Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822417
label
NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] re Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Initiative [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822417
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] re Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Initiative [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822417
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-014-001-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
03ea5d821f1f1286
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Ruby Shamir to Nicole Rabner et al, re Ruby in NY (partial) (1 page)
11/24/1999
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Domestic Policy Council (Nicole Rabner)
OA/Box Number: 15418
FOLDER TITLE:
NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] re Birth and Adoption Unemployment
Compensation Initiative [3]
2012-1035-S
kc1072
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA|
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
this proposed regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Secretary has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to this effect. Accordingly,
no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is not a "major rule" as defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8). This
proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employ-
ment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based entities
to compete with foreign-based entities in domestic and export markets.
Effect on Family Life
The DOL certifies that this proposed rule has been assessed in accordance with
section 654 of Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, for its effect on family well-being. The
DOL concludes that the proposed rule will not adversely affect the well-being of the
nation's families. Rather, it should have a positive effect on family well-being by
permitting States to enable more parents to take leave from their employment to be with
their newborns or newly-adopted children.
22
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 604
Employment and Training Administration, Labor, and Unemployment Compensa-
tion.
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
This program is listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance at
No. 17.225, Unemployment Insurance.
Signed at Washington, D.C. on
, 1999.
ALEXIS M. HERMAN
Secretary of Labor
Words of Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DOL proposes that Chapter V of
Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, be amended by adding new part 604 to read as
follows:
23
Part 604-REGULATIONS FOR BIRTH AND ADOPTION UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION
Subpart A-General Provisions
Sec.
§604.1 What is the purpose of this regulation?
§604.2 What is the scope of this regulation?
§604.3 What definitions apply to this regulation?
Subpart B-Federal Unemployment Compensation Program Requirements
$604.10 Beyond the interpretation of the able and available requirements for Birth and
Adoption unemployment compensation, does this regulation change the Federal require-
ments for the unemployment compensation program?
Subpart C-Eligibility
$604.20 Who is covered by Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation?
§604.21 When does éligibility for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation
commence?
§604.22 Are parents who leave employment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted
children eligible for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation, or is it limited
only to parents who take approved leave?
24
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302(a); 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(2) and (5); 26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1) and (4);
26 U.S.C. 3306(h); Secretary's Order No. 4-75 (40 FR 18515); and Secretary's Order No.
14-75 (November 12, 1975).
Subpart A-General Provisions
§604.1 What is the purpose of this regulation?
This regulation allows the States to develop and experiment with innovative
methods for paying unemployment compensation to parents on approved leave or who
otherwise leave employment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children.
States' experiences with Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation will enable the
Department of Labor to test whether its interpretation of the Federal "able and available"
requirements promotes a continued connection to the workforce in parents who receive
such payments.
§604.2 What is the scope of the regulation?
This regulation applies to and permits all State unemployment compensation
programs to provide benefits to parents on approved leave or who otherwise leave
employment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children. A State's participation
is voluntary.
25
§604.3 What definitions apply to the regulation?
The following definitions apply to this regulation:
(a) Approved Leave means a specific period of time, agreed to by both the
employee and employer, during which an employee is temporarily separated from
employment and after which the employee will return to work for that employer.
(b) Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation means unemployment
compensation paid only to parents on approved leave or who otherwise leave employ-
ment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children.
(c) DOL means the United States Department of Labor.
(d) Newborns means children up to one-year old.
(e) Newly-adopted children means children, regardless of age, who have been
placed within the previous 12 calendar months with an adoptive parent(s).
(f) Parents means mothers and fathers (biological, legal or who have legal
custody of a child during the adoption process).
(g) Placement means the time a parent becomes legally responsible for a child
pending adoption.
(h) State(s) means one of the States of the United States of America, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.
26
Subpart B-Federal Unemployment Compensation Program Requirements
§604.10 Beyond the interpretation of the able and available requirement for Birth
and Adoption unemployment compensation, does this regulation change the Federal
requirements for the unemployment compensation program?
No. This regulation does not change the Federal unemployment compensation
requirements. Under its authority to interpret Federal unemployment compensation law,
the DOL interprets the Federal able and available requirements to include experimental
Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation. The regulation applies only to parents
who take approved leave or otherwise leave employment to be with their newborns or
newly-adopted children.
Subpart C-Eligibility
$604.20 Who is covered by Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation?
If a State chooses to provide Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation, all
individuals covered by the State's unemployment compensation law must also be covered
for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation. Just as with current unemployment
compensation programs, individuals may not be denied experimental Birth and Adoption
unemployment compensation based on facts or causes unrelated to the claimant's
unemployment, such as industry, employer size or the unemployment status of a family
member. The introduction of such facts or causes would be inconsistent with Federal
unemployment compensation law.
27
§604.21 When does eligibility for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation
commence?
Parents may be eligible for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation
during the one-year period commencing with the week in which their child is born or
placed with them for adoption. Weeks preceding the week of the birth or placement and
weeks following the end of the one-year period are not compensable.
$604.22 Are parents who leave employment to be with their newborns or newly-
adopted children eligible for Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation, or is
it limited only to parents who take approved leave?
States may limit Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation to parents who
take approved leave or may extend Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation to
parents who otherwise leave employment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted
children. However, the intent of Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation is to
support all parents who wish to take time from employment to be with their newborns or
newly-adopted children.
28
Appendix A
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Model State Legislation
Section
.
Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation.
(a) An individual who is on a leave of absence from his or her employer or who left
employment to be with the individual's child during the first year of life, or during the
first year following placement with the individual for adoption, shall not be denied
compensation under Section
for voluntarily leaving employment, Section
relating to availability for work, Section
relating to inability to work, or Section
for failure to actively seek work.
(b) Section
, concerning the reduction of the amount of compensation due to receipt
of disqualifying income, shall apply to payments under this section. In addition, the
following payments shall cause a reduction in the compensation amount:
(1) any payment from the employer resulting from a birth or adoption described in
subsection (a); and
29
(2) any payment resulting from a birth or adoption described in subsection (a)
from a disability insurance plan contributed to by an employer, in proportion to the
employer's contribution to such plan.
(c) Compensation is payable to an individual under this section for a maximum of 12
weeks with respect to any birth or placement for adoption.
(d) Each employer shall post at each site operated by the employer, in a conspicuous
place, accessible to all employees, information relating to the availability of Birth and
Adoption unemployment compensation.
(e) Any compensation paid under this section shall not be charged to the account of the
individual employer.
(f) Two years following the effective date of this legislation, the commissioner shall issue
a report to the governor and the legislature evaluating the effectiveness of the Birth and
Adoption unemployment compensation program.
(g) This section shall be applied consistent with regulations issued by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor.
30
Appendix B
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Commentary on Model State Legislation,
Including Policy Issues
General
Must States implement a Birth and Adoption unemployment compensation (BAA-
UC) program?
No. This program is voluntary for the States. However, implementation of BAA-UC
will require some legislation on the part of every State seeking to adopt the program. The
Model State Legislation is provided for the convenience of States that wish to implement
a BAA-UC program.
Does this regulation enable a State to pay UC for other types of family or medical
leave?
No. This regulation enables a State to pay UC to parents on approved leave or who
otherwise leave employment to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children.
Permitting payment of UC for other types of family leave or care would be inconsistent
with this experimental program.
31
Must all employer-paid leave be exhausted before BAA-UC is available?
No. BAA-UC is designed to provide partial wage replacement to parents of newborns or
newly-adopted children. The Model State Legislation assumes that any wages paid for
the period of employer-provided leave will be deducted. However, States need not
deduct these wages from BAA-UC.
Does this regulation impose any solvency requirements upon the States before they
enact BAA-UC?
No. The DOL expects that a State will not enact changes without assessing the effect on
the solvency of its unemployment fund. Each State has the responsibility to assess the
cost to the State's unemployment fund whenever coverage, benefit expansions, or tax
changes are considered within the State's UC program. Consequently, DOL expects
prudent decision makers in a State to examine the State's solvency position and projected
taxes and benefit payments under current law before deciding to enact BAA-UC legisla-
tion.
Monetary Qualifications and Benefits
What are the earnings and employment requirements for BAA-UC?
States may establish their own requirements. The Model State Legislation assumes that
States will use the same earnings and employment criteria that apply to all other individu-
als.
32
What is the weekly benefit amount for individuals eligible for BAA-UC?
States may establish their own weekly benefit amounts. The Model State Legislation
assumes that individuals eligible for BAA-UC will receive the same weekly benefit
amount as other individuals eligible for UC.
How does the receipt of other income effect payment of BAA-UC ?
States will determine whether BAA-UC will be reduced by other income. Under the
Model State Legislation, the amount of BAA-UC will be reduced in the same manner as
any other payment of UC as provided under State law. The Model State Legislation also
provides for the deduction of any payment from the employer as a result of the birth or
placement for adoption, and for the deduction of any disability insurance payment
received as a result of the birth or placement for adoption in proportion to the employer's
contribution to the disability insurance plan. This provision, which is limited to pay-
ments triggered by the same event which triggers BAA-UC, reflects the view that the
unemployment fund should not be held responsible when wage replacement is available
from other sources, particularly when both payments are financed by the employer.
States should examine their laws to determine if all types of appropriate income are, or
should be, deductible. For example, some leave payments which are not normally
deductible under State law may cover costs of birth and adoption leave.
33
How does the BAA-UC entitlement relate to regular UC payments?
States are free to determine this. The Model Legislation assumes that BAA-UC counts
toward the maximum number of weeks of regular UC.
Period of Eligibility
When may BAA-UC benefits begin?
Under Section 604.21 of the proposed regulations, parents may receive BAA-UC only
during the one-year period commencing with the week in which the child is born or
placed for adoption. For example, an individual taking leave in the 51st week following
birth or placement for adoption, would be eligible for BAA-UC only for weeks 51 and
52. Periods preceding the week of birth or placement for adoption are not compensable.
States are free to reduce the one-year period.
How many weeks of BAA-UC may individuals receive?
States are free to determine this. The Model State Legislation provides a maximum
duration of 12 weeks per individual with respect to any one birth or adoption. Since the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave
for such events, States may wish to have an identical amount. States may also relate the
duration of leave to the individual's weekly amount of UC. For example, for each birth
or adoption, an individual may receive an amount equal to 12 times the individual's
weekly UC.
34
To prevent confusion between FMLA and BAA-UC, States should inform potential
BAA-UC beneficiaries of the dissimilarities between the two programs (for example,
BAA-UC does not guarantee job retention).
If a child is born in the middle of the week or the placement occurs in the middle of
the week, is BAA-UC payable for this week?
Under the Model State Legislation, BAA-UC would be payable for this week, assuming
all applicable eligibility conditions, such as the deductible income provisions, are met.
States may provide the full weekly compensation amount for this week or prorate the
weekly amount to reflect only periods following birth or adoption. If the amount is
prorated, the State may pay the remaining balance for the last partial week if the individ-
ual is still on leave.
Must the individual serve a waiting period?
No. Nothing in Federal law requires States to have a waiting week for regular UC or
BAA-UC. However, not having a waiting week for BAA-UC would eliminate the 50
percent Federal share for the first week of all Extended Benefits claims. Under 20 CFR
615.14(c)(3), a State is not entitled to a Federal share for the first week of Extended
Benefits if the State's law provides "at any time or under any circumstances" for the
payment of UC for the first week of unemployment.
35
When is a child considered "placed" for adoption?
Under 604.3(g) of the proposed rule, placement occurs at the time a parent becomes
legally responsible for a child pending adoption. State UC agencies should consult the
adoption laws of their States to determine precisely when placement occurs.
Other Eligibility Issues
May both parents receive BAA-UC? If so, may they both receive such
compensation at the same time?
The answer to both questions is "yes." States implementing BAA-UC must allow both
parents, if otherwise eligible, to receive BAA-UC concurrently or consecutively. A State
may not prohibit payment of BAA-UC simply because the other parent is taking leave for
the same purpose. A State law which does so is inconsistent with Federal law because
the eligibility of one parent will be determined based on whether the other parent is
receiving UC. Specifically, in a 1964 conformity decision involving the State of South
Dakota, the Secretary of Labor held that Federal law prohibits the introduction of any
eligibility test unrelated to the fact or cause of the individual's unemployment. (See
Secretary of Labor's Decision of September 25, 1964, In the Matter of the Hearing to the
South Dakota Department of Employment Security Pursuant to Section 3304(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, transmitted by Unemployment Insurance Program Letter
No. 787, October 2, 1964.) The recipient status of the other parent is unrelated to the fact
36
or cause of an individual's unemployment. Thus, both parents may receive BAA-UC,
whether concurrently or consecutively. Similarly, States may not limit use of BAA-UC
to the "primary" parent.
Must BAA-UC apply to individuals employed by all employers subject to State UI
law?
Yes. As explained in the previous answer, States may not impose eligibility conditions
not related to the fact or cause of the individual's unemployment. Assuming the services
are taxable for UC, States may not, for example, limit BAA-UC based on employer size.
May States provide BAA-UC to individuals who otherwise leave employment (not
on approved leave) to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children?
Yes. While States are free to determine their own requirements, there are compelling
reasons for providing BAA-UC to individuals who otherwise leave employment.
Although many employers may grant leave, others may not. The DOL believes that all
parents should be treated identically for UC purposes when they take time away from
employment to be with their newborn or newly-adopted child. As such, their eligibility
for BAA-UC should not be based on whether an employer is required to grant the leave,
but on the parent's reason for wanting to take the leave.
37
May eligibility be conditioned on whether the individual gave notice to the em-
ployer?
Yes. Although the Model State Legislation does not provide for such a condition because
it may result in denials due to the technicality of when the individual requested leave,
States may impose it. The basis of such a requirement is that employers should be given
sufficient time to accommodate the leaving/absence of the individual. If such a provision
is included, the DOL recommends that the notice be required to be given no more than 30
days prior to birth or placement, but only where practicable. The FMLA contains a 30-
day requirement or shorter notice period where giving 30-day notice is not practicable; it
does not require notice when the necessity to take leave is unforeseeable. (Section
102(e), Family and Medical Leave Act, Pub. L. 103-3 (February 5, 1993).)
May eligibility be conditioned on whether the individual chooses not to return to
work?
Yes. However, based upon Jenkins V. Bowling, 691 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1982), States
may not delay payment until after the individual returns to work. Section 303(a)(1),
SSA, requires the full payment of benefits when due, precluding States from delaying
payment while awaiting the individual's return to work. A State may, however, declare
an overpayment of benefits after the individual fails to return to work.
38
May an individual be paid BAA-UC under the Federal-State extended benefit
program or any of the federally funded unemployment programs?
It depends on the program. Benefits under the UC for Federal Employees (UCFE) and
UC for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) programs are, by Federal law, required to be paid on
the same terms and subject to the same conditions as State benefits (with exceptions not
relevant here). Therefore, BAA-UC will be paid to individuals under these programs to
the same extent as under State law.
Individuals may only receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) when their
unemployment is caused by a disaster as provided in 20 CFR Part 625. However, if they
meet their State's Birth and Adoption UC provisions, then they will satisfy the availabil-
ity requirement at §625.4(g), and so may qualify for DUA. For example, an individual
who is unemployed due to a major disaster may later give birth. If this individual
satisfies the BAA-UC requirements in the State's law, she may receive DUA.
Extended Benefit claimants may not receive Birth and Adoption UC since they cannot
meet the systematic and sustained work search requirements in 20 CFR 615.8(g).
Individuals claiming trade readjustment allowances (cash benefits) under the Trade
Adjustment Assistance and the North American Free Trade Act Transitional Adjustment
39
Assistance programs will be ineligible since such individuals are required to either be in
full-time training or conduct the systematic and sustained work search required for the
Extended Benefit program.
Financing costs of BAA-UC
May BAA-UC costs be socialized among employers?
Yes. States are free to socialize or not socialize costs of BAA-UC. The Model State
Legislation socializes costs-also called "noncharging." An employer may be reluctant to
bear all the costs of BAA-UC caused by an employee taking leave since the employer
will not have caused the individual's unemployment. Since noncharging is permitted
when the unemployment is caused by the employee, it is permitted in this situation. This
position applies to both contributory and reimbursable employers.
May BAA-UC costs be paid from a State fund other than the State's unemployment
fund, for example, a State's temporary disability (TDI) fund?
Yes. Nothing in Federal UC law governs the treatment of moneys in these funds because
they are financed by a separate tax and held separately from the State's unemployment
fund. For example, a State with a TDI program may enact a special disability insurance
tax on employers and deposit the proceeds in a disability fund. If the State chooses to use
one of these funds (or create such a fund) to pay birth and adoption leave benefits, the
requirements of DOL's BAA-UC regulation will not apply.
40
Administrative Costs
May States use administrative grants received from the Federal government to pay
for the administration of a BAA-UC program?
Provided that all the requirements of the BAA-UC regulation are met, the use of adminis-
trative grants is permissible, including for purposes of studying and evaluating the BAA-
UC program. However, if the regulation's requirements are not met, the expenditures of
grant funds are not for the proper and efficient administration of the State's law as
required by section 303(a)(8) of the Social Security Act.
Reporting
Will States need to amend their laws to address any Federal reporting requirements
concerning BAA-UC?
Although this is a matter for States to determine, the DOL anticipates that few, if any,
States will need to amend their laws since most State laws already contain language
concerning reporting. Many of these laws are based on the language on page 95 of The
Manual of Employment Security Legislation, as revised September 1950, which requires
that the agency "make such reports, in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary of Labor may from time to time require, and shall comply with such provisions
as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness
and verification of such reports."
41
What are the reporting requirements?
The DOL has not yet finalized a methodology for evaluating State BAA-UC programs.
When that methodology is completed, State reporting requirements will be issued in a
separate information collection request and, if subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
published for public comment in the Federal Register.
42
06/22/99 18:18 FAX 2026934644
OCIA
002
MINORITY
002/003
06/21/99 12:19 FAX 202 225 9480
WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER TEXAS, CHARMAN
PAID CRANE
CHARLES a MANGEL NEW YORK
- THOMAL
POSTNEY PATE STARK, CALIFORNIA
SHAWL FLORIDA
ROGERY T. MATER CALIFORNIA
JOHNSON, CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM + COYNE PENNERVEVANIA
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
UNITED NEW YORK
SANDER ML LEVEL MICHIGAN
MEAGER CALIFORNIA
BENJAIN L CARDIN, MARTLAND
- MORERY, LOURSIANA
JUM INCOLAMOTT. WASHINGTON
DAVE CAMP ROCHIGAN
GERMD a LEGICAL WISCOMEN
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
-
MINNESOTA
JOHN LEWAS, GEORGIA
JM NUMBER OWA
RICHARD E MAL MASSACHUSETTS
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6348
AMJOHMSON, TEXAS
MICHAEL a MONULTY. NEWYORK
JUNNIFER DUNN. WASHINGTON
WILLIAM & JEYFERSON LOURIANA
mac COLLINS. GEORGIA
JOHN & TANNER TENNESSEE
PURTMAN. ONE
XAVIN BECEIVA, CALIFORNIA
- - E-ENGLISH. PENNEY VANIA
KAREN L THERMAN PLONEIA
WATERER OILAHOMA
LLOVO DOGGETT, TEXAS
WAYWORTH. ARIZONA
June 21, 1999
WELLER ILLINOIS
EXAMPT MULSHOF. IMPECTURI
COLORADO
- LEWS CENTUCKY
MARE FOLEY. FLORIDA
at SINGLETON, CHIEF OF STAFF
JANICE MATS. MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
The Honorable William Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For six decades, American workers have had the security of knowing that if they lost their job,
they could receive unemployment benefits to feed their families and pay their bills. The unemployment
trust fund has proved to be an invaluable safety net for millions of workers since 1935.
For this reason, we are writing to express our strong opposition to your effort to raid this fund
for purposes other than helping jobless families. Your decision allowing states to use unemployment
compensation funds to provide paid family leave benefits pits out-of-work Americans against their
neighbors who have jobs. This is simply wrong. It also is a direct violation of a longstanding and
successful policy enacted during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
As the Committee on Economic Security said in its 1935 recommendations to Congress, the
Unemployment Compensation program is intended to provide "compensation in cash for limited
periods when (workers) lose their jobs." The report stated clearly that funds are "payable only for
involuntary unemployment"
Your new policy jeopardizes this 64-year-old program by allowing its funds to be drained for
other purposes. Instead of circumventing public comment through executive fiat, you should bring
legislation before Congress for open and honest discussion
06/22/99 18:19 FAX 2026934644
OCIA
003
MINORITY
WAYS AND MEANS
06/22/99 12:19 FAX 202 225 9480
-2-
We hope you will reconsider a policy that clearly endangers the economic security of struggling
American families.
Sincerely,
Mancy Jobeson Johnson
Billarcher
Bill Archer
WP.
Chairman, Subcommittee
Chairman
on Human Resources
cc: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 24, 1999
May 24, 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT:
New Tools to Help Parents Balance Work and Family
Since I became President, my Administration has worked hard to
make sure that parents have the tools they need to meet their
obligations at home and at work. I am proud that the very
first bill I signed into law was the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA). Since 1993, the FMLA has allowed millions of
Americans to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without
fear of losing their jobs -- to care for a newborn or adopted
child, to attend to their own serious health needs, or to care
for a seriously ill parent, son, daughter, or spouse. Too many
American workers, however, have been unable to take the leave
they need because they simply cannot afford to go without a
paycheck.
Therefore, I am taking new steps toward enabling workers to
take the leave they need.
First, I hereby direct the Secretary of Labor to propose
regulations that enable States to develop innovative ways of
using the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system to support parents
on leave following the birth or adoption of a child. In addi-
tion, I direct the Secretary to develop model State legislation
that States could use in following these regulations. In this
effort, the Department of Labor is to evaluate the
effectiveness of using the UI system for these or related
purposes. In a 1996 study conducted by the Commission on
Family and Medical Leave, lost pay was the most significant
barrier to parents taking advantage of unpaid leave after the
birth or adoption of a child. This new step will help to give
States the ability to eliminate a significant barrier that
parents face in taking leave.
Second, I direct the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management to propose government-wide regulations to allow
Federal employees to use up to 12 weeks of accrued sick leave
each year to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a
"serious health condition," as that term is defined for the
purpose of applying the FMLA. Currently, the amount of sick
leave that can be used to care for a family member who is ill
is limited to 13 days each year for most Federal employees. By
enabling Federal workers to use the sick leave they have
earned, we will eliminate a significant barrier to caring for a
family member with a serious health condition. The use of paid
sick leave under this policy will be subject to the same
conditions as the use of unpaid leave for these purposes under
the FMLA. In particular, the same notification and certifi-
cation requirements that govern the use of unpaid leave to care
for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent under the FMLA will
apply to Federal employees who use paid sick leave for this
purpose. I believe the Federal Government has an important
role to play in setting an example for the Nation.
Finally, I direct the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management to establish an Interagency Family Friendly
Workplace Working Group within 90 days to promote, evaluate,
and exchange information on Federal family-friendly workplace
initiatives. I also direct the head of each executive
department and agency to appoint a family-friendly work/life
coordinator to serve as a member of this Working Group.
Working Group representatives will be responsible for making
sure that Federal employees are aware of the full range of
options available to them to meet their personal and family
responsibilities (such as alternative work schedules,
telecommuting, part-time employment, and job sharing). The
coordinators also will provide employees with information about
child and elder care resources currently available in their
communities, and establish and promote parent support groups,
elder care support groups, and on-site nursing mothers'
programs.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
# # #
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_p.&STORYID=APIS711OCO00&SLUG-CLINTON
associated press
home
U.S.
world
business
sports
U.S. news
SCI
tech
arts
weather
election
search
NOVEMBER 30, 03:10 EST
Clinton Seeks Expanded Leave Plan
BUDGET
By ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writer
TOP STORIES
WASHINGTON (AP) - President
Clinton Seeks
Clinton is proposing that
Expanded
parents receive state subsidies
Leave Plan
while taking time away from
work to care for a new baby.
RECENT NEWS
The payments would come from
Congress
the same system that now pays
Approves
temporary benefits to the
Budget Deal
unemployed, the White House
Budget signing
said Monday. Parents then
AP/Doug Mills [18K]
Clinton:
could draw at least a portion of
Budget Deal
Victory for US
their regular salaries during leaves timed to the birth or
adoption of a child, the White House said.
GOP
Candidates
Clinton was announcing the proposed new rules today before
Split on Budget
leaving for a three-day trip to the West Coast and
Economy May
Pennsylvania. Democratic fund-raising events in California
Be Budget
and Philadelphia will bracket Clinton's address to the World
Fight Winner
Trade Organization in Seattle on Wednesday.
Tax,
The proposed parental leave rules would allow states to
Disability Bill
Cleared
experiment with their differing unemployment insurance
systems under a voluntary pilot program. Advocates say the
Hastert:
program would be inexpensive for states, which already
Clinton OKs
collect payroll taxes and distribute unemployment benefits.
Spending Cuts
Highlights.of
A White House official, who
Emerging
spoke on condition of
budget Deal
anonymity, said states may
decide for themselves whether
Status of
2000 Spending
they have enough money in the
Bills
unemployment pot to begin
administering parental leave
Annan
payments, and may also decide
Welcomes U.S.
the terms and duration of those
Spending Bill
Back
payments.
1 of 3
11/30/1999 8:32 AM
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_p..&STORYID=APIS711OCO00&SLUG-CLINTON
payments.
Bill signed
Diplomacy,
AP/Khue Bui [28K]
Human Rights
At least four states -
a Y2K Issue
Massachusetts, Vermont,
Maryland and Washington - already are considering
Hiring Good
Teachers Won't
extending unemployment benefits to new parents. At the
Be Easy
urging of these states, Clinton in May directed the Labor
Department to formulate regulations that would allow states
U.N Dues
to legislate changes under which surplus unemployment
Deal Praised
funds could be used for parental leave.
Decried
U.S. Gains
The unemployment insurance system, set up in the 1930s,
Seat on U.N.
already allows states considerable flexibility in determining
Committee
eligibility for unemployment benefits. But federal rules bars
states from using unemployment insurance funds for other
Clinton Uses
Vetoes To
purposes.
Shape Policy
The proposed new rule, which would take effect early next
Judge OKs
year, does not require congressional action.
CIA Spending
Secrecy
Parents are already entitled to
GOP Takes
up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave
Gamble on
with the guarantee of job
Social Security
protection. Since the Family
GOP White
and Medical Leave Act was
House Battle
passed in 1993, some 24
Over Budget
million people have used some
or all of their entitled 12 weeks
Clinton Holds
to care for a new baby or other
Cards in
family member.
New budget
Budget Fight
AP/Khue Bui [18K]
A 1996 federally commissioned
study found parents cited the loss of income as the main
ON THE WEB
reason for forgoing the unpaid leave.
Office of
Management
The same study found that nearly one in 10 people who took
and Budget
unpaid leave ended up on welfare during their time away
from work.
General
Accounting
Office
Congressional
Budget Office
home ] us news ] world ] business ] sports ] weather ] search ] help ]
2 of 3
11/30/1999 8:32 AM
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_p.&STORYID=APIS711OCO00&SLUG=CLINTON
Ap
Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments and questions
AP privacy statement
3 of 3
11/30/1999 8:32 AM
11/29/99 MON 09:51 FAX
002
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Childrane
DEPARTURE REMARKS
PARENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT PAY
THE WHITE HOUSE
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. In a few minutes I am heading to Seattle where I will engage in a
dialogue with America's trading partners from around the world about how we can best
use the enormous potential of the global economy to not only grow our prosperity, but to
also improve the everyday lives of citizens and working families. Before I go, I want to
tell you how we are using the enormous potential of our strongest economy in years, to
help American families balance the sometimes tremendous demands of work and family.
Surging technology and soaring prosperity define America at this moment. But
those achievements don't come cheap. They require an enormous commitment of time
and effort from America's workers, many of whom are being forced to make an
unacceptable choice: between being good workers and being good parents. The truth is,
in our 'round- the- world, 'round-the-clock economy there just don't seem to be enough
hours in the day for parents to do everything they need to do.
I am proud that the first bill I signed as President was the Family and Medical
Leave Act. Since 1993, millions of Americans have used it to take up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative without losing their jobs. The
importance of this option has been confirmed by the testimony of experts and parents at
for
thing
the first White House Conference on Child Care in 19---, and from groups like the
R
American Academy of Pediatrics. They all tell us that the healthy development of
newborn babies absolutely depends on quality bonding and nurturing time with parents or
other primary caregivers in the early months of life.
But, the current law just meets a fraction of the need. Too many families can't
take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave law because they can't afford to take the
time off without a paycheck. In fact, many low-income workers who use the benefit wind
C
?
up on public assistance to make ends meet. This is simply unacceptable. No other
civilized, industrial nation treats parents this way.
Last May, in a commencement speech at Grambling State University, I directed
the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule to allow states to offer paid leave to new mothers
and fathers. Today, I am announcing the Labor Department's proposed regulations that
will authorize the use of unemployment insurance by any state that wishes to do so to
help new parents. I believe that the flexible and voluntary use of this option by states
will go a long way toward strengthening families and keeping working parents on
sound
the job at work and at home.
As I have said, on the eve of the 21st century, we ought to set-a goal that all
economy
working Americans can take time when they need it to care for their families without
11/29/99 MON 09:50 FAX
001
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE FIRST LADY
TO
Nicole Rubne
FROM
Ann 0.20mg
FAX #
973-746-5046
PHONE #
# OF PAGES (including cover)
COMMENTS
Moole - Pls. call when you
receive. Terry needs
commes Luca ADAP.
There
-Am
11/29/99 MON 09:52 FAX
003
losing the income they need to support their families. This new authority by states move
us in the right direction and gives us a new tool in our national efforts to strengthen the
American family and reward the dignity of work.
Y
Thank you.
Kagin
Steve Can, Labor 193-4600
800 662 4151
Terry Edmunds, tomisement 62777
V. short remarks
Soanne Howes, Fran Visco 5302900
aft.10 am
She
KT
Alex Keenan, OMB
SSBG - child welfare - ideas broadly do
54503
Excerpts from "A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical
Leave Policies
"Many infants are born into homes where both parents work. The American
Academy of Pediatrics notes that infants (whether biological, adopted or
foster children) are particulrly vulnerable during the first few months of
life, and require the active involvement of a parent or primary caregiver in
the nurturing process. An infant's physical, cognitive and social
development depend on establishing a strong attachment to its parents or
primary caregiver. For parents to fulfill these important developmental
needs, time off from work is often needed." p. 9.
"To the extent that it is possible to generalize across the public and
private sectors, it appears that paid maternity leave was more available to
employees with relatively high levels of skills and income." p. 43 [So those
that would need the income the most, low paid workers, wouldn't be those
ones who would get it so baby ui would help them.] See p. 42 for more
maternity/paternity leave stats.
EUROPEAN UNION
DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REVISED
November 2. 1998
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROPEAN UNION VISITORS PROGRAMME
The International Leader Programme of the European Union
MEMORANDUM FOR PARTICIPANTS
1999
This memorardum is designed to help you prepare for your visit to the European Union (EU) as
a participant in the European Union Visitors Programme (EUVP).
Please note that your EUVP invitation may be subject to reconsideration in the event of a
change ill the nature of your employment. You are asked to notify the EUVP Coordinator at
the Washington Delegation immediately of any change of employment.
1. INTRODUCTION
The EUVP enables young leaders from non-member countries to visit the European Union as
guests of the European Parliament and the European Commission. The programme will help you
discuss matters of matual interest with officials of the Union's Institutions. as well as with
organizations and individuals in certain Member States. We hope your participation will heip
you gain through first hand experience a better understanding of the Union and that the
experience will be of benefit to you both professionally and personally in future years.
2. VALIDITY, DURATION AND SCOPE OF THE VISIT
Your EUVP study-grant is valid only for the 1999 calendar year and cannot be extended. The
duration of your visit will be for 8 working days (plus travel time). We will send you a draft
itinerary and work with you on travel and hotel arrangements. Once an itinerary has been agreed,
changes are not permitted apart from exceptional circumstances. Travel arrangements must be
finalized fourteen weeks prior to your departure.
All visits begin and end in Brussels where meetings will be arranged with staff of the EU
Institutions and with the Belgian authorities (a total of 5 days). Your first appointment in
Brussels will be a programme discussion with the EUVP Secretariat to finalise details (meetings,
tickets, finances,etc.).
2300 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037-1434 Telephone: (202) 862-9500 / Fax: (202) 429-1766
-2- Revised Nov 2, 1998
You may spend two days in Strasbourg for meetings with Members and officials of the European
Parliament. Depending on your area of interest, meetings may also be arranged in Luxembourg
at other EU institutions (Court of Justice, European Investment Bank, Court of Auditors,
Statistical Office). Or you may visit one other EU member country for a portion of your
programme (typically three working days).
3. TIMING
Visits take place during most of 1999, except during the following dates:
Easter - March 29 - April 5
Summer break - July 19 - August 23
Christmas (December 20 - 31)
4. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
To ensure that your programme accurately reflects your professional interests, you should
prepare a Statement of Purpose which must include:
a brief description of your current responsibilities;
EU theme(s) you wish to study;
specific topics you wish to discuss in your chosen EU member country;
As attachments please include the following:
list of names of individuals (or organizations) with whom you wish to meet;
up-to-date resume (indicating language(s) in which you are able to conduct meetings
without the aid of an interpreter);
3 recent photographs (passport size; black and white or colour)
questionnaire for member state to be visited
copy of the first page of your passport or similar ID document
Your Statement of Purpose should be sent to the Washington Delegation as soon as possible, and
not less than 14 weeks before your departure. For your guidance, a sample Statement is attached.
5. HOTELS
Unless otherwise requested, single accommodations will be reserved in standard category hotels
(normally three star).
-3- Revised Nov 2, 1998
Hotels require at least 24 hours notice of cancellation. Don't be a 'no-show'! Failure to cancel
or late cancellation will entail a legal obligation on your part to pay for a room you have not
occupied. In such a case, the EUVP will not accept responsibility for payment. Check-out time is
normally 12 noon, unless prior arrangements are made with the hotel. Telephone calls made from
hotels are very expensive. Be sure to check the rates before making long distance calls.
6. TRAVEL
You will be given a pre-paid economy class round-trip air ticket from your home to Brussels.
You must travel on European airlines. Travel within the European Union will be by plane or
train. Train travel is first-class. Train tickets will be issued upon arrival in Brussels.
Baggage
Maximum free baggage allowance on economy class flights within the
European Union is 20 Kgs (44 lbs) plus one piece of carry-on luggage.
Travel documents
Check your passport's validity and/or visa(s) prior to departure.
Car rental
The EUVP will authorise car rental for official travel only where no
alternative mode of transport is possible. It must be authorised in writing,
prior to your departure from the United States, by the EUVP, Brussels.
Car rental for personal travel prior to, or following your EUVP will be
own your responsibility. If necessary, you should obtain an International
Drivers' Licence before leaving the United States.
7. PRIVATE TRAVEL
You are welcome to travel in Europe privately before or after your study-tour. Your exact travel
dates (outbound and return) must be clearly indicated in writing before any reservations are made
by the EUVP. Any and all supplementary costs are met by you personally.
The EUVP cannot make travel arrangements for accompanying family members. However, the
EUVP will make joint hotel reservations upon request, in writing. Remember you will have a
full programme of meetings, an accompanying family member will spend long periods alone!
8. ARRIVAL IN BRUSSELS
You will not be met on arrival at Brussels Airport. You should make your own way to the hotel
(either by taxi or by train and metro). Be sure to use only official taxis. Taxi fare from the
airport to the hotel will be approximately 800 Belgian Francs (BF). The approximate cost by
train and metro is 140 BF. You are advised to have sufficient Belgian Francs on arrival in
Brussels to cover initial expenses.
A letter from the EUVP will be waiting for you at the hotel reception desk.
-4- Revised Nov 2, 1998
9. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Per diem
You will receive a per diem of 8,000 Belgian Francs (BF) for the duration
of your visit, including travel time, maximum 11 days, to cover your
hotels and meals. The per diem will be suspended if you are obliged to
interrupt your programme for personal reasons. $1.00 is approximately
equivalent to 30 BF. The exchange rate fluctuates. Rates are printed daily
in major newspapers.
Special allowance
You will also receive a one time special allowance of 10,000 BF to cover
incidental expenses such as transfers from airports to downtown areas,
local transport costs, taxis, etc.
Currency
In converting the per diem and the special allowance into local currencies
we suggest that you use travellers cheques, which will be supplied upon
request in Brussels. Travellers cheques are not always accepted by hotels,
shops, restaurants, etc. They should be cashed as required, preferably at a
bank. Banks are normally closed on Saturdays, Sundays and public
holidays. However, it is usually possible to cash travellers cheques and
exchange currency (at less favourable rates!) in the main hotels, at railway
stations, airports, etc. Major credit cards are generally accepted in all EU
countries.
Refund
If for any reason you must shorten your stay, you are required to return the
balance of your per diem and special allowance to the EUVP in Brussels.
10. INSURANCE
The EUVP will provide health and accident coverage during your travel to and from the
European Union and while you are participating in the programme. Insurance against loss or
theft of your personal effects is not included.
11. CHANGES AND CANCELLATIONS
Itinerary
Once your travel and hotel arrangements have been set, they are final.
Changes are expensive and can be allowed only if absolutely unavoidable.
Appointments
Please remember that last-minute cancellation of meetings or late arrival
causes inconvenience and should be avoided.
-5- Revised Nov 2, 1998
12. FOLLOW-UP REPORT
We sincerely hope that your participation in the European Union Visitors Programme will enable
you to establish and strengthen personal and professional contacts and friendships in the
European Union. You are encouraged to keep in touch with the people you meet during your
stay.
You are requested to send a detailed report on your EUVP visit, within four weeks of your return
home, to:
Willy Hélin, Director
Press and Public Affairs
EC Delegation, 2300 M. Street. NW
Washington DC 20037.
Please include in the report your comments on the
specific policy areas of your programme;
quantity and level of appointments arranged;
logistical arrangements.
Finally, please remember to keep us informed of any change of address or occupation.
Bon Voyage!
To prepare for your visit to the European Union
you are invited to make use of the home page of the
Washington Delegation at http://www.eurunion.org
The.European Commission DG X - E...n Union Visitors' Programme - EUVP http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/mediaserv/euvp/index_en.html
Europa
es da de el
fr
it
nl
pt
fi
SY
The European
Commission
European Union
Directorate General
Visitors' Programme - EUVP
What is the EUVP ?
What is an EUVP grant
Who is eligible to participate in the EUVP ?
How are EUVP participants selected ?
What is the EUVP ?
The European Union Visitors' Programme (EUVP) provides the framework and
funds for a 12-days individual study programmes for young leaders from non-EU
Member States. They can visit the EU in order to gain a first-hand impression of
the Union's policies, Institutions and achievements, peoples and the differing
cultures of its 15 Member States.
A further aim of the programme is to increase mutual understanding between
professional men and women from without and within the European Union.
The EUVP is jointly sponsored and administered by the European Parliament and
the European Commission. Since 1974 over 1500 travel-grants have been awarded.
What is an EUVP grant ?
An EUVP grant is valid for a maximum of 12 days. The grantee visits the EU
Institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Instead of visiting
Strasbourg, he or she can visit one Member State of his or her choice. Travel and
subsistence costs are met by the programme.
Who is eligible to participate in the EUVP ?
EUVP participants can be broadly defined as active or future decision makers and
opinion-moulders, whose potential influence and/or leadership prospects within
their respective professional spheres are likely to be of long-term importance to the
EU and, in particular to the European Parliament and Commission.
More specifically, the categories of EUVP participants include
Political milieu, including members of national and regional
parliaments, party officials and advisers to politicians
Government, parliamentary officials, in particular those exercising
responsibility in areas of particular relevance to the EU
Media, especially those exercising an editorial function in areas of particular
relevance to the EU (e.g. as foreign editor or political correspondent of a
national/regional newspaper, radio or TV current affairs producer/presenter,
etc.)
Academics, responsible for teaching or researching in the fields of
EU/international affairs
I of 2
10/19/1999 5:50 PM
The European Commission - DG X - E...n Union Visitors' Programme - EUVP http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/mediaserv/euvp/index_en.html
Trade unionists, exercising a national responsibility in the field of
international relations
Other, private sector lawyers, industrialists, bankers etc. are not normally
considered eligible as EUVP participants, except where they exercise
responsibility and influence outside the confines of an individual company
(e.g. as a member of a national commission or Chamber of Commerce etc.)
Countries from which EUVP candidates are selected include ASEAN Countries,
Australia, Baltic States, Canada, Central and Eastern European countries, China,
CIS, Cyprus, EFTA countries, Gulf States, Indian sub-Continent, Iran, Israel,
Japan, Central and South America countries, Malta, Maghreb and Mashreq
countries, Mexico, New Zealand, Occupied Territories, South Korea, Turkey, the
United States and former Yugoslavia.
How are EUVP participants selected ?
A Committee under the co-chairmanship of a Vice-President of the European
Parliament and a Member of the European Commission, selects the EUVP
WHAT'S NEW
participants from a short-list, drawn up by officials of the EC Delegations in the
non-member countries concerned.
MAIL-30X
Currently, approximately 160 visitors are selected annually for individually
tailored EUVP study-grants.
SITE MAP
Further details about the European Union Visitors Programme can be obtained
from the EUVP Secretariat.
Az
INDEX
European Union Visitors Programme
Mr. Peter BARKER - JONES, Head of EUVP
Rue de la Loi 200
SEARCH
B-1049 Brussels
Tel: 29.55472 or 29.54448
Fax: 29.64300
INFORMATION
FEEDBACK
[ o! - [ Information visits to the commission ]
2 of 2
10/19/1999 5:50 PM
St. louise Chapel
on the IL Debasetey
near fine Natre Dame
13th C
La Tour D'Argent
Tor 1) Argent 3x.
Bistro went door.
La Rottissing R eanjolias
D'
Cluny muslum
Roman ruins
Rodin whishin
-
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Ruby Shamir to Nicole Rabner et al, re Ruby in NY (partial) (1 page)
11/24/1999
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Domestic Policy Council (Nicole Rabner)
OA/Box Number: 15418
FOLDER TITLE:
NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] re Birth and Adoption Unemployment
Compensation Initiative [3]
2012-1035-S
kc1072
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA
h(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA|
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
[001]
C
Ann O'Leary
11/24/99 12:59:47 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
CC:
nicole Γ. rabner/who/eop@eop, katharine button/who/eop@eop, anna richter/opd/eop@eop
bcc:
Subject: Re: Ruby in NY
I'm in Maine:
P6/(b)(6)
Happy Turkey day to all!
Ruby Shamir
Ruby Shamir
11/24/99 12:57:42 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP, Ann O'Leary/OPD/EOP@EOP, Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP,
Anna Richter/OPD/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: Ruby in NY
If anyone needs to reach me this weekend, I will be in NY:
P6/(b)(6)
Signal will have the number. Happy Thanksgiving!!
Andrea Kane
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: NGA initiative on low-income working families
FYI, this may be a good source of emerging ideas from the states on supporting working families. May
come in handy as we develop our '01 ideas.
News Release
NGA Home Page I News and Information I News Releases 1999
October 13, 1999
Contact:
Terrell Halaska
202/624-5364
NGA ANNOUNCES NEW STATE POLICY ACADEMY
Seven States to Focus on Expanding Opportunities for Low Income Families
Washington, D.C.- - To help states meet the challenges and opportunities posed by
the New Economy, the National Governors' Association (NGA) announced today that
seven states will take part in the NGA Center for Best Practices Academy on
Expanding Opportunities for Low-Income Families to Advance in the New Economy.
State teams from Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and
Washington will develop comprehensive state strategies for helping low-income
families achieve greater economic success. They will craft reforms in their workforce,
welfare, health, child care, income support, and tax policies that will encourage
individuals to assume greater responsibility for their economic futures. At the same
time, these state teams will consider how government and business can best work
together to develop and maintain a competitive workforce.
"These states are working on the cutting edge of welfare reform policy by focusing on
issues related to the working poor," said NGA Executive Director Ray Scheppach.
"The new global economy is placing increased pressure on low-income workers to
gain the skills and experience necessary to stay employed and to advance. States,
working in partnership with employers, must find new ways of sustaining people's
long-term attachment to work and helping them achieve greater economic security."
The academy is a highly interactive team-based process for crafting policy strategies
and solutions to complex policy challenges. By working together, states can share
best practices, learning from one another what works and what doesn't. Through this
process:
Colorado will partner with several counties in its devolved welfare system to
develop market-based, public-private approaches for addressing these
challenges within the diverse economic conditions facing the state;
Indiana plans to reach consensus among state agencies and key
stakeholders on policy objectives and benchmarks of success in improving the
quality of life for limited income working families and will develop solid action
steps to achieve this goal;
Kentucky will build on its success in reducing welfare caseloads by
implementing more partnerships with the private sector, local government and
community groups to support families by adapting existing services to be more
responsive to their changing needs;
Michigan plans to reward work, help families become as self-sufficient as
possible, and provide continued support for low-income working families
through cross system efforts and state tax policy changes that are
independent of the welfare system;
Montana plans to develop a comprehensive legislative and administrative
strategy, including memoranda of understanding among stakeholders, to
prevent recidivism, eliminate long-term welfare dependence and promote
continual advancement from low-wage entry-level jobs into self-sustaining
careers;
Ohio plans to create a new vision of a flexible workforce system that meets
the needs of customers in the 21st century and develop operational models on
local service delivery and state administration that support a continuum of
services and benefits at the county level; and
Washington state intends to identify ways to make job retention and wage
and skill progression services more cost effective and useful for employers and
low-income parents, who must balance work and family responsibilities, and
explore strategies for expanding health care, quality child care and other
benefits that support low-income families.
For more information about the NGA Center for Best Practices Academy on
Expanding Opportunities for Low-Income Families to Advance in the New Economy,
please contact Evelyn Ganzglass at 202/624-5394 or Randy Desonia at
202/624-5319.
For state-specific information, please call team leaders at:
Colorado
Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director, Colorado State Department of
Human Services at 303/866-5096
Indiana
Carlis Williams, Executive Assistant for Human Services, Office of the Governor at
317/232-1971
Kentucky
Sharon Perry, Principal Assistant, Cabinet for Families and Children at 502/564-7130
Michigan
Doug Howard, Director, Michigan Family Independence Agency at 517/373-2000
Montana
Wendy Keating, Administrator, Job Service Division, Montana Department of Labor
and Industry, at 406/444-2648
Ohio
Jacqueline Romer-Sensky, Ohio Department of Human Services, Office of the
Director at 614/466-6282
Washington
Ken Miller, WorkFirst Performance Coordinator, Office of Financial Management at
360/902-0580
Related Links:
More information on the new economy.
More information on welfare reform.
NGA Center for Best Practices
Message Sent To:
Cynthia A. Rice/OPD/EOP@EOP
Eugenia Chough/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Devorah R. Adler/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jeanne Lambrew/OPD/EOP@EOP
Christopher C. Jennings/OPD/EOP@EOP
Brian V. Kennedy/OPD/EOP@EOP
Larry R. Matlack/OMB/EOP@EOP
Jack A. Smalligan/OMB/EOP@EOP
Anil Kakani/OMB/EOP@EOP
Maureen H. Walsh/OMB/EOP@EOP
PRESIDENT CLINTON: TAKING NEW STEPS TO SUPPORT AMERICA'S PARENTS
November 30, 1999
"On the eve of the 21st century, we ought to set a goal that all working Americans can take time when they need it
to care for their families without losing the income they need to support their families. Achieving that goal cannot
come overnight and will require a significant shift in how our nation helps families to succeed at home and work.
But it can make all the difference in your lives. It will demand thought and creativity, a willingness to experiment; it
has to be done in a way that gives families flexibility and doesn't undermine our dynamic and growing economy."
--President Clinton, May 24, 1999
Today, President Clinton will announce new steps to help workers meet their responsibilities to
their jobs, and their more important responsibilities to their families. He will announce a new
proposed regulation to enable states to provide partial wage replacement for new parents. This
step builds on the President's long-standing commitment to strengthening America's families
and supporting parents.
Working to Make Parental Leave More Affordable. A 1996 study by the Commission on
Family and Medical Leave found that loss of wages was the most significant barrier to parents
taking advantage of unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. Today, President
Clinton will announce new proposed regulations by the Department of Labor that will enable
states to use the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system to support parents taking leave to care for
a newborn or adopted child. Several states have asked the Administration whether they could
use the UI system for this purpose consistent with federal law. Once finalized, the new
regulations will authorize this experimental expansion of the UI system, thereby allowing states
that wish to use unemployment insurance to assist new parents to put their plans into effect. The
experimental program is designed to test the proposition that providing Unemployment
Compensation to parents after birth or adoption will increase their attachment to the labor force.
This new program will be wholly voluntary for the states, and states will have considerable
flexibility to design their own programs. [The regulations will be published in the Federal
Register for public comment and are also available for review on the Department of Labor's web
site at www.tk.]
Advancing An Agenda To Help Parents Balance Their Responsibilities At Home And At
Work. Throughout his Administration, President Clinton has fought to provide families with
the tools they need to meet their responsibilities at home and at work. The President has:
Signed the the Family and Medical Leave Act, providing workers with up to 12
weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave;
Fought and won dramatic expansions in after-school programs, including $450
million in the FY 2000 budget agreement, more than doubling the program's size;
Fought for and won significant increases in Head Start, including $607 million in the
FY 2000 budget agreement, helping low-income toddlers prepare for school;
Proposed a new tax credit for families struggling with long-term care costs; and
Put forward an ambitious initiative to make child care better, safer, and more
affordable for working families; and
Proposed expanding the FMLA to cover more workers and allow leave for more
parental activities, including parent-teacher conferences and routine doctor's visits.
BIRTH AND ADOPTION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION (UC)
Q&A
11/30/99 draft
Q:
What is the Birth and Adoption UC initiative?
A:
This effort responds to the President's Executive Memorandum issued May 24, 1999,
directing the Secretary of Labor to allow States the opportunity to develop innovative
ways of using UC to provide partial wage replacement to parents on leave following the
birth or adoption of a child and to evaluate the effectiveness of using the UC system for
these or related purposes. This regulation will permit interested States to experiment with
methods for allowing the use of the UC program for this purpose.
Q:
Will States be required to develop UC programs for parents of newborns and
newly-adopted children?
A:
No. State participation is wholly voluntary.
Q:
Who will be eligible to receive UC for the birth or adoption of a child?
A:
This experiment extends only to parents on approved leave or who otherwise leave their
employment to be with newborns or newly-adopted children. Time taken for personal
illness or to care for other family members is not compensable under this proposed
program.
Q:
When will parents be able to collect UC after the birth or adoption of a child?
A:
It is difficult to predict when individuals will be able to collect UC to be with their
newborns or newly-adopted children. The Department of Labor (Department) anticipates
publication of a final regulation in early 2000. States may enact legislation authorizing a
Birth and Adoption program based on this regulation. Each State's legislation would set
the dates to begin operation of the program in its State.
Q:
How will the regulation deal with such things as benefit amounts and employer
costs?
A:
The guiding principle of this regulation is to allow for maximum State flexibility within
the experiment's parameters, as States currently have in determining UC policies.
Consequently, each State will establish its own eligibility requirements and benefit
amounts. Although the model State legislation accompanying the proposed regulation
socializes costs, each State will decide whether to spread costs broadly throughout the
system or limit costs to the particular employers whose employees use this benefit.
Q:
Why use the UC program for this type of paid leave? Don't States have other
resources available to them?
A:
While States may have other options available to them, legislation was introduced in
several States during 1999 and prior years to make individuals on various types of family
and medical leave eligible for UC. The President's directive to the Department
essentially requires that States be provided the flexibility -- on a voluntary basis -- to pay
UC to parents who take approved leave or otherwise leave employment after the birth or
adoption of a child.
The proposed regulations for this experiment, within certain parameters, leave the
specifics of each State plan to its legislature, which will need to pass specific
amendments to the State UC laws to authorize such payments.
Q:
Is the President exceeding his legal authority by proposing this change through
regulation instead of in Congress?
A:
No. The Department of Labor has the authority and responsibility to interpret Federal
Unemployment Compensation (UC) statutes and has done so in the past with the UC
program's requirements in such areas as jury duty, temporary layoffs, illness, and
training.
The Administration is proposing to exercise this authority to examine how the UC system
could help provide benefits for workers who take leave after the birth or adoption of a
child. This pilot program would be voluntary, and is simply part of the Administration's
overall effort to help working parents both on the job and at home.
Q:
Why is this initiative limited to parents of newborns and newly-adopted children?
A:
In following the President's directive, the Department is seeking to assist States that may
want to use their UC systems to enable more parents to be with their newborns or
newly-adopted children as part of an overall interest in supporting policies which help
Americans balance the responsibilities of family and work.
Data from these State experiments will help to evaluate the proposition that providing UC
to the parents of newborns and newly-adopted children who take approved leave or who
otherwise leave their employment will increase their attachment to the labor force. In
order to gain information on the impact of adapting the UC program to address the needs
of such employees, the Department is defining the experimental program to cover the
parents of newborns and newly-adopted children. This class of employees is a small,
easily-defined group that can be used to test whether compensating absences from
employment will assist individuals in maintaining, or even improving upon, their
connection to the workforce by enabling them to better meet their parental and family
needs.
The Department believes the needs of parents in balancing work and family are an
important area for experimentation. States will remain free to use other mechanisms,
such as separate funds or a Temporary Disability program, to reach other populations.
Q:
Would this change unfairly impact unemployed workers by draining resources
away from the unemployed to provide for parents taking leave?
A:
No. Each state has the responsibility to assess the cost to its unemployment fund
whenever coverage changes, benefit expansions, or tax changes are considered within its
UC program. Consequently, we expect prudent state decision-makers to examine the
state's solvency and projected taxes and benefit payments under current law before
deciding to enact any birth and adoption UC legislation.
Q:
How much will this proposal cost?
A:
The cost estimate, which is based on the voluntary nature of the experiment and the
expressed interest of a small number of states, ranges from zero to $76 million.
Q:
Massachusetts also introduced a bill that would pay UC to individuals on family
and medical leave. The estimated costs of that bill were $200 million. How does this
compare with the Department's estimate?
A:
The Department's cost estimate which is based on the voluntary nature of the experiment
coupled with the expressed interest of a small number of States and limited to those
individuals who could be eligible for the birth and adoption experiment, ranges from zero
to $68 million. The Massachusetts cost estimate was based on a much broader group of
potential recipients and includes costs for individuals who are on leave under the Family
and Medical Leave Act and the State's maternity law, and others not covered by either
law.
Q:
In 1997 the Department of Labor, in response to a bill introduced in the Vermont
legislature, stated that the UC program could not be used to pay leave taken under
the Vermont family and parental leave program. Why has the Department changed
its policy in this area?
A:
The Vermont bill would have permitted all individuals taking leave for a variety of
reasons under its family and parental leave program to receive UC. The Department
interprets Federal UC law to require, in general, that individuals be able to work and be
available for work to be eligible for UC. In response to changes in the workforce and
societal needs, the Department is considering expanding its interpretation of "able and
available" to permit the payment of UC to provide partial wage replacement to employees
who take approved leave or otherwise leave their employment to be with their newborns
or newly-adopted children. Because this would be an expansion of the Department's
earlier interpretation, as set forth in the response to the Vermont proposal, the
Department is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to permit the public to comment
on the interpretation. The Department is proposing an experimental program, which
would allow the Department to test whether providing parents with UC at this point in a
child's life will help employees maintain, or even promote, their connection to the
workforce.
Balancing work and family - toughest. There have been some states that have expressed
interest in using the UI program to take a step to helping workers balance the needs of
work and family. The DOL is using regulations to enable states to do this and in so doing
to test whether or not this improves attachment to the labor force - to see if we have
better workers because of programs of paid leave. To bond with parent, to develop stable
child care systems - use these state experiments to test whether this is right. Are people
more likely to maintain their labor force attachment.
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
DEPARTURE REMARKS
PARENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT PAY
THE WHITE HOUSE
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Joining me here at the podium today are Katie Banks and her son,
Collin of Fairfax, Virginia; and Jonathan and Teresa Graham of Baltimore. I will say a
little more about them in a moment.
In a few minutes I am heading to Seattle where I will engage in a dialogue with
America's trading partners from around the world about how we can best use the
enormous potential of the global economy to not only grow our prosperity, but to also
improve the everyday lives of citizens and working families. Before I go, I want to tell
you how we are using the enormous potential of our strongest economy in years, to help
American families balance the sometimes tremendous demands of work and family.
Surging technology and soaring prosperity define America at this moment. But
those achievements don't come cheap. They require an enormous commitment of time
and effort from America's workers, many of whom are being forced to make an
unacceptable choice: between being good workers and being good parents. The truth is,
in our 'round- the- world, 'round-the-clock economy there just don't seem to be enough
hours in the day for parents to do everything they need to do. That is why my
Administration has worked hard to help parents balance work and family.
Last May, I asked the Secretary of Labor to develop new ways to address this
problem. Today, I am announcing a Labor Department rule that lets states use their
unemployment insurance systems to offer paid leave to new parents. This initiative is
totally voluntary for states, and it helps them empower more working parents like families
that are standing with me today.
When little Collin was born, his mother, Katie was working as a waitress and his
dad was working as the head electrical technician for a small company. Unfortunately,
Collin was born ill and had to be in intensive care for several weeks. Katie took unpaid
leave and eventually quit her job to be with her son. Collin's dad, Eric, wanted to take
leave but couldn't afford it. Once Collin was well enough, Katie looked for and
fortunately landed another job. But both Collin and her husband would have and should
have been able to take paid leave to care for their son. That's what this parental leave
initiative will do.
could
hope
I believe that giving states the flexibility to experiment with paid leave is one
of the best things we can do to strengthen our families and help new mothers and
fathers meet their responsibilities both at home and at work. State flexibility and the
voluntary nature of this effort are key. In this strong economy, we expect a number of
E
states to take advantage of this new option and those that do should have no trouble
will
and we believe
balancing this new benefit with the imperative of maintaining a fiscally sound
unemployment insurance program.
This effort builds on my Administration's commitment to giving working families
more tools to help them adapt to the new demands of our growing economy -- from
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, to our Welfare-to-Work efforts. From
increased funding for child care to Hope Scholarships that are helping more young people
get into college. In the budget bill I signed yesterday, we fought for and won a doubling
of resources for after-school programs to give young people a safe place to study between
the end of their school day and the end of their parents' work day.
And I am proud that the first bill I signed as President was the Family and
Medical Leave Act. Since 1993, millions of Americans have used it to take up to 12
weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative without losing their jobs.
The importance of this benefit has been confirmed by the testimony of experts and
parents at the first-ever White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and
Learning in 1997, and from groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. They all
reinforce what we already know from common sense: Giving parents and primary
caregivers time to bond and nurture their children leads to healthy development,
including boosting critical language and literacy skills.
But, the current law just meets a fraction of the need. And the number one reason
families give for not taking advantage of the Family and Medical Leave is that they just
can't afford to take the time off without a paycheck. The actions we are taking today will
go a long way towards alleviating that burden. And I believe it will strengthen parents'
bonds to both their children and the workforce.
As I have said, on the eve of the 21st century, we ought to set a goal that all
working Americans can take time when they need it to care for their families without
losing the income they need to support their families. This new state authority moves us
in the right direction and gives us another tool in our national efforts to strengthen the
American family and reward the dignity of work.
Thank you.
001
11/29/99 MON 16:03 FAX 2026384004
CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE
CWLA
Child Welfare League of America, Inc.
440 First Street. NW. Third Floor. Washington DC 20001-2085
202/638-2952
FAX 202/636-4004
Website: http://www.cwla.org
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
SAVE THE DATES!!
1999 CWLA
DATE:
11/29/99
Conferences/Training
TO:
Nicole Rabner
December 6-7, 1999
National Center for Consultation &
Professional Development and Managed Care
AGENCY:
Institute Leadership Retreat: Mergers and
FROM: FX 202-456-2878
Strategic Affiliations
Sarasota, FL
Karabelle (942-0261)
December 8-10, 1999
NUMBER OF PAGES. (INCLUDING THIS FORM): 4
Effective Supervision II training.
The Marist House,
Framingham, MA
COMMENTS:
Per my Voice mail
February 28-29, 2000
Black Administrators in Child Welfare Annual
Symposium
Washington, DC
March 1-3, 2000
CWLA National Conference, Children 2000:Faces
of the Future
Washington. DC
May 10-12, 2000
Finding Better Ways 2000,
The Adam's Mark Hotel
Philadelphia, PA
August 2-4, 2000
Florence Crittenton Roundtable.
San_Francisco. CA
September 27-29, 2000
Biennial Leadership Summit.
New Orleans. LA
October 23-25, 2000
Tools that Work 2000, The Renaissance
Atlanta Hotel. Atlanta GA
December ??-??. 2000
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT CWLA AT THE
National Adoption Conference
NUMBER INDICATED ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION REGARDING CONFERENCES/INSTITUTES/TRAIN-
INGS. PLEASE VISIT OUR WEB PAGE AT: http://www.cwla.
11/29/99 MON 16:03 FAX 2026384004
CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE
002
CWIA
Child Welfare League of America, Inc.
440 First Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20001-2085
202/638-2952
FAX 202/638-4004
PRESIDENT
Richard H. Fleming
November 29, 1999
VICE PRESIDENTS
Ann D. Jordan
S. Norman Shorry
MEMORANDUM
Faith Smith
SECRETARY
TO:
Nicole Rabner
Richard G. Plufks
H
FROM:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Karabelle Pizzigati, Child Welfare League of America
John G. Theban
RE:
Foster Care Independent Living Event
TREASURER
Raymond P. Carpenter
We are very pleased that the White House is considering hosting an event to
A ITANT TREASURER
Michael J. Chesser
celebrate the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 and to encourage
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
speedy implementation. We want to thank you for all the Administration did
Carol Armatrong
Judith S. Block
throughout the year to make the legislation a reality. The First Lady and Mrs. Gore's
Robert M. Cooper
public. endorsement of the initiative at the event last January was instrumental in
Nan Date
Richard P. Dina
providing supporters with the high level recognition and boost they needed to
Anne Duncan
Jeanette Dunckal
motivate nationwide efforts on the legislation.
Kate S. Flather
Saundra M. Foster
Shirley B. Goodwin
A list of suggested invitees is being forwarded under separate cover.
Herman B. Gray. Jr.
Charles A. Hass
Mal Bell Hurley
Susan M. Hyall
Purpose of Event:
Carolyn Jenkins-Jager
James M. Karel
Glynn D. Key
1. Public recognition of the Administration and Congressional supporters for all
Alan C. Korz
James R. Mason
their work.
James P. McCornb
Suzanne S. Megathlin
Elba Montaive
2. The announcement by the President/First Lady/Secretary Shalala of the
Michael B. Moskow
Timothy F. Noelker
formation or the renewal of interagency collaborative work in the following
Jeffrey M. Nugent
Jane K. Paine
areas:
Elizaboth H. Patterson
a) Health care- Extension of benefits under Medicaid and CHIP
Rita Powell
Jestina L. Richardson
b) Housing- - E.g., designation of two hundred Section 8 certificates
Faith R. Roassel
Michael N. Rosen
c) Employment- - Workforce investment activities by Department of Labor
Digna Sanchoz
Amy E. Spears
with specific inclusion of emancipating foster youth for work opportunities as
George W. Swan III
Michael J. Terpinian
well as part of Youth Advisory Councils
Robert S. Tsushima
d) Education - - Coordination with school to work activities, 21ˢᵗ Century
John C. Wesloy
Lyndalee Whipple
Schools and IDEA programs
Deborah A. Williams
e) Mentoring/ OJJDP-E.g., Expressed inclusion of foster youth in mentoring
HONORARY MEMBER
Mrs. Ben W. Heinoman
efforts.
Mr. Nic L. Knoph
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David 8. Liederman
3. The issuance of a challenge by the President/First Lady/Secretary Shalala to the
DEPUTY DIRECTORS
states to implement the legislation thoughtfully and rapidly, with a strong focus
Shirley Marcus Allon
on positive outcomes for youth.
Michael Petit
http://www.cwla.org
4. The raising of public awareness about the issues surrounding foster care and the
young people who "age out" of the system.
PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN: IT'S EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS™
03
11/29/99 MON 16:03 FAX 2026384004
CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE
Messages:
The Foster Care Independence Act takes a big step toward improving lives of
young people transitioning into adulthood.
The new John H. Chafee Foster Care Independent program will create
opportunities for states to:
Customize independent living services to the needs of diverse foster youth.
Provide to those youth a stronger continuum of services, including health
care, housing, and mentoring.
Support a more intensive level of preparation in critical life skills and
employment.
Help connect youth in foster care to what they need to achieve successful
adulthood.
Increase accountability so that young people in transition know they have
somewhere to turn and that promises made will be kept.
Our work has just begun! Now it is up to the states and many partners, including
health professionals, educators, business and media leaders, to implement the
legislation fully-to make it work
The end of foster care is not the end of caring.
Suggested speakers:
President Clinton
The First Lady
Secretary Shalala
1-2 Former foster youths chosen from key states - CA, TX, MD, CT, ME, WV, RI,
MS
1-2 Congressional supporters - Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep. Nancy Johnson, Rep. Ben
Cardin, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Kit
Bond
Governor from a key state that is actively moving forward with a health care,
housing, and education agenda consistent with the new legislation - MO, MN, ME,
MD, SC, CA, CT, AZ
Should be publicly recognized for work on legislation:
National Foster Parents Association
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Defense Fund
Adoption advocate- - e.g., Joe Kroll
National Conference of State Legislators
National Conference of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
National CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates)
11/29/99 MON 16:04 FAX 2026384004
CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE
004
Should be publicly recognized for raising national awareness about the needs of
young people who transition from care:
The Casey Family Program
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Benton Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
National Resource Center for Youth Services (federally funded center in Oklahoma)
National Foster Care Awareness Project
Carol Williams
Additional Spokespersons:
Former foster youth from Youth Involvement Project (23)-including California
Youth Connection
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
DEPARTURE REMARKS
PARENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT PAY
THE WHITE HOUSE
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
Good morning. Joining me here at the podium today are Katie Banks and her son,
Collin of Fairfax, Virginia; and Jonathan and Teresa Graham of Baltimore. I will say a
little more about them in a moment.
In a few minutes I am heading to Seattle where I will engage in a dialogue with
America's trading partners from around the world about how we can best use the
enormous potential of the global economy to not only grow our prosperity, but to also
improve the everyday lives of citizens and working families. Before I go, I want to tell
you how we are using the enormous potential of our strongest economy in years, to help
American families balance the sometimes tremendous demands of work and family.
Surging technology and soaring prosperity define America at this moment. But
those achievements don't come cheap. They require an enormous commitment of time
and effort from America's workers, many of whom are being forced to make an
unacceptable choice: between being good workers and being good parents. The truth is,
in our 'round- the- world, 'round-the-clock economy there just don't seem to be enough
hours in the day for parents to do everything they need to do. That is why my
Administration has worked hard to help parents balance work and family.
Last May, I asked the Secretary of Labor to develop new ways to address this
problem. Today, I am announcing a Labor Department rule that lets states use their
unemployment insurance systems to offer paid leave to new parents. This initiative is
totally voluntary for states, and it helps them empower more working parents like
families that are standing with me today.
When little Collin was born, his mother, Katie was working as a waitress and his
dad was working as the head electrical technician for a small company. Unfortunately,
Collin was born ill and had to be in intensive care for several weeks. Katie took unpaid
leave and eventually quit her job to be with her son. Collin's dad, Eric, wanted to take
leave but couldn't afford it. Once Collin was well enough, Katie looked for and
fortunately landed another job. But both Collin and her husband would have and should
have been able to take paid leave to care for their son. That's what this parental leave
initiative will do.
I believe that giving states the flexibility to experiment with paid leave is one
of the best things we can do to strengthen our families and help new mothers and
fathers meet their responsibilities both at home and at work. State flexibility and the
voluntary nature of this effort are key. In this strong economy, we expect a number of
states to take advantage of this new option and those that do should have no trouble
with
Will
white
balancing this new benefit with the imperative of maintaining a fiscally sound
unemployment insurance program.
This effort builds on my Administration's commitment to giving working families
more tools to help them adapt to the new demands of our growing economy -- from
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, to our Welfare-to-Work efforts. From
increased funding for child care to Hope Scholarships that are helping more young people
get into college. In the budget bill I signed yesterday, we fought for and won a doubling
of resources for after-school programs to give young people a safe place to study between
the end of their school day and the end of their parents' work day.
And I am proud that the first bill I signed as President was the Family and
Medical Leave Act. Since 1993, millions of Americans have used it to take up to 12
weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative without losing their jobs.
The importance of this benefit has been confirmed by the testimony of experts and
parents at the first-ever White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and
Learning in 1997, and from groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. They all
reinforce what we already know from common sense: Giving parents and primary
caregivers time to bond and nurture their children leads to healthy development, including
boosting critical language and literacy skills.
But, the current law just meets a fraction of the need. And the number one reason
families give for not taking advantage of the Family and Medical Leave is that they just
can't afford to take the time off without a paycheck. The actions we are taking today will
go a long way towards alleviating that burden. And I believe it will strengthen parents'
bonds to both their children and the workforce.
As I have said, on the eve of the 21st century, we ought to set a goal that all
working Americans can take time when they need it to care for their families without
losing the income they need to support their families. This new state authority moves us
in the right direction and gives us another tool in our national efforts to strengthen the
American family and reward the dignity of work.
final
Thank you.
press
statement
Paid
Suzaunah Femy Beigue
Bine
my
Lovelta
Valdez
me
Terry
Leave
8.
693-6140
.so
8:55 statement
Stif
bongh
Eugenia Chough
11/29/99 12:42:55 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Cynthia A. Rice/OPD/EOP@EOP, J. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP@EOP. Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP
Subject: CEA chapter for review
CEA is circulating its 2000 Economic Report of the President for our review. Chapter 5, "The Changing
American Family" examines issues related to our teams. I'll send a hard copy to Ruby and Devorah. I'd
be happy to consolidate our comments and send back to CEA if you can get edits to me by COB
Wednesday. Thanks.
Genie
Message Sent To:
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOP
Ann O'Leary/OPD/EOP@EOP
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Devorah R. Adler/OPD/EOP@EOP
Jeanne Lambrew/OPD/EOP@EOP
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The Changing American Family
Much about the American family has changed over the course of the century. Most
children in 1900 lived in a two-parent rural family where the father was the breadwinner and the
mother was a homemaker. Today, by contrast, almost half live in two-earner nonfarm families
and more than a quarter live in single-parent families. Families today enjoy a much higher
standard of living than their 1900 counterparts and their members are living longer and healthier
lives. Nevertheless, the rise of the two-earner couple and the single-parent family has created a
new set of challenges for American families as they try to balance the need to work and the
rewards from work against the needs and rewards of family life that are measured more in time
than in money.
This chapter examines these changes in the American family and the challenges these
changes pose. It begins with an overview of a number of indicators of change over the century,
paying particular attention to four key trends: increased female labor force participation, changes
in marriage and divorce, increases in out-of-wedlock births, and increases in life expectancy and
health. It then turns to the key challenge of balancing work and family. Notwithstanding
substantial increases in living standards over the course of the century, American families
continue to face substantial financial challenges. Most families are able to meet the basic needs
of food, clothing, and shelter, but many find themselves strapped when it comes to meeting other
needs like child care, education expenses, and, increasingly, care for older relatives. At the same
time, families find themselves facing a "time crunch," as more family time is devoted to earning
a living, leaving less for other family activities. For many single-parent households, the time
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
2
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
crunch is compounded by a "money crunch" as they struggle to find the resources to meet even
basic necessities. The chapter concludes with a discussion of policies that this Administration
has pursued over the past several years in an effort to address the challenges families face as they
try to balance work and family in the 21 st century.
KEY TRENDS SHAPING THE AMERICAN FAMILY
The past century has seen a number of changes that have helped shape the American
family (see box 5-1). In 1900, a woman began her married life young-entering her first
marriage at age 22-and typically married a man who was four years her senior. Families also
had greater numbers of children, as infant mortality was near 10%. Life expectancy at birth was
low, about 48 years for women and 46 years for men. Divorce rates were also low (less than 2%
among women aged 35-54), but over 8 percent of women aged 35-44 and 17 percent of women
aged 45-54 were widowed. And families tended to stay put -- over three-fourths of individuals
lived in the state in which they were born. As we approach the 21st century, marriage remains a
fairly universal experience, but the median age at first marriage for women has risen to 25. Life
expectancy at birth has increased substantially, in part due to declines in infant mortality, with
women and men having life expectancies of 79 and 73 years, respectively. In contrast to the
nearly 17 percent of women aged 45-54 who were widowed in 1900, that same percentage today
is divorced.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
3
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Box 5-1 - Contrasting American Families Then and Now
1900
1999
Labor force participation rate of women, percent
20.0
60.2
Age at Marriage of Mother
21.9
25
Age at Marriage of Father
25.9
26.8
Reason for Marital Dissolution, women age 35-44
Death
Divorce
Infant Mortality Rate, percent
9.99b
2d
Life Expectancy of Women at birth
48.3
79.0f
Life Expectancy of Men at birth
46.3
73.0f
Life Expectancy of Women at age 65
12.2
18.9f
Life Expectancy of Men at age 65
11.5
15.7f
Number of polio cases, per 100,000
5.5ᵃ
0
% born in state of residence
78.2
61.8e
% born in region of residence
90.8
73.3°
Probability of being in a 7 or more person HH
20.4
5.1ᵈ
Probability of being in a one-parent family
7°
27
Median married Family Income (1998 $)
$54,180
Notes: (a) 1912; (b) 1915; (c) 1950; (d) 1970; (e) 1990; (f) 1996
In addition to describing the four key trends that seem particularly important in shaping
the American family over the course of the century, this section also suggests potential causes of
these changes. It is important to recognize, however, that many of the underlying behaviors of
these trends are interrelated and that there is often no simple direction of causation.
WOMEN IN THE WORK FORCE
The substantial increase in female labor force participation has been one of the most
important economic changes to affect the American family over the past century. Marriage and
work trends have combined so that a higher proportion of women than ever before experience a
period of independent living and employment before marriage, leading to greater labor force
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
4
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
attachments that could conflict with family obligations. These increases have been pervasive
across racial and ethnic groups and both within and across cohorts of women.
Today the portion of women in the labor force is three times what it was at the beginning
of the century (see Chart 5-1) Women's labor force participation rose sharply after World War
II, but the movement of women into the labor market was well underway prior to that point. By
1998, female labor force participation had reached 59.8 percent. While married women and
women with children participated in the paid labor force at somewhat lower rates, these groups
experienced a parallel dramatic increase (see Chart 5-1). The rate for women with children
increased from 47.3 percent in 1975 to 72.3 percent in 1998. A myriad of factors have
contributed to this growth in women's attachment to the paid labor market, including increases in
female wages and changes in family structure.
CHART 5-1: Female Labor Force Participation 1900-1998
FAMILY FORMATION AND DISSOLUTION
A second major trend that has shaped the current state of American families is a change
in family formation and dissolution. Today, individuals are spending a smaller fraction of their
adult lives within marriage (Spain and Bianchi 1996, p. 25). This is not to suggest that marriage
is less important or conveys fewer benefits to the participants than previously. Despite
considerable changes in the institution over the past century and differences across racial and
ethnic groups, marriage remains a fairly universal experience. Throughout the century, over 90
percent of all women aged 55-64 have been married at some point, and in 1997, that proportion
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
5
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
stood at 95.3%. (computed based on Coontz). In addition, the median duration of marriage rose
modestly in the last half of the century (chart 5-2). Marriage is correlated with higher wages for
men, longer and healthier lives for both men and women, and a greater overall level of economic
security (Waite 1995).
Nonetheless, the patterns of family formation and dissolution are different now than in
1900. A number of factors have contributed to this change. One factor is a change in the way
marriages end; for younger and middle-aged couples, the relative importance of divorce has
increased while that of the death of a spouse has declined. While there is some evidence that the
fraction widowed may have been over-reported early in the century because of social stigmas
associated with being either unmarried or divorced, it was much more common for younger
women to be widowed than divorced. In 1900, about 1 percent of women aged 35-44 reported
being divorced, while about 8 percent reported being widowed. The two rates were almost the
same in 1950 (just under 4 percent), and by 1997 the relative magnitude of the two groups was
completely reversed from 100 years before. Whatever the source, however, the end of marriage
tends to be associated with large declines in economic well-being, particularly for women and
children as described below.
CHART 5-2: Fraction of Women who are Widowed and Divorced
An examination of divorce rates provides further perspective. Particularly notable are the
sharp spike in the divorce rate immediately after World War II and the prolonged and significant
increase in the rate between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s (see Chart 5-3). Since the 1980s
the divorce rate has declined slightly but remains historically high. Explanations for the rise in
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
6
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
the divorce rate included the growing economic independence of women, as described in the
previous section, which has both created tensions within marriage and made divorce
economically possible. At the same time, however, the change in labor force participation may
be a response to a greater chance of being divorced and having to survive on one's own. Another
factor is changes in state divorce laws in the 1970s and 1980s, which include the famous
movement from "fault" to "no-fault" divorce.
CHART 5-3: Divorce Rates and Median Marriage Duration
Two other changes in family formation are important. The first is an increase in the age
at first marriage, which also contributes to individuals spending less time in marriage. In 1900
half of all women began their first marriage by age 22; by 1950 this had dropped to age 20 (chart
5-4). Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, however, the median age at first marriage for women
increased and is now up to almost 25 years of age. Men have traditionally married at a later age
than women but their median age at first marriage exhibits the same U-shaped pattern over the
century.
CHART 5-4: Median Age at First Marriage for Males and Females
Second, the fraction of individuals choosing to live together outside of a formal marriage
has risen dramatically in the latter half of this century. One study reports that only 3 percent of
women born between 1940 and 1944 had ever lived in a nonmarital cohabitation by age 25, while
for women born 20 years later, 37 percent had cohabited by that same age (Bumpass and Sweet
1989). Thus despite the decreases in marriage rates and the increases in the age of first marriage
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
7
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
across cohorts, the evidence actually indicates that individuals are still forming coresidential
relationships at about the same point in their lives (Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991).
OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CHILDBEARING
Childbearing behavior and the increase in out-of-wedlock births represent a third set of
changes that has shaped the American family over the century. Immediately after World War II
the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime began to increase - the start of
the baby-boom. In 1945 , the number of live births per 1000 women between ages 15-44 was
85.9. This number peaked in 1957 at 122.9. In more recent years, the number of births is down
and women are having them later in the life-cycle. These large changes in fertility behavior and
the corresponding changes in population have important implications for the U.S. economy and
policies such as Social Security and Medicare.
CHART 5-5: Births per 1000 women - 1940-1998 (from Farley, p. 118)
An equally important change is the rise in out-of-wedlock births. The number of births
per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 increased from 7.1 in 1940 to 46.9 in 1994 (see Chart 5-
5). The rate for black women aged 15-44 increased from 35.6 to 89.9 from 1940 to 1970, dipped
to 82.9 in 1980, was back up to 93.9 in 1990 and has recently seen a decline to 75.9 in 1995. The
rate for white women aged 15-44 increased most precipitously after 1980, rising from 17.6 to
37.5 in 1995 (Blau, et. al). The percent of births to unmarried women of all ages increased
eightfold, from 4 percent in 1950 to 32.6 in 1994. Similar trends are evident for very young
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
8
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
women. The percent of births to unmarried teens rose from 31.9 percent to 75.5 percent over the
period 1970-1994. From 1980 to 1990 the birth rate to teens aged 15-19 climbed from 53.0 to
59.9 (per 1,000 teens); the unmarried teen birth rate rose from 16.5 to 30.6 for whites and 87.9 to
106.0 for blacks over the same period (also per 1,000). While the rate of childbearing by young
women may not have changed that dramatically prior to that point, the rate to unmarried teens
had been increasing for decades. This is a particular problem since the resources of unwed teens
is significantly less than those of other families. Administration efforts to address this problem
are discussed later in this chapter.
Combined with the changes in family formation and dissolution already discussed, these
trends in childbearing behavior have led to large increases in the percent of children growing up
in single parent households. The share of one-parent families rose from 7 percent in 1950 to 27
percent in 1997 (Chart5-6). About half of all black children under age 18 live in single mother
households, up from 30 percent in 1970. The fraction of white children living in single mother
households rose from 8 percent in 1970 to 17 percent in 1990 (update).
LIFE EXPECTANCY AND HEALTH
The health and life expectancy of Americans has increased dramatically over the century.
Major public health initiatives and medical advances have led to the virtual eradication of numerous
diseases that at one time killed or severely impaired large fractions of the population. As a result of
improvements in maternal and infant health, the infant mortality rate dropped by more than 90
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
9
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
percent from 100 per 1,000 live births in 1915 to 7.2 per 1,000 in 1997. Technological innovations,
better health and nutrition of mothers, greater access to prenatal care, and greater use of vaccines and
antibiotics all contributed to these tremendous improvements. A similar success story is found in
the area of maternal health. In 1915, 6-9 women died because of pregnancy-related complications
for every 1,000 births. By 1997 this rate dropped to 0.1 deaths per 1,000 live births - a 99 percent
decline. Advances also have been seen in other areas. The rate of death from coronary disease and
stroke has declined by 51 percent since 1972, infectious diseases like typhoid and cholera have been
greatly reduced because of improved sanitation and living conditions, and the widespread use of
vaccines has eliminated diseases like smallpox and polio.
These improvements have meant a longer lifetime for most Americans. Over the century,
the average lifespan in the U.S. increased by more than 30 years with five-sixths of that increase
being attributed to improvements in public health (MMWR 4/2/99). Life expectancy at birth for a
woman rose from 48.3 in 1900 to 79 by 1996. For men it rose from 46.3 to 73 in 1996. Older
Americans now have longer life expectancies as well. The life expectancy of men at age 65 rose
from 11.5 years in 1900 to 15.9 years in 1997. Combined with the changes in fertility behavior over
the century, the changes in life expectancy have led to an increasing share of the population that is
elderly - a trend that will continue as the baby boom becomes old.
An important implication of increased life expectancy is a change in the extended family.
Over 70 percent of adults aged 30-54 in the early 1990s had relatives that spanned three or more
generations; over 40 percent of adults aged 50-59 were in four-or-more-generation families. In
addition, greater numbers of family members from different generations live together; nearly 2.4
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
10
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
million households are now multi-generational. Longer life expectancy has meant that more
grandparents are able to watch their grandchildren grow to adulthood. For example, in 1969, 22.7
percent of women aged 60-61 had living elderly parents; by 1992 this had increased to 28.1 percent.
These trends all point to an increasing need to balance work and family, as working individuals may
face multiple caregiving responsibilities for elderly parents, infirm spouses, and grandchildren.
CHALLENGES FAMILIES FACE
Over this century, the American family has experienced many positive changes that have
resulted in richer lives for parents and their children. In monetary terms, average family income
has increased and poverty has decreased. In non-monetary terms, individuals live longer and are
much healthier. However, while the average family has gained over this past century, the gains
have not been evenly spread across all families. As the discussion of recent trends indicates,
families that are single-headed households have risen dramatically (through out-of-wedlock
births or divorce), and these families have benefited less from the overall economic growth of
this century.
This section examines the ways in which the trends discussed above co-mingle to create
challenges that families face today-we call these challenges the "money crunch" and the "time
crunch." While most women are working more and thus contributing to family income, a money
crunch is most pronounced in single-headed households and less-educated households. In the
case of the time crunch, while women are working more and contributing more to family income,
these same women have less time for child care and home-care. In addition, working people may
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
11
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
need to spend more of their rising incomes on the costly care of their aging parents, or to use
their non-employed hours for care of aging parents.
THE "MONEY CRUNCH"
In the post-war period, families have become wealthier-median family income rose
from $21,000 in 1950 to $47,000 by 1998 in 1998 dollars. The ongoing expansion of the
economy contributed significantly to this gain in recent years: median family income of $41,500
in 1993 was about equal to what it was in 1973, at $41,500, but by 1998 it had risen to $46,700.
However, while the recent prosperous years have produced earnings gains that are widespread
across demographic groups, some continue to lag behind. The individuals in these groups are
the focus of the money crunch. From the policy perspective, it is also these individuals who are
the intended beneficiaries of recent policies, such as the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit,
that are discussed at the end of this chapter.
The money crunch-or inadequate income to cover basic family needs-is felt by
different family types for different reasons. Median family income differs substantially as a
function of female labor supply and family structure (chart 5-7). For married couples with a wife
not in the paid labor force, median family income in 1996 is approximately the same as the
median level in 1971, despite a recent increase. Similarly, the median income of female-headed
families has been nearly flat since the early 1970s, despite signs of improvement in the current
economic expansion. In contrast, the median income for married couples with an employed wife
has grown markedly since the early 1970s, with pronounced growth in recent years. Note
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
12
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
however that these measures of real income are computed using the historical CPIUX1 which can
understate growth rates of income for all groups.
Chart 5-7: median family income by family structure
As we consider the earnings trends by family structure, we also must remember that more
families are headed by single parents. Corresponding to the family groups in chart 5-7, the share
of families that are headed by a single parent has increased very significantly over time-from XX
percent in 1969 to 23 percent of all families (Census income book) in 1998 (see Chart 5-8). The
share of all married couple families with an employed wife has risen from 20.5 to 52.3 from 1951
to 1998, while the share with a non-employed wife has declined from 69.2 to 28.8. Thus, though
the overall share of families headed by couples has declined from 89.7 percent to 81.1 percent
from 1951 to 1998, the composition within this group has shifted dramatically towards working
women. Given these shifts in family composition and differential earnings patterns, each of
these three demographic groups is considered in turn. But before doing so, we summarize two
relevant issues- income distribution and family needs.
Chart 5-8: share of families by family structure
Income Distribution
After rising markedly in the 1970s and 1980s, income inequality has been declining since
1994, in the prosperous years of the current economic expansion; however, pronounced
educational differences in wage levels remain. During the years of rising income inequality,
wage levels for the well-educated rose substantially relative to those for the less-educated, as
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
13
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
discussed in Chapter 4. This widening wage gap continues to contribute to income disparities
across demographic groups.
Rising Family "Needs"
As incomes have risen this century, consumption patterns have changed. In 1950, the
typical family spent 30 percent of its income on food and 9 percent on clothing. By 1995, those
percentages had fallen to 14 and 5 percent, respectively. Moreover, entirely new forms of
consumption have taken their place. Over 80 percent of households have cars, up from roughly
50 percent in 1950, and the typical family has two cars and two television sets. As technological
change has lowered the relative cost of food and made other expenditures feasible, consumers
have turned to more attractive goods, such as CD players, VCRs, and personal computers. It is
estimated that in 1997, more than 33 percent of households owned a personal computer, 61
percent had a cordless phone, and 88 percent had a VCR.
Thus, we may need to change our notion of family needs, from traditionally basic
purchases to the additional acquisition of standard consumption goods like automobiles, cars,
TVs, and computers. When families feel they do not have access to such standard goods, they
too may feel a money crunch.
Finally, a rising need for the working mother is child care, and these costs can be
substantial. It is estimated that from 1986 to 1993 direct expenditures on child care have risen
from 6.3 to 7.3 percent of family income. [add educational expenses?]
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
14
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Female-Headed Families
The share of families that are headed by a single parent has increased very significantly
over time, yet the percent of children in single parent households has increased more
dramatically, from XX percent in 1969 to 23 percent in 1998 (chart 5-8). These children live in
families headed largely by women-only 19.1 percent of single-headed households in 1998 are
families. As described in the section above, this increase has arisen from a combination of rising
non-marital child-bearing and rising divorce rates.
Female-headed families are the most likely to suffer from inadequate financial resources.
Despite rising median hours of work from 1969 to 1998 (chart 5-9), median income for this
group has not grown on average over the last thirty years (chart 5-7). As discussed later in this
chapter, helping this group had been a priority of this Administration, via the Earned Income Tax
Credit and minimum wage increases.
Chart 5-9: hours of work of women heading families
The effects of divorce and bearing a child out of wedlock contribute directly to income
losses for female-headed families. It is estimated that 22 percent of women who get divorced
experience a 50 percent or more decline in family income. Also, never-married mothers are less
likely to have a child support award than divorced (44 percent versus 73 percent in 1993) and, if
they actually received support, the amount of the award is much smaller ($1,700 versus $3,600
per year - Greenbook). Overall, roughly half of all women who are single parents receive public
assistance.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
15
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
/
Reflecting these poor earnings, poverty rates for female-headed families are very high—
the rate of poverty was 38.7 percent for this group in 1998, compared to a substantially lower 6.9
percent for married-couple families with children (though these poverty rates are based on
income that does not include support from public assistance). Given the higher incidence of
poverty and lower-earnings levels of female-headed households, elevating the economic status of
these families has been of particular concern in the policy initiatives of the 1990s, and in recent
years, this rate has begun to decline. These initiatives are discussed at the end of this chapter.
Married-Couple Families
Largely due to the entry of women into the labor force, there has been a substantial
increase in the economic well-being of families, but not all families have experienced equal
growth of well-being. Many of these families allude to an increasing money crunch, which
occurs when the increasing hours of work of wives has not produced sufficient income to keep
pace with the perceived rising costs of family needs. Thus, the families who are most likely to
feel this money crunch are those in the lower quintile of the income distribution, where median
family income has grown by only XX percent over the last thirty years, despite gains from the
current economic expansion of the 1990s. In contrast, for those families in the upper quintile of
the income distribution, average income has grown by XX percent, though their expenses have
also risen with the purchase of higher-quality child care and education. [get numbers]
Among those families with non-working wives, median annual income is only slightly
more than half that of families with working wives. Thus, the families with non-employed wives
are not the wealthier families, but are instead families from across the income spectrum. These
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
16
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
families are allocating the wife's time to child-care even though it can result in a "cash-poor"
lifestyle. In contrast, the families with employed wives have considerably more disposable
income on average, which in many cases is likely to remain higher even after subtracting the
costs of working such as child care expenses.
THE "TIME CRUNCH"
Since 1950, female labor force participation rates have increased dramatically and wives'
decisions to enter the labor market have resulted in a marked increase in median family incomes.
While the choice to enter the labor market provides more material wealth for families, it also
results in less home time. A 1995 national survey asked individuals whether they "always feel
rushed, even to do the things you have to do," and 33 percent said yes, up from 24 percent in
1965. The increase in women in the labor force may have contributed to this feeling of time
pressure. In this section, evidence on changes in parents' allocation of time is presented, to
examine how patterns of family care have changed as women have entered the labor force.
The demands of maintaining a family while in the paid labor market can create
tremendous strain on individuals' time-in both single-mother and married-couple families-
which we refer to as the "time crunch." Because almost three-quarters of current caregivers in
the home are women and because our data indicates that husbands have not increased their time
in caregiving, the rise of women in the labor force has meant that the balance between work and
family is especially pronounced for women. This section begins by looking at all working
mothers before discussing special circumstances of female-headed families.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
17
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Time Use and Child Care
As women have shifted towards market work and contributed to rising family earnings,
their rising hours of work have resulted in less time for home-based activities. Using data from
the Current Population Survey of individuals, chart 5-10 shows the time parents potentially have
available to spend with all their children, after subtracting time spent at paid work and allowing
eight hours per day for sleep. All families experienced a decline from 1982 to 1995. Since the
mean number of children in families has also declined over this time (from 2.78 in 1982 to 1.96
in 1995 for women aged 40-44), time per child may have declined less.
Chart 5-10: CPS derived residual time available for child care
Our best source of information on time use comes from a study that makes use of the
Time-use Diaries that have been conducted from 1965 to 1995. These surveys ask individuals to
keep a daily record of how they spend their time during a specific day. Though rich in detail on
time use, these studies survey a fairly small number of individuals and thus cannot be used to
examine trends for subgroups of the population.
This diary data can be used to illustrate the time crunch for working mothers. Employed
women spend one-third less time on child care and household tasks than women do who are not
in paid employment. The primary change in time use for this group is that their increase in
employed hours has been nearly equally offset by a reduction in housework. Men have also
increased their hours in housework by 5.0 hours per week (though the data does not separate
fathers from all men). Nevertheless, despite the assistance of husbands and purchased inputs into
home care, employed women still have 25 to 30 percent less free time today than in 1965.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
18
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This data also displays a modest reduction in home-based care for children. Employed
women spend 6.7 hours per week for child care and women would do not work outside the home
spend 12 hours per week. Within each of these two groups, the average weekly hours spent on
child care has not changed from 1965 to 1995. Similarly, the husband's weekly hours spent on
child care has remained constant over the last thirty years at 2.6 per week. But what has changed
over time is the number of employed women, so as these numbers have risen the average amount
of time spent on child care in the home among all families has fallen from approximately 10 to 8
hours per week. However, it should be noted that these numbers refer only time spent directly
on child care-time spent on home activities that include the children is not counted here.
Undoubtedly the time crunch is worse for single-headed families. These families are
lower-income and thus are less able to purchase substitutes for their time in the home, such as
home-based child-care or cleaning services or products to ease home efforts. And finally, they
lack the assistance that a spouse provides. Alternatively, they may rely more on intergenerational
care, and this can be an important alternative for them. [see Box 5-2 on this.]
Time Use and Parental Care
Americans are now healthier and are living much longer lives, so the elderly are now a much
more vital part of their families and are providing extensive assistance to their families (see Box 5-
2). However, because the elderly are an increasing share of the population, it is also anticipated that
there will be a greater demand for their care in the future. Already in 1996, more than 5 percent of
households spent over 20 hours a week in caregiving for the elderly (DOL book). And since nearly
two-thirds of family caregivers are working, the need to balance work and family will likely increase
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
19
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
in the next century. The Families and Work Institute estimates that about 42 percent of workers will
provide some form of elder care by 2002 (DOL book). In the discussion above, we have focused on
the time costs and money costs of raising children and the stresses that families bear because of these
costs. Layered on top of this is the generational crunch - the time and money costs of eldercare that
arise when families are already maintaining a delicate balance between work and family. With
parents living longer and their daughters who traditionally provide their care now in the paid labor
force, the costs of parental care and the generational crunch are likely to become even more
substantial in the 21st century.
Over the last ten years, there has been an explosion of home-based care for the elderly, and
this care has been provided largely by women. From 1987 to 1996, the number of US households
that provided unpaid care to elderly adults more than tripled, from 7 million to 22.4 million (National
Survey of Caregivers). The average caregiver, then and now, is a married middle-class woman in her
40s with a high school education, and the average care recipient is most likely her mother or mother-
in-law. However, while more women are providing in-home care, each is spending somewhat less
time on that care. Today the average caregiver spends fewer hours per week, is less likely to be co-
resident, and is more likely to use paid services.
While more families are providing in-home care for the elderly, the use of formal care has
also increased substantially. From 1987 to 1996, the number of nursing homes increased 20 percent,
and the size of the elderly nursing home population also increased 29 percent from 1980-1990.
Rising life expectancies have placed more elderly in formal care and the formal care population is
becoming older and increasingly frail; the proportion of nursing home residents over age 85
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
20
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
increased by about 14 percent and the percent of residents with 3 or more ADL (Activities of Daily
Living) limitations rose from 72 percent in 1987 to 83 percent in 1996. It was estimated that the
lifetime risk of institutionalization for those reaching age 65 in 1990 is 43 percent.
Thus, while life expectancy has risen and the elderly are far healthier today than in the past,
they are also much sicker towards the end of their lives and require more extensive care. It is this
care that often becomes the responsibility of their adult children.
The explosion in caregiving responsibility for parents is contributing to the overall "time-
crunch" that the American family is facing; 43 percent of elderly caregivers say their caregiving has
caused them to have less time for other family members. These changes surely arise in part because
today's average caregiver is balancing work and family, with half of all caregivers working full-time
outside the home. Another study noted that 40.8% of daughters and 29.6% of sons involved in
caregiving had either quit their jobs or made work adjustments to accommodate care demands.
Surveys of caregivers underestimate parental care needs, however, because they cannot measure the
frequency with which employed potential caregivers choose not to provide care.
While the purchase of formal care may help to alleviate the time-crunch felt by families,
it may instead contribute to a money-crunch. The average cost of a nursing home is now more
than $40,000 per year, and of those admitted to a nursing home at age 65 or older, the average
length of stay is 26 months for women and 19 months for men. In fact, nearly 50 percent of the
costs of long-term care are paid out-of-pocket by nursing home patients and their families, and
most of the remaining costs are borne by Medicaid. The Administration's long-term care
initiative attempts to address this crunch.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
21
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
In the future, the time and money commitments associated with parental care may
become even more severe, given the trends we have identified above. The increase in the labor
supply of women has raised their wages and thus raised the opportunity cost of their time. Thus,
as employed women age and their parents require more care, women's higher wages may make
them increasingly reluctant to curtail their market work-thus they will face a greater time
crunch in the care of their parents. To the extent that these women have had children later in life,
they also are stuck in the generation crunch of caring for both. And among those women who do
not have children at home, they may instead have grandchildren to care for (see Box 5-2) -
using data from 1992-94, it is estimated that over 40 percent of individuals aged 50-59 were
members of families with at least four generations (this includes in-laws for married people).
For the next century, the increasing cost of elderly care will also fall on fewer children--the
declining fertility rates of the baby boom generation will result in half as many children available
to take care of their elderly parents. This anticipated increasing "time crunch" may result in more
substitution towards formal care, as the greater wealth of the baby boom generation and their
children may make such care more affordable; however, if the cost of that care continue to rise at
above-average rates, these same individuals are likely to experience an increasing "money
crunch" as well.
Box 5-2: The Role of Grandparents
Over the last three decades, the share of children under age 18 living in a household
headed by a grandparent has risen by more than 70 percent (see chart 5-11). The driving force in
the 1990s has been an increase in the share of children living in households with neither parent
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
22
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
present. Between 1980 and 1990, by contrast, the increase came from children living in
grandparent-headed households with just a single parent present The share in such households
with the father as the single parent present, while small, continues to grow in the 1990s.
The rise in female labor force participation has created a greater overall demand for
grandchild care that extends beyond living arrangements. Of grandparents caring for
grandchildren in a non-custodial relationship, over 60 percent cited the employment of the
grandchild's parents and/or the desire to help the grandchild's parents financially as reasons for
providing care. In addition, in a sample of working mothers aged 19-26 with a youngest child
under 5 years old, nearly 25 percent utilized grandmothers as the principal caregiver (this share
rises to almost 39 percent among full-time working mothers).
The preceding section documents that while the care of elderly parents may exacerbate the
"time crunch" and "money crunch" that many families now experience, the increasing health and
longevity of elderly also suggest that elderly may be a potential resource that can help families
balance these other pressures. In recognition of the delicate balance that many American families are
trying to maintain, the Administration has proposed a number of ways to help. Some of these are
highlighted in the section below.
SUPPORTING FAMILIES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
BALANCE WORK AND FAMILY
Changes in American families and work patterns have created new opportunities as well as
significant policy challenges for private employers and government. To the extent that today's
workers demand more flexible work conditions or other non-wage-related benefits, employers
may have to comply with these demands in order to attract and retain the kind of high-quality
work force they desire. But real world labor markets do not always respond instantly to changing
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
23
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
conditions. In addition to its responsibility for trying to maintain full employment, government
can play a role in setting certain norms (such as the Family and Medical Leave Act) or providing
an example (such as flextime, as discussed below).
INCREASING THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF FAMILIES
A strong economy is a critical prerequisite to the economic well-being of families. As
discussed in Chapter 2, the labor market has performed excellently overall in recent years. Since
1993, families in each quintile of the income distribution have experienced solid and roughly
equal percentage gains in income. Low-wage workers have also experienced steep declines in
unemployment. In 1993, 11.1 percent of workers without a high school degree were
unemployed; today that rate has fallen to 7.2 percent. Among high school graduates (with no
college), the rate has fallen from 6.6 to 3.9 percent. Thus, the gains from this strong labor market
are extending to low-wage workers, who must balance work and family on a modest paycheck.
However, the long period of decline in average wages of less skilled workers from the 1970s to
the early 1990s made it hard for many low-income families to make ends meet, and this
Administration, besides pursuing sound macroeconomic and budget policies to foster the
expansion, has pushed for policies that make work pay for lower wage working families facing a
money crunch.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
24
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit for low-income workers,
has been expanded substantially since 1993. The EITC is not currently included in the definition
of money income used to compute the official poverty rate, but calculations based on an
alternative income concept that does include the EITC show that it lifted more than 4.3 million
Americans out of poverty in 1998-more than double the number in 1993. In 1998, the EITC
lifted more than 2.2 million children out of poverty, and over half of the decline in child poverty
between 1993 and 1997 can be explained by changes in tax relief, most importantly the EITC.
Increases in the Minimum Wage
The minimum wage was increased from $4.25 in 1993 to $5.15 in 1997, boosting the
wages of 10 million workers. The combined effects of the minimum wage and the EITC have
dramatically increased the returns to work for families with children. For example, between
1993 and 1998, families with one child and one earner who worked full-time at the minimum
wage experienced a 14 percent ($1,303) increase in their income, after inflation, as a result of
these two policies alone. Similar families with two children experienced a 27 percent ($2,699)
increase in their income.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
25
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Welfare Reform
Legislation enacted in 1996 transformed the Nation's welfare system into one that is
work-focused and time-limited. Although it may produce short term strains for some in
balancing work and family, the new policy has the potential to increase the financial
independence and long-term well-being of low-income families. The Administration's teen
pregnancy initiative (box 5-2) could also play a supporting role by reducing the incidence of that
particular source of strain.
Box 5-2 The National Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
Despite a consistent decline in the teen birth rate in recent years, teen pregnancy remains a
significant problem. Each year, more than 900,000 pregnancies occur among American
teenagers aged 15-19. The babies of these young women are often low birth weight and have
disproportionately high infant mortality rates. On January 4, 1997, President Clinton announced
a comprehensive effort to prevent teen pregnancy in this country. The new initiative, led by the
Department of Health and Human Services, responded to a call from the President and Congress
for a national strategy to prevent out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies and to a directive, under
welfare reform, to assure that at least 25 percent of communities in this country have teen
pregnancy prevention programs in place.
Implementing New Efforts Under Welfare Reform. Under the welfare law signed by
President Clinton on August 22, 1996, unmarried minor parents are required to stay in school
and live at home, or in an adult-supervised setting, in order to receive assistance. The law
supports the creation of Second Chance Homes, which provide teen parents with the skills
they need to become good role models and providers for their children, giving them guidance
in parenting and in avoiding repeat pregnancies. The welfare law also provides $50 million a
year for five years in new funding for state abstinence education programs. The Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 provides funding for a national evaluation of the program. Finally, the
new welfare law includes tough child support enforcement measures which will send the
strongest possible message to young girls and boys that they should not have children until
they are ready to provide for them.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
26
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Supporting Promising Approaches. The Clinton Administration continues to support
innovative teen pregnancy prevention strategies tailored to the unique needs of communities.
HHS-supported programs in this area already reach about 34 percent, or 1,616 communities
in the United States.
Building Partnerships. HHS has built partnerships with national, state, and local
organizations.
Disseminating Information on Innovative and Effective Practices. On October 25, 1999,
Secretary Shalala unveiled a comprehensive guide, developed in partnership with the
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, intended to help communities and non-profit
organizations establish successful local teen pregnancy prevention programs.
Improving Data Collection, Research, and Evaluation. The national strategy is working
to improve data collection, research, and evaluation to further our understanding of the
magnitude, trends, and causes of teen pregnancies and births; to develop targeted teen
pregnancy prevention strategies; and to assess how well these strategies work.
Sending a Strong Abstinence Message. The national strategy places a special emphasis on
sending a strong abstinence message.
Recent policy changes designed to ease the welfare to work transition and support
working low-wage families include a $4 billion increase over six years in child care assistance to
families moving from welfare to work; the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) to extend health care coverage to uninsured children; new rules that allow states to
expand Medicaid to cover more low-income families who work, including more two-parent
families; and 60,000 new housing vouchers in 2000 for low-income families. The Welfare-to-
Work Tax Credit, enacted in 1997, provides a credit equal to 35 percent of the first $10,000 in
wages in the first year of employment, and 50 percent of the first $10,000 in wages in the second
year, to encourage the hiring and retention of long-term welfare recipients. The credit
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
27
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
complements the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a credit of up to $2,400 for the
first year of wages for eight groups of job seekers.
Social Security and Medicare
The President has proposed to use the benefits of fiscal discipline and debt reduction to
strengthen Social Security, extending its solvency from 2034 to 2050. Social security is a key
source of income for those over age 62-it was the major source of income for 63% of
beneficiaries in 1992, representing over 90% of income for 26% of the beneficiaries and the sole
source of income for 14%. These benefits are an especially important component of income for
households in the lower income brackets and are the largest single source of income for all but
the highest income quintile of the elderly.
Medicare is the main source of health insurance for the elderly, insuring nearly 99 percent
of those aged 65 and older. Nevertheless, rising health care costs have meant that the percentage
of enrollees' per capita income needed to cover such costs has increased. The Administration is
exploring ways to ensure that Medicare continues to meet the needs of its beneficiaries.
Other Policies to Help Families
The Administration has addressed the money crunch facing middle class families as well.
In 1999, 27 million families with 45 million children received the $500-per-child tax credit
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
28
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
enacted in 1998. Tougher child support enforcement has helped to ease the economic burden on
single mothers and enforce responsibility for economic support of children on both parents. In
1998, federal and state child support enforcement collected an estimated $14.3 billion from non-
custodial parents, nearly an 80 percent increase since 1992. The number of families that are
receiving child support has increased to 4.5 million in 1998, an increase of 59 percent since
1992. There have also been substantial expansions in support for vocational education,
community college, and skill development, including the creation of Hope Scholarships,
increases in the maximum Pell Grant, and the passage of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
These are discussed in detail in the next chapter on Learning and Skills.
INCREASING THE FLEXIBILITY OF PAID WORK
In shifting from work in the home to work in the market, many women find themselves
with less flexibility in responding to family needs. This shift has also called upon men to take a
greater role in childcare and in helping with other family needs. The result is that flexibility on
the job is becoming increasingly important to families.
The Family and Medical Leave Act
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 requires employers with 50 employees
or more to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave a year to eligible employees to care
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
29
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
for a newborn, newly-adopted or foster child, a child, spouse or parent with a serious health
condition, or for the serious health condition of the employee, including maternity-related disability.
The FMLA also requires employers to continue health benefits during leave. Employees are eligible
to take leave if they have worked for a covered employer for at least one year, and for 1,250 hours
over the previous 12 months. Since 1993, millions of workers have taken advantage of the FMLA
to spend necessary time with their families.
The experiences of both employers and employees with the FMLA were documented in a
national survey, sponsored by the Department of Labor. The survey found that a third of employers
(and two-thirds of employers in larger worksites) believed that the FMLA had positive effects on
employees' ability to care for their family members. Most employers also reported that compliance
costs were small or negligible, and that there was no noticeable effect on either business or employee
performance. Among employees, the survey found that the majority of those who took family or
medical leave found it relatively easy to arrange, and few reported concerns about job-related
consequences of taking leave. It also found that employees with family incomes under $30,000 per
year were more likely to take leave than employees with higher incomes, highlighting the importance
of FMLA to lower-income workers. Today, 91 million workers are covered by the FMLA. The Act
has emerged as a significant step in helping a larger cross-section of working Americans meet their
medical and family caregiving needs while still maintaining their jobs and their economic security.
The President has proposed expanding the Act to cover businesses with 25 employees or less -
extending coverage to an additional 10 million workers. He has also proposed allowing FMLA-
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
30
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
covered workers to receive up to 24 hours per year for parent-teacher conferences or to accompany
a child, spouse, or elderly parent for routine medical and dental care.
Work Arrangements that Promote Flexibility
The need for greater job flexibility by families is also leading to new work arrangements
between private employers and their employees regarding when and where paid work is
performed. An increasingly popular work arrangement is "flextime," which allows workers to
vary the time they begin or end work. In 1997, 28 percent of full-time wage and salary workers
had flexible work schedules. This was up sharply from 12 percent in 1985, the most recent prior
year when data were collected. The Federal government has led by example by instituting
flextime, allowing employees some discretion in when they work their allotted hours. The
President has proposed a flextime initiative that would allow all workers to take "time-and-a-
half" overtime compensation in the form of compensatory time for family and medical leave
purposes or vacation instead of cash.
Another approach to allowing greater flexibility on the job is doing work at home for pay.
This arrangement is used by a small but growing share of workers. In 1997, for example, 3.3
percent of all wage and salary workers were doing work at home for pay, up from 1.9 percent in
1991. Also, another way parents share child care is by working different shifts. In order for shift
work to make combining paid work and child care easier, however, the choice of shifts must be
voluntary. In 1997, 83 percent of full-time wage and salary workers were on regular daytime
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
31
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
schedules, 4.6 percent were on evening shifts, 3.9 percent were on employer-arranged irregular
schedules, 3.5 percent were on night shifts, and 2.9 percent were on rotating shifts.
IMPROVING ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
Most parents adjust to an increase in their paid work time by increasing their use of child
care providers. The availability, cost, and quality of child care are crucial to the well-being of
our children and the ability of parents to balance adequately the needs of work and family. The
primary child care arrangements for preschool-age children of employed mothers in the fall of
1994 were divided roughly equally among care in the child's home (by a relative or nonrelative),
care in another home (by a relative or nonrelative), and care in an organized child care facility.
Since comparable data were first collected in 1986, the trend shows a slight increase in the
proportion of children receiving care in their own homes, relatively fewer children receiving care
in another home, and relatively more children receiving care in an organized facility.
The Administration has consistently emphasized the importance of child care availability
and quality. Since 1993, child care subsidies for low-income families have grown by 80 percent.
In addition, the Administration's budget proposal [update] for the fiscal year 2000 includes a
variety of proposals to help make child care more affordable and improve its quality, including
an investment of $7.5 billion over five years in the Child Care and Development Block Grant;
combined with the funds provided in welfare reform, this new investment would enable the
program to serve over one million additional children by fiscal 2004. Also, the President's
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
32
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
budget includes $5.1 billion over five years to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
for three million families earning under $60,000 a year, and $3 billion over five years in a
proposed Early Learning Fund to improve the quality of care children receive.
In addition, the Administration is addressing the need for after-school care for children.
Since 1970 the percentage of married couples who work full time, year round and have school-
age children has nearly doubled (from 18.7 percent in 1970 to 37.3 percent in 1997). Today, the
parents of over 28 million school-age children work outside the home. This has led to a strong
demand for quality programs to ensure that children are safe and learning in the hours in which
they are not supervised by a parent. In fact, experts estimate that every day roughly 5 to 7 million
children are left unattended at home. The Clinton Administration has responded to this demand
by increasing its investment in after-school programs from $40 million to $200 million in the
1999 fiscal year, which is estimated to reach roughly 400,000 children this year. And the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget [update] would triple the investment in these programs to
$600 million.
EASING THE BURDEN OF LONG-TERM CARE
Like Social Security and Medicare, long-term care will become a primary concern of
baby-boomers as they approach retirement age. In 1994 an estimated 2.1 million elderly living in
the community needed help because of problems with three or more activities of daily living
(such as eating, bathing, dressing, or moving around) or because of a comparable cognitive
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
33
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
impairment. That number will rise as the population ages, and the fast-growing population of the
"oldest old," those 85 and older, is at greatest risk.
Much long-term care today is provided informally: about 65 percent of elderly persons
living in the community and needing long-term care assistance rely exclusively on unpaid
sources, most often family and friends. Surveys have found that 8 of every 10 caregivers provide
unpaid assistance averaging 4 hours a day, 7 days a week. For many, such assistance competes
with the demands of paid employment. In addition, home and community-based care requires
substantial out-of-pocket expense, totaling over $5 billion in 1995.
The Administration has proposed four initiatives to help relieve the burden of families
with members in need of long-term care:
A tax credit of up to $1,000 for people of all ages with three or more limitations in activities
of daily living (or a comparable cognitive impairment). Persons needing long-term care
themselves, or their family members who care for and house them, can claim the credit,
which phases out at incomes of $110,000 for couples and $75,000 for unmarried taxpayers.
The credit would provide financial support for about 2 million Americans, broadly expanding
an existing set of tax allowances.
The National Family Caregiver Support Program This would fund State initiatives
establishing "one-stop shops" that assist families caring for elderly relatives through training,
counseling, and arranging for respite care.
A national campaign to educate Medicare beneficiaries about the program's limited
coverage of long-term care and help inform their care decisions. The need for information is
great: nearly 60 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are unaware that Medicare does not cover
most long-term care.
A proposal that the Federal Government serve as a model employer, by offering
nonsubsidized, quality long-term care insurance to all Federal employees and using its market
leverage to negotiate favorable group rates.
FIRST STAFF DRAFT 11/23/99
PRELIMINARY & CLOSE HOLD
CHAPTER 5
34
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Millions of adults and a growing number of children have long-term care needs because
of a health condition from birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. Moreover, with the
number of Americans age 65 and older and 85 or older projected to double by 2030, long-term
care is a need that will grow in the 21 st Century. The Administration is addressing this need.
CONCLUSION
The American family in the 21 st century faces a completely different world and a new set
of challenges from its counterpart of a hundred years ago. It would probably be a mistake,
however, to conclude that the general problems of too little time and too little resources are new.
Families today enjoy a much higher standard of living than families did a hundred years ago, and
families back then certainly had to work long hard hours. But expectations appear to be different
today. Great changes in the economy have opened up great opportunities, and people aspire to
take advantage of those opportunities.
Chart 5-1 Labor Force Participation for Women
Percent in Labor Force
90
80
70
60
50
Women, 25-44
Mothers with
40
youngest child less
than 18 years old
30
20
10
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Chart 5-2 Percent Widowed or Divorced by Age Range
0.2
0.18
45-54
0.16
Divorced
45-54
Widowed
0.14
0.12
0.1
35-44
Widowed
0.08
0.06
0.04
35-44
Divorced
0.02
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1981
1997
Chart 5-3 Divorce Rates and Median Marriage Duration
25
20
Divorce per 1,000
married females
15
10
Median duration of
marriage (years)
5
Divorce per 1,000
population
0
1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990