A recent survey explored employers' policies and practices that currently help employees maintain a balance between the responsibilities of personal life and work.1 Eighty-six percent of these employers, who represented nearly seven million employees, agreed that their ability to remain competitive in the future was dependent upon their success in addressing work/life and diversity issues.
A more recent Conference Board survey yields information about employers' reasons for implementing internal policies, services, and programs to support employees' school-age children (ages 6-18), and/or employees who have responsibility for school-age children (see Chart 1).
The same survey revealed that the reasons for providing institutional support for community programs that serve school-age children were related to: future workforce concerns (69 percent); improving community life (66 percent); being recognized as a family-friendly company (56 percent); and local school concerns (43 percent).
Source: Deborah Parkinson, Work-Family Roundtable: Education Initiatives, Volume 7, Number 1, The Conference Board, Spring 1997.
RAMAC (Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce) noted that in Racine, Wisconsin, 60 percent of employment had been manufacturing-based, but in the last 10 to 20 years, simple assembly-type jobs have gone overseas. The only jobs left--and there are plenty of them--are high-tech, high-skill jobs, which require skill sets that were not needed 20 years ago and to which employers had no access. Along with the need for a skilled workforce are concerns about the community's schools. Wisconsin's test scores are above the national average, but that state--and the companies operating there--have very high expectations of schools. Being in the top 50 percent was not good enough. These realities spurred area employers to become involved in education.
Similarly, Eastman Kodak Company reviewed the issues that supported its involvement in education:
Concerns related to recruiting and retaining workers often center around becoming the "employer of choice." Bristol-Myers Squibb notes that its work and family initiatives meet the company's human resource goals. The company believes that efforts which enhance its corporate image and strengthen its ability to attract the "best and the brightest" is a key strategy to address the competitive pressure it faces by positioning itself as an employer of choice within industries.
The Hewlett-Packard Company is concerned about schools in communities where it does its business, noting that if these communities do not have good schools, employees will work elsewhere. Currently, employees research communities in which they want to work for HP, and schools are a major factor.
By 2000, about two-thirds of new entrants into the workforce will be women, three-quarters of whom will become pregnant at some point during their working years. More than half of these women will return to work before their child's first birthday. About 57 percent of women with preschool children (under the age of 6) will be employed outside the home, as will two-thirds of those with school-age children. Given their special needs, there are concerns about how to recruit and retain female employees and maintain good morale, as well as reduce the tensions generated by both family and work responsibilities.3
A study by the Families and Work Institute found that 35 percent of employees (with children under the age of 15) would change employers if they could find one that offered them more flexible work arrangements. Another 10 percent said they would consider such a change (bringing the total closer to 50 percent) if they found a more flexible employer. These attitudes often spill over at the bargaining table, where management must negotiate benefits to retain workers' loyalty.4
Employers are increasingly faced with issues tied to the productivity of remaining employees affected by downsizing, mergers, layoffs, and relocation; and the distractions associated with the family issues of child care and single parent and dual career families-absenteeism, lateness, health, and the increased probability of making mistakes that lead to injury, waste, and the reduction in quality work.
The traditional American family unit that included a male breadwinner and a female homemaker had declined from 61 percent in 1960 to 22 percent by 1991.5 There has been an increase in the number of dual-earner families and single parents in the labor force, 38 percent of whom have children under the age of 18.6 Working women still bear the greater burden of family and home obligations.
A 1991 Conference Board study noted that business concerns center around the quality of community life, connections to the community's customer base, and, most importantly, the development of the future workforce. Organizations that have traditionally strong ties to the community (e.g., utilities, financial services, smaller companies) regard quality of community life as more important than global competitiveness in their support for educational improvement.7
It is natural for companies to connect with their communities to support family and employee involvement in education to improve their community image locally, regionally, or nationally, thereby building or improving customer ties and adding value to company products.
Utilities (because they are tied geographically to their communities) expressed particular concern that inadequate K-12 education could eventually undermine the consumer base for their companies' products and services. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's commitment to education transformation is regarded as a critical strategic business decision tied to the vitality of the company and its communities within the region. Motivations to become involved in education therefore focus on being a good corporate citizen; enhancing economic development opportunities; being perceived as a supplier or employer of choice; and enhancing brand recognition, equity, and loyalty.
Employees who are faced with differing roles and multiple responsibilities both at home and at work lead hectic and demanding lives. Balancing family and work generates stress that centers, for example, around child and/or elder care, long working hours, schedule incompatibility, relocation issues, and supervisory relationships.
Seventy-five percent of employed parents who spend more than 40 hours per week on the job feel that they do not have enough time with their children. More than 51 percent of working women report worrying a great deal about not having enough time with their children. More than 51 percent of working women report worrying a great deal about not having enough time with their children and families-a concern they ranked higher than crime.8
According to government statistics, about 17 percent of working parents (who comprise about 37 percent of the population) have preschoolers who need child care.9 A 1993 study predicted that 40 percent more children may need care because their mothers are more likely to be working.10
It is difficult for families to find, obtain, and maintain adequate full-time care and education for their children under the age of six, as well as before- and after-school care for older children. Child-care arrangements often fall apart and good care is expensive. In general, companies and communities lack services to assist families in accessing affordable, quality care.
Today's employees are increasingly asked to do more with less, and thus work longer hours. Dual-career families may face scheduling conflicts, further aggravating the balancing act of work and family.
Downsizing, mergers, and expansion often result in lack of on-the-job flexibility. When faced with this reality, parenting duties usually "bend" rather than the job.
When employees face the stresses generated by work and family conflicts, the workplace may either be supportive or hostile to their needs. First, the workplace may not see or acknowledge these employee problems. Second, although the organization may voice its concern for these problems at senior management levels, supervisors may lack the sensitivity, understanding, and/or willingness to address stresses from home that are affecting work. Third, how the company addresses these conflicts may be confined to ancillary, limited programs rather than in-depth efforts that are integral to the core life of the organization.
Employees who hold lower level jobs are under severe stress because they often have erratic schedules, lack paid time off, and have both low pay and low status. They also have less control over work hours, are less likely to have access to telephones or the freedom to make personal calls, or are unable to purchase adequate care.
Contingent workers (including part-timers), temps, and freelancers have particular concerns. Many child-care programs do not accept children of part-time workers. These pressures of child care, housing, legal, and other related problems generate an annual turnover of 300 percent in some companies, often consuming 25-50 percent of managers' time.11
Some parents believe that schooling should be left to the education experts, and the family's role is one of caring and nurturing outside of school. A recent "report card" from the public on the education reform movement noted that Americans still trust their educators (e.g., administrators, teachers, school boards) to make decisions about how to manage the schools, but this trust is wavering.12
A variety of factors interfere with family involvement in education. Employed mothers now work an average of 65 hours per week. Mothers with young children, those working two jobs, and women in professional positions are working at least 70 hours per week.13 A recent study reveals that "only about one-fifth of parents consistently attend school programs. More than 40 percent never do. Only one-third of parents regularly attend their child's extracurricular performances such as athletic events or plays."14
Interestingly, the type of parent involvement that appears to make the most significant (albeit small) difference in student achievement is that which physically draws the parent into school: attending school programs, extracurricular activities, teacher conferences, and "back-to-school" nights. Such involvement alerts the student and the school that education is important to the family.15
The work-and-family field continually faces a paradox. While gaining widespread acceptance as a viable business investment, it is also subject to scrutiny depending on the prevailing internal and external environments. On one hand, businesses have implemented and embraced work-and-family programs; on the other hand, companies often require a closer examination of costs and a more detailed assessment of program impact in order to justify expansion into new areas.
There are several ways to state the business case for incorporating work-and-family policies in a company, such as positive public relations, improved morale and loyalty, and increased employee retention. Most of the rationale, however, is qualitative. Consequently, WFD, Inc. has designed a cost-benefit analysis model to assess the quantitative impact of a company's family-friendly practices. This model can also be used as a template for evaluating other elements of the corporate work-and-family agenda, including education initiatives.
Education initiatives and family-supportive programs are closely linked in employee's perceptions and attitudes about their employers. Employment policies (such as flexible work schedules) that promote parental involvement in education both contribute to employees' workplace productivity and enhance their children's school-based achievement. The cost-benefit analysis model can potentially measure the impact of corporate education initiatives on employee performance as effectively as it supports the business case for overall work-and-family responsiveness.
In any evaluation, understanding a program's original objectives is key to eliminating any possible false assumptions. The WFD model is adapted and depends on the company's goals and motivation. A survey of WFD clients during the development of the model revealed three major reasons for implementing family-friendly policies: competitors' initiatives, recruitment, and employee retention. Companies using the WFD model to evaluate the impact of education initiatives as a component of work-and-family supports will need to identify other relevant factors.
Assessing the cost versus the benefit of implementing work-and-family policies presents an opportunity to clarify the multiple objectives of these programs. Typically, companies try to meet both qualitative and quantitative objectives when work-and-family programs are developed. When measuring the success of corporate initiatives, these same factors should be considered.
WFD's cost-benefit model measures the following quantitative factors of family-supportive policies:
These measures, combined with conservative assumptions, reveal that spending $1 on family-resource programs almost always yields more than $2 in direct cost savings. This holds true regardless of company size, industry type, or average income of employees.
The sample work sheets can be used to calculate total company cost savings from implementing family-resource programs (such as the counseling and referrals program delivered by WFD to corporate employees). The samples demonstrate how the model measures the bottom-line feasibility of work-and-family policies. When reviewing these models, it is important to consider the assumptions used to calculate the benefits:
"Usage" refers to the actual number of times employees use the counseling and referral benefit offered by the company and delivered by WFD. Usage, however, can be substituted for the number of employees who utilize the corporate policies that promote parental involvement in education, or the number of employees who volunteer and participate in the education initiatives.
Furthermore, the average salary and annual working hours can be adjusted to more accurately reflect an individual company's figures. A company can establish its own assumptions based on the factors it chooses to measure. It can also conduct a baseline study of employee absenteeism, healthcare costs, retention, and productivity in order to secure a more accurate depiction of how family-friendly initiatives affect the company.
The WFD model is not dependent on company size or industry type. For example, when using this adaptive model in a 1996 review of five WFD clients with an average employee population of 500, the following cost-benefit information was revealed:
The five companies evaluated are all based in the Northeast and represent a variety of industries, from retail to technology. The average annual employee salary is $40,000.
Nearly the same average payback ratio holds for large companies with average annual employee salaries of less than $35,000. In a review of five companies with average annual salaries ranging from $22,560 to $32,057, the average payback ratio was $3.34:$1.00.
There does not, however, seem to be a correlation between the employee income levels and use of family-supportive services and policies. For instance, a large retail chain with nearly 14,000 employees nationwide shows an average annual salary of $24,000, with 9 percent usage of family-resource programs. The company realized a total annual cost savings of $517,516 for its $236,471 investment.
In comparison, a large Southeast-based financial services corporation with more than 65,000 employees has an average employee salary base only slightly higher at $28,000. Fifty-three percent of the employees participate in the work-and-family programs offered by the company at a payback ratio of $5.18:$1. This ratio represents the following:
Table 1 provides examples of how other companies of various sizes, and with employees at various income levels, have been able to calculate the cost benefit of implementing work-and-family support programs.
| Company | 1996 Population |
Total Use |
Average Salary |
Work- Family Costs |
Estimated Company Savings |
Estimated Total Hours Saved |
Estimated Payback Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Company | 2,400 | 246 | $24,700 | $42,638 | $153,009 | 9,000 | $3.59:$1 |
| Delivery company |
90,000 | 9,102 | 32,057 | 1,175,600 | 3,208,109 | 144,770 | $2.73:$1 |
| Law firm | 425 | 104 | 40,000 | 16,634 | 91,790 | 3,319 | $5.52:$1 |
| Entertainment company |
11,300 | 1,447 | 40,000 | 184,467 | 757,386 | 27,382 | $4.11:$1 |
| Bank | 5,005 | 1,087 | 22,560 | 112,619 | 339,300 | 21,750 | $3.01:$1 |
Using the cost-benefit analysis model to calculate the impact of work-and-family initiatives does not require a significant investment in external resources. Its effectiveness is merely dependent on several factors that must be determined on an individual company basis:
In answering these questions, it may become obvious that outside consultation and services are required to implement the family-resource programs, but using the WFD template to calculate benefits is simple enough to conduct internally, for any size or type of company.
A company trying to determine whether it needs outside consultation and assistance in developing, implementing, and assessing the value of work-and-family programs should consider the following factors:
The inclusion of education initiatives in the workplace, particularly if they are positioned as a component of family-friendly policies, will also undergo the same close examination of cost, program impact, and return on investment. Companies committed to education programs recognize the qualitative benefits and the long-range value of investing in the nation's future workforce through education partnerships. The WFD cost-benefit analysis model is a means by which the qualitative value of such initiatives are measured and sustained.
Business has already made some investment of resources to support employee and family involvement in education. What is the quality and quantity of these services and programs that are currently available to employees (with or without children), to employees' children, and to schools and children within employers' communities?
The Spring 1997 issue of The Conference Board's Work-Family Roundtable found that collaboration among employers, families, and educators continues to generate corporate programs and policies that support school-age children and their families, as well as business/education partnerships within the community. Of the 90 respondents representing many industries and fields, two-thirds said their companies have expanded their involvement in education throughout the past five years. This action reinforces:
In spite of this "call to action," changing demographic and labor force trends, and workforce needs, work and family programs are not particularly widespread, although a Hewitt Associates survey noted that between 1990 and 1995, the number of employers offering programs to help employees with family matters increased 64 percent.17 Larger companies, companies with a higher percentage of professional employees, companies experiencing recent business expansion, and companies that had experienced changes due to mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, relocation, etc., were more involved with child care and work-family initiatives.18
The Spring 1997 Work-Family Roundtable also noted that employer initiatives for employees with school-age children generally take three forms, which may be available throughout an organization or available only in particular sites:
Services for employees' school-age children center primarily around child care (for young children, or after-school and summer programs). According to the Spring 1997 Work-Family Roundtable, the most common forms of services and programs offered for school-age children were: "Take Your Child to Work Day" (74 percent of respondents); summer holiday programs (39 percent); back-up/emergency care (36 percent); scholarships (32 percent); child care (27 percent); and after-school/summer camp programs (20 percent).
Off- and on-site day care/subsidized day care. The Hewitt 1995-1996 SpecBook noted that 10 percent of employers have child care centers.19 The September 1996 issue of Monthly Labor Review noted that 2 percent of companies pay for subsidized day care; 5 percent do so for off-site day care; 4.1 percent provide day care subsidies to employees; 11 percent donate funds to local day care providers in return for slots for their employees; and 15 percent have a full-time employee to handle these programs.
Other child care and educational support. To reduce parental stress (often associated with having to leave children in self care), employers are increasingly meeting employees' needs through newer programs (e.g., sick/emergency child care, before- and after-school care, and school holiday programs). An earlier survey indicated that, either throughout an organization or at specific locations, 40.8 percent of employers provided back-up emergency care; 33.5 percent provided vacation and holiday programs; 32.3 percent provided education for children in self care; and 28.8 percent provided "special day" arrangements (e.g., during "snow days").20
Information and referral programs supporting education are more likely to be internal services for employees with school-age children because these programs are less costly than direct services provided to employees and their children.21 Actually, the use of these programs is neither consistent nor widespread. The most commonly provided services are flexible work policies and schedules that not only enable employees to do their jobs, but also to attend school events and spend more time with their children. About 25 percent of the companies offer such services and 24 percent of eligible employees take advantage of them. Fewer than 2 percent of eligible employees take advantage of job sharing, telecommuting, and part-time work options; only 51 percent of companies have formal part-time work policies.22
Respondents to The Conference Board's 1997 survey on education initiatives stated that throughout their organizations or in some locations, family-friendly services had expanded: 91 percent of these organizations used flexible work schedules; 89 percent had a policy to allow employees to call home or receive calls (up from 75 percent in a comparable 1992 Conference Board study); 83 percent had a resource list of community programs (up from 62.2 percent); 68 percent had parenting seminars; and 60 percent had a time-off policy for school activities (up from 57.3 percent).23
The Hewitt 1995-96 SpecBook noted that 67 percent of employers permitted flextime arrangements in 1995 (up from 54 percent in 1990); 96 percent offered dependent care spending accounts; and 40 percent offered resource and referral services.24 Marriott International, for example, ensures that all classes of workers (including temps, seasonal workers, and part-timers) are eligible to use its telephone resource service, which offers multilingual social workers who are skilled in child care, parenting, and family issues.
Company participation was more likely to increase when state or federal government took action to promote family issues and to build a better child care infrastructure. In anticipation, or because of mandates, some companies have improved or expanded their parental leave policies, or assisted their employees with child care and elder care responsibilities using Dependent Care Assistant Plans (DCAPs). Other forms of support to help with costs of care include vouchers (usually limited to low-income employees and to a limited amount of subsidy) and discounts (such as reductions in the fee of certain designated centers).
These services and programs encourage all employees (with or without school-age children) to become involved in schools/education.
As shown in Chart 2, businesses are implementing a variety of services and programs as partners in education with their communities.
Source: Work-Family Roundtable: Education Initiatives, p. 6.
Although many corporations have decreased their workforce, and remaining employees carry a heavier workload, the percentage of employees who are participating in volunteer activities continues to increase. Some of this increase may well be due to the fact that companies have tied into special incentives connected to their role as corporate citizen, for example, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In fact, two-thirds of the respondents in a recent Conference Board report stated that their companies have expanded their involvement in education over the past five years. A 5 percent increase in contributions was forecast for 1996, with a smaller increase expected in 1997. Although most contributions are given as cash, noncash contributions (e.g., company products, equipment, property, and personnel for service; nonprofit boards; other volunteer activities) reached the largest share since 1985, totaling 20 percent. Most of these noncash contributions to education (64.1 percent) were in the form of computers and office equipment.25
More research will be needed to create buy-in from key players within organizations and top management's advocacy for "family-friendly" workplaces before further change will occur. A recent Ford Foundation report sees the growth of work-family efforts that reach beyond individual programmatic efforts and services through systemic solutions that restructure and reorganize the work processes/work culture.26 This view reinforces recommendations to build the consideration of family issues into job design, work processes, and organizational structures.27
The Families and Work Institute also observed how many employers are or anticipate moving from programs fielding specific work benefits, to policies that integrate flexible work arrangements into a coordinated program and target the work-life needs of all employee groups in a comprehensive, systemic way. These stages are not always followed sequentially and many employers work on issues of two or more stages simultaneously.28
2 Arlene A. Johnson, ed., Work-Family Roundtable, School-Age Programs, Volume 2, Number 4, The Conference Board, Winter 1992.
3 Dana E. Friedman and Ellen Galinsky, "Work and Family Trends," in Sheldon Zedeck, ed, Work and Family (New York: Jossey Bass, 1991)
4 Ellen Galinsky, James T. Bond, and Dana Friedman, "The Changing Workforce: Highlights of the National Study," Families and Work Institute, 1993.
5 Durward M. Rushforth, "Family Programs Pay Off in Lower Absenteeism," Employment Relations Today, Summer 1991.
6 Employers, Families, and Education, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1997
7 Ronald Berenbeim, Corporate Support of National Education Goals, The Conference Board Report 978, 1991.
8 Employers, Families and Education
9 Dana E. Friedman, Linking Work-Family Issues to the Bottom Line, The Conference Board Report 962, 1991
10 Ellen Galinsky and D.E. Friedman, Education Before School: Investing in Quality Child Care (New York: Scholastic, Inc., 1993), p. 41.
11 Sue Shellenbarger, "Work and Family: Flexible Workers Come Under the Umbrella of Family Programs," The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1995, p. B1.
12 Jean Johnson and John Immerwahr, First Thing First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools (New York: Public Agenda, 1994), p. 36.
13 Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of American Leisure (New York: Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollins, 1991).
14 Laurence Steinberg, Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform has Failed and What Parents Need to Do (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), P. 128.
15 Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform has Failed and What Parents Need to Do, p. 125.
16 Copyright 1997 by Work-Family Direction, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
17 "Work-Life Programs. More Employers Are Offering Programs to Help Employees Meet Family Needs," BNA, Employers Relations Weekly, February, 26, 1996, p. 220.
18 Ellen Galinsky and A. Morris, "Employers and Child Care," Paper presented at the Symposium on Day Care for Children, Washington, D.C., October 4, 1991.
19 "Work-Life Programs. More Employers Are Offering Programs to Help Employees Meet Family Needs," p. 220.
20 Work-Family Roundtable: School-Age Programs.
21 Polly A. Phipps, "Employers and Work/Family Programs," Monthly Labor Review, September 1996, pp. 45-46.
22 Jaclyn Fierman, "The Workplace: Are Companies Less Family Friendly?" Fortune, March 21, 1994, pp. 64-67.
23 Deborah Parkinson, Work-Family Roundtable: Education Initiatives, Volume 7, Number 1, The Conference Board, Spring 1997, p. 5.
24 "Work-Life Programs. More Employers Are Offering Programs to Help Employees Meet Family Needs," p. 220.
25 Audris D. Tillman, Corporate Contributions in 1995, The Conference Board Report 1172-96-RR, 1996.
26 Rhona Rapoport and L. Bailyn, "Relinking Life and Work: Toward a Better Future," The Ford Foundation, 1996.
27 Keith H. Hammonds, "Balancing Work and Family," Business Week, September 16, 1996, pp. 74-80.
28 Education Before School: Investing in Quality Child Care, Chapter 5.
-###-
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Moving Ahead: "How To" Steps to Achieve Results]
