Key Learnings

This paper focuses on learnings that not only matter to TDI/FLI administrators, but also have wider applicability for PFML outside of New Jersey’s program. While details of New Jersey’s program are frequently reflected in the analysis, the paper is not explicitly intended as a deep dive into this specific program, and details are offered here to be emblematic of broader trends, or illustrative of the types of research other programs might undertake. For example, we mention disconnects between specific state agencies involved in PFML as an example of the types of disconnects that may occur between agencies in other states, not as a comment on or an analysis of New Jersey’s program per se. Likewise, we mention findings from an analysis of who is and who is not applying for TDI/FLI in New Jersey as examples of the kind of findings that other states may glean from similar analyses.

Generally, the recommendations presented here are actionable for state-level administrators of PFML programs. A few of the findings require statutory changes or are targeted at IT procurement, but these are included only when they directly interact with administrative concerns. This report focuses on user experience, and is not intended to be exhaustive in providing design recommendations for legislators, for IT offices, for advocates, or for other outside actors.

While this paper generally assumes a state-level program, the recommendations may also be relevant to federal advocates and policymakers, as support grows for Congress to pass a national PFML program.

The key learnings here are presented in the following categories:

• Communicating about PFML: how administrators should talk about their programs, including common misunderstandings or points of friction.
• Outreach: what administrators need to do to ensure potential beneficiaries know about their programs and are able and willing to apply.
• Applications, processing, and delivery: how administrators should set up their application procedures to ensure quick and effective benefit delivery
• IT infrastructure and culture: key principles to ensure that technology supports, rather than hinders, program implementation.

Before delving deeper, a critical word of context about this entire analysis: Readers accustomed to traditional government timelines for benefit delivery would be well advised to revisit their assumptions of acceptable wait times in the context of paid family leave. In the administration of major entitlements that will be paid for years or whole lifetimes, wait times of months, while unfortunate, might be considered acceptable. For a short-term program like PFML, such familiar government wait times are wholly inadequate; a beneficiary who waits two months for benefits will more than likely return to work before they get paid.¹ Potential PFML beneficiaries are generally in the middle of major life upheavals if not outright crises, when they have the least amount of time and energy to navigate red tape. Programs must aim to process the vast majority of applications within two to three weeks at most. The stakes are illustrated by a quote from one of our interviewees:

“If we knew I wasn’t going to get approved, I would have gone back to work. I had to put things on credit cards while we were waiting. Those 6 weeks were tough.” – Interviewee #4

None of this is to excuse any benefit delays in any government program; all beneficiaries deserve prompt and compassionate service from the government. But for some programs, an extra three-week delay is an inconvenience; for PFML, an extra three-weeks delay may well mean that potential beneficiaries simply give up on the program and go back to work. And, when that happens, they may tell everyone they know that the program is unusable, dissuading others from applying and further diminishing the program’s impact. Those accustomed to the wait time horizons of other government programs must intentionally and drastically adjust their expectations and standards when it comes to PFML: Because it serves families in health emergencies or in the immediate aftermath of births and adoptions, the program must operate very quickly to meet families in their moment of need.

Because it serves families in health emergencies or in the immediate aftermath of births and adoptions, the program must operate very quickly to meet families in their moment of need.

Learnings Part 1: Communicating Effectively about PFML

1.1. Job Protections
1.2. Mapping Programs to Life Events
1.3. Cultural Considerations
1.4. Plain-language and User-tested Materials

Learnings Part 2: Outreach

2.1 Messengers
2.1.1 The Program Office as the Primary Source of Information
2.1.2 Employers
2.1.3 Other Sources

2.2. Using Data to Track Progress and Target Outreach

Learnings Part 3: Applications, Processing, and Delivery

3.1. Conceptual and Cultural Considerations
3.1.1 Set Realistic Expectations and be Transparent
3.1.2 Track Progress—in a Process Led by Program Leadership—and React Quickly
3.1.3 Foster a Culture of Equity, Access, and Service; Not One of Preventing Fraud

3.2. Technical Recommendations
3.2.1 Simple Applications, Written in Plain Language and Informed by User Testing
3.2.2 Modern Online Application, with a Status Checker
3.2.3 Minimize the Information Required to Submit an Application
3.2.4 Accommodate Advance Claims
3.2.5 Follow Up by Phone or Email when Needed
3.2.6 (If relevant) Effect Smooth Transitions between Program Phases
3.2.7 Create a Beneficiary-centric Payment Delivery System

Learnings Part 4: IT Infrastructure and Culture

4.1 Empower a Single Product Manager
4.2 Ruthlessly Prioritize User-facing Issues
4.3 Ship Iteratively, Even (and Especially) when Transitioning from Legacy Systems
4.4 Beware of Unproven Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Products that are Not Well Suited to the Program