The Association of Needs Assessment Strategies with the Provision of Family-Friendly Benefits

Abstract

Family-friendly benefits are an essential and costly component of the compensation and human resource management system. The research literature clearly indicates that municipal governments offer family-friendly benefits at very low levels. One plausible hypothesis for their lower provision rate is the absence of a systematic needs assessment. In this sample of 358municipal governments, benefits needs assessment was associated with a higher perceived importance of family-friendly benefits in stimulating favorable personnel outcomes. However, the presence of needs assessment was not directly associated with the actual number of family-friendly benefits provided. The note concludes with factors that may attenuate the demand and need for family-friendly benefits.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen, T. D., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Parental leave of absence: Some not so family friendly implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 166-191.

Barham, L. J., Gottlieb, B. H., & Kelloway, K. E. (1998). Variables affecting managers' willingness to grant alternative work arrangement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 291-302.

Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Employees value work/life benefits. (1998). Employee Benefit Plan Review, 53, 42-43.

Fletcher, L. (2000). Wanted: Part-time benefits. Business Insurance, 34(16), 3-4.

Fredericksen, P. J., & Soden, D. L. (1998). Employee attitudes toward benefit packaging. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 23-41.

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resources policies: The impact of family friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.

Hochschild, A. R. (1997). When work becomes home and home becomes work. California Management Review, 39, 79-97.

Ingraham, P. W., Selden, S. C., & and Moynihan, D. P. (2000). People and performance: Challenges for the future. Public Administration Review, 60(1), 54-60.

10.

Kim, M. (2000). Women paid low wages: Who they are and where they work. Monthly Labor Review, 123(9), 26-30.

11.

Newman, M., & Matthews, K. (1999). Federal family friendly workplace policies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 34-48.

12.

Reynolds, H. B. (1998). Midmanagement's influence on work/life programs. Employee Benefits Journal, 23, 44-46.

13.

Roberts, G. E. (2001a). Employee benefits cost control strategies in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 389-402.

14.

Roberts, G. E. (2001b). New Jersey local government benefits practices survey. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 21, 284-307.

15.

Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 452-466.

16.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). Employee benefits in state and local government, 1998 (Bulletin 2531, December). Washington, DC: Author.

17.

Volk, W., & Cayer, N. J. (1999). Work-life balance: Integrating benefits with expectations (IQ Report 31-11). Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

18.

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.