families and social action forum

Elizabeth Gross (EG): And my name is Elizabeth Gross. I’m the State Coordinator for the Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Slide 2: What is Family Policy?

KB: Today we will begin our talk by asking two questions: “What is family policy?” and “What is a family perspective in policymaking?” Now because I teach family policy and I’m a Family Policy Specialist in Extension I’m often asked to define what family policy is. My friends often joke that family policy begins at home with decisions about whether you leave the toilet seat up or down. Now that may be a humorous example of one specific family policy, but the lack of clarity in definition is really no joking matter. Family policy scholars have been unable to agree on definition. In fact, this task has proven so difficult that David Blankenhorn likened it to swimming in molasses or nailing Jell-O to a tree. Yet family scholars have agreed that an essential first task in moving the field forward is reaching consensus on definition. Our ability to move the field forward is hampered if we can’t describe the field, if we can’t articulate a vision of how much it can achieve, and if we can’t specify what is within and outside the parameters of the field. When our definitions are imprecise, it invites imposters who borrow the politically popular nonpartisan family label, which can become a Trojan horse for narrow individualistic agendas. Now how can we clarify some of this confusion?

Slide 3: Definitions

EG: Perhaps this confusion can be clarified by returning to the roots of the field and the early writing of Kamerman and Kahn who made a clear distinction between explicit policies that are designed to achieve specific goals regarding the family, and implicit policies that are not specifically or primarily intended to affect families but which have indirect consequences on them. Paralleling this well-recognized distinction, the Consortium of Family Organizations proposed an explicit and an implicit definition.

Slide 4: Family Policy Is

The explicit term, family policy, is a subfield of social policy which focuses on family business. Four family functions have been identified: family creation, economic support, childrearing, and family caregiving. Obviously families also provide members with love and emotional support, but such aspects matter only to social policy when they interfere with these four main functions.

Slide 5: A Family Perspective in Policymaking

A companion implicit term, a family perspective in policymaking, acknowledges the important role that family consideration can play on a broad range of policy issues. A family perspective in policymaking analyzes the consequences of any policy or program regardless of whether it’s explicitly aimed at families for its impact on family well-being. By family well-being, we mean family stability, relationships, and the family’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Karen, maybe you can give us some examples.

KB: Theodora Ooms, in her writing, has offered several examples. Family policies would include issues encompassed under the four main family functions—issues like childcare, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care and teenage pregnancy. Tax provision that create a child care tax credits or decrease the marriage penalty would be classified as family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom just happen to live in families would not be considered family policy. Let me give some examples of other issues that would not be considered family policies because they’re not aimed specifically at families. For example, healthcare, housing, poverty, substance use, and unemployment would not be considered family policy. Nevertheless, they would certainly benefit from a family perspective that examines in what ways families contribute to problems, how families are affected by problems, and whether they need to be involved in solutions.

Slide 6: Why Might We Need a Family Perspective in Policymaking?

The second section of our talk is, “Why might we need a family perspective in policymaking?”

Slide 7: Key Events in Family Policy History

Family policy is a relatively young field, conceived as recently as the 1970s. Most historians date its origins back to the 1973 landmark hearing on the state of American families that were held in the U.S. Senate. Testimony by distinguished scholars, including Margaret Mead and Urie Bronfenbrenner, call for family impact statements that would assess the impacts of government policies and programs on family well-being. A watershed event in the field’s formative years was the 1980 Whitehouse conference on families. I attended this conference and some of the issues discussed, you know, abortion and homosexuality, were so politically contentious that they stymied any federal development in family policy for almost a decade. In the aftermath of that conference, the family label was taken over by conservatives. Liberal politicians shied away from even using the word family even though they had fought hard for issues like childcare and family leave. So family policy picked up again in the 1990s. What happened then Beth?

Slide 7: Family Policy Developments of the 1990s

EG: During the 1990s family policy came of age. It gained legitimacy as a field through numerous philanthropic commitments and several state and family policy initiatives. For example, in the first half of the 1990s Kamerman and Kahn reported a tripling of federal expenditures on childcare, a doubling of direct cash benefits to families, and a 50% increase in family services. According to political observers, political interest in children and families rebounded from the lows of the 1980s and families as a theme in policymaking may be at its highest peak in the last 20 years among policymakers, professional, and the public. Karen, can you give us some evidence of its popularity?

KB: In a 1995 survey, the leaders of state legislatures across the country called family and child issues a sure-fire vote winner. Now, importantly, this concern for families does not pigeon-hole politicians as politically conservative or liberal, as republican or as democrat. For example, in the 1994 Republican Contract with America, 4 of the 10 proposals dealt specifically with families and less than two years later the Democrats made “Families First” their campaign slogan.

Slide 8: The Importance of Families

In a 1999 nationally represented public opinion poll conducted by an independent polling firm, American adults were asked how important loving family relationships are to them. Responses indicated that 91% of American said that loving family relationships are extremely important to them and 9% said that they are somewhat important to them. Now as a point of comparison, in the same poll Americans were asked how important their financial security is to them. About 6 in 10 Americans said their financial security was extremely important to them and 49% of American said that satisfaction with their jobs was extremely important to them. Thus Americans were twice as apt to rate their families as extremely important than their jobs and 30% more apt to rate their families as important than their financial security.

Slide 9: Parents’ Attitudes Toward Putting Families on the Political Agenda

Another recent poll considered Americans’ attitudes towards putting families on the political agenda. Hewlett and West, in their recent book, found only 6% of parents said that government was doing a great deal to help them. Although 47% said that they felt government could be doing a great deal about their worries and concerns. So families are popular, Beth, but does this mean family policy is also popular?

EG: Well Karen, despite the unprecedented popularity families currently command as a theme in policymaking, family policy is still not a term that is widely used in policy circles. Curiously, family policy has not yet matured into a full fledges adult in the policy world with a stature commensurate to that of economic or environmental policy.

Slide 10: Is U.S. policymaking focused more on individuals or families?

KB: The next section of our talk asks the question, “Is U.S. policymaking focused more on individuals or families?”

Slide 11: The United States has no explicit national family policy…

The United States is one of the only countries in the world that does not mention families in its constitution. Now this omission was a deliberate attempt by our nation’s founders to avoid a patronage system based on wealth or lineage as existed in the English monarchy. Yet this individualistic pattern established early in the nation’s history may have permeated the structure of our government and the laws of the land in ways that our founding fathers may not have intended.

EG: Let me give you some examples, Karen. For example, at the federal level, 15 congressional committees and five executive branch departments have some jurisdiction over the family, but no single federal agency oversees family issues and devotes its attention exclusively to families. At the state level, slightly more than half of state legislatures have a specific committee or commission that deals with family issues, but many do not. The United States has no explicit national family policy so policymakers pass piecemeal legislation that responds to specific individual needs, but does not acknowledge the family considerations or provide a comprehensive vision of families.

Slide 12: Individualistic Nature of State Policymaking

KB: Beth, there are so many examples. Let me state just four here. First of all, the 1997 Child Health Insurance Program known as CHIP increased federal reimbursement rates to states for health care coverage of children, but not their parents. So even though many diseases are contagious, the CHIP program provides health insurance for some family members, children, but not others, their parents. Nannies are eligible for social security and workman’s compensation, but mothers are not unless they have a job outside the home. Third party payers such a Medicaid and private insurers cover individual treatment for mental illness, but they seldom cover marital or family therapy. For example, marital therapy is typically covered only if one of the individuals receives a psychiatric diagnosis. Finally, in a 1998 United Nations study of 152 countries the United States is one of only six countries that does not have paid family leave.

Slide 13: Policymakers’ Image of their client…

EG: So it sounds like a careful scrutiny of American policies reveals that policymakers’ image of their client is disproportionately focused on individuals—children, youth, women, veterans, the elderly, disabled, and poor—with families relegated to periphery of policy development, implementation, and evaluation.

Slide 14: Are Family Approaches to Policymaking Effective?

Our talk continues by asking the question, “Are family approaches to policymaking effective?” no definitive answer to this question exists, yet the track record of selected family-oriented policies and programs appears promising. The best evidence for a family focused approach to policymaking emerges from experimental studies that track the progress over time of subjects randomly assigned to a family treatment compared to their counterparts assigned to no treatment or an individual treatment. We will highlight to streams of research today—one that focuses on a method of family support, home visiting, and one that focuses on a social problem, juvenile crime.

Slide 15: Effectiveness of Olds’ Home Visiting Program

KB: In David Olds’ Home Visiting Program nurses visited low-income mothers, many of whom were unmarried teenagers, prenatally and during the first two year of the children’s lives. Compared with families that received only transportation and developmental screening, nurse home visiting resulted in benefits to children’s’ behavior and the mother’s life course when measured 15 years later. The 15 years-olds, born to low-income, nurse-visited mothers, had 46% fewer verified reports of child abuse and neglect and also 56% fewer arrests. The nurse-visited mothers had an average of 69% fewer arrests, 37 fewer months on food stamps, 30 fewer months on aid to families with dependent children, 23 fewer months on Medicaid, 1/5 fewer subsequent births, and a spacing of 28 months more between first and second children.

EG: This successful intervention targeted parents at a key family transit point, the birth of a first child. In fairness, not every home visiting program has been this successful. The evidence suggests that these programs have great potential, but not every program is living up to its potential.

Slide 16: The Oregon Social Learning Center’s Parent Education Program

KB: turning now to juvenile crime, most programs to prevent juvenile crime focus on individuals and few have really shown lasting effects. Researchers have learned that 30-40% of the anti-social behavior of early offenders—these are most likely to become chronic and violent offenders later in life—is tied to harsh, inconsistent parenting during the preschool years. Yet most programs to prevent juvenile crime have focused on individuals and few have shown lasting success. Programs that focus on parenting show promise for preventing juvenile crime. For example, in the Oregon Social Learning Center’s parent education program, parents receive on average about 20 hours of training on specific child management practices. Children from participating families displayed less anti-social behavior with improvements large enough to bring the target child and even the target child’s siblings into the range of normal functioning and these effects lasted up to 4 ½ years.

EG: Taken together, these studies provide compelling examples of the potential of family-focused approaches. Not all family approaches have been this encouraging, however, particularly, evaluations of teenage pregnancy prevention programs and two generation welfare programs. Exaggerating the effectiveness of family programs to policymakers can be counterproductive. Yet ignoring this potential seems short-sighted.

Slide 17: Do We Know How to Put Families on the Political Agenda?

KB: Our final question is, “Do we know how to put families on the political agenda?” The short answer is yes. Putting families on the political agenda entails knowing what to do and how to do it. First, let’s turn to how to best do it.

Slide 18: Two Methods for Putting Families on the Political Agenda

EG: Two recent historical analyses have identified two methods for putting families on the political agenda. Each method is accompanied by a set of criteria for assessing how successful we are. First of all, Theda Skocpol proposes a specific, broad-based family policy program that would promote family security, whereas Theodora Ooms proposes a series of efforts aimed at promoting a family perspective in policymaking across a broad range of policies.

Slide 19: Criteria for Developing Family Policy

Based on her historical analysis of successful broad-based U.S. social policies, Skocpol identifies four common characteristics which can be used as touchstones for assessing the feasibility of developing other broad-based family policies. Family policies are most apt to be enacted and sustained if they have these four characteristics.

KB: First of all, policies that are most likely to be enacted and sustained articulate the valuable services that families provide to society, such as raising children and caring for the elderly. In an aging society, the value of children and caregivers may increase as the number of workers for each retiree drops from 3.7 in 1970 to an estimated 2 in 2030. The second characteristic of family policies that are most apt to be successfully enacted and sustained is to make room for the less privileged in universal programs that benefit all. The most widespread and long-term programs have provided benefits to the advantaged and the disadvantaged through the same policy rubric. The third characteristic of policies that are most apt to be enacted and sustained is that they tap into a secure funding stream. Scokpol predicts that Americans will pay more in taxes for programs addressing widely felt needs that benefit not only the disadvantaged, but also their own families and friends. And finally, these policies that are most apt to be enacted and sustained secure backing from a voluntary association, preferably one that has a local, state, and national presence.

Slide 20: Promoting a Family Perspective in Policymaking

EG: In contrast, Theodora Ooms proposes that what is needed is a focused effort to promote a family perspective in policymaking on a broad range of issues. For example, Ooms call for professional to monitor family trends and their implications for policy, to assess the impact of actual and proposed policies on families, to gather evidence on the effectiveness of family-focused policies and programs, and to foster the implementation of policies in ways that respect families and support their well-being.

Slide 21: Criteria for Family Impact Analysis

KB: Now, here at the Family Impact Seminars we have available a checklist that has been developed to assess the intended and unintended concsequences of policies and programs on family well-being. Now, this diagnostic tool includes six basic principles and 31 questions that serve as indicators of how sensitive to and supportive of families policies and programs are. Now, a family criteria task force that was comprised of members from the Coalition of Family Organizations known as COFO met for over a year to draw up these principles and questions. These family impact questions have proven useful to people from across the political spectrum for reviewing rules, legislation, or laws; evaluating programs, services, and operating procedures of agencies or organizations; and helping prepare questions or testimony for hearings, board meetings, or public forums. Beth, do you want to review the principles on which this checklist is based?

EG: Sure, Karen. To promote family well-being, policies and programs should provide support so family members can fulfill their responsibility. They should encourage parental and marital commitment and stability. They should recognize the strengths and persistence of family ties and obligations. They should assure family empowerment and partnership. They should respect family diversity and they should include vulnerable families.

KB: Beth, I should also point out that in addition to this general checklist, we have a number of other checklists on our website for assessing the family impact of school, communities, adolescent treatment centers, and state child and family programs.

Slide 22: Family Policy Advocates

EG: Any meaningful reflection on the best approach for connecting expertise in policymaking must begin with clear definitions of family policy advocacy and family policy alternative education. Because the term advocacy is often loosely used in contradictory ways, it can muddy discussion if not defined. For my purposes, family policy advocacy means to campaign for an underrepresented group or a particular policy alternative that may potentially enhance family well-being. The advocate examines options in light of his or her own value system, using a personal interpretation of the scientific evidence with the aim of promoting a single policy option that he or she deems the most desirable for families.

Slide 23: Family Policy Alternatives Educators

KB: Now, Beth, let me describe another approach. In contrast to advocacy, the family policy alternatives education approach, does not lobby for a single policy, but instead attempts to inform policy discourse by clarifying the potential consequences of several policy alternatives. The aim of the family policy advocate that Beth just described is to persuade, whereas the aim of the family policy alternatives educator is to educate by presenting research findings objectively without relaying personal preferences. The value judgments and the ultimate decision are entrusted to the people and to a number of policymakers elected to make these decisions rather than to a single person.

Slide 24: What Policymakers Need is not More Information…

EG: The educational approach may be more responsive to the needs of policymakers. According to a psychologist elected to Congress, what policymakers need is not more information, but more objective and valid information from reliable, unbiased sources. Proponents of the educational approach value the contributions of social science knowledge. It also acknowledges limitations in identifying social problems or differentiating among policy alternatives. The alternative education approach contends that conflicts among competing interests are best worked out through political negotiation and compromise. The educator feeds into political decision making by objectively supplying expert knowledge and building understanding of the different point of view.

KB: Now, Beth, when I’m discussing the educational approach, this is the question I probably most frequently ask: “If education is as objective and unbiased as possible, does that mean that it’s a politically neutral act?” Well, no policy effort is ever politically neutral. Inevitably, there’s going to be bias in the issues that we choose to work on because we’re attracted to issue that we think are important. And, moreover, providing information on an issue, no matter how objectively we do it, is going to favor some group over others. Thus, the policy educator strives for objectivity, but while fully recognizing that complete objectivity is never possible.

Slide 25: No Magic Bullet

So this leads us to the next question: “Which approach is best?” Now, in some of their pioneering work back in the late 70s, Nye and McDonald argued that advocacy is never an appropriate role for the researcher or, by implication, for any professional who claims to be objective. Now, in contrast to this view, however, I contend there’s not a magic bullet, there’s not a single optimal approach for a professional’s involvement in policymaking. The most desirable approach may vary depending upon the intended beneficiary, the issue that you’re working on, the job context of the professional, and the professional’s personal communication style. For some professionals, advocacy may be the best approach for reaching policy goals, but for others alternative education may be more appropriate. So let us conclude by saying that family professional know what to do and how to do it to put family policy on the political agenda. But in the words of Guerrica, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.”