Last week Gov. Inslee’s office released some research on paid family leave. The research was funded by a federal grant and, according to Inslee’s press release, “will inform paid leave efforts initiated under the Obama administration.” President Obama’s 2017 budget proposal includes six weeks of paid family leave for federal employees. Meanwhile, President-elect Trump indicated during the campaign that he is in favor of paid family leave. (I wrote a few years ago that paid family leave proponents were shifting from a state-by-state approach to trying to get paid family leave implemented at the federal level.)

The federal grant funded a survey of voters, an analysis of the costs of various paid leave options, an analysis of the impacts of paid family leave on public assistance program spending, and interviews with employers.

Voter survey: In March, 529 registered Washington voters were surveyed. The survey found broad support for a paid family leave program. When asked about a program of six weeks of leave costing $2 per week, 76 percent were in favor. When asked about a program of 12 weeks of leave costing $3 per week, 72 percent were in favor. In both cases, respondents were told that “the benefit would be 2/3 of normal salary with a cap of $900 per week,” but they were not told who would pay for the benefit. When respondents were asked about funding, the highest number (68 percent) was in favor of payroll taxes split equally between employees and employers. The lowest number (60 percent) was in favor of payroll taxes paid entirely by the employee.

Cost analysis: In July, Professors Randy Albelda of University of Massachusetts Boston and Alan Clayton-Matthews of Northeastern University used their Paid Family and Medical Leave Simulator to estimate the cost, number, and leave lengths of eight paid family leave options for Washington. The options represent a mix of hours worked to be eligible (340 or 680), cap on weekly benefits ($750, $1,000, or $1,298), maximum weeks of benefits (12, 16, or 26), wage replacement rate (one example is that a worker would get 90 percent of his first $541, then 30 percent of wages after that), and waiting period (zero or one week).

According to the model, a paid family leave program would cost between $622.7 million and $1,015.6 million per year. The average weekly cost per worker would range from $3.50 to $5.70 and the average weekly benefit paid would range from $517 to $667. Currently, 580,600 leaves are taken in Washington (I think per year). That would increase if a paid family leave program were implemented, to 595,100–601,100.

Interestingly, currently, 69.9 percent of all leaves are paid. With a paid family leave program, the percent of wages replaced would increase to 79.8–81.2 percent. Leaves for a new child would see the highest jump in wage replacements, from 71.4 percent currently to 92.0–97.5 percent.

Currently, Washingtonians take 6.6 weeks of leave. This would increase, if paid family leave were implemented, to 7.7–8.1 weeks. The report shows the split between men and women on length of leave taken with paid family leave. Men and women would use about the same amount of paid family for their own health. But women would use much more leave for a new child (7.6–9.5 weeks for women compared to 2.3–2.6 weeks for men). Women would also use roughly a week more than men to care for ill relatives.

Effect on public assistance. A University of Washington team looked at the effect of paid maternity leave on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Food Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The paper assumes women would use 12 weeks of paid leave. It finds no statistically significant reduction in SNAP use. It estimates that in Washington, paid leave would reduce TANF spending by $728,805 to $904,854 per year (depending on whether there are two or three people in the family).

Employer interviews. Between August and October, 30 employers were interviewed. These included small, medium, and large businesses on both sides of the Cascades. The report is interesting to read through. One of the key findings is

When employers think about paid family and medical leave, they tend to think of sick leave, short-term disability, but not necessarily a separate paid program. Many employers feel they “take care of their employees” and determine pay on a case by case basis in order to keep good employees.

Also,

Medium and large size businesses have positive reactions to the idea of a required paid family and medical leave program in the state of Washington, but small businesses are worried about how they could afford the implementation of such a program.

Overall, the comments show that employers care about their employees’ well-being. Some opposition to a mandated paid leave program comes from wanting to be able to offer employees flexibility or to be able to offer paid leave as a means of differentiation from other employers.

Washington has had a paid family leave law on the books since 2007, but it has never been funded. It would provide partial wage replacement for up to five weeks of leave. (For more, see our 2012 report, pages 7–8.) During the 2016 legislative session, a bill was introduced that would have made the program more generous and would have funded it via an employer premium. It was not enacted. (See pages 3–4 of this report.)

Finally, the governor’s press release notes, “The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer paid family leave of any kind.” This is something proponents of paid family leave policies always say, and it always bugs me. If our friends jumped off a cliff, would we too? As the experiences of other countries have shown, mandated benefits can have unintended consequences—for example, women may be paid less and get fewer full-time jobs.