This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Background To effectively evaluate what is currently happening in Federal work and family benefit programs, it is helpful to understand some of the factors which led up to the current situation. More specifically, why issues related to balancing work and family life become important to the Government (in its role as an employer), and to what extent should there be a sense of urgency in addressing these issues? In effect, one might want to ask, "What has changed?" Demographic and Sociological Changes A key area of change concerns demographic trends, with one of the most important elements in this being the increasing role of women in the workforce. Because women continue to bear the major responsibility in American society for caring for dependent children and elderly relatives (as well as for other family duties), their increasing participation in work outside the home leads inexorably to increasing difficulties in balancing work and family responsibilities. Figure 1 graphically illustrates one part of this trend, as it shows a precipitous decline in the percent of traditional families (working husband, homemaker wife, dependent children) since 1940, coupled with a corresponding increase in the number of dual-worker families: Not only are more women working, but those with children are entering (or returning to) the workforce sooner in the childrearing process than ever before [figure 1 is unavailable in electronic form due to graphics limitations]. In fact, as figure 2 shows, by 1985 about half of married women living with their husbands and children were in the workforce by the time their youngest child was age 1, compared with only one-quarter having been so employed only 15 years earlier [Figure 2 is unavailable in electronic form due to graphics limitations]. Business leaders are certainly taking note of the impact of these demographic trends, as the following quote illustrates: "Except in television reruns, Ozzie and Harriet don't live here anymore. Today, only 7% of American households -- about the same number of homes without telephones--fit the 1950s image of breadwinner husband, homemaker wife, and two children. In today's family, most children live with parents who both work; one out of two children lives at some point in a one-parent household; most parents juggle up to four different kinds of child care during a routine week, and only 8% are satisfied with the care their children receive...In business we've traditionally considered family issues personal, something to be left at the company's entrance. But today most parents work and most workers are parents, and eventually these roles collide." -2 Robert E. Allen, Chairman of the Board, AT&T As mentioned above, being in the workforce and having dependent children creates problems for working parents. These can range from logistical concerns associated with providing proper child care, for example, to emotional challenges tied to not "being there" as one's children are growing up. If the stress associated with these problems becomes debilitating to employees, both they and their employers suffer. More particularly, if their family responsibilities are not dealt with properly, employees either can't go to work or, if there physically, may be distracted and unproductive. One aspect of how these problems manifest themselves was illustrated in a recent study. When women were asked two related questions about how long mothers should stay home from work after the birth of their children, the answers given were very revealing about work and family problems. Specifically, the study found that 32 percent of women responding to the question thought it would be ideal for a mother to stay home with her child until the child enters school, but only 5 percent of women think this is a practical alternative. -3 The degree of urgency with which employers address work and family problems naturally relates to the impact these problems have on their operations. While there are no definitive data available for the Federal workforce, it is interesting to note that one survey of private sector workers found that 75 percent of the women employed full or part time who were asked, "How often do you feel torn between the demands of your job and the desire to spend more time with your family," responded "Sometimes" or "Very Often." -4 Until this point, our background discussion has concentrated on women's roles and attitudes. This emphasis is not accidental, as the burden of work and family conflicts is usually felt most intensely by women. However, while women are bearing the brunt of these challenges, it would be misleading to think that men have no interest in this subject. Just as women's roles have been changing (witness the increased number of working mothers), men's roles have also been evolving, as the following quote from an article titled "Fathers and the Corporation" illustrates: Ten years ago--even five--[a particular advertisement] would have been inconceivable. If any corporation had dared to pitch high tech to improve family life, it would have been to help secretaries--female secretaries--get their work done on time. The idea that dad might need to hurry home, or might feel a conflict between his commitments to work and to family, would not have been aired. Felt privately, perhaps, but not expressed openly by, or to, a man on the fast track. But this is 1986: Real men do eat quiche, and corporate America is finally beginning to discover the New Fatherhood. -5 In a similar vein, the importance of work and family programs is not limited simply to those employees (of either gender) who are married or have children or elderly (or other) persons dependent on them. Changing societal values and priorities create the potential need for work and family programs among many segments of the population. For example, economic, demographic, and sociological trends have encouraged students, persons with disabilities, and the elderly to look for work opportunities with the Government. Work and family programs can be critical to the ability of these individuals to take productive jobs. In addition, many American workers look for in- creased opportunities to be in control of their work lives, or for more leisure time. Again, work and family programs facilitate these workers being able to achieve their goals. The Evolving Nature of Benefits It stands to reason that employers who understand the conflicting demands described above and who respond with appropriate benefit programs may have a better chance of recruiting and retaining the workers they want and need than those employers who don't offer such programs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has extensively studied demographic and employment trends in the labor force. In one of its monographs on the subject, BLS noted: The [last] 75 years...have seen the American family shift from a large, extended group to a smaller, individualized network of families with widely varying characteristics. During this same period, employers have progressed from providing no benefits, to providing a standard package of benefits designed for a male-supported family, to providing innovative and flexible benefits to meet differing family needs. While the future cannot be predicted, it is safe to assume that benefit plans will remain a major element of compensation and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of a changing labor force. -6 BLS' statements about continuing growth in both the amount and cost of benefits, as well as their evolving nature, are born out by other published research. For example, according to historical data from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (shown in table 1), employee benefits as a percent of total payroll have grown substantially, rising from 3 percent of total payroll in 1929 to 38 percent in 1989. In dollar terms, this 38 percent of payroll translates into an average mean benefit payment of $5.56 per payroll hour, or $11,527 per year per employee. (Note: employee benefits includes both direct fringe benefits such as health insurance, annual and sick leave, holidays, and retirement plans, and indirect ones such as the employer's share of social security taxes). -7 Table 1 Growth of employee benefits since 1929 Year 1929 1955 1965 1975 1986 1988 1989 Percent of benefits as a part of 3 17 22 30 36 37 38 total payroll Source: U.S. Chamber Research Center, "Employee Benefits - Survey Data from Benefit Year 1989," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. December 1990, p. 30. As to the evolving nature of benefits being provided, figure 3 below illustrates the results of one survey which examined the expected growth in "nontraditional" benefits between what corporations offer now and what they expect to offer their employees by the year 2000 [Figure 3 unavailable in electronic form due to graphics limitations]. As the figure shows, companies responding to this survey indicated that they expect almost every work and family benefit being offered today to be more commonly offered in the future, in many cases more than doubling by the year 2000. For example, child care resource and referral services are projected to grow from 29 percent of employers now to 74 percent by 2000. Employer subsidies for child care expenses are projected to grow from 12 percent currently to 52 percent in 2000. In addition to illustrating the expansion of benefits which is occurring, figure 3 also demonstrates how fringe benefits change as the needs of the marketplace change. Given demographic projections such as those contained in the Hudson Institute's "Workforce 2000" study, we can anticipate continued change in the marketplace and thus in the benefits area. How fast that change will happen, however, may be more surprising than the fact that it will occur. Looking backwards, for example, it is interesting to note that a scholarly OPM research report that investigated the state of the art of "quality of working life" initiatives in the private sector in September 1980 had absolutely no mention of some of today's "hot" topics (e.g., day care, elder care, and work at home), and only passing references to flexitime, compressed work schedules, and part- time and job-sharing arrangements. Instead, it focused on topics such as industrial democracy, participative management, organizational development, and work redesign. -8 Thus, only 11 years ago, there simply was not a consciousness about work and family topics being a critical part of the quality of working life. Another indicator of the rate of change in human resource issues comes from a recent survey which measured how corporations are responding to "Workforce 2000." It found that: ... the workplace of the future is, to a great extent, already here. Indeed, just 3 years after publication of the Hudson Institute's study -- and popularization of the phrase "Workforce 2000" -- it may be more apt to talk of Workforce 1990. For many of the employers in our survey group are already struggling with the implications of recruiting and managing a workforce composed less and less of white American males. -9 In this dynamic environment, it is certainly pertinent to wonder where the Nation's largest employer -- that is, the Federal Government -- will fit into the picture. In a recent "Report to the President" on dependent care policy in the Federal Government, OPM rhetorically posed the question, "How does the federal government stack up?," and then provided the following answer: Traditionally, the federal government has been an employer whose basic personnel framework could accommodate employees with family responsibilities. In fact, its long-standing personnel policies in the areas of leave, health benefits, job security, and workforce re-entry have given the federal government a competitive advantage in the dependent care area. -10 Even though this "competitive advantage" may have existed in the past, whether the Federal Government can maintain it in the future is certainly problematic, given the nature and rapidity of change being experienced in the job marketplace. As an employer, the Government has not been known for its agility in responding to changing employment conditions -- since it can literally take an act of Congress to change some benefit programs, benefit changes are few and far between. Thus, the Government faces a particular challenge in adapting to job market forces which put a premium on flexibility rather than predictability. In the balance of this report, we review a number of work and family programs, looking at them, both individually and collectively, from various perspectives. We also explore the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies, OPM, and the Government as a whole. Through these discussions, we hope to shed some light on where the Federal civil service has been and where it appears to be going in this important area. With this information, policymakers, managers, unions, employees, and the public should all be better equipped to respond to the human resource management challenges which lie ahead for the Federal Government.