Additional research has revealed more data that has reduced my confidence in the hypothesis that California's Paid Family Leave program has more costs than benefits to the average worker, and increased my confidence in the hypothesis that the program has more costs than benefits for poor workers.

The paper discussed gave the rate of mandatory employee contributions as 1.2%. This rate is adjusted yearly and in 2014 the rate is 1%. More importantly, this contribution funds the State Disability Insurance program, which in addition to providing the Paid Family Leave benefit, also provides short-term disability income replacement.

I haven't found a clear breakdown of the budget which would allow me to update my financial analysis with more accurate numbers, but it appears that the situation is not as bleak as I depicted it.

It is unfortunate that California workers are obligated to trust the state to manage the money that the state takes from their paychecks, when it is so difficult for a typical person like me to even determine how the money is spent.

Additional findings:

As usual, benefits are easy to see, while costs are obscured. An advocacy page depicts a sympathetic mom who received benefits. But it also has a request to divert some of the $2.2 billion sitting in the SDI fund to promotion because "According to 2011 survey data, less than half of respondents (42.7%) had heard of the [Paid Family Leave] program."

California is very good about collecting; compliance with the tax is almost universal. But the success rate at getting the benefits out to working families is not so great.

We should be suspicious of a program likely to transfer wealth from poorer to wealthier households. But wealthier households are more likely to know about PFL, and be able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops needed to collect. The survey showed that only a quarter (25.4%) of "low-income groups" know that PFL exists.

Most employees apply for benefits online. Information about the "digital divide" shows the pattern you would expect with respect to internet access and factors like household income, homeownership, disability, and education.

One can also apply for benefits on paper, with a dismal form. It's not hard to find evidence of even technically savvy people struggling with the process. The Employment Development Department has a 1.5-star rating on Yelp.

If 73% of low-quality job workers are already satisfied with the length of their leave and choose not to apply for the benefits they paid for (and about one in six of those who use PFL do not receive their benefits), is it reasonable to believe that this program is doing enough good to justify the cost?