1. POLICY PROCESS ON THE
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
ACT OF 1993
Case Study
Sandy Tamayo
MPA 650 Public Policy Process
Cohort 89
August 12, 2014

2. 1
Part 1 Introduction and Background
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 also known as FMLA, is familiar to any
working adult in the U.S. We know about this law through our work benefits and because
someone we know has utilized the benefit at one point in time, maybe even ourselves. Elving
(1995) describes the FMLA as “Employers would be required to grant leaves of absence for
employees who were seriously ill, who had newborn or newly adopted children, or who had to
care for sick children, spouses or parent”(p. 12). These leaves of absences will be un-paid and in
addition, the employee will still continue to receive medical benefits from their employer,
Lenhoff (2013).
The FMLA is an extension of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy and
Discrimination Act of 1978, according to Elving (1995) because they all “require equal treatment
of men and women in the workplace” (p.19). This is considered what Kingdon (2011) calls
incrementalism, where “instead of beginning consideration of each program or issue afresh,
decision makers take what they are currently doing as given, and make small, incremental,
marginal adjustments in that current behavior” (p. 79). However, this change took far too long
and caused problems to American workers, this is where non-governmental organizations also
known as interest groups stepped in to begin writing a policy that would suit the needs of all
working Americans.
According to Elving (1995), “Federal District Judge Manuel L. Real” (p. 19)
declared that the California maternity act discriminated against fathers. After this ruling,
that was when Congressmen Berman and interest groups started to gather to make a
maternity law that was gender neutral. Elving (1995) states that “Donna Lenhoff at the
Women’s Legal Defense Fund” was the right person to seek help from, not only because

3. 2
she worked for an influential organization but because she already had the background with
the “battle over pregnancy benefits that led to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978”
(p.20). Congressman Berman also sought help from other women advocates such as
“Wendy Williams, a law professor at Georgetown Law Center” (p. 20). This is where the
wheels started turning to create the policy for FMLA.
Part 2 Agenda Setting- Problem Identification and Problem Definition
Although this policy was incremental, it can be mostly considered to be a pluralistic
policy. The FMLA relied more on the support of non-governmental organizations than
governmental actors. This type of process is defined by Peters (2013) as a pluralistic approach
where, “competitors are conceived as interest groups competing for access to institutions for
decision making and for the attention of central actors in the hope of producing their desired
outcomes” (p. 69).
Kingdon (2011) describes policy communities as “composed of specialists in a given
policy area…In any of these policy areas, specialists are scattered both through and outside of
government” (p.117). According to the NPWF website (2014), the non-governmental interest
groups that were involved were; the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP), The
National Partnership for Women and Families and the U.S. Catholic Conference just to name a
few of the important supporters. Lenhoff (2013) states that, “both AARP and the U.S. Catholic
Conference were able to persuade significant members of congress to support the FMLA.”
Through their hard work, they had the upper hand in influencing this policy to Congress.
There were also the advocates themselves who worked for these interest groups
such as “Diann Rust-Tierny, then of the National Women’s Law Center, Wendy Webster
Williams, a feminist law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Donna

4. 3
Lenhoff, who at that time was the Legal Director of the then-Women’s Legal Defense
Fund” NPWF website (n.d). I believe that the advocate for these interest groups played a
far more important role in setting the agenda in comparison to the governmental actors who
influenced the policy to get onto the agenda.
Powerful interest groups like AARP played a significant role in setting the agenda.
According to AARP website (2014), “AARP is a nonpartisan organization, with a membership
of more than 37 million…it strengthens communities and fights for the issues that matter most to
families such as healthcare, employment security and retirement planning.” It is a known fact
that retired aged Americans are more likely to vote, more so than working adults in the U.S. As
a result, they have more power and influence over their representatives along with the support of
the AARP organization.
Elving (1995) provides the names of the governmental actors who were involved with
FMLA after it was introduced to them by the non-governmental actors. Congressman Howard
Berman of California, then state assemblywoman Maxine Waters, Senator Chris Bond of
Missouri, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Marge Roukema of New Jersey
were “highly committed co-sponsors” of the FMLA, according to the NPWF website (2014).
Becker (2014) states that “all stages of the policy process are political” (Module 4).
Politics had a tremendous effect on the policy process for the FMLA. According to Lenhoff
(2013), “in 1984, when the FMLA was first drafted, Ronald Reagan was just completing his first
term as president, and the Senate was under Republican control. This meant that, realistically,
there was no chance of the bill’s passage during that congress. Instead, the strategy was to raise it
as an issue and to educate members of Congress and the public about it.” The U.S. needed a

5. 4
democratic president who would be willing to back up this federal policy since it wasn’t
receiving the support from Republicans.
The policy problem was identified when the issue moved from the systemic to the
institutional agenda. Peters (2013) defines institutional agenda as “composed of the issues
on which the individuals in power within a particular institution actually are considering
taking action” (p. 69). More and more people began to realize that they were not alone in
dealing with work-family issues at home-especially members of congress who were
sympathetic and who could relate to this issue on a personal level like Representative
Roukema. Elving (1995) states that Roukema lost her “seventeen-year-old son to
leukemia” (p. 93). Lenhoff (2013) also states that Roukema “took care of her ailing
mother-in-law and thus understood how time-consuming and exhausting caregiving can
be.” First-hand supporters like Roukema were who the interest groups were looking for in
Congress to assist in putting this policy onto the agenda. More so because they could
influence their friends in Congress. Roukema was a Republican and was a key person to
retain in the policy process of the FMLA.
This problem is defined as the federal government not fully supporting workers who
have family obligations at home. In the 1980’s, more women were going into the
workforce, they were no longer at home to caring for family members. Because this issue
was now affecting all working people and not just women, this is defined as a “work-family
policy” Lenhoff (2013). According to Congressional Digest (1988), “the large and growing
number of women in the work force has led to efforts in the Congress to mandate a Federal
family and leave policy.”

6. 5
A way that this issue could have been defined differently was if it had clearly
explained how it would affect employers and their businesses. Due to the vagueness of how
the policy problem was defined, employers did not understand what the effects of having an
employee on medical leave for up to twelve weeks would affect their businesses. This
made businesses oppose FMLA. Many businesses thought their employees would be
receiving a short term disability, but this was not the case and as a result, businesses felt
they would be the ones to suffer and lose money. Elving (1995) names the opposing
business lobbyists as “the Chamber, the NFIB and the National Association of Wholesale-
Distributors” (p. 223).
Another reason why business lobbyists opposed FMLA was because they felt that
they no longer had control of their business’s rules and regulations. Lenhoff (2013) states,
“Because it was drafted as a minimum labor standard, the FMLA was perhaps most
vulnerable to attack as an intrusive government mandate into the way business is done.” It
wasn’t simply that businesses opposed FMLA, it was because they wanted to have that
choice to provide those added benefits to their employees at their own discretion. Either
providing more or less time off and even providing paid time-off.
The policy problem that the policy is ultimately seeking to resolve is to implement a
law that does not discriminate employees from taking un-paid leave to take care of
themselves or members of their family. Job security is also another factor to be considered,
when returning from leave, it would be great to still have your old position waiting for you.
Because employment affects every American in the adult working age, the
magnitude of the issue became highly important. Peters (2013) explains the “more extreme
the effects of a problem, the more likely it is to be placed on an agenda” (p. ). Job security,

7. 6
along with family and medical leave were considered “powerful symbols”, according to
Kingdon (2011). These words triggered and “captured the mood convincingly…in a
nutshell a sort of reality that people already sense” (p. 98). At that time, a person didn’t
need to know the full name of the policy, simply saying “job security” and “family and
medical leave” was enough for the public to recognize what news media and people were
talking about. Workers also wanted job security so that they didn’t have to make the choice
of continuing on with their job or quitting and staying at home to care for their family
members.
Cost-benefit analysis is explained by Becker (2014) as “the benefits have to
outweigh the costs…the project that creates the greatest net benefit to society should be
selected” (Module 4). In this case, the interest groups along with experts and academics
proved that allowing un-paid time off from work will benefit the employee and the
employer in the long run.
Elving (1995) describes Congressman George Miller’s hearing as “opening a
window on Capitol Hill to a field of promise…The idea of keeping parents with their
children had scientific underpinnings, a research base and a wealth of anecdotal supporting
evidence. Here was a chance for liberals to talk not about individual rights but about family
needs, not about abortion rights but about parenthood, not comparable worth but about
keeping one’s job. Here was a strategy for social legislation in the 1980’s” (p. 29). It is
important to retain the employee and allow them to return to work after their unpaid time
off. This will save the employee from using their paid time-off (sick and vacation hours) as
well other unexpected medical, psychological and emotional costs that will cost not only the

8. 7
employee but the employer as well. Most importantly, it’s important to keep the employee
happy.
The FMLA cost-benefit is measured as a “contingent value” according to Peters
(2014). The reason being is because not everyone will be using FMLA at the same time,
nor will they use it right away or ever use it at all. We can’t assume that every employee
will use this benefit. At the same time, we can’t assume they won’t. That is why it is hard
to measure, it’s up to the discretion of the employee. Becker (2014) provides an example of
a contingent value, he states that he may not use “Lake Nowhere tomorrow but my
(hypothetical) children might want to in thirty years” (Module 4). These two examples
describe how hard it is to measure a “contingent value.”
This policy can also be known as Utilitarianism. Peters (2013) explains it as
“producing the greatest net benefit to society…can be used to justify actions that violate
both procedural norms and the usual conceptions of fair distribution of the benefits to
society” (p. 482). What this means is that the FMLA is a policy that should provide
satisfaction for the people because it is in the public’s interest. Peters (2013) also states that
this utilitarian approach will help reduce dimensions of this policy to a fair and economic
one.
Part 3 Decision Making
The FMLA policy took many years for it to be implemented. It had its share of
rejections, most notably were the two vetoes by former President George Bush, Sr. in 1991 and
1992. As Becker (2014) stated over and over in his modules, “the policy process is political.”
Lenhoff (2013) states that “Party affiliation also made a big difference in direct support for the
FMLA” (p. 9). It was common knowledge that Democrats supported this policy and

9. 8
Republicans were against it. The political aspect was proven by the two executive vetoes by
President Bush, Sr. However, Lenhoff (2013) states that this “allowed democrats to set up a very
clear, concrete difference between the parties in Congress and the public’s mind: politicians had
to be either for or against the FMLA” (p. 10).
Along with President Clinton signing the FMLA into law, there were other
important actors that played a role in making this decision. Elving (1995) names them as
Senator Chris Bond, Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Marge Roukema. Each of
these representatives played a major role throughout the years of the policy process.
Lenhoff (2013) says that “their efforts also illustrate the various factors that affected
legislators’ different responses to the FMLA, including personal ideology, personal
experience, electoral politics, and gender” (p. 10). Although I state that interests groups
played a bigger role in this policy process, these governmental actors were the ones who
had the power to get the policy onto the agenda and hence have it signed by President
Clinton. However, I still stand by the notion that outside actors like Donna Lenhoff from
the National Partnership for Women played a slightly bigger role.
This decision making process can be described as an “Executive Order”, Becker (2014).
President Clinton was the key decision maker for this case. The FMLA was one of the first
policies he passed when he was inaugurated as President of the U.S. in 1993. This process can
also be defined as being a “democratic process” because it went through all the legislative steps
to become a law and was not bypassed or used elitist influence to get onto the agenda.
The “policy window” as described by Kingdon (2011) states that these are “opportunities
for action on given initiatives…a political change makes it the right time for policy change…”
(p. 165). FMLA’s opportunity opened in 1993 when President Clinton was inaugurated into

10. 9
office. Because he was a democratic President, he had the power to influence this policy. The
FMLA like Obama Care depended on the highest support of the executive branch of office.
The policy process of the FMLA can be considered a legitimate process. Peters (2013
describes legitimacy as a “belief on the part of citizens that the current government represents a
proper form of government and a willingness on their part to accept the government’s decrees as
legal and authoritative” (p. 96). Naturally, it is satisfyingly legitimate to those who were in favor
and supported the policy. However, for the opposing business lobbyists, all they could do was
accept President Clinton’s decision to sign the policy into federal law.
Part 4 Implementation
Peters (2013) defines implementation as “the ability of a political system to put
politics into effect” (p. 126). The process by which this policy was implemented was after
President Clinton signed the FMLA into law in 1993 and Elving (1995) states that it “took
effect on August 5, 1993 (six months after the president’s signature), and the first
commission meeting took place three months later” (p. 292). The policy was handed to the
“Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich” (p.292) who was also in charge of conducting “two
surveys of business reaction” (p. 292).
According to the Department of Labor’s website (2014), in 1995 as part of the
FMLA, the Department of Labor conducted two surveys where “The Act also set up a
bipartisan commission to review family and medical leave issues. The Commission on
Leave, among other activities, commissioned two surveys conducted in 1995: an Employee
Survey, which was conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of
Michigan; and an Establishment Survey, which was conducted by Westat. The results of
these two surveys, and the rest of the Commission on Leave’s findings, were presented in a

11. 10
major report, A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave
Policies, released in 1996.”
Like President Obama’s health care policy, the FMLA took time for the public to
catch on and know that this federal benefit was available to them. Elving (1995) states that,
“many eligible workers were simply unaware of the new benefit. But even where awareness
was relatively high, use of the new law remained low” (p. 292). Even if people were aware
of it, because this is an added benefit, not everyone will need to use FMLA at the same
time.
Part 5 Evaluation
Donna Lenhoff and Lissa Bell both conducted a case study in 2013 for the National
Partnership for Women & Families organization called, Government Support for Working
Families and for Communities: Family and Medical Leave as a Case Study (2013). They
wrote this in recognition of the twenty years of the passing of the FMLA. In this case study,
they provide an evaluation of the FMLA and explain what has been working and what needs
improvement.
The main evaluation and change they would like to make to the FMLA is providing
paid leave during the twelve week leave of absence. This isn’t implying that the current
FMLA isn’t working, they simply want to add a partial paid benefit to the employee. Lenhoff
(2013) states “Eager to expand people’s access to family and medical leave by providing at
least some income during otherwise unpaid leaves…” Of course, this would be done in
incremental stages. In 1999, the NPWF “launched a Family Leave Benefits
Campaign…promoting a range of state, local, and private models. While the campaign does

12. 11
not (at this point, at least) call for an amendment of the FMLA to require paid leave, it does
encourage facilitation of state and other innovations by the federal government…”
Since the FMLA is under the United States Department of Labor agency, they are the
ones who conduct evaluations, surveys and measures. In the U.S. Department of Labor’s
website, they provide a 2012 report on “Employee Survey” and “Worksite Survey.” The
results indicate that “employees’ use of leave, and employers’ granting and administration of
leave, have achieved a level of stability. Employees actively make use of the intended benefits
established by the Act, but appear to have limited knowledge of what the Act specifically
entails and covers. At the same time, most employers report that complying with the FMLA
imposes minimal burden on their operations, although a subset of employees reported
difficulty complying.”
The way the U.S. Department of Labor measured FMLA was by using the “chain of
outputs”, Becker (2014) states that “Good measurement becomes a critical lynchpin in both
determining whether public policies are succeeding and in avoiding pathologies of evaluation
like goal displacement” (Module 8). As stated earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor
conducted surveys on employees to make certain that they were using the FMLA benefits to
its extent. The outcome measurements in the 2012 survey showed that “most employees
receive some pay while on leave: 48% report receiving full pay and another 17% receive
partial pay, but not exclusively through regular paid vacation leave, sick leave, or other paid
time off hours.” The goals were identified by the 2012 study from the U.S. Department of
Labor.

13. 12
Conclusion
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 continues to be a great benefit to all
working-age adults in the U.S. This pluralistic policy is a result of the dedication and hard
work of interest groups and advocates like Donna Lenhoff from the National Partnership for
Women and Families. Although governmental actors like Senator Dodd, Senator Bond and
Representative Roukema played an important role in moving this policy to the agenda,
Lenhoff still played a slightly bigger role from the beginning because she had experience form
the Pregnancy Act of 1978 and helped draft the FMLA.
Elving (1995) sums up the power of interest groups, governmental actors and everyone
else by stating, “If the sponsors and support groups were the dynamic forces, their product was
shaped as well by the institutional constraints of Congress itself: the need for legislative
language, the multilevel committee process, the gatekeeping role of the leadership, the pitfalls
of floor consideration, the necessity of doing it all in one chamber and then doing it all again
in the other-and, finally, the imperative of obtaining the president’s signature” (p. 290).

14. 13
References
Elving, R. (1996). Conflict and compromise: How Congress makes the law (Reprint ed.). New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Peters, B. (2013). American public policy promise and performance (Revised/Expanded ed.).
New York, N.Y.: Chatham House.
Kingdon, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Revised/Expanded ed.). Boston:
Little, Brown.
National Partnership for Women & Families: Government Support for Working Families and for
Communities (n.d.), Family and Medical Leave as a Case Study by Donna Lenhoff. Retrieved
from
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-liary/work-family/fmla/fmla-case-study-lenhoff-
bell.pdf
United States Department of Labor: Wage and Hour Division (n.d), Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/chapter1.htm
http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLA-2012-Executive-Summary.pdf
American Association of Retired Person: About (n.d.) Who We Are. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/?intcmp=FTR-LINKS-WWA-ABOUT
Family and Medical Leave Policy. (Cover story). (1988). Congressional Digest, 67(5), 129-160.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&
AN=8800010647&site=ehost-live