Credit: Ashley Hopkinson/EdSource
Credit: Ashley Hopkinson/EdSourceCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to give every newborn in the state the chance to be cared for by a parent or close family member for the first six months of life.
Newsom moved one step closer with the budget signed into law last week. As of July 1, 2020, paid family leave will expand from six to eight weeks. The new law requires Newsom to convene a task force to come up with a proposal to further expand paid family leave by 2021-22, so that infants can be cared for by a parent or close family member for a full six months. The proposal must also address how to expand job protections to more employees who take family leave, and how to increase the amount paid during leave to 90 percent of wages for low-income workers.
Paid family leave, paid for by all employees in the state through a payroll tax, allows workers to receive an amount equal to 60 to 70 percent of their wages when they take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or a newborn or adopted baby. The payroll tax is 1 percent on wages under $118,000.
Newsom, who took office in January, has made early childhood a major focus of his administration. In his budget he also proposed to offer subsidized preschool to all low-income 4-year-olds in the state over the next three years, build more child care centers, train more early childhood teachers and screen more infants and toddlers for developmental delays.
“Allowing parents to stay at home by providing paid family leave achieves the dual goal of allowing parents to help their children with essential early brain development and improve their family economic security,” he states in his proposal.
Research points to the health benefits of expanding paid family leave. Paid leave helps reduce maternal stress and has been found to increase breastfeeding rates and improve children’s health, according to several researchers.
The new law points out that by adding two weeks of leave, two-parent families would have an additional month to care for and bond with newborns, if parents take their leaves separately.
Extending the leave to six months, or 26 weeks, per child likely would mean expanding the program to 13 weeks per parent. In his original budget proposal, introduced in January, Newsom also included the idea of allowing single parents to designate another close family member or friend to take leave to care for their child.
Currently, low-income parents are the least likely to take advantage of paid parental leave benefits. Part of the reason for that is that low-income parents often can’t afford to lose any of their income. In addition, if they work for a small business with fewer than 20 employees, they are not protected by state or federal law from being fired while they are on paid family leave.
In California, low-income residents “are barely making their rent,” said Jenya Cassidy, director of the California Work & Family Coalition, a statewide group of organizations that helped get the first state paid family leave law passed in 2002. “Literally, parents are working three jobs just to keep a roof over their head.”
At least two bills were introduced in the Legislature to help low-income parents but have currently stalled. A bill introduced by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, SB 135, would have protected workers at companies with more than five employees from being fired during paid family leave. AB 196, introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would increase the amount paid during family leave to 100 percent of a worker’s income.
“My concern is that low-income folks have been paying this and not utilizing it,” Gonzalez said of paid family leave. Gonzalez made her comments during a joint informational hearing held by the Assembly Subcommittees on Budget and Labor and Employment in March.
Curtis Chan, the medical director of Maternal, Child & Adolescent Health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, told the Assembly committees that the health impact of extending paid parental leave is “extremely strong.”
Chan said health professionals believe parental leave should be extended to at least six months — ideally 12 months — because parental leave reduces toxic stress, improves maternal mental health, significantly improves the symptoms of post-partum depression and helps mothers breastfeed. He said parental leave can also be beneficial by helping infants’ brains grow, because the first six to nine months are critical for cognitive and social-emotional development.
“We realize that we in the health profession are not thinking about how to finance it, but that’s actually what’s most beneficial for kids,” Chan said.
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
Comments (3)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Pellamore 2 years ago2 years ago
Thanks for finally talking about California governor proposing more time for parents to bond with newborns, EdSource. Loved it!
Angela Data 4 years ago4 years ago
This is just a slap in the face to teachers! He vetoed the bill for teachers getting only six weeks of paid leave yet he has set his expectations for everyone else to get 8 weeks. I have to say this shows his true colors towards teachers.
Paul 4 years ago4 years ago
The focus should be on low-income parents. They are least likely to have access to equivalent benefits at work. For them, saving up for unpaid time off would be an economic impossibility. That said, the benefit should be limited to two claims in a person's lifetime, as an incentive to match family size to family resources. Are adoptive children included? Long-term foster children? Let's hope! The paid time off should be divided, with each parent eligible for … Read More
The focus should be on low-income parents. They are least likely to have access to equivalent benefits at work. For them, saving up for unpaid time off would be an economic impossibility.
That said, the benefit should be limited to two claims in a person’s lifetime, as an incentive to match family size to family resources. Are adoptive children included? Long-term foster children? Let’s hope!
The paid time off should be divided, with each parent eligible for half the maximum. This would encourage fathers to be equally involved in caring for children. (In same-sex couples or for people with other genders, the incentive would be for the higher-income parent, regardless of gender, to participate equally in caring for the child.)
I would say that the maximum should be 1 year (6 months for each parent) or 2 years (1 year each). Let’s be serious and provide a meaningful amount of paid time off, instead of taking baby steps! It goes without saying that 100% compensation replacement is necessary for this to be useful to low-income earners.
It’s ridiculous for this expense to come from the employEE-paid 1% California State Disability Insurance payroll tax. EmployERs who do not provide an equivalent benefit, or who don’t provide it to all classes of workers, should be charged a payroll tax. Ungenerous terms of employment are part of the problem, and employers determine those terms.
Some portion of the cost could be considered a social expense, in that generous parental leave would lead to better social outcomes and economic productivity (for the parents and for the children, when they are grown). The social portion (i.e., the portion that isn’t just making up for cheap employers) should be paid from general taxes, not from a payroll tax, whether on employees or employers.
I now work for a large tech. company. Mine and my colleagues’ salaries are high enough that we could save up to take half a year off without terrible strain, but even so, the company provides long, fully-paid leaves for new parents. The people who clean our offices and keep our buildings secure all work for contractors. They earn a fraction of what we earn, and receive minimal benefits. I want this benefit for them — not for my colleagues, who already have it and could afford it independently anyway.