Monthly Labor Review October 1999 13

Family Leave Coverage

Family leave coverage

in the 1990s

Family leave coverage increased after the passage

of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993;

the increase was sharpest among workers covered by the Act,

suggesting that the law had a positive impact on coverage

Jane Waldfogel

Jane Waldfogel is an

associate professor of

social work and public

affairs at Columbia

University School of

Social Work, New York,

NY.

This article examines family leave coverage in the 1990s, a period of particular interest because it includes the

years immediately before and after the passage

of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in

February 1993 and its implementation in August

of that year. The Act was the subject of a good

deal of controversy before its passage, but there

have been few studies of its impact to date.

Research on this topic is particularly important

in the light of recent trends in employment for

women. More than half (52 percent) of women

with children under the age of 1 year were employed in 1998, compared with just two-fifths 10

years earlier.1 Research is also important in the

wake of State and Federal welfare reform initiatives that emphasize moving women from

welfare to work, because these reforms will increasingly affect women with young children.

The article concludes that family leave coverage increased after the FMLA became law, with

a particularly sharp increase in paternity leave

coverage for men. The increase in coverage was

greatest among those covered by the Act,

suggesting that the law did have a positive impact

on coverage. At the same time, State legislation

regarding family leave is also an important

source of coverage, particularly for workers in

small firms not covered by the FMLA.

Background

The FMLA, which was passed in February 1993,

requires public employers, and private employers

with 50 or more workers, to offer job-protected

family or medical leave of up to 12 weeks to

qualifying employees (those who worked at least

1,250 hours for the employer in the previous

year) who need to be absent from work for reasons that meet the terms of the law (for example,

an employee’s own illness (including maternityrelated disability) or the need to care for a

newborn or an ill family member). The law does

not require employers to provide paid leave, but

it does mandate that employers who provide

health insurance coverage continue to do so

during the leave period.

With the exception of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (which required firms that

had temporary disability programs to treat pregnancy like any other disability), the FMLA was

the first Federal law in the United States to

address family leave. Prior to passage of the Act,

however, a great deal of legislative activity with

regard to family leave took place at the State

level. In 1996, the Commission on Family and

Medical Leave identified a total of 34 States that

had passed some type of family leave legislation

before the 1993 FMLA was enacted. Eleven of

these States had laws that covered State employees only. The other 23 had laws that covered

both private- and public-sector workers, but with

varying provisions. Only 12 States and the

District of Columbia had laws in place before the

FMLA that required firms to offer job-protected

maternity leave, and the number with laws

requiring job-protected paternity leave was even

lower (10 States and the District of Columbia;

see the appendix for details). Another source of

pre-FMLA family leave coverage was the em-
14 Monthly Labor Review October 1999

Family Leave Coverage

ployer. Some firms offered maternity leave even if not required

to do so by State legislation, and large firms and unionized

firms were particularly likely to offer such leave.2 Paternity

leave was less common.

Because the FMLA covered only about half (46 percent) of

the private-sector workforce, and because many of those it

covered already had maternity leave rights as a result of State

laws or individual employer provisions, it is unclear how

much impact the FMLA might have on maternity leave

coverage. However, the relative scarcity of paternity leave

provisions before passage of the Act suggests that the FMLA

might be expected to have a greater impact on paternity leave

rights.

Data from a survey of employers conducted by Westat,

Inc., for the Family and Medical Leave Commission provide

some preliminary evidence regarding these issues.3 This

survey found that 60 percent of all private-sector employees

worked in firms that were covered by the FLMA, but because

nearly a quarter of those employees did not work the required

1,250 hours in the previous year, only 46 percent qualified for

coverage under the Act.4 Fully two-thirds of firms that were

covered by the FMLA said that they had to change their policies

as a result of the law. The most frequently mentioned change

was instituting rights for fathers to take leave to care for newborn

or sick children. (Sixty-nine percent of firms made such a

change.) The other most commonly reported changes involved

extending the period of leave (66 percent), providing job

protection (54 percent), and continuing health insurance

coverage (53 percent). Previous research using data from the

BLS Employee Benefits Surveys found that the share of

employees in medium-sized and large establishments5 with

maternity leave coverage increased from 39 percent in 1991 to

86 percent in 1995, while the share with paternity leave coverage

increased from 27 percent to 86 percent over the same period.6

This previous research suggests that the FMLA did have an

impact on family leave coverage. It also suggests that the

Act’s impact on paternity leave coverage may have been

greater than its impact on maternity leave coverage, although

no study to date has examined the question. Nor has previous

research examined the impact of the FMLA more than a year or

two after its implementation. This study, in contrast, uses data

up to 1997, 4 years after passage of the Act.

The next section of this article uses aggregate data from

the 1990–97 Employee Benefits Surveys to look at changes

in family leave coverage in the 1990s, taking into account the

worker’s employment sector, the size of the establishment,

and the employee’s part-time work status. Then, microdata

from the 1990–96 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey

of Youth (NLSY) are used to examine changes in leave

coverage among young workers in the 1990s and to see how

these changes vary by gender, sector, size of the firm, and

State leave legislation.

Changes in family leave coverage

Data from the Employee Benefits Survey. The BLS Employee

Benefits Survey provides an overview of changes in family

leave coverage in the 1990s. The survey tracked coverage at

private-sector medium-sized and large establishments (those

with 100 or more employees) in 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997; it

surveyed smaller private-sector establishments (those with

fewer than 100 employees) in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996; and

it surveyed State and local government employees in 1990,

1992, and 1994.7 Until 1993, the survey asked separate

questions about provisions for maternity leave and paternity

leave; starting in 1994, these questions were replaced with new

questions about provisions for family leave (which includes both

maternity leave and paternity leave).

Share of private-sector employees with family

leave coverage, 1990–97

 Full-time employees

 in medium-sized

 and large establishments

Maternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 37 60 84 93

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 2 3 2 2

 Total percent with any leave ............... 39 63 86 95

Paternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 26 53 84 93

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 1 1 2 2

 Total percent with any leave ............... 27 54 86 95

 Part-time employees

 in medium-sized

and large establishments

Maternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 19 36 42 54

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 1 1 0 0

 Total percent with any leave ............... 20 37 42 54

Paternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 14 32 42 54

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 0 1 0 0

 Total percent with any leave ............... 14 33 42 54

 Full-time employees

 in small establishments

Maternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 17 18 47 48

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 2 2 2 2

 Percent with any leave ....................... 19 20 49 50

Paternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave .................. 8 8 47 48

 Percent with paid leave ...................... 0 1 2 2

 Percent with any leave ....................... 8 9 49 50

SOURCE: BLS Employee Benefits Surveys, various years. The survey

defines medium-sized and large establishments collectively as those with

100 or more employees and small firms as those with fewer than 100

employees. Starting in 1994, figures are for family leave coverage rather

than maternity and paternity leave coverage separately.

1991 1993 1995 1997

1991 1993 1995 1997

1990 1992 1994 1996

Table 1.
Monthly Labor Review October 1999 15

As shown in table 1, there was a sharp increase in maternity

leave coverage for full-time employees in medium-sized and

large establishments in the private sector starting in 1993 and

continuing thereafter. The percentage of full-time employees

in such establishments whose employers provided maternity

leave (whether paid or unpaid) increased from 39 percent in

1991 to 63 percent in 1993, 86 percent in 1995, and 95 percent

in 1997.8

Trends for paternity leave coverage, also shown in the

table, are even more dramatic: the share of full-time employees in medium-sized and large private-sector establishments whose employers provided paternity leave doubled

from 27 percent in 1991 to 54 percent in 1993 and then rose

to 86 percent in 1995 and 95 percent in 1997.9

Thus, by 1997, nearly all full-time workers in mediumsized or large establishments in the private sector had

maternity or paternity leave coverage (compared with only

39 percent and 27 percent, respectively, at the start of the

decade). The timing of the changes—with the sharpest

increases occurring in 1993, followed by continuing increases

thereafter—suggests that at least some of the shift to nearuniversal coverage may be due to the FMLA. But it is also

possible that there were other changes occurring in the

country in those years that might account for the increases in

family leave coverage. For instance, employees may have

become more demanding about having access to familyfriendly policies, or employers may have become more

willing to provide such policies. If either of these were the

case, we would see comparable increases in family leave

coverage for workers who were not covered by the FMLA.

However, as the table shows, we do not in fact see such

changes: according to data from the Employee Benefits

Survey, the increase in coverage for part-time workers in

medium-sized and large establishments and full-time workers

in small establishments,10 two groups of private-sector

workers who are not necessarily covered by the FMLA, was

much less steep than the increase for workers who were

covered—full-time workers in medium-sized and large

establishments. And, unlike their covered counterparts, 45

percent of part-time workers in medium-sized and large

establishments and 50 percent of full-time workers in small

establishments still lacked family leave coverage in 1996, 3

years after the passage of the FMLA.

Another way to assess whether the increases in family leave

coverage in the 1990s are due to the FMLA or to other changes

on the part of employees or employers is to examine what

was happening with other family-friendly benefits over the

same period. Table 2 returns to the group that is covered by

the Act—full-time workers in medium-sized and large

establishments in the private sector—and shows the extent to

which other family-friendly benefits changed during the

period when family leave coverage increased so dramatically.

The table does not provide much support for the hypothesis

that employers were simply becoming more generous or that

employees were growing more demanding with regard to all

family-friendly policies. Child care coverage, for instance,

hardly changed over the 1990s. Family leave coverage,

accordingly, seems to be exceptional.

When we turn to public-sector employees, the evidence is

similar. (See table 3.) The share of full-time employees with

maternity leave coverage rose nearly twofold from 1990 to

1994 (the most recent year that data were available), while

the share with paternity leave coverage rose nearly threefold.

Family leave coverage among part-time employees rose as

well, while access to child care did not.

Taken as a whole, the evidence from the Employee Benefits

Surveys indicates that there have been increases in both

maternity and paternity leave coverage for groups covered

by the FMLA, with a particularly large increase in coverage

Share of full-time employees in medium or large

establishments with other family benefits, 1991–97

1991 1993 1995 1997

Percent with child care ................................... 8 7 8 10

Percent with adoption assistance .................. (1

) (1) 11 10

Percent with long-term care insurance .......... 4 6 6 7

Percent with flexible workplace ...................... 9 (1) 2 2

1

 Data not available.

SOURCE: BLS Employee Benefits Surveys, various years.

Table 2.

Share of public-sector employees with family

leave coverage, 1990–94

1990 1992 1994

Full-time employees

Maternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave ......................... 51 59 93

 Percent with paid leave ............................. 1 1 4

 Total percent with any leave ...................... 52 60 97

Paternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave ......................... 33 44 93

 Percent with paid leave ............................. 1 1 4

 Total percent with any leave ...................... 34 45 97

Percent with child care ................................ 9 8 9

1990 1992 1994

Part-time employees

Maternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave ......................... 28 32 62

 Percent with paid leave ............................. 1 1 1

 Total percent with any leave ...................... 29 33 63

Paternity leave coverage:

 Percent with unpaid leave ......................... 18 24 62

 Percent with paid leave ............................. 1 1 1

 Total percent with any leave ...................... 19 25 63

Percent with child care ................................ 5 2 6

SOURCE: BLS Employee Benefits Surveys, various years. Starting in 1994,

figures are for family leave coverage rather than maternity and paternity

leave coverage separately.

Table 3.
16 Monthly Labor Review October 1999

Family Leave Coverage

for men. However, the data do not allow us to compare covered

and noncovered workers as precisely as we would like,

because the categorization of establishments by size in the

Employee Benefits Survey is different from that in the FMLA.

Nor do the aggregate data allow us to control for individual

characteristics of the workers involved. To do so, we turn to

data from the NLSY.

Data from the NLSY. A more detailed view of the changes in

family leave coverage over the 1990s is afforded by microdata

from the NLSY. This survey has followed a nationally

representative sample of young men and women since 1979,

with interviews every year until 1994 and every other year

thereafter. To investigate family leave coverage in the 1990s,

data from the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1996 surveys

are used. (No data were available for 1995.) In those years,

the respondents were between the ages of 25 and 39, which

makes them a suitable group for studying the family leave

coverage of workers in their childbearing years.

The NLSY gathers a range of demographic and labor market

information. Most relevant to the purposes of this article, the

survey includes a set of questions about employee benefits,

including a question about maternity or paternity leave

coverage.11 The survey also records the respondent’s type of

employment (that is, whether it is in the public sector, in the

private sector, or self-employment) and the number of

employees at the firm. These questions are important in

identifying which workers are covered by the FMLA, because,

as mentioned earlier, the law does not apply to private-sector

firms with fewer than 50 employees.

Table 4 provides a first look at maternity and paternity

leave coverage for young women and men from 1990 to 1996,

using data on all NLSY respondents who were employed at

the time of the survey, excluding the self-employed.12 The

table shows that the share of both women and, particularly,

men who reported having maternity or paternity leave coverage increased over the 1990s, with concomitant decreases

in the share reporting that they did not have coverage or that

they did not know whether they had coverage. The largest

increases in coverage, and the largest reductions in those not

knowing about their coverage, occurred between 1992 (the

last survey conducted before passage of the FMLA) and 1993

(the first survey conducted after the Act was passed).

The fact that there was such a large drop in the share of

employees who did not know whether they had family leave

coverage in 1993 raises the question of whether the increase

in coverage in that year merely reflects a greater awareness

of coverage on the part of employees or whether it actually

reflects changes in policy on the part of employers. Fortunately, because the NLSY is a panel study that follows a

sample of individuals over time, it is possible to use its data

to track transitions in the coverage of individuals over time.

Table 5 does this for the periods immediately before and after

the passage of the FMLA, using data on workers who were

with the same employer in 1991 and 1992 and workers who

were with the same employer in 1992 and 1993. The results

Share of employees reporting maternity or

paternity leave coverage, 1990–96

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996

Percent of women responding:

 Yes .......................................... 76 75 75 80 77 78

 No ........................................... 19 20 21 19 21 20

 Don’t know .............................. 5 4 4 1 2 2

Percent of men responding:

 Yes .......................................... 43 44 44 51 52 56

 No ........................................... 45 44 43 45 43 39

 Don’t know .............................. 12 12 13 4 5 5

NOTE: Tabulated from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Data

are for all respondents who were employed at the time of the survey, except

the self-employed.

Table 4.

Transitions in coverage status, employees who

stayed at the same job, 1991–92 and 1992–93

[In percent]

Yes in 1992 No in 1992

Yes in 1991 ................. 92 6 2

No in 1991 .................. 38 59 3

Don’t know in 1991 ..... 55 27 18

Coverage status in 1993 by coverage

status in 1992 (N = 2,014)

Yes in 1993 No in 1993

Yes in 1992 ................. 94 6 0

No in 1992 .................. 44 53 3

Don’t know in 1992 ..... 73 21 6

 Men

Yes in 1992 No in 1992

Yes in 1991 ................. 73 19 9

No in 1991 .................. 24 65 11

Don’t know in 1991 ..... 42 28 30

Coverage status in 1993 by coverage

status in 1992 (N = 2,258)

Yes in 1993 No in 1993

Yes in 1992 ................. 81 16 2

No in 1992 .................. 30 67 3

Don’t know in 1992 ..... 49 39 12

SOURCE: Tabulated from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

Samples for the 1991–92 panels of the survey include all workers who were

employed and at the same job in 1991 and 1992. Samples for the 1992–93

panels include all workers who were employed and at the same job in 1992

and 1993. Self-employed workers are excluded.

Coverage status in 1992 by coverage

 status in 1991 (N = 1,933)

 Don’t know

 in 1992

Table 5.

 Women

Don’t know

in 1993

Coverage status in 1992 by coverage

status in 1991 (N = 2,208)

Don’t know

in 1992

Don’t know

in 1993
Monthly Labor Review October 1999 17

for women indicate that the share of those who did not know

about their coverage and who moved to having coverage in

the next year increased sharply after the FMLA was enacted,

rising from 55 percent in 1991–92 to 73 percent in 1992–93.

But the share of those who did not have coverage and who

moved to having coverage increased as well, from about 38

percent to 44 percent (while the share of those who had

coverage and who still had coverage in the next year held

fairly steady, at 92 to 94 percent). Thus, for women, the gain

in coverage in 1993 reflected both increased knowledge on

the part of the women and actual changes in employer policy.

Among men, the changes in transitions are somewhat different (with those covered, not covered, or not knowing about

their coverage all more likely to be covered in the following

year in 1992–93 than in 1991–92), but the conclusion is the

same, with the gain in coverage reflecting both increased

knowledge on the part of the men and changes in policy by

employers.

 Analysis of the NLSY data

Was the passage of the FMLA responsible for the changes in

family leave coverage in 1993 and thereafter, or were these

changes due to other factors occurring at the same time? One

way to answer this question is to compare covered and

noncovered workers, because the FMLA should have affected

only the workers it covers. As we saw in the previous section,

this comparison in the data from the Employee Benefits

Survey showed that covered workers did make larger gains

in 1993 and thereafter than did noncovered workers. However, noncovered workers made some gains as well.

The NLSY data allow for a finer comparison between

covered and noncovered workers than is possible with the

BLS data. In the NLSY, workers can be divided into three

subgroups (again, excluding the self-employed): employees

in the public sector, employees in the private sector in firms

with 50 or more employees (large firms), and employees in

the private sector in firms with fewer than 50 employees

(small firms). The first two groups work for employers who

are covered by the FMLA; the third group works for employers

who are not.

Table 6 shows the changes in family leave coverage over

the 1990s for these three groups. For ease of reference, the

variable for family leave coverage used in that table and the

ones that follow is dichotomous: family leave coverage is set

to 0 if the person reports not having coverage or not knowing

about coverage and is set to 1 if the person reports having

coverage. As we can see from the table, the increase in family

leave coverage over the 1990s does seem to have been sharper

for those who worked for covered employers (that is, publicsector employees and private-sector employees at large

firms). These raw data also suggest that the increases in 1993

and thereafter were sharper for men than for women, whose

Share of employees with maternity or paternity

leave coverage, by sector and size of firm,

1990–96

[In percent]

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996

 Public-sector employees

Women ..................................... 82 84 83 86 87 87

Men........................................... 53 57 61 68 74 80

 Private-sector employees,

 large firms

Women ..................................... 85 85 83 90 88 87

Men........................................... 52 52 53 65 68 68

 Private-sector employees,

 small firms

Women ..................................... 61 58 61 64 58 64

Men........................................... 32 32 30 34 34 37

NOTE: Tabulated from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Data

are for all respondents who were employed at the time of the survey, except

the self-employed.

Table 6.

Ordinary least squares models of maternity or

paternity leave coverage, employees surveyed

by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,

1990–96

Women Men

Age .................................................... –.0014 .0005

(.0021) (.0024)

High school ........................................ 1.1041 1.0955

(.0169) (.0142)

Some college ..................................... 1

.1450 1.1721

(.0172) (.0161)

College or more ................................. 1

.1756 1.1847

(.0172) (.0160)

African-American ............................... .0002 .0055

(.0103) (.0119)

Hispanic ............................................. –.0171 –.0485

(.0335) (.0425)

Part time ............................................ 1

–.2635 1–.2323

(.0130) (.0178)

Year = 1991 ....................................... –.0039 .0051

(.0091) (.0101)

Year = 1992 ....................................... –.0047 .0026

(.0101) (.0111)

Year = 1993 ....................................... 1

.0463 1.0693

(.0110) (.0124)

Year = 1994 1

.0255 1.0827

(.0127) (.0141)

Year = 1996 ....................................... 1

.0409 1.1215

(.0157) (.0174)

N ........................................................ 16,769 19,742

R squared .......................................... .0724 .0381

1

 Statistically significant at p < .05.

NOTE: Coefficients (and standard errors in parentheses) are from ordinary

least squares estimates. The dependent variable is maternity or paternity

leave coverage, set to 1 if the worker responded “yes” and 0 if the worker

responded “no” or “don’t know.” Standard errors are corrected to account for

clustering by individuals who appear in the sample more than one time.

Table 7.
18 Monthly Labor Review October 1999

Family Leave Coverage

level of coverage was much higher to start with.

The regression models shown in table 7 test whether the

same pattern of increased family leave coverage over time

appears when one estimates multivariate models for family

leave coverage, controlling for other characteristics that are

likely to affect such coverage. The models are fairly parsimonious: they include, in addition to the year, controls only

for the respondent’s age, level of education, race or ethnicity,

and part-time status, all recorded at the time of the survey

each year.13 As expected, workers with more education are

more likely to have maternity or paternity leave coverage,

and part-time workers are less likely.14 There are no significant effects of age, race, or ethnicity.

In the regressions shown in the table, the year 1990 is the

omitted or reference category, so the coefficient on each year

variable included in the model indicates whether coverage

was more or less likely in that particular year than it was in

1990. The results indicate that family leave coverage was not

more likely in 1991 or 1992 than it was in 1990, but that there

were statistically significant increases in coverage in 1993,

1994, and 1996. These increases were larger for men (7 percent

to 12 percent) than for women (2.5 percent to 5 percent). And

for men only, the year effects grew stronger over time, from 7

percent in 1993, to 8 percent in 1994, to 12 percent in 1996.

It is useful to compare changes in coverage for publicsector employees, private-sector employees in large firms,

and private-sector employees in small firms, because only

the first two groups are covered by the FMLA. Therefore, six

separate regression models were estimated, one for men and

one for women from each of the groups. The year effects in

these models are presented in table 8. The left-hand column

shows results for employees in the public sector. For the

women in this sector, there was no significant increase in

family leave coverage in the 1990s, in sharp contrast to the

men, for whom there was a 7-percent increase in coverage in

1992 (before passage of the FMLA), followed by increases of

13 percent in 1993, 19 percent in 1994, and 24 percent in 1996.

These results confirm the pattern in the raw data for publicsector workers (shown in table 6), with women already very

likely to have had maternity leave coverage in the 1990s and

with men making great strides over the 1990s in catching up.

The middle column in table 8 shows results for employees

in large firms in the private sector. Both women and men

made gains in family leave coverage in 1993 and thereafter,

with the gains for men larger than for women and also

growing somewhat stronger over time. However, the gains

for men were not as great as they were in the public sector, a

finding that is also consistent with the patterns in the raw

data in table 6.

The right-hand column in table 8 shows results for the

group not covered by the FMLA: employees in small firms.

Not surprisingly, there is no statistically significant increase

in family leave coverage over time for men in these firms.

But interestingly, there is a statistically significant increase

in coverage for women in 1993 and again in 1996. And,

although these increases may appear fairly modest at first

glance, they are actually about the same magnitude as the

increases for women working in large firms in the private

sector (who were covered by the FMLA).

The latter result, which was not apparent in the raw data

shown in table 6, suggests that family leave coverage increased after the passage of the FMLA for some employees

who were not covered by the law. Perhaps their firms decided

to offer family leave voluntarily, as part of a move toward

more family-friendly employment practices, although, as

noted earlier, the data on family benefits in the Employee

Benefits Surveys provide little evidence of such a shift. A

more likely explanation is that the passage of the FMLA,

together with the publicity associated with it, may have

heightened awareness among employers and employees

Year effects on maternity or paternity leave

coverage in the National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth, by sector and size of firm, 1990–96

Private sector, Private sector,

 large firm small firm

 Women

Year = 1991 ............... .0115 .0077 –.0168

(.0189) (.0121) (.0181)

Year = 1992 ............... –.0075 –.0104 .0097

(.0204) (.0130) (.0199)

Year = 1993 ............... .0200 1.0612 1.0537

(.0225) (.0131) (.0217)

Year = 1994 ............... .0186 1.0561 .0060

(.0246) (.0148) (.0251)

Year = 1996 ............... .0029 1

.0579 1.0800

 (.0300) (.0190) (.0302)

N ................................ 3,157 7,391 5,777

R squared .................. .0582 .0604 .0692

 Men

Year = 1991 ............... .0368 .0033 .0030

(.0293) (.0165) (.0149)

Year = 1992 ............... 1

.0726 .0164 –.0252

(.0311) (.0173) (.0161)

Year = 1993 ............... 1.1318 1

.1335 .0153

(.0339) (.0189) (.0179)

Year = 1994 ............... 1.1890 1.1230 .0161

(.0369) (.0213) (.0200)

Year = 1996 ............... 1.2417 1

.1829 .0378

(.0438) (.0250) (.0246)

N ................................ 3,157 8,235 8,595

R squared .................. .0582 .0299 .0316

1 Statistically significant at p < .05.

NOTE: Coefficients (and standard errors in parentheses) are from ordinary

least squares estimates, which also include controls for age, educational

level, African-American ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity, and part-time work. The

dependent variable is maternity or paternity leave coverage, set to 1 if the

worker responded “yes” and 0 if the worker responded “no” or “don’t know.”

Standard errors are corrected to account for clustering by individuals who

appear in the sample more than one time.

Public sector

Table 8.
Monthly Labor Review October 1999 19

about other sources of family leave coverage. In particular,

the passage of the Act may have boosted the impact of State

family leave legislation.

As shown in the appendix, 12 States and the District of

Columbia had their own legislation mandating job-protected

maternity leaves for workers in the private sector prior to the

passage of the FMLA. About 28 percent of employed women

in the NLSY were covered by such laws before 1993, when the

FMLA was enacted.15 State paternity leave legislation was

less widespread: only 10 States and the District of Columbia

had laws mandating job-protected paternity leaves for

workers in the private sector prior to the enactment of the

FMLA (and in 4 of the States this legislation was instituted

later than maternity leave legislation). The State paternity

leave laws covered about 17 percent of employed men in the

NLSY before 1993.16

In models estimated for all workers in the NLSY, State

family leave laws have the expected positive effect on family

leave coverage. (See table 9.) For example, living in a State

with a maternity leave law raises the likelihood that a woman

has maternity leave coverage by 4.5 percent, and living in a

State with a paternity leave law raises the likelihood that a

man has paternity leave coverage by 4 percent. For women,

the effect of the State laws is somewhat stronger after than

before the FMLA (rising from under 4 percent in 1990–92 to

more than 5 percent in 1993–96). This finding is consistent

with the hypothesis that both employees and employers may

have become more aware of their rights under existing State

statutes after the passage of the FMLA.

To test this hypothesis further, table 10 presents the year

effects from models estimated separately for women and men

in large firms in States with and without maternity or paternity

leave laws. If State laws had no effect for covered workers after

the passage of the FMLA, then the increase in leave coverage

over time should be the same for workers in large firms, whether

or not they lived in a State with a leave law. But the results in

the first two columns of the table indicate that this is not the

case: the increases in coverage for women and men in 1993,

1994, and 1996 are larger in States with leave laws than in States

without such laws; note also that there is an increase in coverage

for men in 1992 only in States with such laws.

These results suggest that the FMLA and State leave statutes

may be complementary. Controlling for State laws does not

change the estimated trends in coverage. (Note that the year

effects in table 9, which includes the control for State law, are

virtually the same as they are in table 7, which did not include

this control.) The fact that these year effects tend to be

particularly strong for covered workers (as shown in table 8)

suggests that the FMLA did have an impact. But analyzing

workers separately by whether or not they were covered by

State statutes (as per table 10) helps explain why some groups

not covered by the Act were more likely to have maternity or

paternity leave coverage after its passage: apparently, either

the passage of the Act or the publicity associated with it may

have boosted the effectiveness of State laws.

WHEN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT WAS ENACTED

IN 1993, some thought that it might have little effect on family

leave coverage, because it excluded so many workers and firms

and because many of those it covered had family leave rights

already. However, the evidence suggests that the FMLA has had

quite an important impact on family leave coverage.

Data from the Employee Benefits Survey show a marked

rise in family leave coverage for workers in 1993 and thereEffect of State maternity or paternity leave laws

on maternity or paternity leave coverage, all

workers in the National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth, 1990–96

1990–96 1990–92 1993–96

 Women

State law ..................... 1

.0445 1.0376 1.0519

(.0100) (.0126) (.0120)

Year = 1991 ................ –.0047 –.0043 ...

(.0091) (.0092) ...

Year = 1992 ................ –.0057 .0046 ...

 (.0101) (.0104) ...

Year = 1993 1.0450 ... ...

 (.0109) ... ...

Year = 1994 ................ 2.0244 ... 1–.0216

(.0127) ... (.0092)

Year = 1996 ................ 1.0401 ... –.0072

(.0157) ... (.0119)

N ................................. 16,769 8,720 8,049

R squared ................... .0745 .0699 .0780

 Men

State law ..................... 1.0414 1.0411 1.0418

 (.0130) (.0158) (.0152)

Year = 1991 ................ .0045 .0052 ...

(.0101) (.0101) ...

Year = 1992 ................ –.0028 –.0012 ...

(.0111) (.0114) ...

Year = 1993 ................ 1

.0646 ... ...

 (.0125) ... ...

Year = 1994 1.0780 ... .0125

(.0142) ... (.0102)

Year = 1996 ................ 1

.1174 ... 1.0497

(.0175) ... (.0135)

N ................................. 19,742 10,331 9,411

R squared ................... .0392 .0248 .0381

1

 Statistically significant at p < .05.

2

 Statistically significant at p < .10.

NOTE: Coefficients (and standard errors in parentheses) are from ordinary

least squares estimates, which also include controls for age, educational level,

African-American ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity, and part-time work. The dependent variable is maternity or paternity leave coverage, set to 1 if the worker

responded “yes” and 0 if the worker responded “no” or “don’t know.” State law

is set to 1 if the woman’s (man’s) State had a law in effect that year which

mandated a job-protected maternity (paternity) leave and 0 otherwise.

Standard errors are corrected to account for clustering by individuals who

appear in the sample more than one time.

Table 9.
20 Monthly Labor Review October 1999

Family Leave Coverage

after, with a particularly large increase in paternity leave

coverage. These increases are more pronounced for workers

covered by the law (full-time employees in medium-sized or

large establishments and also public-sector employees) than

for other workers. They are also much more pronounced than

increases in other types of family-friendly benefits.

Microdata from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

confirm that family leave coverage increased for workers in

1993 and thereafter, again with a particularly sharp increase in

paternity leave coverage. Some of the increase in family leave

coverage occurred as a result of workers moving from not having

coverage to having coverage, while some reflects workers

moving from not knowing whether they had coverage to having

coverage. The raw data from the NLSY suggest that the increase

in family leave coverage was most pronounced for those who

were covered by the FMLA, with women and men in small firms

seeing only small increases compared with women and,

especially, men in large firms (and men in the public sector), who

saw larger increases. However, a multivariate analysis provides

a somewhat different result, at least for women in the private

sector, who saw increases in coverage whether or not they

worked for covered firms (whereas men in the private sector

gained coverage in 1993 and later years only if they in fact did

work in covered firms).

The latter finding raises the possibility that State leave laws

may still be important sources of coverage, even after the

passage of the FMLA. And indeed, the results of the multivariate analysis confirm that this is the case: State leave laws

have positive effects on leave coverage for both men and

women; and for women, the effects of these laws are somewhat larger after than before the passage of the FMLA,

presumably because of increased awareness about the State

laws. The results also indicate that the State and Federal

family leave laws may be complementary: the largest increases in family leave coverage in the 1990s are seen in

workers who are covered by both laws (that is, workers in

large firms in States with their own laws).

One of the most intriguing findings of the analysis is that

the increases in family leave coverage in the 1990s were not

confined to the period immediately following the passage of

the FMLA in 1993. For most groups, levels of family leave

coverage are higher in the late 1990s than they were in 1993.

Thus, it will be of interest to continue to track family leave

coverage into the year 2000 and beyond.

It will also be of interest to track the extent to which

increases in family leave coverage will be reflected in

increases in usage of leave, particularly among men, for

whom the increases in coverage were the largest. There is

some evidence that usage of leave among new mothers

(women with infants) has risen following the passage of the

FMLA.

17 Whether usage of leave among new fathers has

increased as well remains to be seen.

Year effects on maternity or paternity leave

coverage, private-sector workers in large firms in

the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, by

State maternity or paternity leave law, 1990–96

No Law Had Law

 Women

Year = 1991 ................................. .0094 –.0007

(.0145) (.0218)

Year = 1992 ................................. –.0103 –.0139

(.0156) (.0236)

Year = 1993 ................................. 1

.0543 1.0765

(.0161) (.0223)

Year = 1994 ................................. 1

.0424 1.0919

(.0180) (.0249)

Year = 1996 ................................. 1.0454 1.0965

(.0231) (.0324)

N .................................................. 5,336 2,055

R squared .................................... .0578 .0814

 Men

Year = 1991 ................................. –.0092 .0664

(.0180) (.0417)

Year = 1992 ................................. –.0073 1.0892

(.0196) (.0405)

Year = 1993 ................................. 1.1141 1.2001

(.0215) (.0422)

Year = 1994 ................................. 1

.1091 1.1727

(.0239) (.0484)

Year = 1996 ................................. 1

.1609 1.2605

(.0282) (.0542)

N .................................................. 6,475 1,760

R squared .................................... .0312 .0304

1

 Statistically significant at p < .05.

2

 Statistically significant at p < .10.

NOTE: Coefficients (and standard errors in parentheses) are from

ordinary least squares estimates, which also include controls for age,

educational level, African-American ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity, and parttime work. The dependent variable is maternity or paternity leave coverage,

set to 1 if the worker responded “yes” and 0 if the worker responded “no” or

“don’t know.” State law is set to 1 if the woman’s (man’s) State had a law in

effect that year which mandated a job-protected maternity (paternity) leave

and 0 otherwise. Standard errors are corrected to account for clustering by

individuals who appear in the sample more than one time.

Table 10.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Research for this article was supported by a grant

from the National Institute of Child Health and Development. I am

grateful to Wen-Jui Han for her help with the data and to Donna

Lenhoff for assisting with information on State leave legislation.

1

 My own estimate from the March Current Population Survey.

2

 See Stephanie L. Hyland, “Helping employees with family care,”

Monthly Labor Review, September 1990, pp. 22–26; and Roberta

Spalter-Roth and Heidi Hartmann, Unnecessary Losses: Costs to

Americans of the Lack of Family and Medical Leave (Washington, DC,

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1990).

3

 The FMLA established this bipartisan Commission to study and

report back to Congress about mandatory and voluntary family and
Monthly Labor Review October 1999 21

medical leave policies. The Commission’s final report was released on

May 1, 1996. (See Commission on Family and Medical Leave, A Workable

Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies

(Washington, DC, Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, 1996).)

The Westat survey results are reported in full in David Cantor, Jeffrey

Kerwin, Kerry Levin, Susan Heltemes, and David Becher, The Impact of

the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers (Rockville,

MD, Westat, 1995).

4

 As mentioned, these figures refer to private-sector workers only.

For private- and public-sector workers combined, the survey found that

66 percent worked for covered employers and 55 percent qualified for

coverage.

5

 The Employee Benefits Survey surveys establishments, rather than

firms. The distinction is that a firm is analogous to a company, whereas

an establishment is analogous to a plant or facility. Thus, an establishment is part of a firm, and a firm may own or conduct its business at

many establishments.

6

 Jane Waldfogel, “The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave

Act,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, spring 1999, pp.

281–302.

7

 The results of these surveys are reported in various BLS press releases

from 1992 to 1999. The Employee Benefits Survey also surveyed State and

local government employees in 1998; these data are due to be released in

2000.

8

 In 1994, the Employee Benefits Survey stopped tracking maternity

and paternity leave separately; thus, the 1995 and 1997 figures are for

family leave, which combines the two components.

9

 See previous footnote.

10 Part-time workers in medium-sized and large establishments are less

likely to be covered than full-time workers in those establishments because

they may not have worked the requisite 1,250 hours in the previous year.

Coverage of full-time workers in small establishments is harder to predict,

because the Employee Benefits Survey defines small establishments as

those with fewer than 100 employees, whereas the FMLA excludes firms

with fewer than 50 employees. As a result, some full-time workers in

small establishments surveyed by the Employee Benefits Survey are

covered by the FMLA, while others are not.

11 The wording of this question, “(Does/did) your employer make

available (maternity/paternity) leave that will allow you to go back to

your old job or one that pays the same as your old one,” was basically the

same in each survey from 1990 to 1996.

12 Annual sample sizes range from 2,720 to 3,227 for women and

from 3,144 to 3,864 for men. The self-employed are excluded from this

and all subsequent tables because the questions about employer leave

provisions do not apply to them.

13 Controlling for other characteristics (such as marital status,

number of children, work experience, or job tenure) is problematic,

because these characteristics could be affected by family leave coverage

and thus would be endogenous. Therefore, the more parsimonious

model is preferred. Sample sizes for all models are shown in the tables.

Because individual workers may appear in the sample more than once

(if they are working in more than one year during which the survey

was conducted), the standard errors in all models are corrected using

the “cluster” command in the software package STATA.

14 See, for instance, Marianne Ferber and Jane Waldfogel, “The Impact

of Part-Time and Self-Employment on Wages and Benefits,” working

paper, Columbia University, New York, NY, 1999.

15 To impute coverage for workers in the NLSY, a worker was coded as

covered by a law if she or he lived in a State that had a law in that year.

This imputation is subject to error, because a respondent may live in one

State and work in another. Such an error would mean that the estimated

effect of the State laws is likely to be biased towards zero.

16 The appendix lists only States with laws covering workers in the

private sector and providing the right to reinstatement after the leave is

completed.

17 See Jacob Klerman and Arleen Leibowitz, “The FMLA and the Labor

Supply of New Mothers: Evidence from the June CPS,” paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America,

Chicago, IL, Apr. 2, 1998; Katherin Ross, “Labor Pains: The Effects of

the Family and Medical Leave Act on New Mothers’ Return to Work,”

paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of

America, Chicago, IL, Apr. 2, 1998; and Waldfogel, “Family and Medical

Leave Act.”

Appendix: The role of the States

The following is a list of States (including the District of Columbia) with laws mandating job-protected maternity or paternity leave for private-sector

workers that were in effect prior to passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

States with maternity Effective date

 leave law

California January 1980

Connecticut January 1973

District of Columbia April 1991

Maine April 1988

Massachusetts October 1972

Minnesota July 1987

New Jersey April 1990

Oregon January 1988

Rhode Island July 1987

Tennessee January 1988

Vermont July 1992

Washington October 1973

Wisconsin April 1988

SOURCES: Helen Irwin and Ralph Silberman, Family and Medical Leaves: The New Federal Statute and State Laws (New York, Warren, Gorham, Lamont, 1993); State Laws

and Regulations Guaranteeing Employees Their Jobs after Family and Medical Leaves (Washington, DC, Women’s Legal Defense Fund (now National Partnership for Women

and Families), June 1997); State Family and Medical Leave Laws and Regulations (Washington, DC, Women’s Legal Defense Fund (now National Partnership for Women and

Families), August 1993); Jane Waldfogel, “The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, spring 1999, pp. 281–302.

States with paternity Effective date

 leave law

California January 1992

Connecticut January 1990

District of Columbia April 1991

Maine October 1991

Minnesota July 1987

New Jersey April 1990

Oregon January 1988

Rhode Island July 1987

Vermont July 1992

Washington September 1989

Wisconsin April 1988