was the case before the program existed. By increasing male participation in parenting in this way, PFL also may help reduce gender inequality in the labor market. Use of PFL is also associated with better economic, social, and health outcomes for workers and their families. For example, our data show that PFL use doubled the median duration of breastfeeding for new mothers. In addition, wage replacement levels were higher for workers who used PFL than for those who did not, especially among workers in low-quality jobs. Workers in low-quality jobs who used PFL were more likely than those who did not to return to the same employer after a family leave. Such workers were more satisfied with the length of their leave, were better able to care for newborns, and were better able to make child care arrangements. However, despite all these positive achievements, challenges remain. The biggest single problem is the limited public awareness of the program. When PFL was introduced in California, many supporters hoped that it would reduce the inequality in access to wage replacement during family leave (which until 2004 was limited to employer-provided paid sick leave, vacation, disability, and the like). For those workers who are aware of the program and its provisions, this hope has been realized to a considerable degree. Unfortunately, however, not only is general public awareness of PFL limited, but those who stand to benefit most from it are the least likely to be aware of the program. Low-income workers, African Americans and Latinos had especially low awareness of the program. These groups typically have limited access to other sources of wage replacement during family leaves.
102
ucla L us k i n sch o o l o f publ i c affa i rs
CPO_2012_final.indb 102
12/13/11 4:13 PM