes out, the governor does pay attention to this, just

as he pays attention to labor’s priority list. He’s very careful of charting a centrist course.”

Julianne Broyles, a veteran lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce noted, “Over a

four-year period, 100 percent of the labor agenda has been put before Davis and he’s signed at

least 75 percent of it. A lot of things are being delivered to his desk that we hoped he would have

vetoed and a lot of previous governors would have [vetoed].” (Jones, 2002c). One interview

respondent recalled:

“I will never forget, we had a meeting with him and major union leaders shortly

after he was elected that was very distressing. He told us he was only going to sign one

major labor bill a year. We had had 16 years of Republican governors, so there was a lot

of pent up demand for amendments to unemployment insurance, workers compensation,

state disability insurance–all of these social insurance programs had suffered for 16

years. We had a tremendous amount of catching up to do and he was very, very, reluctant

to embrace anything. And he never did take the lead on any labor measure, so that was

the political situation, the legislature was much more liberal than the governor.”

Davis took office with a 60 percent approval rating and maintained approval ratings above 50 percent until the California electricity crisis in 2000 and 2001.13 Following what critics

argued was a slow and ineffective response to the electricity crisis (Behr, 2003), his approval rating dropped into the 30s and never recovered (Gledhill, 2002; Jaffe, 2003). Davis’s fundraising efforts for his 2002 reelection campaign also attracted a lot of attention, and shortly after the energy crisis settled down his administration was hit with a notable fundraising scandal

(Marinucci, 2001; Salladay, 2002). Davis ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the

2002 primary election, but still spent a significant amount of his campaign funds to run attack ads against the two well-known moderates in the Republican primary (California Fair Political

Practices Commission, 2010).

Davis ran against Bill Simon in the general election, a political newcomer who was popular within the Republican Party but was not well known across the state. It was documented as one of the most expensive and negative campaigns in state history, and the attacks from both sides turned off voters and suppressed turnout (Marinucci, 2002). Davis ultimately won with 47 percent of the vote. One interview respondent recalled that this seemed to be when “things really got divisive in the state capital,” Noting that, “before this, you could usually find something that you could agree to and work on, but Gray Davis–this seemed to have started something. That's

13 In 2000 and 2001, market manipulations and capped retail electricity prices caused a shortage of electricity supply in the state. This resulted in multiple large-scale blackouts and the collapse of one of California’s largest energy companies. The California power companies were buying electricity from wholesalers at very high prices but were unable to raise retail rates, and were technically bankrupt. Davis declared a state of emergency in January 2001 and was forced to step in to buy power at highly unfavorable terms on the open market. The resulting massive long–term debt obligations added to the state budget crisis and led to criticism of Davis’s administration.

when I saw the unraveling occur in terms of attitude, where there's nothing that we agree on.

Even today it takes a huge effort to put a bipartisan package together.”

In 2002, labor unions were reported to be the single biggest source of financial support

for Davis’ reelection effort. At one point, their contributions accounted for more than 13 percent of the governor’s total campaign donations, according to an analysis done by the New York

Times (Gladstone, Nalder, & Carey, 2002). However, business groups also donated generously to the governor’s campaign. In the Los Angeles Times article from August 20, 2002, Davis’ press secretary Steven Maviglio explained, “The Governor doesn’t see it as an either/or proposition. You can be pro-family and can be good for business.” Nonetheless, many of the bills that union leaders were pressuring Davis to sign at the end of the session were bills that business groups were appealing to him to veto as labor’s “job-killer” legislation (Jones, 2002c).

Senate Bill 1661

Senate Bill 1661 was introduced by former state Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) on February 21, 2002, and the California primary elections were held on March 5, 2002. When asked about why then-Senator Kuehl decided to introduce this bill in 2002, interview respondents recalled that momentum for paid family leave had been building within the state, and that it had been a legislative priority for labor unions in the state for a number of years. They also noted that Democrats had control of both houses at the time and that some Democratic legislators, as well as labor leaders and advocates were worried that Davis would not win reelection in November. Thus, they really wanted to push a few specific efforts, and paid family leave was one of them. One respondent noted specifically:

“Unions have been negotiating for years for unpaid family leave and then paid

family leave benefits for their employees in the collective bargaining process. And

generally, what the unions like to do is, when the politics are right–they like to take issues

off the collective bargaining table so they don't have to give up as much in collective

bargaining once the bargaining has started. In other words, if they want paid family

leave, then negotiating for that would mean that the employees would have to give up

some other benefit that they're looking for. However, if it's mandated by law, then they

don't have to give it up–it’s not part of the negotiating process. It's off the table and they

can use that power to negotiate for something else, whether it's higher wages or better

medical care, whatever.”

Respondents explained that the coalition that included the California Labor Federation

(the state’s AFL-CIO), the ACLU, and the numerous other groups outlined above that worked on the study bill in 1999 (SB 656) decided that the next step was to work on paid family leave. They recalled that the coalition worked closely with the Senate Office of Research to develop the bill, and that the group believed the fight for paid family leave would be a much longer battle. One respondent remembered a labor representative explaining that it would probably take at least five years to get something passed, but they wanted to get a bill in and get the conversation started in the legislature. Major newspapers at the time, as well as multiple interview respondents, recalled that the Labor Federation was the group that pushed the paid family leave bill.

Labor representatives reportedly approached Senator Keuhl to ask if she would be interested in carrying the bill, and she agreed. Respondents recalled that she was “exactly the right choice,” that she is “an extraordinarily smart woman, and very canny politically,” and that she was “instrumental in getting it done.” Other respondents noted that Senator Kuehl

“introduced a lot of good legislation and was one of the legislators that really got into the issue that she was carrying a bill on and learned it very well.” Another noted that paid family leave specifically was an issue that was very close to Senator Kuehl’s heart, explaining that she co- founded the California Women's Law Center and was very, very committed to women’s and family issues.

Existing law allowed employees in the state to apply for SDI benefits to cover about 55–

60 percent of their regular wages when they took a qualifying leave to recover from their own non-work-related serious illness or disability, including disability related to pregnancy and birth.

When it was introduced, SB 1661 proposed to expand coverage under SDI benefits to include family and medical leave for up to 12 weeks to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or an ill family member, and workers would be able to receive the same 55–60 percent of their regular wages–up to $728.00 a week at that point–during a qualifying leave (Dube & Kaplan, 2002).

When the bill was introduced, “child” included a biological, adopted, foster, or stepchild, a legal ward, a child of a domestic partner, or child of an employee who stands in loco parentis to that child. A “family member” included a parent (biological, foster, adoptive, step, legal guardian, or other person who stood in loco parentis), spouse, or domestic partner who has a serious health condition (California State Legislature, 2002).

The additional funds would come from a 0.2 percent increase in employees’ payroll deductions, raising the total cost of the existing SDI system for employees to 1.1 percent of their wages. It is important to note that the bill amended the Unemployment Insurance Code to increase contributions to the SDI fund, and this was written as an increase in the cost of state disability payments to the SDI account, and not as a tax, so the bill was not subject to a two- thirds vote in the legislature. As one interview respondent (an opponent of the bill) pointed out,

“It was strictly the cost of doing business, a regulatory thing. I mean, we did everything we could to try to get it defined as a tax–because that put us into the game, but neither the courts nor the legislature's lawyer agreed with us and so it was just a regulatory assessment.”

Originally, this payment was intended to be shared between employees and employers, and the cost to employees was estimated to average about $27.00 per year, but could reach almost $70.00 per year for those earning $72,000 or more (Dube & Kaplan, 2002). About 12 million of California's 16 million workers were eligible at the time, exempting state and local government employees who used a different plan (NDI). Under SB 1661, employers could require employees to use up to two weeks of their unused vacation time first (Teichert, 2002), and although SB 1661 applied to employers of any size in the state, the paid family leave program only entitled employees to collect benefits while on leave, it did not provide job protection. Employees who were covered by FMLA and/or CFRA (those who worked for private employers with 50 or more employees, or a public employer, regardless of size) may have had their job protected through one of those mechanisms, but businesses were not required to hold a job open for a worker on leave through the paid family leave program (State of California

Employment Development Department, 2018c).

In June 2002, researchers at U.C. Berkeley released a cost benefit analysis of SB 1661

(Dube & Kaplan, 2002). Their results indicated that passage of the legislation could not only extend benefits for the 12 million California employees who were covered by SDI at that time, but also had the ability to create significant financial savings for employers and the State of

California. They found that California companies could save $89 million per year under a paid family leave program due to increased employee retention and decreased turnover, and that the

State of California could save $25 million annually, due to decreased reliance on assistance

programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the supplemental

nutrition assistance program (SNAP). Many individuals currently turn to these programs when

taking unpaid leave causes them financial hardship (Dube & Kaplan, 2002). Also in June 2002,

the bill passed the Senate in a party-line vote. With the bill heading to the Assembly and the

results of the cost benefit analysis newly available, public awareness and momentum began

building rapidly (Bustillo, 2002a; Firestein et al., 2011; Karlitz, 2002).

That summer, respondents explained that the coalition mobilized grassroots efforts across

the state, conducted extensive media outreach, and distributed literature and materials through

union and other coalition partners, in person and via the Internet. At the same time, business

opposition was growing and opponents were leading strong advocacy efforts against the bill.

They warned that paid family leave would hurt businesses and further damage an already lagging

economy (Bustillo, 2002a; Firestein et al., 2011; Jones, 2002b).

Interview respondents did not recall any Republican support for the bill at the time, and

one respondent noted that it was even hard to get a group of eight moderate Democrats in the

Assembly to support the bill because the chamber of commerce was so opposed to it and these

specific representatives were particularly sensitive to the requests of the business community.

However, multiple respondents explained that the Democratic Party had dominated both

chambers for so long that this small amount of Democratic opposition was hardly noticeable.

Respondents recalled that once the bill was in the Assembly, the group of moderate

Democrats suggested a number of significant changes, including removing the employer contribution (and therefore funding the program entirely through employee contributions) and allowing employers to require employees to use up to two weeks of employer-provided vacation

before receiving paid family leave benefits. A few respondents noted that removing the employer

contribution was a symbolic concession, but was not a compromise that would have a significant

impact on employees overall. One respondent recalled “We took out the employer contribution,

and you’ll get different perspectives about what that means. Labor economists say in the long

run, the employee always pays. So if the employer pays for the benefit that comes out in a wash

as a lower salary for you. In the long run, we pay for it as employees.” Another concession that

was made involved cutting the duration of the family leave benefit from 12 weeks to six weeks.

Multiple respondents recounted that the labor federation was so upset about the removal of the employer contribution that they were the ones who actually asked for the duration of the benefit to be cut in half because in theory, half of the funding would be gone.

Multiple respondents commended Senator Kuehl and her staff for their ability to listen to

the opposition and find ways to negotiate compromises so that all sides could support the bill. In

their 2011 “Guide to Implementing Paid Family Leave,” Netsy Firestein, Ann O’Leary, and Zoe

Savitsky wrote about lessons learned from the effort to pass the California paid family leave

program. The report explained that Senator Kuehl chose to negotiate compromises with the

group of moderates that would appease business interests while preserving the bill’s intent to

provide assistance for working families instead of risking killing the bill and having to

reintroduce it after the gubernatorial election (Firestein et al., 2011). In a July 2002 Los Angeles

Time article, Kuehl said that she was negotiating with the California Restaurant Association, the

Chamber of Commerce and others in hopes of reducing opposition–and indicated that she was potentially willing to abandon the 50–50 split and have the entire program funded by workers if that was what it took to appease businesses and get the governor to sign it. Kuehl was quoted as saying “Nobody wants to bleed the business community to death in California, I certainly do not.

It seems to me that the main sticking point, and the one that may allow them to go neutral [if it is addressed], is the employer contribution” (Bustillo, 2002b).

The initial intent for employers and employees to contribute equally to paying for the paid family leave program generated a substantial amount of opposition from businesses and legislators, and the potential for new costs to employers was cited as respondents as the most effective argument against the program. One respondent who was an opponent of the bill discussed the fact that they used the original requirement for an employer contribution to build a strong coalition to oppose the bill. Removing the employer contribution also eliminated the primary argument that was being used by opponents and made it so that legislators who had opposed it no longer had strong arguments against it. As one respondent noted,

“That was one of the most memorable things about the bill. One afternoon, she

[Senator Kuehl] came over to my office and we decided what that we had to drop the

employer contribution to get the bill out of the committee. And in the end, it was a

tremendous decision because it pulled the rug totally out from under the employers who,

up to that point, had basically just relied on the argument that it was going to cost them

too much, and that they couldn’t afford to make arrangements for people to take time off

and so forth. It really took the wind out of their sails.”

Once it was amended, the bill moved through the Assembly and back through the Senate in a matter of days (Bustillo & Vogel, 2002a). SB 1661 passed in less than eight months, which was unexpected for most of the groups involved. Most interview respondents agreed that the public already understood the need for paid family leave, and that the demand was there among constituents.

Support for Paid Family Leave in California

Senate Bill 1661 was strongly backed by organized labor groups, including the California

Labor Federation, the California Federation of Teachers, and the Center for the Childcare

Workforce. The majority of Democrats in the legislature also strongly supported the legislation

(Bustillo & Vogel, 2002b). Many advocates for California's growing senior population supported the bill, as did a number of healthcare provider, teacher, religious, and childcare groups, including the California Medical Association, the Hospital and Healthcare Association, and the

Catholic Conference, who said that the current unpaid leave laws did little to help families in times of need (Bustillo, 2002a; Ingram, 2002; Teichert, 2002).

Women’s and children’s advocacy organizations were especially strong champions for paid family leave, including the National Partnership for Women and Families, Family Values @

Work, Planned Parenthood, the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, the

California Children and Families Commission (now First 5 California), California NOW,

Caregiver Resource Centers, and the California Women’s Law Center, as well as local organizations like the Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (Corcoran, 2002a;

Jones, 2002a; Karlitz, 2002). SB 1661 also had strong support from legal organizations across the state and the country, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lewis Law

Center, the Employment Law Center-Legal Aid Society (now called Legal Aid at Work), and a non-profit organization called Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco-based group focused on protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.

Interestingly, many businesses and small business owners in the state supported paid family leave, and SB 1661 specifically. Kenneth Lock, a small business owner from Santa

Monica, CA wrote an editorial to the Los Angeles Times on July 20, 2002 voicing his support

for Senate Bill 1661 (Lock, 2002). Elliott Hoffman, co-founder of Just Desserts in Oakland, said

that his company instituted company-paid family leave after the birth of his son 22 years ago. He

explained that the benefit has helped him maintain a loyal and motivated workforce. He said, “If

family and family values, if you will, are truly important values in this country, to me this is a no-

risk bill” (Jones, 2002a). On September 20, 2002 (three days before Governor Davis signed SB

1661) business owners representing companies across the state expressed their support for the

paid family leave bill during a telephone press conference organized by the California Labor

Federation that was intended to counter opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce

increase public pressure on Governor Davis. The businesses, ranging from small high-tech firms

to garment companies, said paid leave would help retain employees and cut expenses for firms

that want to provide such a benefit to their workers. (Corcoran, 2002a).

A review of news articles combined with findings from interviews conducted with

individuals revealed a number of arguments that were provided in support of paid family leave.

Recurring themes included the United States as one of the only developed countries (in 2002) that did not provide workers with paid family leave (Bustillo, 2002a; Jones, 2002a), that

although FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave per

year, most workers cannot afford to take unpaid leave, and that SB 1661 offered a reasonable and

low-cost approach to provide employees with some wage replacement while caring for a family

member. Articles and interviews also responded to opposition messaging, providing focused messages about how paid leaves were actually good for businesses. Messages focused on the idea that providing paid family leave was the right thing to do, that families should not have to

choose between putting food on the table and caring for a seriously ill family member, and that family leave included caregiving leave, not just parental leave.

An article published in the Los Angeles Times in June, 2002 reported that during floor debate, Senator Kuehl noted that although the current unpaid leave policy was praised only a few years earlier as a breakthrough for family values, not many workers were participating because they could not afford to give up their pay while they tended to family situations. She explained that compensation from the state disability fund would at least partially offset workers’ loss of income (Ingram, 2002). Additionally, labor groups made the case that paid family leave was a natural follow-up to FMLA (Teichert, 2002), and respondents recalled very effective arguments that focused on the fact that everyone will have family care needs and situations, and that providing some form of paid family leave was the right thing to do.

According to respondents, one of the primary media messages was framed as “a family shouldn't have to choose between putting food on the table and caring for a seriously ill family member.” One respondent explained, “I think in California people just felt like this was the right thing to do, and they really didn't buy the argument that it was going to be a huge cost to the employers.” Governor Davis echoed this sentiment in interviews and during the bill signing, stating “I don’t want parents in California to have to choose between being a good parent and a good employee” (Girion & Garvey, 2002; Skelton, 2002).

Advocates and supporters hailed SB 1661 as a reasonable, common-sense, and low-cost approach to providing employees with some amount of wage replacement while they were caring for a family member (Jones, 2002c). In a July 2002 article published in the Los Angeles Times, reporter Karen Karlitz spoke with an opponent and a supporter of the bill (Allan Zaremberg,

President of the California Chamber of Commerce and Marjorie Sims, Executive Director of the

California Women’s Law Center in Los Angeles). Ms. Sims explained that the State

Employment Development Department provided an estimate that the program would cost an

average of $37.00 per employee per year (originally intended to be split between the employer

and employee) and that state’s disability insurance program could support these benefits through

additional contributions, so the program would not put the state disability fund at risk (Karlitz,

2002).

A different Los Angeles Times article published in late July 2002 cited a 2000 study by

the state Employment Development Department that estimated the average cost at $34.00

annually per worker, or $17.00 each from workers and their employers if equally split (Bustillo,

2002b). The June 2002 cost benefit analysis released by researchers at U.C. Berkeley study

calculated the split at about $25.00 for each side (Dube & Kaplan, 2002), and the California

Chamber of Commerce, a leading opponent, estimated that each share could be far higher–more

than $100.00 per employee (total) annually.

Interview respondents noted the importance of individuals sharing their personal stories

in newspaper articles and during committee hearings (Bustillo, 2002b), the importance of including a diverse range of stakeholders, and the importance of messaging and using talking points that resonated with the public. Respondents talked about partnering with advocacy groups that focused on family caregivers or other groups that work to recognize and alleviate the burdens of working parents and adult children who are caring for a growing elderly population.

Working with these advocacy organizations and sharing the stories of individuals caring for all types of family members allowed the idea of paid family leave to reach more people and reflect more needs than just parental leave to bond with a new baby (Teichert, 2002). Advocates also

talked about working with the Berkeley Media Studies group about messaging for the campaign,

and generating talking points using “social math” to help people understand the low cost of the

program. One respondent explained, “We were able to find a way to talk about the cost in a way

that was easier for people to understand–converting it into a unit that people get, like a cup of

coffee–and that was helpful. So we could say, ‘for less than the price of a cup of coffee a month,

you could have paid family leave.’”

Interview respondents as well as advocates and supporters quoted in newspaper articles

expressed their understanding for the concerns of business owners related to potential new costs.

Senator Kuehl and other supporters explained that business groups had voiced similar concerns

(e.g., the costs to replace workers, the costs of additional overtime to cover for absent workers,

training costs and costs due to loss of productivity) about virtually every other labor benefit,

including minimum wage laws, workers’ compensation, and unions (Girion & Garvey, 2002;

Jones, 2002a), but these concerns had not materialized. Increasing wages has been found to have

little to no effect on businesses, but has been found to dramatically reduce employee turnover,

improve worker morale and result in greater work effort (Reich, Hall, & Jacobs, 2005; Schmitt,

2015). Additionally, researchers have found that changes in employers' costs of providing

workers' compensation insurance are largely shifted to employees in the form of lower wages

(Fishback & Kantor, 2007; Gruber & Krueger, 1991). Supporters maintained that paid family

leave would be good for businesses. Employees and labor leaders highlighted it’s morale- boosting benefits (Girion & Garvey, 2002), explaining that access to paid leave would result in happier, more focused workers who might otherwise be forced to quit their jobs because of family emergencies. (Jones, 2002a).

Many, including small business owners who supported the bill, argued that paid family leave would save businesses money by helping employers retain educated, highly-trained

workers. Supporters argued that structured leaves would reduce tardiness and absenteeism,

strengthen employee loyalty, and increase productivity because workers would be more focused and less stressed, and would not be at work worrying about a loved one, or worrying about not having a safety net for family emergencies. They also cited evidence that providing paid leave

could reduce dependence on government-supported home healthcare, transportation, and

emergency services. A group of small businesses who held a telephone press conference to

support the measure and counter opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce also

explained that a statewide paid family leave program would cut expenses for firms that wanted to

provide this type of benefit to their workers (or already were) (Bustillo, 2002a; Corcoran, 2002a;

Girion & Garvey, 2002; Lock, 2002; Teichert, 2002).

A September 2002 article in the San Jose Mercury News quoted Rishi Agarwal, chief

executive officer of Alysida Solutions, a software company in Alameda, CA. He said that the bill would benefit small companies like his, which has eight employees, because people who come to work while handling a newborn or a family crisis are not thinking about their job. He explained,

"In my business, a small mistake can be a large cost down the road. It's better to give them the time off and get the matter fixed, so they can come back with their minds on work." (Corcoran,

2002a). Workers rights advocates also argued that a paid family leave program would make

California more attractive to skilled workers, and small businesses explained that the ability to offer paid leave would help them compete with bigger companies to recruit and retain talented employees (Corcoran, 2002a; Girion & Garvey, 2002).

Opposition to Paid Family Leave in California

The state’s primary business organization, the California Chamber of Commerce

emerged as the primary opponent of SB 1661. Based on the shared contribution between employers and employees in the original bill and the language that the program would cover all employers in the state regardless of size, the Chamber was able to build a coalition of close to

2,000 business groups who were opposed to it, and fought to kill the bill in the Legislature. They

argued that businesses were capable of managing their own workforces and that California's

employers were already suffering from higher costs for utilities and workers' compensation

insurance (Teichert, 2002).

Other major employer organizations also vehemently opposed the bill, including the

California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the California Small Business

Association, the California Restaurant Association, the California Grocers Association, and the

California Hospital Association. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) which

had 38,000 members in California at the time also strongly opposed the bill and sent repeated fax

alerts to members about the legislation (Bustillo, 2002b). Additional opponents included an array

of trade groups, operators of restaurants, hospitals and grocery stores, and other small business

owners (Bustillo, 2002b; Corcoran, 2002a; Girion & Garvey, 2002; Ingram, 2002; Teichert,

2002).

No Republican legislators voted in favor of the bill. Republican gubernatorial candidate,

Bill Simon Jr., agreed with business leaders in opposing paid family leave (Girion & Garvey,

2002), and Governor Gray Davis, who was seeking reelection in November 2002, reportedly did not take a vocal position on the measure, but signed it on September 23, 2002 (Bustillo, 2002b;

Jones, 2002a; Staff Writers, 2002). Newspaper articles and interview respondents provided three

primary arguments against SB 1661, including that the bill would force businesses and workers

to pay billions of dollars in new taxes, would hurt businesses through additional regulations and

increased costs, and would hurt workers through increased taxes, decreased wages, and layoffs.

Other arguments against the paid family leave program included the potential for fraud and

abuse, greater potential impacts on small businesses, and concerns that once a program was

established, politicians would incrementally increase the employer contributions with little

public scrutiny.

In a July 2002 Los Angeles Times article, Allan Zaremberg, President of the California

Chamber of Commerce explained that the workers compensation program, which is paid for by employers, serves as the safety net for workers who are injured on the job. State disability

insurance, which is funded through employee paycheck deductions, compensates employees for

time off because of an injury or illness that is unrelated to work. He stated that SB 1661 would

deviate from disability insurance’s original purpose by giving employees paid time off for family

leave. At the time, it was proposed that half of the program’s cost would be paid by employers,

and he explained that it did not make sense for employers to be responsible for situations that

had nothing to do with work (Karlitz, 2002).

Opponents said the proposal would force businesses and workers to pay billions of

dollars in new taxes, would drive up costs and drive some companies out of business. (Jones,

2002c). Business leaders also stated that introducing a new tax for a new program did not make

sense when the state Legislature was having trouble finding money to pay for current programs–

citing the state’s existing $20 billion deficit (Corcoran, 2002b; Karlitz, 2002). In a June 2002 Los

Angeles Times article, Senator Ray Haynes (R), a vocal opposition leader, stated that the

Legislature was told when it adopted the unpaid family leave law that its backers would never

return with a paid leave bill. He said that SB 1661 was just such a bill, which he called “a tax on jobs” (Ingram, 2002).

In August 2002 Senator Kuehl agreed to remove the employer contribution, shifting the expense entirely to workers, and to shorten the length of leave to six weeks to scale back the bill’s impact on businesses. Even after these changes were made, the California Chamber of

Commerce and other opponents held firm that any form of paid leave would be costly to employers (Jones, 2002a). Business groups appeared to shift arguments to concerns related to expenses for paying overtime or replacing experienced workers, losses from unplanned absenteeism, and the potential for huge costs related to finding temporary replacements

(Corcoran, 2002b; Girion & Garvey, 2002). In a Los Angeles Times article that covered

Governor Davis signing the bill, Julianne Broyles, a veteran lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce was quoted as saying, “Paid family leave is one of the worst bills for employers in the 2001–02 legislative session. This bill fails miserably to address the real cost concerns of employers–the costs of replacement workers and additional overtime to cover for absent workers, training costs and loss of productivity” (Jones, 2002a). One interview respondent explained,

“Under temporary disability leave and some other types of leave, even if the

employer is not required to pay that individual’s salary they are required in some

circumstances to continue to pay for their health benefits, and there is a cost associated

with that. And there is a cost to hire a temporary worker to replace you. There can be

training costs–especially if that person is out for the full 12 weeks of FMLA with a

newborn child. And if they take a couple of months before that with a pregnancy

disability leave–in California, that's separate from FMLA–so the employer could be

dealing with an employee that’s out for a fairly extended period of time.”

In a September 2002 Sacramento Bee article published right after Governor Davis signed

the bill, Sacramento business owner Lynne Cardwell praised the compassion behind the new law

but expressed worry about its potential impact. She explained that the six-week absence of a key employee could be devastating for a smaller business. She described a situation a year earlier where she held a mechanic's job open for eight months because of his illness, and it ended up costing her thousands of dollars in lost work. She was quoted in the article saying, "Six weeks could put some at a huge loss, especially for the under-capitalized business whose cash flow isn't there" (Teichert, 2002).

In response to opposition arguments about increased costs to employers, proponents of the measure explained that the new law would not create any greater costs to employers than the current unpaid family leave law, which also required businesses to find replacement workers or to pay overtime. Like FMLA, the new law did not guarantee job protection for employees who took time off from companies with fewer than 50 employees (Corcoran, 2002b).

Opponents also argued that proposed costs of funding the program were “pure speculation,” that there was no way to know how many people would actually take advantage of the program, and there was no cap on the number of people who would be eligible (Karlitz,

2002). Business groups remained opposed to any new government mandate that would increase the costs of doing business in the state and make it harder for small businesses to compete with larger companies, or create barriers for firms considering expansion or relocating to California

(Bustillo, 2002a; Corcoran, 2002b; Flanigan, 2002; Jones, 2002a; Karlitz, 2002). Business leaders feared that the law would hurt California's economy at a time when many businesses

were already struggling (Teichert, 2002). Opponents maintained that, although the costs of the program were unclear, they would be high and would force businesses lead to decreased wages and layoffs (Bustillo, 2002b).

Republican legislators argued that the bill would not only hurt businesses, but would also take money out of workers’ pockets for a program that they might not want. In an August 2002

Los Angeles Times article, Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster) was quoted saying,

“This is a tax on workers so that someday some of them will be able to take some time off. We’ve decided that everyone cannot be responsible, and we need to take the money from them so they can take care of themselves” (Bustillo & Vogel, 2002b). Likewise, Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bill Simon stated in multiple newspaper interviews that he saw the program as a tax on all employees (Skelton, 2002). He was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times during a campaign stop in Long Beach, CA in September 2002 and explained “I don’t think this is the best way to accomplish some type of paid leave, because, in effect, what this really is, is a kind of tax on 14 million Californians in the workforce.” Simon said he would support an optional program, allowing workers who wanted the benefit to pay into the system (Girion & Garvey,

2002).

Opponents also voiced their concern that a paid family leave program would be abused by workers looking for a paid vacation (Bustillo, 2002b; Corcoran, 2002b). Multiple newspaper articles profiled small business owners and workers who said that they knew that some employees already abused the federal law (FMLA) and argued that even more employees would be tempted to lie to take advantage of the paid leave program. A September 2002 Los Angeles

Times article interivewed Paul Calvert, the western regional vice president for Inland Paperboard and Packaging, a division of a Texas-based company that employs 2,000 people in California.

He was quoted as saying, “We don’t have a problem with employees having time off for

legitimate illnesses or family reasons, but there are abusers of this family leave [FMLA]

program.”

He explained that 150 employees had taken 311 FMLA absences in the last 14 months,

and about 90 percent of those absences were without notice and lasted one day. About 25 of the

plant’s 150 employees accounted for most of the absences, he said (Girion & Garvey, 2002). In

the same article, a representative from the the Calfiornia Manufacturers and Technology

Association explained that without a length of service requirement, even a temporary worker

would be able to take six weeks off, and the decision whether that person is eligible for paid

leave or not would be made by the Employment Development Department. The representative

was quoted as saying, “That’s just going to encourage abuse. Most people won’t abuse it, but it

doesn’t take a large population to abuse something to really run up the cost and cause havoc for

employers” (Girion & Garvey, 2002). In response to opposition arguments about fraud, Senator

Kuehl and other supporters said that the measure would limit the potential for fraud by requiring

workers to obtain written statements from doctors about their own or their relatives’ illnesses

(Bustillo, 2002b).

Before the employer contribution was removed, employers voiced concerns that once a

program was established, politicians would incrementally increase the employer contributions

with little public scrutiny (Bustillo, 2002b). The day Governor Davis signed the bill (and the cost

was shifted fully to employees) Senator Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz) and other opponents

of the California measure were quoted in a Los Angeles Times article stating that they feared that

labor groups would try to shift paid leave costs to employers in the future–something they said many companies could not afford. Tom Rankin, president of the California Labor Federation

explained that while this was not the immediate goal of the California labor movement, cost- sharing for paid family leaves was the long-term goal (Jones, 2002a). Additionally, interview

respondents, discussed potential complications of the new law and how it would fit with other

California laws. One respondent explained how a business may have questions like,

“How do you calculate this leave on top of an employee’s leave under FMLA or

CFRA? How do these things work together? Those are the things that I think could be

very difficult for an employer, especially one who may not have a full-blown Human

Relations department to ensure that they are in compliance with all of the different

laws.”

Challenges and Barriers

Respondents identified a few key challenges that were resolved and compromises that were made in order to pass the paid family leave law in California. Primary challenges included strong opposition from the business and employer groups in the state as well as Republican legislators based on the employer contribution that was included in the original bill, and the inclusion of all employers in the program, regardless of size. Concessions were made to remove the employer contribution, allow employers to require employees to use up to two weeks of employer-provided vacation before receiving paid family leave benefits, and limit the duration of the family leave benefit from 12 weeks to six weeks, all of which helped to neutralize business opposition to the bill. The new paid family leave program would require private employers of all sizes to allow employees to access state disability insurance benefits for family and medical

leave, but the new law did not guarantee job protection for employees taking family and medical

leave.

When SB 1661 was introduced, it was first slated to be financed and administered

through the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. Employers were opposed to this for

three reasons. First, UI is financed solely by employers, and claims made against UI are paid by

the employer. Business owners considered this an extraordinarily expensive way to pay for a

voluntary benefit. Second, multiple respondents noted that the state UI Trust Fund was

considered to be broke at the time, stating that large benefits were being paid out and not much

money was coming in. Third, employers felt that this conflicted, at that time, with what

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, 1974) required. ERISA is a federal law that

sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health plans in private

industry to provide protection for individuals in those plans (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018).

Employers argued that forcing employees to contribute to UI for a voluntary paid family leave

benefit would violate ERISA. The financing and administrative mechanism for the program was

very quickly shifted from UI to SDI.

There were other questions that were resolved through negotiations, or education efforts

during implementation of the law. For example, it was important to clarify what was meant by a

“serious health condition”14 Similarly, there were questions about what increments of time

family leave could be taken in (e.g., whether all six weeks of paid family leave had to be taken

14 A serious health condition means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition of a patient that involves any period of incapacity (e.g., inability to work or perform other regular daily activities) or inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility and any subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care; or continuing treatment by a physician/practitioner. Unless complications arise, cosmetic treatments, the common cold, influenza, earaches, upset stomach, minor ulcers, and headaches other than migraines, are examples of conditions that do not meet the definition of a serious health condition for purposes of PFL. https://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/Am_I_Eligible_for_PFL_Benefits.htm

consecutively, or whether leave could be taken in hourly, daily, or weekly increments as needed).

There was also a need to clarify how leave taken under the paid family leave program would be coordinated with leave taken under other state and federal laws and programs, including the state disability insurance program, FMLA, and CFRA, as well as the coordination of leave taken under the program with the use of an employee’s accrued sick and annual leave.

Facilitating Factors

Interview respondents discussed a number of factors that made it possible to pass paid family leave in California, including the existing SDI administrative structure, union support for the bill, Democrats having control in both legislative chambers at the time, and having strong economic research about what it would cost to expand state disability insurance and the potential savings to the state. Respondents also talked about the strength of the coalition and their previous experience with family friendly legislative efforts, support from the media, and the importance of framing messaging in testimony around caregiving. Respondents also noted the importance of having a legislative champion, and specifically stated that Senator Kuehl was an excellent author, knowledgeable and skillful, and that the compromises that were made were essential to getting the bill passed.

Respondents explained that having an existing SDI program in place made it easier to move the paid family leave bill forward for a number of reasons, including the fact that a structure was already in place to administer the paid family leave program, and that there was no need for a minimum number of employees for the program to be effective. As one respondent explained, “That's the thing about disability insurance–it’s effective for anyone who pays into it.

Often times, they try to do bills like this and only include employers with over 50 employees or

whatever. But one of the beautiful things about tying it to SDI was that this didn't even really

come up once we removed the employer contribution. If the employees were paying for it, what

could they say?”

Multiple respondents who were opponents of the bill explained that the bill passed

primarily because Democrats were in control of the Senate and the Assembly at the time. They

noted that unions were a very strong force in California, and that they donated heavily to

Democratic candidates, explaining that it was well-known that when Democrats were in charge in California, Democrats would pass what the unions wanted. One respondent explained,

“Yeah, we lost. I mean, when you're in the minority in the legislature, you lose.

That's the nature of the business. They got the votes, you don't. They win, you lose. That's

just how it works. And in this particular case, for years and years under Republican

governors they tried passing all types of things, and finally, I think it was [Governor]

Pete Wilson gave in and signed the unpaid family leave bill, the Gwen Moore bill. And

from that point forward we knew it was just a matter of time until the Democrats got

together in office and then the unions were going get their thing. We always just kind of

knew it.”

In addition to the original program cost estimates provided by the state Employment

Development Department, proponents of the bill noted the importance of having strong economic research that was done by economists at the Labor Center at UC Berkeley and the

University of Chicago. They said that this was especially helpful to when the business community came out in strong opposition to the bill with economic research of their own.

Respondents also noted that the coalition had been building towards paid family leave for a

number of years, and that the strength of the coalition and the previous experience of the

organizations involved with family-friendly legislation efforts was essential. They also noted the

importance of supportive media efforts and how framing testimony during hearings around

caregiving seemed to resonate with legislators. One respondent explained,

“When we started out we brought in doctors that talked about attachment and

how important bonding with children and with infants was. But that did not seem to get

that much attention. Even though it would seems like people would be very interested,

and could picture a woman they knew that would be having a baby–the feeling was more

like, ‘she’ll need to figure that out, we shouldn't be subsidizing that–let them figure that

out on their own.’ It was the caregiving stories that really seemed to have traction with

members of the legislature. There were some female legislators that said things along the

lines of, ‘I wasn’t able to take time to bond with my children as much as I would have

liked, and they’re fine…’ and maybe there is guilt about that. And then the men may not

imagine themselves caring for a new baby or bonding. But they could all imagine

themselves as a care recipient or a caregiver and so that had more traction.”

Almost all respondents noted the key role that the bill’s author Senator Kuehl played,

especially her ability to negotiate the compromises that ended up getting the bill passed while

maintaining its integrity. Additionally, it is important to note that the bill never defined the

employee contribution (or the employer contribution when it was in the bill) to the SDI fund to

cover paid family leave as a tax, so in the state legislature the bill was not subject to a two-thirds vote. Finally, one respondent explained, “Also, Californians really like to be on the cutting edge of policies. So being the first to lead on something like paid family leave, was really important.”

Ongoing Efforts in California (2003–2018)

In 2013, California’s paid family leave law was expanded by SB 770 to include time off to care for a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or parent-in-law (sponsored by

Senators Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) and Mark DeSaulnier (D)). In 2016, AB 908 (sponsored by

Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez, D) increased the level of benefits provided by the paid family

leave SDI programs and eliminated the one-week waiting period for claims (California State

Legislature, 2016). Starting January 1, 2018, workers earning below about $20,000.00 per year

can receive 70 percent of their usual salary while on leave, and higher income workers can

receive 60 percent of their usual salary, ranging from $50.00 per week up to a maximum benefit

of around $1,216.00 per week in 2018 (McGreevy, 2016; State of California Employment

Development Department, 2018a). The maximum weekly benefit amount will change over time

because it is tied to the state’s average weekly wage, which changes every year.

The New Parent Leave Act (SB 63), authored by Senator Jackson (D) was signed in

October 2017 and took effect on January 1, 2018. CFRA and FMLA, which are required to be

taken concurrently, already allowed eligible employees at companies with 50 or more employees

to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave during a 12-month period. The New Parent

Leave Act provided 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected maternity and paternity leave for

Californians who worked for smaller employers–businesses who had 20 or more employees within a 75 mile radius.

AB 908 removed the seven-day waiting period for paid family leave benefits, but existing

law still allowed an employer to require an employee to take up to two weeks of their earned but unused vacation before, and as a condition of, receiving paid family leave benefits during any

12-month period, with one of those weeks of vacation leave being applied to the waiting period.

AB 2587 authored by Marc Levine (D), was passed in June 2018 and removed the required application of vacation leave to the waiting period, consistent with the removal of the seven-day waiting period for these benefits on and after January 1, 2018 (California State Legislature,

2018).

Additionally, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a separate Paid Parental

Leave Ordinance on April 12, 2016 that applied to all employers with 20 or more employees in

the City and County of San Francisco. Employers in San Francisco are now required to

provide up to six weeks of supplemental compensation to eligible employees who are receiving

California PFL benefits for bonding with a new child through birth, adoption, or foster care

placement. Because the state paid family leave program only replaces 60–70 percent of an

employee’s wages, the San Francisco program provides the difference between the state benefit

amount and the employee’s normal gross weekly wages, so that the employee receives 100

percent of their weekly wages (up to a weekly maximum benefit amount) for up to six weeks

(City and County of San Francisco, 2017). This program only provides supplemental

compensation for employees taking leave to bond with a new child, and does not cover leaves

taken to care for another family member.

New York

Background Information

New York has had a Democratic governor since 2007, with Andrew Cuomo elected in

2010 and currently serving his third term in office. The New York state Assembly has been

dominated by Democrats over the last 30 years, and in 2016 Democrats had a 107–43 majority in

the Assembly. Republicans held control of the Senate for almost 70 years until Democrats won

32 of 62 seats in the 2008 General Election (Confessore & Hakim, 2008). Republicans quickly

regained control of the Senate in the 2010 elections, winning 32 of 62 seats. Redistricting in New

York following the 2010 census expanded the Senate from 62 to 63 seats effective in January

2013 (Ballotpedia, 2017b).

Political Climate in 2016

In response to increasingly progressive Democratic conference leadership, Senators

Jeffrey Klein, David Valesky, David Carlucci, and Diane Savino broke from the main

Democratic Conference and founded the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) in 2011

(Sale, 2012). Membership fluctuated over time, but in 2016 the IDC comprised eight Democrats.

Additionally, Senator Simcha Felder who represents a very conservative district (the 17th Senate

District in Brooklyn) has been consistently elected as a Democrat, and reliably caucused with the

Republicans in 2016 (Yee, 2016). Therefore, although Democrats technically held a 32–31

majority in the Senate following the November 2016 elections, Republicans effectively

maintained control of the chamber through their coalition with the IDC and Senator Felder. The

IDC dissolved on April 16, 2018.

The New York legislature also has a long history of corruption and ethics issues. The

New York Times, the Buffalo News, and other publications have reported more than 30

corruption cases in Albany since 2005, including cases of current and former state officeholders

being convicted, sanctioned, or accused of wrongdoing (S. Craig, Rashbaum, & Kaplan, 2016).

Researchers from the University of Missouri compiled a database of public corruption cases at

the state level and found that New York had more corruption cases than any other state, and has

topped this list since at least 1986 (Clark, 2016). Many have criticized the closed-door culture at

the Capitol, as well as the repeated practice of deals being made to decide the state’s finances,

important policies and major projects and plans by “three men in a room,” referring to the

governor, the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader (McKinley, Kaplan, Craig, &

Rashbaum, 2015). In light of the IDC, this concept was sometimes expanded to “four men in a room,” to include Senator Jeff Klein.

In January 2015, after 21 years as speaker of the New York Assembly, Sheldon Silver

was arrested on federal bribery and kickback charges and stepped down from his position as

speaker. Interviews conducted with multiple legislators indicated that an idealistic new wave of

Assembly members helped catalyze opposition to Mr. Silver, clearing the way for an election of

a new speaker and what they hoped would be a new start (S. Craig, 2015; McKinley et al., 2015).

Then, in early May of 2015, Dean Skelos, the Senate majority leader, was arrested on federal

extortion, fraud, and bribe solicitation charges. These arrests cast a renewed spotlight on the

corruption in Albany, and many interview respondents thought that having new leadership was

instrumental in passing progressive policies in 2016, like paid family leave and a $15.00

minimum wage.

Legislative History

Eligible employees in New York who are temporarily unable to work due to an off-the- job injury or illness can receive partial wage replacement under the New York State Disability

Benefits Law. A worker can claim cash benefits to cover half of their usual wages, up to a maximum of $170.00 per week, for up to 26 weeks per year with a seven-day waiting period.

Benefits are funded by employee contributions and paid through the State Disability Insurance

(SDI) fund. Interview respondents noted that when the Disability Benefits Statute was passed, it was intended that employers and employees would share the costs of the program. It is written into the statute that SDI premiums can be paid entirely by the employer, or jointly by employer and employee, but the employee’s share cannot be more than one-half of one percent of their weekly wages, up to a maximum of $0.60 per week per employee (The New York State Senate,

2018).

Multiple interview respondents stated the importance of understanding that both the maximum employee contribution and the maximum weekly benefit for temporary disability in

New York have been capped at their existing rates since the 1980s. When the law was originally passed, employee contributions were capped at $0.30 per week. This was doubled to $0.60 per week in 1983, and has not been adjusted since. Respondents noted that wages have increased over time, and also that coverage for temporary disability insurance is relatively cheap. A 2014 report compiled by the Fiscal Policy Institute that found that employers could get coverage for less than or equal to $0.60 per week, making it possible for employers to pass a large part of the cost of providing disability insurance on to employees (Fiscal Policy Institute, 2014b).

SDI benefits in New York were expanded in 1977 to include coverage for disability related to pregnancy and recovery after childbirth (Boldiston, 1999). The maximum benefit rate

was last increased in 1989 to the current rate of $170.00 per week. Meanwhile, women have entered the workforce in increasing numbers (including more single mothers), people are living longer and requiring more care, benefits have lost 50 percent of their value, and SDI benefits still do not cover leave to provide medical care to another family member. The weekly maximum of

$170.00 remains by far the lowest of the five states that amended their unemployment laws to establish a TDI program (Fiscal Policy Institute, 2014a).

Starting as early as 1998, multiple bills have been introduced in New York to increase the amount of wage replacement under the state’s existing TDI program and extend those benefits to allow workers to take disability leave to care for family members, including a new child.

Attempts to pass a paid family leave law in New York, including those to expand workers compensation and TDI as well as those to adopt a standalone program, include 11 Assembly bills, 10 Senate bills, and the two 2016 budget bills (one in each Chamber) (Appendix H).

Early Efforts

Many bills have been introduced in New York to provide paid family leave, but only two mechanisms have been proposed. Most of the bills would have extended SDI benefits to include family care (New York State Workers' Compensation Board, 2017). The bills that did not propose expanding SDI benefits proposed instead to establish the “New York Family Leave Act” which would have been funded through employee payroll contributions.

Per New York’s Disability Benefits Law, bills that proposed to extend SDI benefits to cover family leave would continue to provide 26 weeks of leave for injury or sickness (including pregnancy), but would also provide 12 weeks of leave for family care. These bills defined

“family care” as: providing physical or psychological care for a family member of the employee

made necessary by a serious health condition; to bond with the employee's child during the first

12 months after the child's birth or the first 12 months after the placement of the child for adoption or foster care with the employee; because of any qualifying exigency as interpreted under FMLA; or arising out of the fact that the spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent of the employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in the armed forces of the United States.

Most of the bills that proposed to extend SDI benefits to cover family leave would have provided workers with 50 percent of their average weekly wages, and capped the weekly benefit amount at $170.00, mirroring the benefit that was already being provided under New York’s

Disability Benefits Law. Alternatively, identical bills A1793 and S4742 introduced in the 2015–

2016 session, as well as identical bills A3870 and S3004 and a separate bill, S3301, introduced in the 2015–2016 session all proposed to provide two-thirds (67 percent) of the individual’s average weekly wages with a cap that started at 35 percent of the statewide average weekly wage that increased to 50 percent over a period of four years. For reference, in 2018, the New York statewide average weekly wage was $1,305.92. Bills that proposed to extend SDI benefits to cover family leave would apply to employees that were already covered by New York State’s

Disability Benefits Law (employees of privately run organizations and private employers) and most provided the option for public employers and employee organizations that represent public employees to participate.

The other type of bill introduced in New York proposed to establish the “New York

Family Leave Act” which would be funded through employee payroll contributions. Six of these bills were introduced, including identical bills A9476 and S6896 in the 2011–2012 session,

A2654 and S120 in the 2013–2014 session, and A2851 and S1298 in the 2015–2016 session. All

six of these bills would have applied only to public employees, and would have allowed these

employees (male or female) to take 12 weeks of family leave per calendar with 100 percent of

their wages (no loss of pay), but only for leaves of absence related to the birth or adoption of a

child. Under these bills, employees would also have been granted the right to take an additional

12 weeks of family leave without pay (or any other privilege, benefit, or right, but without

demotion). These bills did not include specific language to provide job protection or prohibit

discrimination against employees for claiming or attempting to claim benefits for family leave.

Prior to the passage of the 2016 budget bills that included language to establish a paid

family leave program, only six bills were introduced in New York with bi-partisan support, and

even these bills had few Republican co-sponsors. Three were bills that would only cover leave

for birth or adoption, and three proposed to extend SDI to cover family leave. Two additional

bills were introduced in February 2016, including S3301, introduced by IDC leader Jeffrey Klein

along with four Democratic/IDC co-sponsors, and A9367, introduced by Assemblymember

Finch (R) along with 13 Republican co-sponsors.

Only two New York PFL bills made it out of committee (both in the Assembly) before language to establish a paid family leave program was included in the 2016 budget bills: A1793 in the 2013–2014 session and A3870 in the 2015–2016 session. Both bills were introduced by

Assemblymember Nolan along with multiple democratic co-sponsors, and both passed the

Assembly but were never considered in committee in the Senate.

100

2016 Budget Bills

In early 2016, Governor Cuomo called for the passage of a paid family leave bill in New

York, and ultimately the 2016 budget bill was the vehicle used to provide up to 12 weeks of

partial pay per year to workers who needed time off to care for a new child or a sick family

member (Editorial, 2016). The Senate and Assembly both introduced their budget bills in mid-

January 2016 (S6406 and A9006 respectively). Both bills were amended on March 31, 2016 to

include (among other things) language establishing a paid family leave program by extending

SDI benefits to cover family leave, provide job protection for workers taking paid family leave,

and prohibit retaliation or discrimination against employees for claiming or attempting to claim

benefits for family care.

The bills differed from previous attempts in terms of the length of leave provided

(starting at eight weeks in 2018, increasing to 12 weeks once fully phased-in in 2021), the

amount of compensation provided, and how the maximum compensation provided per week

would be structured). Benefits started at 50 percent of the employee’s previous weekly wages in

2018 (up to 50 percent of the statewide average weekly wage) and will increase to 67 percent of

the employee’s previous average weekly wages when fully phased in in 2021 (up to 67 percent

of the statewide average weekly wage).

The Assembly budget bill (A9006) was referred to the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee on January 14, 2016. This bill was amended and recommitted to the Ways and Means

Committee on February 16, 2016, on March 11, 2016, and again on March 31, 2016–this time to

include the language to establish a paid family leave program. Likewise, the Senate budget bill

(S6406) was referred to the Senate Finance Committee on January 14, 2016. This bill was

similarly amended and recommitted to the Senate Finance Committee on February 16, 2016, on

101

March 12, 2016, and again on March 31, 2016 (to include language to establish a paid family

leave program). S6406 passed the Senate (61–1) on March 31, 2016 and was delivered to the

Assembly where it was substituted for the Assembly budget bill on April 1, 2016. The Assembly passed the bill on April 1, 2016 and the bill was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on April 4,

2016.

The New York program is funded through small employee paycheck deductions, around a maximum of $1.00 per week per employee in addition to the one-half of one percent that employees already contribute to fund SDI benefits (The New York State Senate, 2016). Like programs in California, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, the New York program is administered through the SDI program. Therefore, implementation has not required any substantial administrative changes for businesses (A Better Balance, 2015; New York State, 2016).

Support for Paid Family Leave in New York

Strong support for paid family leave in New York came from a number of different groups, including a robust statewide campaign that included multiple committed organizations across the state, Democratic legislators, and members of the IDC. Support also came from multiple national-level organizations, prominent female activists and women’s rights supporters, and eventually Governor Cuomo due–at least in part–to his personal experience dealing with his father’s death.

Efforts to pass paid family leave in New York were led by a strong statewide campaign for paid family leave called “Time to Care.” The campaign was headed by a steering committee that included three unions (1199 SEIU, 32BJ SEIU, and the New York State AFL-CIO), A Better

102

Balance (a legal advocacy organization), Citizen Action of New York (a grassroots lobbying organization), the Community Service Society, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the New

York Paid Leave Coalition, the New York Statewide Senior Action Council, and the Working

Families Organization. Over 100 additional unions and medical, non-profit, family advocacy, and other organizations signed on as partners (Time to Care, 2013).

New York also received support from national-level organizations, including Family

Values @ Work, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and 9to5, and AARP–the

American Association of Retired Persons. One respondent noted that AARP was a terrific partner in New York because they coordinated closely with the statewide campaign and sent people and speakers to events, but ran a parallel campaign of their own. Multiple respondents discussed additional support in 2015 and 2016 from faith-based organizations, as well as a groundswell of support from businesses. By 2016 the statewide campaign had grown to include over 100 businesses and over 300 community-based organizations.

Legislative support for paid family leave came primarily from Democrats, including

Senators Addabbo (D), Savino (D, IDC), and Klein (D, IDC), and Assemblymembers Nolan (D),

Silver (D), and Jaffee (D), as well as from the new Assembly Speaker, Carl Heastie (Blain,

2016). Multiple respondents mentioned that Speaker Heastie made paid family leave a priority for the Assembly, and he reportedly won over his rank-and-file membership by listening to their concerns and going toe-to-toe with Governor Cuomo during budget negotiations to defend

Democratic priorities (Lovett, 2016b). Speaking to reporters at the Capitol heading into the final days of state budget negotiations, Speaker Heastie (D) noted that, “other than education aid, for us as Democrats there's nothing more important right now than minimum wage and paid family leave” (Blain, 2016).

103

Paid family leave in New York did have a few Republican sponsors and champions,

including Senator McDonald (R), Assemblymember Finch (R), and Senator Tom Morahan (R)

prior to his death in 2010. Many respondents also discussed the importance of conservative areas like Long Island that consistently elected Republican representatives and helped Republicans retain control of the Senate for so many years. In 2014, as the momentum for paid family leave was building, the New York Paid Leave Coalition was able to hire two full-time grassroots organizers–one to work upstate and one to work specifically on Long Island–and they were also able to hire a lobbyist who was focused on paid family leave. Then in January 2015 they were able to hire campaign manager. The Long Island grass-roots organizer reportedly came from the

Working Families Party and had previously done a lot of organizing on Long Island prior to working for the coalition. The organizer knew the Senators and the community groups, and was able to galvanize support from constituents in the area, which put pressure on the Senate

Republicans to give more consideration to the idea.

Multiple respondents commented about the important role that A Better Balance played in getting paid family leave passed in New York. The organization was founded in 2006 by a group of lawyers who were all career women’s rights advocates focused on economic issues and addressing the issue of balancing work and family (A Better Balance, 2018). A Better Balance is

based in New York and was reportedly involved from the very beginning as one of the

organizations leading the push for paid family leave in the state. The organization provides legal support to many campaigns across the country, but one respondent explained that the efforts in

New York were special for the group. In other states they provide support, write and analyze bills, or write talking points, but in New York they did all of this and more–including educating legislators and speaking at rallies. One respondent stated, “if you look back at our social media

104

feeds, you would see that we'd write a Christmas wish list post every year, and every year we'd

say, "New York paid family leave." And then when we were trying to think of what we wanted to

do after we passed it, we couldn't think of anything. We wanted other things, but nothing else

loomed as large in our consciousness.”

Additional powerful allies in 2016 included multiple advocacy groups for children,

minorities, women, and older adults, like the NAACP, Make the Road New York (an

organization focused on empowering Latino and working class families), and the Women's City

Club of New York, as well as many executive-level representatives from social service agencies

and women’s organizations (Blain & Place, 2016; Lovett, 2016a; Sandoval & Blain, 2016; Span,

2015; Swarns, 2015). The push for paid family leave in New York was also supported by

prominent female activists and women’s rights supporters, including Gloria Steinem, actor

Cynthia Nixon, supermodel Christy Turlington Burns, Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, Albany

Mayor Kathy Sheehan, Greater New York Chamber of Commerce Chairwoman Cynthia

DiBartolo, and more than 150 additional female leaders representing the arts, politics and

business (Associated Press, 2016c).

Organized by the Working Families Party and the New York City Paid Family Coalition,

these women sent a letter to Governor Cuomo and Senate GOP Majority Leader John Flanagan

urging them to back efforts to pass a statewide paid family leave act in 2016, stating that "paid

family leave is one of the most important economic and health issues for women across the

United States and here in New York" (Lovett, 2016a). National political figures also lent their support to the campaign, including Vice President Joe Biden and then-House Democratic

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Marcius & Lovett, 2016; Sommerfeldt & Otis, 2016).

105

“I think it’s fair to say that, prior to 2016, Governor Cuomo had not been

a leader in pushing for paid family leave and had in fact, in late 2014 or early

2015, given an interview in which he said, "there's no appetite for paid family

leave in New York." And that was the quote, and everybody wrote op-eds about it,

and I think everyone sent out fundraising emails about it.”

Multiple respondents discussed the quote given by Governor Cuomo in 2015. However, reporters at the time noted that the governor’s office had been conducting research, trying to determine the best way to implement a program (Vilensky, 2015). Reports also suggested that

Governor Cuomo supported the concept of paid family leave, but had concerns about the details and workability of the idea in practice (Associated Press, 2015; Editorial, 2015). By other sources, Governor Cuomo was reportedly “emphatically unemphatic” about the concept of paid family leave, and stated that there was little “appetite” for the concept among legislators, given the many legislative proposals that were already under consideration (Swarns, 2015).

Advocates in the state decided that they needed to build a stronger campaign to show that there was an appetite for paid family leave. Respondents talked a lot about efforts in 2015 to build a diverse coalition that included many stakeholders with different perspectives and unique reasons for supporting paid family leave. They talked more with early childhood development advocates and disability advocates, and also reported working very hard to gain the support of small businesses, who they agreed, became critical to the coalition in 2015 and 2016.

The coalition hired additional staff, including the grassroots organizers, lobbyist, and campaign manager outlined above. Then, on March 16, 2015, an article appeared at the top of the

New York section of the New York Times, showing a picture of the governor and explaining in great detail that the women of New York did have an appetite for paid family leave. The article

106

included a link to an open letter that was sent to Governor Cuomo the day before, signed by 57

women lawmakers, leaders, and organizations, urging him to take immediate action on paid

family leave. The same day, Family Values @ Work coordinated the release of another article in

the Washington Post with almost 20 women leaders of organizations saying the same thing,

"Governor Cuomo, New York has an appetite for paid family leave." According to one

respondent, “we had to hit him over the head with a 2x4, but when we did that he realized that

we were a movement and a powerful force and that this had better get done.”

Governor Cuomo’s father, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, passed away on

New Year’s Day, 2016. At his State of the State address on January 13, 2016 he was emotional, and expressed remorse that he did not spend more time with his dying father. He called on the

Legislature to pass a 12-week paid family leave act. “Life is such a precious gift and I have kicked myself every day that I didn’t spend more time with my father at the end period,” Cuomo said. “I could have. I’m lucky. I could have taken off work. Could have cut the day in half. I could have spent more time with him. It was my mistake and a mistake I blame myself for every day” (Blain & Lovett, 2016b). Cuomo called the passage of paid family leave a priority in 2016, although he acknowledged a great deal of opposition to the idea (Blain & Lovett, 2016a). He stated that, “there are times in life when family comes first–like when a child is born, a loved one is sick, or a parent is dying–and I believe everyone deserves the right to be there in those times… you should have that option in life and you shouldn't have to choose between losing your job and being a decent human being” (Sommerfeldt & Otis, 2016).

In December 2015, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order giving six weeks of paid parental leave to 20,000 non-union city employees. The order took effect on January 1, 2016 and provided six weeks at 100 percent salary for leave related to

107

maternity, paternity, adoption or foster care, and up to 12 weeks fully-paid when combined with

existing (sick and vacation) leave. Previously, the city did not offer these workers any paid

parental leave beyond their regular sick and vacation time, and the 2016 order did not cover the

roughly 360,000 unionized employees, whose benefits are decided through collective bargaining.

At the time, officials said that they were willing to offer paid family leave to the much

larger union workforce, but that changes would have to be made through negotiations to change

their contracts (Durkin, 2016; NYC Health, 2017). On Christmas Eve, 2015 the New York Times

editorial board published an op-ed praising the New York City policy and stating that, in addition

to doing the right thing by many New York City residents, Mayor de Blasio had issued a

challenge to Mr. Cuomo and state lawmakers. The policy in New York City is one of the most

generous among cities and states nationwide, and the article stated that “Mr. Cuomo has already

proved that he can move political mountains when he wants to, and he should assert his power on this issue” (Editorial Board, 2015).

Workers’ rights advocates in New York noted that the New York City policy aided their own efforts and provided momentum to pass a broader family leave bill at the state level

(Grynbaum, 2015). They also noted that the existing competitive relationship between the two leaders in the state helped. Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio have a long history of working together, and multiple respondents talked about their somewhat strained interpersonal dynamics and previous efforts to top one another. One respondent stated, “you can certainly find plenty of examples of something that the Mayor wanted to do, or really pushed for–I think universal pre- kindergarten is probably the best example–where it had really been the Mayor's thing, and then the Governor swooped in to figure out how to fund it. But I think this is inherently a positive feature. I think it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.” Another respondent described the

108

Times op-ed on Christmas Eve as “big and public and directed at the governor, and hit on, I think, a button that everyone knew was out there to be pressed.”

A poll conducted by Sienna College in New York in January 2016 among New York

State registered voters found widespread public support for paid family leave in every part of the state and across party lines. Statewide, 80 percent of voters said that they supported enacting paid Support for Paid Family Leave 80% statewide family leave through an employee-funded program By Region that would provide up to 12 weeks of job- 85% in New York City 77% Suburbs protected paid leave to bond with a new child or 76% Upstate care for a sick relative. Support was stronger in By Party

New York City (85 percent) and among 87% Democrats 69% Republicans Democrats (87 percent), but was overwhelmingly 74% Independents/other positive.15

In March 2015, the Senate Labor and Social Services committees held a joint public hearing to address issues affecting families in the workforce, and paid family leave was one of the key areas discussed. In her testimony, Nancy Rankin, vice president for policy, research, and advocacy at the Community Service Society discussed the considerable public support for paid family leave, noting specifically the growing intensity of this support over the last 10 years. She explained that 10 years ago, 42 percent of people polled said that they strongly supported paid leave. Then a few years ago it was two-thirds of people, and now eight out of 10 people

15 Source: Responses to “Do you support enacting paid family leave through an employee-funded program that provides up to 12 weeks of job-protected paid leave to bond with a new child or care for a sick relative?” Siena College poll conducted Jan. 2016 among 805 New York State registered voters. Available at: http://lghttp.58547.nexcesscdn.net/803F44A/images/nycss/Paid%20Family%20Leave/12%20Weeks%203%2018%2 016%20v2.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2018.

109

supported it, and that support crossed party lines. She stated, “Clearly, paid family leave is an idea whose time has come, and it's time for us to do this.”

News articles and key informant interviews revealed a number of arguments that were provided in support of paid family leave, including that the U.S. was the only industrialized country in the world that did not guarantee paid family leave, and that taking unpaid leave through FMLA was not a reality for many workers (Marcius & Lovett, 2016; Sommerfeldt &

Otis, 2016; Swarns, 2015). Multiple interview respondents as well as advocates and supporters who testified during the March 2015 hearing also highlighted the fact that other U.S. States had been able to pass paid family leave policies–specifically other states that had already amended their unemployment laws to establish SDI programs (California, New Jersey and Rhode Island).

In her testimony at the March 2015 hearing, Sherry Leiwant, the president and co- founder of A Better Balance noted that many other states that did not already have a SDI program had proposed bills and were getting a lot of traction around the idea, including the neighboring state of Connecticut. She said, “It's going to be very expensive to start this program, but these states are considering it. And we are really lucky that we have a TDI program that we can build on, at virtually no cost to the State, and as we're proposing with family care, no cost to the employer. It verges almost on embarrassing that the states around us are considering this, and that we haven't done it yet.”

Many respondents also noted the importance of a national movement and a demand for paid family leave sweeping across the country, and talked about attending or capitalizing on momentum established by the Obama Administration’s White House Summit on Working

Families that was held in 2014. At the Summit, President Obama called on Governors and

Mayors to pass paid family leave policies in their own states and cities, and included paid family

110

leave policies in a set of concrete steps he outlined to help create lasting economic security for

working families (The White House, 2014).

Because legislators in New York made multiple attempts to pass a paid family leave bill,

they had opportunities to hold committee hearings and allow public testimony. Respondents

discussed what they felt were the most effective arguments that were made in support of paid

family leave. Many noted the importance of testimony about the negative health impacts on

women who go back to work too soon after giving birth, primarily from physicians/obstetricians.

They often included examples of women working lower-wage jobs where they had to be on their

feet, for example waiting tables or working in retail, collapsing at work or bleeding and having to

go to the emergency room. Respondents also noted impactful testimony from childcare and child

development groups and specialists who explained the importance of babies and parents having

time to bond after birth, and that having multiple different caretakers at that age was stressful for

a child. Supporters were insistent that New Yorkers should not be forced to choose between

caring for a loved one in need, and potentially losing their job or their ability to support

themselves (Associated Press, 2015, 2016d; Swarns, 2015). The governor's office stated that paid

family leave should particularly benefit low-income workers who often lack benefits or job

security, and has the potential to serve as an equalizer for women (Associated Press, 2016b).

Mario Cilento, president of the New York State AFL-CIO, also testified during the

March 2015 hearing. He explained that far too many families and individuals, particularly low- and middle-income families, were already struggling to make ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck, and could not afford to take unpaid leave. In her testimony, Nancy Rankin from the

Community Service Society echoed this sentiment. She did not describe paid family leave as a

111

benefit, but as an economic necessity for all working families–especially for working women and for those families struggling to survive on low wages:

“Some might argue that workers could use saved-up vacation and sick days to

deal with a serious family health crisis or a newborn, but that ignores the stark reality

that half of low-wage workers do not even get any paid vacation, according to 2014

[U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics] statistics. And outside of New York City, workers don't

even have a right to a few paid sick days. Low-paid workers are unable to save anything

from their inadequate wages to sustain themselves and their families for days, much less

for weeks, without a paycheck. According to a survey that we do every year, close to half

of low-income working mothers in New York City have less than $500 to fall back on in

an emergency, so seven days lost pay for them would wipe out their entire life savings.

When a critical family need triggers job loss, a low-income family's hardships skyrocket.

We found that among low-income households reporting job loss, the proportion failing to

meet their rent doubled. Compared to low-income families that didn't have a job loss in

the past year, they were 24 percent more likely to be on Medicaid, and 32 percent more

likely to receive food stamps.”

A few articles in New York newspapers cited information about the health and economic benefits of paid family leave from programs in other states (California, New Jersey and Rhode

Island). Economists looking at the experiences in these states found that paid leave raised the

probability that new mothers would return to work following leave, and then work more hours

and earn higher wages (Miller, 2015). Paid family leave in California was shown to reduce

disparities in leave-taking between low- and high-socioeconomic groups, and did so without

112

damaging future prospects for these women. In New Jersey, in the year after giving birth, women who took paid leave were about 40 percent less likely to receive public aid or food stamps

(Miller, 2015).

Economists also noted that paid leave did not necessarily help businesses, but did not hurt them either. In California, 89 to 99 percent of employers said that paid family leave had no effect or a positive effect on productivity, profitability, turnover and morale. Eighty-seven percent said that the law had not increased costs, and nine percent said that they saved money because of decreased turnover or benefit payments (Miller, 2015). Multiple respondents emphasized the importance of paid family leave as a “win” for everyone, including workers, children, elders, businesses, and the economy. In her testimony at the joint public hearing, Sherry Leiwant stated that paid family leave leads to business savings by increasing employee retention and morale, lowering turnover costs, and improving productivity. Mario Cliento agreed:

“Is it bad for business? No. Research has shown, over and over, that allowing

workers paid time off during life-changing events makes for better employees. Workers

are less stressed and more loyal, employee morale goes up and worker turnover goes

down; all positive changes for business. And according to a 2010 evaluation of

California's paid family leave program, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review’ the

program was proven to be very successful, and not a financial burden that some business

owners had feared.”

113

Opposition to Paid Family Leave in New York

Opposition to paid family leave in New York came primarily from business owners and

business advocacy groups. They argued that this would be a new mandate that would end up costing employers more than supporters were projecting, which would hurt businesses, and especially impact smaller businesses that would need specifically skilled workers to replace those on paid family leave.

The majority of Republican legislators in the state, especially leaders in the Senate, opposed paid family leave. Respondents discussed multiple arguments that they had heard from legislators against paid family leave, including the argument that it would hurt businesses through additional regulations and increased costs, the potential that small business owners specifically would feel obligated to keep temporary employees onboard once the original employee returned from leave, and the argument that workers would abuse the policy. Multiple respondents also noted a common mindset that paid family leave was not necessary.

Respondents noted that once Republicans did start supporting paid family leave, many of them did so begrudgingly. One respondent recalled talking with a Republican Senator who had three young daughters at the time and was initially completely against the idea. After discussing it at length, he was finally going to agree to support it, but he did not think that it should be available for fathers, or for adoptive parents. Respondents recalled that many legislators voiced beliefs that businesses would find ways to provide leave for their employees on their own, or that individuals were responsible for planning for their own needs in terms of their ability to take an extended leave. One respondent noted, “There’s still a mindset here, unfortunately, that this isn't really necessary. That if people want to have children they just kind of have to figure it out.”

Another explained, “Many are still in the mindset of the '50s, where, when a woman has a baby,

114

she just stays at home. And she has to figure that out. And that's not even thinking about taking care of a parent or a child with cancer or anything like that–they don't even think about things like that.”

Opponents of paid family leave in the State Assembly specifically questioned whether businesses would be able to adjust to their employees taking family leave, and they also questioned whether some workers would abuse the system by repeatedly taking off 12 weeks each year. Assemblyman Andy Goodell, a Chautauqua County Republican explained, "we need to be very careful that we don't put ourselves in a situation where we punish those employers"

(Associated Press, 2016d).

Senate Republicans had refused previous attempts at passing paid family leave legislation leading up to budget negotiations in 2016, but were reportedly open to discussing the idea, and had not ruled out reaching a deal on the issue (Blain & Place, 2016; Marcius & Lovett, 2016).

Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan (R-Long Island) was reportedly non-committal when the issue of paid family leave was broached by reporters (Lovett, 2016a) and stated that he was open to the concept as long as it did not pose an additional burden to businesses (Associated Press,

2016d). Yet, Senate Republicans did not go as far as endorsing a specific bill or Governor

Cuomo’s plan (Blain & Place, 2016).

The push for both paid family leave and an increased minimum wage in the 2016–2017 budget drew substantial opposition from business advocacy groups and many upstate small business owners. The Partnership for New York City, the Business Council of New York, the

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and Unshackle Upstate–a coalition of business and trade organizations from Upstate New York–were among the primary business advocacy groups that consistently opposed paid family leave legislation (Associated Press,

115

2016a; Blain & Lovett, 2016b; Swarns, 2015). Ken Pokalsky (Vice President of Government

Affairs) and Thomas Minnick (a Labor/Human Relations Expert) from the Business Council of

New York, and Michael Durant, the director for New York State NFIB all testified in opposition

to paid family leave at the 2015 Senate joint public hearing to address issues affecting families in

the workforce.

Opponents expressed concerns that paid leave would be expensive for businesses to

implement, that New York businesses were already subject to many rules and regulations, and

that they did not need more government mandates telling them how to operate their enterprises

(Miller, 2015). Specifically, opponents argued that paid family leave legislation would create

financial burdens–including staffing challenges while employees were on leave–particularly for

smaller businesses (Sandoval & Blain, 2016; Swarns, 2015). They also argued that the cost of

providing increased SDI coverage to pay for family leave would be much higher than projected.

One respondent recalled, “It wasn't about paid family leave by itself, or about minimum wage by

itself. It's not just one of these things–it's this feeling that there are several things every year, and

that the rules change so quickly, and every year there are more things that business owners need

to comply with. And that’s tough.”

New York NFIB reportedly surveyed their members following the release of the

Governor’s proposed budget. They found that 96 percent of their membership opposed

employer-sponsored paid leave and 80 percent opposed employee-sponsored paid leave

(National Federation of Independent Business, 2016). NFIB opposed paid family leave as it was outlined in the 2016 budget, primarily because it would cover all employers, regardless of size, because employees could claim benefits after just four weeks of employment, and because the proposed leave duration of 12 weeks was significantly longer than all other existing state leave

116

laws (which, at the time, was 6 weeks in CA and NJ, and 4 weeks in RI). They argued that

FMLA exempted businesses with fewer than fifty employees, and therefore, this proposal would

require thousands of small businesses that were exempt from FMLA to comply with a new state

leave mandate. Similarly, they argued that the ability to apply for the paid leave benefit after four

weeks of employment was counter to the current FMLA eligibility requirement (at least 12 months with at least 1,250 hours of service during that time).

NFIB also argued that employers would incur costs, including additional coverage costs from insurance carriers, potential costs of paying overtime for other employees filling in for the employee on leave, and/or the cost of hiring and training a temporary employee. They maintained that many small businesses require specifically skilled and trained workers, that it would be difficult to attract replacement workers with specialized skills to temporary positions, and that it may be harder for small businesses to integrate temporary non-skilled employees into their daily operations. Finally, they stated that their survey found that most small businesses already provided flexible leave for their employees, and that small business owners reported competing for employees on things like the flexibility they could offer employees. Their opposition memo stated: “Studies show that mandated leave time will result in a decreased ability of employers to offer other benefits that employees may want more than paid family leave, such as health insurance or additional vacation days. A paid leave mandate will impede small employers’ ability to attract and retain employees based on desirable benefits offerings.”

Even though many businesses and business advocacy groups in the state opposed paid

family leave, many businesses in New York City applauded the idea or at least shrugged it off

(Vilensky, 2016). The Business Council of New York testified against the concept, but in 2015

the organization was reportedly open to the idea of paid family leave. Still, president Heather

117

Briccetti said that they needed to see the details to ensure that the legislation would not impose

yet another cost on businesses (Lovett, 2015).

Additionally, some supporters–including New York Civil Liberties Union Executive

Director Donna Lieberman–applauded the inclusion of paid family leave the budget, but

expressed concern that the proposed benefit was too small (Blain & Lovett, 2016a).

Challenges and Barriers

Respondents identified a few key challenges that impeded the passage of a paid family

leave policy in New York, including the political climate in the state, an inability to gain traction

in the Senate (following multiple strong attempts in the Assembly), and the reality that paid

family leave was not initially a priority for the governor. Advocates and supporters were hesitant to concede just how challenging it was to work with the Republican-controlled Senate, because they did end up passing very progressive legislation. Almost all respondents spoke about the unusual situation in New York with the IDC, expressing their frustration that a lot of good legislation failed due to partisanship. One respondent recalled the times that the paid family leave bill passed in the Assembly (2014, 2015, and 2016) and how they held a big press conference each time and everyone got really excited, but then nothing would happen.

When asked about overcoming these challenges, multiple respondents pointed to the

coalition hiring grassroots organizers, a lobbyist, and a campaign manager in 2014 and 2015, and

noted the importance of the organizer that was hired to educate the block of Long Island

senators, including the Senate majority leader, who was responsible for setting the agenda. They

118

also discussed the importance of the governor focusing his attention on paid family leave, and

the inclusion of the language in the budget bill.

When Governor Cuomo came into office in 2011, the economy was still recovering and

he reportedly told advocates and legislators that he would not sign one bill that increased costs to

employers, “even if it's only one cent." One respondent noted that, at that point, the paid family

leave bill also proposed to increase the maximum weekly SDI payment, which was still at

$170.00 per week, because paid family leave proposed to use the same structure. Advocates had

worked for years to educate legislators and multiple governors, but once Governor Cuomo

decided to make paid leave a priority and added the language into the budget bill, this made it somewhat unavoidable for any legislative opponents. As one respondent noted, “So then we had family leave, not as a stand-alone bill, but as part of the budget. Because, if it’s in the budget, even if you're against it, you can't vote against it. To vote against it you would have to vote against the whole budget. It's kind of a sneaky way to do things, but I think it definitely got the job done.”

Facilitating Factors

Respondents discussed a number of things that eventually made it feasible to pass paid family leave in New York. Two of the facilitating factors that came up repeatedly in interviews were more comprehensive, long-term factors: New York already had a SDI system in place to

administer a paid family leave program, and paid family leave bills had been introduced in the

state legislature repeatedly starting as early as 1998, while advocates and supporters had been

working to build support for paid family even before this.

119

Additional circumstances reported by respondents were more specific to a window of

opportunity in 2016, including increased momentum around paid family leave in 2015 (in New

York and nationally), strong public support across the state and across party lines, increased

efforts, recruitment, and staffing by the New York Paid Leave Coalition and the Time to Care

Campaign, the change in leadership in 2015 in both the Assembly and Senate, and the fact that

New York City passed a paid parental leave policy in late 2015.

Interestingly, some respondents talked about the decision by Governor Cuomo to “pair”

the idea of paid family leave with his other priority in the 2016 budget–a $15.00 minimum wage–as a factor that helped reduce opposition to paid leave. They felt that business advocacy groups spent more time and energy fighting against the $15.00 minimum wage. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the most important factors that led to New York passing a paid family leave policy in 2016 included having the governor’s support, and having the language added into the budget bill.

Ongoing Efforts in New York (2017–2018)

Following the success of paid family leave in 2016, two additional bills were introduced in the 2017–2018 legislative session. AB 1834 was introduced on January 13, 2017 by

Assemblywoman Pamela Harris (D) and 11 Democratic co-sponsors. AB 1834 sought to extend paid family leave to construction workers who work for multiple employers due to their collective bargaining agreement, if they have been employed at least 26 of the last 39 weeks. On

January 9, 2018, Representative Harris was indicted on multiple charges related to her conduct during Superstorm Sandy in 2012–conduct prior to her election to the Assembly, but continuing

120

during her tenure (McKinley, 2018). AB 1834 was stricken on April 16, 2018 and no other

legislator decided to sponsor the bill, so it was considered dead.

Senate Bill 1993 was introduced on January 11, 2017 by Senator Fred Akshar (R) and 12

Republican co-sponsors. As outlined above, the Governor and the Legislature agreed that the

New York State paid family leave program would be funded through minimal weekly employee payroll deductions, and that none of the program's costs would be paid by employers. SB 1993

was introduced to prohibit the use of any money collected from employers from being used to

pay for administrative costs associated with the program, and to ensure that employers would not

be required to pay any of the costs related to the program, including the costs of implementing

the program. SB 1993 passed the Senate in June 2017 but died in the Assembly in January 2018.

At the municipal level, Mayor de Blasio signed a new bill in November 2017 (Int. 1313-

A) that expanded the the list of covered reasons for which employees could use paid sick leave to include “when the employee or a family member has been the victim of a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, or human trafficking” (New York City Council, 2017). This bill also expanded the list of covered family members for whom paid sick and safe leave could be used, amending the definition of “family member” to include an individual related by blood, as well as an individual “whose close association with the employee was the equivalent of a family relationship.” The law took effect on May 5, 2018 (Lowell & Chilco, 2017).

121

Colorado

Background Information

The Colorado General Assembly has 35 Senators and 65 Representatives. Regular, annual legislative sessions begin in January and last no more than 120 days. In 2015, Colorado had a Democratic Governor (John Hickenlooper 2011–2019) and from 2012–2013 Democrats held a 20–15 majority in the Senate and a 37–28 majority in the House. This trifecta of

Democratic control allowed the legislature to pass many progressive bills in 2012 and 2013, and allowed stakeholders to start a conversation about paid family leave (although no bills were introduced until 2014). Republicans gained a majority in the Senate in 2014, while Democrats maintained control of the House.

Notably, Colorado enacted the first (and so far only) Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) in 1992. The TABOR is a constitutional measure that prohibits the state legislature from raising taxes without voter approval, and requires a balanced annual budget (Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities, 2017; Colorado Department of the Treasury, 2017). Multiple respondents noted that, because of TABOR, any new policy or program that would require substantial funding faced an uphill battle regardless of political support.

Legislative History

Private employers in Colorado are currently not required to offer their employees short- term or temporary disability insurance coverage. Eligible public employees in the state

(employees who are paid from state funds and have 5 or more years of service) are provided with temporary disability insurance (TDI) through the state. Employees on TDI leave can receive

122

up to 60 percent of their previous earnings (with a maximum weekly benefit payment of

$3,000.00) for up to 150 days in a 12-month period. Employees are required to complete a 30- day waiting period before receiving any benefits, and any income or benefits they receive while on TDI leave (including Social Security) is deducted from the disability pay (Colorado Division

of Human Resources, 2017).

Early efforts

Multiple interview respondents noted that advocates and other supporters in the state had

been discussing the idea of paid family leave for years, but there was greater political support

before 2014 for efforts to increase the minimum wage and mandate paid sick leave. 9to5–an

advocacy organization that focuses primarily on issues that impact low-wage working women–

led early legislative efforts to provide employees with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30

hours of work (capped at 9 days per year). They led a coalition that ran a ballot measure in

Denver, Colorado in 2011 (Initiative 300) which respondents recalled was met with strong

opposition from business groups as well as Governor John Hickenlooper and Denver Mayor

Michael Hancock. The initiative was rejected by voters, with 64.5 percent voting against the

measure (Sealover, 2014a; State of Colorado, 2017; Van Winkle, 2015).

After these attempts failed, respondents explained that the coalition wanted to “test the

waters” with a bill that would expand the definition of family under FMLA. Nineteen

Representatives and 18 Senators signed on to co-sponsor the Family Care Act (House Bill 13-

1222) to expand the group of family members for whom Colorado employees could take unpaid

leave to care for under FMLA to include same-sex, civil union, and domestic partners.

123

Advocates reportedly considered including compensation for leave taken under FMLA in the

Family Care Act, but this did not end up getting included in the bill that was introduced or the

version that was passed (General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 2013). Respondents noted

that the Family Care Act, although important in its own right, was also intended to identify

which groups would oppose paid family and medical leave, draw out the arguments against paid

leave, and identify what data opponents might use in the future. HB 13-1222 passed, and was

signed by the Governor on May 3, 2013.

Respondents noted that there was a lot of momentum for progressive policies and ideas in

Colorado following the 2012 presidential election. Additionally, many interested parties stated

that they attended a conference in 2013 (hosted by 9to5) where they learned more about the issue

of paid family leave and efforts that had been made in other states. Respondents also talked

about the importance of efforts at the national level, including bills that were introduced starting

in 2013, and support to states and communities provided by the Department of Labor through the

Paid Leave Analysis grant program. They talked about a growing awareness around the topic and

how paid family leave had gained popularity and traction in Colorado. Multiple respondents also

noted the feeling that state-level efforts in Colorado felt like part of a bigger, national movement.

Political Climate in 2015

Multiple interview respondents talked about a series of bills that the legislature passed in

2013 to tighten the state’s gun laws in response to the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado in July

2012. These measures included requirements for universal background checks, and a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that could hold more than 15 rounds (Csere, 2013).

124

Lawmakers in the state experienced backlash following the passage of these bills, and in 2013

two Democratic Senators were recalled and replaced (Senator Angela Giron and Senator John

Morse) (Ballotpedia, 2013). A third Democratic Senator, Evie Hudak resigned to avoid being

recalled, ensuring that her successor would be a Democrat. She was replaced by Senator Rachel

Zenzinger. This left the Senate with a very slight Democratic majority (18–17) in 2013 that flipped to Republican control following the 2014 elections (17–18) (Ballotpedia, 2014b; Bartels

& Lee, 2013). Democrats maintained control of the House in 2014, but their majority slipped to

34–31 (Ballotpedia, 2014a).

SB 14-196 and HB 15-1258

Paid family leave bills were introduced in Colorado in 2014 and 2015. Both bills proposed partial wage replacement benefits and job protection for up to 12 weeks in a 12-month period, and would have applied to all employers, regardless of size (any entity that employed at

least one employee). Both bills also included a seven-day waiting period, but individuals could

receive benefits for that period (retroactively) if they ended up using 10 or more days of family and medical leave within the year, and did not receive any other compensation from their employer for those days.

Eligible individuals (all employees in the state who had worked for at least 680 hours in the last year and had contributed premiums for at least one year) would have been able to take partially-paid leave from work to care for a new child or a family member with a serious health

condition, or if they could not work due to their own serious health condition (State of Colorado

125

General Assembly, 2014, 2015). Both bills proposed compensating eligible individuals from 66

to 95 percent of their previous average weekly wages, up to a maximum of $1,000.00 per week,

but changes were made regarding how compensation would be calculated between the 2014 and

2015 bills. In 2015, HB 15-1258 added the definition of “annual mean wage” and would have

decreased the number of individuals eligible to receive a larger percentage of their average

weekly wage by adjusting the income brackets as outlined below (Table 7) (State of Colorado

General Assembly, 2014, 2015).

Table 7: (Colorado) Changes in Income Brackets and Percent Compensation SB 14-196 (2014) HB 15-1258 (2015) Compensation Compensation (% If annual earnings are: If annual earnings are: (% of previous) of previous) Less than or equal to Less than or equal to 20% 30% of the annual mean 95% of the annual mean wage 95% wage More than 30% of the More than 20% of the annual mean wage, but annual mean wage, but 90% 90% less than or equal to 50% less than or equal to 30% of the annual mean wage of the annual mean wage More than 50% of the More than 30% of the annual mean wage, but annual mean wage, but 85% 85% less than or equal to 80% less than or equal to 50% of the annual mean wage of the annual mean wage More than 80% of the More than 50% of the 66% 66% annual mean wage annual mean wage

Senate Bill 14-196

All bills introduced in the Colorado General Assembly are required to have a sponsor

from both the House and Senate, and can also have joint primary sponsors in the House or the

Senate (The State of Colorado, 2017), although bills are usually only introduced in one chamber, then passed to the other. Senator Jessie Ulibarri (D) and Representative Joseph Salazar (D) introduced the first paid family leave bill in the Colorado Senate on April 15, 2014–just nine

126

days before the end of the legislative session. SB 14-196 was assigned to the State, Veterans, &

Military Affairs Committee, chaired at the time by Senator Angela Giron, who was one of the

three Senators recalled in September 2013 (Ballotpedia, 2017c). She was replaced in the Senate,

but a new committee chair was not named until the next legislative session (2015–2016).

SB 14-196 faced strong business opposition in the Senate State Affairs Committee, with

opponents noting that they worried about the potential administrative burden on small business

owners, growth in state government, and any type of one-size-fits-all mandate (Svaldi, 2014a).

The committee discussed the bill on April 30, 2014 and voted 3–2 (along party lines) to refer the

bill favorably to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In the 2013–2014 legislative session,

Senator Ulibarri served on the Senate Appropriations committee and the committee was chaired

by Senator Mary Hodge (D) (Ballotpedia, 2017a).

The nonpartisan Colorado Legislative Council reported that the program outlined in the

2014 bill would cost $16 million to create, would eventually take 238 state employees to run–

more people than the state had staffing many of its divisions at the time–and that the state would

have to cover the costs of the program until the insurance fund was built up (Sealover, 2014d).

Senator Ulibarri conceded the high cost of supporting the infrastructure needed to oversee the program and acknowledged the current struggle over the next year’s state budget. In articles published in the Denver Business Journal, he was reported as saying “one of the issues I have in my district is that families have to choose between caring for a sick kid and going unpaid, and that is an untenable choice. I think the challenge is understanding what happens with the budget and understanding what we can and can’t do this late in the game” (Sealover, 2014a). In response to a statement by Senator Bernie Herpin (R) about how high the fiscal note was, he reportedly responded that “yes, the fiscal note is very high. And it’s one that will be heavily

127

debated in the appropriations committee. But I don’t think I can put a price on what it would take for a mother to spend the last days with a dying child” (Sealover, 2014d).

In 2014, economist Chris Stiffler from the Colorado Fiscal Institute estimated that the program would cost $414 million in the first year ($402 million in wage replacement payouts and $12 million in administrative costs), and that an average weekly wage replacement of

$644.00 could help about 75,000 families per year (about 2.2 million workers in the state would be eligible for the program) (Stiffler, 2013; Svaldi, 2014b). The program would have been funded through employee premiums based on a percentage of the employee's annual wages (less than one-half of one percent of total wages earned in the state; an average of about $3 per week per employee). Importantly, the premiums would be collected into a new family and medical leave insurance fund that would be housed in a new division created for this purpose within the

Department of Labor and Employment. The new division would be established as an enterprise– a self-sufficient operation that does not rely on taxes–therefore the premiums paid into the fund would not be considered state revenues for purposes of TABOR. Colorado has many existing enterprise activities, including water, sewer, electric, and transportation programs (Steffl, 2013).

Senate Bill 14-196 ultimately failed due to strong business opposition, introduction late in the session, and high projected start-up costs coupled with budgetary constraints and the

TABOR rule (Sealover, 2014a). After a few delays, Senator Ulibarri asked the Senate

Appropriations Committee to kill the bill after it became clear that there was not enough money in the 2014–2015 budget to move it forward. The Committee postponed the bill indefinitely on

May 1, 2014 with no recorded vote. Senator Ulibarri recognized that “such a complex program

[wasn’t] likely to pass on the first try, and that there [was not] room for the program at a time when legislators were looking to cut money from the proposed budget” (Svaldi, 2014a).

128

Following the defeat of SB 14-196, Senator Ulibarri said that he hoped to begin work on the program again after the 2014 session ended on May 7, and that he hoped to “find a solution that might bring large business groups and activist groups to the same table” (Sealover, 2014b).

In an article in the Denver Business Journal, Loren Furman, the Senior Vice President of

State and Federal Relations for the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) stated that “the proposal will need much discussion and major changes if there is any hope of major business organizations finding common ground with its supporters,” and that it was appropriate for the bill to be defeated in the Appropriations Committee, based on what she noted was “a lack of stakeholder process, and late introduction–15 days before the end of the session”

(Sealover, 2014b). Erin Bennett, Director of the Colorado Chapter of 9to5 said that, while advocates were disappointed that SB 14-196 did not pass in the 2013–2014 session, they looked forward to collaborating to find a good solution in the future. She stated, “given the strong support we had from business groups like the Mile High Business Alliance and Small Business

Majority, we know that business owners want to find a way to allow employees to take care of family responsibilities without jeopardizing their economic stability” (Sealover, 2014b).

Following the defeat of SB 14-196 and the end of the legislative session in May, the

Colorado gubernatorial election was held on November 4, 2014 and incumbent Democratic

Governor John Hickenlooper was re-elected to a second term in office. Despite being a

Democrat, Governor Hickenlooper has been identified very pro-business, exhibited mixed support for progressive policies–publicly stating his opposition to the legalization of marijuana, but signing multiple bills related to gun control, and did not publicly support or oppose paid family leave in 2014 (Sealover, 2014c).

129

House Bill 15-1258

House Bill 15-1258 was introduced in March 2015 by Representatives Faith Winter (D),

Joseph Salazar (D), and 19 Democratic House co-sponsors (Jessie Ulibarri (D) was the Senate sponsor). Multiple respondents noted that the sponsors chose to introduce the bill in the House in

2015 because they still had a slight Democratic majority there (34–31), whereas the Senate was under Republican control. Representative Winter expressed an interest in paid family leave after

President Barack Obama called for an increase in paid leave in his 2015 State of the Union

Address. In an article in the Denver Business Journal she discussed creating a similar program in

Colorado so that workers could take time off to tend to pressing family or medical needs without risking their jobs (Sealover, 2015a).

The 2015 bill was assigned to the House Health, Insurance, and Environment Committee,

chaired at the time by Representative Beth McCann, one of the co-sponsors. This Committee voted to approve minor amendments, including a mandate for the Department to determine the potential administrative and technological costs of establishing and operating the program, and

delaying the start date from July 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019, and then voted (7–6 along party

lines) to refer the bill to the House Finance Committee. The House Finance Committee adopted

an amendment to appropriate $367,908 in the 2015–2016 fiscal year to establish the program, then voted favorably to refer the amended bill to the House Appropriations Committee (7–4, with 6 Democrats and one Republican voting in favor).

The Appropriations Committee voted and referred the bill to the Committee of the Whole

(7–6, along party lines). The bill was read three times and put to a floor vote in the House on

April 30, 2015 where it failed by a very small margin (31–33–1; one representative abstained)

130

(State of Colorado General Assembly, 2014, 2015). Two Democratic representatives (Angela

Williams of Denver and Tracy Kraft-Tharp of Arvada) joined with Republicans in voting against the bill (Sealover, 2015c). Representative Williams said that she felt that it was unfair that every worker in the state would be charged a weekly fee to fund the program, whether or not they ever used it, and that she also felt the need to stand up for businesses in instances where they or their employees were being burdened by proposed legislation (Sealover, 2015c).

Support for Paid Family Leave in Colorado

Several respondents noted that the two most prominent supporters of paid family leave in

Colorado have been 9to5 and the Colorado Fiscal Institute (Sealover, 2015d; Van Winkle, 2015).

9to5 led efforts in Colorado before 2014 to build grassroots support, and worked to establish a coalition that represented multiple constituencies that would be impacted by the legislation, as well as business groups and other groups and individuals who had a vested interest in paid family leave. Respondents recalled that 9to5 also led efforts to educate legislators, including sharing information with lawmakers from constituents who had been negatively impacted by not having access to paid family leave. The Colorado Fiscal Institute (a budget and fiscal think tank) was able to design a program that could function similarly to unemployment insurance, and provided economic modeling to show what it would take to ensure that the program remained solvent.

Interview respondents noted that the coalition had representation from FRESC (a non- profit labor-community partnership organization), Colorado People's Action (a progressive state- level organization), and the National Partnership for Women and Families (Wirthman, 2014), as well as Planned Parenthood and NARAL–groups that focus on reproductive health and

131

reproductive justice, and legal groups like the Women’s Bar Association and the Plaintiff

Employment Lawyers Association (PELA). The coalition also had support from the Junior

League, the nurses association, all of the state unions, including the Colorado UFCW (who worked to get more of the unions on board), AFL-CIO, and a few public health organizations.

Most of the large business organizations in the state vocally opposed paid family leave, but a number of small businesses and the Mile High Business Alliance supported it (Sealover,

2014d). Small businesses in Colorado also helped to a launch a state-level chapter of the Main

Street Alliance, which is a national network of small business coalitions. Several respondents noted that support from small business groups and owners provided an alternate perspective regarding how businesses saw the issue, and their support was significantly helpful in terms of countering opposition from large business organizations in the state. One respondent explained,

“having business owners show up and say, ‘actually I already do this and it's smart and this is why’ helped to neutralize some of the arguments that businesses didn’t want these types of policies.” Stakeholders said that small businesses also helped to get workers to share their stories publicly–in the news and at the capital–to provide a positive perspective about the benefits that this type of program could provide.

Multiple stakeholders noted that the most impactful arguments in Colorado included the idea that nobody plans to get sick, or to have loved one get sick, that workers should not have to choose between caring for a loved one and paying for their basic living expenses, and that there should be more flexibility for employees to take time off to care for themselves or a family member without jeopardizing their economic stability–sentiments that were reflected in newspaper articles at the time (Carkhuff, 2015; Sealover, 2015b). Additional supportive arguments included the facts that the majority of workers in Colorado did not have access to paid

132

family or medical leave (Greenfield, 2015; Sealover, 2015a), that the U.S. was still the only developed country that did not mandate paid family leave for workers (Sveen, 2014; Wirthman,

2014), and that other U.S. states had successfully passed paid family leave policies (Sealover,

2014a).

Supporters argued that only 12 percent of workers currently had access to paid family leave, that those who had access to unpaid leave under FMLA often could not take unpaid leave without experiencing financial hardship, and that a paid family leave program would provide financial security at a time when workers really needed it (Greenfield, 2015; Sealover, 2014a,

2015b). During testimony, advocates highlighted a number of workers who had been able to take unpaid leave through the federal FMLA program without losing their jobs, but struggled to pay their bills while caring for a child or sick family member (Svaldi, 2014a). One respondent noted:

“[The] basic facts were what brought most people around, and then

stories about what that means for people in their daily lives, what it has meant for

people not to have paid family or paid maternity leave and how that really

impacts people's lives regardless of income level. I think it was really the thing

that was the most convincing.”

Supporters also argued that a paid family leave program would not cost employers any money because it would be funded by employee contributions and would actually be beneficial for businesses. News articles explained that a statewide paid family leave program would apply to all companies in the state, putting them on an even playing field (Sealover, 2014a). Under the

2014 bill, workers would contribute about $3.00 per week to create a pool of money, and they could then take funding from this pool to replace a portion of their wages (between 66 and 95 percent) if they needed to miss as much as 12 weeks from their job due to their own pregnancy

133

or illness, or to care for a sick family member (Sealover, 2014d). Multiple respondents noted that

paid family leave programs have the ability make employees happier and more productive, lower

employee turnover, reduce dependence on public assistance, and make it easier for women to

participate in the labor force (Greenfield, 2015; Svaldi, 2014a; Sveen, 2014).

Small business owners explained that creating a more formal employee-funded program to cover costs that a number of them already covered made good business sense (Sealover,

2014d). Additionally, millennials are predicted to make up half of the workforce by 2020, and

news articles and interview respondents noted that younger workers in particular want family-

friendly work environments and value flexible working opportunities over financial benefits

(Wirthman, 2014).

Opposition to Paid Family Leave in Colorado

Opposition to paid family leave in Colorado came primarily from large business groups

in the state, including the state and local Chambers of Commerce, the Colorado Association of

Commerce and Industry (CACI), the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and

the Colorado Civil Justice League–a nonpartisan organization in Colorado that focused on

“limiting unreasonable lawsuits and preserving common sense in the courtroom” (Colorado Civil

Justice League, 2017). Additional groups in opposition included the Colorado Competitive

Council (C3)–an affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, a group called Colorado

Concern (a statewide group of business and community leaders), and the Colorado chapter of

Americans for Prosperity–a conservative political advocacy group.

134

Arguments in opposition to SB 14-196 focused primarily on potential burdens the bill

would place on businesses, and especially challenges that would be faced by small businesses.

Opponents disagreed with the proposed costs of a new, large government program (including

start-up and administrative costs for employers) and they voiced general opposition to “one-size-

fits-all” government mandates, the growth of state government, and the government intruding

into the employee-employer relationship (Sealover, 2014d; Svaldi, 2014a). Interview respondents recalled that opponents criticized the fact that paid family leave (as introduced) would not apply to state employees. They did not understand why the state would impose this program on private employers but exempt itself. As outlined above, eligible public employees already had access to TDI leave through the state, and could receive 60 percent of their previous

earnings up to a maximum weekly amount of $3,000.00 for up to 150 days in a 12-month period.

However, TDI could only be taken for the employee’s own personal injury or illness, not to care

for another family member.

Opponents also voiced concern that smaller companies would face an unfair burden by

being forced to participate in a paid family leave program (Sealover, 2015a). Businesses with

fewer than 50 employees are exempt from holding a job open for a worker taking unpaid leave

under FMLA. Opponents argued that companies that did not already offer leave programs would

face financial and administrative challenges in order to create them, and these small businesses

would be required to keep one of a potentially small number of positions open while an

individual took family leave (Sealover, 2014d). Tony Gagliardi, the state NFIB Director was quoted in a number of articles in 2014. He stated that “small business cannot be adding and subtracting jobs at a whim, and to keep a position open 12 weeks, we just can’t do it” (Sealover,

2014d). Regarding the need to backfill a position within a small business and the potential

135

requirement to give the employee on leave their job back after three months, Gagliardi said

“what happens when the employee returns to work? You will be forced to replace that [backfill]

person” (Svaldi, 2014a).

Business groups like CACI stated that the paid family leave bills introduced in Colorado were particularly onerous because they would have created a state mandate on companies of any size to allow extended leave, and were vague about whether employers or workers would be required to pay a solvency fee if the fund were to go broke. The program outlined in the 2015 bill would have been set up much like Colorado’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (UITF), but the potential weekly benefit would have been twice that of the UI benefit. Opponents noted that the UITF ran into problems paying benefits several years ago, and issued a solvency surcharge that quadrupled some companies’ contribution rates in order to continue provide benefits

(Sealover, 2015b). Opponents explained that business leaders did not oppose the idea of supporting families, and business groups and Republicans have said that the majority of companies are willing to grant parental and family leave without a state mandate. They disagreed

with the specifics of the paid family leave bills, and asserted that the state government should not

dictate one set of inflexible rules for all businesses (Sealover, 2015d; Van Winkle, 2015).

Challenges and Barriers

In Colorado, Republicans controlled the Senate after 2014 and Democrats only had a

slight majority in the House. All respondents noted that there was no Republican support for paid

family leave in Colorado, and the majority of respondents talked about the political composition

of the state legislature as a barrier to passing a paid leave bill. One respondent noted that some

Democratic representatives in Colorado were known as being very business-focused, and two

136

Democratic representatives voted against the paid family leave bill in 2015. Additionally,

respondents talked about term limits having a big impact in Colorado. Members of the House are

elected to 2-year terms (limited to 4 consecutive terms in office), and members of the Senate are elected to 4-year terms (limited to 2 consecutive terms). General legislative elections are held every other year, so the legislature is constantly changing, resulting in a need to continuously educate new representatives about specific policy ideas.

Other major challenges included the large start-up costs associated with the program, especially without having an existing administrative structure in place (outside of the program for state employees); determining how to finance a program within the constraints of TABOR, and strong opposition from the business community. The TABOR in Colorado prohibits the legislature from raising taxes without a vote of the people, so a bill could not impose a payroll

tax to pay for the program. Respondents explained that only a couple million dollars in the

budget each year could be considered “up for grabs” in terms of new legislation, and in 2014,

estimated start-up costs for the program were between $10 and $16 million.

Multiple respondents also talked about early efforts to create a paid family leave program that looked more like the state UI program, with a standard insurance premium (fee) that would

be applied to everyone (instead of a tax). But even if benefit payments were funded through

insurance premiums, finding the funds to establish the administrative structure for the program

was noted as a significant barrier. Respondents explained that the states that had already passed a

paid family leave law at the time (California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York) all had

state temporary disability insurance programs and the administrative infrastructure in place to

run a paid family leave program–which would be a new cost in Colorado. Respondents also

noted that the organizations that supported paid family leave in Colorado had limited capacity to

137

fund media and advocacy efforts, that family leave was not a priority for the Governor’s office,

and that that some politicians were swayed by the argument that it would be easy for individuals

to exploit a paid family leave program.

Facilitating Factors

Stakeholders agreed that grassroots support from 9to5 and the coalition, constituent stories and personal testimonies (especially from individuals in districts where legislators had concerns), the financial modeling done by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, and supportive

arguments from business organizations (especially small businesses) were impactful and helped

garner support for paid family leave in 2015. 9to5 worked hard to educate legislators, especially

those who were unsure about the program. Respondents noted that the coalition was also very

good at getting workers to publicly share their stories about how they have been impacted by not

having paid family leave (in the news and at the capital) to provide a better perspective about

what a paid family leave program would mean to employees in the state.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute completed a robust fiscal analysis of the policy, which

helped establish messaging about how the program would work financially. Respondents noted

that the Fiscal Institute was able to show how much employees would need to contribute per

week for the program to reach a stable point, and how to ensure that the program would remain financially solvent. Stories and testimony from business owners provided an alternate

perspective about how businesses viewed paid family leave, and neutralized some of the arguments that businesses did not want these types of policies. They argued that small businesses tend to think of their employees as family and wanted to provide family leave, but could not

138

afford to pay them for 12 weeks and backfill their position–so an insurance system would help them take care of their employees without negatively impacting their business.

Ongoing Efforts in Colorado

Legislators proposed additional paid family leave bills in the 2017 and 2018 sessions. HB

17-1307 in 2017 was sponsored by Representative Faith Winter (D) and Senators Rhonda Fields

(D) and Dominick Moreno (D), along with 34 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. HB 18-

1001 in 2018 was sponsored by Representatives Faith Winter (D) and Matt Gray (D) and

Senators Kerry Donovan (D) and Rhonda Fields (D) along with 30 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. Both bills would have created the same Family and Medical Leave Insurance

(FAMLI) program outlined in the 2014 and 2015 bills, and appear to use the exact language that was introduced in 2015. Both passed in the House but were postponed indefinitely in the Senate

State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee (State of Colorado General Assembly, 2017,

2018).

139

Illinois

Background Information

The Illinois General Assembly has 59 Senators and 118 Representatives. State Senators serve a four-year term and State Representatives serve a two-year term. There are no term limits in Illinois, so representatives can continue to serve as long as they are reelected. The General

Assembly convenes their regular session in the State Capital in Springfield on the second

Wednesday in January, and ends prior to June 1 each year.

Democrats held a trifecta of power in Illinois from 2003 to 2014, controlling the Senate and House, as well as the Governorship. Pat Quinn (D) served as the Governor of Illinois from

2009 to 2015, first assuming the governorship on January 29, 2009, after Governor Rod

Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office on corruption charges. Governor Quinn was then elected to a full term in 2010. Bruce Rauner (R) then defeated Quinn in 2014 and became governor, while Democrats maintained control of the state legislature. Representation in the General Assembly is currently 37–22 in the Senate, and 67–51 in the House, with Democrats holding the majority in both chambers.

Legislative history

Illinois does not provide short-term disability benefits for workers employed by private employers, or have any laws that require private employers to make an option for short-term disability benefits available to employees. State employees in Illinois who experience a non- work-related injury or illness can apply for non-occupational disability benefits to partially

140

replace their income. To be eligible, the employee must have at least 18 months of credited service with the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS), the Teachers' Retirement System, or the State Universities Retirement System, they must have used all of their accumulated sick leave, and they must have been granted a medical leave of absence (State Employees' Retirement

System of Illinois, 2004). Non-occupational disability benefits are only provided in the case of

the employee’s own injury or illness, require a 30-day waiting period, and provide 50 percent of

the employee’s average pay (reduced by any amount payable from Social Security) (State

Employees' Retirement System of Illinois, 2004).

Early Efforts

A number of Family Leave Insurance Program (FLIP) bills have been introduced in

Illinois (Appendix J), starting with HB 3470 in the 2005 legislative session, introduced by

representative Julie Hamos (D) and two Democratic co-sponsors in February 2005. HB 3470

would have established a program to provide paid leave for employees who were unable to work

because they needed to care for a newborn, newly adopted, or child or newly-placed foster child;

because they needed to care for a family member with a serious health condition (including a

child, spouse, parent, or parent-in-law of the employee or a person with whom the employee has

resided in the same household for 6 months or longer); or because of the employee's own serious

health condition (Illinois General Assembly, 2005b).

Eligible employees included public and private employees who had earned at least

$1,600.00 and had worked for at least six months during the last year for their current employer.

They would have been eligible to take up to four weeks of family leave in a 12-month period.

Employees who regularly worked 35 hours per week or more would have received 67 percent of

141

their weekly wages, up to a maximum of $380.00 per week, and employees who worked less

than 35 hours per week would have received a pro-rated amount based on their weekly hours.

HB 3470 would have been funded by employee contributions ($0.75 per week for full-time employees and a pro-rated amount for part-time employees based on the number of hours worked), with the ability for this number to be adjusted to ensure that the amount was the lowest rate necessary to pay for benefits and administrative costs and maintain actuarial solvency.

House Bill 3470 prohibited employers from discriminating and retaliating against employees for communicating their intent to take family leave, taking leave, or filing a claim, complaint, or appeal, but it did not explicitly provide job protection for employees while on leave. Like bills proposed in other states, HB 3470 stated that family leave could be taken concurrently with FMLA for eligible employees, which would have provided job protection for those employed by larger companies (Illinois General Assembly, 2005b). The bill was read and referred to the House Rules Committee, then assigned to the House Labor Committee. The bill was then re-referred to the Rules Committee in March 2005 but no action was taken before the end of the 2005 legislative session (Illinois General Assembly, 2005a).

The same language was introduced as HB 1683 in the 2007 legislative session by

Representative Julie Hamos (D) and 11 Democratic co-sponsors (Illinois General Assembly,

2007b). The bill was assigned to the Labor Committee where a fiscal note was requested and

filed. At this time it was estimated that initial start-up costs for the program would be at least $16 million, with an ongoing cost of at least $46 million annually. Estimates were provided by experts and proponents of the bill, who drew from information about starting paid family leave

programs in New Jersey and California, as well as experience in Illinois administering UI benefits through the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Illinois General Assembly,

142

2007b). The bill was re-referred to the House Rules Committee in March 2007, but no action was taken before the end of the 2007 legislative session (Illinois General Assembly, 2007a).

Following the introduction of HB 1683 in the 2007 legislative session, no additional FLIP bills were introduced in Illinois until Representative Robyn Gabel (D) introduced House Bill

5409 in the 2014 session. HB 5409 drew heavily from the language that was used in previous bills (both HB 3470 and HB 1683) but also added language to adjust the maximum weekly benefit annually for inflation, create the FLIP Trust Fund within the State Treasury Department, and increase the amount of the employee contribution to $1.50 per week for full-time employees, with a pro-rated amount from part-time employees based on the number of hours worked

(Illinois General Assembly, 2014b). HB 5409 was introduced in February, 2014 and referred to the House Rules Committee, then assigned to the House Business Growth and Incentives

Committee in mid-March. The bill was re-referred to the Rules Committee in late March, and again, no action was taken before the 2014 legislative session adjourned (Illinois General

Assembly, 2014a).

House Bill 166

Interviews with key informants were conducted in July and August 2017 and at that time,

HB 166 had made the most progress in the Illinois General Assembly. House Bill 166 was introduced in January 2015 by Representative Mary Flowers (D) and 10 Democratic co- sponsors. As introduced, this bill would have established a Family Leave Insurance Program for eligible workers in the state, including all public and private employees who had worked at least

680 hours in a year for an employer with 50 or more employees. Eligible individuals would have

143

been allowed to take up to six weeks of job-protected leave for the birth, adoption, or foster

placement of a child, or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. HB 166

would not have extended coverage to an individual to care for their own injury or illness, but

would have provided coverage for disability due to pregnancy, or a period of absence for

prenatal care. Full-time employees would have been able to receive $300.00 per week, and part- time employees would have been able to receive a pro-rated amount based on their actual weekly hours worked. Additionally, the proposed program would have been funded by premium payments from employees of no more than $2.50 per month (Illinois General Assembly, 2015).

When introduced, HB 166 was referred to the House Rules Committee, and then assigned to the House Labor and Commerce Committee. Substantive amendments were filed in mid-

March 2015, including an amendment to change the definition of a covered employer from a business entity that employed 50 or more employees to a business entity that employed one or more employee, and an amendment to add a provision for leave to be taken for the employee's own serious illness. Additional amendments were filed a few days later to exclude the State from the scope of the term "employer," and to provide for the Act to be administered by the

Department of Employment Security, rather than the Department of Labor. On March 26, 2015 the bill was read on the House floor, followed by a short debate, then a fiscal note was requested.

There was a second reading and another short floor debate on April 22, 2015, then the fiscal note was filed on April 24th and the bill was re-referred to the Rules Committee.

The fiscal note that was filed at this time estimated that it would cost between $75 and

$100 million to establish Family Leave Insurance Program in Illinois, with an ongoing cost of at

least $46 million annually after that. These estimates were based on the startup experience of the

Illinois Benefit Information System, the platform for managing unemployment insurance

144

benefits in the state, which took $125 million to set up. Estimates assumed that the program would need five to 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff to establish rules, policies, and procedures for handling administrative expenses, including claims, appeals, and reporting. In addition, they estimated a need for roughly 400 FTEs to administer the program based on the staffing levels for the programs New Jersey and California (Illinois General Assembly, 2016a).

House Bill 166 sat until July 2015, when it was approved for consideration by the Rules

Committee. The bill was read on the House floor on July 8, 2015 followed by a short debate, but there was no vote on the floor and the bill was carried over to the 2016 session. In the 2016 session the bill was read with a short debate in April 2016, after which it was revised substantially. The primary purpose appeared to be to reorganize and clarify the information contained in the bill, but one notable change was made. Language throughout the bill was changed from “Family Leave Insurance Program” to “Paid Family Leave Act” (Illinois General

Assembly, 2015). The bill was then re-referred to the Rules and Labor & Commerce

Committees, but no further action was taken before the 2016 legislative session adjourned

(Illinois General Assembly, 2016a).

Ongoing Family Leave Efforts in Illinois

The Illinois Family Leave Insurance Act was filed on July 5, 2016 by Democratic

Senator Daniel Biss as an amendment to SB 260 (Illinois General Assembly, 2016c). Senate Bill

260 was originally introduced in late January, 2015 by Senator John Cullerton, and was intended to amend the Employee Arbitration Act regarding the service of a process or notice (Illinois

General Assembly, 2016d). SB 260 was then carried over into the 2016 legislative session and

145

with the amendment, became repurposed as a FLIP bill. This bill would have provided an eligible employee with up to 12 weeks of family leave within a 24 month period for the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or to recover from the employee’s own health condition.

To be eligible, an employee had to be employed with the same employer for 12 months and had to have worked at least 1,200 hours during the last 12 month period. Senate Bill 260 did not include the State of Illinois as a covered employer. The program would have been administered by the Department of Employment Security and funded by employee payroll deductions of 0.3 percent of taxable wages, up to an annual maximum of $38.88 per employee.

Workers would have been able to receive two-thirds (67 percent) of their average weekly wages while on leave (up to a maximum of 53 percent of the statewide average weekly wage). This bill would also have provided job protection during the family leave period (Illinois General

Assembly, 2016c). The bill as amended was referred to the Assignments Committee on July 31,

2016, but no further action was taken before the end of the 2016 session (Illinois General

Assembly, 2016b).

Senate Bill 1721 was introduced on February 9, 2017 by Senator Biss. Like the amendment filed in 2016, SB 1721 would have created the Illinois Family Leave Insurance Act with almost the exact same provisions: 12 weeks of leave in a 24-month period, with two-thirds

(67 percent) of the employee’s average weekly wages, up to a maximum of 53 percent of the statewide average weekly wage, administered by the Department of Employment Security and funded by employee payroll deductions of 0.3 percent of taxable wages. SB 1721 did not establish an annual maximum contribution per employee (Illinois General Assembly, 2017b). SB

1721 was assigned to the Senate Labor Committee, postposed throughout the session, and then

146

re-referred to the Senate Assignments Committee in May 2017. No additional action was taken

before the 2017 legislative session ended (Illinois General Assembly, 2017a).

Finally, House Bill 2376 was introduced on February 3, 2017 by Representative Mary

Flowers. HB 2376 used the same language as the two Senate bills (SB 260 and SB 1721), and

would have provided up to 12 weeks of leave in any 24-month period. This bill would have

compensated employees at two-thirds of their previous average weekly wages, up to a maximum

of 53 percent of the statewide average weekly wage. Like the two Senate bills, HB 2376 would

have been funded through employee payroll deductions (0.3 percent of taxable wages) and did

not established an annual maximum employee contribution. HB 2376 did, however, include the

additional deduction (not to exceed 0.1 percent) to pay for administration of the program (Illinois

General Assembly, 2018b). HB 2376 was referred to the House Rules Committee then assigned

to the House Labor & Commerce Committee. Multiple amendments were filed during the 2017

legislative session, and the bill has was read twice on the House floor with at least one debate.

The bill was re-referred to the Rules Committee at the end of the 2017 session and then carried over into the 2018 legislative session.

During the 2018 session, legislators filed multiple amendments to HB 2376, including a request for a fiscal note. This fiscal note provided the same estimates as the 2016 fiscal note, stating that it would cost between $75 and $100 million to start a Family Leave Insurance

Program in Illinois with an ongoing cost of at least $46 million annually, would require 10 FTEs

to establish the program, and approximately 400 FTEs for ongoing administration. The bill was

read again, followed by another debate, but again, no further action was taken before the 2018

legislative session adjourned (Illinois General Assembly, 2018a).

147

Support for Paid Family Leave in Illinois

Five of the seven FLIP bills in Illinois were introduced in the House of Representatives.

All of the bills were introduced by Democrats, with no Republican support. Representative Julie

Hamos introduced the House Bills in 2005 and 2007, Representative Robyn Gabel introduced the bill in 2013, and Representative Mary Flowers introduced the bills in 2015 and 2017. More

recently, Senator Daniel Biss filed an amendment to Senate Bill 260 in July 2016 to change the

bill (which was originally intended to amend the Employee Arbitration Act regarding the service of a process or notice) to focus on paid family leave, then introduced Senate Bill 1721 in 2017 to create the Illinois Family Leave Insurance Act. None of these bills made it out of committee, but more actions were taken on HB 166 and HB 2376 (both introduced by Representative Flowers).

Both of these bills were amended multiple times, and each was read twice on the House floor, followed by debate.

Two respondents talked about the importance of finding the right legislative sponsor for a

FLIP bill. They commended Representative Flowers for her efforts, but one respondent explained that she was known for taking more of a liberal, pro-government approach to governing, and for sponsoring bills that were considered by some groups to be “anti-business.”

The respondent noted that because of this, her bills did not carry as much credibility with some representatives. Another respondent explained that Representative Flowers had support from leadership, so her bills would get to the floor, but would not necessarily get a floor vote.

Multiple interview respondents noted that efforts in Illinois were led by a group called

Women Employed, a non-profit advocacy organization based in Chicago that focused on improving women's economic status and removing barriers to economic equity. Two respondents also noted the involvement of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, another non-

148

profit organization based in Chicago, focused on providing national leadership in advancing laws

and policies to improve the lives of people living in poverty. Respondents did not describe a strong statewide coalition or campaign, but instead described the committed efforts by these two organizations with assistance from different partners at different times.

Periodic support for paid family leave in Illinois has come from a number of groups, including many national-level organizations that have supported efforts in other states, like the

National Partnership for Women and Families, A Better Balance, Family Values @ Work,

AARP, and the National Employment Law Project. Support in Illinois also came from some organized labor groups, including the state AFL-CIO, many state and local community organizations, and a couple of local small business owners that also served as elected representatives. As one respondent noted, supporters were “typically your groups who are looking to advance priorities like minimum wage increases or other benefit programs that they believe ought to be required of employers.” Another respondent explained that interest in paid family leave from workers has been growing over time, particularly from low-wage workers, who had little saved income and rarely had access to paid sick days, so could hardly afford to take unpaid leave through FMLA. Respondents noted that paid family leave was one of a package of issues that was picking up steam at the time, as low-wage workers became more organized around other issues like a livable minimum wage and paid sick days.

Interviews conducted with individuals who have been involved in efforts to pass a bill to establish a Family Leave Insurance Program (FLIP) in Illinois revealed three major arguments provided in support of paid family leave, including the idea that everyone will need to take leave to care for themselves or a family member at some point, that there was a need to help workers who did not have access to paid sick time or temporary disability insurance, and that many

149

employers already provided these benefits, or wanted to, but that there was a need to establish a

minimum standard. News articles did not mention any specific arguments in support of the FLIP

bills introduced in Illinois.

Respondents talked about the importance of framing paid family and medical leave

benefits as covering a broad range of stakeholders, not just parents. One respondent explained,

“We are all going to get sick at some point, or become a new parent, or have a

family member who is sick that we need to take care of. It’s going to affect all of us. If

you talk about paid parental leave, you might get the counter-argument, ‘well, it’s your

choice to have a child.’ So it has to be for all of those reasons–not just parental leave.”

Respondents also discussed the importance of the fact that Illinois does not provide short- term disability benefits for workers employed by private employers, or have any laws that require private employers to make an option for short-term disability benefits available to employees. Regarding the question of how a family leave insurance program would be funded, respondents talked about how five states used the amended Federal Unemployment Tax Act

(FUTA) to establish a temporary disability insurance (TDI) program, and use employee contributions to their state unemployment insurance programs to pay temporary disability benefits (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island). One respondent explained,

“Those five states that established TDI programs, they did that 70 years ago. And

I think those programs were primarily established to help workers–male workers–who

were in unions, but didn't get paid sick time or temporary disability in their collective

bargaining agreement. They thought it was important to pass a law to help those

workers, and look how much they got–most of them provide 26 weeks of leave for TDI.

150

And I know it’s funded through employee contributions, but that's never going to happen

again. There just isn't that kind of support anymore.”

Multiple respondents explained that they knew of employers that had established programs that allowed employees to take leave for any purpose. These respondents explained that there was a need for a minimum standard. Because these types of policies were not typical, lower-wage workers were less likely to have access to any type of paid time off. A minimum standard would establish a baseline amount of paid time off for family care and medical needs.

Respondents also discussed the impact of individuals sharing their personal stories and their experiences being denied time off to provide care for their children, parents, or for themselves during the hearings, noting that “the arguments speak for themselves.”

Opposition to Paid Family Leave in Illinois

Opposition to FLIP bills in Illinois has come primarily from the state Chamber of

Commerce and prominent business associations and business groups, including the

Manufacturers Association, the Retail Merchants Association, and the National Federation of

Independent Business (NFIB), who strongly opposed paid family leave in all four states

researched. Interview respondents noted that these groups were “well-organized, well-funded, and really strong opponents.” Respondents also recalled that a lot of individuals and individual business owners opposed the bills.

Respondents also noted that the Illinois General Assembly has an online system for submitting witness slips for a piece of legislation that was scheduled for a committee hearing.

Individuals representing a firm, business, or agency could register their support or opposition (or

151

no position) and could use this system to show that they were interested in presenting oral

testimony in person at the committee hearing, or that they were unable to attend the hearing but wanted to submit a written statement. Stakeholders also had an option to choose a box titled

“Record of Appearance Only,” which allowed them to simply register their support or

opposition. Respondents noted that many businesses filed witness slips in opposition to HB 166.

Additionally, as one respondent explained, “The large associations–that’s who has the time and

the money to actually hire and lobby. I mean–that's who shows up in Springfield, and there are a

lot of them.”

According to interview respondents, the biggest argument against FLIP bills in Illinois was that the program would be a burden to businesses. Opponents felt strongly that employers in the state already had too many mandates and regulations to follow, and that a new regulation on businesses would be too costly for employers. They argued that in this case employers should be trusted to “do the right thing.” Even though the program would have been funded solely by employee contributions, opponents argued that businesses would lose money and cut jobs, or

move out of the state. One respondent explained, “They’re opposed to any new regulations, no matter what, because it'll cost businesses money and we're going to lose our businesses to

Indiana because they’ve always been conservative and don't have their own state minimum wage

[just the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour]. So that comparison is always used against us.”

One interview respondent who opposed the FLIP bills explained that there was a need to educate legislators about how employers develop and structure their benefits packages for their company. This respondent explained,

152

“Employers have to decide what they can afford, but also what they think will

work best for their employees. So when you add statutory restrictions and limits and

requirements, then you take away the flexibility they need to balance those two things. If

you think of it like a balloon, if you're pushing on the balloon on one side, it's going to

come out on the other side. There's only so much that an employer can afford to put into

their benefits package. So if you mandate something like days off for family and medical

leave, then they're going to have to take away something else–either lessen future

earnings, lower wages or put limitations on an eye care or dental program–something's

got to fall by the wayside.”

Even respondents who supported the FLIP bills noted that it could be harder for smaller businesses to implement a paid family leave insurance program. One respondent explained that

“smaller employers who have less flexibility with their workforce, or companies that have more technical requirements, or require more highly skilled employees–it may be more difficult for those employers to replace their employees for an extended period of time.” Respondents also recalled a perception among opponents that people would abuse, or take advantage of the program.

Advocates and supporters in Illinois explained that the lack of success after a number of years led them to focus current efforts more heavily on bills to establish paid sick days. One respondent explained, “Paid sick days seemed to resonate better–people understood it a little bit better, and it didn’t require setting up any kind of new administrative program to collect and distribute funds. Somehow I think it just felt more tangible to people.” The respondent went on to explain that Illinois still had not successfully passed a state-level law (although the City of

Chicago did pass an ordinance for five paid sick days, effective July 1, 2017) but that it was

153

important that constituents became accustomed to the idea. Another respondent explained,

“We’ve been doing this for a long time–and there have been some successes, right? The interest in paid family leave has grown and so it's not like we're ignoring it, it's just hard to advocate for both at the same time so it's more a matter of strategy right now.”

Challenges and Barriers

Respondents identified multiple challenges that have made it difficult to pass a FLIP bill in Illinois. Primary challenges included strong opposition from the state Chamber of Commerce, prominent business associations and groups, and business owners in the state, a Republican

Governor who respondents agreed was likely to veto any FLIP bill, not having an existing administrative structure and the resulting high start-up costs that would be associated with structuring a program, and challenges associated with finding the right legislative sponsor for a

FLIP bill.

Multiple respondents also talked about the difficulty of securing strong union support for

FLIP bills. The AFL-CIO and some large individual unions testified in support of HB 166

(including the Illinois Federation of Teachers, SEIU Local 73, the Chicago Teachers Union, the

AFSCME Council 31, and the Laborers' International Union of North America–Midwest

Region), but multiple respondents discussed how difficult it has been to secure general union support for a paid family leave insurance program in the state. One respondent noted,

“It's been difficult for us to round up the union support for these broad paid leave

bills. As much as people think that labor will support it, there's a feeling amongst some

labor groups that that is a service they provide through collective bargaining. If everyone

154

gets it–let’s say, for example, healthcare–that’s a great thing, but from their perspective

that is something that they bargain and negotiate to get for their members, and it puts

them at a competitive disadvantage if it’s offered to the broader workforce.”

Respondents also raised the issue that the state capital (Springfield, IL) was at least a three-and-a-half hour drive from Chicago. Many of the groups and community organizations that supported paid family leave were based in Chicago (especially organizations that supported workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries), and many workers were based there too.

These groups and individuals were able to help with efforts in Chicago, but were not easily able to take time off from work to travel to Springfield to testify at hearings or talk to representatives.

Facilitating Factors

Interview respondents only discussed a couple of factors that specifically helped bolster efforts in Illinois. Respondents explained that, as low-wage workers were becoming more organized around other issues like a livable minimum wage and paid sick days, paid family leave was one of a package of issues that has started to pick up steam in the state. Interview respondents did not describe a strong statewide coalition or campaign, but nobody noted this as a challenge or a barrier to success. Instead, respondents described the consistent, committed efforts of Women Employed and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, involvement from the national-level organizations that have supported efforts in other states, and support from state and local community organizations and local businesses as facilitating factors in gaining support for paid family leave efforts.

155

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

A cross-analysis of the case studies exposed a few key similarities across the four states

related to messaging and communications strategies, as well as some messages and strategies

that appeared to be more beneficial in specific states compared to others. The cross-analysis also

revealed seven distinct but also somewhat interdependent themes that helped to explain why

California and New York were able to pass a bill and establish a paid family leave program, and why Colorado and Illinois were not. In this chapter, I will discuss each factor and provide specific recommendations for stakeholders.

Messaging and Communications

A number of the same strategies and arguments helped to support efforts to pass paid family leave policies in all four states. Likewise, many of the same opposition arguments and strategies were used in all four states. States differed in their ability to disseminate their messages and advocate for paid family leave based on the strength and organization of their coalition, and differed in their ability to counter opposition messaging based on the amount of support they had from economic and business groups, and whether or not business owners were part of the coalition.

156

Common Strategies and Arguments in Support of Paid Family Leave

Many respondents discussed the impact of prioritizing opportunities for individuals to share their personal stories of being denied time off to care for their children, parents, or for themselves during hearings, or during educational opportunities with legislators, noting that, “the arguments speak for themselves.” Respondents also noted the importance of framing testimony during hearings around caregiving, and not just around parental leave. Specific arguments considered effective in all four states included:

• The United States is currently the only developed country that does not provide workers

with paid family leave. Federal FMLA is unpaid, and does not cover everyone. Further,

many who are covered by FMLA cannot afford to take unpaid leave.

• Everyone will need to take leave to care for themselves or a family member at some

point.

• Workers should not have to jeopardize their current or future economic stability to take

care of themselves or a loved one.

• Messaging based on sound fiscal and economic impact research helped make a strong

case and also helped campaigns respond to opposition messaging that paid family leave

would hurt employers/businesses.

State-specific Arguments

Some messages and communication strategies were unique to specific states. For example, California was the first state to adopt a paid family leave policy, and the campaign had strong fiscal impact studies to support their bill as a result of SB 656, which required a report on

157

the fiscal impact of extending State Disability benefits to individuals for paid family leave in

2000, and the cost benefit analysis of SB 1661 done by researchers at U.C. Berkeley that was released in June, 2002. One of the primary talking points in the California campaign was that most workers could not afford to take unpaid leave, and that SB 1661 offered a reasonable and low cost approach to provide employees with some wage replacement while caring for a family member. The strong fiscal and economic impact research also allowed the campaign to respond to opposition messaging that paid family leave would hurt employers, and provide focused messages about how paid leaves would actually be good for California businesses.

Because their efforts took place later in time, effective arguments in New York and

Colorado focused on the fact that other states had successfully passed paid family leave policies.

In addition to this, effective arguments in New York focused on the importance of having an established TDI program, talked about the physical and mental health impacts of paid family leave, and worked to promote the business case for providing paid leave to employees. In

Illinois, respondents recalled that one argument that resonated was that many employers already provided paid family leave benefits, or wanted to, but that there was a need to establish a minimum standard across the state.

Common Opposition Groups and Opposition Arguments

In all four states, paid family leave bills faced opposition from the same groups, including state and local chambers of commerce, state and local restaurant, grocer, and other business associations, and business advocacy groups like NFIB. The primary arguments provided against paid family leave bills in all four states included:

158

• That a paid family leave program would hurt businesses through additional regulations

and increased costs, and would hurt workers through increased taxes, decreased wages,

and layoffs.

• Businesses already faced too many mandates and regulations.

• Even if funded by employee contributions, businesses would face financial and

administrative burdens related to implementation, lose money and cut jobs, and/or be

forced to move their operations out of the state.

• Paid family leave programs would pose additional staffing challenges and financial

burdens for small businesses.

• A persistent belief that workers would abuse a paid family leave program.

The coalitions that had strong support from businesses and access to fiscal and economic research (California, New York, and Colorado) were able to counter these talking points and show that existing paid family leave programs did not have a negative economic impact on employers, and that a paid family leave program would actually be good for businesses.

Making the Business Case for Paid Family Leave

Many businesses and small business owners in California supported paid family leave, and SB 1661 specifically. They explained that paid family leave would help them retain educated, highly-trained employees, and would cut expenses for firms that wanted to provide this benefit to their workers (or already were). Supporters argued that structured leaves would reduce tardiness and absenteeism, strengthen employee loyalty, and increase productivity, because workers would be more focused and less stressed, and would not be at work worrying about a

159

loved one, or worrying about not having a safety net for family emergencies. They also cited

evidence that providing paid leave could reduce dependence on government-supported home healthcare, transportation, and emergency services.

In New York, economists relied heavily on information about the health and economic benefits of paid family leave from programs in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island. They cited findings that taking paid leave raised the probability that new mothers would return to work following leave, and then work more hours and earn higher wages (Miller, 2015). News articles

highlighted a study from New Jersey that found, in the year after giving birth, women who took

paid leave were about 40 percent less likely to receive public aid or food stamps (Miller, 2015).

News articles in New York also highlighted studies from California that showed that paid leave

did not hurt businesses, although it did not necessarily help them either. In California, 89 to 99 percent of employers said that paid family leave had no effect or a positive effect on productivity, profitability, turnover and morale. Eighty-seven percent said that the law had not increased costs, and nine percent said that they saved money because of decreased turnover or benefit payments (Miller, 2015). In a public hearing, supporters stated that paid family leave saved businesses money by increasing employee retention and morale, lowering turnover costs, and improving productivity.

Likewise, supporters of paid family leave quoted in Colorado newspapers explained that paid family leave programs had the ability make employees happier and more productive, lower employee turnover, reduce dependence on public assistance, and make it easier for women to participate in the labor force (Greenfield, 2015; Svaldi, 2014a; Sveen, 2014).

160

The talking points that resonated most strongly across all states included:

• Access to paid leave can create happier, more focused workers who might otherwise be

forced to quit their jobs because of family emergencies.

• Paid family leave can save businesses money by helping employers retain educated,

highly-trained workers.

• Structured leaves can reduce tardiness and absenteeism, strengthen employee loyalty, and

increase productivity because workers are more focused and less stressed, and not at

work worrying about a loved one, or worrying about not having a safety net for family

emergencies.

Recommendations:

• Advocates and supporters should prioritize personal testimony during hearings and

during educational opportunities with legislators.

• Advocates and supporters should frame testimony during hearings around caregiving, and

not just around parental leave.

• Advocates and coalitions should work to build a communication strategy that emphasizes

messages that have proven to be successful in other states, and arguments that have been

shown by others to successfully counter opposition talking points.

• Advocates and coalitions can start with identified concepts and messages, but should test

messages using focus groups and key informant interviews to determine what resonates

best with their key audiences, and revise them if needed.

161

• Advocates and coalitions should work as a group to create a message map to help all

members represent the topic in a uniform way and ensure that the key messages are being

communicated consistently.

Themes (lessons learned)

I identified seven themes through my cross-case analysis. Four of these factors appeared to be necessary for the bill to pass, but were not sufficient on their own, including 1) having a strong, broad-based, and well-organized coalition, 2) conducting a fiscal analysis to estimate potential costs and economic benefits, 3) having a state political climate that was primarily

Democratic, or a supportive state political context, and 4) introducing a number of bills in

different sessions, or having a longer history of working on efforts related to paid family leave.

Three additional factors were critical to the success of efforts in both California and New York,

including: 5) having an existing administrative structure in place (in this case, a state temporary

disability insurance program), 6) having the support of key leadership (e.g., a Governor who

supports paid family leave, or was not opposed to it, and/or a strong bill sponsor) and 7) having

an open window of opportunity.

It is Necessary to have a Strong, Well-organized Coalition with a Broad base of Support

California and New York both had one large organization driving coalition efforts, with a

strong, broad base of support from a number of groups and organizations that represented a

diverse constituency. While strong organizations supported efforts to pass paid family leave bills

in Colorado and Illinois, and these organizations and others made efforts to build coalitions, the

162

coalitions in these states did not appear to be as robust yet (in terms of the number and types of organizations engaged), as organized, or as powerful as the coalitions in California in 2002 or in

New York in 2015.

Both California and New York had robust statewide campaigns specific to paid family leave. These campaigns were driven by coalitions that included multiple committed

organizations with diverse interests (the Campaign for Family Leave Income in California and

“Time to Care” in New York) and both coalitions ran strong, targeted grassroots lobbying

efforts. Interview respondents from California noted the importance of messaging paid family

leave as a program for taking care of family members, and not only as paid leave for pregnancy

and childbirth. This allowed the Campaign for Family Leave Income to include more advocacy

groups and supporters from the start. Additionally, many businesses and small business owners

in the state supported paid family leave.

Likewise, the coalition in New York had representation from a number of organizations that represented a diverse constituency, including advocacy groups for women, children, minorities, people with disabilities, and older adults. Respondents from New York talked a lot about efforts in 2015 to build a diverse coalition that included many different stakeholders with different perspectives and unique reasons for supporting paid family leave. They also reported working very hard to gain the support of small businesses, who were critical to coalition efforts in 2015 and 2016.

Interview respondents from both Colorado and Illinois identified two organizations in each state that led efforts to form a coalition and build grassroots support for paid family leave in their respective state, so no one organization was considered in charge. Respondents from

Colorado specifically noted that the organizations supporting paid family leave had limited

163

capacity to fund media and advocacy efforts. They also discussed the need to broaden their

coalition to engage more medical, public health, and children's advocacy organizations, as well more business groups and business owners.

Respondents in Illinois did not describe a strong statewide coalition or campaign, but instead described committed efforts by two organizations with assistance from a number of different groups at different times, including many national-level organizations that have supported efforts in other states, like the National Partnership for Women and Families, A Better

Balance, Family Values @ Work, AARP, and the National Employment Law Project. As was found in other states, respondents did talk about the importance of framing paid family and medical leave benefits as covering a broad range of stakeholders, not just parents, but it was not clear that representation on their coalition reflected this concept.

Having a strong, organized coalition that included advocacy groups and supporters with diverse reasons for supporting paid family leave allowed the coalitions in California and New

York to build strong messages that resonated with a variety of audiences. Having strong advocates and organized, consistent talking points allowed both of these states to galvanize support from constituents and even turn some opponents into supporters. Additionally, all four states encountered similar opposition groups and messaging related to potential negative impacts on businesses. Having the support of businesses and business owners helped the coalitions in

California, New York, and Colorado counter this specific opposition messaging.

164

Recommendations:

• Advocates and stakeholders should establish a strong, well-organized coalition with

representation from multiple committed organizations that represent a diverse

constituency, including (but not limited to) advocacy, policy, and legal groups for

women, children, minorities, people with disabilities, and older adults, health

professionals, businesses and business owners. The coalition should be led by one or

more organizations with a strong presence at the state capital, one that can build bridges

to other organizations, and that has the necessary resources to staff the effort.

• For paid family leave legislation specifically, it is particularly important to work to gain

the support of business groups and business owners (especially small businesses), as well

as groups that have been shown to be influential in other states, including labor

organizations, and medical associations (physicians, pediatrics, and obstetrics and

gynecological associations).

• The coalition should coordinate messaging (including messaging to counter opposition

messages), build grassroots support, and develop and guide a robust, coordinated

statewide campaign informed by the broad base of support.

A Fiscal Analysis is Necessary to Estimate Potential Costs and Economic Benefits

An unbiased fiscal and economic analysis of a proposed paid family leave program is important to estimate the potential costs to start and run the program, and to show financing, eligibility and benefit modeling for states that do not have an administrative structure in place.

165

Colorado and Illinois had fiscal analyses completed for multiple bills. The Colorado

Fiscal Institute analysis of the 2014 bill (SB 14-196) estimated that the program would cost $414 million in the first year ($402 million in wage replacement payouts and $12 million in administrative costs) and could be financed by employee-paid premiums of less than one-half of one percent of total wages earned in the state (Stiffler, 2013). The nonpartisan Colorado

Legislative Council also analyzed the 2014 bill, and reported that the paid leave program outlined in SB 14-196 would cost $16 million to create (administrative costs only, not including wage replacement payouts), and that the program would eventually take 238 state employees to run–more people than the state had staffing many of its divisions at the time (Sealover, 2014d).

More recently, the fiscal note filed for HB 18-1001 in 2018 estimated that the program would increase state expenditures by approximately $31 million in FY 2018–19, $16 million in

FY 2019–20, $216 million in FY 2020–21, and $497 million in FY 2022–23. The program would also have started collecting premiums on July 1, 2020, which was estimated to increase cash revenue by at least $568 million per year beginning in FY 2020–21 (employee benefit payments would have started on January 1, 2021). Therefore, the program outlined in the 2018 bill would have cost approximately $47 million to start, but then should have been able to pay for administrative costs and employee benefit payments through employee premiums collected

(Colorado Legislative Council Staff, 2018).

In Illinois, fiscal notes were filed with three of the bills introduced, including HB 1683 in

2007–08 session, HB 166 in the 2015–16 session, and HB 2376 in 2017–18 session. The fiscal note filed with HB 1683 projected $16 million in start-up costs, with annual costs of $46 million.

The fiscal notes filed with HB 166 and HB 2376 both estimated between $75 and $100 million in start-up costs and annual costs of $46 million. Estimates provided in 2016 and 2018 were based

166

on the startup experience of the Illinois Benefit Information System, which serves as the

platform for managing unemployment insurance benefits in the state and took $125 million to set

up. Estimates assumed that the program would need 5 to 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff to

establish rules, policies, and procedures for handling such administrative expenses as claims,

appeals, and reporting. In addition, they estimated a need for roughly 400 FTEs to administer the

program based on the staffing levels for similar programs reported by New Jersey and California

(Illinois General Assembly, 2016a, 2018a).

The programs in California and New York were funded by employees through payroll

deductions. California had a cost study and a cost benefit analysis conducted that were specific to

SB 1661, and additionally, the California Employment Development Department estimated that

the program would cost $73.2 million in 2003–2004 and $117.7 million in 2004–2005 offset by

rate revenues. New York has not published economic data specific to their program yet, but used

fiscal evaluation findings from years of California’s program to inform their messaging.

All four states encountered similar opposition messaging related to potential costs and

negative impacts on businesses. Having access to economic impact data and cost benefit analyses allowed California, New York, and Colorado to counter this opposition messaging. Weaker coalition efforts in Colorado and Illinois impacted their ability to counter opposition messaging in their respective states.

Recommendations:

• Coalitions should seek unbiased fiscal and economic research to show potential costs,

economic impacts, and benefits of providing paid family leave. With the help of

167

economic research groups, many states have been able to show that a paid family leave

program would not hurt the state’s economy or businesses. If the economic research

comes from a group that is not part of the coalition or campaign, the results are less likely

to look biased.

• Coalitions can also use evaluation and economic impact data generated by other states

that have established programs. As more states pass and implement paid family leave

programs and gather data to understand their impact, this information will become more

available and more applicable to a broader range of states.

• Coalitions can use arguments generated by other states (California, New York, and

Colorado) to counter opposition arguments about potential negative impacts on

businesses.

It is necessary to have a Supportive State Political Context

Paid family leave has been a noticeably partisan issue, with strong support and sponsorship from Democrats and little to no support or sponsorship from Republicans in the states studied. Table 8 provides a snapshot of the political climate in each state when the bills were being considered or were passed.

Table 8: Political Party in Control of Governorship, Upper & Lower Chamber State (Year) Governor Upper House Lower House California (2002) D D D California (2016) D D D Colorado (2015) D R D New York (2016) D R D Illinois (2016) R D D

168

California was the only state with a unified Democratic government at the time the state passed a paid family leave bill. New York had a Democratic Governor and Democrats controlled the House when they passed the budget bill that established their program, but Republicans effectively controlled the Senate. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo voiced strong support for paid family leave following his father’s death, calling on the legislature to pass a paid family leave act less than two weeks later, then including the language in the budget bill for the 2016–

2017 Fiscal Year.

Colorado had a Democratic Governor and Democrats controlled the House in 2015, but

Republicans controlled the Senate. Despite relative Democratic control in the state, interview respondents from Colorado noted that paid family leave was not a priority for the Governor’s office. Additionally, two respondents noted that some Democrats in the state legislature in

Colorado had a history of being very business-focused, and multiple respondents discussed the fact that in 2015, two democratic representatives voted against the paid family leave bill, raising arguments about the potential impacts on businesses, the high start-up costs, and a lack of clarity regarding how the program would be implemented.

Because paid family leave bills have been supported by most Democrats and have not been supported by many Republicans, a state with a Democratic governor (or a governor who has voiced support for paid family leave) and Democratic control of both chambers of the legislature will have a higher likelihood of passing a paid family leave bill. However, having a legislative majority is not sufficient to pass a paid family leave bill (e.g., Illinois), nor is having a majority in one chamber and a Democratic Governor (e.g., Colorado) especially when some

Democratic legislators and Governors are focused on the needs of the business community.

169

Respondents also talked about the impact of term limits on turnover of elected officials in

Colorado, noting that members of the House are elected to two-year terms (limited to four

consecutive terms in office), and members of the Senate are elected to four-year terms (limited to two consecutive terms), resulting in a need for a great deal of re-education about specific policy ideas, including paid family leave. In Illinois, Democrats held a majority of seats in both the

House and the Senate in 2016, but respondents agreed that the Republican Governor was likely to veto any paid family leave bill that made it to his desk.

Many legislatures run on two-year terms, but most incumbents get re-elected. States with term limits (like Colorado) may see much higher turnover among the legislative membership, and it is a challenge for advocates to continually educate new members and build momentum over time. Currently, 15 states have term limits for legislators. In Michigan, members in the

House are limited to six years and members in the Senate are limited to eight. In nine states

(Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Dakota) members of both the House and Senate are limited to 8 years. In California, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oklahoma members in both chambers are limited to 12 years, and in Arkansas, all members are limited to serving 16 years (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015).

Term limits can also be consecutive or lifetime limits. Consecutive term limits allow a legislator to serve a particular number of years in a chamber, then once they hit that limit, they can run for election to the other chamber or leave the legislature. After a set period of time

(usually two years), they have the option to run for election to their original seat and serve up to the limit again. Lifetime limits are much more restrictive. Once a legislator has served up to a lifetime limit, they may never run for election to that office again. Michigan, Missouri,

170

California, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Arkansas all have lifetime term limits (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015).

Recommendations:

• If the state has a political context that is not favorable to passing a paid family leave bill,

advocates or policymakers should look for alternative legislative mechanisms. For

example, the New York Governor included language to establish a paid family leave

program in the 2016–2017 budget bill, and Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah voters all approved

ballot initiatives in their respective states in November 2018 to expand Medicaid).

• Advocates and coalitions should use polling and economic data to show that paid family

leave does have bipartisan support among constituents, provide targeted education to

Republican policymakers and legislative staff, and encourage Republican support.

• In all states, but especially in states where legislative members are term-limited,

advocates and coalitions should work to educate and build relationships with staff on the

committees that paid family leave bills generally get assigned to in that state (e.g., Labor,

Insurance, Health, and Appropriations Committees). Committee staff roles differ by state,

but committee staff serve the specific committee and support the work of the committee

chair. They have subject matter expertise in the policy area that is under the committee’s

jurisdiction, and there is generally less turnover among committee staff compared to

legislative staff.

171

It is necessary to Build Support for Paid Family Leave Legislation over Time

Paid family leave legislation was not passed in any of the states that I studied in the year it was first introduced. Legislative sponsors in California and New York introduced many bills prior to the introduction and passage of the bills that established their respective paid family leave programs. There have been fewer attempts in Colorado and Illinois. Appendix D provides a table of all bills that were introduced in each state.

In California, nine bills were introduced between 1985 and 2000. None of these bills were specifically introduced to establish a paid family leave program, but these bills laid important groundwork for paid family leave program in the state, for example, by raising the state’s maximum weekly SDI benefit level, and requiring the State Employment Development

Department to conduct a cost study on the fiscal impact of extending SDI benefits to cover family care (SB 656). California then introduced eight paid family leave bills between 2002 and

2018, including Senate Bill 1661 and seven additional bills to expand the scope or protections of the paid family leave program.

Strong paid family leave bills were introduced in New York as early as 1998, including

17 bills to extend SDI benefits to include family care, and six bills to establish a new, standalone program which would have been funded through employee payroll contributions. In New York, only two Assembly Bills made it out of committee before the language to establish the program was included in the 2016 budget bills. Interview respondents in New York talked about the importance of laying the groundwork and consistently meeting with legislators, identifying champions, and talking with everyone–Democrats and Republicans. Respondents also explained that adding the language into the budget bill made it somewhat unavoidable, noting that even

172

those who were against paid family leave would not vote against the budget bill (and notably,

only one Senator did).

Multiple bills were introduced in both Colorado and Illinois, but these efforts have been

more recent, with a slightly longer history and more bills introduced in Illinois. Seven bills were

introduced in Illinois between 2005 and 2018. All of these bills would have established a new

Family Leave Insurance Program funded by employee contributions, and all of these bills died in

committee during their respective sessions. Legislative sponsors in Colorado introduced four

paid family leave bills between 2014 and 2018, one in the Senate and three in the House. The

three House bills made it through three committees, but none of the bills passed a floor vote.

It is important to understand that advocacy takes time, especially when the issue is a

controversial one. It often takes years to have your message become common knowledge among

legislators, and even longer to get a bill passed. It is important to be able to sustain the

momentum and spirit of the coalition and campaign even when bills are defeated. The campaign

can use different versions of the bills as opportunities to test different parameters for the

policy/program, galvanize support among new advocacy groups, and educate legislators and the governor’s office.

Recommendations:

• Legislators should introduce (and advocates and coalitions should support) bills that can

lay the groundwork for paid family leave in the state. For example, bills can be

introduced to conduct cost and fiscal impact studies.

173

• Legislators should introduce (and advocates and coalitions should support) bills even

when the votes are not there to pass them. Introducing the language can help to identify

which groups will oppose paid family leave, draw out opposition arguments, and identify

what data opponents might use. Introducing multiple bills over multiple sessions also

allows opportunities to modify the language in order to continuously improve it. Having

an active bill can also help to expand the coalition, educate law makers, and work with

the media.

It is Critical to Identify a Cost–effective Financing and Administrative Structure

California and New York are among the small group of states that established a state- level SDI program when Congress amended the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in

1946. Interview respondents from both California and New York explained that having an existing SDI program in place made it easier to pass legislation establishing a paid family leave program because the administrative structure was already there, and there would not be a large

start-up cost to establish the program. Both paid family leave programs expand the state’s SDI

program (which uses employee contributions to pay temporary disability benefits for an

employee’s own injury or illness) to cover leave for family care.

While the bills in New York were still under consideration, newspaper articles and

interviews reiterated the importance of New York having an established SDI program.

Supporters of paid family leave in New York also argued that other states (California, New

Jersey and Rhode Island) had already amended their SDI programs to provide paid family leave

benefits. Some also noted that many other states without SDI/TDI programs to build on had

174

proposed paid family leave bills that were gaining traction, including the neighboring state of

Connecticut.

Colorado and Illinois do not have an existing SDI/TDI program that could provide an administrative platform for a paid family leave program, therefore the start-up and ongoing administrative costs estimated for both programs were high. A review of news articles combined with findings from interviews in both states found that the cost associated with starting and administering a paid family leave program without an existing administrative platform was a significant barrier to passing a policy. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Colorado, a constitutional measure that prohibits the state legislature from raising taxes without voter approval, and requires a balanced annual budget, provided additional challenges. Respondents in

Colorado noted that, because of TABOR, any new policy or program that would require substantial funding faced an uphill battle regardless of political support.

Recommendations:

• Advocates and legislators should explore the feasibility of using the amended Federal

Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to establish a state-level short-term disability insurance

program to provide partial wage replacement to eligible employees who take leave for a

temporary, non-work-related disability or pregnancy.

• Policies may implement a fee or employee payroll deduction (tax) to fund a paid family

leave program, and may collect contributions from employees for a period of time prior

to paying out benefits to fund the initial administrative costs of starting the program.

Washington, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia are implementing a tax on

175

employees for one year prior to starting to pay out benefits in order to cover the

administrative start-up costs of the program.

• Advocates and legislators in states that do not have an existing SDI/TDI structure should

consider alternative (cost-effective) financing and administrative structures. Most

Unemployment Insurance and Workers’ Compensation programs are financed through

employer or employee/employer payroll taxes. Therefore, it may be feasible to use the

existing administrative structures that fund these programs to collect the revenue

necessary to fund a new paid family leave program.

• Advocates and legislators could consider establishing a paid leave program through a

private insurer and allowing/requiring employers to sign up on their own (and employees

could contribute in order to participate), or providing tax credits to businesses for offering

a paid family leave program for their employees. However, statewide participation

among employers would not be guaranteed with either option, so workers’ access would

likely be limited.

• Because of the TABOR in Colorado, the legislature has the ability to assess fees, but any

tax increase requires voter approval. Future bills in Colorado should be structured so that

workers could pay a fee to the state (vs. a tax) to create a family leave insurance program.

In return, workers would have the ability to receive paid family leave benefits.

It is Critical to Have the Support of Key Leadership

Strong political leadership is necessary for a state to pass a bill establishing a paid family leave program. Interview respondents from California and New York noted that both states had strong legislative leadership, including influential sponsors. In New York, Governor Cuomo

176

became a strong supporter of paid family leave following his father’s death, and as the new

Assembly Speaker, Carl Heastie was instrumental in garnering legislative support. Multiple

respondents mentioned the role that Speaker Heastie played making paid family leave a priority

for the Assembly, and influencing the rank-and-file membership. In California, Governor Davis

was seeking reelection in 2002, and took a centrist position on the issue but not actively oppose the legislation; Senator Sheila Kuehl however, was a specifically strong, skillful sponsor for the bill. Multiple respondents spoke about Senator Kuehl’s intelligence, political judgment, her commitment to women’s and family issues, and her willingness to listen to the opposition and find ways to negotiate compromises.

In contrast, interview respondents in Colorado and Illinois did not state that they had support from key legislative leaders. Respondents from Colorado noted difficulty gaining support from pro-business Democrats, and the Democratic Governor did not vocally support paid family leave. Respondents in Illinois were confident that their Governor would veto any bill that made it to his desk, and they also noted challenges identifying the right legislative sponsor.

Effective political leadership–whether it is a powerful sponsor, a Governor that supports the bill, or both–is critical to advancing a paid family policy.

Recommendations:

• Advocates and coalitions should work to identify influential legislative leaders and bill

sponsors who can work with the other side (generally Republicans) as well as the

business community and who will be able to make the appropriate compromises to get

the bill passed.

177

• Advocates and coalitions should continuously work to educate governors, legislators, and

their staff about paid family leave.

• Advocates and coalitions should specifically seek out policy entrepreneurs and educate

them about paid family leave. Paul-Shaheen found that policy entrepreneurs had two

distinguishing characteristics: 1) a passion for change that gives them the commitment

and drive to see an idea through, and 2) they are political pragmatists that do not hold

rigid positions. Instead, they worked on their issues to design a set of politically viable

concepts that would have the ability to get the necessary votes (Paul-Shaheen, 1998).

It is Critical to have an Open Window of Opportunity (or be ready to take Advantage of One)

An open window of opportunity existed in California in 2002 and in New York in late

2015 and early 2016 that did not exist in Colorado or Illinois. California had a Democratic

Governor and Democrats controlled the legislature. Many respondents noted that when

Democrats are in charge in California, “Labor gets what labor wants.” Others noted that paid family leave had been a legislative priority for labor unions in the state for a number of years.

2002 was also a gubernatorial election year and respondents noted that it was a very tumultuous time politically; there was a strong sense that Governor Davis would not win reelection. One respondent explained, “Unions and Democrats thought, "If we don't get it now, we may never get it," and they figured they could line up the votes and everybody would go along because they needed it. Paid family leave moved to the top of the agenda because they really wanted to get it done before there was any question about what was going to happen with Gray Davis.” This, combined with the strong coalition and legislative support, the cost study done by the

178

Employment Development Department, the cost benefit analysis released by researchers at U.C.

Berkeley, and strong sponsorship from Senator Kuehl set the stage for the bill to pass in

California.

In New York, multiple factors converged in late 2015 and early 2016, to open a window of opportunity for paid family leave. First, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order giving six weeks of paid parental leave (at 100 percent salary) to non-union employees in New York

City. Then, Governor Cuomo’s father passed away on New Year’s Day, 2016. Following his father’s death, Governor Cuomo became a vocal champion for paid family leave. Multiple bills had been introduced, including seven bills that year, but Governor Cuomo was instrumental in amending the 2016–2017 budget bill to include language establishing a paid family leave program for the state.

Recommendations:

• Advocates and legislators should be ready when a window of opportunity opens with a

bill that has already been tested through committees and has drawn out opposition

arguments. This will help sponsors and advocates understand what to expect and revise

and refine parameters and language.

• Advocates and coalitions should work to determine what within their external context can

create a window of opportunity. For example, in states with new political leadership after

an election, advocates and coalitions can use this new political landscape as a window of

opportunity (e.g., find newly-elected legislators that campaigned on family-friendly

policies and work with them on paid family leave).

179

Conclusions

There is no single silver bullet to passing a bill on a partisan issue like paid family leave.

Every state political context is different, and will change over time, and options need to be considered in the context that exists at that time. However, lessons can be learned from the states that have been able to pass these controversial, partisan policies, and also from the states that have tried and failed.

California and New York both had a long history of working on efforts related to paid family leave policies, strong support from influential legislators, and a Governor who either supported paid family leave, or who did not oppose it. Both states also had an existing SDI structure in place to administer a program, and a strong, organized statewide coalition dedicated to paid family leave efforts. Colorado and Illinois had fiscal analyses conducted to support their bills, California had a cost study and a cost benefit analysis specific to their bill, and New York was able to use fiscal evaluation findings from years of California’s program being implemented to support messaging in their state. Support from the business community, having businesses and business owners as part of the coalition, and strong cost benefit information helped California and New York counter opposition arguments. Once a window of opportunity opened in each state, advocates and sponsors had bill language established, and were already aware of opposition arguments and how to counter them. In both of these states, different external factors led to a window of opportunity opening, but advocates, supporters, and legislators were ready when the window opened.

180

Limitations

My goal was to better understand the barriers, facilitating factors, and lessons learned specific to adopting paid family leave policies in four different states, and look across those states to understand why two states succeeded and the others failed. First, my sample was limited to four states, and only two that were able to pass a policy. This small sample size limits the generalizability of my findings and results to a broader set of states. It is also important to note that each state is different, and advocates and legislators in each state will need to work within their own political and environmental contexts. I’ve done my best to provide recommendations that could apply broadly in a number of different settings, but not all findings or recommendations will be applicable to other states.

Additionally, a great deal of my data came from key informant interviews. It was challenging to reach and schedule interviews with all of the subjects that I wanted to speak with, and it is difficult to know whether or not I selected the “right” key informants to represent diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. Key informant interviews are also subject to recall bias, where the accuracy or completeness of what my respondents recalled could be very different from their actual experiences or how events transpired. This is especially true for California– where the efforts that we talked about took place in 2002, which was (at the time of the interviews) 14 years earlier.

Response bias is another limitation of my study. I reached out to many different individuals in all four states, including multiple supporters and opponents. I conducted a number of interviews with respondents who opposed the efforts in each state, but I received more communication from individuals who supported paid family leave compared to opponents, and these interviews were generally more robust.

181

CHAPTER 6: PLAN FOR CHANGE

Jobs and workers in the United States have changed dramatically over the last generation, but American workplace policies have failed to keep up with these changes. We are all likely to battle our own illness, or be a caregiver for a family member at some point in our lives, and we deserve to be present at that time without sacrificing our family’s economic security. My research, and ultimately my plan for change, is intended to inform the work being done by advocates and legislators, primarily at the state level. My hope is that this information will contribute to agenda-setting in states that do not yet have a paid family leave law, and will serve as a catalyst to accelerate the introduction and passage of laws and policies that protect and advance the rights of working families.

More specifically, my research was intended to provide a better understanding of the challenges that states have faced while trying to adopt paid family leave policies, and how states that were able to adopt polices overcame specific challenges. It was also intended to provide a better understanding of the facilitating factors that helped two specific states (California and

New York) adopt paid family leave policies, and the relative strength and importance of each– which factors were necessary but not sufficient, and which were of critical importance.

To have a better chance of passing a paid family leave policy, states need to have a strong, well-organized coalition that pulls from a broad base of support. It is important for this coalition to build a communication strategy that emphasizes arguments that have been proven

182

to be successful in other areas, including arguments that have been shown by others to successfully counter opposition talking points. The coalition should also build and use communication tools (like message maps) to ensure that the key messages are being communicated consistently. States that have a supportive political context, or a political climate that is primarily Democratic, states that have introduced a number of different bills in different legislative sessions, and states that have a longer history of working on efforts related to paid family leave may all be more likely to pass a paid family leave bill compared to states that do not exhibit these characteristics. States that already have an existing administrative structure in place

(only Hawaii and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are left without a paid leave policy), states that have the support of key leadership, and states where there is a window of opportunity are most likely to pass a paid family leave policy.

Based on this information and the lessons learned in the states that I studied, I intend to develop three key products for advocates, supporters, legislative staff, and state-level policymakers that are interested in adopting a paid family leave policy in their state. These products include: 1) an executive summary of my findings and recommendations, 2) an analysis of states that may be most likely to advance strong paid family leave policies based on significant characteristics, and 3) a framework of key components for a model paid family leave policy. My hope is that policy, legal, and advocacy organizations will be able to use the findings and products developed through this project to reach policymakers and their staff and influence state-level policy efforts through formal and informal channels.

183

Audiences

The primary audiences for my research findings and products are 1) policy advocacy organizations that focus on paid family leave, 2) non-profit foundations and organizations that focus on health, and 3) state-level policymakers and legislative staff.

Policy advocacy organizations

Through my research, I identified five national policy advocacy organizations that were heavily involved in the efforts in most (if not all) of the states that I looked at, and stated that paid family leave was currently one of their primary issues, including: the National Partnership for Women and Families, A Better Balance, Family Values @ Work, 9to5, and AARP. I identified two additional national organizations that did not come up through my research in these four states, but currently have a strong online presence and appear to be strong supporters of paid family leave, including: MomsRising.org, and PL+US: Paid Leave for the United States.

Both are 501(c)(3) organizations, and MomsRising.org has a 501(c)(4) arm as well.

I would specifically like to provide my findings and products to the two states that I researched that have not yet passed paid family leave policies, Colorado and Illinois. The

Colorado chapter of 9to5 led the coalition efforts in Colorado, along with the Colorado Fiscal

Institute, so a secondary audience includes the two advocacy organizations that led the paid family leave coalition in Illinois (Women Employed and the Sargent Shriver National Center on

Poverty Law) and the Colorado chapter of 9to5. Through my research I identified contacts at all of these organizations, and I will contact them to provide them with findings specific to their states and the products that I have created.

184

Non-profit Foundations and Organizations

Multiple national policy advocacy organizations have been involved in efforts across the

country to pass paid family leave policies, but non-profit foundations and organizations have been noticeably less involved. Paid family leave has the ability to promote economic stability and gender equality in the workplace, has established health benefits for caregivers and children, and can save employers money by increasing productivity, and helping employers retain educated, highly-trained workers. Therefore, I would like to reach out to contacts that I have developed at three specific foundations to provide them with my findings and products, and to discuss the potential for additional research to support paid family leave (e.g., additional research to build the business case for paid family leave).

• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the largest philanthropy in the U.S. focused

solely on health. The foundation's goal, through the use of grants, is "to improve the

health and health care of all Americans.”

• The de Beaumont Foundation “advances policy, builds partnerships, and strengthens

public health to create communities where people can achieve their best possible health.”

• Trust for America's Health is a 501(c)(3) “non-partisan public health policy, research and

advocacy organization that envisions a nation that values the health and well-being of all

and where prevention and health equity are foundational to policymaking at all levels of

society.”

185

Policymakers and Legislative Staff

It is my intention that information will be provided to state policymakers and their staff through the policy advocacy organizations that work in each state. There may also be legislators who are interested in learning more about paid family leave in states that do not yet have a strong advocacy or coalition presence. I will also provide information to the National Conference of

State Legislatures (NCSL), a bipartisan non-governmental organization (NGO) that was established in 1975 to serve the members and staff of U.S. state legislatures (including commonwealths and territories); all state legislators and staff members are automatically members of NCSL. NCSL has eight standing committees, including a standing committee on labor and economic development. These committees establish policy positions and coordinate lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. (Legislatures, 2018). The organization also lists paid family leave as a research topic,16 noting that they have a dedicated NCSL staffer to handle this specific topic.

Products

First, it is important to note that fact sheets, policy briefs, and issue briefs are all important informational pieces and help advocates and supporters make the case for paid family leave and educate both policymakers and constituents. Many excellent pieces are already available from the policy and advocacy organizations that have been working on paid family leave, including fact sheets the National Partnership for Women and Families17 and issue briefs

16 http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor–and–employment/paid–family–leave–resources.aspx

17 http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/work–family/paid–leave–fact–sheets.html

186

from a newer 501(c)(3) organization called PL+US (Paid Leave for the United States)18 and the

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.19 Therefore, I chose to develop additional products that would complement, and not duplicate, existing products.

Executive Summary

My goal is to communicate my findings to policymakers and their staff through advocates and NCSL, so that they can be used to inform state-level policies that help promote equality and expand choices for all individuals at all income levels, and allow them to care for their families without sacrificing their economic security. It is important to understand how policymakers ask for and process evidence, as well as the environment in which they operate.

Like all individuals, policymakers have too much information to process at any given time, and need to be able to receive and understand information quickly (Cairney & Kwiatkowski, 2017). I will develop an executive summary of my findings and recommendations in order to synthesize the information in my dissertation for my audiences, and provide a document that frames my findings and recommendations for the advocacy community and can help them communicate those findings and recommendations effectively with policymakers.

18 http://paidleave.us/issue–education–resources/

19 https://www.kff.org/womens–health–policy/issue–brief/paid–family–leave–and–sick–days–in–the–u–s–findings– from– the–2016–kaiser–hret–employer–health–benefits–survey/

187

Analysis: Opportunities to Advance Paid Family Leave Policies

Although six U.S. states and the District of Columbia have now passed paid family leave bills, 23 additional states have made legislative attempts. I will develop a list of states with strong potential to pass a paid family leave bills based on an analysis of characteristics that were helpful in predicting success for California and New York, including: having an administrative structure in place to implement a paid family leave program, having a favorable political climate, having a history of previous efforts or prior legislative attempts, and having an existing coalition.

Additionally, the Obama Administration funded the Paid Leave Analysis grant program from

2014 to 2016. Washington, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia were all recipients of this grant and used part of their funding to perform cost benefit analyses for their states.

California had economic impact data and a cost benefit analysis, and Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York all conducted legislative fiscal estimates before their bills were passed. Therefore,

I will include a fifth factor in my analysis: whether or not the state has conducted any kind of fiscal or economic analysis. This analysis and resulting list will be shared with the policy advocacy organizations outlined above.

Framework for a Model Paid Family Leave Policy

I would also like to use the findings from my study to develop a framework for a model paid family leave policy. Different states have different important considerations, and no U.S. state (to date) provides what the international literature suggests as a model policy in terms of length of leave or amount of compensation. I would like to develop a framework to outline the key components that should be included in a model state-level paid family leave policy,

188

including (for example) employee eligibility, the definition of a covered employer, length of

leave, amount of compensation (including weekly maximum), financing mechanism and

administrative structure, as well as more nuanced concepts like whether or not paid family leave

can be taken at the same time as short-term disability. Under each section, this framework could provide different options based on existing state policies that advocates and legislators could

consider in order to build the strongest policies for their states. The goal of the framework is to

gather all of the pieces that I’ve found into one place and create a policy “menu” that state

advocates and legislators could choose from in developing their own policies.

During my time working on this subject, I have found one substantial model policy (in

addition to specific state policies). This model policy was created by The National Partnership

for Women and Families and A Better Balance, and was last updated in 2015.20 I will discuss

this with my committee to determine the potential value in starting with this model policy and

updating it with the information that I found. If my committee agrees on this course of action, I

can work with the National Partnership and A Better Balance, to ensure that this would be a

useful product for these groups, and that they do not already have plans to update this document.

Communication Strategies

A gap exists between public health knowledge and its application in practice settings,

including policy development, which is due in part to ineffective dissemination and

communication (Brownson, Eyler, Harris, Moore, & Tabak, 2018). Others have studied

communications between researchers and policymakers to better understand how research

20 http://www.nationalpartnership.org/our–work/resources/workplace/paid–leave/model–state–paid–family–and– medical–leave–statute.pdf.

189

informs policy, how researchers disseminate and how policymakers access information, and how communication and exchange of information between these two groups works, in order to determine incentives for increasing the use of research in policymaking. These authors identified four strategies that supported the successful exchange of information, including: 1) making findings understandable to policymakers, 2) increasing opportunities for interaction between policymakers and researchers, 3) addressing structural barriers for research to relate to policy, and 4) changing the research to make it more relevant to policy issues (Campbell et al., 2009).

Two of these findings are specifically relevant to my research. First, policymakers reported that they thought there was a lack of relevant research that could inform policy.

Therefore, I designed my study to be specifically relevant to the issue of paid family leave, and to address gaps in knowledge related to the adoption of paid family leave policies by asking questions and collecting information that would be important for those who inform and design state-level paid family leave policies. Second, researchers reported that disseminating their research findings to policymakers required a high level of effort, and policymakers reported that they often found it difficult to access research findings through the channels most often used by researchers (brief summaries and systematic reviews). It was clear that a different communication approach was needed to communicate research findings to non-academic audiences, including the use of very brief summaries that contained clear statements of implications for practice (Campbell et al., 2009). Therefore, I decided to focus on creating materials that were brief and had very clear implications for practice, including the executive summary of my findings and recommendations, an analysis of states that may be most likely to advance strong paid family leave policies based on significant characteristics, and the framework of key components for a model paid family leave policy.

190

In another study, Harris et al., developed a practical framework for disseminating

evidence-based health promotion research. The authors identified two key factors that were

important for dissemination, including: 1) a strong relationship between researchers and another

organization that takes responsibility for dissemination and 2) the use of principles from social

marketing that focus on potential end users (Harris, 2012). Given these findings, I will focus on

developing strong relationships with key state- and national-level organizations that have

demonstrated leadership on the topic of paid family leave, consistently use social marketing

principles and focus on end users, and can play an important role in informing state-level policies

and disseminating my findings and products.

Clarifying My Role

While completing my doctorate I was employed by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) as a senior policy advisor, but my dissertation was not linked to my work, and my analysis and findings were my own conclusions as a researcher and author, and do not in any way represent my work for the CDC. As part of my job as a policy advisor I can conduct research and provide education and subject matter expertise, but as a federal employee I am

prohibited by the Anti-lobbying Act from engaging in activities during my office hours that are

considered to be aimed at influencing pending legislation (Appendix M).

Therefore, in order to share my information with the appropriate groups, it is important to

clarify that this will be done on my own time, as a volunteer. On my own time, I will work with

the members of my committee and other contacts that I have who have connections to the policy

advocacy organizations outlined above in order to establish lines of communication. Once I have

191

sufficiently briefed them on my work and the goals of my research, I will provide them with the products that I have created, and offer to follow-up with them to answer questions and provide any additional technical assistance that may be helpful. Because Illinois and Colorado were selected for in-depth case studies, I would also like to voluntarily offer targeted technical assistance to these two states based on what I’ve learned, if the coalitions in these two states would like the additional support.

The U.S. continues to lag behind all other developed countries in providing this necessary support for working families. My overarching goal with this project was to contribute practical products that will facilitate efforts at the state-level, and help accelerate the movement toward a national-level policy so that all individuals have the ability to take the leave that they need without sacrificing their own or their family’s economic security.

192

APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS

FMLA, Family and Medical Leave Act: In the U.S., the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed in 1993, grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to eligible employees every year. Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons: 1) birth, adoption, or foster care, 2) to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent who has a serious health condition; 3) for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job; or 4) for any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status. An eligible employee may also take up to 26 weeks of leave during a "single 12-month period" to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness, when the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the service member.

FMLA Covered Employer: FMLA covered employers include public agencies (including local, state, and Federal government agencies, regardless of size), public or private elementary and secondary schools, regardless of the number of employees, and private sector employers with 50 or more employees.

FMLA Covered Employee: employees who work for covered employers are only eligible to take FMLA if they work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles, they have worked for this employer for at least 12 months, and they have provided 1,250 hours of service in the 12 month period immediately preceding the leave (about 24 hours per week).

Home care leave (or childcare or child raising leave): employment–protected leaves of absence that sometimes follow parental leave and that typically allow at least one parent to remain at home to provide care until the child is two or three years of age. Home care leaves are less common than the other three types of leave and are offered only in a minority of OECD countries. They are also often unpaid, and where a benefit is available the home care leave tends to be paid only at a low flat–rate (OECD Report: Key Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems, 2015).

Maternity leave (or pregnancy leave): employment–protected leave of absence for employed women at around the time of childbirth, or adoption in some countries. The ILO convention on maternity leave stipulates the period of leave to be at least 14 weeks. In most countries beneficiaries may combine pre- with post-birth leave; in some countries a short period of pre- birth leave is compulsory as is a 6 to 10 week leave period following birth. Almost all OECD countries have public income support payments that are tied to taking maternity leave. In some countries (for example, Australia, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden), there is no separate regulation for maternity leave with stipulations instead integrated into the parental leave scheme (OECD Report: Key Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems, 2015).

Paid family leave is granted to an employee to care for a family member and includes paid maternity and paternity leave. The leave may be available to care for a newborn child, an adopted child, a sick child, or a sick adult relative. Paid family leave is given in addition to any

193

sick leave, vacation, personal leave, or short-term disability leave that is available to the employee.

Policy is defined as a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions.

Paternity leave: employment-protected leave of absence for employed fathers at the time of childbirth. Paternity leave is not stipulated by international convention. In general, periods of paternity leave are much shorter than for maternity leave. Because of the short period of absence, workers on paternity leave often continue to receive full wage payments. In some countries, father specific leave entitlement is part of the parental leave scheme, rather than established as a separate right (OECD Report: Key Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems, 2015).

Parental leave: employment-protected leave of absence for employed parents, which is often supplementary to specific maternity and paternity leave periods, and frequently, but not in all countries, follows the period of maternity leave. Entitlement to the parental leave period is often individual (i.e. each parent has their own entitlement) while entitlement to public income support is often family–based, so that in general only one parent claims such income support at any one time (except for a short period after childbirth). In some countries parental leave is generally a sharable family entitlement but with certain periods reserved for use by the mother or father, while in others (such as Austria and Germany) ‘bonus’ paid weeks are offered if both parents use a certain portion of the family entitlement. Assuming that the family wishes to maximize the total length of leave on offer, this implies that a certain number of weeks are effectively ‘reserved’ for fathers (OECD Report: Key Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems, 2015).

Parental and home care leave available to mothers: covers all weeks of employment– protected parental and home care leave that can be used by the mother. This includes any weeks that are an individual entitlement or that are reserved for the mother, and those that are a sharable or family entitlement. It excludes any weeks of parental leave that is reserved for the exclusive use by the father (OECD Report: Key Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems, 2015).

Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI): In 1946, Congress amended the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to allow states where employees make contributions under the unemployment insurance program to use some or all of these contributions to pay disability benefits. Of the nine states that could have benefited from this provision to use funding for temporary disability insurance, five states (California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, and Hawaii) and Puerto Rico, took advantage of the law and enacted social insurance programs that provide up to 6 weeks of partial compensation to eligible employees for the loss of wages caused by temporary non-work-related disability or maternity (pregnancy is treated as a “temporary disability” for the purpose of such programs). These programs are called temporary disability insurance (TDI) because the duration of payments is limited (Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 2011). State TDI programs are financed through employee contributions or through both employer and employee contributions to a state fund. In most states more workers are covered by TDI than are covered by FMLA, but TDI policies (Unlike FMLA) typically do not offer job protection to those taking leave (Fass, 2009)

194

APPENDIX B: FAILED STATE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS (as of December 30, 2018)21,22 Date Date Amount Amount of Funded by State Bill(s) Notes Introduced Failed* of Leave Pay Arizona HB 2594 2/11/2011 4/20/2011 5 weeks Up to $250 Employee & Identical bills were introduced HB 2306 1/17/2012 5/3/2012 (same) per week Employer by the same sponsor in 2011 and contributions 2012. Both would have created a paid family leave insurance program. HB 2465 was HB 2465 1/30/2018 5/4/2018 12 weeks Unknown introduced in 2018, few details were provided; section 23–1702 states that the Director shall adopt rules to implement and enforce this chapter.

195 Connecticut HB 6932/ 2/26/2015 5/26/2015 12 weeks Up to 100% Employee Multiple bills have been

SB 798 contributions introduced in Connecticut in the past few years that would create HB 5862 1/21/2015 6/3/2015 Not avail. Not available Not available a system to provide benefits to individuals who take family and SB 221 2/22/2016 3/29/2016 12 weeks 100% up to Employee medical leave. SB 221 in 2016 $1,000/week contributions was accompanied by a public HB 5139 2/15/2018 5/9/2018 Not avail. Not available Not available hearing and a fiscal note that estimated the program would SB 0001/ 2/7/2018 4/17/2018 12–14 100% up to Employee cost the Department of Labor HB 5387 3/1/2018 4/18/2018 wks $1,000/week contributions $209,910 in FY 18 and $419,820 annually thereafter.

21 Sources include: The National Partnership for Women and Families, Work and Family Policy Database: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/work– family/work–family–policy–database/, LegiScan: https://legiscan.com/, and individual state legislature websites.

22 This table only includes bills that would have mandated the provision of paid family leave for the majority of employees and does not include other bills that often get included in this category (e.g., bills that would provide tax incentives for employers to offer programs to their employees, bills that would require employers to allow an employee to take their own accrued leave for the purpose of family leave or bills that would mandate a fiscal impact or other paid family leave study, bills to provide leave for state employees only, bills only for maternity leave).

Colorado SB 14-196 4/15/2014 5/1/2014 12 weeks 66% to 95% Employee Bills that were very close in depending on contributions language were introduced in the earnings, up Senate in 2014 and in the House to $1,000 in 2015. A bill which appears to HB 15- 3/4/2015 4/30/2015 12 weeks 66% to 95% Employee use the same language as the 1258 depending on contributions 2015 bill was introduced with earnings, up substantial Democratic support to $1,000 in the House in 2017. The 2017 HB 17- 3/29/2017 4/28/2017 12 weeks 66% to 95% Employee bill was accompanied by a fiscal 1307 depending on contributions note that projected start-up costs earnings, up of $470,435 (to be paid by gifts, to $1,000 grants, or donations). HB 17- 1307 passed the House then died

196 in committee in the Senate.

Georgia SB 411 2/19/2016 3/24/2016 6 weeks Up to 100% Employee & Both bills would have provided of previous Employer eligible employees with partially AWW contributions paid leave for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of SB 63 1/25/2017 3/31/2017 6 weeks 55% of Employee & a child; or to care for their own quarterly Employer serious health condition or that income/13 contributions of a family member. The 2017 bill added the provision of leave for acute alcoholism or drug addiction. SB 63 was accompanied by a ballot initiative to create a Family and Medical Leave Fund (Resolution SR-73) that the Senate referred on 1/25/2017 which was not put forward because SB 63 did not pass.

Hawaii HB 2097 1/21/2014 5/2/2014 12 weeks Up to 66% of Employee Multiple bills introduced to SB 2523 1/17/2014 5/2/2014 12 weeks prev. AWW and/or allow workers to take up to 12 Employer weeks of leave per year for contributions “family reasons” (2014), to SB 965 1/23/2015 5/7/2015 4 weeks 58% of prev. Employee establish a family leave HB 496 1/26/2015 5/7/2015 4 weeks AWW; max: contributions insurance program and provide $570 partial pay to employees taking family leave for the birth, HB 1049 1/28/2015 5/7/2015 12 weeks Up to 66% of Employee adoption, or foster placement of prev. AWW contributions a new child, or to care for a child, spouse, reciprocal HB 2128 1/25/2016 5/5/2016 12 weeks Up to 58% of Employee beneficiary or parent with a HB 1911 1/25/2016 5/5/2016 12 weeks avg. wkly. contributions serious health condition (2015), wage to require public and private 197 employers to provide eligible HB 1785 1/22/2016 5/5/2016 12 weeks Up to 66% of Employee employees with 12 weeks of SB 2229 1/22/2016 5/5/2016 12 weeks employee’s contributions paid family and medical leave monthly (2015), to establish a family wages leave insurance program and a trust fund funded through SB 408/ 1/20/2017 11/6/2018 12 weeks Equal to TDI Employee employee contributions (2016), HB 1362 1/25/2017 11/6/2018 12 weeks Equal to TDI contributions to revise the Hawaii Family Leave Law to increases leave from 4 weeks of unpaid leave to 12 weeks of leave at up to 66% pay (2016), and again to provide 12 weeks of paid family leave (2017). Illinois HB 3470 2/23/2005 1/9/2007 4 weeks 67% of prev. Employee HB 3470, HB 1683, and HB AWW; max: contributions 5409 would all have created a $380 Family Leave Insurance Program. None of these bills offered job protection, but leave

HB 1683 2/22/2007 1/13/2009 4 weeks 67% of prev. Employee could be taken concurrently with AWW; max: contributions FMLA. Additionally, they did adjusted for not allow leave to be taken for inflation. the employee's own serious illness. A fiscal note was HB 5409 2/11/2014 12/3/2014 4 weeks 67% of prev. Employee requested and filed with HB AWW; max contributions 1683 and projected $16 million adjusted for in start-up, ongoing cost of $46 inflation. million annually. HB 166 contained much of the same HB 166 1/14/2015 5/31/2016 6 weeks Up to $300 Employee language as previous bills, and per week, contributions although it still would not have pro-rated for extended coverage to an part-time individual to care for their own employees injury or illness, it would have provided coverage for disability 198 SB 260 7/5/2016 1/10/2017 12 weeks 67% of prev. Employee due to pregnancy or a period of

in 24 mos AWW; max: contributions absence for prenatal care. A 53% of the fiscal note was filed for HB 166 statewide that estimated it would cost avg. wkly. between $75 and $100 million to wage start a program in Illinois with an ongoing cost of at least $46 SB 1721 2/9/2017 5/5/2017 12 weeks 67% of prev. Employee million annually after that. SB in 24 mos AWW; max: contributions 260 and SB 1721 would have 53% of the provided job protection during statewide the leave period but did not AWW include the state of Illinois as an 12 weeks employer. SB 1721 and HB HB 2376 2/3/2017 4/27/2018 in 24 mos 67% of Employee 2376 did not provide an annual previous contributions cap (per employee) on employee AWW max: contributions. Fiscal note filed 53% of the with HB 2376 estimated the

statewide same costs as HB 166, including AWW start-up costs between $75 and $100 million with ongoing costs of at least $46 million annually. Indiana SB 210 1/6/2016 3/10/2016 Employee Employee Employee & Would have established a family could could select Employer leave insurance program to select the benefits contributions provide benefits to employees number of equal to who elected to participate in the weeks 50%, 75%, program (voluntary for both or 100% of employers and employees). salary Louisiana SB 84 4/13/2015 6/11/2015 12 weeks Calculated Employee & The Senate bill would have for new the same as Employer established a family and medical child or UI benefits; contributions leave benefits program for family, not to exceed eligible employees to take paid 24 weeks 66% of the family or medical leave to care 199 for self- state's AWW for a new child, for the care employee's own serious health condition or that of a family HB 703 4/13/2015 6/11/2015 12 weeks Based on member. for new balance of child or the leave family, fund and 24 weeks state AWW; for self- max: 66% of care state AWW Maine HB 701 2/28/2017 6/12/2017 6 weeks 66% of prev. Employee HB 701 would have established previous contributions the Maine Paid Family Leave AWW; max: Insurance Program, providing 100% of six weeks of partially-paid leave state AWW to eligible employees for reasons specified under FMLA. Assuming an October 1, 2017

effective date, a fiscal impact statement estimated that the program would require General Fund appropriations of almost $36 million over two years to establish and administer the program. Maryland HB 985 2/13/2015 3/17/2015 12 weeks 66% of Employee & Would have established a family previous Employer and medical leave insurance AWW min. contributions program for eligible employees $50, max. to receive benefits while taking $700 per family or medical leave. week

Minnesota HF 580/ 2/5/2015 3/10/2015 6 weeks 66%-95% of Employee & HF 580 and SF 779 would have 200 SF 779 2/5/2015 3/25/2015 6 weeks prev. AWW, Employer expanded the current state family

max: contributions leave law from 12 weeks of $1,000/week unpaid leave to 6 weeks of paid leave (+ 6 unpaid). SF 1085/HF SF 1085/ 2/23/2015 3/14/2016 6-12 65%-95% of Employee & 1093 were omnibus bills that HF 1093 2/19/2015 weeks prev. AWW, Employer package together multiple max: contributions standalone bills including bills $1,000/week dealing with flexible work schedules, paid sick days, paid HF 239 1/12/2017 3/1/2017 12 weeks 65%-95% of Employee & family leave, domestic violence prev. AWW, Employer and the workplace. HF 239 was max: contributions a bill that included paid family $1,000/week leave along with wage theft protection, earned sick and safe time; fair scheduling.

Mississippi SB 2820 1/16/2017 1/31/2017 12 weeks Not defined, Not defined Would have provided covered may be employees at businesses with 50 100%, no or more employees with up to 12 weekly max weeks of paid leave for the birth, provided adoption, or foster placement of a child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member. Covered family members include a parent, child, spouse, or domestic partner. Missouri HB 1161 3/10/2015 5/15/2015 640 hours 65% of the Employer HB 1161 (2015), SB 983 (2016) (16 wks) employee’s contributions and SB 54 (2017) were identical 201 hourly rate or bills that would have provided $300, eligible employees with whichever is partially-paid family and greater medical leave. HB 2536 would have provided up to 30 days of HB 2536 2/11/2016 5/13/2016 30 days 100% of Employee wage replacement benefits at prev. avg. contributions 100% of pay. HB 2806 in 2016 daily pay would have provided 30 days, and the amount of pay was not HB 2806 3/15/2016 5/13/2016 6 weeks Not stated, Employer specified. Identical bills were may be contributions introduced in the Senate and 100% House in 2017 (SB 69 and HB 659) that would have provided 6 SB 983 1/26/2016 5/13/2016 640 hours 65% of the Not stated weeks at 100% of the (16 wks) employee’s individual’s previous average hourly rate or weekly wage. Notably, public $300, hearings were conducted in both whichever is the House and Senate regarding greater HB 659 and SB 69 on 4/25/2017, and a fiscal note was

SB 1049 2/11/2016 5/13/2016 6 weeks 100% of Employee also filed related to both bills prev. avg. contributions which estimated the total cost to daily pay; + employers develop the program to be max: 30 x the at their almost $975 million over 3 avg. daily discretion years: pay amount. https://house.mo.gov/billtracking /bills171/fiscal/fispdf/0705– SB 69/ 1/4/2017 5/12/2017 6 weeks 100% of Employee 02N.ORG.pdf, and that the cost HB 659 1/19/2017 5/12/2017 6 weeks previous contributions to administer and maintain AWW; max: ongoing estimated at $10 state AWW million/year. Not stated SB 54 1/4/2017 5/12/2017 640 hours 65% of the (16 wks) employee’s hourly rate or 202 $300, whichever is greater

HB 1059 2/28/2017 5/12/2017 8 weeks 67% of Employee previous contributions AWW Montana HB 392 2/6/2017 4/28/2017 480 hours 1.92% of Employer Would have provided eligible (12 wks) 50% of the and employees with partially-paid state AWW employee leave for the birth, adoption, or + 0.96% of contributions foster placement of a child; to the care for their own serious health employee’s condition or that of a family AWW; max: member; or for a qualifying $1,000 or the exigency related to a family state AWW, member's military deployment. whichever is Fiscal note indicated the greater program would cost almost $80

million to start and administer: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2017/FN PDF/HB0392_1.pdf Nebraska LB 955 1/16/2014 4/18/2014 6 weeks 66% to 95% Employee Bills were introduced in 2014, of prev. contributions 2016 and 2017. They differed in AWW; max: the length of leave that would 66% of state have been provided, and the AWW 2017 bill differed only slightly in the amount of compensation for LB 850 1/8/2016 3/9/2016 8-12 wks. 66% to 95% Employee the lowest income bracket. All of prev. contributions programs would have been AWW; max: funded by employee 66% of state contributions. AWW

203 LB 305 1/12/2017 4/18/2018 6-12 wks. 66% to 90% Employee

of prev. contributions AWW; max: 66% of state AWW New HB 628 1/24/2017 6/30/2018 12 weeks Employee's Employee Would have provided eligible Hampshire wages contributions employees with up to 12 weeks divided by of paid leave for the birth, 13 and adoption, or foster placement of multiplied by a child; or to care for their own 0.6; max: serious health condition or that 85% of the of a family member. This bill state AWW was introduced in the 2017 session, held over into the 2018 session, then passed the House on 3/22/2018 but died in committee in the Senate at the end of the 2018 session.

Ohio SB 307/ 4/7/2016 12/31/2016 12 weeks 66% to 95% Employee Identical bills that would have HB 511 4/7/2016 12/31/2016 of the contributions established family and medical employee’s - employers leave insurance benefits (starting prev. AWW could choose in 2020) to provide 12 weeks of earnings; to pay those partially-paid leave to allow an max: contributions individual to address their own $1,000/wk. on behalf of serious health condition, to care their for a family member with a employees serious health condition, or to bond with a new child. Additionally, family and medical leave benefits would have been exempted from personal income tax.

204 Oklahoma HB 2927 2/1/2016 5/27/2016 6 weeks Up to 65% of Employee HB 2927 would have provided previous contributions up to 6 weeks of partially-paid AWW time off for all workers to care for a seriously ill family member HB 1815/ 2/6/2017 5/3/2018 6 weeks 65% of Employee or to bond with a minor child SB 143 2/6/2017 5/3/2018 previous contributions within one year of the birth or AWW placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption. HB 1815 and SB 143 would have provided eligible employees with up to 6 weeks of partially-paid leave for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child; or to care for a family member's serious health condition (no self-care provision in either bill).

Oregon HB 4160 2/8/2018 3/3/2018 12 weeks 90% of the Employer Would have created a family and of family employees and medical leave insurance program & medical prev. AWW employee to provide eligible employees leave + 6 contributions with partially-paid leave while weeks of on family medical leave or parental military leave, with job leave protection. Would have allowed self-employed individuals to opt into the program. Texas HB 656 12/20/2016 5/1/2017 30 days Employee’s Employee Provides that employees who previous contributions have been employed by an AWW 23 employer of any size for at least one year is entitled to up to 30

205 days of leave annually to care for

their own serious health condition or that of a family member, care for a new child, or address their own or a family member's domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or trafficking.

Vermont H 652 1/21/2014 5/10/2014 6 weeks 66% of the Employee HB 652 (2014) would have employee's contributions allowed workers to take up to six avg. weekly weeks of paid leave for family or wage up to medical reasons at their average $500 max. weekly wage; S 254 (2016) would have created a Family S 254 1/5/2016 5/6/2016 6 weeks 100% of Leave Insurance Program to employee’s provide eligible employees with

23 Employers who already provide paid sick leave or other paid leave must allow their employees to use the leave for the above purposes. For employees whose employers do not already provide paid leave, benefits are paid for by an employee contribution.

prev. AWW, Employee six weeks of paid family leave or the and employer for pregnancy, birth, adoption, H 196 2/7/2017 5/12/2018 12 weeks equivalent of contributions illness (self) or to care for a a 40-hour family member with a serious workweek Employee illness. HB 196 would have paid at a rate and employer provided eligible employees up double that contributions to 12 weeks of paid leave for the of the livable birth, adoption, or foster wage, placement of a child, or to care whichever is for their own serious health less condition or that of a family member. H 196 was passed by S 82 2/14/2017 5/18/2017 12 weeks 50% to 90% Employee both the House and Senate, but of the and employer vetoed by the Governor. The employee’s contributions governor stated that he would

206 prev. AWW have supported a voluntary program, but did not support this program primarily because it would impose a new tax on employees without the option to opt out. He also stated that he believed the startup costs of the program, and the payroll taxes required to fund it were significantly understated. S 82 would have provided 12 weeks of partially-paid leave to eligible employees, paid by employer and employee contributions. Virginia HB 999 1/13/2016 1/28/2016 60 days 66% of Employee Both HB 999 (2016) and HB monthly and employer 2126 (2017) would have wages contributions provided family and medical

leave benefit payments to HB 2126 1/11/2017 2/8/2017 60 days 1/18 of Employer eligible employees for reasons annual and covered under the federal Family wages; min. employee and Medical Leave Act of 1993. $580, max: contributions Multiple bills were introduced in $4,000 the 2018 legislative session that would have provided different SB 421 1/9/2018 3/10/2018 1 hour for Not stated, Not stated lengths of paid family and every 50 may be medical leave for eligible hours 100% employees. worked; max: 72 hours (9 days)

207 SB 736 1/22/2018 3/10/2018 Up to 30 Not Employer days per finalized, and year would be employee comparable contributions to wage replacement benefits under UI

HB 973 2/13/2018 3/10/2018 40 hours/ Not stated, Not stated year may be (5 days) 100%

HB40 2/13/2018 3/10/2018 60 days/ 66% of Employer year monthly and (12 wks) wages; min. employee $580, max: contributions $4,000

Wisconsin AB 894 3/27/2014 6/4/2014 6 weeks 66% of the Employee AB 894 would have created a employee’s contributions family leave benefits program to avg. weekly provide eligible employees with earnings, up partial pay following the birth or to a max. of adoption of a new child, or to 53% of the care for a child, spouse, state’s avg. domestic partner, or parent who weekly has a serious health condition earnings in (no provision for self–care). the previous Identical bills (AB 516 and SB year. 385) were introduced in 2015. Both would have expanded the AB 516 11/13/2015 4/13/2016 12 weeks 66% to 95% Employee existing family and medical SB 385 11/12/2015 4/13/2016 for birth, of prev. contributions leave law to permit an employee adoption, AWW covered under that law to take and family family leave to care for a 208 care; 2 grandparent, grandchild, or weeks for sibling, lowered the threshold self-care number of employees above which an employer must SB 215 4/20/2017 3/28/2018 8 weeks 66% to 95% Employee permit an employee to take of prev. contributions family or medical leave, and AWW established a family and medical leave insurance program under AB 286 5/1/2017 3/28/2018 8 weeks 66% to 95% Employee which covered individuals could of prev. contributions receive benefits while taking AWW family or medical leave. * If a date of failure is not clearly stated, the last day of the legislative session is provided.

APPENDIX C: STATE POLITICAL COMPOSITION WHEN BILLS WERE INTRODUCED24

State Year (#) Governor Senate House 2011 (1) Jan Brewer (R) R R Arizona 2012 (1) Jan Brewer (R) R R 2018 (1) Doug Ducey (R) R R 2015 (2) Dan Malloy (D) D D Connecticut 2016 (1) Dan Malloy (D) D D 2018 (3) Dan Malloy (D) D D 2014 (1) John Hickenlooper (D) R D Colorado 2015 (1) John Hickenlooper (D) R D 2017 (1) John Hickenlooper (D) R D 2016 (1) Nathan Deal (R) R R Georgia 2017 (1) Nathan Deal (R) R R 2014 (1) David Yutaka Ige (D) D D 2015 (2) David Yutaka Ige (D) D D Hawaii 2016 (3) David Yutaka Ige (D) D D 2017 (2) David Yutaka Ige (D) D D 2005 (1) Pat Quinn (D) D D 2007 (1) Pat Quinn (D) D D 2014 (1) Pat Quinn (D) D D Illinois 2015 (1) Bruce Rauner (R) D D 2016 (1) Bruce Rauner (R) D D 2017 (2) Bruce Rauner (R) D D Indiana 2016 (1) Mike Pence (R) R R Louisiana 2015 (2) John Bel Edwards (D) R R Maine 2017 (1) Paul LePage (R) R D Maryland 2015 (1) Larry Hogan (R) D D 2015 (4) Mark Dayton (D) D R Minnesota 2017 (1) Mark Dayton (D) R R Mississippi 2017 (1) Phil Bryant (R) R R 2015 (1) Jay Nixon (D) R R Missouri 2016 (4) Jay Nixon (D) R R 2017 (4) Eric Greitens (R) R R Montana 2017 (1) Steve Bullock (D) R R

24 Sources include: Ballotpedia, a nonpartisan online political encyclopedia sponsored by the Lucy Burns Institute, a nonprofit organization, and individual state legislature websites.

209

2014 (1) Dave Heineman (R) R (Unicameral)25 Nebraska 2016 (1) Pete Ricketts (R) R (Unicameral) 2018 (1) Pete Ricketts (R) R (Unicameral) New Hampshire 2017 (1) Chris Sununu (R) R R Ohio 2016 (2) John Kasich (R) R R 2016 (1) Mary Fallin (R) R R Oklahoma 2017 (2) Mary Fallin (R) R R Oregon 2018 (1) Kate Brown (D) D D Texas 2016 (1) Greg Abbott (R) R R 2014 (1) Peter Shumlin (D) D D Vermont 2016 (1) Peter Shumlin (D) D D 2017 (2) Peter Shumlin (D) D D 2016 (1) Terry McAuliffe (D) R R Virginia 2017 (1) Terry McAuliffe (D) R R 2018 (4) Ralph Northam (D) R R 2014 (1) Scott Walker (R) R R Wisconsin 2015 (2) Scott Walker (R) R R 2017 (2) Scott Walker (R) R R

Total States: 23; Total Attempts: 76

Out of 76 total paid family leave bills introduced, 42 were introduced under Republican control and 34 were introduced under Democratic control. 26 bills were introduced while Republicans controlled all three branches, 22 were introduced while Democrats controlled all three branches.

Governor/Senate/House • 26 R/R/R attempts (11 states: AZ, GA, IN, MS, MO, NE, NH, OH, OK, TX, and WI • 22 D/D/D (5 states: CT, HI, IL, OR, VT) • 15 D/R/R (5 states: LA, MN, MO, MT, VA) • 3 D/R/D (1 state: CO) • 5 R/D/D (2 states: IL, MD) • 1 R/R/D (1 state: ME) • 4 D/D/R (1 state: MN)

25 The Nebraska Legislature is nonpartisan; members' party affiliations are for informational purposes only. Republican-affiliated: 31 members; Democratic-affiliated: 16 members; Libertarian-affiliated: 1 member; Independent: 1 member.

210

APPENDIX D: NUMBER OF BILLS INTRODUCED BY STATE (CA, CO, NY, IL)

California Colorado New York Illinois Years working on PFL 1985–2018 2011–2018 1998–2018 2005–2018 Number of “Pre-curser” bills26 9 2 227 0 Number of PFL bills 8 4 24 7 Paid Family Leave bills that SB 1661 (2002) passed with dates SB 770 (2013) None S6406 – Budget (2016) None AB 908 (2015) AB 2587 (2018) Paid Family Leave bills that A9463 (1998-1999) failed with dates A8742/S5791 (2009-2010)

211 S4074 (2009-2010) A6289/S7547 (2011-2012)

A9476/S6896 (2011-2012) HB 3470 (2005-2006) S1252 (2011-2012) AB 804 (2011) SB 14-196 (2014) HB 1683 (2007-2008) A1848 (2013-2014) SB 761 (2013) HB 15-1258 (2015) HB 5409 (2013-2014) A2654/S120 (2013-2014) AB 688 (2015) HB 17-1307 (2017) HB 166 (2015-2016) A1793/S4742 (2013-2014) SB 1123 (2018) HB 18-1001 (2018) SB 260 (2015-2016) A1534 (2015-2016) SB 1721 (2017-2018) A2851/S1298 (2015-2016) HB 2376 (2017-2018) A3870/S3004 (2015-2016) A9367 (2015-2016) S3301 (2015-2016) A9006 (Budget, 2016) A1834 (2017-2018)

26 Bills that were introduced and/or passed that were not specifically PFL bills, but helped to lay an important foundation for the PFL bills that were then introduced.

27 Not included in this time period: TDI benefits in New York were expanded in 1977 to include disability for pregnancy and recovery after childbirth, and the maximum TDI benefit rate in New York was last increased in 1989 to the current rate of $170 per week, which remains the lowest of the five states that amended their UI laws to establish a TDI program.

APPENDIX E: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SEARCH RESULTS

CALIFORNIA (30 total) Bill Dates Timeframe Newspaper #1 Newspaper #2 Newspaper #3 SB 1661 Introduced: 2/21/2002 2/21/2001– Los Angeles Times: San Jose Mercury Sacramento Bee: initial Passed: 9/25/2002 10/9/2002 initial search 56 Times (using search 26 articles; articles; narrowed to 20 Highbeam Research): narrowed to 8 articles. articles. initial search 5 articles; narrowed to 2 articles. COLORADO (22 total) Bill Dates Timeframe Newspaper #1 Newspaper #2 Newspaper #3 HB 15-1258 Introduced: 3/1/2015 3/1/2014– Denver Post: initial The Pueblo Chieftain Denver Business Failed: 4/30/2015 5/14/2015 search 69 articles; initial search: 15 Journal:28 initial search narrowed to 11 articles. articles; narrowed to 1 42 articles; narrowed to article. 10 articles. 212 NEW YORK (60 total) Bill Dates Timeframe Newspaper #1 Newspaper #2 Newspaper #3 S6406/ Introduced: 1/14/2016 1/14/2015– The Wall Street The New York Times: The Daily News: initial A9006 Passed: 4/4/2016 4/18/2016 Journal: initial search initial search 77 search 118 articles; 106 articles; narrowed articles; narrowed to 11 narrowed to 25 articles. to 24 articles. articles. ILLINOIS (3 total) Bill Dates Timeframe Newspaper #1 Newspaper #2 Newspaper #3 HB 166 Introduced 1/14/2015 1/1/2015– Chicago Tribune: Chicago Sun-Times: Chicago Daily Herald: Failed: 4/28/2016 5/12/2016 initial search 84 initial search 173 initial search 169 articles; narrowed to 1 articles; narrowed to 2 articles; narrowed to 0 article. articles. articles.

28 Denver Business Journal was substituted for the Gazette–initial search of the Gazette resulted in 1 article, which was reviewed briefly for content and determined to be irrelevant.

APPENDIX F: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE

Key Informant Interview Guide The following is a draft Key Informant Interview Guide which will be modified based on findings from the content analysis.

Introduction:

Thank you so much for agreeing to talk to me about your experience regarding paid

family leave policies in your state. My name is Erin Abramsohn, and I am a graduate student at

the University of North Carolina in the Doctor of Public Health Program. The information I’m

collecting today is part of a study for my dissertation research. This information will be used to

inform efforts to consider state-level paid family leave polices in U.S. states. The aim of this

research study is to gain a better understanding of the barriers and facilitating factors you

experienced during your state’s efforts related to adopting a paid family leave policy, and the

lessons you learned. The interview should take about 30 to 45 minutes. I am happy to answer any

questions you have about the research study or the interview.

I may publish portions of my dissertation, in which case the findings would become

publicly available. Your interview will be completely confidential and any information you

provide will be released only as part of an aggregate summary; your name will not be connected

to your answers in any way. In order to fully capture your responses today, I would like to record

our conversation, then the recording will be transcribed into a word document. All recordings

and transcriptions will be destroyed at the end of the research study.

213

First, are you willing to participate in this interview? [Yes/No] [If yes] Thank you so much. I’m going to start the recording and ask you again if you are willing to participate, if you are willing to have our conversation recorded, and if you have any questions before we proceed. [Start recording]

Are you willing to participate in this interview? [Yes/No]

[If yes] Do I have your permission to record our conversation today?

[If yes]: If you would like to have me stop the recording at any point in our

conversation, please let me know and I will stop the recording.

Do you have any questions before we proceed with the interview?

KII Questions

1. Can you please tell me a little bit about your involvement in your state’s efforts to adopt a paid family leave policy?

2. Tell me a little about the circumstances that surrounded the introduction of the bill. • [For the bill sponsor(s) only] Why did you choose to introduce the bill at this time? For example, was another bill introduced or passed in another state? • Were there any specific events or circumstances that supported the introduction of a paid family leave bill (such as polling data, research, news stories, national-level efforts, or other events that supported the introduction of the bill). If so, please explain. • Were there any specific leaders (political or non-political actors, elected or non- elected leaders) who were instrumental in galvanizing support for the introduction of this legislation (initiating policy change, shepherding innovative ideas, or energizing or guiding the process)? • Which of these factors was the most critical/influential to the introduction of the bill?

214

3. What did the political and environmental context in the state look like when the bill was being considered?

• Did the idea of paid family leave have bipartisan support in your state? Or was this more of a partisan issue? Please explain.

• What effect do you think the political make-up of the legislature had on the passage/defeat of the bill? Please explain.

• Did the support or opposition of any influential or senior legislators play a role in the passage/defeat of the bill? Please explain.

o If I wanted to interview a legislator who actively opposed the legislation, who would you recommend I talk to? • What effect do you think the Governor’s office had on the passage or defeat of the bill? Please explain.

o If I wanted to talk to someone in the Governor’s office who was involved in this legislation, who would you recommend I talk to?)

• Were there any other demographic or environmental factors that had an effect on the passage or defeat of the bill (such as overall economic factors or changing demographics)?

• Were any of these factors critical? If so–which ones?

4. Can you tell me a little about the groups that supported and opposed the legislation? • Who were the major groups that supported the legislation (statewide coalitions, civil rights, women or children’s advocacy groups, business groups, or other interest groups)? If general interest/advocacy groups–can you tell me a little more about their work/focus area(s)?

o Which group(s) was/were the most influential? Was there a main spokesperson for this/these group(s)? • Who were the major groups that opposed the legislation? Again, if general interest/advocacy groups–can you tell me a little more about their work/focus area(s)?

o Which group(s) was/were the most influential? Was there a main spokesperson for this/these group(s)? • Regarding the most influential groups (in support and in opposition)–why do you think they were so effective? For example, did they have strong connections to legislative leaders? Were they major campaign contributors? Did they have the ability to mobilize grassroots efforts, etc.?

215

5. Can you tell me a little bit about arguments that were made in support of paid parental leave?

• Were there arguments that were particularly effective in getting legislators to support the paid family leave legislation? If so, what were they? [Probe]: Impact on families and children, workforce participation, impact on the economy, etc. [Probe]: where did these messages (or the information they were based on) come from? For example, NCSL, ALEC, National Partnership, etc… [Probe]: can you think of other messages that might have been more effective in overcoming opposition to the bill? • Were there any media stories supporting paid parental leave? If so, please explain. [Probe]: in what media markets? • Did any groups or individuals provide testimony or personal stories about their experiences that were particularly effective? Please explain. [Probe]: Were supporters able to personalize the need for paid parental leave through testimony or personal stories? (Did the testimony or personal stories help to put a face to the problem?) If so, how? • Was there research to show that the bill would be neutral or have a positive impact on employers (in terms of profitability/cash flow, or in terms of employee retention and/or morale?) If so, by whom?

6. Can you tell me a little bit about arguments that were made against paid parental leave? • Were there arguments or messages that were particularly effective in getting legislators to oppose the paid family leave legislation? If so, what were they? [Probe]: funding, economic impact to the state or businesses, how the program would be administered, impact on business)? [Probe]: Where did these messages (or the information they were based on) come from? For example, NCSL, ALEC, National Partnership, etc.? • Were there any media stories opposing paid parental leave? If so, please explain. [Probe]: in what media markets?

216

7. Can you describe the most notable challenges or barriers to passing a paid family leave policy in your state? a. For states that passed legislation: Can you describe how these challenges or barriers were overcome? b. For states that did not pass legislation: which of these factors contributed most to the defeat of the policy that was introduced?

8. [For states that passed legislation]: Can you describe the most notable factors that facilitated efforts to pass a paid family leave policy in your state? [Probe]: what factors contributed most to the success of the legislation? a. How did the bill sponsor and supporters counter some of the opponents’ arguments (probe: costs, administrative burden, other–mentioned earlier)? b. Was there a specific event or series of events that made it possible to pass legislation? Would you consider this a “window of opportunity” that made it easier to pass this legislation? c. What was the role of the media, if any, in leading to the successful passage of paid family leave? d. For states that passed legislation: what factors contributed most to the success of the legislation?

9. Can you describe any notable concessions or compromises that were made? (like, breadth of coverage, length of leave, income eligibility, funding/who’s paying) or Please tell me how important these concessions/compromises were in terms of their impact on passing (or killing) legislation:

• Critical • Important • Moderately Important • Slightly Important • Not Important

10. Was the bill changed in any way to be broader/more inclusive, or more narrowly defined (i.e., interpreting family leave to include or exclude any of the following (maternity, paternity, adoption, foster care, illness of family member or self)?

• In the end, do you think that the way the concept of “family leave” was defined contributed to the success or failure of the bill? Was the definition too broad, or too narrow?

217

11. You mentioned a lot of different factors that influenced the passage/defeat of the most recent bill (including… cite from notes). Of these, can you identify the top 1–2 factors that contributed to the success or failure of the legislation? Was any one of these factors significantly more important than the others? If so, which one?

12. Were there any factors or conditions that, if changed, may have changed the outcome of the bill? For example, a different political climate, weaker chamber of commerce, an important study?

13. Is there anything else you can think of that would help me understand why paid family leave passed/failed in your state?

14. I know that there have been past efforts to pass paid family leave in your state. Why do you think this effort was different compared to prior efforts? (This question would be particularly true for NY where it failed before). [Probe]: If you had the opportunity to do anything differently (in this effort or prior efforts), what would it be?

Conclusion: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today. The information and insights you shared will be extremely valuable to my study. If you are interested, I would be happy to share the results of my research when the final report has been approved and accepted by the University of North Carolina.

218

APPENDIX G: RELEVANT CALIFORNIA BILLS, 1946–2018

Bill Session/Year Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions SB 656 1999-2000 Solis (D) None Raised the state’s maximum Introduced February 24, 1999. weekly SDI benefit level over a Passed by the full Senate on June 2. period of 4 years–from $336 in Passed by the full Assembly on 2000 to $728 in 2004, and made September 3 and sent back to the SDI benefits equal to weekly Senate to be enrolled. Approved by benefits for workers' the Governor and Chaptered on compensation benefits. The bill October 10, 1993 (PASSED). also required the CA State EDD to conduct a cost study on the fiscal impact of extending SDI benefits to cover family care. SB 1661 2001-2002 Kuehl (D) TDI; Expanded coverage under Introduced February 21, 2002 and SDI to include family and referred to the Senate Committee on

219 medical leave for up to 12 weeks Labor and Industrial Relations. to care for a newborn, a newly Passed full Senate on June 10, sent

adopted child or an ill family to Assembly. Passed by full member. Provided 55-60% of assembly on August 27, sent to their regular wages, up to $728 Senate for enrollment. Senate maximum weekly benefit, concurred with Assembly starting in 2004. Funded through amendments, sent to Governor on an increase in employee payroll September 10, approved by deductions; administered Governor on September 25, through the State Disability chaptered September 26, 2002 Insurance Program. No job (PASSED). protection. AB 804 2011 Yamada (D) Ammiano Would have amended parts of Introduced February 17, 2011. (D), Paul the UI code related to Referred to the Assembly Fong (D), unemployment insurance to Committee on Insurance on March Fiona Ma (D) expand the scope of the PFL 10. Passed Committee on Insurance

program to include time off to on April 4 and referred to the care for a seriously ill Assembly Committee on grandparent, grandchild, sibling Appropriations. Amended in or parent-in-law. Assembly on April 5, but no further action was taken before the end of the 2011-2012 legislative session (DIED). SB 761 2013 DeSaulnier None Would have amended parts of Introduced on February 22, 2013 (D) the UI code, related to disability and referred to two committees. insurance, to prohibit employers Passed by the Labor and Industrial from discriminating against an Relations Committee on April 10 individual because he or she has and by the Judiciary Committee on applied for, used, or indicated an April 24. The bill saw minor

22 intent to apply for or use, family amendments on May 24, then did 0

temporary disability insurance not pass a full Senate vote on May benefits. 29. A motion to reconsider was granted, but on January 6, 2014 the bill was completely re-purposed to amend section 18897 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, related to personal income taxes and voluntary contributions. (DIED) SB 770 2013 Jackson (D) DeSaulnier Would have amended sections of Introduced February 22, 2013 and (D) the UI code related to passed by two committees, then unemployment insurance to passed by the full Senate on May 28. expand the scope of the PFL Passed by Assembly Insurance program to include time off to Committee on August 7, care for a seriously ill Appropriations Committee on grandparent, grandchild, sibling, August 30, and by the full Assembly or parent-in-law. on September 4. Approved by the Governor and chaptered on September 24 (PASSED).

AB 688 2015 Gomez (D) None Existing law authorizes an AB 688 was initially introduced on employer to require an employee February 25, 2015 to extend the to take up to 2 weeks of earned requirement to allocate tax credits but unused vacation before, and for qualified expenditures for the as a condition of, the employee’s production of motion pictures. An initial receipt of benefits under amendment was filed on March 26, the paid family leave program. 2015 to change the bill to focus on AB 688 would have eliminated paid family leave. The bill was that authorization and related passed by the Committee on AEST, provisions. & IM on January 5, and referred to the Committee on Insurance, died in Insurance Committee on January 31, 2016 (DIED). AB 908 2015 Gomez (D) None AB 908 revised the formula for Introduced February 26, 2015 and

221 determining paid family leave referred to the Committee on

benefits pursuant to Insurance. Committee passed on unemployment compensation April 8 and referred to starting January 1, 2018 (until Appropriations. Passed by January 1, 2022) to provide a Appropriations on May 28, passed minimum weekly benefit amount by full Assembly on June 2. of $50 and increased the weekly Referred to the Senate Committee benefit amount to 60-70% of on Labor and Industrial Relations on income (not to exceed the June 11, 2015. Amended by author maximum workers’ on June 18. Passed by Committee on compensation temporary June 25, referred to Appropriations. disability weekly benefit amount Amended and passed on August 27. (which is tied to the state Passed by the Senate on September average weekly wage, $1,216 11, 2015. Enrolled and presented to per week in 2018). AB 908 also Governor on March 31, 2016; eliminated the one-week waiting Approved by Governor on April 11, period for claims starting 2016 (PASSED). January 1, 2018.

SB 1123 2018 Jackson (D) Fletcher (D) SB 1123 expanded the scope of Introduced February 13, 2018. the PFL program to include time Passed by the Senate on May 31, off to participate in a qualifying 2018; sent to Assembly. Passed by exigency related to the covered Assembly on August 29. Senate active duty, as defined, or call to concurred with Assembly covered active duty of the amendments and passed, enrolled individual’s spouse, domestic and presented to the Governor on partner, child, or parent in the September 10. Approved by the armed forces of the United Governor on September 27, 2018 States, as specified. (PASSED). AB 2587 2018 Levine (D) None Removed the requirement to Introduced on February 15, 2018. apply vacation leave to the Passed by the full Assembly on waiting period, consistent with April 12 and sent to the Senate. the removal of the 7-day waiting Passed by the full Senate on June

222 period for these benefits on and 25, 2018. Enrolled and presented to

after January 1, 2018. the Governor on June 29; approved by the Governor July 9, 2018 (PASSED).

APPENDIX H: RELEVANT NEW YORK BILLS, 1998–2018

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill A9463 None 1998-1999 Nolan (D) 19 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Read once, referred to Labor 50%; max $170; Committee (Nolan-D); voted on and employee-funded; referred to Ways and Means (Farrell- no job protection D). Read, heard in ways and means Committee but no vote. A8742 S5791 2009-2010 Silver (D) 27 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Read once, referred to Labor 50%; increasing Committee (John-D) in both 2009 and max; employee- 2010, but was not heard in funded; job Committee. protection.

223 S5791 A8742 2009-2010 Savino (D, 24 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Referred to Rules Committee (Dilan- IDC) 1 Republican 50%; max $170; D) in 2009 but was not heard in

employee-funded; Committee. job protection. Referred to Labor Committee (Onorato-D) in 2010 but was not heard in Committee. S4074 None 2009-2010 Addabbo None TDI; 12 weeks; Referred to Labor Committee (D) 50%; max $170; (Onorato-D) in both 2009 and 2010, public opt-in; but was not heard in Committee. employee-funded; no job protection. A628929 S7547 2011-2012 Nolan (D) 31 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Read once, referred to Labor 50%; max $170; Committee (Wright-D) in both 2011 employee-funded; and 2012, but was never heard in job protection. Committee.

29 Previous version: A8742 (2009–2010)

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill S7547* A6289 2011-2012 McDonald 2 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Referred to Labor Committee (R) (incl. 1 IDC) 50%; max $170; (Robach-R) in 2012 but was not heard employee-funded; in Committee. job protection. A9476 S6896 2011-2012 Simotas 9 Democrats New program, Read once, referred to Labor (D) 3 Republicans public only; Committee (Wright-D); amended to birth/adoption only; include a short title, reprinted and 12 weeks; 100%, recommitted to Labor Committee, but employee-funded; was not heard again in Committee. no job protection. S6896 A9476 2011-2012 Peralta (D) None New program, Referred to Labor Committee public only; (Robach-R) in 2012 but was not heard birth/adoption only; in Committee. 12 weeks; 100%, 224 employee-funded; no job protection. S1252 None 2011-2012 Addabbo 2 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Referred to Labor Committee (D) 50%, max $170; (Robach-R) in both 2011 and 2012, employee-funded; but was not heard in committee. public opt-in; no job protection. A1848 None 2013-2014 Jaffee (D) 6 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Read once, referred to Labor 50%, max $170; Committee (Heastie-D) in both 2013 employee-funded; and 2014, but was not heard in public opt-in; no job Committee. protection. A265430 S120 2013-2014 Simotas 12 Democrats New program, Referred to Labor Committee (D) 2 Republicans public only; (Heastie-D) in both 2013 and 2014, birth/adoption only; but was not heard in Committee.

30 Previous versions: A9476 and S6896 (2011–2012)

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill 12 weeks; 100%, employee-funded; no job protection. S120ii A2654 2013-2014 Peralta (D) None New program, Referred to Labor Committee (Savino- public only; D, IDC) in both 2013 and 2014, but birth/adoption only; was not heard in Committee. 12 weeks; 100%, employee-funded; no job protection. A1793 S4742 2013-2014 Nolan (D) 26 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; two- Read once and referred to Labor thirds; increasing Committee (Heastie-D) in 2013; not

225 max; employee- heard in Committee in 2013. Referred funded; job to multiple Committees in 2014 protection. (Rules, Ways and Means, Codes). Amended once to revise dates, recommitted Labor Committee. Amended a second time to provide a more specific definition of “disability requiring family care,” include sibling in the definition of family member, raise wage replacement from 50% to two-thirds of wages, and expand job protection to cover ALL employees (not just employees of businesses with 25 or more employees). This bill PASSED a floor vote in the Assembly and was delivered to Senate on 3/05/2014 where it was referred to the Labor Committee, but was not heard.

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill S4742 A1793 2013-2014 Addabbo 19 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; two- Read once and referred to Labor (D) thirds; increasing Committee (Savino-D, IDC) in 2013 max; employee- but was not heard in Committee at that funded, job time. Referred to Labor Committee protection. (Savino-D, IDC) again in 2014 where it was heard and amended twice (once to revise dates, a second time to revise per revisions made to A1793, above), recommitted to Labor Committee but not heard at that time. A1534 None 2015-2016 Jaffee (D) 10 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; Referred to Labor Committee (Titus- 1 Republican 50%; max $170; D) in both 2015 and 2016 but was not employee-funded; heard in Committee. 226 no job protection. A285131 S1298 2015-2016 Simotas 10 Democrats New program; Referred to Labor Committee (Titus- (D) 2 Republicans public only; D) in both 2015 but was not heard in birth/adoption only; committee. Referred to Labor 12 weeks; 100%, Committee again in 2016 (Titus-D), employee-funded; heard in Committee, amended to no job protection. correct the cited section of the labor law and recommitted to Labor Committee, but was not heard again. S1298iii A2851 2015-2016 Peralta (D) 1 Democrat New program; Referred to Labor Committee public only; (Martins-R) in 2015 but was not heard birth/adoption only; in Committee. Referred to Labor 12 weeks; 100%, Committee (Martins-R) again in 2016 employee-funded; where it was heard and amended to no job protection. correct the cited section of the labor

31 Previous versions include: A2654 and S120 (2013–2014), A9476A and S6896 (2011–2012)

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill law and recommitted to Labor Committee, but was not heard again. A387032 S3004 2015-2016 Nolan (D) 65 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; two- Referred to the Labor Committee in 1 Independent thirds; increasing January 2015 (Titus-D) but not heard max; employee- at this time. Referred to multiple funded, job Committees in March 2015 [Rules protection. (Heastie-D), Ways and Means (Farrell-D), Codes (Lentol-D)]; heard and passed all three Committees, then heard and PASSED a full floor vote on 3/17/2015, delivered to the Senate, was not heard in the Senate. Read again in the Assembly in January 227 2016, amended to revise dates, heard and PASSED a full floor vote in the Assembly again on 2/2/2016. Delivered to the Senate again and referred to the Senate Labor Committee, but not heard in the Senate. S3004iv A3870 2015-2016 Addabbo 22 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; two- Referred to Labor Committee (D) thirds; increasing (Martins-R) in February 2015, heard max; employee- in Committee in March 2015 but no funded; job vote was taken. Referred to Labor protection. Committee again in January 2016 where it was heard and amended to revise dates, provide clarification (articles, subdivisions), and correct grammatical errors, recommitted to

32 Previous versions include: A1793 and S4742 (2013–2014), A6289 and S7547 (2011–2012), and A8742 (2009–2010)

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill Labor Committee but was not heard again. A9367 2015-2016 Finch (R) 13 TDI; 12 weeks; Heard in Labor Committee (Titus-D) Republicans 50%; increasing on 3/18/2016, amended and max; employee- recommitted. Vote taken on 5/17/2016 funded; public opt- (19-8 in favor) bill “held for in; job protection. consideration” (budget bill with family leave language had already been passed on March 31, 2016). S3301 2015-2016 Klein (D, 4 Democrats TDI; 12 weeks; two- Referred to Labor Committee IDC) (all IDC) thirds; increasing (Martins-R) in 2015 but was not heard max; employee- in committee. Referred to Labor funded; job Committee (Martins-R) again in 2016 protection. where it was heard and amended to 228 revise dates but no vote was taken. A9006 S6406 2015-2016 Budget N/A TDI; 8 weeks in Referred to Ways and Means (Budget) Committee 2018 Committee (Farrell-D) in January Increasing to 12 2016. Amended and recommitted to weeks in 2021; 50% Ways and Means in mid-February in 2018; 2016; on March 11, 2016, and again Increasing to two- on March 31, 2016. Substituted by the thirds when fully Senate budget bill on 4/1/2016 phased in in 2021; (S6406), and the Assembly PASSED job protection, the Senate version (S6406, 61-1, prohibits retaliation. Felder) on 4/1/2016 and returned it to the Senate, who delivered it to the Governor for signature on 4/4/2016. S6406 A9006 2015-2016 Budget N/A TDI; 8 weeks in Referred to Senate Finance (Budget) Committee 2018 Committee (DeFrancisco-R) on 1/14/2016. Amended and recommitted to Finance Committee in mid-

Companion Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions Bill Increasing to 12 February, mid-March, and on weeks in 2021; 50% 3/31/2016. PASSED Senate (61-1, in 2018; Felder) on March 31, 2016 and was Increasing to two- delivered to the Assembly where it thirds when fully was substituted for the Assembly phased in in 2021; budget bill on 4/1/2016 (A9006). The job protection, Assembly PASSED the Senate budget prohibits retaliation. bill (S6406) on 4/1/2016 and returned it to the Senate, who delivered it to the Governor for signature on 4/4/2016. A1834 None 2017-2018 Harris 11 Democrats Would have Introduced January 13, 2017 and extended PFL referred to Labor Committee. Died in benefits to committee April 16, 2018. employees who

229 perform

construction, demolition, etc., if they were employed for at least 26 of the last 39 weeks by a covered employer.

APPENDIX I: RELEVANT COLORADO BILLS, 2013–2018

Bill Session/Year Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions HB 13-1222 2013 Rep. 19 The Family Care Act (House Introduced in the House on Peniston (D) Representatives Bill 13-1222) would expand February 7, 2013, assigned to the group of family members Committee on Health, Insurance & Sen. Ulibarri 18 Senators for whom Colorado Environment. Sent to the House (D) employees could take unpaid floor on February 28, read and laid leave to care for under over twice, then passed by the FMLA to include same-sex, House on March 25. Introduced in civil union, and domestic the Senate on April 1, assigned to partners. Advocates initially the Committee on Health & included the idea of Human Services. Referred providing compensation for unamended to full Senate on April leave taken under FMLA, 11. Read twice, but a vote was but the bill that was postponed twice in the Senate, then introduced (and the version passed on its third reading on April 230 that was passed) did not 18, 2013. Signed by the Governor include any compensation on May 3, 2013. SB 14-196 2014 Sen. Ulibarri Would have created the Introduced in the Senate on April (D) and Rep. family and medical leave 14, 2014, referred to the Salazar (D) insurance (FAMLI) program Committee on State, Veterans, & to provide partial wage Military Affairs. Hearing in replacement benefits for up Committee on State, Veterans, & to 12 weeks in a 12-month Military Affairs on April 28; period to eligible individuals passed and referred to Committee who take leave from work to on Appropriations on April 30. care for a new child or a Postponed indefinitely in family member with a Committee on Appropriations as of serious health condition or May 1, 2014. No additional action who are unable to work due was taken before the end of the to their own serious health 2014 legislative session. condition. Workers could

Bill Session/Year Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions receive 66% to 95% of their previous average weekly earnings, depending on income, up to $1,000 per week, and the bill would have provided job protection. HB 15-1258 2015 Rep. Winter Would have created the HB 15-1258 was introduced in the (D), family FAMLI program to House on March 4, 2015 and Rep. Salazar provide partial wage referred to the Committee on (D), replacement benefits for up Health, Insurance, & Environment. Sen. Ulibarri to 12 weeks in a 12-month The bill was amended and passed (D) period to eligible by the Committee on Health, individuals; 66% to 95% of Insurance, & Environment on 231 their prev. AWW, depending March 19 and sent to the

on income, up to $1,000 per Committee on Finance. The bill week + job protection. was amended and passed by the Compared to SB 14-196, HB Committee on Finance and sent to 15-1258 added the definition the Committee on Appropriations of “annual mean wage” and on April 22, then amended and would have decreased the passed by the Committee on number of individuals Appropriations and sent to the eligible to receive a larger House Committee of the Whole on percentage of their average April 24. The bill was amended on weekly wage by adjusting the 2nd reading on April 28, then the income brackets. failed to pass the full House on April 30, 2015 (31-33-1). HB 17-1307 2017 Rep. Winter Provides partial wage Introduced and referred to (D) replacement benefits for up Business Affairs and Labor Fields (D), to twelve weeks to eligible Committee on March 28, 2017. Moreno (D) individuals. The benefit Amended, passed and referred to amount would be scaled Finance Committee on April 11.

Bill Session/Year Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions such that lower-wage Amended and passed by Finance workers receive a higher Committee; referred to portion of their wages than Appropriations Committee on higher-wage workers. Leave April 19. Passed by is job-protected for workers Appropriations, referred to who have been with their Committee of the Whole on April employer for at least 90 15. Passed full House on April 28, days. sent to Senate, referred to State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on April 28. Postponed indefinitely on May 3. HB 18-1001 2018 Would have created the Introduced on January 10, 2018 FAMLI program to provide and assigned to the House

232 partial wage replacement Committee on Business Affairs

benefits to eligible and Labor. Amended, passed and individuals. Paid by referred to the Finance Committee employee premiums based on February 6. Passed and referred on a percentage of the unamended to the House employee's yearly wages and Committee on Appropriations on must not initially exceed March 7. Amended, passed, and .99%. Premiums paid into referred to the House Committee the fund are not considered of the Whole on April 6, 2018. state revenues for purposes Passed by the Committee of the of the taxpayer's bill of Whole on April 6 and passed by rights (TABOR). the full House on April 16. Introduced in the Senate on April 20 and Assigned to the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee, postponed indefinitely and no additional action was taken before the end of the 2018 session on May 9, 2018.

APPENDIX J: RELEVANT ILLINOIS BILLS, 2005–2018

Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions HB 3470 2005 Rep. Julie Reps. FLIP; 4 weeks; 67%; max $380; Introduced in February 2005. Hamos (D) Deborah employee-funded ($0.75/week, pro-rated Read and referred to Rules Graham (D) for part-time employees); no job Committee, then assigned to and Larry protection but could be taken Labor Committee. Re-referred McKeon (D) concurrently with FMLA. Eligible to Rules Committee in March employees: public and private employees 2005 but no action was taken who had earned at least $1,600 and had before the end of the 2005 worked at least 6 months during the last legislative session. year for their current employer. Did not allow for leave to be taken for the employee's own serious illness. HB 1683 2007 Rep. Julie 11 FLIP; 4 weeks; 67%; max $380; Introduced in February 2007, 233 Hamos (D) Democratic employee-funded ($0.75/week, pro-rated read and referred to Rules co-sponsors for part-time employees); no job Committee. Assigned to Labor protection but could be taken Committee where a fiscal note concurrently with FMLA. Eligible was requested and filed ($16 employees: public and private employees million start-up, ongoing cost who had earned at least $1,600 and had of $46 million annually). Re- worked at least 6 months during the last referred to Rules Committee in year for their current employer. Did not March 2007, no action taken allow for leave to be taken for the before end of the 2007 employee's own serious illness. legislative session. HB 5409 2014 Rep. Robyn None FLIP; 4 weeks; 67%; max weekly benefit Introduced in February 2014, Gabel (D) adjusted for inflation; employee-funded referred to the Rules ($1.50/week, pro-rated for part-time Committee then assigned to the employees); no job protection but could Business Growth and be taken concurrently with FMLA. Incentives Committee in mid- Eligible employees: public and private March. Re-referred to the employees who had earned at least Rules Committee in late $1,600 and had worked at least 6 months March, but no further action

Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions during the last year for their current was taken before the 2014 employer. Did not allow for leave to be legislative session ended. taken for the employee's own serious illness. HB 166 2015 Rep. Mary 10 FLIP; 6 weeks; $300 per week for full- HB 166 was introduced on Flowers (D) Democratic time employees (pro-rated for part-time January 14, 2015; amended co-sponsors employees); employee-funded (no more multiple times, and passed by than $2.50/month, pro-rated for part-time the Labor & Commerce employees); no job protection but could Committee on March 25, 2015. be taken concurrently with FMLA. A fiscal note filed on April 24, Eligible employees: all public and private 2015 that estimated the start-up employees who worked at least had cost would be between $75 and 234 worked at least 1,000 hours in the last 12 $100 million with ongoing months for their current employer (any costs of at least $46 million business entity that employed one or annually. The bill was read on more employee, except for the State of the House floor July 8 Illinois); did not allow for leave to be followed by a debate, the final taken for the employee's own serious action deadline for the bill was illness, but would have provided extended several times until coverage for disability due to pregnancy, the 2015 session ended. HB or a period of absence for prenatal care. 166 was carried over to the 2016 session. The bill language was revised substantially in April 2016 and the bill was re- referred to the Rules and Labor & Commerce Committees, but no further action was taken before the 2016 legislative session adjourned.

Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions SB 260 2016 Sen. Daniel None Family Leave Insurance Act; up to 12 The Illinois Family Leave Biss weeks within a 24 month period; 2/3 of Insurance Act was filed on July average weekly wage; max. 53% of the 5, 2016 by Democratic Senator statewide average weekly wage; Funded Daniel Biss as an amendment by employee payroll deduction of 0.3% to Senate Bill 260. The bill as of taxable wages, with (a current) annual amended was referred to the total contribution cap of $38.88 per Assignments Committee on employee, plus a separate deduction not July 31, 2016, but no further to exceed 0.1% to pay for administration. action was taken before the end To be eligible, the employee must be of the 2016 legislative session. employed with the same employer in the State of Illinois for at least 12 months with at least 1,200 hours worked during that period. Does provide job protection

235 during the leave period. Does not include

the state of Illinois as an employer. SB 1721 2017 Sen. Daniel None Family Leave Insurance Act; up to 12 SB 1721 was introduced on Biss weeks within a 24 month period; 2/3 of February 9, 2017 and assigned average weekly wage; max. 53% of the to the Senate Labor statewide average weekly wage; Funded Committee. The bill was by employee payroll deduction of 0.3% postposed throughout the of taxable wages, no annual total session, then reassigned to the contribution cap per employee, plus a Senate Assignments separate deduction not to exceed 0.1% to Committee right before the end pay for administration. To be eligible, the of the session. No additional employee must be employed with the action was taken before the same employer in the State of Illinois for 2017 legislative session ended. at least 12 months with at least 1,200 hours worked during that period. Does provide job protection during the leave period. Does not include the state of Illinois as an employer.

Bill # Session Sponsor Co-sponsors Details Actions HB 2376 2017 Rep. Mary Rep. La Family Leave Insurance Program Act; up HB 2376 was introduced on Flowers Shawn Ford; to 12 weeks within a 24 month period; February 3, 2017 and assigned Rep. Litesa 2/3 of average weekly wage; max. 53% to the House Labor & Wallace; of the statewide average weekly wage; Commerce Committee. Rep. Sonya Funded by employee payroll deduction of Multiple amendments were Harper 0.3% of taxable wages, no annual total filed between February 21, contribution cap per employee, plus a 2017 and April 18, 2017. The separate deduction not to exceed 0.1% to Labor and Commerce pay for administration. To be eligible, the Committee held a hearing and employee must be employed with the short debate, then passed the same employer in the State of Illinois for bill as amended on April 26, at least 12 months with at least 1,200 2017. The Rules Committee hours worked during that period. Does held a reading and a short provide job protection during the leave debate on April 27, 2017, but period. Does not include the state of no vote was recorded. A floor

236 Illinois as an employer. amendment was filed in June,

2017 requesting a fiscal note (same costs as HB 166: start- up costs between $75 and $100 M, ongoing costs of at least $46 M annually. No additional action was taken before the end of the 2017 legislative session, and the bill was carried over into the 2018 session. Another floor amendment was filed on April 23, 2018 and the bill was referred to the Rules Committee again, but no additional action was taken before the end of the 2018 session.

APPENDIX K: CODE BOOK

Key Factors to Adopt Paid Family Leave Policies in U.S. States Media and Key Informant Interviews

CODE BOOK

Code Definition/Example Bill sponsor or co-sponsor The sponsor is the first-listed state-level legislator (Assemblymember, Representative, Senator, etc.) who is responsible for introducing the bill in their chamber of the legislature. Includes statements made by the bill sponsor. Co- sponsors are additional legislators who are listed after the sponsor as introducing the bill for consideration. Occasionally a committee may be identified as a sponsor of legislation, and in California outside groups may be identified as sponsors of legislation (e.g., AFL-CIO)– although they have to work with a legislator to get the bill introduced. Governor or executive A mention of the Governor or other members of the branch executive branch, including the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, auditors and commissioners. Includes candidates for Governor. Statewide coalition An alliance for combined action; a group of people and/or organizations organized to pursue a common goal. A coalition may be in support or in opposition to the paid family leave bill. A state may have a state-wide coalition that has been formed specifically to advocate for the paid family leave bill (e.g., Time to Care New York) or an existing statewide coalition may decide to support a paid family leave bill as one of its projects (e.g., The California Work & Family Coalition). Supporter, advocate, or A person or group who publicly supports or recommends the advocacy group paid family leave bill. This primarily includes groups outside the legislature, but may also include legislative champions or executive branch supporters. May also include businesses, business owners, or business groups that support. Key Strategies–Supporter Key strategies or reasons that these groups were influential. What made them effective? For example, strong connections to legislative leaders, major campaign contributors, ability to mobilize grassroots efforts, etc.

237

Opponent or opposition A person or group that publicly disapproves of and attempts group to defeat (or prevent the movement of) the paid family leave bill. This primarily includes groups outside the legislature, but may also include legislative or executive branch opponents. Key Strategies–Opponent Key strategies or reasons that these groups were influential. What made them effective? For example, strong connections to legislative leaders, major campaign contributors, ability to mobilize grassroots efforts, etc. Reasons for Reasons that the bill was introduced by the sponsor at the introduction/timing time that it was (as told by the sponsor or as viewed by others). Political Context/Climate Any details that provide insight about the political context and climate in the state. This may include the actual balance of power in the state legislature, depictions or opinions about the general mood related to paid family leave, or specific examples that impact the ability of the state legislature to pass legislation (e.g., the independent democratic in New York) or a window or opportunity (e.g., gubernatorial recall election in California, or the death of Governor Cuomo’s father in New York). Includes the idea/level of bipartisan support. Specific provisions in the A statement that identifies and/or talks about specific state bill provisions in the state bill, including (but not limited to): start or implementation date, eligibility, length of leave, amount of compensation, etc. Program cost, Economics A statement that identifies and/or talks about specific costs associated with implementing or administering the paid family leave bill, including economic research, analyses, or arguments. The information presented may be neutral, positive/supportive, or negative/in opposition. Compromises or concessions Changes made to specific provisions in the bill that represent an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions (e.g., The bill originally proposed 12 weeks of leave, but has since been amended to include only 6 weeks). Polling or data Polling that has been conducted or data that has been collected that provides evidence regarding support and opposition to the state bill (by constituents and/or legislators). Arguments in support A statement provided to show support or defend the need for paid family leave; reasons that paid family leave is good or necessary (e.g., paid family leave will save businesses money; workers shouldn’t have to choose between their income and caring for a loved one).

238

Arguments in opposition A statement provided to show opposition or disapproval for paid family leave; reasons that paid family leave is not good or not necessary (e.g., paid family leave will be bad for businesses, workers will take advantage of/abuse the program). Committee, hearing or vote A statement or reference to the bill being heard in a committee or a vote being taken in committee, in either chamber (upper or lower). Other policies A statement that identifies or talks about paid family leave policies other than the specific bill, including bills/policies in other states, policies implemented by private employers/companies, voluntary policies, or unpaid FMLA. Also includes current or previous attempt(s) to pass a paid family leave bill in another state or states. Previous state legislative A statement that talks about a previous attempt(s) to pass a efforts paid family leave bill or a similar bill in the state. This may include previous attempts that are not specifically intended to provide paid family leave, but may provide similar protections, or may involve similar stakeholders (e.g., paid sick days, pregnancy accommodations). Media efforts Media efforts such as news conferences, press conferences, mention of writing letters to the editor, etc. Challenge or barrier An issue, argument, situation, circumstance, perception, or other factor that serves as an obstacle to the progression or passage of the paid family leave bill; any factor that prevents progress. Facilitating factors An issue, argument, situation, circumstance, perception, or other factor that serves as a catalyst to the progression or passage of the paid family leave bill; any factor that promotes progress. Lessons learned Information, knowledge, or understanding gained by participating in the experience of attempting to pass a paid family leave policy that is significant in terms of its applicability to future efforts. Lessons learned may be either positive or negative, and may come from both supporters and opponents.

239

APPENDIX L: SUMMARY TABLE OF RESULTS

CALIFORNIA NEW YORK COLORADO ILLINOIS Max. Length of 6 weeks 10 weeks in 201933 12 weeks (proposed) 6 weeks (proposed) Leave (in 12 mo.) Compensation (% 60–70% 55% in 2019 66–95% (proposed) 67% (proposed) workers salary) 55% of SAWW34 53% of SAWW Weekly Maximum $1,216 $1,000 (proposed) ($746.41) in 2019 (proposed) Covers self-care? No; self-care is covered Yes Yes (proposed) No (proposed) under TDI35 in CA Job Protection? No Yes Yes (proposed) Yes (proposed) Employee only Employee only Funding Mechanism Employee only Employee only

24 (proposed) (proposed)

0 1% of worker’s first 0.126% of worker’s first Less than 1/2 of 1% of 0.3% to “no more than Contribution $114, 967 in wages $68,347 in wages total wages earned $2.50 per month” Administrative TDI TDI No existing infrastructure No existing infrastructure Infrastructure? Years working on 1985–2018 (33 years) 1989–2018 (29 years) 2011–2018 (7 years) 2005–2018 (13 years) PFL Number of “Pre- 9 237 2 0 curser” bills36 Number of PFL bills 8 24 4 7

33 The New York law provided 8 weeks at 50% pay in 2018, weekly max. of 50% of the SAWW; 10 weeks at 55% pay in 2019, weekly max. of 55% of the SAWW, will increase to 12 weeks at 67% in 2021, weekly max. of 67% of the SAWW. 34 SAWW: Statewide Average Weekly Wage 35 TDI: Temporary Disability Insurance 36 Bills that were not specifically PFL bills, but helped to lay an important foundation for the PFL bills that were eventually introduced. 37 Not included in this time period: TDI benefits in New York were expanded in 1977 to include disability for pregnancy and recovery after childbirth, and the maximum TDI benefit rate in New York was last increased in 1989 to the current rate of $170 per week.

CALIFORNIA NEW YORK COLORADO ILLINOIS

SB 1661 (2002); Paid Family Leave Amended by: SB 770 bills that passed with S6406 (2016–Budget) None None (2013), AB 908 (2015), dates and AB 2587 (2018)

Paid Family Leave Four failed PFL bills 23 failed PFL bills Four failed PFL bills Seven failed PFL bills bills that failed with between 2011 and 2018 between 1998 and 2018. between 2014 and 2018. between 2005 and 2018. dates

Governor: (2002, 2013–2018) (2011–2018) (2014–2018)

241 Democratic (2005–14) Political Climate Governor: Democratic Governor: Democratic Governor: Democratic Republican (2015–18) Senate: Democratic Senate: Republican Senate: Republican Senate: Democratic House: Democratic House: Democratic House: Democratic House: Democratic Fiscal/Economic Estimates in 2002 Yes; Not Available Estimated start-up For the programs Analysis ranged from $361 (administrative) costs outlined in the 2015– million to $620 only were $12, $16, and 2018 bills, estimated million/year, or $34 to $47 million in 2014, start-up costs were $50 per worker/ year. 2015, and 2018 between $75 and $100 Research estimated that respectively. In 2018, million, with ongoing the program could save estimates for annual costs of at least $46 employers close to $90 administrative costs and million annually. million/year, and could employee benefit save the state $23.5 payments were estimated million in 2002 alone by at roughly $400 reducing usage of million/year, to be funded nutrition assistance and through employee TANF. premiums collected.

CALIFORNIA NEW YORK COLORADO ILLINOIS Support from key Strong sponsor and New Assembly Speaker Governor was a Republican Governor leadership legislative champion, Carl Heastie; strong Democrat but did not who respondents agreed (Governor, Senator Sheila Kuehl; support from Dem. And publicly support or was likely to veto any sponsor(s), Speaker, Gov. Davis reportedly IDC Senators; Gov. oppose paid family leave Family Leave Insurance etc.) did not take a vocal Cuomo did not initially in 2014 or 2015. Program (FLIP) bill. position on the measure, support PFL, but became but signed it on a strong supporter after September 23, 2002. his father’s death in early 2016. Coalition/Campaign Strong Coalition (Work Strong statewide Growing statewide No strong statewide and Family Coalition) campaign (Time to Care) coalition, led by 9to5 and coalition, but committed led by the California led by 3 unions along the Colorado Fiscal efforts by Women 242 Labor Federation (the with A Better Balance, Institute. Additional Employed, and the state’s AFL-CIO) and and included multiple support from local Sargent Shriver National included multiple state state and national organizations and some Center on Poverty Law; and national organizations. national organizations, a additional periodic organizations, Additional support in number of small support from local businesses and small 2015/2016 from faith- businesses and the Mile organizations and a few business owners. based organizations, as High Business Alliance national-level well as a groundswell of and the Small Business organizations. support from businesses. Majority. Primary Challenges/ Challenges included Challenges included split Challenges included Challenges included Barriers strong opposition from party control in strong business strong business the business and legislature, and that paid opposition; introduction opposition; a Republican employer groups in the family leave was not of the 2014 bill late in the Governor who state as well as initially a priority for the session; lack of respondents thought Republican legislators governor. stakeholder engagement; would likely veto any based on the employer high projected start-up FLIP bill; not having an contribution included in costs coupled with existing administrative the original bill, and the budgetary constraints and structure and the inclusion of all the TABOR rule; the resulting high start-up

employers, regardless of political climate in the costs that would be size.. Concessions were state; and term limits that associated with made to remove the resulted in a constantly structuring a program; employer contribution changing legislature and and difficulty securing and otherwise address a need to continuously strong union support for employer concerns educate elected officials. bills. Respondents also which mitigated some Respondents also noted noted that the state business opposition. that advocates had capital (Springfield, IL) The administrative limited capacity to fund was at least a 3.5 hour mechanism shifted from media and advocacy drive from Chicago UI to state Disability efforts, and that myths (where most of the Insurance. about the potential for individuals, groups, and individuals to exploit a community organizations PFL program were still that supported paid

243 pervasive. family leave were based),

and discussed challenges associated with finding the right legislative sponsor for FLIP bills. Facilitating factors Existing TDI structure; Existing TDI structure; Fewer facilitating factors Fewer facilitating factors strong union support for Bills introduced in the were reported. Notable were reported. the bill; Democrats state legislature starting factors included Respondents noted paid controlling both houses in 1998; increased grassroots support from family leave as one of a of the legislature at the momentum in 2015; 9to5 and the coalition, package of workers time; having strong strong public support; constituent stories and issues that was picking economic and fiscal devoted advocacy staff personal testimonies; up steam in the state ; research supporting the from the NY Paid Leave financial modeling done and support from state legislation; the strength Coalition and the Time to by the Colorado Fiscal and local community of the coalition and their Care Campaign; a change Institute; and supportive organizations and local previous experience in Assembly and Senate arguments from business businesses as facilitating with family friendly leadership in 2015; NYC organizations, especially factors in gaining support legislative efforts; the passing a parental leave small businesses. for paid family leave diverse range of policy in late 2015; efforts.

advocates; having a Support from Gov. strong legislative Cuomo after January champion. Messaging 2016; decision by Gov. around caregiving and Cuomo to “pair” the idea the low cost/person was of PFL with a $15 also a facilitating factor. minimum wage in 2016; PFL language added into the budget bill. Window of Democrats controlled Mayor de Blasio signed No window of No window of Opportunity the legislature and an EO giving six weeks opportunity opened in opportunity opened in Governorship in 2002. of paid parental leave (at Colorado. Illinois. It was also a 100% salary) to non- gubernatorial election union employees in NYC year and there was a in late 2015. Gov. strong sense that Gov. Cuomo had personal

244 Davis would not win experience when his

reelection. Labor father was dying re: the wanted it passed before need for family leave. a Republican potentially Following his father’s took office. This death, Gov. Cuomo uncertainty combined called on the Legislature with the strong coalition to pass a 12-week PFL and legislative support, act and became a vocal the cost study done by champion, and was the State EDD, the cost instrumental in getting benefit analysis released legislative leaders to by researchers at U.C. amend the 2016-2017 Berkeley, and strong budget bill to include sponsorship from language establishing a Senator Kuehl set the PFL program for the stage for the bill to pass state. in California.

APPENDIX M: ANTI–LOBBYING ACT

Title 18 Sec 1913 of the United States Code, originally passed in 1919, and commonly known as the Anti-Lobbying Act, places certain restrictions and limitations on career federal officials, especially with respect to engaging in certain types of grass roots activities aimed at influencing pending legislation.

The key provision of the law states: “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business , or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counterintelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.”

245

REFERENCES

A Better Balance. (2015). At a Glance: The New York State Paid Family Leave Act. Retrieved from http://www.abetterbalance.org/web/images/stories/Documents/familyleave/NYPFLI.pdf

A Better Balance. (2018). A Better Balance. Retrieved from https://www.abetterbalance.org/about/

Adler, N. E., & Ostrove, J. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don't. Annals of the New York academy of Sciences, 896(1), 3-15.

Ahrens, D., Jones, N., Pfister, K., & Remington, P. L. (2011). An analysis of lobbying activity on tobacco issues in the Wisconsin legislature. WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, 110(2), 74.

Aitken, Z., Garrett, C. C., Hewitt, B., Keogh, L., Hocking, J. S., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2015). The maternal health outcomes of paid maternity leave: A systematic review. Social science & medicine.

Alexander, G. R., & Korenbrot, C. C. (1995). The role of prenatal care in preventing low birth weight. Future Child, 5(1), 103-120.

Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California. In. Members-only Library: http://www.lerachapters.org/OJS/ojs-2.4.4- 1/index.php/LERAMR/article/view/1740/1739.

Associated Press. (2015, March 17, 2015). NY Assembly passes paid family leave; Senate offers own plan. The Wall Street Journal.

Associated Press. (2016a, January 29, 2016). Biden, Cuomo call for more paid family leave in New York. The Wall Street Journal.

Associated Press. (2016b, January 13, 2016). Cuomo: Spend $700M from settlements on Thruway projects. The Wall Street Journal.

Associated Press. (2016c, January 8, 2016). New push for paid family leave in New York.

Associated Press. (2016d, February 2, 2016). Supporters of aid family leave bill sense window this year. The Wall Street Journal.

Baker, M., & Milligan, K. (2010). Evidence from Maternity Leave Expansions of the Impact of Maternal Care on Early Child Development J. Human Resources, 45, 1-32.

Ballotpedia. (2013). Colorado Elections, 2013. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_elections,_2013#tab=Recall

246

Ballotpedia. (2014a). Colorado House of Representatives elections, 2014 Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Ballotpedia. (2014b). Colorado State Senate Elections, 2014. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_State_Senate_elections,_2014

Ballotpedia. (2017a). Appropriations Committee, Colorado State Senate Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Appropriations_Committee,_Colorado_State_Senate

Ballotpedia. (2017b). New York State Legislature. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_State_Legislature

Ballotpedia. (2017c). State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, Colorado State Senate. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/State,_Veterans_and_Military_Affairs_Committee,_Colorado_Stat e_Senate

Bartel, A., Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2016). Assessing Rhode Island’s Temporary Caregiver Insurance Act: Insights from a Survey of Employers. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/completed- studies/AssessingRhodeIslandTemporaryCaregiverInsuranceAct_InsightsFromSurveyOf Employers.pdf

Bartels, L., & Lee, K. (2013, November 27, 2013). Evie Hudak resigns: Colorado state senator avoids recall election. The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/27/evie-hudak-resigns-colorado-state-senator- avoids-recall-election/

Behr, P. (2003, August 24, 2003). Calif.'s Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/08/24/califs-davis-lacked-legal- ability-to-solve-energy-crisis/0af9a54a-c578-47f0-b661- 7bdb1c7a4311/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6c6b831a40f

Berger, L. M., Hill, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Maternity leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US. The Economic Journal, 115(501), F29.

Bernick, M. (2000). The Fiscal Impact on the Disability Insurance Fund of Extending Disability Benefits to Individuals Granted Family Medical Leave. In: Employment Development Department, California Health and Human Service Agency, State of California, June.

Blain, G. (2016, March 19, 2016). Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour a priority for Assembly Democrats. New York Daily News.

Blain, G., & Lovett, K. (2016a, January 14, 2016). Andrew Cuomo’s paid family leave plan only covers 35% of person’s salary in first year. New York Daily News.

247

Blain, G., & Lovett, K. (2016b, January 13, 2016). Gov. Cuomo calls on Legislature to pass state family leave act, expresses remorse for not spending more time with dying father. New York Daily News.

Blain, G., & Place, N. (2016, February 17, 2016). Cuomo pushes for 12-week paid family leave legislation at Harlem rally. New York Daily News.

Blanchet, N. J., & Fox, A. M. (2013). Prospective political analysis for policy design: enhancing the political viability of single-payer health reform in Vermont. Health Policy, 111(1), 78-85.

Boehmer, T. K., Luke, D. A., Haire-Joshu, D. L., Bates, H. S., & Brownson, R. C. (2008). Preventing childhood obesity through state policy. Predictors of bill enactment. Am J Prev Med., 34(4), 333-340.

Boldiston, C. (1999). Providing Paid Family Leave Through the Temporary Disability Insurance Program: An Attractive and Affordable Option. Retrieved from http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI_PaidFamilyLeave_January1999.pdf

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children, 55-71.

Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Research Full Report: Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102.

Bustillo, M. (2002a, July 29, 2002). Paid Leave Bill Ignites Emotions. Los Angeles Times.

Bustillo, M. (2002b, July 29, 2002). Paid Leave Bill Ignites Emotions.

Bustillo, M., & Vogel, N. (2002a, August 28, 2002 ). Lawmakers Also Approve a Measure to Allow Workers to Take Paid Time Off in Case of Illness or Childbirth. Los Angeles Times.

Bustillo, M., & Vogel, N. (2002b, August 28, 2002). Renewable-Energy Bill Passed by Assembly. Los Angeles Times.

Cairney, P., & Kwiatkowski, R. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 37. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8

California Department of Human Resources. (2014). Non-Industrial Disability Insurance Retrieved from http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/non-industrial-disability- insurance.aspx

California Department of Human Resources. (2016). State Disability Insurance Retrieved from http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/state-disability-insurance.aspx

248

California Fair Political Practices Commission. (2010). Breaking the Bank: Primary Campaign Spending for Governor since 1978. Retrieved from Sacramento, CA: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/Education-External- Division/Breaking_the_Bank.pdf

California State Archives. (2014). Gwen Moore Papers: Family Leave Files 1983-1984. Sacramento, California Retrieved from https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8ks6trs/entire_text/

California State Assembly. (1999). Senate Bill 656 - Unemployment Disability (Solis) Retrieved from http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0651- 0700/sb_656_cfa_19990629_160937_asm_comm.html

California State Legislature. (1993). Assembly Bill 1460: An act to amend Section 12945.2 of the Government Code. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93- 94/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1460_bill_931005_chaptered

California State Legislature. (1994). AB 3619: An act to amend Section 19702.3 of the Government Code, relating to state civil service. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/asm/ab_3601- 3650/ab_3619_bill_940930_chaptered

California State Legislature. (2002). Senate Bill 1661 - Disability compensation: family temporary disability insurance (as introduced). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020SB1661

California State Legislature. (2016). AB-908 Disability compensation: disability insurance. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB908

California State Legislature. (2018). AB-2587 - Disability compensation: paid family leave Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2587

Calnen, G. (2007). Paid maternity leave and its impact on breastfeeding in the United States: an historic, economic, political, and social perspective. Breastfeeding medicine: The official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, 2(1), 34. doi:10.1089/bfm.2006.0023 [doi]

Campbell, D. M., Redman, S., Jorm, L., Cooke, M., Zwi, A. B., & Rychetnik, L. (2009). Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6(1), 21.

Camurdan, A. D., Ilhan, M. N., Beyazova, U., Sahin, F., Vatandas, N., & Eminoglu, S. (2008). How to achieve long-term breast-feeding: factors associated with early discontinuation. Public health nutrition, 11(11), 1173.

Carkhuff, C. (2015, 2/14/2015). A sound alternative to unpaid leave The Pueblo Chieftan.

249

Cawley, J., & Liu, F. (2008). Correlates of state legislative action to prevent childhood obesity. Obesity, 16(1), 162-167.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2017, June 26, 2017). Policy Basics: Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and- tax/policy-basics-taxpayer-bill-of-rights-tabor

City and County of San Francisco. (2017). Paid Parental Leave Ordinance. Retrieved from https://sfgov.org/olse/paid-parental-leave-ordinance

Clark, D. (2016, September 19, 2016). Yes, New York has more corrupt officials than any other state. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/sep/19/elaine- phillips/new-york-has-been-most-corrupt-state-decades/

Colorado Civil Justice League. (2017). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.ccjl.org/about-us

Colorado Department of the Treasury. (2017). State Finances - Constitutional Provisions. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/treasury/constitutional-provisions-0

Colorado Division of Human Resources. (2017). Disability Insurance. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dhr/disability

Colorado Legislative Council Staff. (2018). HB 18-1001 Fiscal Note. Retrieved from Denver, CO: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018A/bills/fn/2018a_hb1001_00.p df

Confessore, N., & Hakim, D. (2008, November 5, 2008). Democrats are Poised to Control Albany The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/nyregion/05york.html

Connecticut Campaign for Paid Family Leave. (2016). Jessica Shortall: Paid Family Leave is Good for Business. Retrieved from https://paidfamilyleavect.org/2016/04/27/jessica- shortall-paid-family-leave-is-good-for-business/

Cooklin, A. R., Rowe, H. J., & Fisher, J. R. W. (2012). Paid parental leave supports breastfeeding and mother‐infant relationship: a prospective investigation of maternal postpartum employment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(3), 249.

Corcoran, K. (2002a, September 20, 2002). California Business Owners Express Support for Paid Family-Leave Bill. San Jose Mercury News.

Corcoran, K. (2002b, September 23, 2002). California governor signs nation's first paid family leave bill. San Jose Mercury News.

250

Craig, R. L., Felix, H. C., Walker, J. F., & Phillips, M. M. (2010). Public health professionals as policy entrepreneurs: Arkansas's childhood obesity policy experience. Am J Public Health, 100(11), 2047-2052.

Craig, S. (2015, May 4, 2015). New York Senate Leader and Son Are Arrested on Corruption Charges. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/nyregion/dean-skelos-new-york-senate-leader-and- son-are-arrested-on-corruption-charges.html

Craig, S., Rashbaum, W. K., & Kaplan, T. (2016, May 3, 2016). The Many Faces of New York’s Political Scandals. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/23/nyregion/23moreland-commission-and- new-york-political-scandals.html

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Csere, M. (2013). Summary of Colorado's New Gun Control Laws. Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0198.htm

Dinour, L. M. (2015). Conflict and compromise in public health policy: analysis of changes made to five competitive food legislative proposals prior to adoption. Health Education & Behavior, 42(1 Suppl), 76s-86s.

District of Columbia Department of Employment Services. (2018). District of Columbia Paid Family Leave. Retrieved from https://does.dc.gov/page/district-columbia-paid-family- leave

Dodson, E. A., Fleming, C., Boehmer, T. K., Haire-Joshu, D., Luke, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2009). Preventing childhood obesity through state policy: qualitative assessment of enablers and barriers. J Public Health Policy, 30, S161-176.

Donaldson, E. A., Cohen, J. E., Villanti, A. C., Kanarek, N. F., Barry, C. L., & Rutkow, L. (2015). Patterns and predictors of state adult obesity prevention legislation enactment in US states: 2010-2013. Preventive medicine, 74, 117-122.

Dube, A., & Kaplan, E. (2002). Paid family leave in California: An analysis of costs and benefits. Unpublished manuscript.

Durkin, E. (2016, January 7, 2016). Mayor de Blasio signs order to give six weeks of paid parental leave to non-union city employees. New York Daily News.

Editorial. (2015, March 23, 2015). If only the thought counted: Albany's family-leave push sounds good, but the details leave much to be desired. New York Daily News.

Editorial. (2016, April 2, 2016). Minimum to the max: Cuomo strikes right balance in raising wages. New York Daily News.

251

Editorial Board. (2015, December 24, 2015). Paid Parental Leave Comes to New York City. New York Times.

Ellickson, M. C. (1992). Pathways to Legislative Success: A Path Analytic Study of the Missouri House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17(2), 285-302.

European Commission. (2018). Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion: Denmark - Care of close relatives. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1107&langId=en&intPageId=4491

Eyler, A. A., Nguyen, L., Kong, J., Yan, Y., & Brownson, R. (2012). Patterns and predictors of enactment of state childhood obesity legislation in the United States: 2006-2009. Am J Public Health, 102(12), 2294-2302.

Family Values @ Work. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from http://familyvaluesatwork.org/aboutus

Fass, S. (2009). Paid Leave in the States: A Critical Support for Low-wage Workers and "eir Families. Retrieved from http://paidfamilyleave.org/pdf/PaidLeaveinStates.pdf

Firestein, N., O’Leary, A., & Savitsky, Z. (2011). A Guide to Implementing Paid Family Leave - Lessons from California. Retrieved from http://paidfamilyleave.org/pdf/pfl_guide.pdf

Fiscal Policy Institute. (2014a). Reform of New York’s Temporary Disability Insurance Program and Provision of Family Leave Insurance: Estimated Costs of Proposed Legislation. Retrieved from http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Reform-of-NY-TDI- and-FLI.pdf

Fiscal Policy Institute. (2014b). Reform of New York’s Temporary Disability Insurance Program and Provision of Family Leave Insurance: Estimated Costs of Proposed Legislation: Technical Supplement. Retrieved from http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/Reform-of-NY-TDI-and-FLI-Technical-Supplement.pdf

Fishback, P. V., & Kantor, S. E. (2007). A prelude to the welfare state: The origins of workers' compensation: University of Chicago Press.

Flanigan, J. (2002, September 25, 2002). Government Debt, Not Policies, Could Threaten Business Climate. Los Angeles Times.

Flynn, B. S., Goldstein, A. O., Solomon, L. J., Bauman, K. E., Gottlieb, N. H., Cohen, J. E., . . . Dana, G. S. (1998). Predictors of state legislators' intentions to vote for cigarette tax increases. Preventive medicine, 27(2), 157.

Fox, A. M., & Blanchet, N. J. (2015). The Little State That Couldn't Could? The Politics of "Single-Payer" Health Coverage in Vermont. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 40(3), 447-485.

252

Francis, J. A., Abramsohn, E. M., & Park, H. Y. (2010). Policy-driven tobacco control. Tob Control, 19, i16-20.

General Assembly of the State of Colorado. (2013). HB 13-1222: Family and Medical Leave Eligibility Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/EAB98A19051427A58725 7AEE0057BDE7/$FILE/1222_enr.pdf

Girion, L., & Garvey, M. (2002, September 24, 2002). Davis Oks Paid Family Leave Bill. Los Angeles Times.

Gladstone, M., Nalder, E., & Carey, P. (2002, May 26, 2002 ). The Davis Connection Inner Circle Close Allies Donate Money, Open Doors and Mix Business with Politics. San Jose Mercury News.

Gledhill, L. (2002, January 31, 2002). Davis' rating continues skid - Energy crisis has sapped support, even among Democrats, poll says. SFGate. Retrieved from https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Davis-rating-continues-skid-Energy-crisis-has- 2877545.php

Goldstein, A. O., Peterson, A. B., Ribisl, K. M., Steckler, A., Linnan, L., McGloin, T., & Patterson, C. (2003). Passage of 100% tobacco-free school policies in 14 North Carolina school districts. J Sch Health, 73(8), 293-299.

Grant, J., Hatcher, T., & Patel, N. (2005). Expecting Better: A State-by-State Analysis of Parental Leave Programs. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:

Greenfield, J. C. (2015, March 20, 2015). Colorado family leave act could be a life-saver. Denver Post.

Gruber, J., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). The incidence of mandated employer-provided insurance: Lessons from workers' compensation insurance. Tax policy and the economy, 5, 111-143.

Grynbaum, M. M. (2015, December 22, 2015). New York to Offer 6 Weeks Paid Parental Leave to Nonunion Workers. New York Times.

Guendelman, S., Kosa, J. L., Pearl, M., Graham, S., Goodman, J., & Kharrazi, M. (2009). Juggling work and breastfeeding: effects of maternity leave and occupational characteristics. Pediatrics, 123(1), e38.

Harris, J. R. (2012). A framework for disseminating evidence-based health promotion practices. Preventing chronic disease, 9.

Hawkins, S. S., Griffiths, L. J., Dezateux, C., & Law, C. (2007). The impact of maternal employment on breast-feeding duration in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Public health nutrition, 10(9), 891.

253

Heymann, J., Raub, A., & Earle, A. (2011). Creating and using new data sources to analyze the relationship between social policy and global health: the case of maternal leave. Public Health Reports, 126 127-134.

Hofferth, S. L., & Curtin, S. C. (2006). Parental leave statutes and maternal return to work after childbirth in the United States. Work and occupations, 33(1), 73-105.

Houser, L., & Vartanian, T. P. (2012). Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public. Retrieved from Center for Women and Work: http://cww.rutgers.edu/sites/cww.rutgers.edu/files/documents/publications/CWW_Paid_L eave_Brief_Jan_2012_0.pdf

Hsiao, W. C., Knight, A. G., Kappel, S., & Done, N. (2011). What other states can learn from Vermont's bold experiment: embracing a single-payer health care financing system. Health Affairs, 30 (7), 1232-1241.

Illinois General Assembly. (2005a). Bill Status of HB3470. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3470&GAID=8&GA=94&DocT ypeID=HB&LegID=19722&SessionID=50#actions

Illinois General Assembly. (2005b). House Bill 3470 - Family Leave Insurance Program Act Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTy peId=HB&DocNum=3470&GAID=8&LegID=19722&SpecSess=&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2007a). Bill Status of HB1683. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1683&GAID=9&GA=95&DocT ypeID=HB&LegID=30506&SessionID=51

Illinois General Assembly. (2007b). House Bill 1683 - Family Leave Insurance Program Act. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=51&GA=95&DocTy peId=HB&DocNum=1683&GAID=9&LegID=30506&SpecSess=&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2014a). Bill Status of HB5409 Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=5409&GAID=12&GA=98&Doc TypeID=HB&LegID=80279&SessionID=85#actions

Illinois General Assembly. (2014b). House Bill 5409 - Family Leave Insurance Program Act Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTy peId=HB&DocNum=5409&GAID=12&LegID=80279&SpecSess=&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2015). House Bill 166 - Family Leave Insurance Program Act Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=88&GA=99&DocTy peId=HB&DocNum=0166&GAID=13&LegID=83657&SpecSess=&Session=

254

Illinois General Assembly. (2016a). Bill Status of HB 166. Retrieved from http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=166&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&L egId=83657&SessionID=88&GA=99

Illinois General Assembly. (2016b). Bill Status of SB 260 Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0260&GAID=13&DocTypeID= SB&LegID=84221&SessionID=88&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=99

Illinois General Assembly. (2016c). Senate Amendment 001 - Senate Bill 260. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0260sam001&GA=99& SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84221&DocNum=0260&GAID=13&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2016d). Senate Bill 260. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=88&GA=99&DocTy peId=SB&DocNum=0260&GAID=13&LegID=84221&SpecSess=&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2017a). Bill Status of SB 1721 Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1721&GAID=14&DocTypeID= SB&LegId=104612&SessionID=91&GA=100

Illinois General Assembly. (2017b). Senate Bill 1721 - Family Leave Insurance Act. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=91&GA=100&DocT ypeId=SB&DocNum=1721&GAID=14&LegID=104612&SpecSess=&Session=

Illinois General Assembly. (2018a). Bill Status of HB 2376 Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2376&GAID=14&DocTypeID= HB&LegID=103013&SessionID=91&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=100

Illinois General Assembly. (2018b). House Bill 2376 - Family Leave Insurance Program Act. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10000HB2376&GA=100&Sessio nId=91&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=103013&DocNum=2376&GAID=14&Session=

Ingram, C. (2002, June 11, 2002). Senate Advances Paid Family Leave Bill. Los Angeles Times.

Jacobs, K., & Thomason, S. (2018). The Union Effect in California #1: Wages, Benefits, and Use of Public Safety Net Programs. Retrieved from http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2018/Union-Effect-in-California-1.pdf

Jaffe, I. (2003). A Profile of California Gov. Gray Davis. All Things Considered. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1356303

Johnson, D. B., Lamson, E., Schwartz, R., Goldhammer, C., & Ellings, A. (2015). A Community Health Clinic Breastfeeding-Friendly Pilot: What Can We Learn about the Policy Process? Journal of Human Lactation, 31(4), 660-670.

255

Jones, G. (2002a, September 23, 2002). Davis to Sign Bill Allowing Paid Family Leave. Los Angeles Times.

Jones, G. (2002b, August 20, 2002). Governor Will Try to Balance Interests of Business as He Considers Proposed Legislation. Los Angeles Times.

Jones, G. (2002c, August 20, 2002). Labor Bills Test Davis the Centrist Los Angeles Times.

Karlitz, K. (2002, July 13, 2002). Paid Family Leave Plan: Benefit or Just a Burden? Los Angeles Times.

Kingdon, J. W. (1997). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd edition) (2nd ed.): Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Legislatures, N. C. o. S. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/aboutus.aspx

Leibowitz, A. A. (2005). An economic perspective on work, family, and well-being. Work, family, health, and well-being, 187-200.

Lock, K. W. (2002, July 20, 2002). Paid Family Leave Bill is Well Worth the Cost, Letter to the Editor. Los Angeles Times.

Lovett, K. (2015, March 11, 2015). New York Senate Republicans back plan for paid family leave. New York Daily News.

Lovett, K. (2016a, January 7, 2016). Activists for women urge New York State to approve paid family leave law. New York Daily News.

Lovett, K. (2016b, April 1, 2016). Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie emerges as big winner in New York State budget deal. New York Daily News.

Lowell, J., & Chilco, S. (2017). New York City Expands Types of Leave Covered by Paid Sick Leave Law Retrieved from https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/new- york-city-expands-types-leave-covered-paid-sick-leave-law-0

Marcius, C. R., & Lovett, K. (2016, March 10, 2016). Gov. Cuomo's push for state family leave receives boost from Nancy Pelosi. New York Daily News.

Marinucci, C. (2001, August 1, 2001). Davis' war chest dwarfs Republican rivals. San Francisco Chronicle.

Marinucci, C. (2002, September 5, 2002). Davis, Simon heartily disliked: Voter disenchantment has soared to unprecedented level, poll says. SFGate. Retrieved from https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Davis-Simon-heartily-disliked-Voter- 2774007.php

256

McGreevy, P. (2016, April 11, 2016). Brown signs California law boosting paid family-leave benefits. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac- paid-family-leave-california-20160411-story.html

McKinley, J. (2018, January 9, 2018). Brooklyn Assemblywoman Indicted on Fraud Charges. The New York Times.

McKinley, J., Kaplan, T., Craig, S., & Rashbaum, W. K. (2015, January 28, 2015). 6 Days That Felled Sheldon Silver, the Speaker Who Ruled Albany for Decades. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/nyregion/6-days-that-felled- sheldon-silver-the-speaker-who-ruled-albany-for-decades.html

Merryman, M. B., Miller, N. A., Shockley, E., Eskow, K. G., & Chasson, G. S. (2015). State adoption of Medicaid 1915(c) waivers for children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Disabil Health J, 8(3), 443-451.

Milkman, R., & Appelbaum, E. (2004). Paid Family Leave in California: New Research Findings. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0243m1dh

Miller, C. C. (2015, January 30, 2015). The Economic Benefits of Paid Parental Leave. The New York Times.

Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738-770.

Moss, P. (2012). International review of leave policies and related research 2012: International Network on Leave Policies and Related Research.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). The Term-Limited States. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx

National Federation of Independent Business. (2016). Memorandum in Opposition to S.6405 (Budget)/A.9005 (Budget) Part H - Paid Leave. In.

National Partnership for Women & Families. (2018a). Leading on Leave: Companies With New or Expanded Paid Leave Policies (2015-2018). Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/workplace/paid-leave/new-and- expanded-employer-paid-family-leave-policies.pdf

National Partnership for Women & Families. (2018b). Paid Leave Works in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/our- work/resources/workplace/paid-leave/paid-leave-works-in-california-new-jersey-and- rhode-island.pdf

National Partnership for Women and Families. (2013). A Look at the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2012 Family and Medical Leave Act Employee and Worksite Surveys. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/work-family/fmla/dol-fmla-survey- key-findings-2012.pdf

257

National Partnership for Women and Families. (2016). Paid Leave. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/work-family/paid-leave.html

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. (2017). Family Leave Insurance Workload in 2016: Summary Report. Retrieved from https://www.nj.gov/labor/forms_pdfs/tdi/FLI%20Summary%20Report%20for%202016.p df

New York City Council. (2017). Safe time for victims of family offense matters, sexual offenses, stalking and human trafficking, and their family members. Administrative Code § 20-911 Retrieved from http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2867849&GUID=DCC83D1C- 0D6A-4E38-9FEB-6974CA947D6F&Options=ID

New York State. (2016). Paid Family Leave: Strong Families, Strong NY. Retrieved from https://www.ny.gov/programs/paid-family-leave-strong-families-strong-ny

New York State Workers' Compensation Board. (2017). Workers: Disability Benefits (off-the- job Injury or Illness) Retrieved from http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/offthejob/IntroToLaw_DB.jsp

NYC Health. (2017). Paid Family Leave: Study of City Workers in NYC. Retrieved from www.dol.gov https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/Paid_Family_Leave- Study_of_City_Workers_in_NYC.pdf

O'Toole, L. J., Jr., Slade, C. P., Brewer, G. A., & Gase, L. N. (2011). Barriers and facilitators to implementing primary stroke center policy in the United States: results from 4 case study states. Am J Public Health, 101(3), 561-566.

Ogbuanu, C., Glover, S., Probst, J., Liu, J., & Hussey, J. (2011). The effect of maternity leave length and time of return to work on breastfeeding. Pediatrics, 127(6), e1414.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017, October 26, 2017). OECD Family database: Key characteristics of parental leave systems. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Paul-Shaheen, P. (1998). The states and health care reform: The road traveled and lessons learned from seven that took the lead. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 23(2), 319.

Pew Research Center. (2013a). Breadwinner Moms: Mothers Are the Sole or Primary Provider in Four-in-Ten Households with Children; Public Conflicted about the Growing Trend. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/

258

Pew Research Center. (2013b). On Pay Gap, Millennial Women Near Parity – For Now. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial- women-near-parity-for-now/

Reich, M., Hall, P., & Jacobs, K. (2005). Living wage policies at the San Francisco airport: Impacts on workers and businesses. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 44(1), 106-138.

Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Act: Administrative Regualtions (2014).

Rudd, E. (2004). Family leave: A policy concept made in America. Boston, MA: Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

Ruhm, C. J. (1996). The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: Lessons from Europe. The quarterly journal of economics, 113(1), 285-317.

Ruhm, C. J. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of health economics, 19(6), 931.

Sale, A. (2012). Jeff Klein: The Bronx Democrat Keeping the GOP in Power. WNYC News.

Salladay, R. (2002, May 3, 2002). Davis ousts aide in Oracle flap. SFGate. Retrieved from https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Davis-ousts-aide-in-Oracle-flap-CAMPAIGN- 2843020.php

Sams, L. D., Rozier, R. G., Wilder, R. S., & Quinonez, R. B. (2013). Adoption and implementation of policies to support preventive dentistry initiatives for physicians: a national survey of Medicaid programs. Am J Public Health, 103(8), e83-90.

Sandoval, E., & Blain, G. (2016, February 23, 2016). Cuomo uses customized RV to kick off push to boost state minimum wage dubbed 'Drive for $15'. New York Daily News.

Satterlund, T. D., Cassady, D., Treiber, J., & Lemp, C. (2011). Barriers to adopting and implementing local-level tobacco control policies. J Community Health, 36(4), 616-623.

Satterlund, T. D., Treiber, J., & Cassady, D. (2013). Navigating local smoke-free multi-unit housing policy adoption. J Drug Educ, 43(1), 33-47.

Satterlund, T. D., Treiber, J., Haun, S., & Cassady, D. (2014). Evaluating local policy adoption campaigns in California: Tobacco Retail License (TRL) adoption. J Community Health, 39(3), 584-591.

Schmeida, M., & McNeal, R. (2013). Children's mental-health language access laws: state factors influence policy adoption. Adm Policy Ment Health, 40(5), 364-370.

Schmitt, J. (2015). Explaining the small employment effects of the minimum wage in the United States. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 54(4), 547-581.

259

Sealover, E. (2014a, 4/4/2014). Colorado business groups bracing for sick-leave measure coming in Legislature. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2014b, 5/1/2014). Paid-sick-leave bill falls victim to opposition, tight legislative budget. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2014c, 6/19/2014). Primary election 2014: Colorado's Republican governor candidates on minimum wage, paid sick leave. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2014d, 4/28/2014). Sick-leave program carries heavy cost, Colorado business groups warn, but backers say it's worth it. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2015a, 3/5/2015). Bill to create Colorado employee medical-leave program reintroduced. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2015b, 3/19/2015). Mandatory medical-leave bill passes first Colorado legislative committee. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2015c, 4/30/2015). Moderate Democrats team with Colorado House Republicans to kill business-opposed bills. Denver Business Journal.

Sealover, E. (2015d, 3/9/2015). Now up in the Colorado Legislature: A battle over working mothers' rights. Denver Business Journal.

Shoemaker, M. J. (2012). Direct consumer access to physical therapy in Michigan: challenges to policy adoption. Phys Ther, 92(2), 236-250.

Skelton, G. (2002, October 3, 2018). At Last, a Chance to Compare Davis and Simon on the Issues Los Angeles Times.

Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. (2011). Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011. Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2011/tempdisability.html

Sommerfeldt, C., & Otis, G. A. (2016, January 29, 2016). Joe Biden and Gov. Cuomo push for mandatory paid family leave in N.Y. New York Daily News.

Span, P. (2015, December 4, 2015). Caregivers Sometimes Must Sacrifice Their Careers. New York Times.

Staehelin, K., Bertea, P. C., & Stutz, E. Z. (2007). Length of maternity leave and health of mother and child--a review. International journal of public health, 52(4), 202.

Staff Writers. (2002, September 15, 2002). Davis Gives Few Clues on What He’ll Sign, Veto. Los Angles Times.

260

State Employees' Retirement System of Illinois. (2004). Disability Benefits Information: Non- Occupational Disability Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.srs.illinois.gov/SERS/disben_sers.htm#

State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (2017). California Family Rights Act. Retrieved from https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/32/2018/01/DFEH_CFRA_Pamphlet.pdf

State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (2018). Fair Employment and Housing Act. Retrieved from https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/legal-records-and-reports/laws- and-regulations/

State of California Employment Development Department. (2016). State Disability Insurance Frequently Asked Questions - Pregnancy. Retrieved from http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/FAQ_DI_Pregnancy.htm

State of California Employment Development Department. (2018a). Calculating Paid Family Leave Benefit Payment Amounts. Retrieved from https://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/Calculating_PFL_Benefit_Payment_Amounts.htm

State of California Employment Development Department. (2018b). FAQ - Relation of the Paid Family Insurance program to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Retrieved from https://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/faq_employers_pfl_and_fmla_and_cfra.htm

State of California Employment Development Department. (2018c). FAQs – Relation of Paid Family Leave (PFL) to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) for Employees. Retrieved from https://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/FAQ_PFL_and_FMLA_and_CFRA.htm

State of California Employment Development Department. (2018d). Paid Family Leave (PFL) Program Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/pdf/qspfl_PFL_Program_Statistics.pdf

State of Colorado. (2017). Paid Family and Sick Leave Policies. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_SDOH_Paid-Leave_long.pdf

State of Colorado General Assembly. (2014). Senate Bill 14-196. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/31A8E6BB9F7CF30787257 C30000617B4?Open&file=196_01.pdf

State of Colorado General Assembly. (2015). A Bill for an Act Concerning the Creation of a Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2015a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/63AD9D4A5FC6A3CA87 257DB10065C86D?open&file=1258app.pdf

261

State of Colorado General Assembly. (2017). House Bill 17-1307: A Bill for an Act Concerning the Creation of a Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program. Retrieved from https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017a_1307_01.pdf

State of Colorado General Assembly. (2018). HB 18-1001: A Bill for an Act Concerning the Creation of a Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program. Retrieved from https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018A/bills/2018a_1001_ren.pdf

State of Hawaii Disability Compensation Division. (2018). Frequently Asked Questions - TDI. Retrieved from http://labor.hawaii.gov/dcd/frequently-asked-questions/tdi/

State of New Jersey. (2016). Family Leave Insurance. Retrieved from http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/fli/fliindex.html

State of New York. (2016). An act to amend the workers' compensation law and the insurance law, in relation to providing benefits for injury or sickness, pregnancy or family leave. Retrieved from http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03870&term=2015&Summary=Y& Memo=Y&Text=Y

Steffl, C. R. (2013). TABOR Enterprises. Retrieved from https://www.sdaco.org/news/tabor- enterprises

Stiffler, C. (2013). Estimating the Costs and Financing of Family and Medical Leave Insurance in Colorado. Retrieved from Denver, CO: http://www.coloradofiscal.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/Estimating-the-Costs-and-Finance-Mechanisms-of-Family-and- Medical-Leave-in-CO.pdf

Svaldi, A. (2014a, April 28, 2014). Business groups opposed to paid family leave bill in Colorado Denver Post.

Svaldi, A. (2014b, April 11, 2014). Paid family leave hot topic at labor forum in Denver Denver Post.

Sveen, L. (2014, September 5, 2014). Fast-growing companies gain agility from workplace flexibility Denver Post.

Swarns, R. L. (2015, March 15, 2015). Advocates Press Cuomo to Take Action on Paid Family Leave Legislation New York Times.

Tanaka, S. (2005). Parental leave and child health across OECD countries. The Economic Journal, 115(501), F7-F28.

Teichert, N. W. (2002, September 24, 2002). A landmark law: Paid family leave The Sacramento Bee.

262

The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2018). An Act Relative to Minimum Wage, Paid Family Medical Leave, and the Sales Tax Holiday Retrieved from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter121

New York State Budget Bill 2016 - Senate Bill 6406C - Signed by Governor April 4, 2016, 6406C, Senate (2016).

The New York State Senate. (2018). Disability Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/WKC/A9

The State of Colorado. (2017). The Legislative Process. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/The%20Legislative%20Process_3.pd f

The White House. (2014). Fact Sheet: The White House Summit On Working Families. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/23/factsheet-white-house-summit-working-families

Time to Care. (2013). Coalition Partners. Retrieved from http://timetocareny.org/coalition- partners

U.S. Department of Labor. (2018). Health Plans & Benefits: ERISA. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/erisa

United States Department of Labor. (1993). The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm

United States Department of Labor. (2015a). The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Price We All Pay Without Paid Leave Policies to Support America’s 21st Century Working Families. www.dol.gov Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/featured/paidleave/cost-of-doing- nothing-summary.pdf

United States Department of Labor. (2015b). DOL Factsheet: Paid Family and Medical Leave. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/PaidLeave/PaidLeave.htm

United States Department of Labor. (2016). Federal vs. Rhode Island Family and Medical Leave Laws. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/fmla/ri.htm

Van Giezen, R. W. (2013). Paid leave in private industry over the past 20 years. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/paid-leave-in-private-industry-over-the-past-20- years.htm

Van Winkle, M. (2015, 2/6/2015). Choosing between health and unemployment Denver Post.

Vilensky, M. (2015, March 15, 2015). Tactics Shift on Women’s Equality Bills: All-or-nothing strategy gives way as Democrats aim for a partial victory; New York Assembly vote Monday. The Wall Street Journal.

263

Vilensky, M. (2016, April 10, 2016). Business Stands by Andrew Cuomo in New York City. The Wall Street Journal.

Washington State Employment Security Department. (2018). Washington Paid Family & Medical Leave. Retrieved from https://www.paidleave.wa.gov/

Weissert, C. S. (1991). Policy Entrepreneurs, Policy Opportunists, and Legislative Effectiveness. American Politics Quarterly, 19(2), 262-274.

Westat. (2000). Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys 2000 Update, conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/cover-statement.pdf; http://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/workplace/fmla/us-department- of-labor-fmla.pdf

White House Council of Economic Advisors. (2014). The Economics of Paid and Unpaid Leave. whitehouse.gov Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/leave_report_final.pdf

Wilkie, D. (2015). Millennial Dads Demand Flexible Hours, Robust Benefits to Help Raise Kids. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/diversity/articles/pages/millennial- parents.aspx

Wirthman, L. (2014, 8/29/2014). The key to work-life balance? Include dads in the act. Denver Post.

Yee, V. (2016, November 21, 2016). Simcha Felder, Rogue Democratic Senator, Will Remain Loyal to G.O.P. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/nyregion/simcha-felder-rogue-democratic-senator- will-remain-loyal-to-gop.html?_r=0

Zakocs, R. C., Earp, J. A., & Runyan, C. W. (2001). State gun control advocacy tactics and resources. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(4), 251.

264