UC Academic Family Friendly Policies:Sharing Best Practices

Source: UCOP, “Long Range Planning Presentation,” before the Board of Regents, September 2002Angelica Stacy, Karie Frasch, Marc Goulden

UC BerkeleyFunded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Source: NSF, Survey of Earned Doctorates, taken from Webcaspar.

PhD Recipients from U.S. Universities (U.S. Citizens Only)

18%19%22%23%24%26%28%30%31%32%34%35%35%37%37%37%38%39%39%39%40%40%40%41%39%40%40%41%41%41%41%41%41%0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3%

1% 1%2% 2% 2% 2% 3%

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7%

2% 3%3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5%

1% 1%1% 1% 1% 1%

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%78%75%72%71%68%66%64%62%61%59%58%57%56%55%54%54%52%52%51%50%49%49%48%47%47%46%45%44%43%42%42%42%41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

Women, White/Other Women, Asian Women, URMMen, URM Men, Asian Men, White/Other

The Pool Problem at UC Berkeley: Ladder Rank Faculty

30%

70%

40%60%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Women Men

Actual UCB Applicants Potential UCB Applicant Pool*

*Data prepared by Angelica Stacy, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity, UCB. Potential UCB Applicant Pool is derived from NCES data on PhD degrees granted in 2000, cut to a selected groupof top-ranked graduate institutions and cut to relevant disciplinary fields for UCB.

UC Work and Family Survey: History and Response Rates• The survey was designed to assess the effectiveness of UC’s existing

family friendly policies for ladder-rank faculty (implemented in July 1988).* It was first conducted at UC Berkeley, Fall 2002, and was rolled-out in Spring-Summer 2003 to the other UC universities (except UCM), with President Atkinson serving as the first contact email signatory.

University # of Responses # of Surveyed Response Rate

Berkeley 743 1351 55%

Davis 820 1385 59%

Irvine 445 910 49%

Los Angeles 789 1758 45%

Riverside 367 663 55%

San Diego 472 998 47%

San Francisco 188 357 53%

Santa Barbara 374 802 47%

Santa Cruz 262 481 54%

Total 4460 8705 51%*Some questions were based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (http://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm).

Everybody is Very Busy (UC Faculty, ages 30-50)

51.2 55.6 59.8 59.1

14.6 11.9 10.6 10.6

35.520.3 8.1 8.6

0102030405060708090

100110

Women withChildren

Men withChildren

Womenwithout

Children

Men withoutChildren

To

tal H

ou

rs p

er W

eek

Professional Housework Caregiving

N=338 701 248 505

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Univ. of California Faculty's Average Hours Per Week Providing Care, by Gender, Children, and Age at Survey

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Under 34 34 to 38 38 to 42 42 to 46 46 to 50 50 to 54 54 to 58 58 to 62 62 or older

Age at Survey

Wee

kly

Ho

urs

Pro

vid

ing

Car

e

Women with Children Men with Children

Women without Children Men without Children

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

UC Faculty Parents Experience Work-Family Conflict

71%

53%

39%

31%

28%

49%

16%

27%

9%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percent Who Indicated "Yes," the Satement Accurately Described Their Past or Present Situation

("Not applicable" has been excluded and "Partially Acurate" has been grouped with "No")

Women Men

"I slowed down or made sacrifices in my career in order to be a good parent"

"I came back to work sooner than I would have liked after becoming a parent to be taken seriously as an academic"

"I missed some of my children's important events so as not to appear uncommitted to job"

"I tried to time new children to come during the summer break"

"I have not brought children to work because I worry that my colleagues would be bothered"

N=1413

594

1169

507

1696

643

785

571

1741

663

*These questions were based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (http://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm).Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Career Duties That Place Stress on Parenting

48%

48%

46%

27%

22%

27%

29%

22%

12%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Women Men

Doing fieldwork or field research away from home

Writing and publishing

Attending conferences or giving conference papers

Meeting teaching obligations

Attending seminars, colloquia, or departmental and committee meetings

Career Duties

Percent of UC Faculty Experiencing a “Great Deal” of Stress in Parenting as a Result of Specific Career Duty

(“Not Applicable Excluded,” “Some,” “A little,” and “None” Are Grouped)

N=1779

647

1778

658

1777

664

1788

662

1150

457

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Biological Baby Births by Age of UC Faculty

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

<20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46+

Age of UC Faculty

Pe

rce

nt

of

Fa

cu

lty

wit

h a

Bio

log

ica

l B

ab

y

Bir

th

Men Women

N=2809 Men 1095 Women

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Having Fewer Children Than They Wanted: UC Faculty, Ages 40-60, by Gender and Number of Children

40%

24%

32%

64%

34%

20%

8%

13%

42%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All

3+ Children

2 Children

1 Child

No Children

Percent who indicated "Yes," "I had fewer children than I wanted"

Women Men

Men=424, Women=205

Men=239, Women=153

Men=514, Women=224

Men=236, Women=50

Men=1413, Women=632

*This question was based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (http://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm).Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

UC Faculty Members’ Awareness of Policies

50%

66%73%

41%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ActiveService-ModifiedDuties

Tenure ClockStoppage

6 Week PaidLeave

Unpaid Leave Knew about allfour?

Per

cen

t W

ho

Kn

ew a

bo

ut

the

Po

licy

N= 4148 4146 4135 4139 4118

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Use of Family Friendly Policies and Sabbaticals by Eligible UC Assistant Professors*

45%

52%

30%

11%

4%7%

10% 8%3% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Active Service-Modified Duties

Paid Leave Tenure ClockStoppage

Sabbatical Unpaid Leave

Pe

rce

nt

of

Elig

ible

Wh

o U

se

d t

he

Po

licy

Women, Assist. Prof. Men, Assist. Prof.

*At the time of first child’s entry into household at assistant professor rank, post policy implementation (August 1, 1988 to present). The faculty member needed to be employed at UC at time of child’s arrival into the household and the policy had to be in place.

Total N= 161 322

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Major Reasons Eligible UC Parents Did Not Use ASMD

51%

48%

10%

26%

46%

20%

27%1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent Citing Factor As a Major Reason for Not Using ASMD

Women Men

"I did not know about the policy"

"It might have hurt my chances for tenure or promotion"

"I was not the primary caregiver to the child"

"I did not need the time"

N=497

96

454

119

592

160

460

132

*These questions were based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (http://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm).Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

89%

74%

82%

69%

53%

93%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent Indicating Policy or Resource Would by Very or Somewhat Useful to Them**

Women with Children Men with Children

A flexible Part-Time Option with

pro-rated career timelines and parity

Emergency Back-up Child

Care with copay by user

Readily Available Infant

and Child Care Slots

N=1361

541

1301

522

1355

543

Usefulness of Proposed Family Friendly Policies/Resources?UC Faculty Parents* by Gender

**vs. Not Too Useful or Not Useful at All*Excluding UC Berkeley faculty who were not asked these questions.

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

92%

91%

94%

83%

84%

98%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent Indicating They Are Very or Somewhat Supportive of thePolicy or Resource**

Women Men

A flexible Part-Time Option with pro-rated career timelines and parity

Emergency Back-up Child

Care with copay by user

Readily Available Infant

and Child Care Slots

N=2202

916

2106

877

2177

906

Support for Proposed Family Friendly Policies/Resources?All UC Faculty* by Gender (with and without children)

**vs. Not Too Supportive or Not Supportive at All*Excluding UC Berkeley faculty who were not asked these questions.

Source: Mason, Mary Ann, Angelica Stacy, and Marc Goulden. 2003. “The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey.” (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu).

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Accelerator Grant: Sharing Best Family Friendly Practices (UCB)

• University of California Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, April 2008

• Shared Workspace (bspace)

• Summary Analysis of Survey Responses and Shared Materials

Five Innovative Practices: Selected from the UC Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, 2008

1. Faculty Work-Life Brochures (L.A. and Davis)

2. Informational Materials Re. Using Family Accommodation Policies (Irvine and Riverside)

3. Creating a Family Friendly Department: Chairs and Deans Toolkit (Berkeley)

4. “Flexible Workload” Program (San Diego)

5. Faculty Advisors for Work Life (Davis)

Source: Angelica Stacy, Sheldon Zedeck, Karie Frasch, Marc Goulden, University of California Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, April 2008. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Innovative Practices:1. Faculty Work Life Brochures (L.A. and Davis)

• Attractive, printed brochures that highlight the family accommodation policies.

• UCLA provides information on FMLA, CRFA and a brochure on stopping the clock.

• Davis’ brochure also has a list of work life resources on campus with web links.

Innovative Practices: 2. Informational Materials Re. Using Family

Accommodation Policies (Irvine and Riverside)

• Irvine and Riverside have one-page written summaries that provide information and links to Academic Personnel procedures

• Riverside’s page has clear steps to follow and a transparent process for requesting and approving leaves

• Irvine has links to each of the forms that are relevant to family accommodations, as well as a page of instructions.

Innovative Practices:3. Creating a Family Friendly Department:

Chairs and Deans Toolkit (Berkeley)

• Includes practical information for department chairs and deans to assist in implementing family friendly policies, sharing resources, and reinforcing cultural practices to assist all faculty.

• Includes sections: Why should departments be family friendly, tips for creating a family friendly department, summaries of family accommodation policies and laws, legal information, best practice case examples, and resources.

• Available as a booklet (order from UCB) or downloadable PDF (http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/toolkit.html)

Innovative Practices:4. “Flexible Workload” Program (San Diego)

• San Diego has a part-time program for academic appointees at the assistant professor level called “Flexible Workload.” This program allows appointees to take a reduced workload (no teaching or most service, but full scholarly responsibility) for up to two years to accommodate family responsibilities.

Innovative Practices:5. Faculty Advisors for Work Life (Davis)

• The goal of this program is to help publicize and inform the faculty about the programs, policies, and resources associated with work life.

• The group of advisors represents various academic units on the campus.

• The advisors share their experience of being a faculty member who continues to integrate work and personal life.

• There is a webpage with biographies and photos of the advisors (http://academicpersonnel.ucdavis.edu/worklife/biographies.cfm)

Seven Possible Areas to Expand: Recommendations Based on the UC Academic

Family Friendly Policy Survey, 2008

1. Informational Brochures

2. Family Accommodation Forms

3. Central Funding

4. Communication with Review Committees

5. Part-Time Use Sample MOUs

6. Training for Department Chairs

7. Data Collection, Analysis & Dissemination

Source: Angelica Stacy, Sheldon Zedeck, Karie Frasch, Marc Goulden, University of California Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, April 2008. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Possible Areas to Expand:1. Informational Brochures

• Brochures are an important way of communicating information to prospective and current faculty.

• Each campus should have clear brochures to advertise and promote the family accommodation policies and programs (including those unique to the specific campus).

Possible Areas to Expand:2. Family Accommodation Forms

• Having forms for academic appointees to complete when requesting leaves for caregiving reasons makes the use of accommodations feel more like standard practice (as compared to requiring appointees to write a memo requesting the use of the policy).

Possible Areas to Expand:3. Central Funding

• Centralized funding should exist at each campus. Forms are helpful to use for data collection purposes (e.g., see the form used by Davis)

Possible Areas to Expand:4. Communication with Review Committees

• Campuses should consider communicating with review groups about the use of family accommodation policies. Most do not give information to ad hoc or senate review committees, or to external reviewers (see Davis language for some types of reviewers)

Possible Areas to Expand:5. Part-Time Use Sample MOUs

• Three campuses (Irvine, San Diego, and Berkeley) have sample templates for the use of the part-time appointment and reduction in the percentage of time of an appointment to accommodate family needs.

Possible Areas to Expand :6. Training for Department Chairs

• While most campuses are providing training for department chairs either through orientations, workshops, or brown bag sessions, most chairs are not receiving information on legal issues.

• The Chairs and Deans Toolkit could be used or adapted for this purpose.

Possible Areas to Expand:7. Data Collection, Analysis & Dissemination

• All campuses are collecting data on use of at least some of the family accommodations (but important to track use of each policy, as well as centralized funding)

• No campus offered readily available data summaries on policy use – these could be reviewed and disseminated to various constituents.

Number of UC Campuses with Selected Family Friendly Resources/Benefits?

Which of the following resources/benefits do you currently provide to academic appointees on your campus?

Yes No Not sure

Adoption reimbursement benefits 9Child care assistance 5 3 1Elder care assistance 4 4 1

Emergency/back-up child care 1 8Travel related dep. care reimbursement 2 5 2

Relocation assistance 5 2 1Spousal/partner hiring assistance 7 3Spousal/partner hiring policies 5 4Source: Angelica Stacy, Sheldon Zedeck, Karie Frasch, Marc Goulden, University of California Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, April 2008. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Complex Issues

• There are differing views on how to interpret accommodations for a woman who has a baby just prior to beginning an appointment.

• There is inconsistency in how academic appointees at the associate level apply for and receive deferrals of personnel reviews.

• The assessment of productivity under ASMD, stop the clock, and the combination of both.

• The amount of ASMD teach relief varies campus-by campus for certain groups of individuals who use the policy.

Complex Issues: Amount of Teaching ReliefTypical amount of teaching relief for the following groups (3 campuses do not have a typical amount of relief):

Full relief

Partial relief

No relief

Ladder Rank Faculty (LR) – birth mothers during term of childbearing leave

7

LR faculty – birth mothers during the second term

4 3

LR faculty – other caregivers 3 3

Other faculty (primarily teaching) – birth mothers during term of childbearing

6 1

Other faculty (primarily teaching) – birth mothers during second term

1 5 1

Other faculty (primarily teaching) – other caregivers

1 5 1

Source: Angelica Stacy, Sheldon Zedeck, Karie Frasch, Marc Goulden, University of California Academic Family Friendly Policy Survey, April 2008. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Next Steps

• Additional analysis of survey data and materials

• Building-out of bspace shared work space (including the development of some summary materials)

• Communication to the campuses regarding how to use the site