What factors explain the variation in number and types of family-friendly work-place policies implemented within public agencies? Is there any systematic attempt to measure the effectiveness of these programs? To what extent do these policies contribute to gender equality at work? To answer these questions, the authors surveyed all general and special purpose local governments in the state of Washington. They conclude that family-friendly workplace policies are adopted unevenly across local jurisdictions. Agency size, the presence of union representation, an agency’s adoption of a formal sexual harassment policy, and agency type account for much of the variance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bergmann, B. R. (1997). Work-family policies and equality between women and men. In F. D. Blau & R. G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Gender and family issues in the workplace (pp. 277-279). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
2.
Blau, F. D., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (Eds.). (1997). Gender and family issues in the workplace. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Knoke, D. (1994). Statistics for social data analysis (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
4.
Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics. (2000). Women in elected office 2000. New Brunswick: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Retrieved March 6, 2000 from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ecawp/facts/cawpfs.html
5.
Daley, D. (1998). An overview of benefits for the public sector: Not on the fringe anymore. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 5-22.
6.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Durst, S. L. (1999). Assessing the effect of family friendly programs on public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 19-33.
8.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Guy, M. E. (in press). The difference that gender makes. In S. Hays & R. Kearney (Eds.), Public personnel administration: Problems and prospects (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
Han, S., & Moen, P. (1999, March). Work and family over time: A life course approach. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 98-110.
11.
Hertz, R. (1999, March). Working to place family at the center of life: Dual-earner and single parent strategies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 16-31.
12.
Hoyman, M. M., & Duer, H. (2000, April). Toward a conceptualization of family friendly policies in firms. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, San Diego, CA.
13.
Kelly, R. M., & Newman, M. A. (2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women & Politics, 22(3), 1-33.
14.
King, C., & Stivers, C. (Eds.). (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Kossek, E. E., DeMarr, B. J., Backman, K., & Kollar, M. (1993). Assessing employees’ emerging elder care needs and reactions to dependent care benefits. Public Personnel Management, 22(4), 617-638.
16.
Lowi, T. J. (1964, July). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 4, 677-715.
17.
Mergenhagan, P. (1994). Job benefits get personal. American Demographics, 16(9), 30-36+.
18.
Miller, W., Kerr, B., & Reid, M. (1999). A national study of gender-based occupational segregation in municipal bureaucracies: Persistence of glass walls?Public Administration Review, 59(3), 218-229.
19.
Mitchell, O. S. (1997). Work and family benefits. In F. D. Blau & R. G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Gender and family issues in the workplace (pp. 269-276). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
Newman, M. A. (1994). Lowi’s thesis and gender: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54(3), 277-284.
21.
Newman, M. A., & Mathews, K. (1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers to effective implementation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(3), 34-48.
22.
Osterman, P. (1995, December). Work/family programs and employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 681-700.
23.
Roberts, Gary E. (2000a, Spring). An inventory of family-friendly benefit practices in small New Jersey local governments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 35-47.
24.
Roberts, Gary E. (2000b, April). Municipal government benefits practices and personnel outcomes: Results from a national survey. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, San Diego, CA.
25.
Robinson, R., Allen, B., McClure, G., & Duhon, D. (1993). Sexual harassment in the workplace: A review of legal rights and responsibilities of all parties. Public Personnel Management, 22, 123-135.
26.
Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1996). Public personnel management in county government: Keeping up with the times. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 16(2), 32-56.
27.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2001). SHRM 2001 Benefits Survey. Alexandria, VA: Author.
28.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996). Employee benefits in state and local governments. 1994. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1998). A review of federal family-friendly workplace arrangements. Washington, DC: Office of Workforce Relations.
30.
Yates, R., & Yates, C. (2000). 2000 Washington State yearbook: A guide to government in the evergreen state. Eugene, OR: Public Sector Information, Inc.
