4 Critical Issues – Parents Working in Higher Education
Kimberly Meints
School of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Aviation, Oklahoma State University
HESA 6233: Critical Issues in Higher Education
Dr. Lisa Will
July 2, 2021
Parents Working in Higher Education
Universities are complex organizations that, in addition to the faculty who provide the core labor of teaching and research, require large numbers of staff employees in order to function well. These staff clean facilities, maintain buildings and outdoor spaces, advise students, provide healthcare and mental health services, process grants, travel, and purchasing, and provide human resources and payroll services, among many other functions. Recruitment and retention of qualified staff is therefore an operational necessity. Turn-over of staff leads to lost productivity and direct costs to the university in the form of recruitment, onboarding and training (Joinson, 2000; Schiebinger et al., 2008). Parents make up a significant portion of the higher education workforce, so supporting their specific needs can help improve employee retention and retain institutional knowledge. However, there is a lack of direct research on this group of employees, and limited data hampers effective policy decision-making (Joinson, 2000). What we do know is that about 70 percent of mothers and 90 percent of fathers in the United States (US) are in the workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, women made up 56 percent of higher education employees (Bauman, 2021). In one study, 72 percent of full-time faculty were married to full-time employed partners; about half of those spouses were also faculty members (Schiebinger et al., 2008).
Before going further, any discussion of parents in the workforce must acknowledge that there are many types of parents and caregivers. Many of these parents are married, but not all. Some caregivers are taking care of children, but others are taking care of disabled adults, including children, elderly parents, or spouses and siblings with chronic or acute illness. Some parents are lesbian, gay, or transgender. There are adoptive parents in addition to birth parents. Some employees may be giving care to their grandchildren or to foster children. There are also intersectional considerations, as the resources available to a parent are closely tied to the parent’s gender, race, and ethnicity. The information that is available to us is limited based on the cultural attention being given to these specific groups through the last several decades. The term “parents” will be used throughout this paper in the most inclusive sense possible, except where specific studies or benefits are restricted to a subset of parents.
Needs of Working Parents
Employees with children have specific needs in order to remain fully present at their jobs, both literally and figuratively. Paid leave for caregiving responsibilities (Harrington et al., 2019), flexible scheduling (Beck, 2017), and lactation support (McCarter-Spaulding, 2008) can all relieve pressure from parents who are acting in a the dual-role of worker and parent. There are multiple benefits to the university and local community when the needs of parents are met. First, supporting the needs of parents, particularly at the lowest income levels, can encourage diversity and inclusion efforts as women and people of color tend to work in the lowest-paid positions on campus (Elicker, 2005; Rai & Critzer, 2000). Second, employees whose needs are met can provide better service (Harrington et al., 2019; Schiebinger et al., 2008) which benefits students and faculty. Third, structural improvements to campus can benefit other parents, such as students, faculty, and guests. Fourth, providing support for parents models best practices for students, who may go on to be future employers or Human Resources (HR) employees, who may be current part-time employees themselves, and who may be current or future voters. Helping students understand the importance of supporting parents in the workplace may benefit future parents and society at large through increased workplace and political support. Lastly, supporting parents in the workplace has a direct benefit to children and acts as an investment in the future. Breastfed babies get sick less often, requiring less time away from work by their parents (McCarter-Spaulding, 2008). Children with more attentive parents are better prepared to be active members of society by contributing through work and civic engagement (Elicker, 2005; Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Higher education can invest in both its future employees and its future students by supporting current employees and their families.
Impact of COVID-19
However, reflecting US society as a whole, there continue to be disparities among workers based on gender and race, and these have been exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic, although parents of every background have been affected. Between February 2020 and February 2021, higher education lost a net of 570,000 workers, particularly among administrative support staff, food service staff, and adjunct faculty (Bauman, 2021). Certain groups of employees were impacted at a higher rate than others, including employees of color, women, young workers, and those over the age of 65 (Bauman, 2021). It is important to note that workers contracted through a third party, which often includes cleaning staff and other low-wage positions, were not included. Overall, women of color saw the highest number of jobs lost, partly due to their caregiving responsibilities (Boesch & Phadke, 2021). The specific number of parents in higher education who were laid off is not known. More people could have lost their jobs, but higher education was included in the emergency monetary relief packages provided by Congress, with about $31 billion allocated to colleges and universities (Flores & Anguiano, 2020).
When state governments and employers announced shelter-in-place and business closures, parents also had to contend with the closure of schools and daycares (Calarco et al., 2020). In higher education, colleges suddenly switched to remote learning around Spring Break, and staff were on the frontline of implementing that change (Inside Higher Ed, 2020). For colleges that implemented health interventions such as COVID-19 testing or vaccination or offered socially distanced in-person class meetings, staff performed the manual labor required to accommodate their administration’s directives. Where possible, parents were expected to work from home while also supervising their children’s activities and schooling. In one survey, working parents reported more hours devoted to caregiving, difficulty performing their job duties, sleeping fewer hours, increased worry about their physical and mental health, and a lack of support from their employers (Boston Consulting Group, 2020). Before the pandemic, many mothers reported desiring additional family time, but the forced lock-downs did not provide the quality time that most parents wanted, due to the additional stress of trying to meet simultaneous demands of parenting and working (Calarco et al., 2020). This was especially true for single parents who did not always have another adult in the house to provide assistance (Calarco et al., 2020). Mothers in the Calarco et al. (2020) study also reported feeling more frustration with their children and disappointment in themselves for not living up to their personal expectations. However, parents with less intense work responsibilities reported enjoying the additional time with their children (Calarco et al., 2020). Parenting while working in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic required parents to juggle competing responsibilities. Mothers in similar situations reported feeling like they were failing at both (Calarco et al., 2020).
Parents as Laborers
Agrarian Society and the Industrial Revolution
The history of parents working in the higher education system in the United States has progressed parallel with the history of women and people of color in the workforce. Because information about higher education employment itself is limited, the following sections will briefly outline the milestones for women and people of color as they have overcome cultural and legal barriers to employment in the US. Before the Industrial Revolution, men and women worked together on common goals, often in an agrarian setting, although the division of labor did usually follow specific gender expectations (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). These roles were also segmented by race in the presence of slavery, as Black men and women often worked together as field laborers and continued to work as agricultural workers after emancipation (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). As manufacturing moved out of individual homes and consolidated labor in larger cities, men began to work for wages, rather than relying on bartering to acquire necessary goods (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Rai & Critzer, 2000). This transition set up a new cultural norm, “the breadwinner,” where men’s labor paid the bills to provide food, clothing, and household necessities (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). However, fathers were only able to accomplish this with the support of their wives and other female family members, who maintained the home and provided unpaid labor to the family economy by washing clothes, cooking meals, and crucially, taking care of children (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). The breadwinner-homemaker model became the cultural expectation of the “ideal” model for families, but it was never a universal practice (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, p. 6).
By 1900, 85 percent of men and 18 percent of women worked for pay, and while only five percent of married women overall were employed, 25 percent of African American wives worked outside the home (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, pp. 26-27). The women who did work usually were employed as household staff or agricultural workers, although immigrant women were more likely to work in factories (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Married women did not necessarily choose to stay home. For instance, in 1913, federal postal guidelines denied employment to married women (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Women were also excluded from education opportunities, as colleges and universities questioned “the utility of a higher education degree if the woman should marry” (Rai & Critzer, 2000, p. 53). However, women’s unpaid labor at home allowed men to pursue paid labor and work for a “family wage” (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, p. 27).
World War II
Women’s labor force participation increased to 28 percent during the labor shortage of World War II, when many of the working-age men enlisted, or were drafted to serve the war effort (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, p. 27). Some colleges began admitting women for the first time as their enrollment numbers declined, and some Black men were able to work as faculty at predominantly white institutions (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Women who were admitted to undergraduate programs were often confined to specific majors, such as education (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Upon the veterans’ return home, the market shifted away from war-inflated manufacturing toward services, and demand rose for clerical workers (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Mothers, including war widows who needed employment, took advantage of this new sector because these positions were safe, not physically demanding, and offered the flexible hours that parents need (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Some Black activists expected more opportunities following the war, anticipating that the experience of Blacks and whites fighting together against fascism would mitigate racism in the US (Humes, 2006). However, while the GI Bill provided educational benefits for veterans, these were distributed by local authorities, allowing Jim Crow era politics to limit the assistance provided to Black veterans (Humes, 2006). Nonetheless, the law did provide funding to establish new colleges for Black people (many now referred to as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs), and they did not have enough seats to keep up with demand (Humes, 2006). As enrollment in higher education increased, women and non-white men began to find more employment on college campuses (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Even so, promotion opportunities were scarce, especially for women that were married or of child-bearing age (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). The failure of WWII to fight racism at home galvanized the Civil Rights movement in the US (Humes, 2006).
The Civil Rights Movement
By 1960, a little over 25 percent of married mothers were employed (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, p. 28). As the momentum for the Civil Rights movement took hold, women were included in the conversation about what a fair and equitable country might look like. In 1961, President Kennedy established the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 established that men and women must be paid the same wage for equal work (Rai & Critzer, 2000). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibited discrimination by private employers with twenty-five or more workers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Rai & Critzer, 2000, p. 7), and in 1967, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11375 which provided further guidance to level the playing field for women (Rai & Critzer, 2000). These efforts became known as affirmative action, indicating that employers should take positive steps to address inequality (Rai & Critzer, 2000).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 required government entities and educational institutions to not discriminate against women and minorities (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Women and marginalized Americans began to attend institutions of higher learning, but as they graduated with their hard-earned credentials, employers continued to show preferential treatment to white men (Rai & Critzer, 2000). The federal government developed many different methods to assure that affirmative action outcomes were met, but each method was tested in court, requiring Congress and the judiciary to work out a legally fair and binding way to ensure that past and current discrimination did not prevent marginalized workers from entering and fully participating in the workforce (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Even so, on college campuses up to 1991, women were still overrepresented in clerical positions, while African American and Hispanic men were overrepresented in maintenance positions (Rai & Critzer, 2000, pp. 47-48). Congress did not consistently support affirmative action, as evidenced in the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which allowed employers more leeway to describe discriminatory practices as “necessary,” although the law did provide relief to an employee if discrimination could be proven (Rai & Critzer, 2000, p. 14).
When the labor market was composed primarily of men, they were able to negotiate for a wage that was high enough to support a family (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). As more labor became available, wages fell, prompting more women to enter the market to increase their family income. This further increased the demand for service-related workers as women needed to pay others to provide the services that they did not have time to do, such as cooking and clothes washing. With more parents working, high-quality childcare become more relevant (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). In 1971, Congress passed a bill to provide universal childcare, but it was vetoed by President Nixon (Hsu, 2020, October 31). Families were responsible for finding child care options, although they are not always aware of how to evaluate the quality of the service (Elicker, 2005).
The Modern Era
By the mid-1990s, women’s educational rates reached 81 percent for high-school completion and 20 percent for college, giving them more access to higher wages, and, in 2000, about 75 percent of married mothers were employed (Gornick & Meyers, 2003, pp. 27-28). An Australian study investigated non-faculty staff working in higher education in 1993 (Castleman & Allen, 1998). The authors wanted to evaluate the merits of two arguments that are commonly used to explain why women are not more equally represented at universities. The first argument was that the “pipeline” for women was working, but it would take time for women to achieve education and experience at equal rates as men. The second argument was that tenure, or the lack of retirement among older, male workers, contributed to the disparity of pay and participation rates for women in higher education. The authors did not find evidence that supported either hypothesis and suggested that direct action was needed to ensure equitable hiring, promotion, and pay (Castleman & Allen, 1998).
Federal Government Benefits
Over time, Congress has passed laws to protect workers and provide benefits, although who is covered is rarely universal and often limited to federal contractor status or by business size (Rai & Critzer, 2000). In 1978, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which required employers to include pregnancy and childbirth-related medical conditions in their disability benefits, if they offered those benefits (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 granted employees of certain employers job-protected, but unpaid, leave following the birth or adoption of a child, as well as caring for other sick family members (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Both parents are eligible for this leave, although if they share an employer (which is common in higher education), the employer is not required to grant each of them the full 12-week benefit (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). In 2010, the Affordable Care Act introduced two methods for supporting lactating parents. First, health insurance policies must provide a benefit to “provide breastfeeding support, counseling, and equipment for the duration of breastfeeding” including the cost of a breast pump (HealthCare.gov, n.d.) Second, the employer must provide private space and time for the employee to express milk (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). In 2016, the Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation (BABIES) Act required installation of diaper changing tables in men’s and women’s restrooms in federal buildings that are open to the public (Blakemore, 2016). Some states have extended and supplemented these federal benefits, reinforcing the fact that federal laws are the minimum required of employers (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). There is currently a bill in the US Senate called the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act to provide paid leave to employees who are providing caregiving to family members or service members (“Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act,” 2021). However, similar bills in the past have not been passed. President Biden also issued an Executive Order to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 an hour effective January 30, 2022, which will apply to some colleges and universities (The White House, 2021), which will provide some relief for the lowest paid employees. Federal and state laws continue to shape the employment of parents in the workforce, especially as colleges are often classified as state government entities and/or federal contractors.
Creating an Equitable and Supportive Campus
There are many methods for providing support for working parents, besides through state and federal law, such as directly through the employer. One of the main problems with providing support for parents working in higher education is the lack of information about how many parents are on campus and what their specific needs are. Some of these parents may also not be employed directly by the university, but through a contractor, so defining the extent that support is offered to them is important, too. The first step any institution can take is to regularly distribute campus climate surveys to staff that include questions on this topic. This will ensure that limited resources are used efficiently and that employees receive the most benefit from these efforts.
Whatever benefits are offered, institutions should ensure that there is equitable access to them (Harrington et al., 2019). They should not be dependent on gender or marital status. To the fullest extent possible, all caregiving responsibilities should be covered, including those providing care to non-family members (Longacre et al.). Schiebinger et al. (2008) emphasizes the frequency that academic employees conduct cross-country moves, so there is a high likelihood that universities employ workers with no family nearby. Allowing employees to assist one another regardless of family relation not only builds greater community on campus, but it also helps alleviate some of the difficulties that are unique to higher education.
Policy and Culture
HR departments should carefully monitor hiring, promotion, and retention statistics of employees to ensure that there are no penalties, or bonuses, for employees who also have caregiving responsibilities. In a study of working parents in the US, Harrington et al. (2019) found that “respondents were most concerned that taking leave would delay their career advancement” (p. 9). When Lublin (2021) interviewed executive mothers, she also found that there was concern about intentional retaliation against parents for taking extended leave (such as delaying a promotion). This evaluation can only be accomplished if parents are identifiable in the available data, which is not currently mandated.
The costs of individual measures associated with supporting parents can vary. A low-cost measure that could be implemented at any campus is the introduction of affinity groups or mentorships. Lublin (2021) and Shortall (2015) also found that mothers benefited from mentors or internal support groups. Harrington et al. (2019) found that women who wanted to take parental leave for the birth of a child usually relied on word-of-mouth to identify the process involved. Additionally, both men and women in the study talked about the importance of “leading by example,” so these types of relationships can help set norms for campus communities and encourage greater use of offered benefits (Harrington et al., 2019, p. 7).
Campus Infrastructure and Legal Compliance
Campuses can also assess the physical infrastructure to support parents. Depending on what is already in place or the expense of retrofitting or building new, these costs could vary. First, colleges should ensure that they are compliant with federal and state rules. For instance, if any of their buildings fall under the BABIES Act, then they have a legal obligation to install diaper changing stations in all restrooms open to the public (Blakemore, 2016). Family restrooms can also make campuses more welcoming to staff, faculty, students, and guests. Employees should also have private space available that is not a bathroom where they can express milk (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Needs assessments can determine if the space available is adequate to meet demand and to determine if scheduling is needed allow access to all who desire it (Shortall, 2015). McCarter-Spaulding (2008) identifies the benefits of nursing to both the parent and child, and notes that support from an employer can encourage lactating parents to return to work as well as enhance their success. This includes creating a culture from top leadership down to direct supervisors where employees feel free to take advantage of their rights and know they will not have to worry about remarks made by coworkers (Shortall, 2015). Employees can experience difficulties when preparing for an extended leave as well as navigating their return-to-work, including their “pumping” schedules, so HR may need to intervene to assist employees and managers (Harrington et al., 2019; Lublin, 2021; McCarter-Spaulding, 2008; Shortall, 2015). Providing clear guidance that is easily accessible will help employees maximize the leave they are entitled to and reduce anxiety associated with the planning process (Harrington et al., 2019).
Acknowledging Unpaid Labor with Benefits
Gornick and Meyers (2003) discuss the extent to which parents provide unpaid labor when raising children that results in a public benefit “in the form of children who are prepared to learn in school, adults who are prepared to engage in productive employment, and neighbors who are prepared to create civil society—but they do not necessarily share the costs” (p.7). One way that higher education institutions can help share the costs with parents is by offering them paid leave specifically related to the care of children. A survey of 349 educational institutions found that less than 40 percent offered separate parental leave (Fuesting & Schmidt, 2021, p. 4). Parents still have the normal illnesses, accidents, and elder caregiving responsibilities shared by other employees, and the additional requirements of childrearing should be recognized and accommodated. This does not necessarily have to be limited to the birth or placement of a child, for, as noted earlier, employers are free to provide benefits that exceed the legal minimum. Other ways for institutions to expand the eligibility of paid and/or job-protected leave is to waive the service requirement before granting FMLA or parental leave and to allow both parents to claim their full entitlement. Short-term disability policies could help alleviate the cost of this leave, which Fuesting and Schmidt (2021) found is offered by more than half of their surveyed institutions. However, they also noted that short-term disability insurance is more common at private institutions than public. In Harrington et al. (2019), managers reported not having the personnel to cover their employee’s extended absences, even when they supported the employee’s right to take the time off. HR can assist this by helping to coordinate coverage, setting clear policy so that plans can be made in advance, and allowing for flexible scheduling and telecommuting options (Beck, 2017). Universities can also consider offering time off to employees who help cover their coworkers’ extended leave, which can reduce resentment among staff (Milligan, 2016). Advance scheduling and eliminating meeting times during the first and last 30 minutes of the day can also help support parents without creating unfair situations to non-parents (Beck, 2017).
Other ways to support families is through child care. A low-cost method is to negotiate rates with local providers (Lobell, 2020). Another remedy is to offer a subsidy, either directly or by allowing employees to take advantage of a dependent care savings account (Lobell, 2020). Helping to arrange back-up care is also helpful when a child or caregiver is sick or when school and work schedules do not align (such as school holidays) (Beck, 2017; Elicker, 2005).
Finally, because more education often leads to positions that pay more (Gornick & Meyers, 2003), provide more regular scheduling and greater benefits, tuition assistance for employees and their spouses can help them achieve educational credentials that will have large impacts on the quality of life for their families. These benefits can also promote diversity as women and people of color are most likely to work in low-wage positions that do not require a college degree (Rai & Critzer, 2000). Providing tuition assistance for dependent children can also retain employees who could not otherwise afford a college education for their children.
Conclusion
Universities can reap the benefits of a satisfied and supported workforce by supporting their parent employees if they are willing to listen and implement change (Harrington et al., 2019; Schiebinger et al., 2008). When considering how best to do this, institutions should survey their employees and ensure that the concerns of the lowest-paid employees are addressed. Students and faculty are also likely to enjoy direct and indirect benefits of the implementation of campus support measures (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020; Schiebinger et al., 2008) including those caring for family members other than children (Longacre et al., 2019). Finally, supporting parents can improve diversity and inclusion efforts for women and minorities, without excluding white men (Beck, 2017; Castleman & Allen, 1998; Harrington et al., 2019; Schiebinger et al., 2008). As noted by Rai and Critzer (2000):
The implementation of affirmative action is relevant to higher education, especially public colleges and universities, for the employment of minority and female faculty members, administrators, and other key employees offers a clear message to students, their families, and the public about the willingness of these organizations to support the goals of equal employment opportunity (p. 32).
References
Bauman, D. (2021, April 19). Here’s who was hit hardest by higher ed’s pandemic-driven job losses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-who-was-hit-hardest-by-higher-eds-pandemic-driven-job-losses
Beck, J. (2017, April 19). How some companies are making child care less stressful for their employees. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/making-child-care-less-stressful-for-employees.aspx
Blakemore, E. (2016, October 12). Obama just signed a law mandating diaper changing tables in men’s restrooms. SmithsonianMag.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/obama-just-signed-law-mandating-diaper-changing-tables-mens-restrooms-180960753/
Boesch, D., & Phadke, S. (2021, February 1). When women lose all the jobs: Essential actions for a gender-equitable recovery. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2021/02/01/495209/women-lose-jobs-essential-actions-gender-equitable-recovery/
Boston Consulting Group. (2020). COVID-19: US caregivers survey. https://web-assets.bcg.com/48/7d/25e26b4d470d8a68f12261ef89fc/covid-caregivers-survey-july-2020-201014.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, April 21). Employment characteristics of families—2020. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf
Calarco, J. M., Meanwell, E., Anderson, E., & Knopf, A. (2020). “Let’s not pretend it’s fun”: How disruptions to families’ school and childcare arrangements impact mothers’ well-being [Version 4]. SocArXiv Papers. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jyvk4/
Castleman, T., & Allen, M. (1998). The ‘pipeline fallacy’ and gender inequality in higher education employment. Policy, Organisation and Society, 15(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349952.1998.11876677
Elicker, J. (2005). Child care for working poor families: Child development and parent employment outcomes. Center for Families Publications, Paper 22. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cffpub/22
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, S. 248, 117th Cong. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/248/text
Flores, A., & Anguiano, V. (2020, December 23). Congress’ down payment on higher education’s 2021 needs. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2020/12/23/494274/congress-payment-higher-educations-2021-needs/
Fuesting, M., & Schmidt, A. (2021, June). Benefits in higher education annual report: Key findings and comprehensive tables on healthcare, wellness, paid time off, tuition, and retirement benefits for the 2020-21 academic year [Research Report]. CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/benefits-in-higher-education/
Goldrick-Rab, S., Welton, C. R., & Coca, V. (2020, May). Parenting while in college: Basic needs insecurity among students with children. The Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice. https://hope4college.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019_ParentingStudentsReport.pdf
Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Russell Sage Foundation.
Harrington, B., McHugh, T. L., & Fraone, J. S. (2019). Expanded paid parental leave: Measuring the impact of leave on work & family. Boston College Center for Work & Family. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/cwf/research/publications/researchreports/Expanded%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave-%20Study%20Findings%20FINAL%2010-31-19.pdf
HealthCare.gov. (n.d.). Health benefits & coverage: Breastfeeding benefits. Accessed July 2, 2021. https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/breast-feeding-benefits/
Hsu, A. (2020, October 31). The American government once offered widely affordable child care … 77 years ago. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/927267330/the-american-government-once-offered-widely-affordable-child-care-77-years-ago
Humes, E. (2006). How the GI Bill shunted blacks into vocational training. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Autumn 2006(53), 92-104. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25073543
Inside Higher Ed. (2020, March 23). Coravirus [sic] news. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/23/archive-live-updates-news-coronavirus-and-higher-education
Joinson, C. (2000, July). Capturing turnover costs. HR Magazine, 45(7). https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0700joinson.aspx
Lobell, K. O. (2020, September 22). Employers consider child care subsidies. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/many-workplaces-consider-child-care-subsidies.aspx
Longacre, M. L., Weber-Raley, L., & Kent, E. E. (2019). Cancer caregiving while employed: Caregiving roles, employment adjustments, employer assistance, and preferences for support. Journal of cancer education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01674-4
Lublin, J. S. (2021). Power moms: How executive mothers navigate work and life. Harper Business.
McCarter-Spaulding, D. (2008). Is breastfeeding fair? Tensions in feminist perspectives on breastfeeding and the family. Journal of Human Lactation, 24(2), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334408316076
Milligan, S. (2016, August 15). Employee benefits get extreme. HR Magazine. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/0916/pages/employee-benefits-get-extreme.aspx
Rai, K. B., & Critzer, J. W. (2000). Affirmative action and the university: Race, ethnicity, and gender in higher education employment. University of Nebraska Press. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/QP35ID0tDp8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR11&dq=gender+employment+higher+education
Schiebinger, L., Henderson, A. D., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2008). Dual-career academic couples: What universities need to know. Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research. https://stanford.app.box.com/s/y5bicy7o3cxwtmgy22iu
Shortall, J. (2015). Work. Pump. Repeat.: The new mom’s guide to breastfeeding and going back to work. Abrams Image.
The White House. (2021, April 27). Executive order on increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/04/27/executive-order-on-increasing-the-minimum-wage-for-federal-contractors/
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Break time for nursing mothers. Accessed July 2, 2021. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/nursing-mothers