CEO Library

The methodology report appendices to the 2018 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) surveys that include employee survey materials, employer survey materials, revision matrices, nonresponse follow-up employee survey materials, and employer survey response option experiment (detailed findings).

The brief uses data from the 2018 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Employee Survey to summarize findings on employee eligibility rates, reasons for ineligibility, differences in eligibility by employee characteristics, and knowledge of their own eligibility.

The brief uses data from the 2018 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Employee Survey to summarize findings on employee leave-taking rates and characteristics of leaves taken. The survey asked about family and medical leave, both for qualifying FMLA reasons and for care of non-immediate family members with serious health conditions (which does not typically qualify). Other medical reasons that are not serious health conditions, such as a sick day for a cold, are not included.

The brief uses data from the 2018 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Employee Survey and Worksite Survey to summarize findings on employee access to paid leave benefits, pay received while on leave for a family or medical reason, pay and unmet need for leave. It also describes variation in findings between states that do and do not offer paid family and medical leave.

The paper compares leave experiences of low-wage and non-low wage workers using data from the 2018 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Employee Survey. It finds that in some ways experiences are similar—both groups take needed leave at similar rates for similar reasons. In other ways experiences are very different and worse for low-wage workers—they less commonly have access to paid leave or are eligible for FMLA protections and more commonly face adverse financial and job consequences from taking leave.

In 2020, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and funded contractor Mathematica Policy Research to conduct the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Research Portfolio Project.

Focusing on ten states in the Midwest and Appalachia, the researcher analyzes the effects of right-to-work (RTW) law on labor unions. There are two main chapters to this report. The first examines whether RTW law affects the frequency and type of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) representation petitions filed and petition outcomes.

In 2017, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and funded contractor Summit Consulting to conduct An Analysis of Benefit Plans Auditors under the Administrative Data Research and Analysis portfolio of studies. The statistical analysis aims to analyze trends in employee benefit plan audit quality, particularly when plan administrators change certified public accountant (CPA) firms.

The report presents findings from a trend analysis of benefit plan auditors using 5500 filing data and audit reviews conducted by Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) between plan years 2011 and 2015. EBSA administers and enforces the reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary requirements of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). EBSA’s Office of the Chief Accountant, Division of Accounting Services enforces annual audit requirements of employee benefit plans.

To better understand the efficiency and practicality of the State Exchange on Employment and Disability (SEED) initiative, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Chief Evaluation Office (CEO), in collaboration with the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), conducted a formative evaluation. The formative evaluation would engage with stakeholders as the initiative was being developed and implemented through identifying fidelity of implementation and providing midstream assessments so that the implementers could make real-time adaptations.

The report presents findings on plan filings of Form 5500 using data from 2000 to 2016. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) administers and enforces the reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary requirements of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Each year, employee benefit plans are required to submit Form 5500 to EBSA to report information about the plan. Form 5500 captures important employee benefit plan information on plan type, plan administration, and plan benefits.

The report documents and explores the strengths and drawbacks of data sources commonly used to produce impact estimates for evaluations of workforce development programs. Specifically, researchers use information from the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation to examine three data sources used to evaluate the impacts of access to services provided by the public workforce system’s Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, two of the largest, publicly-funded workforce development programs in the nation.

Alternative Work Arrangements (AWAs) are contract forms commonly associated with less attachment, lower wages, and fewer worker benefits. Even though AWAs are theoretically cheaper for firms, they continue to account for only 10% of employment. The researcher explores why AWAs are not more widely used, given their purported economic benefit for firms. Legal rules suggest that while AWAs have lower fixed costs of employment, they may be less productive than standard employment and likely attract lower-type workers.

In 2016, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and funded Summit Consulting and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College to conduct An Analysis of Retirement Models to Improve Portability and Coverage. The literature, policy, and proposal review aims to summarize what is known about the current employer-based voluntary retirement system in the United States and explore a wide set of available options.

The report examines the employer-based voluntary retirement system and explores a variety of potential changes through a three-part analysis:

In 2018, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) funded Mathematica Policy Research to conduct Data on Earnings: A Review of Resources for Research under the Administrative Data Research and Analysis portfolio of studies. This secondary data review describes data sources on wages and earnings that may be used by researchers who wish to incorporate reports of earned income in their analyses but original data collection is not feasible.

As investors increasingly consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when selecting and managing investments, questions about ESG’s relevance to retirement investing have grown commensurately. With this growth comes greater interest to understand if and to what extent ESG investing might affect American workers' retirement prospects.

In 2017, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and funded Mathematica Policy Research to conduct the Comparing Job Training Impact Estimates using Survey and Administrative Data study under the Administrative Data Research and Analysis portfolio of studies.

In 2017, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and funded contractor Summit Consulting to conduct the Form 5500 Filing Patterns Analysis under the Administrative Data Research and Analysis portfolio of studies. The statistical analyses aim to better understand why employee benefit plans stop filing Form 5500s. Researchers used data from 2000 to 2016 to conduct two filing pattern-related analyses.

In 2017, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and funded contractor Summit Consulting LLC to conduct the Form 5500 Schedule A Data Analysis. under the Administrative Data Research and Analysis portfolio of studies.

In 2015, the Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) partnered with Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) to fund contractors Coffey Consulting, LLC and American Institutes for Research to conduct the State Exchange on Employment and Disability (SEED) Evaluation.

To better understand the efficiency and practicality of the State Exchange on Employment and Disability (SEED) initiative, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Chief Evaluation Office (CEO), in collaboration with the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), conducted a formative evaluation.

Researchers conducted a scan of the implementation science literature. Implementation science is the scientific study of methods that encourage the systematic integration of evidenced-based practices and research knowledge into policy and practice (Eccles & Mittman, 2006).

The report of a 2-year formative study to gain understanding of promising implementation strategies adopted thus far in the State Exchange Employment and Disability (SEED) model. This report on the formative evaluation provides background on the initiative and the evaluation. It also provides a description of SEED’s progress at roughly the halfway point of the evaluation and offers implications for continuation of the initiative.

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and ideas to explore the potential of using insights from behavioral science to improve the performance and outcomes of DOL programs. In this study, the DOL Behavioral Interventions (DOL-BI) team partnered with the Human Resources Division of DOL (DOL-HR) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) to explore whether low-cost, behaviorally informed emails would result in more DOL employees saving, or saving more, for retirement.

A crucial question for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other regulatory agencies in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the extent to which enforcement inspections lead to general deterrence—that is, improve compliance and performance at non-inspected workplaces. The magnitude and scope of spillovers has major implications for how OSHA should target its enforcement resources to maximize their impact on the health and safety of workers. However, identifying spillover effects of inspections entails overcoming several substantial empirical challenges.