September 2001

Prepared by
Ann Lehman and Jennifer Mitchell, Department on the Status of Women

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
List of Tables
Introduction
What is a Work-Life Policy?
Why a Work-Life Study?
Background
Four Key Point

Beyond Family Friendly
Telecommuting: Alternative Work Practices
Gender and Work-Life
Organizational Culture and Work-Life

Survey Methods

Survey Composition and Data Analysis
Data Collection

What We Found

Work Schedule Flexibility
Alternative Work Schedules

Flextime
Compressed Workweek
Benefits and Concerns
Current City and County Practices

Part-Time and Job-Sharing

Benefits and Concerns
Current City and County Practices

Telecommuting

Benefits and Concerns
Current City and County Practices

Leaves of Absence

Definitions
State and Federal Leave Options

Benefits and Concerns

Other Work-Life Resources
The Impact of Organizational Culture

How Work-Life Options Are Promoted and Utilized
Low Usage Rates of Work-Life Options
Promotion and Utilization of Work-Life Programs

Organizational Culture - Current Practices and Advice
Future Direction
Bibliography
Appendix A: Glossary of Work-Life Terms
Appendix B: Participating Departments
Appendix C: List of Collected Examples of Work-Life Policies

Return to Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Figure 1: Type of Work-Life Options Departments Offer
Figure 2: Flexible and Compressed Schedules: Availability and Utilization
Figure 3: Benefits of Compressed and Flexible Schedules
Figure 4: Concerns about Compressed and Flexible Schedules
Figure 5: Performance Under Flexible and Compressed Schedules
Figure 6: Flexible and Compressed Work Schedule Eligibility Requirements
Figure 7 Part-time Schedules and Job-Sharing: Availability and Utilization
Figure 8: Benefits of Part-Time Scheduling
Figure 9: Concerns about Part-Time Scheduling
Figure 10: Telecommuting: Availability and Utilization
Figure 11: Benefits of Telecommuting
Figure 12: Performance of Telecommuters
Figure 13: Telecommuting Eligibility Requirements
Figure 14: Benefits of Leave
Figure 15: Concerns about Leave
Figure 16: Other Work-Life Resources
Figure 17: Work-Life Practices: Availability and Utilization
Figure 18: Why Work-Life Practices Are Not Offered
Figure 19: Publicity and Work-Life Options
Figure 20: How Department Leadership Promotes Work-Life Options
Figure 21: Reasons for Work-Life Utilization Rates

Return to Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The San Francisco Commission and Department on the Status of Women (C/DOSW) thanks the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) Task Force for demonstrating its leadership in the implementation of the CEDAW Ordinance, for being the impetus (through the focus group data collection issues) for the City and County of San Francisco Work-Life Policies and Practices Survey, and for its steadfastness in face of challenges in moving forward. In particular, we recognize Chair and Commissioner Emily Murase for her insight and contributions to this effort.

Many volunteered long and sometimes tedious hours of compiling materials. Department employees were cooperative and often enthusiastic in their participation in these important endeavors.

The Department on the Status of Women very much appreciates the efforts of each of the thirty-nine departments' staff that took the time from their busy schedules to help us collect the data and feedback on department policies and practices (Appendix B). Clearly many department staff went beyond giving us basic data to offer thoughtful commentary and recommendations. It was obvious from the enthusiastic response that this survey struck a nerve center as well as a need for leadership in this area. Many department staff are eagerly awaiting the results.

Within the Controller's Office, Performance Management Unit members Anne Jenkins, Sharon Friedrichsen, and Fernando Chavez went way beyond the call of duty in helping us develop both a survey and data collection program. This project would not have happened without their assistance. In particular we would like to acknowledge Fernando Chavez for his design of the data collection program and assisting us with its utilization.

A group of individuals met regularly to assist in the development of the survey and each deserves a special recognition: Gilda Cassanego and Patricia E. Peters of the Department of Human Resources, Amy Ackerman, Adine Varah, and Molly Stump of the Office of the City Attorney, and Ann Lehman and Latika Malkani of the Department on the Status of Women. A special thanks goes to Amy Ackerman for providing valuable assistance in seeing this project through, and Gilda Cassanego for helping gather information and clarifying leave options.

Thanks also to:

• Wendy Constantine of Research and Evaluation Systems for her valuable input on ensuring the survey met with acceptable social science research methodology.
• Jean Miranda of the Employee Assistance Program for contributing valuable information and data regarding its programs and services.
• Anita Sanchez and Kate Favetti of the Civil Service Commission for their input with clarifying Civil Service leaves.
• Judith David Bloomfield of One Small Step for sharing their Glossary of Work-Life Terms.
• Rana Shruti, for her research of U.S and international work-life programs.

Last but not least, we want to acknowledge the staff members from the Department on the Status of Women especially, Jennifer Mitchell, Intern, for her dedication and hard work in compiling all the data, researching, and drafting of the report, Rosario Navarette, Interim Executive Director, Carol Sacco, Events Coordinator, and Christina Neuner, Clerk Typist, for their persistent efforts to ensure that the survey met the highest professional standards. Thanks also to our high school interns, Helen Fong, Mary Lao, Patrick Yan, and Jenny Yu for their administrative assistance, and Ann Lehman, Policy Analyst, for her leadership on this project.

Return to Table of Contents

 

INTRODUCTION

Work-life policies can help employees maximize the quality of their work experience as well as the quality of their personal life. Work-life options cover a variety of alternative flexible, work schedules and/or arrangements, and leaves of absense and job enhancements such as training and counseling.

In January 2001, the Department on the Status of Women surveyed sixty-two¹ departments of the City and County of San Francisco on their current work-life policies and practices. The purpose of the study was to gather the following information:

• To assess the type and extent of work-life programs and policies within City and County of San Francisco departments.
• To find out from the departments both the benefits and concerns in utilizing these practices.
• To stimulate awareness about work-life options.

What follows is a detailed analysis of the survey data results.

The City and County of San Francisco Work-Life Policies and Practices Survey takes a first step towards addressing the interrelationship of work and personal life as well as forging a balance between the two for City and County of San Francisco employees. This study assesses the extent and nature of work-life practices various City and County of San Francisco departments are engaged in as well as highlights and acknowledges practices already being implemented and concerns in carrying out these policies.

This study serves as an initial review and analysis of current work-life policies and practices in City and County of San Francisco departments from an employer perspective. At this time it does not offer recommendations as to best practices or changes in current practices. Recommendations as well as best practices (from both within and outside the City and County of San Francisco) will be part of a future report that will include an assessment of employees' needs for work-life programs.

Return to Table of Contents

WHAT IS A WORK-LIFE POLICY?

A work-life policy is any program that increases an organization's ability to integrate the needs of work and personal life (e.g. self-care, health care, child care, elder care, domestic partner care, education and study, personal life interests). Work-life policies extend beyond traditional notions of "family friendly" that primarily imply care for children and others. Work-life policies take many forms. There are time-based practices known as alternative work schedules such as compressed or flextime and reduced work schedules such as part-time. They can also take the form of telecommuting, which entails working from home or an alternate satellite location. Other practices include various types of leave whether it is federally mandated Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or a combination of sick and personal leave. Still other work-life benefits may include dependent care and/or referrals, career development and educational opportunities, as well as domestic partner benefits (an extensive overview of work-life definitions and practices is provided in Appendix A).

Return to Table of Contents

WHY A WORK-LIFE STUDY?

The impetus for conducting a survey of work-life policies and practices in the City and County of San Francisco arose from the directives of the locally enacted ordinance (No. 128-98) modeled on CEDAW.² In implementing CEDAW, San Francisco City departments are required perform a gender analysis to:

• Examine the cultural, economic, social, civil, legal and political relations between women and men.
• Recognize that women and men have different social roles, responsibilities, opportunities, and needs.
• Recognize that these differences affect how decisions and policies are made.
• Correct any deficiencies found.

In addition, CEDAW requires that: "The City shall encourage and, where possible, fund the provisions of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child care facilities, paid family leave, and family-friendly policies."³

As part of gender analysis process, focus groups were conducted with employees in a gender analysis including the following six departments: Adult Probation, Arts Commission, Environment, Juvenile Probation, Public Works, and the Rent Board. A recurrent theme in these focus groups was the need to consistently balance work and life for both men and women. The focus groups evidenced a need for clear information on current policies and practices and a desire from both men and women for more options in this area.

In some departments flexible work-life policies were cited as a strength of the department and a reason for low turnover, and in others a lack of flexibility was seen as problem. Departments also raised the issue of work-life options as a recruitment and retention tool. A number of different departments indicated in their gender equity surveys a need to offer employees greater flexibility to stay competitive in today's job market. For instance, one department survey responded to this issue stating that their work-life policies "certainly assist in recruiting new personnel."⁴ Based on these findings, the CEDAW Task Force and the Department on the Status of Women initiated this study with assistance from the Controller. The Department of Human Resources, and the Office of the City Attorney provided feedback.

Return to Table of Contents

BACKGROUND

One of the major social transformations of the twentieth century was the advent of large numbers of women entering the workforce in the United States, particularly between World War I and World War II. In 1930, twenty percent of the workforce was comprised of women. By 1970 this figure had doubled and by 1999 this figure rose to sixty percent. The trend continues today.⁵

Historically, women have been responsible for staying at home and for caring for children and household matters, while men occupied the public sphere of work. This has created a division of labor between the genders that has frustrated those who attempt to step out of their traditional roles. In reality, these realms have never been completely separate. Low-income and immigrant women have been in the labor force for the past 150 years, encountering the triple burden of class, race, and gender discrimination, while working and caring for family and children. This social dynamic still occurs today. Many of these options discussed in this report have traditionally not been available to women who occupy lower-paying jobs in the service sector. However, this is often where the greatest need for flexibility exists.

While working women are here to stay, the workplace has yet to adequately adapt to their presence. Men and women alike are often faced with the competing demands of work and life outside of work. Examples of issues that make demands on individuals include:

• The increasing need for elder care.
• Demands on employees to continually develop professionally and to adapt to rapid changes in technology as well as adapt to ever-changing job expectations.
• Desire to participate in community-related activities.
• Longer and more congested commutes.
• Adequate and affordable child care.
• Desires of parents to participate in their children's development, education, and extra-curricular activities.
• A variety of health-related needs.

As we enter the twenty-first century, the following questions arise:

• What is required of the workplace, for men and women alike, to balance the needs of work and life outside of work?
• How can the personal, family, and/or community needs of employees be met while maintaining the same, if not higher, level of productivity in the workplace?
• How can the future encompass options that benefit everyone, acknowledging that not everyone's needs are the same and not every option is open to all?

Return to Table of Contents

FOUR KEY POINTS

Beyond "Family Friendly"

In engaging in a discussion and definition of work-life practices, several underlying themes emerge which merit clarification. First, work-life policies and practices have often been called "work-and-family" or "family-friendly" benefits, implying that these practices are limited to and benefit only people with families, ignoring the needs of single adults. For the purposes of this study, work-life denotes an array of practices offered to employees to deal with the stresses they confront in their lives and the impacts those stresses have on their job performance.⁶ While not all employees are parents, many employees have concerns relating to aging parents and siblings, possess a desire to actively participate in issues of concern in their communities, and/or have a desire to further develop their personal and professional interests. Balancing work and life is an issue relevant to all workers.

Telecommuting: Alternative Work Practices

Second, while a significant portion of the work-life survey assesses a range of alternative work practices, the section focusing on telecommuting raised the most concerns, among some departments. Telecommuting raises management issues in regards to how to monitor performance standards of telecommuters, liability issues for when employees work from their homes, and fairness and equity issues regarding to whom the practice is available. This report, however, attempts to look beyond any one practice and explores cultures of flexibility among departments. Without a culture of flexibility, which includes a variety of supportive and flexible practices offered in a fair and equitable fashion, the intent of offering such practices is meaningless.

Gender and Work-Life

The third key point of clarification arises when the gender variable is inserted into the work-life equation. While a majority of women work outside the home, child rearing and housework is still the primary responsibility of women.⁷ One of CEDAW's principles⁸ recognizes the role of culture and tradition and calls for the elimination of sex role stereotyping, but that has yet to be accomplished. In many cases, child rearing, housework, and being the breadwinner is solely the responsibility of one gender. Work-life policies and practices help women and men to challenge assumptions of a gender-based division of labor.

Organizational Culture and Work-Life

Finally, research indicates that the development and promotion of these practices cannot occur in a vacuum. Studies indicated that the most important factor for success is the organization's culture as it influences the triumph or failure of work-life practices.⁹ Furthermore, these studies call for a systematic, rather than individual-based, approach in order to effectively implement work-life programs.¹⁰ A cultural shift is needed to redefine the meaning of success for men and women. In order for this to occur, employers must expand their notion of a good work performance beyond the workplaceto one in which success is considered a "whole-life" approach that includes the realms of work life, home life, and community life.¹¹

Return to Table of Contents

SURVEY METHODS

The City and County of San Francisco Work-Life Policies and Practices Survey was developed by the Department on the Status of Women with the assistance and input of the Controller's Office, the Office of the City Attorney, and the Department of Human Resources. The Department on the Status of Women mailed out sixty-two surveys to all known City and County departments. Of the surveys mailed out, forty-one were returned for a sixty-six percent response rate. ¹² Each survey was composed of two sections: Part One solicited quantitative and qualitative information regarding each department's work-life policies and practices, and Part Two inquired about demographic information based on gender and numbers of people utilizing the practice from each department. Of the total, thirty-one departments completed both sections of the survey, two departments completed Part One only, and eight departments returned only the demographics portion of the survey. This made a total of forty-one returned surveys, however, two departments¹³ with only demographics were included under Administrative Services for data analysis making the total thirty-nine for data analysis. Most of the data presented in this report is based on n=33 for those departments who completed Part One of the survey, or n=39 for those departments who completed Part Two. The data analysis throughout this report is based solely on the input and data provided by the City and County of San Francisco departments who responded to this survey and therefore does not provide a full account of work-life practices in all departments. (For a list of participating departments see Appendix B). The surveys were completed by department heads, human resource managers, or their designees.

Survey Composition and Data Analysis

The survey was composed of several components of work-life practices, with an emphasis on alternative work schedule practices. Survey topics solicited information on flexible and compressed work schedules, job-sharing, part-time schedules, telecommuting practices, leave policies and options, and other work-life policies and practices such as child and elder care referrals and stress reduction programs. Additionally, the survey gathered data on the parameters of these work-life policies and practices, including eligibility requirements, methods by which information on these practices is disseminated and promoted, how long these policies have been in existence, and reasons departments do not offer certain work-life options. Finally, other questions were designed to obtain information on the performance of those utilizing these practices, as well as noticeable benefits and concerns with implementing these practices for employers. Though the work-life survey data is primarily quantitative in nature, qualitative input was also requested to provide information on best practices or recommendations.

Data Collection

Based on our work with the CEDAW gender analysis, we understood that when doing any type of analysis it is critical to collect disaggregated data. Disaggregated data is data collected and analyzed, whenever possible, by related categories (e.g. by sex, race, parental status, religion, immigration status, language, sexual orientation, disability and other attributes) in order to understand and meet the specific needs of all women and men for any given situation. This data is essential to delivering effective and equitable services, creating fair employment practices, and ensuring equitable budget allocations. In preparing the survey, we came to understand that data collection in this area is extremely difficult. We found it a challenge to collect complete information on the extent of employee use of a given practice and even more challenging to obtain related disaggregated data based on gender and work-life practices. City and County departments are not required to maintain any records on work-life practices, and most do not. While the study was successful in determining which departments offered particular practices, including both their benefits and concerns, the data collected on the number and gender of employees utilizing these practices was not statistically reliable. However, we do offer data on employee work-life practice utilization rates, which should only be considered an estimate of actual utilization rates.

Return to Table of Contents

WHAT WE FOUND

Work Schedule Flexibility

Work schedule flexibility refers to a range of policies that include flextime, a compressed workweek, part-time employment or reduced schedules, job sharing, and telecommuting. Examples of all of these were found in various City and County of San Francisco departments, and some were more commonly practiced than others. Examples of common work schedule flexibility practices included flextime, compressed schedules, and part-time schedules. Less commonly occurring practices included job-sharing, and, to some extent, telecommuting. The common link found among all of these practices is that they offer a degree of autonomy and flexibility from a more traditional "8 to 5" type of work schedule.

Figure 1 demonstrates the type and extent of alternative work schedules offered by departments participating in the work-life survey. Each of the categories are discussed in detail below.

Figure 1: Type of Work-Life Options Departments Offer

n=39

Alternative Work Schedules: Flexible and Compressed

Flextime

Flextime refers to the schedule in which an employee works an eight-hour shift, but on a schedule of his/her choosing, within limits. Common department limits usually include core hours, defined as hours at which all employees must be on the job to ensure adequate office coverage (e.g. 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.) and may also include bandwidth hours, defined as the span of time in which an employee is allowed to work beginning with the earliest starting time s/he may start work and the latest s/he may stop work (e.g. 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.). This type of schedule provides the employee with the opportunity to take time off during the day or work earlier or later hours to accommodate other personal needs. Generally, the hours agreed upon are submitted in writing and approved by the appropriate supervisor.

Compressed Workweek

Like flextime, the compressed workweek is based on the forty-hour week or eighty-hour pay period with the ability to work more hours in a day, resulting in one or more days off a pay period when the full-time work schedule has been completed. A common example of a City and County of San Francisco compressed schedule is to work four ten-hour days a week, commonly called "4/10." Another common schedule, "9/80," entails working nine hours a day for eight days a pay period, and eight hours for another day, resulting in a day off every other week. Besides part-time schedules, flexible and compressed work schedules are the most prevalent types of flexible work scheduling options offered by San Francisco departments. Of those departments completing the survey, fifty-nine percent reported offering both flexible and compressed schedules. Utilization rates, however, are relatively low compared with the rates of flexible and compressed options offered.¹⁴

Departments reported that fourteen percent of employees utilized a flexible schedule and only five percent utilized a compressed schedule option (Figure 2). The possible reasons for the low employees flexible work option utilization rates will be discussed in detail below.

Figure 2: Flexible and Compressed Schedules: Availability and Utilization

n=33

 

	Percentage of departments offering option	Percentage of employees utilizing option (estimated)
Flexible schedules	59%	14%
Compressed schedules	59%	5%

Benefits and Concerns

Departments reported that the benefits of flexible and compressed schedules far outweighed the concerns. Departments noted they experienced improved morale and commitment (ninety-two percent), were able to provide a high degree of support for work and family related issues to employees (ninety-two percent), improved customer service (sixty-five percent), reduced unscheduled absences (sixty-five percent), and reduced the turnover of employees (fifty-nine percent) (Figure 3).¹⁵

Figure 3: Benefits of Compressed and Flexible Schedules

n=33

Departments' concerns focused primarily on the ability to schedule meetings with staff (fifty-two percent). Only six percent expressed concern over employee abuse of the benefit, and no departments reported moderate or great concerns regarding a decrease in employee performance (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Concerns about Compressed and Flexible Schedules

n=33

Although a majority of respondents stated they had no basis to judge, forty-four percent of departments completing the survey agreed that the performance of employees utilizing flexible or compressed scheduling practices was the same or better than those of employees who did not (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Performance Under Flexible and Compressed Schedules

n=33

Current City and County Practices

Several departments indicated that the goals for implementing alternative work schedule practices are, in part,¹⁶ to enhance the quality of life¹⁷ of department employees. Most departments that had alternative work policies viewed them as a benefit and a privilege,¹⁸ not a right.¹⁹ Some reasons for implementing alternative work schedules included:

Several departments enforced limitations on engaging in flexible and/or compressed policies to avoid interference with the departmental mission or mandates. Typical parameters included limiting practices to "core" work hours or days such as Tuesday through Thursday,²⁴ requiring a written request form for department scheduling, annual reviews and performance evaluations, limiting the term of alternative work scheduling, and requiring a "Buddy System"²⁵ which pairs the employee up with another utilizing the same practice on different days to cover for emergencies. Other parameters include eligibility requirements such as possessing good performance reviews in the past, a good knowledge of the job, good attendance records, self-motivation, and permanent status (Figure 6). Several policies were drafted with relevant unions in compliance with Memorandums of Understanding. For example, some which contain longer shifts (twelve hour overlapping shifts with an extra one hour lunch break) ensured compliance with Federal Fair Labor Standards regarding overtime.²⁶ Another policy outlined the necessary characteristics for supervisors who are eligible to grant these options. A supervisor should possess an open and positive attitude towards scheduling, mutual respect and trust for employees, good planning skills, the ability to outline and express clear objectives to their employees, establish performance measures, and "An innovative and flexible approach to supervising subordinates."²⁷ Figure 6 displays the methods by which employees are eligible for utilizing flexible and compressed schedule options. ²⁸ Several of the responses from the "other" category included suitability of job duty to flexible or compressed schedules and membership in and/or agreements made with unions.

Figure 6: Flexible and Compressed Work Schedule Eligibility Requirements

n=33

 

Case-by-case basis	55%
Good performance	32%
Job classification	32%
Permanent status	23%
Other	45%

 

One bureau²⁹ surveyed its staff in 1999 regarding its alternative work schedule pilot program. A majority of respondents felt customer service was improved (thirty-five percent) or not affected (thirty-two percent). Similarly they felt that management was improved or not affected (seventy-nine percent) and that the division experienced a reduction in costs as well as usage of sick leave (dropped by thirty-five percent).

Part-Time or Reduced Work Schedules and Job-Sharing

Part-time and reduced work schedules, as part of work-life benefits, offer voluntarily reduced work hours for various reasons, sometimes accompanied by full or pro-rated benefits. Part-time scheduling practices are available in approximately sixty-two percent of the departments who responded to the survey.³⁰ Another method allows an employee to work part-time and gradually return to full-time work upon returning from disability or family care leave.

Job-sharing is an adaptation of part-time work when two employees share the duties and responsibilities of a single, full-time position on a voluntary basis. Two members make up a team which offer different strengths, share one position, and fill in each other's absence. A benefit to this system is that during unexpected rises in workload, two employees can complete required work without entailing overtime pay.³¹ Job-sharing, one of the least utilized alternative work schedule practices available in the City and County of San Francisco, is offered in only twelve percent of departments. Managers cited concerns over increased costs for job sharing and the lack of information and infrastructure to implement this practice as an explanation for why use is low. Figure 7 displays the percentage of departments completing the survey offering part-time and job-sharing options, as well as estimated employee utilization rates.

Figure 7: Part-Time Schedules and Job-Sharing: Availability and Utilization

n=39

 

	Percentage of departments offering option	Percentage of employees utilizing option (estimated)
Part-time schedules	62%	6%
Job-sharing schedules	12%	>1%

Benefits and Concerns

Most departments noted more benefits than concerns in implementing part-time or reduced work schedules for employees. Figure 8 indicates primary benefits reported by departments including an improvement in employee morale and commitment (sixty-three percent), a reduction in turnover (forty-five percent), and a reduction in over-time compensation (forty-three percent).

Figure 8: Benefits of Part-Time Scheduling

n=33

Thirty-five percent of concerns over part-time scheduling lay in the difficulty in scheduling meetings (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Concerns about Part-Time Scheduling

n=33

Current City and County Practices

To grant requests for a part-time work schedule, most departments require a work schedule of a minimum of twenty hours per week. Appropriateness for the job function, attendance records, the nature of the request, and office coverage needs are also important considerations. One department representative stated that part-time schedules are used to "assist ill and disabled employees to keep working (so we can retain their skills and so they can `ease' back into work)."³²

Although job-sharing practices did not occur at statistically significant rates, all of the departments utilizing job sharing indicated that it improves the morale and commitment of participating employees. Few departments delineate job-sharing practices in their policies and procedures. Requests for job sharing are generally granted based on a host of factors such as possession of permanent status and of the same job classification of both employees, good performance and/or attendance of both employees, and a written job-share agreement requiring supervisory approval that is generally created between both employees.³³ One department stated, "We currently have one split special assistant job to accommodate a

nursing mom. It is temporary for six months, but if it works, we may do more."³⁴

Telecommuting

Telecommuting, by far, generated the largest amount of qualitative comments and feedback, which included benefits, concerns, and recommendations for implementing this practice Citywide.

Telecommuting provides employees the option of working "off-site, either at home or at a satellite office, during some or all of their regularly scheduled work hours,"³⁵ rather than commuting to the place of employment. Work is conducted through the exchange of information or communication by telephone, computer, modem, fax, etc., allowing the employee to complete work off-site. Private sector employers sometimes provide phone or computer equipment and online capabilities. Telecommuting is used by some employees to cut down on the time and expense of long commutes, to conserve energy and the environment, to reduce competition for office space, and to boost employee morale and productivity.³⁶ The private sector in addition to public and governmental organizations have utilized telecommuting in a variety of settings.³⁷

Among the City and County of San Francisco departments that responded to the survey, fifteen percent reported formal telecommuting practices with more than twice as many thirty-three percent reporting informal telecommuting practices (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Telecommuting: Availability and Utilization

n=33

 

	Percentage of departments offering option	Percentage of employees utilizing option (estimated)
Formal telecommuting	15%	1%
Informal telecommuting	33%	1%

Benefits and Concerns

Of those departments implementing formal and informal telecommuting practices, sixty-seven percent reported an improved performance of employees who telecommute, and fifty-five percent stated that telecommuting improved employee morale and commitment as well as reduced turnover. Sixty percent also reported that telecommuting practices helped the environment. (Figure 11) None of the departments offering telecommuting reported major concerns with office coverage, scheduling difficulties, or abuse of the benefit.

Figure 11: Benefits of Telecommuting

n=33

When asked how the performance of telecommuters compares to that of non-telecommuters, forty percent said that the performance was the same and thirteen percent said it was better. No one surveyed reported the performance of telecommuters to be worse than that of their office-based counterparts. However, nearly half of the respondents stated that they had no basis to judge the performance of telecommuters versus non-telecommuters (Figure 12).³⁸

Figure 12: Performance of Telecommuters

Compared to performance of non-Telecommuters

Two departments reported implementing telecommuting as a means to maintain the productivity level of and retain valuable employees. For example, the Rent Board allows administrative law judges to telecommute when they do not have appointments or hearings. In the words of the Rent Board survey respondent, "The office is hectic and distracting. An employee with a large project may be allowed to work at home for a limited period of time in order to be able to concentrate and complete the assignment." In order to retain talented employees, the Office of Citizen Complaints allows employees with newborns to telecommute from home. City departments also cited a need to conserve space³⁹ and to ensure a more "productive use of resources."⁴⁰

Departments expressed concerns over the complexity of administering and implementing a fair and equitable telecommuting program due in part to the out-of-office nature of the work. Fifty percent of departments surveyed noted as a concern that there is no Citywide policy on telecommuting. Several departments indicated that counsel had advised them regarding the potential legal issues arising out of such a program, which discouraged the implementation of these programs.

Other concerns included:

• Monitoring productivity that would require increased supervisory responsibility.
• The lack of endorsement by the City due to safety, security, and liability issues.
• Employee accountability.
• A lack of fit with the mission and mandates of the agency.

Several departments indicated that not all jobs lend themselves to a telecommuting arrangement, particularly those whose job mandates their availability to the public (e.g. the police force, hospital workers, public transportation drivers, and mechanics).

Current City and County Practices

Small and large departments alike have confronted many of the above-mentioned concerns and have developed parameters and policies to deal with them. They are summarized below.

Supervisory and Management Issues

· Establishing eligibility requirements. Some departments have limited telecommuting to employees with certain job classifications or functions,⁴¹ and those with good performance reviews and attendance records, or other criteria (Figure 13).⁴²

Figure 13: Telecommuting Eligibility Requirements⁴³

 

Case-by-case	77%
Good performance reviews	38%
No specific eligibility requirements	31%
Permanent status	15%
Job classification	15%
Meet home office standard	8%

· Approval on a case-by-case basis. Employers may grant telecommuting based on project or operational needs. Only one of the departments surveyed reported that telecommuting occurs on a full-time basis, however, most telecommuting tended to occur on an as-needed basis.⁴⁴

· Tracking of employee performance and attendance. Several departments require a written request and approval by the authorizing supervisor.⁴⁵

· Tracking of a telecommuter's schedule.⁴⁶

· Requiring the employee to be readily available in his/her home or office during normal business hours. Requiring good communication standards. For example, the telecommuter must "maintain good communication with all other staff members during the work-at-home/telecommute, and specifically, to assure that the employee's manager/supervisor and other personnel who need to know where the person is or who may reasonably be expected to need access to the person during the workday (or otherwise) are afforded that access."⁴⁷

· Setting and tracking performance measures. For example, some require that the telecommuting "assignment be accompanied by a detailed work plan specifying the project goals, objectives, and timetable for completion." Additionally, the "assignments must be quantifiable and lend themselves to specific measurable milestones."⁴⁸

Safety, Security and Liability Issues

Costs and Technological Considerations

Return to Table of Contents

LEAVES OF ABSENCE

Leaves of absence are benefits provided to employees of the City and County of San Francisco. Leave, or time-off programs, is defined as "leave from work, paid or unpaid, without termination of employment rights."⁵⁵ Among the traditional forms of leave are vacation, sick leave, personal leave, maternity/paternity leave, family care leave and bereavement leave. In some cases, leave benefits offered to City employees are more extensive than those offered in the private sector. Following are some definitions of leaves of absence offered by the City and County of San Francisco.

Within the City and County of San Francisco, eight percent took Family Medical Leave in the last year.⁵⁶ According to a major national survey, the overall national rate is sixteen-and-a-half percent and FMLA has had no noticeable effect on overall productivity, profitability, or growth for most employers. ⁵⁷ Most employees felt leave taken by coworkers had neither a positive or negative impact on them.⁵⁸

Definitions

The City and County of San Francisco Civil Service Commission (CSC Rule 120) covers most leaves of absence offered in the City.⁵⁹ Some of the Civil Service Commission rules may be superceded by a collective bargaining agreement for those employees subject to Charter Section 8.409. Other definitions in this section include state and federal leave entitlements.

Sick Leave

Sick leave pertains to leave due to illness or injury other than that arising out of illness or injury incurred in the course of City and County employment, or may also be used to cover absences due to illness, injury, or appointments of a child, parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner.

Disability Leave

Also known as Worker's Compensation. Leave due to illness or injury incurred in the course of City and County employment. The Workers' Compensation Division of the Department of Human Resources administers this type of leave.

Vacation/Annual Leave

Leave accruing upon the beginning of employment and can be taken after one year of continuous service based on hours worked. Part-time employees earn vacation on a pro-rated basis.

Personal Leave

Leave for reasons other than those covered in other sections of San Francisco Civil Service Commission Rule 120, usually in the form of unpaid leave. For permanent employees, personal leave may be approved for a period of up to twelve months within any two-year period.

Educational Leave

This type of leave is used for the purpose of educational or vocational training related the employee's current position. This type of leave is available for permanent employees for up to one year. Requests for educational leave of longer than one year must be renewed each year.

Family Care Leave

Family care leave is unpaid leave designed to accommodate eligible employees just before and after the birth of a child, adoption, parenting or child rearing responsibilities, or in the event of a serious illness, health condition, or mental or physical impairment of a family member, spouse or domestic partner, parent, or child of an employee.⁶⁰ Family Care Leave may be granted for up to one year, upon approval of the request. It is unpaid leave that may be granted in addition to compensatory time off, vacation time, floating holiday time, or sick leave.

State and Federal Leave Options

California Family Rights Act (CFRA)

CFRA entitles eligible California employees to leave in the event of a birth of a child for purposes of bonding, for placement of a child in the employee's family for adoption or foster care, for the serious health condition of the employee's child, parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner, and for the employee's own serious health condition.⁶¹

CFRA excludes from the definition of "serious health condition" disability "on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." Leave for pregnancy disabilities is a separate leave entitlement under Pregnancy Disability Leave below.

Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL)

PDL entitles employees in California to up to four months of disability leave for a woman who is disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.⁶²

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The federal FMLA is substantially similar to CRFA. Eligible employees needing to take leave for family or medical reasons are entitled to twelve workweeks on leave in a twelve-month period. ⁶³

Benefits and Concerns

Departments noted both benefits and concerns that were high. Eighty-six percent of departments reported that federal and state leave programs provide employees support for work and family issues to a moderate or very large extent. Fifty-nine percent reported that they improve employee morale and commitment to their work. Twenty-four percent of those departments reported a moderate to very great reduction in turnover among employees. The departments offering longer parental leaves where parents were gradually allowed to return to work reported higher retention rates (Figure 14).⁶⁴

Figure 14: Benefits of Leave

n=33

The most prominent concerns included office coverage and increased costs. Of the thirty-three departments completing the Part One of the survey, seventy-eight percent reported that leave programs led to inadequate office coverage, though a majority of these felt that this was only a moderate concern. Fifty-four percent of those departments completing the survey reported a moderate to significant increase in personnel costs (Figure 15).⁶⁵

Figure 15: Concerns about Leave

n=33

Return to Table of Contents

OTHER WORK-LIFE RESOURCES

Departments often offer a range of other resources that address a variety of work-life needs of employees including personal and emotional issues, educational issues, family or community issues, and workplace issues. These resources may also include elder care referrals, Employee Assistance Programs (EAP)⁶⁶ offering a variety of personal and work-related support options, tuition assistance, and on-site child care. Figure 16 demonstrates the type and extent of other work-life resources offered to City and County of San Francisco employees. These resources are by no means exhaustive, and the types of resources offered vary from department to department.

Tuition reimbursement and EAP services are offered to all departments, however, only ninety-one percent of departments surveyed reported offering tuition reimbursement benefits for employees⁶⁷ and only eighty-five percent of departments noted access to EAP. Seventy-nine percent of departments noted that they offer continuing education.⁶⁸ Other resources offered less frequently included stress reduction thirty-six percent and community involvement opportunities (thirty-three percent). In 1997, the Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports worked out an arrangement whereby City and County of San Francisco employees could join a local fitness center at a reduced rate. While this program is still in existence, very few departments appeared to be aware of it. ⁶⁹

Another unique program offered by the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff Department is called "Peer Support." It sets up a process where a person can discuss a personal issue with a non-professional, usually a friend or a co-worker, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year.

Information and referrals services are available at rates below ten percent for child care and elder care. Also offered occasionally are lactation facilities and other types of referrals. For a detailed list of types employee support resources and other work-life practices (Appendix A).

Figure 16: Other Work-Life Resources

n=33

Certain programs such as the EAP, regularly cited by departments as being available, indicated the significance of institutionalization of these programs into the culture of the City and County practices. The Employee Assistance Program which is administered by the Department of Public Health offers many work-life resources. Personal support options for all employees include individual and group sessions involving such areas as active parenting, anger management, divorce and separation, and business writing classes. Other services include individual counseling on financial difficulties, health issues, drug or alcohol abuse, or other work-related health matters, personal or mental. In addition, the Employee Assistance Program also offers a variety of departmental services such as organizational trainings and interventions to help improve communication and conflict resolution skills, as well as management, coaching, and assessment.

The EAP estimates that at least 500 people sought their services during the last fiscal year (2000-2001). They have also conducted up to 1,000 work-related consultations, trainings, and presentations for various departments.

Return to Table of Contents

THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

HOW WORK-LIFE OPTIONS ARE PROMOTED AND UTILIZED

The issue of organizational culture and it influences on the availability and utilization rates of work-life policies and practices was explored in the survey. There are low utilization rates of work-life programs among employees in the City and County of San Francisco.⁷⁰ The survey strived to focus on this issue by asking a number of questions concerning why work-life practices are not offered as well as why employees do not utilize these practices. This topic was analyzed from a management perspective, as employees have not yet been surveyed in this first review and study. Additionally, information was gathered as to how outreach and promotion of practices are conducted (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Work-Life Practices: Availability and Utilization

n=39

Low Usage Rates of Work-Life Options

Three points emerged regarding the under-utilization of these programs:

· Some departments do not offer work-life options to their employees making utilization impossible (Figure 18).

· Some departments offer such programs, but employees do not partake in them due to a lack of awareness as departments often have no formal means to publicize policies (Figure 19).

· The organizational culture of the department and/or the City as a whole does not support the use of work-life practices by departments and/or employees. The (Figure 20) chart demonstrates the percentage of departments offering work-life practices versus estimated utilization rates by employees.

Figure 18 provides an array of reasons given by departments as to why practices are not offered.

Figure 18: Why Work-Life Practices are not Offered

 

As top issues, departments responding to the survey reported office coverage problems (fifty percent), and that the implementation of the practice does not fit or work well with the department's mission (forty-two percent). A variety of other reasons were given, including "the practice is too labor-intensive to design and implement," concern over a lack of adequate staffing to accommodate the options such as job sharing or part-time work, concern about having to pay fringe benefits to two people participating in a job share for one position, the inability of a small department to accommodate a part-time employee, and a lack of guidance from the City on telecommuting procedures.

Promotion and Utilization of Work-Life Programs

Departments offering work-life programs were also surveyed with respect to their methods for informing employees. As depicted in Figure 19, fifty-four percent of departments do not have formal means for publicizing work-life options. A lack of information, needless to say, will influence usage.

Figure 19: Publicity and Work-Life Practices

The primary means of distributing information was personnel policies (thirty-one percent) and staff meetings (twenty-five percent), which were the highest. Eighteen percent of departments reported a reliance on Memorandums of Understanding issued by labor unions to inform employees about work-life practices. With the exception of personnel policies, it is unclear if such information is widely distributed in a systematic way, or how employees can access such information. Figure 20 reveals that departments do not heavily promote work-life practices through any one method.

Figure 20: How Department Leadership Promotes Work-Life Options

n=33

Figure 21 demonstrates that there are a variety of reasons as to why managers think employees do not take advantage of work-life programs. (These responses are based on management feedback, as employees will be surveyed in the future). While twenty-eight percent of employers are unsure as to why employees do not utilize work-life options, only sixteen percent say their employees cannot afford to do this. The primary "other" reason departments provided is that certain positions did not lend themselves well to these flexible practices.

Figure 21: Reasons for Low Work-Life Utilization Rates

Return to Table of Contents

Organizational Culture - Department Advice

Organizational culture influences the promotion and usage of work-life policies. The International City/County Management Association (IMCA) maintains that,

"If the organization fails to address the core requirement necessary to `effective' reconciling, or at least coexistence, of needs and expectations that are often in direct conflict, perhaps antithetical to each other, the work-life strategy will fail. In other words, a significant organizational culture shift must occur if the principles and promise of work-life concepts are to take root and become not only accepted, but expected. In this changed culture, work-life policies and programs are not simply benefits that accommodate employees, but management tools that can both improve the way the organization functions and positively impacts the lives of its employees. The view that employees' personal lives are in competition or conflict with work must be overcome."⁷¹

The need for organizational change was repeatedly expressed. Some management noted that work-life policies are not supported by the departments or the City and County of San Francisco. Departments suggested that managers need to think about and promote work-life practices. In one department where the culture is very supportive of work-life concerns, the director stated "Flexibility is key - if the employee is accountable, the public is served, and other staff are fully supported, and if discrimination is avoided, work does not have to be within rigid frames." ⁷² This department, while small, had some of the highest utilization rates of work-life options in the City.

Others suggested the need to train management on the existence and implementation of strategies for work-life policies and practices. The sentiment that work-life practices are not counter to but rather supportive of the needs of employers is echoed when one personnel director summarized that the labor market is tight. If the work culture is attractive, is a supportive place to work, and employees are given the necessary tools and training in a friendly environment, it will help attract needed employees.⁷³

Finally, many departments expressed the desire for Citywide support, leadership, and adoption of work-life policies and practices. The following is a sample of specific suggestions departments included in their survey responses to achieve this goal:

Return to Table of Contents

FUTURE DIRECTION

This study has shed light on what is happening throughout the City and County of San Francisco's departments in the area of work-life practices. Many practices exist and the benefits and concerns have been stated, and can now be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Many of the suggestions from departments look toward an institutional or Citywide response to support departments' implementation of work-life programs. We are not making specific recommendations at this time, as we need to involve the employees in a discussion, which assesses their needs. While useful practices were identified in this study, we will need to look beyond what currently exists for best practices.

In addition to publicly recognizing the differing social roles and responsibilities of women and men and their subsequent impacts on policy, the framework of CEDAW takes into account the important links between gender and other social relations such as race, immigration status, language, sexual orientation, disability, age, and other attributes. Work-life options can benefit everyone, however, human rights analysis recognizes not everyone's needs are the same and not every option needs be open to all.

While recognizing that cultural change takes time, it is hoped that the City and County of San Francisco Work-Life Policies and Practices Survey & Report will:

We look forward to continuing our work in this area, assessing employees' needs and to the day when the City and County of San Francisco defines employee success with a "whole-life" approach that includes the realms of work life, personal life, and community life.

Return to Table of Contents

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adult Probation Department, City and County of San Francisco. Gender Analysis and

Recommendations. July, 2001.

Adult Probation Department, City and County of San Francisco. Policy and Procedure

No. 100.13 on Flextime. March 29, 1988.

Adult Probation Department, City and County of San Francisco. Telecommuting

Program Agreement.

Adult Probation Department, City and County of San Francisco. Telecommuting Safety

Inspection Checklist.

Airport Commission, San Francisco International Airport, City and County of San

Francisco. Telecommuting Memorandum. April, 2000.

Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board, City and County of San Francisco. Alternative

Work Schedule Program.

City and County of San Francisco. Administrative. Code 12K, Ordinance N. 128-98-

Civil Service Commission, City and County of San Francisco. CSC Rule 120- Leaves of

Absence. Available at: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/civil_service/rules/index.htm.

Department of Administrative Services, City and County of San Francisco. Memorandum on

Department of Human Services, City and County of San Francisco. Job Share Policy.

April 2, 1990.

Department of Public Health, City and County of San Francisco. Employee Assistance

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco. Alternative Work

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco. Flextime Policies and

Procedures. DPW Policy and Procedure 3.6.

Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, City and County of San Francisco.

Final Report, Auxiliary Work Schedule. Pilot Program, April 16, 1999.

Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, City and County of San

Department of Human Services, City and County of San Francisco. Alternative Work

Schedule Program. (DHS AWS 0207).

Flemming, David, State of California Telework Program. Available at:

http://www.ecatt.com/ecatt/case/brief/california.htm.

Ford Foundation, Rethinking Life and Work: Toward a Better Future, Summer/Fall,

1997. Available at: www.fordfoundation.org.

International City/County Management Association, Work-Life Balance: Integrating

Benefits with Expectations. Vol. 31, November 1999.

Institute for Women's Policy Research. Today's Women Workers: Shut Out of

International City/County Management Association, Dakota County Minnesota. Work-Life

Policies and Individual Development Plans for Employees. December 28, 1999. Clearinghouse Report #42552. Available at: http://www.icma.org.

Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Telecommuting Initiative-

Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI), City and County of San Francisco. Alternate

Work Schedule. MUNI Construction Division.

Office of Citizen Complaints, City and County of San Francisco. Current OCC Policy as

to Working at Home/Telecommuting. September 15, 1999.

One Small Step. Balance Sheets: A Series of Information Sheets for Employers

Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco. Alternative Work Schedule

Program. March 20, 1998.

San Francisco International Airport, City and County of San Francisco. Compressed

San Francisco Public Library, City and County of San Francisco. Reduced Work

Schedule/Unpaid Leave Day Request FY 2000-2001. May 3, 2000.

State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. California Family

State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Pregnancy Disability

Leave Requirements. Available at: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/cfra/pregnancyLeave.htm.

State of California Department of Personnel Administration. Telecommuting-

State of California Department of Personnel Administration. Telework: Government

Telecommuting Task Force, City and County of San Francisco. Report of February 1,

2001.

United States Department of Agriculture. Work-Life Program. Available at:

http://www.usda.gov/da/employ/ffwg.htm.

United States Department of Labor, Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers:

United States Department of Labor. Fact Sheet No. 028: Family and Medical Leave Act

University of California San Francisco. UCSF Telecommuting Guidelines and

University of Michigan Information and Technology Division. ITD Telecommuting

Task Force Report. Available at: http://www.itd.umich.edu/telecommuting/report#.

Women of Silicon Valley, The. Unfinished Business: Women in the Silicon Valley

Economy. April 2001. Available at: http://www.womenofsv.org.

Return to Table of Contents

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF WORK-LIFE TERMS

This is a list of generic work-life terms compiled and copyrighted by One Small Step, a non-profit employer membership association that encourages the development of employee and family supportive initiatives in San Francisco Bay Area workplaces.

One Small Step

50 California Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94111-4696

(415) 772-4315

Fax (415) 391-8302,

jdavid@onesmallstep.org

www.onesmallstep.org

PLEASE NOTE: © ONE SMALL STEP. THESE TERMS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CAN FRANCISCO POLICIES AND PRACTICES.

GLOSSARY OF WORK-LIFE TERMS

INFORMATION/COUNSELING PROGRAMS

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of San Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of San Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME-OFF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of San Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALTERNATIVE OFFICING

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of San Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHILD AND ELDER CARE SERVICES

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of Can Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of San Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORK ENVIRONMENT

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of san Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER

PLEASE NOTE: © One Small Step. These terms may have different meanings within the City and County of Can Francisco policies and practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

designing, implementing, and evaluating work-life programs and practices.

Return to Table of Contents

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS

PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS

We would like to thank and acknowledge all of the following CCSF departments for taking the time to thoughtfully participate in the work-life policies and practices survey.

** These departments are included under Administrative Services for data analysis purposes.

Return to Table of Contents

APPENDIX C

List of Collected Examples of Work-Life Policies from the City and County of San Francisco

List of Collected Examples of Work-Life Policies from the City and County of San Francisco

These examples are put together in a separate document and are available upon request. There may be a fee for copying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

¹ For a variety of reasons it is unclear how many separate departments exist within the City and County of San Francisco. We mailed surveys to sixty-two different City and County of San Francisco agencies. For a detailed description of our survey methods see the section entitled "Survey Methods for Work-Life Study" in this report.

² CEDAW is an international treaty that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, and was signed by then President Jimmy Carter over twenty years ago. Currently it has been ratified by 167 countries but not the United States. San Francisco's Ordinance made it the first-and still only-city in the United States to implement the underlying principles of CEDAW on a local level. In part, CEDAW requires that city government proactively take steps to advance the human rights of women and girls by guaranteeing certain social and economic rights. City and County of San Francisco Admin. Code 12K- "Local Implementation of United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Available at http://www.amlegal.com/sanfran/viewcode.htm.

³ CEDAW Ordinance, Administrative Code, Chapter 12K, Section 12K.2 (a)(2).

⁴ Survey response from the San Francisco Department of Human Services.

⁵ Today's Women Workers: Shut Out of Yesterday's Unemployment Insurance System, Fact Sheet from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, IWPR Publication #A127, May 2001.

⁶ Work-Life Balance: Integrating Benefits with Expectations, International City/County Management Association, Vol. 31, November 1999.

⁷ Rethinking Life and Work: Toward a Better Future, Ford Foundation Report, Summer/Fall, 1997. Available at: www.fordfoundation.org

⁸ CEDAW Ordinance, Administrative Code, Chapter 12K6, Article 5.

⁹ Work-Life Balance: Integrating Benefits with Expectations, International City/County Management Association, Vol. 31, November 1999.

¹⁰ Rethinking Life and Work: Toward a Better Future, Ford Foundation Report, Summer/Fall, 1997. Available at: www.fordfoundation.org.

¹¹ Unfinished Business: The Women of Silicon Valley Economy, April 2001. Available at: www.womenofsv.org.

¹² For a variety of reasons it is unclear how many departments exist within the City and County of San Francisco. We mailed surveys to sixty-two different departments and forty-one one were returned, thus for response rate we counted all forty-one. For purposes of data analysis, however, we included the demographic information provided by the Convention Facilities Management and Real Estate Department under Administrative Services.

¹³ Convention Facilities Management and the Real Estate Department only provided demographic information that is included under Administrative Services.

¹⁴ Data gathered on employee utilization rates is not fully reliable and should be considered an estimated rate of utilization for departments reporting.

¹⁵ The percentages are based on the portion of survey respondents who noted a particular benefit (or concern) from a moderate to great extent. Response choices included "not at all," "to a small extent," "to a moderate extent," "to a great extent," "to a very great extent," and "not enough basis to judge." Survey responses of "not enough basis to judge" were excluded from the tabulation. This method of tabulation remains consistent throughout the report, except where noted.

¹⁶ Most also make reference to improved customer service.

¹⁷ Alternative Work Schedule Policies and Procedures, San Francisco Department of Public Works, August 4, 1998. Alternative 7x24 Work Schedule Pilot Program for System Watch Service, San Francisco Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, DTIS-Network Facilities Division, February 7, 2000.

¹⁸ Alternate Work Schedule (AWS) Program, San Francisco Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board,.

¹⁹ Alternative Work Schedule Policy & Program, San Francisco Department of Human Services, (DHS AWS 0207).

²⁰ 1-7 Examples from Alternative Work Schedule Program Goals and Basic Principles, San Francisco Department of Public Works, August 4, 1998.

²¹ Alternate Work Schedule, San Francisco MUNI Construction Division.

²² 8-10 Examples from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board (AWS) Program.

²³ Alternate Work Schedule, San Francisco MUNI Construction Division.

²⁴ Policy and Procedure 3.6, and Airport Commission Compressed Work Week Program, San Francisco Department of Public Works, January 1999, Statement of Policy and/or Procedure, No. 100.13, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, March 29, 1988. Alternative Work Schedule Policy and Program, San Francisco Department of Human Services, (DHS AWS 0207). Alternate Work Schedule (AWS) Program, San Francisco Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board,.

²⁵ Alternative Work Schedule Program, San Francisco Planning Department, March 20, 1998.

²⁶ Alternative 7x24 Work Schedule Pilot Program for System Watch Service, DTIS-Network Facilities Division, San Francisco Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, February 7, 2000.

²⁷ Compressed Workweek Program Policy, San Francisco International Airport, January, 1999.

²⁸ These categories are not exhaustive - survey respondents may have marked more than one response, thus the percentages will not total 100%.

²⁹ Final Report, Auxiliary Work Schedule, Pilot Program, San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, April 16, 1999.

³⁰ It is assumed that some survey respondents provided information on non-voluntary part-time job schedules, which we included within part-time job-related practices.

³¹ Work-Life Program,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Available at: http://www.usda.gov/da/employ/ffwg.htm

³² Survey response from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.

³³ Job Share Policy, San Francisco Department of Human Services, April 2, 1990.

³⁴ Survey response from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.

³⁵ Definition of telecommuting in Balance Sheets: A Series of Information Sheets for Employers Interested in Helping Employees Balance Their Work, Family and Personal Responsibilities, One Small Step, 1996. Available at: (415) 772-4315.

³⁶ Telecommuting -Information, Guidelines and Model Policy, State of California Department of Personnel Administration, June, 1992. Available at http://www.dpa.ca.gov/telework/guidelines/httoc.shtm

³⁷ Examples of private corporations having implemented telecommuting policies include: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, AT&T, Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco, as well as many Silicon Valley Companies including Hewlett Packard, Pacific Bell and Silicon Graphics, Inc. Also, see California Department of Personnel Administration website for California's Telework program and for links to other state programs including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington. Available at: http://www.dpa.ca.gov/telework/teleworkmain.htm.Also see UCSF Telecommuting Guidelines and Procedures. Available at http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/policies/telecomu.html. One State of California case study on telecommuting estimated of state workers that 3,200 officially and at least 9,000 unofficially telecommute from more that 150 departments of state government. Source: State of California Telework Program, David Flemming,. Available at: http://www.ecatt.com/ecatt/case/brief/california.htm.

³⁸ The survey question on compared performance asked, "In general, how does the productivity of telecommuters compare to the productivity in the office environment?"

³⁹ The San Francisco Adult Probation Department instituted telecommuting in 1993 in order to conserve space. They estimate the total cost of saved space for eighteen telecommuters to be $176,989. This figure obtained from Department Gender Analysis and Recommendations, San Francisco Adult Probation, July 2001.

⁴⁰ Survey response from San Francisco Animal Care and Control.

⁴¹ Survey responses from the San Francisco Rent Board and Public Library.

⁴² Survey responses from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints, Adult Probation Department, Rent Board, Department of Parking and Traffic, and Airport Commission.

⁴³ These categories are not exhaustive - survey respondents may have marked more than one response, thus the percentages will not total 100%.

⁴⁴ Survey responses from the San Francisco Department of Administrative Services and Controller's Office. The Adult Probation Department allows certain positions to telecommute full-time.

⁴⁵ Telecommuting Program Agreement and Current Office of Citizen Complaints Policy as to Working at Home/Telecommuting, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, September 15, 1999.

⁴⁶ This practice was marked as a survey option by several departments.

⁴⁷ Policy Regarding Working at Home/Telecommuting, San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints, September 15, 1999.

⁴⁸ Telecommuting Memorandum, Airport Commission, San Francisco International Airport, April 2000.

⁴⁹ Policy Regarding Working at Home/Telecommuting, San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints, September 15, 1999.

⁵⁰ Telecommuting Program Agreement, San Francisco Adult Probation Department.

⁵¹ Telecommuter Self-Inspection Safety Checklist, San Francisco Adult Probation Department.

⁵² Gender Analysis and Recommendations, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, July 2001.

⁵³ Statement from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.

⁵⁴ Gender Analysis and Recommendations, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, July 2001.

⁵⁵ Definition of leave in Balance Sheets: A Series of Information Sheets for Employers Interested in Helping Employees Balance their Work, Family and Personal Responsibilities, One Small Step, 1997. Topic: Time-off programs. Available at: (415) 772-4315.

⁵⁶ FMLA data from April 1, 2000 - March 31, 2001, San Francisco Department of Human Resources..

⁵⁷ Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys, 2000.U.S. Department of Labor, 2000. This survey indicates that the largest reason for taking leave was an employee's own health needs. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/asp/public/fmla/main.htm.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Civil Service Commission Rule 120 - Leaves of Absence, San Francisco Civil Service Commission. Available at: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/civil_service/rules/index.htm.

⁶⁰ Civil Service Commission Rule 120.33 for definition of "family". The City and County of San Francisco has a broader, more flexible definition of "family" than that put forth by the state or federal government.

⁶¹ For more information on the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), see the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing website on this type of leave. Available at: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/cfra.htm.

⁶² For more information on Pregnancy Disability Leave see the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing website on this type of leave. Available at: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/cfra/pregnancyLeave.htm.

⁶³ For more information on the FMLA see the U.S. Department of Labor website. Fact Sheet No. 028. Available at http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs28.htm.

⁶⁴ Balance Sheets: A Series of Information Sheets for Employers Interested in Helping Employees Balance Their Work, Family and Personal Responsibilities. One Small Step, 1997. Topic: Time-off programs. Available at: (415) 772-4315.

⁶⁵ Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys, 2000, U.S. Department of Labor. This survey reports that though many employers in this survey reported increased costs due to FMLA, of employers who do report cost savings, seventy-seven percent experienced savings due to decreased turnover. The increase in costs was not a major concern with other work-life options. It may reflect the "unplanned" nature of many leaves. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/asp/public/fmla/toc.htm.

⁶⁶ The Employee Assistance Program (EAP), is available to any employee of the City and County of San Francisco, their family members, and significant others. It helps each individual resolve the problems that impact his or her personal or working life. To speak with an EAP counselor to schedule an appointment, call (415) 554-9580 and ask to speak to the Officer of the Day.

⁶⁷ A memorandum from UC Extension Tuition Reimbursement Program for Spring - Fall 2001, San Francisco Department of Administrative Services outlines a particular program in detail, October 31, 2000.

⁶⁸ For example, the San Francisco Public Library has a variety of education opportunities for employees, which includes an Educational Opportunities Committee, support from the Friends and Foundation of the San Francisco Library, and access to the California State Library, Public Library Staff Education Program.

⁶⁹ For more information on this program contact 24-Hour Fitness, Elizabeth Monteadora (415) 207-7971.

⁷⁰ These data on employee work-life practice utilization rates are estimates based on data gathered from departments' surveys.

⁷¹ Work-Life Balance: Integrating Benefits with Expectations, International City/County Management Association, Vol. 31, November 1999.

⁷² Survey response from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.

⁷³ Statement from the San Francisco Department of Human Services.

⁷⁴ Survey response from the San Francisco Department of Telecommunications and Information , statement of the Employee Assistance Program. For a model see Stanford University's Work Life Office. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/~superstu/home.html.

⁷⁵ Survey response from San Francisco Animal Care and Control.

⁷⁶ Survey response from San Francisco Building Management.

⁷⁷ Survey response from San Francisco Arts Commission.

⁷⁸ Survey response from the San Francisco Department of Administrative Services and Arts Commission.

⁷⁹ Survey response from the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.

⁸⁰ Survey responses from San Francisco Department of Consumer Assurance, Department of Building Inspections, and Public Library.