Conclusion

This four-week discovery sprint was designed to better understand challenges, identify barriers and find solutions for states like New Jersey—and potentially the federal government—to effectively implement PFML programs. The need is great, and the benefits of PFML to individuals, children, families and businesses—and to the broader cause of advancing equity—are clear. But poor implementation seriously undermines good policy—a phenomenon known as “policy by other means.” Good implementation, on the other hand, can make all the difference for the people it was designed to help.

This paper presented learnings primarily focused on the following themes:

• Timing is everything. People who need PFML need benefits delivered quickly, timed to the relatively short and defined periods of leave.
• Programs must have forms and materials that families can understand and easily use. To do so, agencies must use plain language and user testing to make sure beneficiaries can really understand and use their materials and to ensure the application process runs smoothly.
• Data drives effective implementation. Programs should use their own records in association with publicly available data to assess and target their outreach activities, and identify pain points in their application processes.
• Job protection is critical for potential beneficiaries. Programs must communicate clearly what workers’ rights are, and make it simple to stand up for those rights.
• Employers are critical outreach partners. Programs should treat them as such, providing user-centered and tested, easily accessible toolkits, webinars, workshops, and trainings.
• Programs should prioritize quick and easy applications, fostering a culture of access. Application processes must be as painless as possible, and programs should make proactive choices in processing to err on the side of accessibility.

This project was limited in scope and there are plenty of directions for future research and exploration. As this sprint focused primarily on parental leave for birthing parents, future work should do similar explorations of other PFML use cases, especially caregiving leave, where cultural barriers may pose even more daunting obstacles. Conducting similar research in additional states would help confirm which issues are common in PFML implementations and which are unique to New Jersey. Updates to this New Jersey research since the 2019 program expansion took effect would be fruitful, especially to learn if the expansions increased take-up rates among low-income workers, and decreased the prevalence of birthing parents skipping their bonding leave. Much more work is needed to understand and address the barriers preventing men from taking parental bonding leave. And more work could better address how exactly to best reach employers and make them true partners in PFML outreach.